And this hits firmly into Howie's point 2. It would be nice to find some common ground on why you need to spend more than a few hundred on a DAC.
Measurements from one of the DIY synergy projects done on here. Whilst it could use a sub, I don't see several percent there. In fact looks pretty damn good. Also a point source over most of the range.
Attachments
Last edited:
<snip> The time-honored attitude of "I'm sorry if you hearing sucks so badly you can't hear what I do" which pervades much of the amateur audio sphere is not productive, other than for that persons weak ego. I'm glad that the name calling here is of a higher caliber.
Although name calling or generally a more heated discussion appears quite often, it´s imo not only a matter of weak egos, but an underestimation of the differences that occure between individuals. As you´ve said, up to know, we mainly can´t really look into the brains, so are bound to the report by the subjects.
As our usual recording/reproduction scheme is a very lossy version of reality, we have to strongly rely on listeners learned abilities (sometimes even talents). It´s not only the pattern recognition, that you´ve mentioned, but the overall picture including scene analysis and perception of spatial qualities.
Variability between humans can be quite large and that leads to your second next point.
Our brain processes the sensory input and is constantly trying to create a perception that is compatible to our former experience. Interindividual difference can be quite large considering the various trigger effects needed to do that.
It is very important to synchronize the phrasing/wording to be able to discuss the perception of sound events. I´ve cited in the past some articles by Choisel/Wickelmaier related to this when the authors tried to explain what they do to work with a listening panel.
A further extension is used in some food tests where the evaluaters try to find common ground in their sensory description and sometimes are facing difficulties although using standardized terms. They use then specific foods as reference markers for the various descriptive terms.
It is obviously a bit more difficult wrt audio, but is worth a try.
True, but finding cause and effect is always much more difficult and the audio field isn´t the only one suffering from that.
Or accommodation?
I think i´ve misinterpreted, at leas partly, the point in this test/long term listening story.
It seems more related which way to detect sonic difference overall not so much to the question if you could find corrobation in a short term experiment.
Jakob, what is your take on the soundwheel?
http://assets.madebydelta.com/docs/...nt_Perceptual_characteristics_of_audio_UK.pdf
I feel this is a step in the right direction, although without relevant training materials we are back to square one. Maybe that is something we can work on in this forum, as in producing samples that people can use to re-wire a few synapses?
http://assets.madebydelta.com/docs/...nt_Perceptual_characteristics_of_audio_UK.pdf
I feel this is a step in the right direction, although without relevant training materials we are back to square one. Maybe that is something we can work on in this forum, as in producing samples that people can use to re-wire a few synapses?
thd of .5-1% is very good. And, I assume the freq response was measured near-field as it is very smooth. And distortion measured at 1W (typ) always looks better than what we actually apply to speakers for listening (higher input power= higher distortion)..
One could take This speaker and listen near-field and have excellent results. One other good point for listening near field is that the power into the speaker is much lower for a given listening spl. This translates into lower distortion being produced/ heard.
A broader point is that one can take what ever speaker they have now or what ever thier budget is and listen to them near-field and get more accurate listening results. However, best results would be from speakers specifically designed for near-field listening.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
If 1W is loud for you, listening in near field will be louder and so, your speaker distortion will also be lower if you use less power when listening near-field.
In my system... even with high effec. speakers, I average 10W into speakers for my listening levels at the listening position in my room. I estimate that most speakers are much lower in efficiency than mine.
However, the primary subject is listening near field will let you hear only the speaker without the room influence -- which is substantial.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
The story was to point out that when we talk about what is or is not audible, and to whom, it is not a stationary number. It depends on multiple variables some of which are poorly understood and may differ from person to person.
To test somebody once, or even a few times with even a very good ABX or similar type of test cannot necessarily pin down the limits of audibility for that person. The tests we typically use due to practical considerations are necessarily shorter term and don't necessarily shed much light on what may be audible or not under other conditions and circumstances.
I don't know the SPL exactly, but I can say that Richard seems to like to listen at higher SPL than I normally do.
That is the 100dB level measurements. Even listening at THX ref levels most of us will not exceed this.
That is not always possible.
A very flat FR often coincides with other adjustments for speaker playback. FR alone is not the best determiner of SQ, or remotely close, really. We hear defraction as one of the worst things (fatigue, really bad soundstage/imaging). Stored energy, and poor release of it is immensely audible (waterfall plot). Where as a 5db variance can go unnoticed if it isn't caused by a more offending quality.
This is why a DSP to get a perfect FR never is a cure-all for perfect sound across the whole FR spectrum, it isn't going to account for all of the reflections, defractions, etc etc.
There's a lot of things to tackle with speakers... And a lot of it will boil down to subjective preference.
This is why a DSP to get a perfect FR never is a cure-all for perfect sound across the whole FR spectrum, it isn't going to account for all of the reflections, defractions, etc etc.
There's a lot of things to tackle with speakers... And a lot of it will boil down to subjective preference.
^^^^
Try as you might, it may not go well. It's pretty easy to get comb filtering, or boundary reinforcement issues.
It think it should be possible to build a good DAC/HPA board in China for around $100, less power supply and case. Somewhere around there, maybe a little more for top quality components, say, $150 or so. Only problem is nobody makes exactly what is needed right now. It is all either rock-bottom-cheap, or gimmicky. Nobody goes for straightforward really good, but low cost. I don't know if anybody there who makes DAC boards knows how to do it, but I don't think there is any doubt it could be done. Maybe they just don't think there is much of a market for that.
Last edited:
It depends where you are measuring it. EQing a driver flat can actually reduce distortion due to ringing for example.
There are always exceptions.
I listen at 'realistic' spl's. About 85-90db spl at home.
As measured and published over the decades of live acoustic performances -- such as orchestra.
example:
https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/55/8/893/264708
One reason to listen at the level it was played is for accurate tonal/sound balance. especially the bass.
-RM
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.