@Jay: I have met plenty of experts in my time. There are a few on this forum, although most have the humility that comes with knowledge and would not claim that title. I am not one of those. You are most defiantly not an expert by any standard measure. Unless apple have stolen expert like they have genius
Where have I claimed any tittle? 🙂 But of course I have records...
What I have said is that computing is my expertise. This is what I do for a living.
If you were an expert, it is fine if you don't have humility. But if you're not, you have to have one.
OK I have a question,
I know its sounds nuts but, does anyone know how you could connect a turntable to an RIAA pre-amp and connect the pre-amp to a some kind of radio device to transmit at a distance to input to a power amp?
A bit like a USB to blue tooth or wifi?
Something like analogue to wifi rather than digital to radio link.
A remote record player..😀
Regards
M. Gregg
I know its sounds nuts but, does anyone know how you could connect a turntable to an RIAA pre-amp and connect the pre-amp to a some kind of radio device to transmit at a distance to input to a power amp?
A bit like a USB to blue tooth or wifi?
Something like analogue to wifi rather than digital to radio link.
A remote record player..😀
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
😀 yes but can you get something or do you need an FM transmitter and decoder😀
I have the sudden urge to connect my Linn sondek to my system in the other room..😀
I guess I could build an FM transmitter and play it through a couple of old valve radios I have..but it would be nice to have some kind of digital conversion and transmit in decent quality to the HIFI. I have no idea why..😀
I guess you could put the turntable in a different location in the same room..sometimes its not convenient to have it by the preamp/integrated.
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
Hi and thanks for the very helfpul advice
I liked the fact of the platter ... once i tested a stiff carbon fiber disc to be used with the cds and it seemed to make the sound better
I think it was from Audio Tekne ? quite expensive ...
Regards, gino
Duh....and not relevant to this discussion.
Yes, and that is why polarity switching is essential.
Get someone to stand between your speakers facing you and talk.
Get them to face away from you and talk again.
Two different sounds, and facing away from you is the 'wrong' sound.
Rubbish.
Yes, but with vocals even more apparent provided the speakers themselves are not causing polarity issues.
The phase problem is in the transition band, and reason to use steep order filters thus minimising erroneous acoustic cancellation/summing.
Once out of the transition band the drivers need to be in same acoustic phase.
This again goes back to filter order.
The question is relative phasing of the drivers.
Absolute acoustic phase is ideally corrected in digital upstream of amplification and speakers.
Good, the speaker drivers need to be in one polarity, and then the appropriate signal polarity needs to be fed in order to cause correct acoustic polarity in the room.
Most but not all recordings have each sound source recorded in the same polarity, however the overall polarity is not guaranteed, thus the need for polarity switching.
Also playback equipment is not of uniform polarity, further reinforcing the need for polarity switching.
Please try running Foobar with Foobar2000 VST Wrapper and learn to hear the difference.....once done you won't look back.
We have all been told that speaker polarity does not matter, but ime this could not be further from the truth.
For sine wave sounds this is correct, but for natural sounds this is most certainly not so.
It's all about slew rates of positive and negative half cycles and speaker distortion is mainly second harmonic distortion.....think it through.
Why the Fuss about Plus?
Dan.
Adding mass to the spin motor turntable changes the spin motor current variations.
This can have audible consequences due to power supply and earthing arrangements within the cd player.
Dan.
Dan, this is all using the internals - obviously the worst possible case, totally reliant on the engineering of the machine, whose priority is to compute, not produce good sound, to minimise interference with the analogue signal. On the laptop, using the most direct processing path, the value of a single numerical parameter is enough to make a big difference - it's a fiddly exercise, getting the best combination of settings.
Except for going into soundcard properties and ticking "disable all enhancements", what can be done ?.
Dan.
The output module has quite a number of settings - this is WASAPI - and these affect the SQ on my laptop. The why would be a function of how the processing and resultant electrical activity then subtly alter, sufficiently to mean that there is an optimum combination, for this machine. I haven't gone nuts to find the very best combo, to the last decimal place, because now the sound is quite satisfactory for the purpose of picking up fine detail, and not being irked by obvious deficiencies. Maximum loudness is highly limited, it's just not worth going to another level of fussiness - it's purely an exercise to see what impact my usual type of tweaking can have.
Looks like foobar definitely won't be my default player - tried playing a CD off the CD-ROM drive using the settings from yesterday, absolutely dreadful! The software constantly fidgets, accessing that drive, and the hard drive and it tells - digititus of the worst order, impossible to listen to anywhere near the machine.
