But they hold differing views on what that directivity should be. Toole would like to see wide fispersion so that you can get a substantial 1st reflection.
dave
But only from the sides. Otherwise he highlights:
"Memo for Listening room recommendations: add sound absorbing material to front wall."
"Memo for Listening room recommendations: for stereo listening, leave side walls reflective at first-reflection points. For multichannel listening it is optional. Audio professionals may have their own preferences—it’s all right, they are just different."
"Memo for Listening room recommendations: add sound absorbing material or diffusers to center portion of rear wall."
"Confirming memo for listening room recommendations: add sound absorbing material or diffusers to center portion of rear wall."
"Memo for Listening room recommendations: use reflecting or scattering surfaces on
walls opposite side-surround loudspeakers to enhance envelopment. Be careful
about flutter echoes between the side walls."
"Memo for Listening room recommendations: think twice (or more) about using dipole
surround loudspeakers. There seem to be better choices."
I see more agreement between Toole and Earl than between Toole and the rest of the consumer audio industry.
Best, Markus
Dan
Never 🙂 Have you every met someone that wants to prove himself wrong after he has stated in public that he is right?
Never 🙂 Have you every met someone that wants to prove himself wrong after he has stated in public that he is right?
Ok, i'm not going to go into a debate about jitter, but effectively the digital signal needs to have the transitions of the ones & zeros as steep as possible no? If they are rounded you have introduced a possibility of jitter induced distortion.
It's interesting to see how modern manufacturers are trying to eliminate this nowadays with ridiculously accurate clocks. Another reason i'd not use any Toslink cable as the transmitter & receiver are kind of slow 😉
Sorry for going slightly off topic, back to audio cables 😀
Rounding 1s and 0s has me a bit perplexed. Can anyone explain it or show me something that explains it.
Thanks,
Dan
Thanks,
Dan
SY or Tube Guy(I believe you are the ones involved here), can you briefly write the conditions of the test and when it will take place? A link to the stated conditions would be fine.
Thanks,
Dan
Thanks,
Dan
Hi Dan, i suggest you look up information on what happens to be the highest speed digital around right now (i could be wrong 😀). See what happens to an HDMI video signal run through a long cable. The cable capacitance slows transitions & above about 5 - 10M you might actually end up with nothing worth watching (cable & equipment dependant) as the receiver can't lock onto the source or is intermittent 🙄
Repeaters can be used & some actually reshape the waveform to give faster edges & thus reduce problems.
I know it's not all audio but the same thing applies, if the data edges are rounded then at what point does the receiver know to switch from high to low etc. Timing is everything, you only need to look at things like the DCX2496 thread to see that 🙂
Repeaters can be used & some actually reshape the waveform to give faster edges & thus reduce problems.
I know it's not all audio but the same thing applies, if the data edges are rounded then at what point does the receiver know to switch from high to low etc. Timing is everything, you only need to look at things like the DCX2496 thread to see that 🙂
"Faster edges" and "rounded edges" etc when talking about digital signals along cables doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
However, if you think that two cables carrying the same digital info "sound" different from each other then there is a straightforward test....drum roll.....a dbt! Yes folks the dreaded dbt is back (not that it ever left the building) and can also be applied to cables carrying digital data.
When you did your test to determine that the MIDI cable was better, was it sighted or dbt? I'm guessing sighted. Now, where's that beer?😎
In "normal" (ie computer) digital data transfers it is not first-order important. Data is trasferred and a (later) parallel clock then times in that data. Jitter is not relevant. A bit of rounding does no harm providing it doesn't extend the edges of the data changes into the time where the clock changes.
In the pretty unique situation of a single wire/optical channel carrying data in seria with no separate clock, eg SPDIF out from a rotating CD, it CAN be different.
Something has to time-in the serial to parallel data conversion and if the timing is crudely and simply derived from the edges of the data transitions then you have, poetentially, a problem. Houston.
The signal transmitted is analog. Ideally it would be a train of square waves. That thou requires infinite bandwidth so never happens. The rounding being refered to is the misshapen squarewaves.
dave
Hi Dantheman
Signal Integrity, transmission line, manchester encoding, eye diagrams and this site
beTheSignal.com
should give some insite into the fun that is transferring very high speed digital signals these days.
