Hi,
Well as Mark gave some purely subjective opinion about 'sound quality' within commercial dac offer and his own view of what a 'good enough' system is to his own preference here are some answer to this:
Do you really think the ( best) tools used at recording, mixing and mastering stage of the production of the message you'll then after playback aren't up to the task?
I mean the logic tells us the global quality of a chain is defined by the quality of its weakest link... if this tools weren't up to task you won't be able to have some wonderful reproduction in the end... or it would be compromised and you wont hear this with some custom high end home brew design, at best it'll be transparent or bring on something from his own ( colouration pleasant or not).
If it is transparent then how are you sure it is? What is your reference material?
Mark told something true: all audio components have a 'sound', a signature. But in my experience as a sound engineer i know there is a threshold about level of quality which once you passed it the difference are of the domain of preference and marginal at best between units.
When i talked about Prism as the most transparent i've heard ( in multi adc/dac, as 2 chanels Weiss and Lavry Gold are ahead to me) i talk about comparison i've made during recording and playback of real musicians playing in front of me, or case where i converted master analogue Tape for mastering duties.
In other word i had real reference to base my advice on it, no an image i've built up in my mind of what sound should be.
Of course my opinion can be discussed and implie a judgement relative to my own preferences but still i try to be objective and was trained to be.
The question relative to technical issues about this kind system doesn't hold to me too.
We have tons of documented infos with measurements to tell a multi dac system is up to the task of loudspeaker managing system.
I'll just post a link where you can just check what it is about:
Audiolense Digital Loudspeaker and Room Correction Software Walkthrough - CA Academy - Audiophile Style
The converters are Lynx, the measurements talks by themself.
Don't get me wrong i'm not telling you one can't compete to this kind of things diy. But what about stability of answer? I repeat in a professional context you fight against time and you can't waste it solving technical issues which should not exist.
Those systems if configured as they should are stable and of 'state of the art' sound quality.
Of course as the pro are deaf they can't know... that's why you can see things like this:
BDA Studio
And even if the genres are not your things you'll agree his credits are impressive regarding the level of quality expected and reached:
BDA Credits
Have you spotted the Dacs?...
Joerens you'll use Acourate so ask directly to their forum what is best used and why with their products.
I don't doubt about their answer.
Well as Mark gave some purely subjective opinion about 'sound quality' within commercial dac offer and his own view of what a 'good enough' system is to his own preference here are some answer to this:
Do you really think the ( best) tools used at recording, mixing and mastering stage of the production of the message you'll then after playback aren't up to the task?
I mean the logic tells us the global quality of a chain is defined by the quality of its weakest link... if this tools weren't up to task you won't be able to have some wonderful reproduction in the end... or it would be compromised and you wont hear this with some custom high end home brew design, at best it'll be transparent or bring on something from his own ( colouration pleasant or not).
If it is transparent then how are you sure it is? What is your reference material?
Mark told something true: all audio components have a 'sound', a signature. But in my experience as a sound engineer i know there is a threshold about level of quality which once you passed it the difference are of the domain of preference and marginal at best between units.
When i talked about Prism as the most transparent i've heard ( in multi adc/dac, as 2 chanels Weiss and Lavry Gold are ahead to me) i talk about comparison i've made during recording and playback of real musicians playing in front of me, or case where i converted master analogue Tape for mastering duties.
In other word i had real reference to base my advice on it, no an image i've built up in my mind of what sound should be.
Of course my opinion can be discussed and implie a judgement relative to my own preferences but still i try to be objective and was trained to be.
The question relative to technical issues about this kind system doesn't hold to me too.
We have tons of documented infos with measurements to tell a multi dac system is up to the task of loudspeaker managing system.
I'll just post a link where you can just check what it is about:
Audiolense Digital Loudspeaker and Room Correction Software Walkthrough - CA Academy - Audiophile Style
The converters are Lynx, the measurements talks by themself.
Don't get me wrong i'm not telling you one can't compete to this kind of things diy. But what about stability of answer? I repeat in a professional context you fight against time and you can't waste it solving technical issues which should not exist.
Those systems if configured as they should are stable and of 'state of the art' sound quality.
Of course as the pro are deaf they can't know... that's why you can see things like this:
BDA Studio
And even if the genres are not your things you'll agree his credits are impressive regarding the level of quality expected and reached:
BDA Credits
Have you spotted the Dacs?...
