If the criterium is being mentioned in the mainstream press then yes, your effort has yielded results. Apart of that, I do not see the substance, just talking. Sorry.
Cripes, you are absolutely happy to flip flop in almost subsequent posts between filtering==bad and filtering==good?
Remember this is your response to your comment: "I don't want to get into
soundquality messed up by FIR filtering and questionable quality of in-room mesurements again"
No, as I clarified just a post or so ago (which you obviously choose to selectively read): I introduced the idea of the drc *analysis tools* (see where the emphasis lies?)
As an aside, I find DRC useful, but it's the *analysis tools* which were the topic. See just to recap (since obviously this needs spelling out in very small words), the topic was about trying to find tools which can interpret measurement data somewhat similarly to the way the ear processes.
There are plenty of steady state FIR measurement tools, clearly this is a poor approximation of how the ear measures though, but there is still something of a handful of tools which do something more advanced than 1/6th octave filtering....
By the same definition, so also are the cables, the DAC, the amp, the transducers and also the room.
"Audiophiles" seem to believe that it's fair game to fiddle around trying to find a pair of speakers which "match" an amplifier, and yet really this is just a case of trying to find two convolutions which have the smallest error at the output. I think it's well on topic to introduce a carefully calculated convolution that also tries to do exactly the same (but it's frequently easier to fiddle with some software than cart in lots of heavy transducers)
What people often seem to misunderstand is that calculating these filters is quite difficult and I think it's going to take a while for the knowledge to filter through the industry.
Some people care about results.
Some other people get stuck within their own little world of wisdom.
The problem - those people don't develop themselves an inch further.
The ones who care about substance - asking for measurements and explanations - are a very very little special interests minority.
This minority is usually that ignorant that they neither tried any of those
recommendations or even worse don't even have such a device at home.
They are probably not even able to do those measurements (at the required level) they are asking for by themselves.
(I guess you - phofman - and of course Ed the Great don't belong to that group - every claim (especially the ones challenging my claims) of your highnesses has been scientifically proven)
This kind of forum talk is nothing else then talking about opinions and findings. Even measurements wouldn't add anything constructive to it.
This is why I prepare the stuff that way that everybody can try it
with a little effort. Shall others try to prove it scientifically - I neither have the time nor the resources to do that.
Some other people get stuck within their own little world of wisdom.
The problem - those people don't develop themselves an inch further.
The ones who care about substance - asking for measurements and explanations - are a very very little special interests minority.
This minority is usually that ignorant that they neither tried any of those
recommendations or even worse don't even have such a device at home.
They are probably not even able to do those measurements (at the required level) they are asking for by themselves.
(I guess you - phofman - and of course Ed the Great don't belong to that group - every claim (especially the ones challenging my claims) of your highnesses has been scientifically proven)
This kind of forum talk is nothing else then talking about opinions and findings. Even measurements wouldn't add anything constructive to it.
This is why I prepare the stuff that way that everybody can try it
with a little effort. Shall others try to prove it scientifically - I neither have the time nor the resources to do that.
BTW - just a little anecdote about DRC user guide to be found on duffroom correction (Ed's home-turf):
Step 1 "Setting up your Hifi System"
"..consider chopping off the exposed chunk of wire and stripping back another inch and using that. Removing oxidation on cables makes a big difference to the bass..."
Not to forget. There a two more significant steps:
1. Get "large leavy plants" in and
2. "measure everything"
That'll be it. Very impressive stuff.
Ed -- I hope you are as critical within your DRC community as you are here.
And again for you Ed:
What I am saying is that DRC respectively filtering can improve things if e.g. the room associated problems are bigger than the filter associated problems introduced to the signal.
Though if the room is OK you better stay out of filtering with its 100 different ways of introducing this or that error.
Step 1 "Setting up your Hifi System"
"..consider chopping off the exposed chunk of wire and stripping back another inch and using that. Removing oxidation on cables makes a big difference to the bass..."
Not to forget. There a two more significant steps:
1. Get "large leavy plants" in and
2. "measure everything"
That'll be it. Very impressive stuff.
Ed -- I hope you are as critical within your DRC community as you are here.
And again for you Ed:
What I am saying is that DRC respectively filtering can improve things if e.g. the room associated problems are bigger than the filter associated problems introduced to the signal.
Though if the room is OK you better stay out of filtering with its 100 different ways of introducing this or that error.
And, since you are so very friendly to repeatedly correct other people's spellings:
"Harmon Kardon" are at least as good as Yomoho.
I *think* you are finally agreeing with me? It's not clear though... Perhaps it's just badly worded?
