I see your point, which you further explained:
I don't disagree that the choices were intentional, but I suspect knowledge of the perceived needs of the target market had more to do with the engineering choices than actual listening.
For one thing, in a REAL listening test, this product most likely does not sound appreciably different from a mainstream product.
You talking about the Atkinson talk? Atkinson's perceptions are largely illusory. Illusion is not the only kind of internal perception. There's a word that describes the mirror image of illusion and is used in the formal literature of perception. We hardly see it in the wild and wacky world of consumer audio perceptions: Veridical. It means (heaven forbid!) coincident with reality.
And maybe most of them are solipsistic illusions.
Oh, yes, it seems so strange to evaluate an hifi equipment (designed to reproduce music) by ear.
Could-you imagine somebody evaluating a painting just looking at it ?
I'm sorry that you feel that evaluating hi fi gear by ear is a strange thing to do.
It's not strange, but evluating equipment is different from many other things in life. It is not simple and it is not straight-forward.
Ignorance of the vicissitudes of listening versus seeing noted.
Understanding second degree is not...
Just I wanted to say that evaluating the 'Character' of an audio reproduction doesn't not necessary need very precise tuning, and not even 'instant ' comparison, as long as you have enough habit and culture (and the source is well known) to know what you are evaluating, don't you think ?
Depends on the level of detail that you are interested in.
If a relatively coarse level of detail is all that is interesting to you, then of course an approximate means can suffice.
If your standards are higher than that, then there are of course means to do better...
I guess this is the important point. The differences due to loudspeakers and rooms are typically relatively large. Most modern audio electronics is far more refined and precise than that.
... And the criteria for a good system is not something absolute...
When I was at work (or at home in between) i used to chose the most transparent and detailed systems i could. To can evaluate mistakes in my mixs ... The price was often 'fatigue'.
Retired, i prefer relatively softer systems ... for the long listening ... as long i don't lose too much details or presence. That have more indulgence.
About rooms, well, i have recently changed my home... can't afford my old hifi system in the new room. Everything to tune again...and the room need to be damped.
When I was at work (or at home in between) i used to chose the most transparent and detailed systems i could. To can evaluate mistakes in my mixs ... The price was often 'fatigue'.
Retired, i prefer relatively softer systems ... for the long listening ... as long i don't lose too much details or presence. That have more indulgence.
About rooms, well, i have recently changed my home... can't afford my old hifi system in the new room. Everything to tune again...and the room need to be damped.
Last edited:
1. I just measured from the filter input thru to the line stage out. It isnt 10KHz. It is 50KHz.
2. The other scope measurement is the entire system.... into ML-9600 ACD to storage to DSP to CD to DAC then thru filter and line stage. Now THAT may be starting to roll off sooner.... ADC input filters etc.
3. I never ever said DBLT are a waste of time. I did say that it isnt the sole and final word on the matter. And, I have explained that comment.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
This discussion may give you some insight as to Their filter design choice:
https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=92825
The roll-off may be caused buy their choice of what was more important to get right.
cant speak for them, though.
THx-RNMarsh
https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=92825
The roll-off may be caused buy their choice of what was more important to get right.
cant speak for them, though.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Can't speak for your choice of thread or interpretation of what they said, either.
The thread is actually about answering this question:
https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=92825&view=findpost&p=781817
"I recently bought a sound card (Xonar D1). I'm using Linux (3.2.0.) The drivers of the D1 offer a mixer control element titled "DAC Filter" and it has two settings: "Slow Roll-off" and "Fast Roll-off". Does anyone have an idea of that is and what it does?"
Obviously, a newbie question from someone who is not a pace-setter on that forum.
How you get from there to a statement about their preferences, is a giant mystery to me.
Lots of reading.
That ref was about just such thing as a rolled off vs not.... but also the rolled-off is actually a different filter character for impulse response.
Anyway -- here shows many Players only (not the entire record to play back) with many starting roll-off near 10KHz. it isnt so rare. Look all around here and you will see many rolled-off responses:
https://www.google.com/search?q=CD+...5T3nPIClM:&usg=__j3KjCpeBCm8BPZGkrxIGzvI5yug=
More problems with the 16/44.1KHz. That 24/96+ is beginning to show why it is better in several ways.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
That's what I said, the Gibb's at 21k is rolled off because the complete system starts to roll off at 10k.
Last edited:
Two things I'd like to mention.
One, most non-technical people who somehow manage to love the music are not really intersted in what is "right" and what is "wrong", all they are interested in is how they hear the music. If they feel comfortable with what they hear, they are not really interested in the how and why.
This discussion eminds me of another discussion some years ago where people devated do power amps sound better with a bandpass filter (cutoff frequencies being say 10 Hz and 50 kHz) in or out. Just like here, it was a divided result, some preferred it in, others off, about half-half. Result - tied, no clear winner.
One, most non-technical people who somehow manage to love the music are not really intersted in what is "right" and what is "wrong", all they are interested in is how they hear the music. If they feel comfortable with what they hear, they are not really interested in the how and why.
This discussion eminds me of another discussion some years ago where people devated do power amps sound better with a bandpass filter (cutoff frequencies being say 10 Hz and 50 kHz) in or out. Just like here, it was a divided result, some preferred it in, others off, about half-half. Result - tied, no clear winner.