Joerens you'll use Acourate so ask directly to their forum what is best used and why with their products.
I don't doubt about their answer.
Last edited:
Tnt, yes clocks matters of course but receivers play a role too.
That's why i told some gear sound best selfclocked ( using their own internal wordclock as global source for a chain). When receiver skew the clock...
Since 10 years though the gear as well evolved and differences are less obvious than what it was 20y ago about clocks ime. I've had some interesting demo of second gen Protools dacs ( 888 horrible things!) And Sony DASH3348HR Clockeds to various clockwords source around 2005 and it was enlightning about the need for a good one for the 888, for the DASH it was less obvious (as the clock they used were already very good).
With my own gear ( Dolby Lake) i've performed some round of comparison of clocks and there was still 'improvements' to be find over the Dolby's own clock or RME's one but it was marginal: mostly the stereo width changed a bit in rendering, from 'centered an flat' ( Cranesong Hedd) to more 'convex' and a bit more depth ( Antelope standard)... in the latest one i've done. Tbh, with two other engineers present i was the only to spot differences minutes but it was my gear and place. Others heard them but slower and we all agreed the differences wasn't worth spending 4500e...
Those are details and preference related to me... but still my gear is able to resolve this kind of subtilities and i've been trained to identify them, despite being a former pro. 😉
Leadcoma, don't worry about this kind of systems: they works all day ,all years at various place around the world and people makes money to live with them: if they are not up to task it is quickly known through Gearslutz or other proaudio dedicated forum.
Visit them to have review and experience of users. I've used motu in the past and they were stable ok sounding. I don't see why it shouldn't still be now.
That's why i told some gear sound best selfclocked ( using their own internal wordclock as global source for a chain). When receiver skew the clock...
Since 10 years though the gear as well evolved and differences are less obvious than what it was 20y ago about clocks ime. I've had some interesting demo of second gen Protools dacs ( 888 horrible things!) And Sony DASH3348HR Clockeds to various clockwords source around 2005 and it was enlightning about the need for a good one for the 888, for the DASH it was less obvious (as the clock they used were already very good).
With my own gear ( Dolby Lake) i've performed some round of comparison of clocks and there was still 'improvements' to be find over the Dolby's own clock or RME's one but it was marginal: mostly the stereo width changed a bit in rendering, from 'centered an flat' ( Cranesong Hedd) to more 'convex' and a bit more depth ( Antelope standard)... in the latest one i've done. Tbh, with two other engineers present i was the only to spot differences minutes but it was my gear and place. Others heard them but slower and we all agreed the differences wasn't worth spending 4500e...
Those are details and preference related to me... but still my gear is able to resolve this kind of subtilities and i've been trained to identify them, despite being a former pro. 😉
Leadcoma, don't worry about this kind of systems: they works all day ,all years at various place around the world and people makes money to live with them: if they are not up to task it is quickly known through Gearslutz or other proaudio dedicated forum.
Visit them to have review and experience of users. I've used motu in the past and they were stable ok sounding. I don't see why it shouldn't still be now.
Last edited:
TNT, you talk about bling for which stuff?
Because i see no bling into the ref i gave (i never found 19" racks to have any bling to them). If it is about the options allowed well, those are pro tools and need some flexibility in use so options and other capability are presents ( which may be of no use for hifi i agree).
Because i see no bling into the ref i gave (i never found 19" racks to have any bling to them). If it is about the options allowed well, those are pro tools and need some flexibility in use so options and other capability are presents ( which may be of no use for hifi i agree).
Hello krivium, thank you very much for your posts and information. I really appreciate this! It helps me now I am going to enter the DSP based audio world .
I also did read more about Barry Diament Audio (BDA) and how somebody with his experience in recording, mastering etc. did build up his system to reproduce the sound during recording.
Interesting to so by the picture of his studio he is using more or less the same speaker setup I am using. Like Barry I am using Magnepan speakers but I use the bigger MG20 (who I did upgrade, looks like his are stock and can be much improved), and I also use 2 subwoofers (mine are servo controlled Velodyne subs).
