Sound Quality Vs. Measurements - Page 247 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 16th February 2012, 01:52 PM   #2461
a.wayne is offline a.wayne  United States
Sin Bin
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Front Row Center
Sy,

I guess you really mean if you give a damn and your ears work A good stand can be had for a lot less and bricks and hardwood From depot works .....
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2012, 02:00 PM   #2462
tvrgeek is offline tvrgeek  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Md
Quote:
Originally Posted by abraxalito View Post
So you're someone who likes to buy at the component (amp, pre) level rather than module level and DIY it? Do you care if the amp or pre you buy is made up from modules inside though? There's a business opportunity for people to package my (hypothetical at this stage) modules into nice looking 'gear'.

When your amp is made up from modules inside, then upgrades aren't so difficult - just stick in an extra amp module and swap out the PSU for a slightly bigger one. Two extra channels for your amp and no waste So in part, the modules idea is hatched from the audiophile need toward continuous improvement.
Don't see a retail market for modular proprietary stuff. The advantage of component level is one from here, one from there. The paycheck for high end is more the bragging rites from doctors and lawyers who point to their brand name stuff. They don't replace modules, solder or adjust. A large portion of music lovers are not technical either. That leaves the DIY market.

I am not sure there is an OEM market either as the advantages of modular go away with high volume. We already have "modular". Chip amp, preamp chip, etc. A microcontroller and a few chips is all one needs in consumer grade. High end is half power supply and mechanical construction. Not friendly to snap in modules.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2012, 02:11 PM   #2463
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 109
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post
Don't see a retail market for modular proprietary stuff.
I'm not clear what you mean by 'proprietary' stuff here - modules can be made by anyone with a (gratis) license. Think 'ARM' style here - they do the design but rely on partners to build and sell.

Quote:
The advantage of component level is one from here, one from there. The paycheck for high end is more the bragging rites from doctors and lawyers who point to their brand name stuff.
True enough -they're not my intended market, at least not at the start. They won't buy because its not perceived by them to be a 'reputable brand' with a substantial marketing budget.

Quote:
They don't replace modules, solder or adjust. A large portion of music lovers are not technical either.
But think of the people who they buy from. The modular approach is designed to appeal to them too - ease of servicing. The non-technical guys and gals buy at the component or system level, from people who integrate modules.

Quote:
That leaves the DIY market.
And that's the market I'm planning to target first.

Quote:
I am not sure there is an OEM market either as the advantages of modular go away with high volume. We already have "modular". Chip amp, preamp chip, etc. A microcontroller and a few chips is all one needs in consumer grade.
Yep, this is above the current 'consumer grade'.

Quote:
High end is half power supply and mechanical construction. Not friendly to snap in modules.
This idea is not a fit with the current 'high end' market which is to a large extent (not entirely though) based on over-engineering and BS
__________________
Seek not the favour of the multitude...rather the testimony of few. And number not voices, but weigh them. - Kant
The capacity for impartial observation is commonly called 'cynicism' by those who lack it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2012, 02:42 PM   #2464
dvv is offline dvv  Serbia
Sin Bin
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post
Don't see a retail market for modular proprietary stuff. The advantage of component level is one from here, one from there. The paycheck for high end is more the bragging rites from doctors and lawyers who point to their brand name stuff. They don't replace modules, solder or adjust. A large portion of music lovers are not technical either. That leaves the DIY market.

I am not sure there is an OEM market either as the advantages of modular go away with high volume. We already have "modular". Chip amp, preamp chip, etc. A microcontroller and a few chips is all one needs in consumer grade. High end is half power supply and mechanical construction. Not friendly to snap in modules.
Not quite. With a modular appraoch, your upgrade path is far clearer, be it by adding parallel amps, or changing the present for new and better ones.

Servicing is also much easier - if anyone still remembers what that dastardly deed is.

Choice is also much wider, but is especially favorable to anyone with praticular requirements, like having say 7 line inputs, 3 of which need to be balanced. Great for changing your mind later on, and converting one XLR input for a say phono RIAA stage.