Media Monkey swallows up a track or chunk as fast as possible, then hibernates while playing - this works for this machine - the power supplies are given a decent chance to do their job as best they can.
Media Monkey swallows up a track or chunk as fast as possible, then hibernates while playing - this works for this machine - the power supplies are given a decent chance to do their job as best they can.
Last edited:
Foobar has a latency setting that may help if set to high value.
Maybe a setting to commit the whole track to ram also.
Dan.
Maybe a setting to commit the whole track to ram also.
Dan.
Possibly. I would need to do a whole lot more experimenting, check out what other people have tried, etc, etc. Thing is, Media Monkey performed well straight out of the box, and that obviously has got me on side now - foobar may get there, but looks like it needs lots of kicking and tickling in various places to get the best out of it - do I want to do all of that ... ? 🙁
Cool. Thanks for the info. I have never observed/assessed the vocal that way (will try next time). Quite similar when I try to assess which one is L-channel and which one is R-channel 🙂
Of course I know about audibility of speaker absolute polarity. May be you can find my posts from 10 or more years ago about it. I built my first speaker around 30 years ago, and when you work with speakers, you may have accidental experience where when you switch the cable the sound just get better/worse.
IME, depends on something (may be recording, etc.) the effect can be brutal but can be marginal. Remember when Pavel (PMA) posted listening test with 1.wav and 1_inv.wav. He said that the effect wa marginal at best and you said that the difference was so "obvious". Pavel then challenged you to post a FoobarABX result but unfortunately you didn't. I myself, wont say anything with high certainty if I'm not ready with proof. That way you let Pavel and SY laugh behind your back 😱
I could do 8/8 with Foobar and I think it is the limit of my hearing so I agree with Pavel that it is almost inaudible. What is more true, I didn't know which one was better, 1.wav or 1_inv.wav.
Forr, OTOH, thought that inverted one was better. It was an interesting comment because I tried going back and forth to justify my feeling that inversion has been done deliberately, not an accident. Because inversion seemed to have helped "something" in the sound, in a certain way. Tho of course I know that non-inverted is theoretically correct because it has more impact and definition. Only by focusing on the "attack" (or soundstage?) I can pass the ABX. Focusing on the vocal? I'm not so sure but next time I'll try (with your tip/trick).
A side note - and relating back to the theme of this thread: just changing the media player on an almost zero cost, 2nd hand laptop gives me unsatisfactory, irritating sound vs. highly satisfying, subjectively competent reproduction. And I experience the same 'dilemma' when listening to very expensive, "engineered" systems - there is that same discrepancy between a setup working well, and one where there is at least one significant, audibly objectionable flaw - and all the money that has been thrown at the systems, as is, has not stopped the poorer one from being so.
This is the underlying headache for digital, that it is so easy to turn pleasure into pain - and unless it is looked at in the same fiddly way that I need to with my laptop, then it is highly likely that it will never be resolved properly ...
This is the underlying headache for digital, that it is so easy to turn pleasure into pain - and unless it is looked at in the same fiddly way that I need to with my laptop, then it is highly likely that it will never be resolved properly ...
Last edited:
I knew your concept of digital "distortion". That's why I understood why you thought that Foobar was doing something wrong, or why you didn't like Foobar. Because it does sound like "digital".
Unfortunately I have never heard that Monkey Something player.
Hi and just to say that i agree completely.
I am trying to get a decent sound out of my pc these days.
I see many people obsessed with HW ... but my feeling is that really SW (i.e. OS and SW players) can be the weak part.
I do not know why people are focusing mainly HW while OSs for instance are so important
Usually the problem with OS is that they are overloaded with features.
Not only ... many people still keep the pc connected to the net and get all kind of unwanted programs from it.
Today many very very good usb dacs and interfaces are available.
The problem is just to feed them with a decent usb signal.
I have noticed that "light" OSs, i.e. OSs not requiring powerful HW resources to run, have the potential to sound better than OSs loaded with unwanted programs. When i open Task Manager and i look at the running processes i am sincerely shocked 😱
what is going on ????
To stream audio files from a Nas is not a very demanding task in the end.
Thanks again, gino
Last edited:
Microsoft have some info on how an application (client) interfaces and calls with its OS. OS creating a one second sized shared buffer (some where in ram) and transfers date between endpoint devices and the shared buffer at half second intervals.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dd316756(v=vs.85).aspx
Also the capability of the OS to react to hardware changes like adding a USB device during playback. First detecting the new device and then redirecting the audio stream.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dd316756(v=vs.85).aspx
Also the capability of the OS to react to hardware changes like adding a USB device during playback. First detecting the new device and then redirecting the audio stream.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.