I agree that at a certain point most very good DAC’s are able to provide a very good analog output of the digital audio signal. They can sound different and some you like and some not. In my case I use the Metrum Adagio NOS DAC which I like because of its big nice sound stage and very good low frequency reproduction. They are very well priced and compared to really expensive DAC’s out there.
When I read your last posts correctly you advice me not going in the direction of using 3 stereo Metrum DAC’s but go for an multi DAC to avoid jitter/ timing differences between the 3 DAC’s.
Is that correct?
I read you use the Dolby Lake, I did read Barry is using the Metric Halo ULN-8 (older version).
I also did read people who are using the Lynx Studio Aurora and the Merging Hapi.
The Merging NADAC looks like a audiophile level of product but also expensive compared to the ones mentioned above.
Are you advising to use such a product?
If I move to such a multi DAC solution I also have to check again what kind of output to use from the DSP PC. Will I still use the RME HDSPe AES or is it also possible to use USB or Ethernet?
I have purchased an Acourate software license and soon will start using it with my current system.
I did add an photo of my current system to give you an impression of it.
I also did read more about Barry Diament Audio (BDA) and how somebody with his experience in recording, mastering etc. did build up his system to reproduce the sound during recording.
Interesting to so by the picture of his studio he is using more or less the same speaker setup I am using. Like Barry I am using Magnepan speakers but I use the bigger MG20 (who I did upgrade, looks like his are stock and can be much improved), and I also use 2 subwoofers (mine are servo controlled Velodyne subs).
I agree that at a certain point most very good DAC’s are able to provide a very good analog output of the digital audio signal. They can sound different and some you like and some not. In my case I use the Metrum Adagio NOS DAC which I like because of its big nice sound stage and very good low frequency reproduction. They are very well priced and compared to really expensive DAC’s out there.
When I read your last posts correctly you advice me not going in the direction of using 3 stereo Metrum DAC’s but go for an multi DAC to avoid jitter/ timing differences between the 3 DAC’s.
Is that correct?
I read you use the Dolby Lake, I did read Barry is using the Metric Halo ULN-8 (older version).
I also did read people who are using the Lynx Studio Aurora and the Merging Hapi.
The Merging NADAC looks like a audiophile level of product but also expensive compared to the ones mentioned above.
Are you advising to use such a product?
If I move to such a multi DAC solution I also have to check again what kind of output to use from the DSP PC. Will I still use the RME HDSPe AES or is it also possible to use USB or Ethernet?
I have purchased an Acourate software license and soon will start using it with my current system.
I did add an photo of my current system to give you an impression of it.
Attachments
Very nice system with a dedicated room. It must kick some .ss!
I will answer tonight when works is over.
I will answer tonight when works is over.
Initially I had to plan to use a PC with PC card like the RME HDSPe AES to output 3 AES signals (low, medium and high frequency) out of the PC and use 3 stereo Metrum DAC’s to perform the DA conversion.
I did read people advising to use a multi DAC with 6 or 8 channels (like the Merging Hapi) to perform the DAC because this would lead to better performance.
For me at this moment it is not clear why this would be better.
The Metrum Adagio I have now is a really good very analog sounding DAC which I expect will perform better than the Hapi regarding DA conversion.
I just want to understand why a “lower” performing 8 channel DAC like the Hapi would be a better choice. Is anybody able to explain this or has anybody experienced this in practice?
I also add a photo of the “acoustic” sealing I have. On the photo also my 4k beamer which I use to beam on the wall behind the Magnepan speakers (wall has special paint to beam on). It consists of a mixture of paper and glue that they spray against the ceiling, which is available in several colors.
I did read people advising to use a multi DAC with 6 or 8 channels (like the Merging Hapi) to perform the DAC because this would lead to better performance.
For me at this moment it is not clear why this would be better.
The Metrum Adagio I have now is a really good very analog sounding DAC which I expect will perform better than the Hapi regarding DA conversion.
I just want to understand why a “lower” performing 8 channel DAC like the Hapi would be a better choice. Is anybody able to explain this or has anybody experienced this in practice?
I also add a photo of the “acoustic” sealing I have. On the photo also my 4k beamer which I use to beam on the wall behind the Magnepan speakers (wall has special paint to beam on). It consists of a mixture of paper and glue that they spray against the ceiling, which is available in several colors.