But your essential evaluation, or doubt, of there being enough marketing drive to make such a system come alive is, I'm afraid, dismally correct. I also think the market will not take such an approach favorably, and will relegate it to its fad pile before even giving it a chance to prove itself.

Practically, it is scuttled by the fact that modularity AND high quality cost some serious money for some VERY serious connectors, both male and female. If you go the soldering way, with extruding pins, you disable most users to make the change themselves, but get a really good contact. If you go for the PC type card slot-in connection, you get ease of exchange but a not so good contact.

That means you need to go for some SERIOUS connectors, which provide both excellent electrical contact AND a great mechanical contact; these are available, of course, but they cost a pretty penny. And that is definitely not an advanatge in today's market of our cheapskate civilization, itself not one bit interested in having anything for longer than 6 months, in view of how many new gadgets will appear in the meanwhile.

Face it, people, quality products are on their way out, at least in the consumer market.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2012, 02:58 PM   #2465
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 109
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvv View Post
Not quite. With a modular appraoch, your upgrade path is far clearer, be it by adding parallel amps, or changing the present for new and better ones.

Servicing is also much easier - if anyone still remembers what that dastardly deed is.

Choice is also much wider, but is especially favorable to anyone with praticular requirements, like having say 7 line inputs, 3 of which need to be balanced. Great for changing your mind later on, and converting one XLR input for a say phono RIAA stage.
Yep

Quote:
But your essential evaluation, or doubt, of there being enough marketing drive to make such a system come alive is, I'm afraid, dismally correct. I also think the market will not take such an approach favorably, and will relegate it to its fad pile before even giving it a chance to prove itself.
Yes, - the existing market most certainly won't. Been there, tried that over a decade ago. So this time I plan to do it differently - create the market for the new offering at the same time. Co-evolution if you will.

Quote:
Practically, it is scuttled by the fact that modularity AND high quality cost some serious money for some VERY serious connectors, both male and female.
I concur - I have some ideas for connectors but haven't made a firm decision yet.

Quote:
If you go the soldering way, with extruding pins, you disable most users to make the change themselves, but get a really good contact. If you go for the PC type card slot-in connection, you get ease of exchange but a not so good contact.
My initial thoughts are that the SATA cables used for disk drives might be a good starting point. Cat5 (RJ45) is also a possibility.

Quote:
That means you need to go for some SERIOUS connectors, which provide both excellent electrical contact AND a great mechanical contact; these are available, of course, but they cost a pretty penny.
For external connectors there are some Chinese clones of Lemo which I'm starting to employ in my designs. Time will tell if they live up to the reliability and quality levels of the original.
__________________
Seek not the favour of the multitude...rather the testimony of few. And number not voices, but weigh them. - Kant
The capacity for impartial observation is commonly called 'cynicism' by those who lack it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2012, 03:04 PM   #2466
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post
I am posting over on the server thread. J-river. New to me, will look.
Have a look.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post
It has to be so easy, How easy? Easy enough for my wife to use it.
Yup. It is that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post
Easier than just putting in a disk and push play.
Find the cover of the CD you want, press play.

Finding the album you want on the HDD can be very quick, much quicker than finding an actual CD in a well organised collection.

No inserting disk etc.

I must admit that my ripped collection started at my them office, were I ripped my CD's so I could listen to them in the office. This as around 10 Years ago...

Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post
So far, not impressed with what I have seen.
What have you seen?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post
I am guessing something based on a touch screen PC I can build into a wall or door where it is always up, and only the screen gets turned on and off.
Yes, basically. My own is a custom build server, and it runs Media Portal (Open Source - an XBMC fork for Windows - alternatively XBMC is on Linux), however this is absolutely a GeeXboX in terms of installation and setup.

Usability is maybe a touch up on J.River, but I do recommend the inexpensive MSI and/or Asus All In One PC's with J.River for most people, especially music only use.

Get an MCE remote. It is usually still easier and quicker to use that than the touchscreen. My Media PC's have not had mouse and keyboard attached for many years, they are basically "set top boxes".

In order to help our dealers and distributors AMR is offering at cost fully build servers to dealers and distributors.

