Mac mini, MacBook Air, iPhone 5, Ipod touch 6.
Don't normally use any of these for playing music, though.
Last edited:
Good point, but imo not the usual meaning of long term listening, as this difference might be spotted immediately after connecting the "other" device.
Ray, there are Mac drivers for the UH-7000. A popular, reasonably good, simple audio interface for Macs is this one: Apogee Duet - 2 IN x 4 OUT USB Audio Interface
You don't get real specs in that price range, unfortunately, and I don't know of much middle ground in terms of external interfaces that work with a Mac. If you had a full-size Mac then the Lynx card would probably have the necessary drivers.
Passing over the middle ground then, for the more SOA professional stuff 2-line inputs and 2-line outputs comes to about $4k. Say, a Benchmark DAC-3 for playback, and a 2-channel ADC of similar quality. Or, maybe one Crane Song Hedd Quantum. (there is that Q-word again.)
I guess it might be worth the gamble to try one of the above semi-mid-fi boxes and see how well it works for capturing things like different sounding caps. It might work. If you have something more accurate for playing back music you could use it as a source, no problem with that.
I suppose an alternative might be for you to put together a test box and send it off to be recorded somewhere else. Speaking of alternatives, could you give us a little more of hint about where you are located? Maybe that would give some ideas. I'm in Northern California.
You don't get real specs in that price range, unfortunately, and I don't know of much middle ground in terms of external interfaces that work with a Mac. If you had a full-size Mac then the Lynx card would probably have the necessary drivers.
Passing over the middle ground then, for the more SOA professional stuff 2-line inputs and 2-line outputs comes to about $4k. Say, a Benchmark DAC-3 for playback, and a 2-channel ADC of similar quality. Or, maybe one Crane Song Hedd Quantum. (there is that Q-word again.)
I guess it might be worth the gamble to try one of the above semi-mid-fi boxes and see how well it works for capturing things like different sounding caps. It might work. If you have something more accurate for playing back music you could use it as a source, no problem with that.
I suppose an alternative might be for you to put together a test box and send it off to be recorded somewhere else. Speaking of alternatives, could you give us a little more of hint about where you are located? Maybe that would give some ideas. I'm in Northern California.
Last edited:
Hi Mark,
The RTX-6001 is an excellent external sound card ... but wait! It's a piece of very good test equipment too and is priced around $2,500 US now. Software would run about $200 for a testing suite. That would be Virtins MI Pro. There happens to be a GB in progress for it that will offer complete integration with the RTX unit. So that package is a little over 1/2 the budgetary amount you suggested. Additionally it acts as a very useful piece of sound equipment. Yes, it sounds darned good too.
-Chris
The RTX-6001 is an excellent external sound card ... but wait! It's a piece of very good test equipment too and is priced around $2,500 US now. Software would run about $200 for a testing suite. That would be Virtins MI Pro. There happens to be a GB in progress for it that will offer complete integration with the RTX unit. So that package is a little over 1/2 the budgetary amount you suggested. Additionally it acts as a very useful piece of sound equipment. Yes, it sounds darned good too.
-Chris
Hi Chris, I probably wouldn't go that way since I already have a DAC-3 and adding a SOA ADC would probably cost less. Test suite is nice, but we have to make choices I guess.
For someone else perhaps RTX-6001 would be just the thing. Don't know if Ray has any interest in something of that nature.
For someone else perhaps RTX-6001 would be just the thing. Don't know if Ray has any interest in something of that nature.
Maybe we should call it 'long term acclimatization' or something to differentiate it long term listening?
I also do not understand that as an argument --- the old recording dont sound good... not accurate.
I have many recording that are musically interesting and only wish I could listen to it more often except for the sound is so bad, I can't do it.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
One of the core functions of our brains is to filter sensory data which has already been identified as non-threatening. We establish a semi-permanent neural pathway which allows us to ignore that data. Without this function we would never be able to actually function with the plethora of data coming in from every sense.
