Re: Re: Re: Pants down in public again.
So the advantage of digital XO's is ease of use!? I'd say they sound better and that's the key advantage for me and my system.
You also must have a problem with digital in general if you say the digital XO's have a lack of fine resolution - again not true in my opinion.
You've got a CD collection right? Do all those disk's sound like they've got a lack of ultimate resolution? Consider the fact that they've all been through a requantization to 16bits and an SRC of 44.1Khz at least once. And after this conversion does the minute detail dissappear? Or do you have an analogue section that can magically restore this lost information?
What your saying doesn't make sense at all, there's confirmed cases of folks using CD's and digital media as references and then there's you with digital XO's that think they lose the small details? Either you're setup/equipment isn't upto scratch or you've got better ears than my 26 year old ones.
KBK said:
So the advantage of digital XO's is ease of use!? I'd say they sound better and that's the key advantage for me and my system.
You also must have a problem with digital in general if you say the digital XO's have a lack of fine resolution - again not true in my opinion.
You've got a CD collection right? Do all those disk's sound like they've got a lack of ultimate resolution? Consider the fact that they've all been through a requantization to 16bits and an SRC of 44.1Khz at least once. And after this conversion does the minute detail dissappear? Or do you have an analogue section that can magically restore this lost information?
What your saying doesn't make sense at all, there's confirmed cases of folks using CD's and digital media as references and then there's you with digital XO's that think they lose the small details? Either you're setup/equipment isn't upto scratch or you've got better ears than my 26 year old ones.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pants down in public again.
i have the feeling and i know it is not just a feeling that bad AD and DA converters are freaking up with the sound, no matter the bitrate, and i also heard that the converters on the DEQX were not that good, so it may be an area of improvement, but on my side i prefer to use my computer, so do you shin
ShinOBIWAN said:
i have the feeling and i know it is not just a feeling that bad AD and DA converters are freaking up with the sound, no matter the bitrate, and i also heard that the converters on the DEQX were not that good, so it may be an area of improvement, but on my side i prefer to use my computer, so do you shin
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pants down in public again.
I've been going at the speaker design thing (off and on) since I was 13. When I was 13 I thought that " that's the job for me!": Loudspeaker design. So, yeah, you could say that it's a 'bug in my brain' for quite some time. I'm 41 now, and have been doing 'single cause analysis' in electronics repair/ modification and in loudspeakers as well, since that time.
That's 28 years, longer than you have been on the planet. This does not in ANY WAY mean that I feel I know better than you, but.. I do have a bit of experience under my belt, and a well trained set of ears. I value your opinion, as there is always something valuble in what another says whether it is something we want to hear or not, etc..etc. You know what I mean.
I do believe and hear that a good analog rig (turntable, open reel tape, etc) does definitely 'blow away' any digital system, including SACD in terms of sheer information that is fundmentally correct... in that information reaching the listener's ear. The trick, is whether one really knows what they are hearing --or not.
All of that time and effort (28 years now..wow!!) has been oriented toward dealing with 'noise control and electronic 'noise' issues. Things uncomplementary to the truth of the signal. Distortion or destruction of signal integrety.
At the same time I have spent considerable effort in dealing with the person listening as well. Hearing, how it works, what we 'percieve' etc. Understanding the human animal as well as is possible, in all ramifications involving reproduced music.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now for my so-called 'learned opinion' bit:
Throughout what would be traditionally considered the 'crossover region' of a pair of drivers that have been crossed over with passive components... digital crossovers have a overwhelming appeal in terms of what they 'fix' in the area of 'issues'. But they do damage to the signal as well.
Outside of the crossver region, analog crossovers intrude FAR LESS in the signal than a digital crossover does. In these areas, the speaker's inherent fidelity IS definitely trashed by digital processing.
Basically, when you analyse the entire audio spectrum being reproduced in a given speaker and you weight the pluses and minuses of a digital crossover vs an analog passive one... it's a wash. At least, at this particular level and stage of digital crossover development, design, and implementation.