I provide user support for a measurement system that uses audio DAC units, with a test signal provided from cd. One of the biggest arguments I got into with a customer was about him using an audiophile DAC that "fixed" the time domain response. Of course that DAC used linear distortion (rolled off frequency response rather than max flat magnitude and phase response) to do that, so measurements of his tweeter came out wrong. I have to tell users sometimes to try cheaper hardware so they can avoid this kind of "highend" nonsense...
OK. Great. It is just another reason beyond what i started out to do.... remove the HF with little impact on audio response from player.
Maybe, then this is why it sounded dull.... why all CDplayers I used sounded dull. My improvement in sound is related to the following amplifier affected by HF... because that is just about all I affected.
Now, then..... wouldnt 24/96+ have these issues moved far enough away from the audio to be flat, no phase or GD issues in audio band-pass and hopefully any HF has been removed (if not then make a filter). However, it isnt just the dull, lack-luster character to CD it is also the GD at the high end and phase funnies of the filter. All pushed out of the audio region with 24/96.
All-in-All, I think still the 24/96+ sound is more real than 16/44 and maybe these two issues are why..... the brick wall filter is just too close to audio and the HF debree and its affect on amps down stream. Sure seems to look that way IMO. The HD/Hi-Res direct from master 24/96 downloads are much better sounding. Now, I have to see if the wideband CFA sounds as good without the HF filter. And, do some measurements about that.
Back over to you, JC.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Historically, many people who are "just music lovers" get a little interested in the technology of their audio gear, and start wondering about what characteristics it should have to maximize their enjoyment.
Flat response usually gets explained early on:
This comes from the Stereophile web site, for example:
"The reason flat frequency response has become an audio tradition is because it seems to make so much sense. The obverse of GIGO (footnote 1), the FFR view is that, if you present to the human ear the same frequency response as existed in the concert hail, the result will be a spectral balance which the ears perceive as identical to the original sound. What could be more self-evident? Nothing, except that this traditional approach to audio component design doesn't always work very well.
There are, however, many cases where it does. Microphones, phono cartridges, and audio electronics almost invariably sound pretty much the way their measured frequency responses suggest they would."
I would be deceiving people if I said that flat frequency response is a cure-all or a panacea. The remainder of the SP article I quoted from says much the same thing, and I agree with much of it. But that is added complexity beyond a basic understanding.
Which turns out to be the article that I quoted from, above. ;-)
I think this is an example of creating a "truth" to further some kind of personal agenda.
Two words: sighted evaluation. They are often a conduit for prejudices and personal opinions that may have no actual basis in reliable human experience.
Any square wave F > a tad over 7 KHz has its first harmonic > 22 KHz which is either attenuated or for all practical purposes totally wiped out if the player has the usual brick wall filter.
That means that all the player puts out is a sine wave.
That and the GD ... The GD causes a smearing and loss of articulation to the sound... esp at higer freqs. Freq response roll-off would just sound lower in level. GD messes it up the most...... and also the harmonics are missing as you said. Alll-in-All, not a good reproduction IMO. When I compare my master 1/2 track recordings to CD of same... it is always the upper mid and high end that gets messed up the most on CD.
I have moved over to HD 24/96 downloads for every thing music and CD is legacy here to play my CD collection of blues.
But, I also hear a consistant difference between VFA and CFA power amplifiers. How each handles HF above audio is something to look into. BUT also to check my idea that the falling GNFB contributes to higher distortion with HF present. With the 9600 and a passive out-board filter, I can check this idea easier now. I may press into service a K-H or a Rockland variable filters to get fast results and then to a custom passive for nearer zero distortion.
THx-RNMarsh
I have moved over to HD 24/96 downloads for every thing music and CD is legacy here to play my CD collection of blues.
But, I also hear a consistant difference between VFA and CFA power amplifiers. How each handles HF above audio is something to look into. BUT also to check my idea that the falling GNFB contributes to higher distortion with HF present. With the 9600 and a passive out-board filter, I can check this idea easier now. I may press into service a K-H or a Rockland variable filters to get fast results and then to a custom passive for nearer zero distortion.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
I never said that roll-offs (note the conflation of everything from a 0.1 dB roll off to a >6 dB roll off into one phrase) don't exist.
I know about NOS DACs and players, and the fact that they are often rolled off because their designers either choose to not correct the well-known Aperture Effect, or don't even know that this little piece of audio esoterica exists.
I think that you've recently rather clearly stated your biases in this matter - you admitted that all CD players sound rolled off to you.
What to do with all the audiophiles who claim that CD players sound harsh to them which usually means that they have too much treble?
What do to with all of the carefully done listening tests that show that a good CD player does neither, but provides an excellent rendition of the signal that is on the CD?
I strongly recommend that everyone interested in audio reproduction seriously look at the Heyser Lecture by John Atkinson in 2011. John is RIGHT ON! I know that this point-of-view is criticized by many 'critics' here, but it is what I have found that makes audio works better and better.
I first met Richard Heyser in 1968 (a very good year) at the AES and we became fast friends. He changed my life as an audio design engineer.
I first met Richard Heyser in 1968 (a very good year) at the AES and we became fast friends. He changed my life as an audio design engineer.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.