I think you are agreeing that without some way of objectively moving forward, it's impossible to move forward? If you just sit there and "fiddle" then there is a potential to simply go round in circles. It's easy to *change* things, it's actually much harder to *improve* things
For example I observe that *my* ears at least (I believe all ears, but...) "get used" to the sound of my system. So for example I know (partly because I measured) that I have a bass peak resonance which isn't fully corrected, and I could hear it clearly (and it annoyed me) when I last adjusted my system. However, some time has now passed and I now don't notice the peak in normal listening... Certainly for me at least the ears adjust to the system... (So I don't have golden ears...)
This is why I dispute that measuring system changes should be left *only* to measurement by "ear". Audio memory is fairly poor. (If you really want to dispute this, please go write some letters to the authors of some good AES papers on this - I guess I ought to provide some links, start with this: AES E-Library: Ten years of A/B/X Testing ). However, I already stated that there aren't good measurement models which predict what the ear hears, so certainly a combination of measurement and listening is necessary
So, I'm not really sure how to respond to your latest mad change of tangent where you have somehow jumped from "latency" to "drc" to "potted plants"
How about: Given that a decent measuring mic starts at around £40, what possible reason is there NOT to measure all your changes?
I agree it's not easy to relate measurements to perceived performance, but you wont get better at it by not doing it... The potential upside is that if you *can* start to figure out the relationship then you have a fantastic new tool in your bag...
I got into "DIY" originally because I had spent quite some years "fiddling" around and swapping things around based purely on listening tests (and spending quite some £000's on kit). After some time I realised that I was starting to go around in circles and that I had no proper basis for evaluating improvements other than "Sounds different. Kind'a like it...". Once I started measuring things I quickly realised that it gave me a massive tool for predicting what equipment was more likely to work, ideas for searching for better performance, etc
By all means if you just want to hand wave that's fine. However, I stand by my claim that making changes without measuring the before/after behaviour *objectively* is not science, it's just fiddling. (It's not "wrong" either, it's just amateur)
(I simply can't believe that I'm having to justify such a simple thing? Look, if someone turned up to "calibrate" your TV and they just used their eyes while fiddling with the controls you would throw them out? The "Pro" will turn up with some calibrated measuring equipment and measure all the gamma curves before/after and use that as a basis for making changes (yes I also own such equipment). Likewise if someone turned up to help you integrate a subwoofer and all they used was their ears then surely you would also chuck them out? The Pro would measure (before/after) delays, crossover effects, show waterfall plots, etc, etc? How does anyone argue that this stuff isn't anything other than second nature??!!)
For anyone who isn't already measuring everything, at least have a look at say REW - seems like it's just a quick install and off you go for more Windows users?
Room EQ Wizard - REW Home Page
A soundcard can also be used a a very high quality way to measuring electrical outputs from amplifiers/pre-amps, etc. Just beware that you use appropriate protection for levels, etc...
Dear Ed.
You really don't get what I am talking about.
I am not opposed against measuring stuff -- I've even studied telecommunications engeneering some time ago. ( And have been long time practising it. And have been sitting in front of measurement equipment for
long long hours)
I am just saying that those DIY-amateurs just can't afford what would
have been required to deliver what you ask for.
I said that earlier: Am i supposed to buy +20k equipment to prove
that my 50$ amp or my 100$ PC or my 150$ DAC sounds better after
switching off the screen of my 250$ SB Touch?
You might guess that I had to had some tools at hand to set up my
DRC.
Don't try to tell us that a 40$ Behringer is the microphone to start high sopisticated measurements. It gives you rough indications -- that's about it.
A good mike, a preamp and a good soundcard + calibration service will cost you 1000$ € to start with.
That'll get you on a reasonable semi-professional level.
Other highest quality measurement equipment to tackle the microinformation on the HW side will cost you +20k.
99,9% of all (DIY-) audio geeks won't be willing to invest that much.
Not to forget that even if you'd have that equipment at hand it would need pretty high skills to measure correctly and to interprete those measurements correctly.
Listening tests won't cost me anything, except time.
You really don't get what I am talking about.
I am not opposed against measuring stuff -- I've even studied telecommunications engeneering some time ago. ( And have been long time practising it. And have been sitting in front of measurement equipment for
long long hours)
I am just saying that those DIY-amateurs just can't afford what would
have been required to deliver what you ask for.
I said that earlier: Am i supposed to buy +20k equipment to prove
that my 50$ amp or my 100$ PC or my 150$ DAC sounds better after
switching off the screen of my 250$ SB Touch?
You might guess that I had to had some tools at hand to set up my
DRC.
Don't try to tell us that a 40$ Behringer is the microphone to start high sopisticated measurements. It gives you rough indications -- that's about it.
A good mike, a preamp and a good soundcard + calibration service will cost you 1000$ € to start with.
That'll get you on a reasonable semi-professional level.
Other highest quality measurement equipment to tackle the microinformation on the HW side will cost you +20k.
99,9% of all (DIY-) audio geeks won't be willing to invest that much.