There is always more to it than that, but then again, this is not the time or place for dissertations, etc. And once again, it's not my job to inform others of methods of attack, directions of research, etc..if indeed I choose to make an attempt to make a living off what I understand and the directions I move into. I state it that way, in the end - as it is a form of apology for not explaining myself fully, as opposed to what some folks see it as..which they see as some sort of exclaimation of ego. And then they get antagonistic.
ShinOBIWAN said:
I've been going at the speaker design thing (off and on) since I was 13. When I was 13 I thought that " that's the job for me!": Loudspeaker design. So, yeah, you could say that it's a 'bug in my brain' for quite some time. I'm 41 now, and have been doing 'single cause analysis' in electronics repair/ modification and in loudspeakers as well, since that time.
That's 28 years, longer than you have been on the planet. This does not in ANY WAY mean that I feel I know better than you, but.. I do have a bit of experience under my belt, and a well trained set of ears. I value your opinion, as there is always something valuble in what another says whether it is something we want to hear or not, etc..etc. You know what I mean.
I do believe and hear that a good analog rig (turntable, open reel tape, etc) does definitely 'blow away' any digital system, including SACD in terms of sheer information that is fundmentally correct... in that information reaching the listener's ear. The trick, is whether one really knows what they are hearing --or not.
All of that time and effort (28 years now..wow!!) has been oriented toward dealing with 'noise control and electronic 'noise' issues. Things uncomplementary to the truth of the signal. Distortion or destruction of signal integrety.
At the same time I have spent considerable effort in dealing with the person listening as well. Hearing, how it works, what we 'percieve' etc. Understanding the human animal as well as is possible, in all ramifications involving reproduced music.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now for my so-called 'learned opinion' bit:
Throughout what would be traditionally considered the 'crossover region' of a pair of drivers that have been crossed over with passive components... digital crossovers have a overwhelming appeal in terms of what they 'fix' in the area of 'issues'. But they do damage to the signal as well.
Outside of the crossver region, analog crossovers intrude FAR LESS in the signal than a digital crossover does. In these areas, the speaker's inherent fidelity IS definitely trashed by digital processing.
Basically, when you analyse the entire audio spectrum being reproduced in a given speaker and you weight the pluses and minuses of a digital crossover vs an analog passive one... it's a wash. At least, at this particular level and stage of digital crossover development, design, and implementation.
There is always more to it than that, but then again, this is not the time or place for dissertations, etc. And once again, it's not my job to inform others of methods of attack, directions of research, etc..if indeed I choose to make an attempt to make a living off what I understand and the directions I move into. I state it that way, in the end - as it is a form of apology for not explaining myself fully, as opposed to what some folks see it as..which they see as some sort of exclaimation of ego. And then they get antagonistic.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pants down in public again.
Wow you're incredibly arrogant too.
Of course you meant that because you've been doing this for 28 years you know better than me otherwise you'd never have felt the need to write it. Its completely irrelevant to everything being discussed here so why bring it up other than to push it in my face?
Self importance is an ugly thing. Here witness for yourself:
What you fail to realise is that some grasp in minutes what it takes others a lifetime to achieve.
So do you have anything to say that explains your U turn on passive vs. digital XO's? Lambasting others opinions on A vs. B and then doing the hyprocricy thing isn't what I'd call 'in the spirit of'.
KBK said:
Wow you're incredibly arrogant too.
Of course you meant that because you've been doing this for 28 years you know better than me otherwise you'd never have felt the need to write it. Its completely irrelevant to everything being discussed here so why bring it up other than to push it in my face?
Self importance is an ugly thing. Here witness for yourself:
What you fail to realise is that some grasp in minutes what it takes others a lifetime to achieve.
So do you have anything to say that explains your U turn on passive vs. digital XO's? Lambasting others opinions on A vs. B and then doing the hyprocricy thing isn't what I'd call 'in the spirit of'.
Something a little more constructive:
Digital can be almost completely transparent, take this this quite stunning DAC from forum member Vil:
www.lessloss.com
I've got a lot respect for Vil and he's the one that actually introduced me to the concepts he uses: DRC and digital XO's using a DAW type setup with the highest grades of filter processing available. These concepts coupled with digital media represent the most real interpretation of audio I've heard thus far.