Attachments
One reason to use a single dac is that there is then only one master clock for all channels. That can keep all the dacs time-aligned to the sample level. Also, using one very high quality crystal master clock is one part of keeping jitter very low.
OTOH, using PLL clocks derived from SPDIF is always going to be more jittery.
To describe the situation in a little more detail:
If using SPDIF/AES/TOSLINK type serial protocols there are three basic ways of designing a dac to work with those signals: (1) PLL derived from SPDIF embedded clock, or (2) ASRC (hopefully referenced to high quality dac crystal clock; the digital audio is resampled, but if the math is done right it can sound better than a PLL), or (3) FIFO (which is bit-perfect and can have arbitrarily low jitter; the downside is that it introduces a time delay; also its possible for the FIFO buffer to overrun or underrun if there are no or infrequent silent pauses in playback, say, no silent gaps between songs).
Asynchronous USB has none of the above issues that SPDIF/AES/TOSLINK type protocols have. However, a multi-channel asynchronous USB dac can only be time synchronous with its own internal master clock. Therefore it is best to put all the needed channels in one dac, if possible.
OTOH, using PLL clocks derived from SPDIF is always going to be more jittery.
To describe the situation in a little more detail:
If using SPDIF/AES/TOSLINK type serial protocols there are three basic ways of designing a dac to work with those signals: (1) PLL derived from SPDIF embedded clock, or (2) ASRC (hopefully referenced to high quality dac crystal clock; the digital audio is resampled, but if the math is done right it can sound better than a PLL), or (3) FIFO (which is bit-perfect and can have arbitrarily low jitter; the downside is that it introduces a time delay; also its possible for the FIFO buffer to overrun or underrun if there are no or infrequent silent pauses in playback, say, no silent gaps between songs).
Asynchronous USB has none of the above issues that SPDIF/AES/TOSLINK type protocols have. However, a multi-channel asynchronous USB dac can only be time synchronous with its own internal master clock. Therefore it is best to put all the needed channels in one dac, if possible.
Last edited:
He is trying to pass misinformation for business purpose without being seen in public where he gets called out as it happened before. 🙄
Based on the photo, your listening room is highly reflective on the walls (& likely ceiling) and has comb filtering effect on the floor due to carpet. You would benefit greatly on sound quality by working on room acoustics (absorbers, diffusers, bass traps). It will be many times more effective than spending time and money on DAC. In other words, you have a priority and it sure isn't jitter level in DAC.
For once I am inclined to agree with Mr. Harmonics as follows: The room should be treated before resorting to DSP for correction.
Hello Evenharmonics and Markw4, thank you for your feedback!
I totally agree that it should be possible to improve the room acoustics by applying damping and diffusion. In parallel with the study how to setup my software DSP and what DAC to use I will perform new measurements with REW and try to interpret what to improve regarding room acoustics.
I totally agree that it should be possible to improve the room acoustics by applying damping and diffusion. In parallel with the study how to setup my software DSP and what DAC to use I will perform new measurements with REW and try to interpret what to improve regarding room acoustics.
Hi,
JoerenD,
Merging i know a bit but not their hifi offer and not their latest offer.
I used Pyramix and it is was a very good experience to me ( never been a fan of Protools).
The hardware they had at that time was different so i won't talk to much about it but... like Nagra, Studer, Weiss, Merging is Switzerland based brand.
And there is some cultural thing in Switzerland about accuracy and neutrality...
To be honest i won't expect something different than the other pro brands we already talked about
One thing is it seems now to be 'standard' for classical recording and this should tell something about the quality of ADC/DAC.
Now about the detailed offer: Nadac seems impressive that is sure. But at 10k euros without psu ( 5k euros) and without options to be master clock ( there is only input) it will impose a limitation.
So let's say you want to use 3x Nadacs how could it be possible to set everythings up for your threeway?
You could use a digital out card like RME or Lynx in AES, or use the network Asio Driver to attack them in rj45 ( no need for digital out card anymore). But you'll still need to clock them to the same clock source so you'll imho need a Merging Clock too ( i suppose it will be around 5k euros too).
So it'll make for a stereo threeway something like 50000 euros.
Now let's forget the hifi range and take a look at the pro one: an Horus will do 8 chanel and offer a truckload of possible option to be added if you need it. With 8 da it should be in the 7k euro range.
