The Creative X-Fi HD USB should work with your laptop. I have no idea why they specify Intel Core 2 Duo or AMD equivalent processor, 2.2 GHz or faster. I am running my PCIe Titanium Fatality Pro with an old P4 2.66GHz (single core) with only 1GB ram, XP with SP3. No issues. Perhaps others with laptops can advise you better.
I put in an order for a Creative USB DAc with a phono input (for $100 at newegg), to check the difference with it.
I got foobar2000 and the ASIO4ALL driver installed. Goofing with the EQ in it, I listened for sibilance. I got some nice results by bringing down the response a few dB at 7K and 10K. A little wanted information is lost doing so.
When the sibilant female vocals occur, I have to say that the vocal seems to be all over the frequency range. I can find pieces of it everywhere, and it seems a little bit of the sibilance may be in every part of it. ?
There are a few improvements to the sound, including some for the sibilance, that have been made. 1) The amp broke in (that helped). 2) Better speaker cables 3) Shorter interconnect and 4) I went from 18 to 12-gauge for the cable from the PSU to the amp.
At this time, on some recordings I can bring down the high sibilance with around -4 dB at 7 and 10 KHz (and -1 or -2 dB at 5 KHz). Other recordings don't need EQ. Next, I'll find out what an outboard DAC can do.
Cheers,
Mark
I got foobar2000 and the ASIO4ALL driver installed. Goofing with the EQ in it, I listened for sibilance. I got some nice results by bringing down the response a few dB at 7K and 10K. A little wanted information is lost doing so.
When the sibilant female vocals occur, I have to say that the vocal seems to be all over the frequency range. I can find pieces of it everywhere, and it seems a little bit of the sibilance may be in every part of it. ?
There are a few improvements to the sound, including some for the sibilance, that have been made. 1) The amp broke in (that helped). 2) Better speaker cables 3) Shorter interconnect and 4) I went from 18 to 12-gauge for the cable from the PSU to the amp.
At this time, on some recordings I can bring down the high sibilance with around -4 dB at 7 and 10 KHz (and -1 or -2 dB at 5 KHz). Other recordings don't need EQ. Next, I'll find out what an outboard DAC can do.
Cheers,
Mark
Last edited:
I am now using a new Creative HD USB DAC. I also got another PSU in (MeanWell 200-watt) and am trying that for the amp (interesting so far).
The new DAC makes it musical. The MeanWell may add a little bit over the Antek in this regard as well. In the MeanWellTime, the DAC makes a big difference as described.
I've spent some time listening with two settings. One with no EQ, and the other with an anti-sibilance EQ (These are listener-based perceptions). As the SQ has improved, and gotten more musical and smoother and better, the need for EQ has gone.
What is interesting is to compare using an EQ setting versus not doing so. These are harmonics only, and they can alter the sense of the overall performance (where a sufficient 5-10 KHz signal is going on).
I will paste in two uses of EQ. The first is for when I was still back with the onboard realtek. The second is for presently. As I say, i feel like I can go without EQ at this point.
Going by the second... Whether or not I use this setting is a bit of a trip when applying it in foobar. I have a few recordings I know very well that I have been experimenting with. One pair I found useful, Enya's "Watermark" and Annie Lennox's "Diva", as to either side of a sibilance line. Another disc that has been very useful is Jon Anderson of Yes, with "Angel - Change We Must". Speaking of which, Mr. Anderson seems to have the highest sibilance in frequency of the bunch.
The comparison between Watermark and Diva is good to draw a line in the sand. If there is sibilance with the Enya, then something is so wrong I can't even do it. If there is in the vocals with Annie Lennox, then this is simply a good disc for catching it. I think either should, as they say at the playground, "play nicely" as it is.
In the case of the Jon Anderson, this recording has him, a french soprano, a chorale of kids, an orchestra and some rock instruments. There's plenty of 5-10K Hz going on here (vocals). Also, this recording can get pretty busy.
At this point, with what I would call sibilant recordings are those with significant activity from 5-10 KHz. The letter S from anyone and symbols can do it.
If you are interested in the effect of the sound of these harmonics, here's a test I would offer. Try the second graph above, but using your flat speakers, invert it. Push the sliders up an equal amount to my down. Kick back. Click the enable button. Check it. Click it back. Check it. I'm getting some cool sounds. It really seems to change the air around the vocals on some recordings.
