System Pictures & Description - Page 175 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

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 6th January 2010, 01:51 AM   #1741
diyAudio Member
 
Jimmy154's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NH, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by navin View Post
Nice. Does the slot in ther rear mean the woofer is bass-reflex? Or is it the termination of a tapered TL?
No it's a bass reflex. I originally wanted to make a TL, but after reading peoples' opinions about it and not wanting very big speakers, I decided against this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by navin View Post
Yes. I use WavPack (also a lossless format) and MP3 (VBR APE LAME EAC) and I do notice a difference in sound quality. The Wavpak files are about 3 times the size of the MP3 files so they are not as portable but I consider them a good half way point between CD and MP3.
Good, I'm glad to read this. I don't want to be one of those crazy audiophiles that swears I hear a difference when there is none
__________________
I give up lol
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th January 2010, 03:39 AM   #1742
navin is offline navin  India
diyAudio Member
 
navin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Mumbai (Bombay), India
Send a message via MSN to navin Send a message via Yahoo to navin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy154 View Post
I don't want to be one of those crazy audiophiles
Oh I'd love to be one of those crazy audiophiles but no one takes me seriously anyway so who'd listen?
__________________
...still looking for the holy grail.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th January 2010, 08:33 PM   #1743
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Default Mp3/FLAC/APE

MP3 is worse then FLAC, for the simple fact that mp3 steals away the range outside of what you can hear. IE when a sound is played loud next close in frequency range to another sound that is lower in loudness that sound will be filtered out. The ranges outside the human hearing is left out as well.

There are a few drawbacks to this: The sound is compressed, it depends on the compression on whether this is done good or bad. This is what people tend to hear in difference between mp3 (compressed) and uncompressed/lossless.

But the range outside of the human hearing is important to the sound as well; 10hz can be felt, even if it can't be heard. Harmonics in sound is another thing, the harminocs of certain sounds left out of the mp3 music is important: one other sound close to a frequency that is played louder is important to the harmonic build-up in sound and sound-nodes. The sound (sorry for the fuzziness of words in the next line) sound unnatural and can sound harsh...

So you can hear the difference, but only if you're trained and have a good sound-system... Sometimes I can hear a big difference, and sometimes I don't. Most of the time I do think it is because the filtering/converting music:
CD can be dirty, CD-player to rip with is degrading sound (error correction, even electrical influances). Then it is converted by a series of systems and filters... Even when you want to burn it, you'd be going through the whole series of unfiltering, all the way up to the quality of the burned CD and eventually your CD-player...

So to recapp; I do think it has influance (I can swear that the violins and cello's are more natural or more clearly spaced on original CD's) but most of the time it would be the converting to blame. But then again there is even a difference in the CD's you by, even if you'd buy the same, some prints of CD's are better then others (had bought two of the same by accident).

This is just my opinion, I am a bit of an audiophile if I would say so myself... So maybe I'm prejudice or even a bit crazy... Maybe I'll go and test some converting myself, It'll be a nice test for my ears and my system.

By the way, I use FLAC because I've read (yep... not tested, I know) that the decompressing the FLAC is easier and less fault-sensitive than APE... Anyone knows something about this (has proof?)

Sorry for some bad choices in words; I'm still just a Dutch-guy
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th January 2010, 04:33 AM   #1744
diyAudio Member
 
mondogenerator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: City Of Villans
Blog Entries: 1
i have to say, i can hear the 'loss' in lower bitrate MP3 (sub 320kb/s), so if i want a ultra clean digi copy of a cd ill just use WMP lossless or straight out WAV--takes a boatload of HDD space but worth it for that last drop of performance, and indistinguishable from the original CD
__________________
Every new piece of knowledge pushes something else out of my brain - Homer.....................Simpson
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th January 2010, 09:55 AM   #1745
diyAudio Member
 
JamesTRexx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Blog Entries: 1
Default About compression

Quote:
Originally Posted by hpolkerman View Post
By the way, I use FLAC because I've read (yep... not tested, I know) that the decompressing the FLAC is easier and less fault-sensitive than APE... Anyone knows something about this (has proof?)
The major advantage of FLAC (besides being open source) is the decompression algorithm, it is rather simple so it uses less processing power than other audio codecs. That's why it's perfect for portable devices.
I've compared it with APE as someone stated it was superior and CPU power was indeed up when playing APE files. As for the compressed size there was little difference.
Fault sensitive is a moot point, it's all done in the digital space of computers where 0's stay 0's and 1's stay 1's.

As for myself, when I store music uncompressed I go for FLAC, when I want to save not only some diskspace, but also the quality I go for OGG Vorbis quality 10 and one special setting.
I've listened to several of the best cd's and various compressed versions and only OGG q10 showed no difference in sound (no differences in spectrum either in Audacity). The best thing; it's still only one-third the size of the original cd. :-)

There's much more to say on compression, but then it better be done in a seperate thread.

(to be on topic: my description and history of my current stereo setup is here: high end audio rant)
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2010, 05:35 AM   #1746
taloyd is offline taloyd  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Post Flac

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesTRexx View Post
As for myself, when I store music uncompressed I go for FLAC, when I want to save not only some diskspace, but also the quality I go for OGG Vorbis quality 10 and one special setting.
I've listened to several of the best cd's and various compressed versions and only OGG q10 showed no difference in sound (no differences in spectrum either in Audacity). The best thing; it's still only one-third the size of the original cd. :-)
FLAC is lossless, that's the 'l' in FLAC. Lossless means it is the EXACT SAME as the WAV data on an original CD. It IS compressed (that's the 'C') but like Zip files, is lossless compression.

This means that it contains the same amount of data a WAV, but takes less space. Approximately one third is correct.

I use FLAC for my CD collection on my system because it is digitally identical to the source CDs, but takes up less HDD space. There is no sonic compromise.

Frequency response, btw, is related to sample rate. 44.1k sampling will always extend to around 22k per Nyquist sampling theorem (which itself isn't PERFECTLY applicable to sound, but good enough).

Loss and compression are two different things. Lossy compression saves space by throwing away data using an algorithm derived from basic psychoacoustics (Haas effect (precedence), etc.). Lossless compression doesn't throw away any data and is exactly identical to the source, like Zip files.

cheers,
-Tal
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2010, 04:18 PM   #1747
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
I made the CJD center speaker MTM with the dayton rs150 ans Seas 27tdfc

Click the image to open in full size.
__________________
jee.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2010, 12:43 PM   #1748
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesTRexx View Post
As for myself, when I store music uncompressed I go for FLAC, when I want to save not only some diskspace, but also the quality I go for OGG Vorbis quality 10 and one special setting.
I've listened to several of the best cd's and various compressed versions and only OGG q10 showed no difference in sound (no differences in spectrum either in Audacity). The best thing; it's still only one-third the size of the original cd. :-)
I agree, ogg is to my ears by far the best of the lossy formats.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2010, 07:36 AM   #1749
wixy is offline wixy  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Here's a pic of my system. Speakers are MJK open baffles.

Click the image to open in full size.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st February 2010, 10:45 PM   #1750
diyAudio Member
 
JOHNNYFAMOUS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: British Columbia - Kelowna
My contribution,

just finishing off the sub,, need to install the grills.

ebony and figured maple.

vifa drivers.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_1095_2.jpg (64.1 KB, 2481 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_1205.jpg (52.8 KB, 2453 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_1728.jpg (68.7 KB, 2440 views)
  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



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:36 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