At the moment its all in an infancy stage but already bests passive networks from my experience and then there's the issue of digital room compensation which can only be applied pratically in the digital domain and is almost certainly comming to light as the next big step in the road to perfection.
These two elements - DRC and FIR filters -make the system as a whole near untouchable outside of a superb analogue setup in a comprehensively treated room ie. not a real world setup actually neither is my intepretation of digital filters yet.
If you want all this you've really got to make the entire implementation a digital one from source to amplifiers. You'd be losing the point with an analogue source/digital filtering hybrid.
I've always got the impression that analogue sounds very right with a great system but without the cleanliness of digital. I've since found its possible to have both and more in a real world room and without the frankly daft price tags the best analogue kit attracts.
On another note, the DEQX, modified or otherwise, isn't representative of what digital XO's and filtering are ultimately capable of. It does however offer an easy and safe entry into the domain and if you like what you've seen there then there's still a lot more to see.
Digital can be almost completely transparent, take this this quite stunning DAC from forum member Vil:
www.lessloss.com
I've got a lot respect for Vil and he's the one that actually introduced me to the concepts he uses: DRC and digital XO's using a DAW type setup with the highest grades of filter processing available. These concepts coupled with digital media represent the most real interpretation of audio I've heard thus far.
At the moment its all in an infancy stage but already bests passive networks from my experience and then there's the issue of digital room compensation which can only be applied pratically in the digital domain and is almost certainly comming to light as the next big step in the road to perfection.
These two elements - DRC and FIR filters -make the system as a whole near untouchable outside of a superb analogue setup in a comprehensively treated room ie. not a real world setup actually neither is my intepretation of digital filters yet.
If you want all this you've really got to make the entire implementation a digital one from source to amplifiers. You'd be losing the point with an analogue source/digital filtering hybrid.
I've always got the impression that analogue sounds very right with a great system but without the cleanliness of digital. I've since found its possible to have both and more in a real world room and without the frankly daft price tags the best analogue kit attracts.
On another note, the DEQX, modified or otherwise, isn't representative of what digital XO's and filtering are ultimately capable of. It does however offer an easy and safe entry into the domain and if you like what you've seen there then there's still a lot more to see.
like i said, bad DAC, bad bad ADC, great processing tool, but you can do a LOT better.
about digital and KBK, this thread i remember was burried, it was a good thing.
KBK if you really want anything from anyone around here you should put your ego aside
THAT make me laugh ... an half second . what are you talking about then ? potatoes ? if you don't share you can't expect other people to share . what are you here for in the end mr. ?
hey shin, about this ,i wanted to tell you that you're tutorial about PC xover is very very good. Im doing the same kind of stuff but with only free softwares. I might write something like you did but i am too lazy to do so.
Nemophyle said:
I was thinking the same thing, its almost as if he's a commercial entity that taps the knowledge of the DIY community and then goes back makes a couple of minor changes and then patents it as his own. That may not be the case but he's doing nothing to discourage that perception.
There's a few folks on here that make a living from this and participate in the community, so it can be done, but they seem to conduct themselves with the greatest respect for others opinions and knowledge as well as feeding back knowledge rather than simple statements such as 'custom' this, 'modified' that and then a pause for everyone to go wow! When in reality you just come off as leaching knowledge whilst simultaneously being arrogant.
I believe other forums(AVS) have had a taste of KBK's attitude before and they too tired of it. Maybe he doesn't even realise he's doing it? Afterall the world is full of strange and diverse characters.
Thanks and good to know someone enjoyed it, I'm continually adding to it so more information should be forthcomming when I can get the odd moment. See KBK that is what feeding back into the community is!
As for the AVS forum, over the first 2-3 years I was there..specifically the first 2..I spoke luicidly and clearly on just about any technical issue or design idea that tickled my fancy. Depending on how aware you are of the exact posts and threads, between 5 to 7 commercially important design changes or actual fully blown products were made by other companies.
So... I stopped contributing.
Over a period of about a year or so, I went from being the 'good guy' and warming everyone's heart....to the a$$hole.
Simply because I decided to perform an act of self protection.
All this happened in or around my first 3000 or so posts.
Some of the threads where these things happend, to prevent further bleeding..I removed them completely. This, way back when the AVS forum allowed you to kill your own threads, if you started them.
