For systems with loudspeaker taller than 1.5meter, equalizers will not beat going full active+a good loudspeaker management unit (time delay, digital x-over).
I've seen such a system (properly adjusted loudspeaker management) that can go totally flat in RTA without any EQ, sounds really nice (very different sound than RTA flat system with passive xover).
I've seen such a system (properly adjusted loudspeaker management) that can go totally flat in RTA without any EQ, sounds really nice (very different sound than RTA flat system with passive xover).
tone controls
My listening room is also my living room and for obvious reasons I've no intention to convert it to a anechoic chamber or so.
Flawed ears? Yes. They too suffers from age.
Regarding loud speaker, this is what D. Self says about cone controls (and I fully agree with that):
"I plan to ignore convention once again. I think tone controls are absolutely necessary, and it is a startling situation when, as frequently happens, anxious inquirers to hi-fi advice columns are advised to change their loudspeakers to correct excess or lack of bass or treble. This is an extremely expensive way of avoiding tone controls."
Bas Horneman said:
My listening room is also my living room and for obvious reasons I've no intention to convert it to a anechoic chamber or so.
Flawed ears? Yes. They too suffers from age.
Regarding loud speaker, this is what D. Self says about cone controls (and I fully agree with that):
"I plan to ignore convention once again. I think tone controls are absolutely necessary, and it is a startling situation when, as frequently happens, anxious inquirers to hi-fi advice columns are advised to change their loudspeakers to correct excess or lack of bass or treble. This is an extremely expensive way of avoiding tone controls."
There is always room to drive down the costs/prices. There is no (or very little) room to improve quality.
Example: a recent article in the AES journal proved beyond any doubt that there is absolutely no difference (measured or ABX) between SACD and classic CD. If there is any difference, it then comes from the original recording quality which may be better if SACD was the targeted media. Otherwise said, don't bother to buy old records on SACD. It won't make a shred of a difference.
Example: a recent article in the AES journal proved beyond any doubt that there is absolutely no difference (measured or ABX) between SACD and classic CD. If there is any difference, it then comes from the original recording quality which may be better if SACD was the targeted media. Otherwise said, don't bother to buy old records on SACD. It won't make a shred of a difference.
syn08 said:
Did they test the player used to confirm it was capable of the full SACD format's resolution? Or simply presume it since there's no audible difference between CD and SACD anyway? (Hint: look for the Sensible Sound (as I recall) review, measurements and technical discussion of the player.)
I already write myself posts that electronic parts, tube rectifiers, wires, loudspeaker drivers, sources, amplifiers, make no difference. Its entertaining. Are we sponsored by Radio Shack yet? Or I have to keep on posting?
I think there is...but it probably is not going to happen.
Since as I spotted on a pro-audio forum. This is the type of remarks serious audio engineers are confronted with.
This is a post by Bruno Putzeys. Forgot the forum. ("These people" are the folks from companies like TI etc I suppose.)
"What's worse, when you start discussing with these people they'll actually try convincing you that if you've got different requirements, it's your requirements that need changing. Paraphrasing from a recent e-mail exchange:
Me: "The digital filter you've designed in disqualifies it for use in a completely transparent piece of kit. The errors are cumulative."
Him: "But seriously, you can't ignore the amount of silicon area and power savings we've been able to make using this filter!"
And some guy Quince posted this.
Quoted:
...Makes me wonder if there might be a newer and better DAC chip coming out soon...
And his remark:
These days "better" frequently means smaller, less power consumption, lower voltage rails and above all cheaper!
hermanv said:
You are absolutely correct. Sharp mechanical resonances has to be corrected mechanically. But I never saw any speakers nor rooms (let me rephrase myself) that don't benefit from a good graphics EQ. I'm designing high end PA systems where comparison is direct, and no excuses for preferences for sound colorations nor other presuppositions about "how it should sound", because it should always sound real and everyone in the concert hall hears the difference immediately.
syn08 said:
Absolutely right. I tried SACD and found no difference. The same equipment is used to record them. Mostly it contains lot of opamps (read: diff pairs and class AB output buffers), A/D converters, equalizers, compressors and noise gates, and recording / mastering engineers who decide how it should sound. Transformer balancing, class A stages and analog faders are in past and are available only in few studios; mostly it is a mass production gear with transformerless inputs, automated VCA controlled chains, digital EQs, compressors/gates, reverberators... While it is a good compromise to use a good digital reverberator instead of a very expensive concert hall, the rest is result of curved economical path...