They are not available from AMR or Dealers to the public (but a few have apparently been sold anyway), but dealers are welcome to clone them, you can see one here:

AMR DP-777 Internal Photos (Uncensored) | Computer Audiophile

Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post
If it has to be booted, apps started, or even the time it takes to wake up Windows, it won't pass the domestic distortion factor, let alone my basic impatience.
Wakeup from "Sleep" is pretty much instant, no slower than many CD-Players, it is important to have a "plain" windows on a dedicated machine. If the OS first has to load ten ton's of bloatware etc. that connect to the internet before they let you use the PC etc., of course it takes ages to boot or come back from sleep. Plain windows only plus Media Player software on an SSD boots up very quick and even resumes from hibernation in a jiffy.

Ciao T
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2012, 03:34 PM   #2467
diyAudio Member
 
scott wurcer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: cambridge ma
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThorstenL View Post
Hi,


The other is distortion. The AMR shows a whopping 0.1% 2nd HD and 0.03% 3rd HD at digital full scale, dropping to 0.04% 2nd HD and 0.001% 3rd HD for -10dBFs, while the Weiss has an exemplary 0.0002% 2nd HD at 0dBfs.
I read with interest Nelson Pass' comment in his turboF5 update to the effect that he finds nulling out the .1% 2nd "clearly" audible.
__________________
"The question of who is right and who is wrong has seemed to me always too small to be worth a moment's thought, while the question of what is right and what is wrong has seemed all-important."
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2012, 03:57 PM   #2468
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShaman View Post
It's better to stay on a technical level and that's why I asked for some form of evidence.
Yet the evidence that is presented you reject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShaman View Post
I would like to think of us more like engineers/scientists/hobbyists/inquiring minds/whatever-label-one-wants-for-himself who seek to correlate sound quality vs measurements, not businessmen.
I think of myself as someone who likes music first and prefer to spend the least amount of time and money on gear. Sadly from an early age I discovered that the gear in various got in the way, needed changing modifying etc. so I have been doing it ever since.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShaman View Post
When telling Bruno Putzeys his math in the feedback article is wrong, I think it's reasonable to expect you'll provide the correct math.
But I did not tell Bruno that his math was wrong. I told him that by an of hand-waving he simply excluded a key factor (and one which prior publications all the way back to Olson and Crowhurst include and stress) and so even though his math, calculations and results where correct, they where not applicable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShaman View Post
When telling Dustin Forman of ESS (the brain behind the Sabre DAC chips, more or less), that noise shaping is bad,
Yet I did not tell Dustin any such thing.

What I did say was that a low-bit DAC (or ADC) combined with noise shaping and given a specific PCM source (sample rate, wordlength) cannot given equal per sample accuracy as a "direct conversion" DAC/ADC, which incidentally may be a single bit DAC/ADC running at sufficient speed, a hybrid or a multibit DAC. In fact the claimed accuracy only "magically" materialises when many samples are averages.

In effect I objected to his claim that low bit + noiseshaping = multibit (or exceeds it). It is up to him to prove his claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShaman View Post
I'm not talking about building yourself a better DAC chip than the ESS
No need to. Philips actually did 25 years ago and I am using that DAC Chip.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShaman View Post
even if you could this is not part of your job description - but any solid evidence would do.
I do not see why the burden of proof should be mine, when the extra-ordinary claims that go against the most basic precepts of Information Theory are being made by others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShaman View Post
Not all speakers, nor speaker drivers for that matter, produce the same levels of distortion.
That is perfectly true. I am happy to go with the lowest distortion options available as a theoretical lower limit.

IF we scale -14dBfs to 94dB SPL and thus full scale 108dB SPL (@ listening position - so a lot more SPL at 1m) for full scale, what level of distortion would you suggest the best offer, at (say) 50Hz, 500Hz, 5KHz?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShaman View Post
I would assume someone who builds, say, an amp or a source component would aim for the best performance possible in all areas without using "bad speakers", "bad amps", "bad listening rooms" or "middle-aged+ listeners who cannot hear above 16kHz" as an excuse.
Why would anyone bother to improve an area of performance beyond what is required, especially if in doing so he introduces dis-improvements to other areas where the performance dis-improvement will be noted?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShaman View Post
I also assume that you could give the DP-777 higher resolution than its current 16bits if you wanted to.
I could have given beyond 16 Bit resolution and I did. The noisefloor is no higher than quite a few pure solid state "High Resolution" options JA evaluated. It his view that he would like to see lower noise.

