Kensai -
Thank you so much.
Your explanation on what's happening with your soundcard is easiest I've seen to date to understand. I'm surprised that I actually understand most of what you say and think I can pick it up from there.
Not so much doubt regards the Tamp as surprise and that for same reason you mention by comparison to Panny. I would have thought headroom would automatically have it sounding better. No replacement for superior circuitry.
Bluto
Thank you so much.
Your explanation on what's happening with your soundcard is easiest I've seen to date to understand. I'm surprised that I actually understand most of what you say and think I can pick it up from there.
Not so much doubt regards the Tamp as surprise and that for same reason you mention by comparison to Panny. I would have thought headroom would automatically have it sounding better. No replacement for superior circuitry.
Bluto
Davecan -
I see Hawthorne is considering a 'high end' 10" but I don't like where it's heading at present.
Started there a year ago, came back and then got on this 'vintage' thing.
I'm happy you made statement, I personally see the 10" as better FR prospect as well regards quality of sound. Seems not a popular choice at site and I wonder reasoning behind such.
Bluto
I see Hawthorne is considering a 'high end' 10" but I don't like where it's heading at present.
Started there a year ago, came back and then got on this 'vintage' thing.
I'm happy you made statement, I personally see the 10" as better FR prospect as well regards quality of sound. Seems not a popular choice at site and I wonder reasoning behind such.
Bluto
Kensai said:
Perhaps you should look at the PC Audio forum at AA. As with most AA forums, it is 90% BS, but you will be able to read the signal through the noise. My take is:
The main objection to Vista vs XP is "I hate Bill Gates". The Vista audio package is simply better than that in XP. Audio was an afterthought in XP while "media" was one of the driving forces for Vista.
You can get around the XP kmixer with either an ASIO or kernel streaming package. KS is really iffy in XP. You will know you have bypassed the kmixer if the Windows volume control has no effect on the output. In Vista ASIO is unnecessary. Either KS of Direct Sound will work about equally well. DS is (I think) going to up sample to 48K, but does a pretty good job of it. The Windows volume control is bypassed with KS, but operates with DS. I use a USB DAC that has no driver. Vista automatically outputs to the USB through KS.
Most DAC require 48k for the audio conversion. You can either feed the DAC 44.1k and have the DAC up sample or you can up sample in your player. If you up sample in the player, DS will not do anything.
I am not an expert on the inner workings of Windows. I accept Vista for what it is and I think the results are pretty good. My configuration is Foobar2000 > KS > USB > DAC > T-amp. YMMV
Bob
I used to spend alot of time over at headfi.org. My office had been the third bedroom, so I spent most of my "desk time" listening over my Grados so that everyone else could sleep. They had a pretty heavy focus on using computer as source. This started when I was still running 98SE, and only some folks were really XP savvy. We'd determined through certain relatively arduous means that as long as you were using ASIO or were able to get KS working properly (which in 98SE and in my early XP efforts never seemed to happen), you could get bit perfect output with most equipment, or at least most equipment that was worth listening to. No need for external, analog volume control or preamp or amp or whatever (though often those things could help if of suitably high performance).
If you dig through the specs, you'll find that most DACs and CODECs have native 44.1 settings, and generally, if you work around the kmixer, you'll get your 44.1 tracks laid down bit perfect that way. There's no hardware that I know of that actually requires 48 in, though all of it has to have native 48 setting for some windows sounds and, more importantly, DVD playback. Actually, I don't know of any hardware that does resampling in hardware, and only one time have I seen drivers that do it (Via after they'd bought Envy and started making new Envy chips and really nice CODECs for low cost). Generally the upsampling happens at the player level and if you interact with the drivers at all, its just to change its mode (like my Emu 0404; I have sessions built for different sample rates, different speakers/amp combos, etc.) As it stands, most hardware, even the really cheap stuff these days (which, aiming for the Intel HD Audio standard specs, is leagues beyond the cheap chips of just a year or two ago, thankfully) will have a good double handful of native sample rate settings, in addition to the ability to handle all of the necessary sample sizes.
I've not really played with Vista at all. Definitely not enough to have even started exploring these topics, but I find it interesting that you say that it does USB Audio over KS by default. Actually I'm almost kind of incredulous that M$ would do something so simple, elegant and good for their users like that, no matter how small of a niche function it is. Go M$, GO!