The KBK moniker is a joke. I dislike it. It comes from a friend who was bugging me and gave it to me as a nickname. Since I was bothered by it and felt that it was irrational to be bothered by it..I decided to use it as a 'handle'.
I said "28 years..wow!" What I meant by that, and there was apparently a misinterpretation is: "28 years, wow..has it been that long? dang. I'm getting old."
So now, I'd like to write" Teach me something new! Please!"... KBK is being an egotistical *** again.
And that might be mis-interpreted. What I mean fully is" Please teach me something new. I want to learn something new. I am listening attentively."
What I can't figure out is why folks can sometimes take things in the worst way, instead of sitting back and looking at what a person is saying in a broader context.
And another thing, I don't come here to 'steal' or 'take'. As a matter of fact, I rarely come here at all. I personally don't know of a harder to get along with, more anal, more opinionated, and more contentious crew of people on any forum. That's not meant as a insult either. A strong stance is fine. New things don't come from the easy parts of life, they come from the hard.
And NO, I don't suffer from arrogance. I just don't feel the need to be humble. Not here, not at this time.
And maybe eventually you might find that you sometimes learn/get more from the people you don't seem to get along with.
Ok?
So... I stopped contributing.
Over a period of about a year or so, I went from being the 'good guy' and warming everyone's heart....to the a$$hole.
Simply because I decided to perform an act of self protection.
All this happened in or around my first 3000 or so posts.
Some of the threads where these things happend, to prevent further bleeding..I removed them completely. This, way back when the AVS forum allowed you to kill your own threads, if you started them.
The KBK moniker is a joke. I dislike it. It comes from a friend who was bugging me and gave it to me as a nickname. Since I was bothered by it and felt that it was irrational to be bothered by it..I decided to use it as a 'handle'.
I said "28 years..wow!" What I meant by that, and there was apparently a misinterpretation is: "28 years, wow..has it been that long? dang. I'm getting old."
So now, I'd like to write" Teach me something new! Please!"... KBK is being an egotistical *** again.
And that might be mis-interpreted. What I mean fully is" Please teach me something new. I want to learn something new. I am listening attentively."
What I can't figure out is why folks can sometimes take things in the worst way, instead of sitting back and looking at what a person is saying in a broader context.
And another thing, I don't come here to 'steal' or 'take'. As a matter of fact, I rarely come here at all. I personally don't know of a harder to get along with, more anal, more opinionated, and more contentious crew of people on any forum. That's not meant as a insult either. A strong stance is fine. New things don't come from the easy parts of life, they come from the hard.
And NO, I don't suffer from arrogance. I just don't feel the need to be humble. Not here, not at this time.
And maybe eventually you might find that you sometimes learn/get more from the people you don't seem to get along with.
Ok?
Hey Shin, I'm reading your thread on PC based XO's right now. Very nice.
Temporal (don't read into it) issues regarding specifically clocking systems are my big bugaboo. I never said anything specific... it is obviously..entirely possible that you got overly defensive about something that wasn't even meant or said. After the clocking is right..the rest of the circuity in terms of analog handling and software design are the big issues, it seems.
Anyway, back to the subject at hand. If your filters or the filters you are using are of the right type (I don't know that much about that specific component....yet!) and the hardware has the capacity to do justice to the original signal (analog I/O and the proper word length and bit depth) that I just might enjoy it.
I've been playing with PC's longer than the term PC has been around. And I went to school for that particular technical skill, for whatever that's worth. I'm not adverse to PC's and digital hardware, I've been working with them for a very long time.
I'll likely take a shot at what you have in the thread. Once again, very nice. Thanks for the effort.
Would I transfer it to any commercial endeavor without notification or your input? Extremely unlikely in any case. The solution may end up working incredibly well, but it is not likely to be friendly enough for the average soul, no matter how well configured.
At the least, considering your responses so far, you might have an inkling of how I have felt at times, on the AVS forum. I give it all away..and suddenly..I'M the *******. WTF??
It would have to be a totally custom PC based solution. A certain PC based Video scaler comes to mind. Now THAT's a long story!!!