Not to forget that even if you'd have that equipment at hand it would need pretty high skills to measure correctly and to interprete those measurements correctly.
Listening tests won't cost me anything, except time.
Yep, that's exactly what I'm going to tell you.
The ECM8000 is decently flat through most of the midrange and then the small size of it's diaphram (and probably fairly average tolerances) dictate it's high and low freq performance (which you would expect to tail off just by looking at the design of the mic, and indeed you would generally be right).
Quality control doesn't seem to be too bad with the ECM8000 and for example here is a thread (just one of many on google) comparing the results a bunch of people got when comparing calibrated results - conclusion was that a range of mics tested were pretty close to each other in measured performance:
Behringer ECM8000 still the one to get?? - Page 5 - Home Theater Forum and Systems - HomeTheaterShack.com
More to the point the mic is extremely consistent between measurements.
What people overlook is that even a cheap SPL meter will very accurately tell you if noise A or B is louder. However, only a very, very expensive meter will tell you absolutely what the SPL is of each of A and B.
The same kind of applies to measuring mics. Even a cheap mic will give you good consistency and allow you to compare A with B on a *relative* basis. However, you *will* need a calibration done on your mic if you want to know the frequency response of a given mic (most will tail off at each end)
Getting a calibration done need not be that expensive. Even a cheapo ECM8000 will calibrate up pretty nicely and should be more than enough for what most people need to step up from "fiddling" to "proper science"
Also, a half decent soundcard makes a more sensitive scope than most of the cheaper dedicated scopes. There is not so much software out there, but when tuning hums and buzzes, don't overlook hooking up the PC while you tune components
So in summary, NO, I don't see why you need spend more than a small sum to move from the "guessing" to the "measuring" side of the fence? Spending a bomb will obviously get you much better equipment, but it's crazy talk to suggest that you need to spend +20K to get started?!!
I'm not in the US, but first couple of hits from google:
ECM8000 *with* individual calibration: $80
Cross·Spectrum - Calibrated Behringer ECM8000 Microphones for Sale
Dayton EMM-6 *with* individual calibration: $70
Cross·Spectrum - Calibrated Dayton Audio EMM-6 Microphones for Sale
Stock Dayton EMM-6 $48, comes with a "calibration file", but this seems to be more of a generic profile than an individual measurement:
Dayton EMM-6 Electret Measurement Microphone | Parts-Express.com
ECM8000 *with* individual calibration: $80
Cross·Spectrum - Calibrated Behringer ECM8000 Microphones for Sale
Dayton EMM-6 *with* individual calibration: $70
Cross·Spectrum - Calibrated Dayton Audio EMM-6 Microphones for Sale
Stock Dayton EMM-6 $48, comes with a "calibration file", but this seems to be more of a generic profile than an individual measurement:
Dayton EMM-6 Electret Measurement Microphone | Parts-Express.com
soundcheck said:
So, those who don't blindly follow random unsubstantiated advice, and who try to evaluate their equipment using actual logic are the ignorant ones? Wow.
soundcheck said:
Well, there's something we agree on. It is your *opinion* that your tweaks are beneficial. It's fine to have an opinion, but you need to qualify a lot of what you state as fact as opinion. Otherwise you're just lying to people.
...my words!
perhaps for scientific reasons, there are much better mics to buy, but i think a mic which can easy detect spl differences, smaller then 3db, is mostly better, than the human ear.
i made comparisons to measurements of speakers, out of the german diy magazine "hobby-hifi", which were measured with high-end equipment, with very similar results, even in spl, phase response, or CSD. (i use behringer, too).
i think the much bigger problem is to learn how to measure in a proper way.
very good. I think you are right. I could buy the ECM800 but the real problem is how to use it!
For instance, do you use a preamp or rather you get directly into the soundcard? In that case how to correct the mic the overall response given that the soundcard will add something? I guess the ECM800 needs balanced input isn't it?
Best Wishes
P
The ECM8000 needs a microphone preamp with phantom power - most outboard pres do have that. I actually just use one of the mic inputs on a Behringer ADA8000, which performs admirably.
But yeah, connecting directly to a sound card won't work (- unless of course it's a proper mic input with phantom power!)
But yeah, connecting directly to a sound card won't work (- unless of course it's a proper mic input with phantom power!)
I have given a few suggestions on software you could use before, more options available, but REW actually looks pretty good as a starting point?
You need phantom power to many mic's and given that your soundcard probably doesn't offer this, then yes you will need a pre-amp. Build yourself or buy something cheap like the Behringer pre-amp.
(I did find a German company selling calibrated mics, including battery powered pre for some very reasonable price like 100 EU, can't find them now...)