I have played with some USB DACs, though, and a huge assortment of crappy onboard sound chips, and I've found every USB DAC I've played with and well over half of the onboard chips to have been useable with something called ASIO4All. Its a generic driver layer that will let you go from an ASIO out from your player software to a piece of audio out kit that doesn't natively support ASIO. This is the solution I always came back to when KS would fail me. It gives you a bit of interface that, when in advanced mode, gives you a ton of settings to increase performance and/or hardware compatibility. Its free, and it works with alot of stuff, even some really old stuff (its got stuff in it that should make it work with say, old SB16 cards, though why you would want to is beyond me), though generally the only reason I ever messed with that sort of thing is because I'm a tweaker by nature. Generally just works straight out of the box.
Another puzzle piece I'd like to throw out there, at least for MP3 playback (yeah, I know, not audiophile, but I have alot of tracks that either only exist as MP3s, remixes, indie tunes and such, or which I only really have the reasonable possibility of possessing as a DLed MP3, like stuff from foreign albums, most of which I would never have known existed if I hadn't stumbled across them online). The in_MAD.dll plugin for Winamp (though winamp plugs can be used for foobar, too, right?), replaces the usual in_mp3.dll and helps you extract the maximal quality from your MP3 files. It allows you to increase sample size up to 32-bit which has worked just fine with every bit of hardware I've ever tried it with, and it really helps out in, say, a work situation where I just want an acceptable, quick and dirty setup to listen to the occasional track as when you use the kmixer and you change the volume in software, it will cut the null bits padded to the end of the 16-bit samples first, keeping detail loss from ever becoming a factor. Again, not audiophile, but makes the best out of the situation.
Okay, I think I've lost it again. Enjoy.
Kensai
If you dig through the specs, you'll find that most DACs and CODECs have native 44.1 settings, and generally, if you work around the kmixer, you'll get your 44.1 tracks laid down bit perfect that way. There's no hardware that I know of that actually requires 48 in, though all of it has to have native 48 setting for some windows sounds and, more importantly, DVD playback. Actually, I don't know of any hardware that does resampling in hardware, and only one time have I seen drivers that do it (Via after they'd bought Envy and started making new Envy chips and really nice CODECs for low cost). Generally the upsampling happens at the player level and if you interact with the drivers at all, its just to change its mode (like my Emu 0404; I have sessions built for different sample rates, different speakers/amp combos, etc.) As it stands, most hardware, even the really cheap stuff these days (which, aiming for the Intel HD Audio standard specs, is leagues beyond the cheap chips of just a year or two ago, thankfully) will have a good double handful of native sample rate settings, in addition to the ability to handle all of the necessary sample sizes.
I've not really played with Vista at all. Definitely not enough to have even started exploring these topics, but I find it interesting that you say that it does USB Audio over KS by default. Actually I'm almost kind of incredulous that M$ would do something so simple, elegant and good for their users like that, no matter how small of a niche function it is. Go M$, GO!
I have played with some USB DACs, though, and a huge assortment of crappy onboard sound chips, and I've found every USB DAC I've played with and well over half of the onboard chips to have been useable with something called ASIO4All. Its a generic driver layer that will let you go from an ASIO out from your player software to a piece of audio out kit that doesn't natively support ASIO. This is the solution I always came back to when KS would fail me. It gives you a bit of interface that, when in advanced mode, gives you a ton of settings to increase performance and/or hardware compatibility. Its free, and it works with alot of stuff, even some really old stuff (its got stuff in it that should make it work with say, old SB16 cards, though why you would want to is beyond me), though generally the only reason I ever messed with that sort of thing is because I'm a tweaker by nature. Generally just works straight out of the box.