Cheers,
Mark
The new DAC makes it musical. The MeanWell may add a little bit over the Antek in this regard as well. In the MeanWellTime, the DAC makes a big difference as described.
I've spent some time listening with two settings. One with no EQ, and the other with an anti-sibilance EQ (These are listener-based perceptions). As the SQ has improved, and gotten more musical and smoother and better, the need for EQ has gone.
What is interesting is to compare using an EQ setting versus not doing so. These are harmonics only, and they can alter the sense of the overall performance (where a sufficient 5-10 KHz signal is going on).
I will paste in two uses of EQ. The first is for when I was still back with the onboard realtek. The second is for presently. As I say, i feel like I can go without EQ at this point.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Going by the second... Whether or not I use this setting is a bit of a trip when applying it in foobar. I have a few recordings I know very well that I have been experimenting with. One pair I found useful, Enya's "Watermark" and Annie Lennox's "Diva", as to either side of a sibilance line. Another disc that has been very useful is Jon Anderson of Yes, with "Angel - Change We Must". Speaking of which, Mr. Anderson seems to have the highest sibilance in frequency of the bunch.
The comparison between Watermark and Diva is good to draw a line in the sand. If there is sibilance with the Enya, then something is so wrong I can't even do it. If there is in the vocals with Annie Lennox, then this is simply a good disc for catching it. I think either should, as they say at the playground, "play nicely" as it is.
In the case of the Jon Anderson, this recording has him, a french soprano, a chorale of kids, an orchestra and some rock instruments. There's plenty of 5-10K Hz going on here (vocals). Also, this recording can get pretty busy.
At this point, with what I would call sibilant recordings are those with significant activity from 5-10 KHz. The letter S from anyone and symbols can do it.
If you are interested in the effect of the sound of these harmonics, here's a test I would offer. Try the second graph above, but using your flat speakers, invert it. Push the sliders up an equal amount to my down. Kick back. Click the enable button. Check it. Click it back. Check it. I'm getting some cool sounds. It really seems to change the air around the vocals on some recordings.
Cheers,
Mark
Last edited:
Very good,I have been able to get very acurate results using an analog or digital parametric filters, much better than using a graphic eq.
It doesn't suprize me your results with your new setup.
Software eq's are virtual amplifiers and they can clip the signal as well.
Remember that you are (the system) trying to create a perfectly sloped waveform with 4 samples at 12khz and 6 samples at 8khz with only 16bit data (acutaly less at 44.1khz sample rate).
Also I forget to mention that the analog form of sibilence is the the clipping of the high frequency transeints.
This may have been already stated.
Which is what makes recording in digital is such a pain. jer
It doesn't suprize me your results with your new setup.
Software eq's are virtual amplifiers and they can clip the signal as well.
Remember that you are (the system) trying to create a perfectly sloped waveform with 4 samples at 12khz and 6 samples at 8khz with only 16bit data (acutaly less at 44.1khz sample rate).
Also I forget to mention that the analog form of sibilence is the the clipping of the high frequency transeints.
This may have been already stated.
Which is what makes recording in digital is such a pain. jer
In the recording industry sibilence occurs when a great take on a vocal track was layed down to hot and the production engineer decides to keep the botched up track to be used in the final mix.
This is how the de-ssr came around to be as an insert devices.
Cheers. jer
This is how the de-ssr came around to be as an insert devices.
Cheers. jer
I think I hadn't made the connection if that was already made. One thought that had occurred to me was... What if the part (of the range) at a higher level is pushing the amp too hard? But this is without cranking it. So, the "clipping of the high frequency transients". Well, I think CD is the worst. (Doesn't everybody?) But at high frequency.
So what is the likelihood of an amplifier contributing to distortion in high (audible) frequencies? I think I can hear this distortion when it happens. 😱
I've just started noticing the quality of custom EQ'ing each recording as it comes along, and of the variation as I go, which makes me stop and wonder... What am I doing? I' ve been a purist for a long time, and that means no EQ. Well, I think you said what it means, adding EQ well. Actually, I like what this simple EQ has done for me. I hear the sound change when engaging a flat EQ from nothing, but I'm not perceiving a loss when doing so. It sounds like a really slight level change. After that, goofing with 5-10 KHz is pretty slight, but can have a strong effect as desired.