An Hapi with 8 dac should be in the 5k euro range but with much less expansion options.
With both you won't need a clock as you can run them by themself and use their own wordclock as source in your own setup ( if you need it).
Is there a difference between Nadac and an Horus or an Hapi?
Well probably as the Nadac use a 'trick' to lower noise and distortion ( they parralell 4 dacs for one chanel, same as SSL did with their VCA ( Black and Gold cans vca) in their 4000E/G analog consoles and was then copied latter ( i used it (as others did) as it is can be very effective for vca at least ). But it wasn't even something new: // transitors used in aop or mic's console inputs or MC preamps (if you ever have/had a TT) ...
Is it worth 10x the price? I will let you discover by yourself but even without listening to it for me it doesn't... the amount of money to spend will allow you to built a total listening room designed by an acoustician and including 90% of gear... it doesn't really make a rational choice to me as you will experience much more improvements from acoustic treatments than from same amount of money on dacs, but it is a pov than can be discussed.
About older gear like my Lake or the Uln or anything else: if hardware sound good there is no reason it won't 20 years latter.
Good sounding ADC/DAC exist for a long time, the difference with recent offer is in the medium /entry level market: older designs didn't always sounded good, recent offers with bad sound quality are fewer imho.
In the high end segment the differences are more along the specifications, older ones being 'limited' in frequ ( 192khz is often the high limit, 96khz sometimes) and use 'older' transfer protocol ( Aes, Adat,...).
JoerenD,
Merging i know a bit but not their hifi offer and not their latest offer.
I used Pyramix and it is was a very good experience to me ( never been a fan of Protools).
The hardware they had at that time was different so i won't talk to much about it but... like Nagra, Studer, Weiss, Merging is Switzerland based brand.
And there is some cultural thing in Switzerland about accuracy and neutrality...
To be honest i won't expect something different than the other pro brands we already talked about
One thing is it seems now to be 'standard' for classical recording and this should tell something about the quality of ADC/DAC.
Now about the detailed offer: Nadac seems impressive that is sure. But at 10k euros without psu ( 5k euros) and without options to be master clock ( there is only input) it will impose a limitation.
So let's say you want to use 3x Nadacs how could it be possible to set everythings up for your threeway?
You could use a digital out card like RME or Lynx in AES, or use the network Asio Driver to attack them in rj45 ( no need for digital out card anymore). But you'll still need to clock them to the same clock source so you'll imho need a Merging Clock too ( i suppose it will be around 5k euros too).
So it'll make for a stereo threeway something like 50000 euros.
Now let's forget the hifi range and take a look at the pro one: an Horus will do 8 chanel and offer a truckload of possible option to be added if you need it. With 8 da it should be in the 7k euro range.
An Hapi with 8 dac should be in the 5k euro range but with much less expansion options.
With both you won't need a clock as you can run them by themself and use their own wordclock as source in your own setup ( if you need it).
Is there a difference between Nadac and an Horus or an Hapi?
Well probably as the Nadac use a 'trick' to lower noise and distortion ( they parralell 4 dacs for one chanel, same as SSL did with their VCA ( Black and Gold cans vca) in their 4000E/G analog consoles and was then copied latter ( i used it (as others did) as it is can be very effective for vca at least ). But it wasn't even something new: // transitors used in aop or mic's console inputs or MC preamps (if you ever have/had a TT) ...
Is it worth 10x the price? I will let you discover by yourself but even without listening to it for me it doesn't... the amount of money to spend will allow you to built a total listening room designed by an acoustician and including 90% of gear... it doesn't really make a rational choice to me as you will experience much more improvements from acoustic treatments than from same amount of money on dacs, but it is a pov than can be discussed.
About older gear like my Lake or the Uln or anything else: if hardware sound good there is no reason it won't 20 years latter.
Good sounding ADC/DAC exist for a long time, the difference with recent offer is in the medium /entry level market: older designs didn't always sounded good, recent offers with bad sound quality are fewer imho.
In the high end segment the differences are more along the specifications, older ones being 'limited' in frequ ( 192khz is often the high limit, 96khz sometimes) and use 'older' transfer protocol ( Aes, Adat,...).
Last edited:
@JeroenD
You have a great looking system and the goal of digital crossover and DSP promises so much.