Another puzzle piece I'd like to throw out there, at least for MP3 playback (yeah, I know, not audiophile, but I have alot of tracks that either only exist as MP3s, remixes, indie tunes and such, or which I only really have the reasonable possibility of possessing as a DLed MP3, like stuff from foreign albums, most of which I would never have known existed if I hadn't stumbled across them online). The in_MAD.dll plugin for Winamp (though winamp plugs can be used for foobar, too, right?), replaces the usual in_mp3.dll and helps you extract the maximal quality from your MP3 files. It allows you to increase sample size up to 32-bit which has worked just fine with every bit of hardware I've ever tried it with, and it really helps out in, say, a work situation where I just want an acceptable, quick and dirty setup to listen to the occasional track as when you use the kmixer and you change the volume in software, it will cut the null bits padded to the end of the 16-bit samples first, keeping detail loss from ever becoming a factor. Again, not audiophile, but makes the best out of the situation.
Okay, I think I've lost it again. Enjoy.
Kensai
OK, I stand corrected on the up sampling at the DAC. As I said, I'm not an expert, just reporting what I have picked up by trial and error.
My experience with MP3:
I used to listen to KLRE out of Little Rock on FM. 24 hour classical with the mix heavily weighted to the 18th and 19th centuries. And they played whole works, not experts. The KLRE stream is 24kb/22kHz mono. Absolutely unlistenable even on laptop speakers. I now spend a lot of time an Minnesota Public Radio which is 128Kb/44.1kHz. OK for background music, and they will play whole works outside of rush hour. I'll also listen to some of the AVRO Klassiek channels which are 256kb. Not bad for even serious listening. There are some jazz channels streaming at 320kb, and these are very good.
Bottom line: for my 65 year old ears, Anything 320 and over is going to take A/B comparison to hear the differences. 256 is good, but the problems at the top end are obvious. 128 is only good for background music. Anything under 128 is going to sound bad and you have to really want to hear a particular track to stand it.
Again, YMMV.
Bob
My experience with MP3:
I used to listen to KLRE out of Little Rock on FM. 24 hour classical with the mix heavily weighted to the 18th and 19th centuries. And they played whole works, not experts. The KLRE stream is 24kb/22kHz mono. Absolutely unlistenable even on laptop speakers. I now spend a lot of time an Minnesota Public Radio which is 128Kb/44.1kHz. OK for background music, and they will play whole works outside of rush hour. I'll also listen to some of the AVRO Klassiek channels which are 256kb. Not bad for even serious listening. There are some jazz channels streaming at 320kb, and these are very good.
Bottom line: for my 65 year old ears, Anything 320 and over is going to take A/B comparison to hear the differences. 256 is good, but the problems at the top end are obvious. 128 is only good for background music. Anything under 128 is going to sound bad and you have to really want to hear a particular track to stand it.
Again, YMMV.
Bob
When I got started using PC as a source, I ripped all my CDs to MP3 using the LAME codec. I hadn't really been able to tell the difference, and I'd thought that 128 was just fine, but just to be on the safe side, I encoded them in 320, though in VBR so the average bit rates were in the 220s generally. That sounded great back when I was using a Sound Blaster Live, cheap multimedia speakers and low end Koss and Sony headphones. Then I for some reason added audiophile to my list of bad habits and purchased an M-Audio Revolution and swapped out my other kit with Monsoons and Grados.
Its been all down hill ever since. Its gotten to the point where not only can I tell the difference between the uncompressed track and the max quality MP3 from across the house, I've been able to tell the difference between a 196 track and a 128 version of the exact same cut (I've got like 8000 tracks in my library on random, and lets just say that my library management has been a bit hit or miss so far). So, if anyone who's reading this post hasn't officially become an audiophile, please, for the love of whichever deities or cosmic forces you believe in, please turn back now. It'll save you no end of trouble.
So, back to OBs. I've mentioned before that I've got these giant old Sansuis. They had basically been serving as side tables next to my desk. I've got the grills off, the backs off, all the stuffing removed (nasty old natural stuff was just gross), and the 6 other drivers (yes, 2 of everything in a 4 way speaker) removed, leaving the 15"ers in the bottom. I'd tried using them in OB like that a few times previously but not really gotten any useful response out of them. Now with the new active setup for the woofers, I hooked them back up and they did fill in the bottom, going deeper and much louder than the Yamaha 8"ers (to be expected given the size difference and the fact that the Sansuis had been rated at 102dB sensitive), but they sounded really confused. So I flipped the cabs over so the woofers would be at the top, alot closer to the little baffles for the RS100s I have sitting on top, and this sounds much better, more coherent. They were really bloated in the upper bass using the settings I had for the Yamahas, and I ended up turning the crossover all the way down to 50Hz and volume, which had been set for full (though I was thinking it needed to come down a bit for the Yamahas), came to rest at about 9:30, so I had to really back off the power for these.