The response from your soundcard had better be so flat that you can use it as a ruler or you should send it back!! Connect the output to the input and do a test just on the soundcard using something like RightMark to check. Some AC3 cards will ONLY work in 48Khz or they introduce disasterous resampling artifacts - discover this first. However, apart from that even cheapo AC3 cards have performance which is several orders of magnitude flatter than your speakers... Again any imperfections will be there from run to run so you can easily "calibrate" your soundcard and perhaps even your pre-amp if you wish
The behringer pre-amp is I think either single ended or balanced. Balanced is preferred if your soundcard offers it, but you can adapt balanced to single ended easily enough if not. (Therefore always prefer balanced where it's offered - you can get rid of the other half of the signal if you don't need it)
I think the output from the DRC analytics is exceptional (don't get excited about the DRC project - talking about the analytics included with it...). Also Uli's Acourate software is superb. ETF is a bit old school but many people like it (in general use only log sweep IR recording methods these days). Lots of other ideas available if you start to ask
Good luck
To remain on the cheap side you can buy only the mic and build a pre with this pcb and the instruction on the pdf on the same page.
It is an implementation of the Wallin mic preamp:
Eric Wallin's Internet Homepage
I built this pre and a mic with this electret capsule (uncalibrated) and obtained good results for IR measurements and successive DRC filtering.
Ciao
Andrea
It is an implementation of the Wallin mic preamp:
Eric Wallin's Internet Homepage
I built this pre and a mic with this electret capsule (uncalibrated) and obtained good results for IR measurements and successive DRC filtering.
Ciao
Andrea
NS-320U USB Storage NAS
NS-320U USB Storage NAS Print File FTP BT DLNA server on eBay.ca (item 320602491060 end time 12-Oct-10 18:56:16 EDT)
Hey, I bought one of these units on ebay. It's a pretty handy little device.
I already put snake os, and installed mediatomb (on a usb stick plugged into the unit.)
If I were to rip my audio onto a usb hard disk, might I be able to stream music to a device like the squeezebox?
Thanks,
JG
NS-320U USB Storage NAS Print File FTP BT DLNA server on eBay.ca (item 320602491060 end time 12-Oct-10 18:56:16 EDT)
Hey, I bought one of these units on ebay. It's a pretty handy little device.
I already put snake os, and installed mediatomb (on a usb stick plugged into the unit.)
If I were to rip my audio onto a usb hard disk, might I be able to stream music to a device like the squeezebox?
Thanks,
JG
If you're able to install Squeezebox Server on Snake OS, your setup should work feeding a Squeezebox.
Otherwise you can make use of the number of network file services provided of that device.
But that requires a network client ( which becomes the actual audio server) able to handle DLNA/UpnP/NFS etc.
This client has to do the management and processing of those files. An external ( a 2nd server) Squeeezbox Server wouldn't work with DLNA/UpnP. NFS would do.
Some advise about network servers.
1. Do some planing beforehand. Especially prior to buying a new device.
2. I wouldn't go for NAS device as server because of the inbuild inflexibility and
usually pretty low performance of those devices.
You could use e.g. Vortexbox as a primary server OS.
In my case, I just install a normal Ubuntu and install some extra
services. I am trunning an 1.66 Atom processor with 4 GBit RAM.
Sometimes I think it should go faster. My pretty old Dual Core 2,16
Notebook is ways faster when processing data.
3. Consider the server not only as audio server. Built a multimedia server.
Video streaming plus picture databases should IMO also be considered.
You might also put standard data on thet server. ( I do)
You don't want to have a 2nd server or NAS to be managed.
4. The server should have one or two GBit ethernet ports. Forget
100MBit ports.
5. Audio data HDDs should be attached via SATA or eSATA.
On my PC USB HDDs management/operation noticeably slows down the
server performance.
6. Backup Media can be attached via USB though.
7. Operate two backup disks. One for day2day backups one for long
term backups. It might happen that you backup a corrupted master
database, which corrupts your day2day backup device.
Loosing a well grabbed and tagged collection plus all your fetched
albumarts would be the worst case scenario. This should never happen!
Another large USB disk will cost you a 100$. Go run -- get one now!
8. The processor and RAM needs to be dimensioned according to size of
your database (collection), clients and services running in the network
and DSP work to be done (such as room convolution, sample rate conversion,
etc.). You might also use that server as normal desktop PC and file
server for normal PC work and your picture collection.
If you have a rather large collection of a couple of hundred albums do a
rescan of the Squeezebox Server database on a NAS like device.
You'll see what I am talking about. It'll take ages.
If you run several WLAN client devices the server gets also a lot of work
to do. The server would need to manage a lot of streams. You'll notice
that.
To wrap that up. If you're serious about multimedia networking do some planning beforehand. It IMO requires a well designed network server
to provide best performance. The typical low performance and inflexible NAS devices I wouldn't recommend at all.
Good luck.
Cheers
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.