Can you enjoy DS DACs eg with Sabre chips? Some can and some just cant. If your using a Metrum DAC you might find DS just doesn't suit you despite the excellent specs.
If you can enjoy DS then all you need is:
WIFI from an existing PC to RPi and USB out to a MOTU UltraLite-mk5.
If you cant enjoy DS DACs your in for a challenge. Using a NUC with internal sound card can cause nasty noise issues. SPDIF can cause timing issues depending on the DAC PLL/buffer design and mixing different DACs would be even more detrimental. So if you need R2R based DACs there are some options with USB-multichannel I2S cards like the Audial but for timing integrity you will need to DIY the R2R multichannel DACs.
You have a great looking system and the goal of digital crossover and DSP promises so much.
Can you enjoy DS DACs eg with Sabre chips? Some can and some just cant. If your using a Metrum DAC you might find DS just doesn't suit you despite the excellent specs.
If you can enjoy DS then all you need is:
WIFI from an existing PC to RPi and USB out to a MOTU UltraLite-mk5.
If you cant enjoy DS DACs your in for a challenge. Using a NUC with internal sound card can cause nasty noise issues. SPDIF can cause timing issues depending on the DAC PLL/buffer design and mixing different DACs would be even more detrimental. So if you need R2R based DACs there are some options with USB-multichannel I2S cards like the Audial but for timing integrity you will need to DIY the R2R multichannel DACs.
"...the goal of digital crossover and DSP promises so much..."
Ah, but will it actually deliver?
Cheap dacs are not a good fit to a system already with electrostatic speakers and a dedicated room. Get the room right, position the speakers right, and listen with an analog source first (phono or tape, just make it the best quality you can manage). Does the sound still really need DSP to make it sound exceptionally good? That should not be the case if the analog part and the room are done properly.
@JeroenD: My room, speakers, and overall system are better than what you have. Better speakers, better amplification, better analog and digital sources. No need for DSP. First of all, there is no perfect dac. Get the best stereo dac you can afford, not a collection of cheaper ones. In the end you can get better sound that way.
Now if you were starting with a collection of box speakers to integrate together, particularly in a room that isn't right and can't be fixed, then sure, DSP and multi-amping could plausibly be expected to make it better than it would be otherwise. But you aren't starting from there.
Ah, but will it actually deliver?
Cheap dacs are not a good fit to a system already with electrostatic speakers and a dedicated room. Get the room right, position the speakers right, and listen with an analog source first (phono or tape, just make it the best quality you can manage). Does the sound still really need DSP to make it sound exceptionally good? That should not be the case if the analog part and the room are done properly.
@JeroenD: My room, speakers, and overall system are better than what you have. Better speakers, better amplification, better analog and digital sources. No need for DSP. First of all, there is no perfect dac. Get the best stereo dac you can afford, not a collection of cheaper ones. In the end you can get better sound that way.
Now if you were starting with a collection of box speakers to integrate together, particularly in a room that isn't right and can't be fixed, then sure, DSP and multi-amping could plausibly be expected to make it better than it would be otherwise. But you aren't starting from there.
^ sorry Mark but this is just plain subjective comment and from my experience about acoustic just plain non sense:
Please point me to a 'perfect room'? I've been lucky to have access to some of the most sought after room you could find ( Hidley's design, Lafont design, Malcurt design) and NONE OF THEM was anything but perfect about acoustic...
And this is why the good people of Trinnov, Genelec, whatever... include and promote dsp as an aid to good rooms... and are successful in their own business!
Then how could you define by ear if a chain ( including room and whatever the source, analog or digital or both!) need some dsp correction?
Put some measurement on the table and then we could elaborate further. And don't get me wrong, i'm not a digital ayatolah!
But tbh, i doubt you could say analog is blameless ...or your 'better' ( and on which parameters do you define better please?) everything audio related gear, loudspeaker, room, dacs,... could well be your room lacking of soundproofing if you don't ear blamefull NOISE from your MC ( which is supposed to be a straight wire with gain?! Or an absolute transparent reference so please give me this reference as i'm craving for something like that for my three TT!) or your Studer tape player?
Common Mark, when you talk about technical stuff most of what you say is based on things which are trustable/credible so what is the point to this 'preference' driven non sense blah blah?