Now these aren't exactly OB. More technically, they'd be about 20" deep U-baffles, which only have 3"-4" clearance to the wall and a weird array of venting in the front below the woofer. I'm sure this colors things quite a bit, but I'm still getting the same impression from these woofers as I had when the Sansuis were whole . . . they sound dark and cloudy and really unmusical. On the upside, this is showing me that using the active setup for the woofer section should allow me to use drivers that don't have particularly high Qts and still get the bass I want with proper setup. I've been thinking to use a larger Reference Series driver for that duty, though that would involve more budget, and I just gave at the office for the new amp, so it'll have to wait for a bit.
This, is getting good.
Kensai
Its been all down hill ever since. Its gotten to the point where not only can I tell the difference between the uncompressed track and the max quality MP3 from across the house, I've been able to tell the difference between a 196 track and a 128 version of the exact same cut (I've got like 8000 tracks in my library on random, and lets just say that my library management has been a bit hit or miss so far). So, if anyone who's reading this post hasn't officially become an audiophile, please, for the love of whichever deities or cosmic forces you believe in, please turn back now. It'll save you no end of trouble.
So, back to OBs. I've mentioned before that I've got these giant old Sansuis. They had basically been serving as side tables next to my desk. I've got the grills off, the backs off, all the stuffing removed (nasty old natural stuff was just gross), and the 6 other drivers (yes, 2 of everything in a 4 way speaker) removed, leaving the 15"ers in the bottom. I'd tried using them in OB like that a few times previously but not really gotten any useful response out of them. Now with the new active setup for the woofers, I hooked them back up and they did fill in the bottom, going deeper and much louder than the Yamaha 8"ers (to be expected given the size difference and the fact that the Sansuis had been rated at 102dB sensitive), but they sounded really confused. So I flipped the cabs over so the woofers would be at the top, alot closer to the little baffles for the RS100s I have sitting on top, and this sounds much better, more coherent. They were really bloated in the upper bass using the settings I had for the Yamahas, and I ended up turning the crossover all the way down to 50Hz and volume, which had been set for full (though I was thinking it needed to come down a bit for the Yamahas), came to rest at about 9:30, so I had to really back off the power for these.
Now these aren't exactly OB. More technically, they'd be about 20" deep U-baffles, which only have 3"-4" clearance to the wall and a weird array of venting in the front below the woofer. I'm sure this colors things quite a bit, but I'm still getting the same impression from these woofers as I had when the Sansuis were whole . . . they sound dark and cloudy and really unmusical. On the upside, this is showing me that using the active setup for the woofer section should allow me to use drivers that don't have particularly high Qts and still get the bass I want with proper setup. I've been thinking to use a larger Reference Series driver for that duty, though that would involve more budget, and I just gave at the office for the new amp, so it'll have to wait for a bit.
This, is getting good.
Kensai
Kensai and Bob -
Really good stuff here regards PC and Soundcards . I searched here and not much I could find on subject. I don't want to get way off OB here in this thread so don't want to ask a whole bunch more questions regards subject. We have 4 computers here, 2 in use and 2 just sitting. The best is one I commissioned build on for my Wife so can't touch that. #2 is older Dell Dimension L800r which was O.K. in it's day but cheap integrated soundcard and I don't believe it's other attributes would lend to better soundcards of today. I would like to play with this idea on a low buck level with this system and could likely find a fairly inexpensive compatable S.C. that would give me a taste though I 'm aware SQ would not be of quality you guys are using. Can either of you recommend a forum I could further my education on this? Computer sites I've visited spend little time on Audio applications beyond gaming.