Having been in enough commercial ventures, I've come very unwillingly to the understanding that the invention end of things ... no matter how important that it be there in the first place, only constitutes about 10% of what it takes to get a company up and running. As the inventing and designing type - it burns my ****..but that's the reality of business models and what it takes to make one work.
I'm only on the first page, but it looks good so far!
Temporal (don't read into it) issues regarding specifically clocking systems are my big bugaboo. I never said anything specific... it is obviously..entirely possible that you got overly defensive about something that wasn't even meant or said. After the clocking is right..the rest of the circuity in terms of analog handling and software design are the big issues, it seems.
Anyway, back to the subject at hand. If your filters or the filters you are using are of the right type (I don't know that much about that specific component....yet!) and the hardware has the capacity to do justice to the original signal (analog I/O and the proper word length and bit depth) that I just might enjoy it.
I've been playing with PC's longer than the term PC has been around. And I went to school for that particular technical skill, for whatever that's worth. I'm not adverse to PC's and digital hardware, I've been working with them for a very long time.
I'll likely take a shot at what you have in the thread. Once again, very nice. Thanks for the effort.
Would I transfer it to any commercial endeavor without notification or your input? Extremely unlikely in any case. The solution may end up working incredibly well, but it is not likely to be friendly enough for the average soul, no matter how well configured.
At the least, considering your responses so far, you might have an inkling of how I have felt at times, on the AVS forum. I give it all away..and suddenly..I'M the *******. WTF??
It would have to be a totally custom PC based solution. A certain PC based Video scaler comes to mind.
Now THAT's a long story!!!Having been in enough commercial ventures, I've come very unwillingly to the understanding that the invention end of things ... no matter how important that it be there in the first place, only constitutes about 10% of what it takes to get a company up and running. As the inventing and designing type - it burns my ****..but that's the reality of business models and what it takes to make one work.
I'm only on the first page, but it looks good so far!
Thanks.
There's a work in-progress which will eventually be a more complete and less diluted version than the 'A how to for a PCXO' thread. You can find it here, though bear in mind that there's plenty more to be added:
http://www.duffroomcorrection.com/wiki/User:ShinOBIWAN
There's also a whole host of information including the point when I was first introduced to the concepts by RyanC and Vil, all this is in a speaker project thread that I started. I've linked straight to the part where it gets interesting and the dicussion continues over several pages:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=650032#post650032
Doesn't matter now anyway, I was just confused as to your change of heart.
The filters are FIR linear phase types, though there are many such windowing functions/coefficients that can be discribed as such and some are better than others for the task at hand.
Points of note are: Essentially all FIR filters display ripple throughout the passband whether this is intrusive or not depend entirely on the type of FIR filter you use.
Its all a balancing act and in simple terms there's two things that you have to balance. One is the order of the slopes vs. the passband ripple noise floor. Use an FIR window that allows very steep slopes (150dB+) will mean a higher noise floor in the passband (~ -60dB) or conversely, using a more FIR window that maybe allows 96dB/octave slopes will get you around -100dB of ripple rejection.
FIR filters also become increasingly complex and more CPU cycle intensive as the lower frequencies and/or higher order slopes are used.
I use the Waves LinearEQ filter and this has around 110-120dB of rejection and I guess you could call this the signal to noise ratio of the filter.
There has been many folks involved in the method I prefer for DRC & XO's. Perhaps Vil and RyanC most importantly but I expect they got the idea's from others too.
The method I use is based around 3rd party plugins and hardware. To create a complete and integrated solution using equivalent technology would either take an R&D budget of thousands or many months of hardwork. The outcome would be a niche product that would only appeal to the hardcore.
Regarding ease of use; its pretty much a real mess to the untrained eye and certainly not plug it and forget type solution, though after the initial setup headaches it is. This was my main reason for writting so much about it all since I firmly believe its the best sound I've heard and hope that others can share that too. If it was merely good I really wouldn't have gone to the trouble or expense to properly implement it.
It would have to be a totally custom PC based solution. A certain PC based Video scaler comes to mind.
FFdshow is dying off now in light of VMR9 hardware rendering. I use a 7800 and have abandoned ffdshow altogether.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.