I'm also thinking of getting another, nicer DAC - the HRT Streamer II ($150) just to hear the SQ. But I don't want to get ahead of myself. Right now, I'm trying to rig EQ into it without the use of foobar. (Special modded creative SB x-FI torrent by daniel_k)
Quote:
"hadn't made the connection if that was already made. One thought that had occurred to me was... What if the part (of the range) at a higher level is pushing the amp too hard?"
I had thought about this before and the only way to test this is to use a dual trace scope with one channel hooked to the input and the other hooked to the output.
Set the gains on the scope so that both wave forms are the same identical hieght and then you cuould actualy see if the amp is infact not producing the transient waveforms.
The perfect material for this test would be spandel ballet's "true" or david bowe's "golden years" or if you want it to get real busy would be spindoctor's "what time is it"
all of these have transients that go through the roof.
It is a fact that these transeints can be as much as 100 times over the rms level.
Which is all the reason to have a 1000 watt amplifier,not for loudness sake (yeah right) but to faithfully reproduce the signal at even a 10 watt level.
Especialy the kick drum click on "true", it reaks havoc with my cheapy Aiwa amp(which is not a bad amplifier at all) driving my esl and shuts it down every time it hits when it is turned up to a decent listening level.
I am a purist as well.
But some times there is just no way around eq'ing as some material is just badley mastered and I am very sorry to have to say that. jer
"hadn't made the connection if that was already made. One thought that had occurred to me was... What if the part (of the range) at a higher level is pushing the amp too hard?"
I had thought about this before and the only way to test this is to use a dual trace scope with one channel hooked to the input and the other hooked to the output.
Set the gains on the scope so that both wave forms are the same identical hieght and then you cuould actualy see if the amp is infact not producing the transient waveforms.
The perfect material for this test would be spandel ballet's "true" or david bowe's "golden years" or if you want it to get real busy would be spindoctor's "what time is it"
all of these have transients that go through the roof.
It is a fact that these transeints can be as much as 100 times over the rms level.
Which is all the reason to have a 1000 watt amplifier,not for loudness sake (yeah right) but to faithfully reproduce the signal at even a 10 watt level.
Especialy the kick drum click on "true", it reaks havoc with my cheapy Aiwa amp(which is not a bad amplifier at all) driving my esl and shuts it down every time it hits when it is turned up to a decent listening level.
I am a purist as well.
But some times there is just no way around eq'ing as some material is just badley mastered and I am very sorry to have to say that. jer
I have 2 sets of headphones, an AKG K240DF and a Grado SR70, that I use for quick referencing. If the sibilance is excessive in the cd, the K240DF will pick it up. This headphone is noted for flat response as it is designed for Recording Studio use.
If the sibilance is not in the recording, the next most likely culprit are the speakers.
You'll have to pick a recording or two where that happens.
I think some of this is caused by the speaker. How else would it be so sensitive to it? I am also getting some great sound right now. Gawd, its as resolved as I've heard and I've gotten it musical. I forget what I'm doing cause I'm listening to music.
I think some of this is caused by the speaker. How else would it be so sensitive to it? I am also getting some great sound right now. Gawd, its as resolved as I've heard and I've gotten it musical. I forget what I'm doing cause I'm listening to music.
I think you'll need more than that. Female vocals, Diana Krall-Girl in the other Room and Amanda McBroom-Midnight Matinee, can sound sssshhhhh if the speakers are not right. Male vocals too. Tony Bennett, Lionel Ritchie, Kenny Rogers... or try Eagles-Hell Freezes Over. There are quite a few tracks in there which I find the sibilance is a bit much in the recording. The mic used sounded like the venerable Shure SM58.
Attachments
Last edited:
Yes, I've heard of that mic... Flat for a long ways, and then with the "whizzer". One of the most used, yes?
I've used these speakers for 10 years with 1000 recordings hooked up to 10 different amplifiers. You may have heard more sibilance than I.
My experience includes a variation - a significant one - when moving the speaker from one amplifier to another. So it seems that either one is losing or one is gaining information.
Cheers,
Mark
I've used these speakers for 10 years with 1000 recordings hooked up to 10 different amplifiers. You may have heard more sibilance than I.