Kensai ....Back to those Sansui's. I don't know which series you are using, Sansui made a whole bunch of big 3-5 ways way back then. The research I did on mine showed SPL of near 98 with QTS near .7. Alot of guys on various forums still rave on them while others claim junk. I think post 76 quality went down based on all I've read. I'm still going to sell mine whole as they're in excellent condition but can't help but wonder if you wouldn't get better results with yours if you simply tried a flat baffle vs. using them in the box ? I'm thinking you're getting all kinds of 'interference' as currently set-up. Likely no Eminence but surely as good as Goldwood big woofs which many guys have been happy with for OB bass.
Bluto
Really good stuff here regards PC and Soundcards . I searched here and not much I could find on subject. I don't want to get way off OB here in this thread so don't want to ask a whole bunch more questions regards subject. We have 4 computers here, 2 in use and 2 just sitting. The best is one I commissioned build on for my Wife so can't touch that. #2 is older Dell Dimension L800r which was O.K. in it's day but cheap integrated soundcard and I don't believe it's other attributes would lend to better soundcards of today. I would like to play with this idea on a low buck level with this system and could likely find a fairly inexpensive compatable S.C. that would give me a taste though I 'm aware SQ would not be of quality you guys are using. Can either of you recommend a forum I could further my education on this? Computer sites I've visited spend little time on Audio applications beyond gaming.
Kensai ....Back to those Sansui's. I don't know which series you are using, Sansui made a whole bunch of big 3-5 ways way back then. The research I did on mine showed SPL of near 98 with QTS near .7. Alot of guys on various forums still rave on them while others claim junk. I think post 76 quality went down based on all I've read. I'm still going to sell mine whole as they're in excellent condition but can't help but wonder if you wouldn't get better results with yours if you simply tried a flat baffle vs. using them in the box ? I'm thinking you're getting all kinds of 'interference' as currently set-up. Likely no Eminence but surely as good as Goldwood big woofs which many guys have been happy with for OB bass.
Bluto
Kensai,
You should cut some test baffles, as the sound of the unobstructed, simple baffle is pretty different than one coming out of the U shaped baffles. Then, biamp and use an active crossover set somewhere between 60-120 Hz 2nd order (you'll have to try different points and see what works best in your case). Fullranger should be high passed as well. You might be surprised...
You should cut some test baffles, as the sound of the unobstructed, simple baffle is pretty different than one coming out of the U shaped baffles. Then, biamp and use an active crossover set somewhere between 60-120 Hz 2nd order (you'll have to try different points and see what works best in your case). Fullranger should be high passed as well. You might be surprised...
Right. Like I've got time enough to do more than flip a couple of boxes upside down ;-p I realize that they're terribly colored the way they are not, but I'm in quick experiment mode since I'm not able to do any better at present. Thing is, even the direct radiation from the front sounds kinda like listening to flapping cardboard, which, given the weight of the paper cones. They also most definitely have a relatively low Qts. Initial testing with the box opened showed no more bass response than say unequalized B20s, and they responded much more poorly to EQ than anything else I had on OB. So, mostly, the reason I've done this is checking to see if I can use my new active setup to get reasonable OB performance out of drivers whose Qts isn't high enough for traditional OB use. I'd like to use a pair of 8" Dayton Reference Series drivers for bass to match the RS100s, so I had to know what could be done. I don't think high passing the RS100s is going to be feasible, mainly because I seem to be able to hear crossovers affecting the sensitive range. The active lowpass on my amp seems to be just fine, as are the single cap passes I've had for integrating tweeters with larger fullrangers, but that's because they're both out of the range where I can make out such subtleties. The RS100s are very well behaved with low bass of a nonEQed signal through the T-amp. No apparent extra cone movement or distortion. I'm sure this too is not perfect, either, but I'm sure its better in terms of absolute SQ than the huge cap it would take to high pass them properly, even if using high quality bypass caps, too. The other thing I'm sure of, too, is that I can't afford all the passive crossover components ;-p
Kensai
Kensai
..... 'relatively low QTS'. Hmmm. Must be a big difference amongst woofers Sansui used in various models or parameters I found were incorrect.
Definitely want to avoid passive XO if possible.
Still looking like Goldwood woofs best low buck high QTS drivers available for bass needs.
No computer soundcard forum advice? Anybody?
Bluto
Definitely want to avoid passive XO if possible.
Still looking like Goldwood woofs best low buck high QTS drivers available for bass needs.
No computer soundcard forum advice? Anybody?