That's been over at PSW:
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/0/17469/32/0/
I've had my share of "redirecting answers" from "these people", too. Asking one vendor how their so-and-so DAC will respond to intersample overs, I got replies like "carefully produced CD's won't sport IS-overs" (which is, of course, true) etc. ... only after greater while of penetrating them they finally admitted "Actually, we have never investigated the chip's performance in this problem area". Aha...
- Klaus
Bas Horneman said:
Case in point, two of the recent megabuck CD players use 20yr. old chips. Like I keep saying, there is virtually no financial reward for a large IC company in this end of the business.
At $80,000 why they don't use an all discrete DAC is beyond me. In fact I once saw a tube DAC using a 1000V reference so the variation in the diode switches was a wash, only 12 bits though. IIRC the TDA1541 was really only 14bits and dithered the last two, but I might remember wrong.
rdf said:
Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback
JAES Volume 55 Issue 9 pp. 775-779; September 2007
Authors: Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R.
Affiliation: Boston Audio Society, Lincoln, MA, USA
They D/A the SACD output, then re-sampled to the CD format and D/A again. There was no difference in the ABX tests between the two analog outputs. Unfortunately I can't post the whole article, it's copyrighted.
You're fast with the edits. Fortunately I found the paper you referred to in the original post, looks like very interesting reading. Thx.
Yes, it was the Meyer paper as originally thought. As I recall the mid to low end consumer player employed was based on a chipset essentially incapable of meeting the full format spec. It was also my impression Meyer didn't test of it or any other experimental equipment. On my read it was a valid test of a couple pieces of equipment and little more.
Yes, it was the Meyer paper as originally thought. As I recall the mid to low end consumer player employed was based on a chipset essentially incapable of meeting the full format spec. It was also my impression Meyer didn't test of it or any other experimental equipment. On my read it was a valid test of a couple pieces of equipment and little more.
The Meyer paper used several different systems, but it is probably worth asking on their forum if that detail was attended to.
How common is it for SACD players (which seem to be quite expensive) to have duff DACs? I'd think that their target market argument would be relevant but I'm blissfully ignorant here.
How common is it for SACD players (which seem to be quite expensive) to have duff DACs? I'd think that their target market argument would be relevant but I'm blissfully ignorant here.
I accept that tone controls can adversely affect the purity of the signal but to what extent?
If the benefits out weigh the penalties it is a no-brainer.
Having four doors in my car seriously affects the rigidity of the structure adds weight and gives me poorer performance.
There is nothing inherently wrong with convenience, those $80,000 speakers that don't sound as good in the new room may be tolerable with a twist of a knob. Surely this more sane than swapping cables........whoops. 😀
If the benefits out weigh the penalties it is a no-brainer.
Having four doors in my car seriously affects the rigidity of the structure adds weight and gives me poorer performance.
There is nothing inherently wrong with convenience, those $80,000 speakers that don't sound as good in the new room may be tolerable with a twist of a knob. Surely this more sane than swapping cables........whoops. 😀
tone controls
Obviously, those who are dead against tone controls have never been in a sound studio.
Obviously, those who are dead against tone controls have never been in a sound studio.
I am currently using open baffles, don't go down don't go up. Simple bass and treble boost is what I want. Could be fixed eq but switched controls are real convenient. And then there is my cds and vynl which are all equalised differently. It is all about the end sound in the room that I think is most important, how you get there depends on so many things.
Wavebourn said:
Try good Telarc recordings of classical music, with pure DSD chain. They usually name all the equipment used, from mikes to edit.
I can see that many here have not much experience with good recordings.
Re: tone controls
During my university years, I spent about 2 months in sound studios and recorded classical music.
We speak about hiend sound reproduction here. The problem is a use of cheap opamps, gear like Behringer EQ is best to avoid. I have also resigned to use of active opamp crossover, opamp sound trace is inevitable.
Edmond Stuart said:
During my university years, I spent about 2 months in sound studios and recorded classical music.
We speak about hiend sound reproduction here. The problem is a use of cheap opamps, gear like Behringer EQ is best to avoid. I have also resigned to use of active opamp crossover, opamp sound trace is inevitable.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.