ShinOBIWAN said:
Its 3.00 in the morning here in the UK and I just caught this post before bed
I'll give you a detailed description of the setup I use tommorow but I would imagine it translates perfectly to what you want ie. 3-way XO with auto DRC and FIR with phase correction.
It'll blow your socks off if you mainly listen to digital.
In the mean time do you only listen to music or is DVD playback a part of your setup? Its important to know because the card and addons you need are determined by this.
only music and DVD.... DVD playback is something I need with the xover... either via DVD-rom or via input to the card from my external DVD player
THANKS!!!
You'll get more improvement from moving over to this type of setup than you would swapping speakers.
Those are big claims that invited the post I made because it's
a clever statement that I've never heard anyone use before in
audio. An upgrade that is more dramatic than swapping speakers.
I want to test this out on ABX testing and everyone should pass
with flying colors. Manufacturers now can sell cheap speakers
mated to this magical front end because the improvements are
just as dramatic as upgrading to higher end speakers.
Normally, audiophiles claim improvements only when the system
has the resolution to exploit the better sound, but this claim is
very unique and I give you a cookie for originality.
.. and now you don't want to share the magic
Those are big claims that invited the post I made because it's
a clever statement that I've never heard anyone use before in
audio. An upgrade that is more dramatic than swapping speakers.
I want to test this out on ABX testing and everyone should pass
with flying colors. Manufacturers now can sell cheap speakers
mated to this magical front end because the improvements are
just as dramatic as upgrading to higher end speakers.
Normally, audiophiles claim improvements only when the system
has the resolution to exploit the better sound, but this claim is
very unique and I give you a cookie for originality.
.. and now you don't want to share the magic
thylantyr said:You'll get more improvement from moving over to this type of setup than you would swapping speakers.
Those are big claims that invited the post I made because it's
a clever statement that I've never heard anyone use before in
audio. An upgrade that is more dramatic than swapping speakers.
I want to test this out on ABX testing and everyone should pass
with flying colors. Manufacturers now can sell cheap speakers
mated to this magical front end because the improvements are
just as dramatic as upgrading to higher end speakers.
Normally, audiophiles claim improvements only when the system
has the resolution to exploit the better sound, but this claim is
very unique and I give you a cookie for originality.
.. and now you don't want to share the magic
thy you might be rather blunt... crude at times... and abrasive
but damn you make me laugh...
Audio Voodoo Training in session
click
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=86
The audiophile ->
pulls you in, you can't resist
the audio ->
do the -> 
on you and later
you repeat tales not knowing ->
It's your system, do an ABX with the undesirable front end vs.
uber ones and see how many people pass the test.
click
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=86
The audiophile ->
pulls you in, you can't resistthe audio ->
do the -> on you and lateryou repeat tales not knowing ->
It's your system, do an ABX with the undesirable front end vs.
uber ones and see how many people pass the test.
Another thing I noticed while researching the types of hardware and software Shin used in his setup is that even though they are very expensive pieces of equipment, they don't seem to fall into the audiophile category. The soundcards, clock, and software and all produced by companies that make professional grade products intended to be used in sound mastering studios. Generally speaking it's also my experience that "audiophile voodoo equipment" is almost always small batch products produced by companies that focus exclusively on high-end "home" audio. This is not the case with the equipment Shin is talking about and using. I like to think that by now I can sort of smell the voodoo type ideas from ones that aren't voodoo. I just wanted to be clear that when I said Shin's level of equipment falls into the category of diminishing returns, it wasn't that I didn't precieve there to be a real improvement, it was that the ratio of improvement to cost is probably pretty small. For instance, if the DCX2496 costs $250 new, and Shin's crossover computer with soundcards and external clock costs $2,500, is there actually a 10 fold increase in sound quality? Can you measure a 10 fold decrease in S/N? is it even double? Is it even 1.5X as much? Probably not, but the cost increase is 10 fold. This is what happens when you try to push your system to the absolute limits and I really admire his project, but there is a point in every project where you have to say "Ok, I agree this would be better, but for the extra money it isn't worth it to me". I just wanted to make sure everyone was clear about the level of financial investment Shin was refering to because he rarely mentions prices when he discusses equipment. I thought this was also worth mentioning.
thylantyr said:Audio Voodoo Training in session
click
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=86
The audiophile ->
the audio ->
you repeat tales not knowing ->
It's your system, do an ABX with the undesirable front end vs.
uber ones and see how many people pass the test.
Again you talk much rubbish for a man that hasn't heard my setup or Vil's and Ryans for that matter.
I know I've put it against the DCX over days of tweaking and comparing, the results were laughable. I don't need a survey of 50 people to tell me that!!!
You know your onto something good when you clearly hear an improvement whilst testing in your own system.
I think the real problem is you hold your DCX so dear to your heart that you can't bear to hear that in comprison to other methods its inferior. Maybe your one of those that likes to think he's got the best and pulls others stuff to bits if they claim otherwise. The DCX was SOLD by me after only a month of owning it! Hardly an endorsment is it?
My system is actually the antithesis of an audiophile setup. I use pro audio soundcards, studio grade software and master clock.
m0tion said:
Cheers Motion,
The stuff I use isn't audiophile at all and there's no voodoo around it. Its proven in a working environment - the studio, they don't suffer hype without delivery. The stuff I'm using at the moment is the same stuff that probably mastered some of the music in my collection or similar at least.
The tools are really intended for music creation and not playback. That why they are of higher quality than the audiophile rammul.
Did you ever hear the setup with DRC? For me that's the biggest improvement, the FIR XO slopes are a marginal upgrade to the DCX but with the DRC it completely transforms the sounds. More sorted well defined bass, more air, cleaner midrange etc.