My experience includes a variation - a significant one - when moving the speaker from one amplifier to another. So it seems that either one is losing or one is gaining information.
Cheers,
Mark
I recall mention of Peter Gabriel's "So" as an example of a recording with sibilance it it. I broke that out (geffen 24088-2). There's that little bit in his Ss and Ts, it seems, but it doesn't seem too bad.
I decided to go back and re-review the sound of the onboard DAC. I used "so", and went back to "diva" and "angel". (Sounds high already)
The tk2050 amp has broken in while I've been moving to the new DAC. I think break-in of this amp is helping me with the HF that I don't like. I think its better than it was. Overall, it is all much better with break-in.
Jon Anderson's Angel, has some of my favorite music on it - it is recording I know very well. For the amount of sibilance in this recording, I have taken a sample track from it and linking it here. This is as much sibilance in anything I own, and it seems so much so that it is very hard to tame. Over the years, the sound of this recording (and a few others) have meant a lot to me when conducting equipment purchases.
Track 06 - Chagall Duet (35 MB)
Cheers,
Mark
I decided to go back and re-review the sound of the onboard DAC. I used "so", and went back to "diva" and "angel". (Sounds high already)
The tk2050 amp has broken in while I've been moving to the new DAC. I think break-in of this amp is helping me with the HF that I don't like. I think its better than it was. Overall, it is all much better with break-in.
Jon Anderson's Angel, has some of my favorite music on it - it is recording I know very well. For the amount of sibilance in this recording, I have taken a sample track from it and linking it here. This is as much sibilance in anything I own, and it seems so much so that it is very hard to tame. Over the years, the sound of this recording (and a few others) have meant a lot to me when conducting equipment purchases.
Track 06 - Chagall Duet (35 MB)
Cheers,
Mark
That recording certainly has a problem. It sounds not only too sibilant but some of the sibilance seem to have phasing issues (two distinct sounds).
For such recordings, the only way is to use eq to lower the offending frequencies.
Some amps do sound harsh in the highs but most of the time, the culprit is the speakers.
Your 2-way 8" speaker is asking a lot from a 1" dome tweeter. Crossed too high (2,500Hz) and you'll have a hole. Crossed at where the 8" woofer dies off (1,500Hz) and the tweeter will complain. I have to resort to compression drivers to cross at 1K to 1K5 for an 8".
For such recordings, the only way is to use eq to lower the offending frequencies.
Some amps do sound harsh in the highs but most of the time, the culprit is the speakers.
Your 2-way 8" speaker is asking a lot from a 1" dome tweeter. Crossed too high (2,500Hz) and you'll have a hole. Crossed at where the 8" woofer dies off (1,500Hz) and the tweeter will complain. I have to resort to compression drivers to cross at 1K to 1K5 for an 8".
Or redbook. Or not-so-well reproduced redbook.
I don't know. Isn't the frequency response for many 8-12" drivers flat to 2 KHz on axis? The x/o point for this speaker is 2 KHz. I am told the tweeter is being brought down as low as it can go. As described to me, the point of the speaker was to get full-range with two drivers (sacrifices being made elsewhere, such as in holography). I think the dispersion is excellent and it gives good full range sound. This speaker came out in the early 90s. It doesn't use a t-line enclosure or any such thing.
Last edited:
There are many 8" + 1" 2way speakers.
They became very fashionable, particularly since they could be reproduced very cheaply. That suited the manufacturers and the customers.
There are only a very few good 8" + 1" 2way.
They became very fashionable, particularly since they could be reproduced very cheaply. That suited the manufacturers and the customers.
There are only a very few good 8" + 1" 2way.
I'd be curious about any other 1"-8" setups from the 90s that got around.
I find that interesting, because when you look at such a thing, you know right away that off-axis midrange is going to be a problem. I see so many with smaller woofers today (with x/o'ing that is less ambitious with two drivers). Like 6.5 or 7". And then, a cabinet that gets a little more bass out of it.
This one was at an electronics show around 1995-6, and got mentioned in one of the audiophile mags. A comment to the effect that "people seemed to like gravitating towards that room". He has avoided main sales channels - he got burned by a Texas company in the 80s that was going to manufacture his designs.