Please point me to a 'perfect room'? I've been lucky to have access to some of the most sought after room you could find ( Hidley's design, Lafont design, Malcurt design) and NONE OF THEM was anything but perfect about acoustic...
And this is why the good people of Trinnov, Genelec, whatever... include and promote dsp as an aid to good rooms... and are successful in their own business!
Then how could you define by ear if a chain ( including room and whatever the source, analog or digital or both!) need some dsp correction?
Put some measurement on the table and then we could elaborate further. And don't get me wrong, i'm not a digital ayatolah!
But tbh, i doubt you could say analog is blameless ...or your 'better' ( and on which parameters do you define better please?) everything audio related gear, loudspeaker, room, dacs,... could well be your room lacking of soundproofing if you don't ear blamefull NOISE from your MC ( which is supposed to be a straight wire with gain?! Or an absolute transparent reference so please give me this reference as i'm craving for something like that for my three TT!) or your Studer tape player?
Common Mark, when you talk about technical stuff most of what you say is based on things which are trustable/credible so what is the point to this 'preference' driven non sense blah blah?
Last edited:
Sometimes people can't fix a room because of WAF, or because they don't own the room and or they don't expect to stay there long enough to make the investment worthwhile, etc. Maybe the room is just too small to develop a full soundstage with electrostatics. Could be various factors.
Regarding room treatment, by all means do measure the room. I don't say not to measure it so I don't know where you get the 'only by ear' idea.
Regarding measurements, an AP machine does not measure how any device or system sounds; it measures some 'figures of merit' often associated with bad sound if the measurements are poor. Good measurements don't necessarily correlate with good sound. Measurements and SQ are two only-partially correlated things, they are not entirely overlapping.
Regarding room treatment, by all means do measure the room. I don't say not to measure it so I don't know where you get the 'only by ear' idea.
Regarding measurements, an AP machine does not measure how any device or system sounds; it measures some 'figures of merit' often associated with bad sound if the measurements are poor. Good measurements don't necessarily correlate with good sound. Measurements and SQ are two only-partially correlated things, they are not entirely overlapping.
Last edited:
This is what it implies to me when you say:
But i agree it may be a shortcut from my side and very probably from yours too.
This i agree partially. Of course what you measure is arbitrary and doesn't get the full pictures.
What i find ironic is that in acoustic we (mostly) KNOW what to measure and what to perform for a 'good' sound. And since a long time as the first credible digital reverberation units are from 70's...
And there is a full documented research for this and even box to try if this is successful or not ( David Griesinger's Lexicon's units algorythm are still used despite being almost 40 y old and afaik still benchmark with Quantec's, Tc Electronics,...which all are 'synthetic' algo - no convolution involved).
In electronics there seems to be more 'uncertainty' despite the thing being less complex to handle and analyze than acoustic.
Or maybe it is just biasing and fog and mirrors... from my experience there is differences that can't be easily explained from time to time, but 99% a blind or double blind test will just sort everything as being bias driven.
Offtopic:
Mark,
You use panels loudspeakers too?
If yes could you advice on the acoustic treatments you performed for Early Reflection management?
I've not a lot of experience with this kind of loudspeakers and so would be ( intuitively) inclined to put diffusion rather than absorbers from the one i've heard ( and how i felt the rendition trend), but i'm not sure.
Mark,
You use panels loudspeakers too?
If yes could you advice on the acoustic treatments you performed for Early Reflection management?
I've not a lot of experience with this kind of loudspeakers and so would be ( intuitively) inclined to put diffusion rather than absorbers from the one i've heard ( and how i felt the rendition trend), but i'm not sure.
I use 645-frame-size Sound Lab electrostats. There is a mix of diffusion and absorption. Speakers are standing about about 4-feet from the back wall and also about that far from the side walls, toed in a bit towards the listening position. Room is not symmetrical nor is the ceiling parallel with the floor. Moderately heavy carpet on the floor. Soundstage is wide and very deep. One thing we found with electrostats like this is that for best SQ there cannot be any other speakers (aside from possible subs) in the same room, nor any musical instruments with diaphragms (such as drums) or that can otherwise easily resonate. They absorb and or otherwise interact with acoustic energy from the speakers that conveys soundstage width and especially depth information (i.e. low level decays).
Last edited:
That's a marketing ploy and nothing more. That is unless you can present the supporting evidence.