The flexibility I get with this setup is also a real bonus. Real steep filters available, ability to get a near perfect aoustic and NOT electrical roll off for a given order rather than DCX's generic XO slopes which never translate into anything resembling sysmetrical acoustic slopes for each driver.
Then you've got the phase adjustment, the ability to upgrade every aspect of the system ie. DAC's, XO filters, DRC EQ, master clock, soundcard etc.
You can also add in features as they are released or needed, its truely upgradable and not throw away like the DCX. Need a convolution filter? just add it in. Want to add studio grade reverb? Easy.
The fun aspect of the system is BIG, generally fun doesn't even enter an audiophile system.
I can understand why your upset Thy, the DCX is a million miles behind this in tech terms and its behind it audibly too. Afterall why would I go spend nearly $2500 on my frontend and XO if it didn't offer big improvements over a $200 DCX? Why not spend it on the speakers again?
A quick shot of my setup running:
Just scratching the surface at the level of complexity available in this shot. All that shown here is FIR filters, phase correction and DRC.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Just scratching the surface at the level of complexity available in this shot. All that shown here is FIR filters, phase correction and DRC.
I think the real problem is you hold your DCX so dear to your heart that you can't bear to hear that in comprison to other methods its inferior.
Everyday in cyberspace, comparisons are made. Low cost
vs. high cost and the high cost is always claimed to be
superior, but nobody does tests to verify the claims.
I'm setting up a system for my friend who is poor and I've
been taking the opportunity to test out the 'cheap' electronic
solutions and I'm pretty amazed that they work very well.
I have plenty of electronics/audio experience that guides me
well and I have honest judgement. I'm not going to make a big
claim that something is better unless it was very obvious to me.
The DCX is not held close to my heart because the system is
really for my friend. I don't know what front end I will use for
my system, but it won't be very expensive electronics either.
If I can spend $15k on just drivers for my project, you'd think
I can afford the better electronics, but I'm designing a system
for great driver integration that doesn't need exotic electronics
to fix problems that don't exist.
I can understand why your upset Thy, the DCX is a million miles behind this in tech terms and its behind it audibly too. Afterall why would I go spend nearly $2500 on my frontend and XO if it didn't offer big improvements over a $200 DCX? Why not spend it on the speakers again?
You can take that $2500 budget, spend only $500 on the
electronics and redirect the remaing $2000 into better driver
or room acoustics to give you a better bang for the buck.
That gives you a more dramatic effect than blowing the budget
primarily on electronics.
This is noobs thread and his design is a very friendly on driver
integration, those drivers will work very well together even if he
messed up the electronic tuning. Recommending electronics
in the thousand dollar range to me is a waste of money
because he'd never use all the features because his design
doesn't need it. You can do these basic things even with a low
cost digital crossover.
Just scratching the surface at the level of complexity available in this shot. All that shown here is FIR filters, phase correction and DRC.
Like I said, I don't use all the DCX features to make the sound
system great, why then would I need something with more complex features that will never get used? This is akin to someone who like to buy a 200 band EQ to install in their
system because it's has all those bands, but they only need to
adjust a few of them.
Everyday in cyberspace, comparisons are made. Low cost
vs. high cost and the high cost is always claimed to be
superior, but nobody does tests to verify the claims.
I'm setting up a system for my friend who is poor and I've
been taking the opportunity to test out the 'cheap' electronic
solutions and I'm pretty amazed that they work very well.
I have plenty of electronics/audio experience that guides me
well and I have honest judgement. I'm not going to make a big
claim that something is better unless it was very obvious to me.
The DCX is not held close to my heart because the system is
really for my friend. I don't know what front end I will use for
my system, but it won't be very expensive electronics either.
If I can spend $15k on just drivers for my project, you'd think
I can afford the better electronics, but I'm designing a system
for great driver integration that doesn't need exotic electronics
to fix problems that don't exist.
I can understand why your upset Thy, the DCX is a million miles behind this in tech terms and its behind it audibly too. Afterall why would I go spend nearly $2500 on my frontend and XO if it didn't offer big improvements over a $200 DCX? Why not spend it on the speakers again?
You can take that $2500 budget, spend only $500 on the
electronics and redirect the remaing $2000 into better driver
or room acoustics to give you a better bang for the buck.
That gives you a more dramatic effect than blowing the budget
primarily on electronics.
This is noobs thread and his design is a very friendly on driver
integration, those drivers will work very well together even if he
messed up the electronic tuning. Recommending electronics
in the thousand dollar range to me is a waste of money
because he'd never use all the features because his design
doesn't need it. You can do these basic things even with a low
cost digital crossover.
Just scratching the surface at the level of complexity available in this shot. All that shown here is FIR filters, phase correction and DRC.
Like I said, I don't use all the DCX features to make the sound
system great, why then would I need something with more complex features that will never get used? This is akin to someone who like to buy a 200 band EQ to install in their
system because it's has all those bands, but they only need to
adjust a few of them.
thylantyr said:Audio Voodoo Training in session
The audiophile ->
the audio ->
you repeat tales not knowing ->
Is this also true of your pushing Lambda and PHL drivers?
Or does the one rule for me and one rule for everyone else apply here?
ShinOBIWAN said:
I hardly think thy pushes them... I know he didn't on me...... this is the first time he's talked extensively about them in a year or more on here...
I researched myself I couldn't find a speaker superior to the PHL 1120 or Lambda 15
also thy encouraged me to try other options to make sure I was on the right path for my tastes
turns out I was... oh god was I ever
I think most audiophiles are in the catergory of the PHL/lambda taste... but they'll never know
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.