At it's core this is the reason why extended listening to familiar music allows one to detect small changes. The change does not fit the memorized pattern or stimulus and stands out far more than it originally would in the first listening. Despite its less than interesting (to me) music selection, we standardized on Doug Sax's Sheffield recordings for QC when designing a new piece of equipment or system. The fidelity was excellent with clean noise floors and high crest factors which exercised the systems. These days I am sure there are superior pieces to use.
Actually I found the fact that I was not really in love with the music (although I appreciated the virtuosity of the musicians) probably helped. In my experience if the emotional side of your brain is highly engaged the endorphins make it harder to keep the more analytical part of your brain focused on technical aspects of the music. Sort of the same reason you don't notice the thread count of the sheets when making love...anyway...
Anyway, after listening to these well-recorded selections many times I and the mastering and engineering team could hear relatively innocuous effects due to things like difference between DAs, it's filter settings, and minor interpolation from CD players which is usually pretty unnoticeable. An important addendum to this statement is the audibility of different flaws was different from piece to piece. Transient clipping was most audible with the Sheffield Drum & Track Recording, midrange eq issues with female vocals, etc. There is not a one-size-fits all sample to reveal all possible flaws.
I find this to be the optimum way to conduct an AB comparison; the commonalities are minimized by familiarity and the differences stand out.
Conversely when playing back new material unless the difference was stark there was no way any of us could make a judgment call. I'd like to say I was the best at detecting small differences, but a young woman mastering engineer was by far the best, and she sells systems for JL Audio now.
Just my $0.02 worth,
Howie
I don't think it was really intended as an argument. Scott was, I think, trying to point out that a lot of recordings people do like to listen to were made with caps in the signal path, etc., so a few caps and old opamps must not be all that bad. Something like that.
Hi Mark,
The RTX-6001 is an excellent external sound card ... but wait! It's a piece of very good test equipment too and is priced around $2,500 US now. Software would run about $200 for a testing suite. That would be Virtins MI Pro. There happens to be a GB in progress for it that will offer complete integration with the RTX unit. So that package is a little over 1/2 the budgetary amount you suggested. Additionally it acts as a very useful piece of sound equipment. Yes, it sounds darned good too.
-Chris
Seems expensive to me.... I didnt pay that much for the ShibaSoku 725D on e-Bay. I havent found any sound card type product with the ability to Accurately measure individual harmonics below -110dbv. They may show something below that but it cant be depended upon to be real data info.
If you would like to send it to me and I'll tell you how good it is against lab standard gear.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
I know that... I got it. I dont understand it as an argument to keep using them as the Sound quality is now far below SOTA.
The bar has been raised a lot since then.
"Liking" something is not the same as accurate.... so why does he mix the two up in defending caps and transformers? Again. As if liking the music is all we need and is therefore good enough. I am sorry, old recordings sound like ---- old recordings.
-Richard
Last edited:
Hmmm. Why are you here then? Dont care about quality? Maybe dont care about accuracy and realism also? Hmmm. Wrong forum for one of us?
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Yep. That is how all of us learn to do it. And, once something is detected, you hear it easily every time afterwards.
Takes a long time to learn/do it so many havent done it... looking for a quicker and easy way.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
We all have various reasons for being here. One hope is that there's a common love for music and audio. Beyond that, it's a wide swath, as music is (hopefully) an experiential thing.
I can listen to Uncle Bunt play his fiddle all day long off of old 78's. Your extreme case of that view is held by very few people, including most musicians. As long as you are using two channels and two speakers in a room the term accuracy is meaningless.
YouTube
EDIT - You guys are still flogging that -130dB stuff how silly.
Last edited:
Thanks for your reply. I agree with what you say, it makes sense to me, I tend to use familiar pieces for similar comparisons.
I also think, as Jakob mentions, listening for extended periods to different devices is a useful test, perhaps though for a slightly difference reason, that is to decide which is "better" as opposed to merely a difference. And by "better" I simply mean the one which is less tiring and more emotionally engaging etc.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.