Bluto
I'd like one of these:-E-mu 1616M
If you're interested in soundcards there's a lot of good sense here:-tweakheadz.com
w
If you're interested in soundcards there's a lot of good sense here:-tweakheadz.com
w
Bluto,
Try www.head-fi.org. I know, its all headphones, but that's really where I cut my chops on pc sound. You can also check the HTPC board on www.avsforum.com. That's where I really started, but ended up having to spread out to get more rigorous learning.
As for the Sansui woofers, surely they could have used several very different models. These are some huge cabinets but they were tuned with a 4" port, maybe 10"-12" long, so the educated guess is that their Qts is in the .3-.4 range or there abouts.
Kensai
Try www.head-fi.org. I know, its all headphones, but that's really where I cut my chops on pc sound. You can also check the HTPC board on www.avsforum.com. That's where I really started, but ended up having to spread out to get more rigorous learning.
As for the Sansui woofers, surely they could have used several very different models. These are some huge cabinets but they were tuned with a 4" port, maybe 10"-12" long, so the educated guess is that their Qts is in the .3-.4 range or there abouts.
Kensai
Wakabaki , Kensai -
Thanks for forum info .... I'll check them out.
Kensai - I've never taken a good look at my Sansui's but seriously have began to doubt numbers I found. Why a high QTS driver in a big box and even more so considering they are 4 way?
Found another possible driver for an OB line array yesterday ..... Fostex f83e ?? 3.5" . Not cheap and would need a bass unit but would make a nice thin array.
Bluto
Thanks for forum info .... I'll check them out.
Kensai - I've never taken a good look at my Sansui's but seriously have began to doubt numbers I found. Why a high QTS driver in a big box and even more so considering they are 4 way?
Found another possible driver for an OB line array yesterday ..... Fostex f83e ?? 3.5" . Not cheap and would need a bass unit but would make a nice thin array.
Bluto
I'd probably go with the FE87E -factory specs (for what they're worth, which isn't much) suggest a Qt of 0.92 as opposed to 0.79 for the FE83E. Which should be useful in keeping the necessary LF XO point as low as possible for a very narrow OB.
If (if) they're used in a focused array, neither of the Fostex units should need HF support (either Eq or added tweeters). If they're in a straight line though, they will.
If (if) they're used in a focused array, neither of the Fostex units should need HF support (either Eq or added tweeters). If they're in a straight line though, they will.
I dont know Scott, it kinda depends on the radius of the element and driver location. Looking at the beam spread when you near focus at a high frequency there is a chance you will lose some high frequency energy. This really dosent apply if the focus point is 10 ' away , but may only apply when its a near focus.
ron
The point , in my case, dosent apply as i cant hear above 10 Khz anyway.
ron
The point , in my case, dosent apply as i cant hear above 10 Khz anyway.
Does anyone ever post pictures of their projects? Where? I'm very interested in seeing people's progress as I'm in the process of building a set of open baffles (first time speaker builder). I already have a pair of full range Lii Audio Crystal 10's mounted and burning in (close to 100 hours).
Waiting on a pair of Acoustic Elegance dipole 18's to show up in a week or so
I have a Primare A32 power amp. Here's a rear pic.
I have questions I'd like to ask some experienced OB builders about speaker hookup. Since I have 2 sets of speaker inputs on the power amp, I was thinking of running the Crystal 10's to the top speaker inputs and the AE woofers to the bottom speaker inputs. I know I'll need an inductor on the woofers to keep high frequencies from going to them. I need to know if that hook up will work without harming the amp or speakers. If that hook up will be okay I'll have more questions. Thanks for any advice.
Waiting on a pair of Acoustic Elegance dipole 18's to show up in a week or so
I have a Primare A32 power amp. Here's a rear pic.
I have questions I'd like to ask some experienced OB builders about speaker hookup. Since I have 2 sets of speaker inputs on the power amp, I was thinking of running the Crystal 10's to the top speaker inputs and the AE woofers to the bottom speaker inputs. I know I'll need an inductor on the woofers to keep high frequencies from going to them. I need to know if that hook up will work without harming the amp or speakers. If that hook up will be okay I'll have more questions. Thanks for any advice.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.