Sound Quality Vs. Measurements - Page 249 - 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, 04:09 PM   #2481
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: 100
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 bcarso View Post
And...it can be done. The connection problem is huge, but the bigger problems with things configured from modules is --- the resulting system is never cheaper.
Never seems a jolly strong claim. It surely depends on the relative volumes? An SoC is an example of a generic module, implemented in silicon - if the volumes are high enough its worth designing one. With chip designs costing $50M these days, for most people we take an off the shelf SoC and maybe don't use half the features. Still cheaper, even given all those functions are in effect 'thrown away'. Economies of scale can result in apparently strange design decisions.
__________________
When you design something for other people you don't have as much motivation to make it beyond excellent - Woz
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2012, 04:15 PM   #2482
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShaman View Post
I'm not referring to Thorsten's gear but "source" components like Zanden and "loudspeakers" like Rehdeko come to mind...
I would add one thing here.

The Rehdeko measurements are IN ROOM, ROOM AVERAGED, not pseudo anechoic MLSSA. So be careful what you compare them to. I would not consider Rehdeko entirely my cup of tea, however they are rather enjoyable and will surprise you if you listen. It will (again) make you question the validity and usefulness of the measurements we usually employ.

One thing I remember, 'dek's had nearly as good squarewave performance as my Tannoy Red's and both are not miles off a Quad ESL. If you ever seen the square wave from most "HiFi" Speakers you would feel rather disturbed. I suspect that is why we commonly see square wave measurements of Amplifiers but practically never of speakers...

Ciao T
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2012, 04:19 PM   #2483
tvrgeek is offline tvrgeek  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Md
Thanks Thorsten, The old mans view is handy. I had never seen the windows remotes.
All-in-ones have a very bad rep for reliably, but I suspect that is improving.

bcarso. you mean the old Radio Shack book of 200 circuits was not everything in the world? Gasp, how we were miss-led! Well,everything new has not already been written in software either, even though some managers seem to think so. Apache provides foundation, not solutions. Problem is, the colleges are teaching only how it integrate Java libraries, not how to program. It is getting darn hard to hire real software engineers. Or at least ones who can pass the drug test.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2012, 04:23 PM   #2484
tvrgeek is offline tvrgeek  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Md
I would be very disturbed if a speaker produced a square wave. It's that compressible air thing. However some efforts with UE have produced surprisingly good representations. I have only seen pictures. Bodzio Software
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2012, 04:28 PM   #2485
bcarso is offline bcarso  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canoga Park, California
Quote:
Originally Posted by abraxalito View Post
Never seems a jolly strong claim. It surely depends on the relative volumes? An SoC is an example of a generic module, implemented in silicon - if the volumes are high enough its worth designing one. With chip designs costing $50M these days, for most people we take an off the shelf SoC and maybe don't use half the features. Still cheaper, even given all those functions are in effect 'thrown away'. Economies of scale can result in apparently strange design decisions.
With semis you may have a point. I'm thinking about systems like amplifiers, DVD players, etc. The redundancy of chassis, connectors, etc. and the inability to judiciously take advantage of a output on board A for a signal needed by board B almost inevitably leads to suboptimal designs.

But it may (I stress may) speed time to market and may be worth it from that standpoint (although see John Addis's great article in the Williams compendium about it being time to slay the time-to-market god).

When I left Harman after four years as an employee and over ten as a consultant, there was no one left that could do analog very well, at least to the point of rapidly and successfully synthesizing equalization etc. as prescribed by the reigning speaker designer. So happy day! Just do it all in the symbol domain. The speaker guy gets what he wants, as he has generated the coefficients for the filters (he doesn't get a lot of other signal processing, but never mind). But how did it sound (let alone how much does it cost)? The answer:

Good enough. At least in the minds of the managers. And of course for marketing, Hey! It's gotta be great --- it's DIGITAL!

When I did some work for another audio company, I was assured that their existing design was absolutely as cheap as it could be and meet their quality targets. I took eight dollars out of the bill of materials and gave them a sample that they agreed sounded and looked identical to their existing design. They were shipping 10k a month of the product at that point. Would you like 80k$ added to the proverbial bottom line? No, they had more important things to do. What they wound up doing was just beating up their suppliers more.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2012, 04:30 PM   #2486
diyAudio Member
 
Wavebourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Send a message via Skype™ to Wavebourn
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThorstenL View Post

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?
This should be the starting point in the discussion, from which it should go. But again and and again we have to come back here. I suggest to put it on top of the page, instead of advertising banner, so everyone can read it each time opening the page.
__________________
The Devil is not so terrible as his math model is!
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2012, 04:35 PM   #2487
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post
I would be very disturbed if a speaker produced a square wave. It's that compressible air thing.
Then this will severely disturb you:

Click the image to open in full size.

That's a 1KHz squarewave, on axis, at 1KHz for a Quad ESL-63...

Ciao T
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2012, 04:36 PM   #2488
tvrgeek is offline tvrgeek  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Md
That's what they learned in business school. Is the Troy Institute For Maneuverability still around? They taught us massive lessons on cost management. I look at the mechanical assembly of even mass produced products and just shake my head. Keeps people employed I guess. Little screws of different size. A trained engineer could save some of these companies a lot of money. Hint: If you only need to put round pegs in round holes, you can't screw up.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2012, 04:37 PM   #2489
wahab is offline wahab  Algeria
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: algeria/france
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.
Only if the reference signal is a pure sine , then adding
0.1% of H2 can be audible but if the reference signal
is a musical one it s doubtfull that implementing the same H2
ratio would have any audibility.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2012, 04:43 PM   #2490
tvrgeek is offline tvrgeek  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Md
Yea, that's pretty disturbing. Always kind of liked Quads. Seem to really like old MV-50s. Actually the wave is not surprising in itself, that it may not have required extensive DSP to get it is. Wonder what a ML would do?
  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 12:02 AM
Sound Card for Measurements Marik Solid State 2 2nd January 2012 08:59 PM
Sound Card Recommendations (For Audio Measurements) dchisholm Equipment & Tools 5 16th July 2011 09:40 AM
How to protect sound card during amp measurements? okapi Everything Else 13 2nd September 2008 03:06 PM
Sound cards - test and measurements jackinnj Everything Else 2 5th July 2003 03:02 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:31 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