I would like to have lower noise, but the necessary means would impair sound quality in areas where I find it to matter.

So I leave making "perfect measuring" DAC's that have been described in comparison to my design as "sound just 'flat' and uninvolving by comparison" to others. If you prefer to buy a DAC that measures perfect, but sounds artificial and boring, I'm not stopping you, am I now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShaman View Post
It's not really convincing to say that a "20-bit true resolution" version of the DP-777 would sound exactly the same as the current 16bit one since speaker/room effects dominate in all or most systems.
Actually, a "20-Bit True Resolution" version (instead of the 18.5 or so Bit's we get) would not sound identical to the current design. It would sound worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShaman View Post
On the other hand it'd make sense to say that in order to get 20bit or even 18bit true resolution you'd have to compromise other areas of performance that are perhaps more audible (thus the end result would sound worse) - but then it'd be good to know which areas will be affected and why that would have a negative impact in sound quality.
Alas, I am not offering theories. I can only suggest that you have a listen.

Because in the end I design my stuff to be listened to.

In other words, I design it (in the case of the DP-777) for the Magazine writer who wrote: "For me, the AMR DP-777 was more than a pleasant distraction, more than just an escape from the humdrum; it provided some of the very best digital sound Iíve heard." and not for the one who observed: "I was hoping that the AMR in HD mode would offer a true high-resolution alternative to the NOS behavior, but the former seems compromised.".

Because the first writer deals what is actually important, while the second deals with what is directly observable with instrumentation but does not (or at least so far has not been shown to) correlate with what what the first writer needs or wants.

Ciao T
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2012, 04:13 PM   #2469
diyAudio Member
 
john dozier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: columbia sc
Might I suggest, gentlemen, that flaws in the electronics may be masked (or hidden) by the transducer used. The most difficult energy transformations are still mechanical to electrical and vice versa I.E. microphones and speakers. Until perfect transducers are invented! many of the points raised are moot. Regards
__________________
Evil looms. Cowboy up. Kill it. Get Paid.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2012, 04:14 PM   #2470
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Scott,

Quote:
Originally Posted by scott wurcer View Post
I read with interest Nelson Pass' comment in his turboF5 update to the effect that he finds nulling out the .1% 2nd "clearly" audible.
What I find interesting in that are a few things.

First numbers are thrown around without any reference level and context.

Without being specific about SPL's involved, frequencies etc. the number alone is meaningless.

Second, instead of a sensible fair use quote something totally different is said instead:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firstwatt Website
One thing that many will appreciate is the addition of P3, which due to inattention on my part was not public until recently. It allows the adjustment of the distortion character between complete nulling of the second harmonic distortion to an arbitrary ratio of second to third harmonic. It definitely alters the sound, and reaffirms that things going on below 0.1% are audible. In any case, you can adjust it to taste.


What must be realised is that the adjustment referred to is not a 2nd harmonic adder, but rather adjusts the overall distortion profile of the Amplifier, plus it even affects overall gain if adjusted enough.

So I would expect P3 adjustment to be audible, but not because 0.1% 2nd HD are reduced (or not), but because of other effects it has.

Ciao T
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Quality Control differences = variations in sound quality? KT Class D 3 4th June 2014 01:02 AM
Sound Card for Measurements Marik Solid State 2 2nd January 2012 09:59 PM
Sound Card Recommendations (For Audio Measurements) dchisholm Equipment & Tools 5 16th July 2011 10:40 AM
How to protect sound card during amp measurements? okapi Everything Else 13 2nd September 2008 04:06 PM
Sound cards - test and measurements jackinnj Everything Else 2 5th July 2003 04:02 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:42 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2