His speakers in the 80s had baffle steps for time alignment. This is the first one to go without for being close enough as it was.
I find it interesting to factor in the time we are in. I was told by a fan and owner of various of his speakers that he liked to add a little bump up there to make it more "live sounding". I am told he put a bump up there because he liked it. I think he also probably stopped doing that with his first active 3-way from around 10 years ago. I heard those, which made my speakers sound dead for about a day-and-a-half.
Well, when I put it into perspective, I can say that I have heard these 2-ways hooked up to an old Heathkit amp, a Denon PMA2000, and an Adcom GFA545 II. I have also spent time auditioned them with various other amps, such as the big Rotel RB-1090. When I moved to an Odyssey Stratos, or in the case of this tk2050, the sibilance doesn't hide like it used to. That makes me wonder... Are we better now with the electronics than we used to be? (Have the times changed?)
I think the Adcom gives me about as much information as a homeless person, and is a little boomy, but otherwise I'll just have to call it musical sounding. I don't think I can get an overly-sibilant sound out of it very easily... Maybe that is too much information for it?
The problem is the 8" rolls off before the tweeter can come in. Without a midrange, the 1" dome tweeter must take over at 2K. That's asking a lot.
In the 90s, I tried crossing Vifa P21WN-20-08 with Vifa's top of the line tweeter then, their Premium Line PL27TG-35. No matter how much I tried, I couldn't get what I was after.
I eventually settled on a 6.5", a Vifa PL18WO-09. Eventhen, it took quite a bit of work. I had to resort to 24dB/oct filters and conjugate networks to tame the tweeter resonance, among others.
You can find more information at VIFA Premium Line
A few people have talked about tweeter resonances, simon7000, and Ian Finch and Michael Chua....
Michael, you brought a 1" tweeter down to a 1.5 KHz x/o point. I do not know and have not learned how to make an x/o, or what all needs to be considered. I do not understand how bringing one down to 2 KHz is harder than to do so at 1.5 KHz.
The drivers here are the P21W039 8-ohm woofer and the D27TG45 6-ohm tweeter. When getting into the x/o and details, I find that interesting, but as I say I'm not up to speed with all of this. If you try a combination like this, and that gives tweeter resonance problems, then what, in the x/o would you do, or could you do, to flatten it?
One other note (in this thread), I just got a working record player up again last night - first time in 6 months. It seems to me that my tweeter doesn't bother me with vinyl like it does with digital. I also think better digital quality helps the same way. It seems that these HF errors can be better or worse to me along these lines. If a person is bothered by vinyl noise, then they should avoid it, no doubt. I recognize its noise, but I enjoy its analog advantage.
Michael, you brought a 1" tweeter down to a 1.5 KHz x/o point. I do not know and have not learned how to make an x/o, or what all needs to be considered. I do not understand how bringing one down to 2 KHz is harder than to do so at 1.5 KHz.
The drivers here are the P21W039 8-ohm woofer and the D27TG45 6-ohm tweeter. When getting into the x/o and details, I find that interesting, but as I say I'm not up to speed with all of this. If you try a combination like this, and that gives tweeter resonance problems, then what, in the x/o would you do, or could you do, to flatten it?
One other note (in this thread), I just got a working record player up again last night - first time in 6 months. It seems to me that my tweeter doesn't bother me with vinyl like it does with digital. I also think better digital quality helps the same way. It seems that these HF errors can be better or worse to me along these lines. If a person is bothered by vinyl noise, then they should avoid it, no doubt. I recognize its noise, but I enjoy its analog advantage.
This is starting to get into the speaker forums teritory, but what you need is an RLC network (in series) across the tweeter, this flattens out the impedance at resonance, some of the energy that would have excited the resonance is shunted to earth. Rod elliots article here -> Passive Crossover Network Design has some info on it.
Whether one tweeter can be brought down to 1.5Khz compared to another to tw0 Khz is going to be completely dependent on the characteristics of the individual tweeters. Certainly if considering the same tweeter 1.5Khz will be more of an ask than 2Khz 🙂
Tony.
Whether one tweeter can be brought down to 1.5Khz compared to another to tw0 Khz is going to be completely dependent on the characteristics of the individual tweeters. Certainly if considering the same tweeter 1.5Khz will be more of an ask than 2Khz 🙂
Tony.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.