Signal Integrity, transmission line, manchester encoding, eye diagrams and this site
beTheSignal.com
should give some insite into the fun that is transferring very high speed digital signals these days.
That's a good one Cal. Sorry, I'll try to keep from getting silly. It seems all the carrying on got the best of me. You gotta admit it's funny.😀
How 'bout you boys put your swords away and get back on topic.
Thanks Dave, your post makes sense to me. My comprehension of the digital realm is severely limited.
Cliff, I've read your post a few times and I'm starting to get what you're saying. Thanks! I'll have to do some serious research. Anyone got any good links?
Dan
Quite true - taken in its entirety there is almost no difference between Toole, Olive and I. We differ a hoiw wide the CD should be and thats just about all.
Dbt
Dan, the test conditions were described several times earlier in the thread. I'm a bit work-slammed, so no time to dig up the link for you, but search for the stuff with me and TG1954. We'll do the test once he decides he's ready to go.
Dan, the test conditions were described several times earlier in the thread. I'm a bit work-slammed, so no time to dig up the link for you, but search for the stuff with me and TG1954. We'll do the test once he decides he's ready to go.
To the latecomers, it is me (unfortunately) to whom Tom is referring...
You know how terrible that is, someone makes a claim on an audio forum and (horror of horrors) some idiot would like to see said claim backed up somewhere...
As you can see from Toms most recent post his benchmark is, and always was, accuracy and realism (as opposed to "I love it!" for example)
Well, we all know that there is no worse insult possible to an audiophile. Heck, you'd think I insulted his wife...wait, that happened before when AJ inmsulted his wife (now they are 'friends' again) so you see it is a far worse insult.
And, I am afraid, the posted 'measurement' does little to change my opinion about how true to live unamplified music a single driver actually is, no matter which box it is mounted in. 'Nothing' under 100 hz or over 10k is true to life???
It seems you cannot make (on the face of published responses at least) truthful comments without them being interpreted as berating, disparaging comments. The latest 'measurement' shows exactly the same deficiencies all single drivers seem to display. As you found out markus, to point that out is disparaging.
BUT, despite all that Tom is the ONLY one to step up to the plate and put his jewels on the line. For that he really needs to be applauded and encouraged.
For me one Tom is worth a thousand empty others.
You know how terrible that is, someone makes a claim on an audio forum and (horror of horrors) some idiot would like to see said claim backed up somewhere...
As you can see from Toms most recent post his benchmark is, and always was, accuracy and realism (as opposed to "I love it!" for example)
and so when I discovered he used a single driver ( no matter how good) in an untreated room I simply pointed out that it was unlikely to be very true to source (as opposed to him absolutely loving it..a different goal).
Well, we all know that there is no worse insult possible to an audiophile. Heck, you'd think I insulted his wife...wait, that happened before when AJ inmsulted his wife (now they are 'friends' again) so you see it is a far worse insult.
And, I am afraid, the posted 'measurement' does little to change my opinion about how true to live unamplified music a single driver actually is, no matter which box it is mounted in. 'Nothing' under 100 hz or over 10k is true to life???
It seems you cannot make (on the face of published responses at least) truthful comments without them being interpreted as berating, disparaging comments. The latest 'measurement' shows exactly the same deficiencies all single drivers seem to display. As you found out markus, to point that out is disparaging.
BUT, despite all that Tom is the ONLY one to step up to the plate and put his jewels on the line. For that he really needs to be applauded and encouraged.
For me one Tom is worth a thousand empty others.
Which is what I took to be the primary difference though not a subtle one. FWIW I agree with your perspective.
Hi,
Very wise words indeed.
Wiser still if one would realise that no matter how sloppy or not we all are in our linguistic ability to express our observations, subjects we are and therefore by definition subjective.
Wisdom comes with age, or so they say. Sometimes age comes without wisdom.....
Cheers, 😉
Very wise words indeed.
Wiser still if one would realise that no matter how sloppy or not we all are in our linguistic ability to express our observations, subjects we are and therefore by definition subjective.
Wisdom comes with age, or so they say. Sometimes age comes without wisdom.....
Cheers, 😉
- Status
- Not open for further replies.