Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › I Don't Understand You Subjective Guys
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I Don't Understand You Subjective Guys - Page 23

post #331 of 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybob_jcv View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

 

I'd start then by stating what music you listen to. Recording quality varies wildly, with the worst music highly compressed and distorted and the best having huge dynamic range, glorious sound and being mastered extremely well.

 

One of the first bands I loved was Van Halen. The first record of my own was OU812. I eventually got it on CD hoping the sound quality would be better, but, honestly, the recording quality of the early albums is pretty dismal. Now I listen to a lot of jazz and classical (a funny kind of full circle for me as my father listened only to classical music). In these genres I very much appreciate the subtle details, so I have an expensive system. Van Halen has been relegated to the car stereo. I am currently listening to one of the best jazz recordings ever made (Bill Evans Village Vanguard Tapes) but on a DAC/amp that costs <$300! The good thing is, for various reasons the electronics available have improved considerably, especially with regards to digital input quality and you can get cheap, but very low-distortion and high-quality gear.

 

I deleted the quote about USB cables by accident, but I think that USB cables became a big deal when people started using computers as digital transports. Early USB implementations had high jitter and other issues, so at the same time people started working on better solutions for using a computer as a transport (eg: async chips etc.) to the point now that any benefits a better USB cable might have brought have been made redundant.

 

So, the earlier issues were issues within the digital domain?  (eg jitter)  That makes much more sense than the USB cable affecting the encoded music signal.

 

USB receivers are far better than they were. A few years ago it was pretty much just the BB PCM2706/2707 for USB. Now we have the custom TAS1020B async options, the C-Media and Tenor chips, including their latest async one and other options I've forgotten. Along with keeping noise from the computer out of the circuit, there is also far more focus on good digital implementations with very low jitter.

 

I reckon it hasn't been as much as case of computer-as-a-transport gear being overpriced, more so that the ability to make cheap but high-quality digital gear has become easier, as the chips in all of those didn't exist a few years ago, from the DACs through to the OPAMPs (if any). So I don't reckon it is a big surprise that the ODAC/O2, NFB-16, Dragonfly and anything else similar can exist, but more so that computer- or DAP-transported digital has come of age. 

post #332 of 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shike View Post

So effectively, you were able to tell apart the signals until 1% total THD . . . ?

Below 1%; .2% THD on tones, .5% THD on music tracks. However, the headphones have been measured to produce .2-.5% THD on their own. I performed slightly better with the STAX 4070s, .4% on the music tracks, .2% on the tones. I believe those are the cleanest headphones I own.
post #333 of 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magick Man View Post


Below 1%; .2% THD on tones, .5% THD on music tracks. However, the headphones have been measured to produce .2-.5% THD on their own. I performed slightly better with the STAX 4070s, .4% on the music tracks, .2% on the tones. I believe those are the cleanest headphones I own.

 

I'd think a tenth of a percent is within margin of error on measurements of transducers, just my two cents.

post #334 of 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shike View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwkarth View Post

Non- sequitur.

Hardly, you're saying imaging can't be measured - so I'm asking if it can't be measured how can it be effectively emulated?

What said numerous times is that there is no SINGLE figure of merit that correlates to imaging, and I still stck by that statement. That's all I said, don't try to change it into something else. If that statement is incorrect, please show me the error of my ways.
post #335 of 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwkarth View Post


What said numerous times is that there is no SINGLE figure of merit that correlates to imaging, and I still stck by that statement. That's all I said, don't try to change it into something else. If that statement is incorrect, please show me the error of my ways.

 

Phase response?

Impulse response? i.e. ringing?

Frequency response matching (tolerance) L vs. R?

post #336 of 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwkarth View Post


What said numerous times is that there is no SINGLE figure of merit that correlates to imaging, and I still stck by that statement. That's all I said, don't try to change it into something else. If that statement is incorrect, please show me the error of my ways.

 

I've been mulling over this, and all I can think is that, for an amp say, if it maintains absolute phase for a few times the audio range (up to a few tens of KHz say, as apparently subharmonics of high frequencies are useful for imaging) then whether it images well or not is dependant only on the recording/mixing/mastering (whether the recording contains useful phase information for imaging), and the positioning/acoustics of the listening space (whether the phase information is recreated at your ears in such a way as to "transport" you to the original recording space).

 

Of amps, I've only ever seen phase shift/frequency dependence recorded for the B22. If you'll kindly go to http://www.amb.org/audio/beta22, then Specifications, and scroll to the bottom, you'll see a couple of input and output oscilloscope traces of 100 KHz sine and triangle, which show very little phase shift, and a Lissajous trace which is very close to the ideal straight line. It would be very interesting to see a lissajous for another high-end amp for comparison but sadly they are never shown. If I had a high-end amp and an oscilloscope I would definitely try it.

 

(As always, corrections welcome.)


Edited by joeyjojo - 7/29/12 at 9:06am
post #337 of 861

For headphones, I would think the actual location & geometry of the transducers and the earpads would be the most significant contributors - and unless the electronics are seriously whacky, they would also be the most significant contributor in the entire system (other than the miking & mixing within the content itself).

post #338 of 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybob_jcv View Post

For headphones, I would think the actual location & geometry of the transducers and the earpads would be the most significant contributors - and unless the electronics are seriously whacky, they would also be the most significant contributor in the entire system (other than the miking & mixing within the content itself).

 

Most significant contributors to what? :)

 

Perhaps it was another thread recently but someone was saying that (as I understand it) without some kind of crossfeed, headphones usually won't image at all as there is no (excluding crosstalk) mixing of the channels, which does happen in the case of loudspeakers and, if done well, creates the illusion of sounds originating from identifiable positions in 3D space ("imaging"). Or is this a different definition?

 

I suppose binaural stuff is an exception.

post #339 of 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyjojo View Post

 

Most significant contributors to what? :)

 

Perhaps it was another thread recently but someone was saying that (as I understand it) without some kind of crossfeed, headphones usually won't image at all as there is no (excluding crosstalk) mixing of the channels, which does happen in the case of loudspeakers and, if done well, creates the illusion of sounds originating from identifiable positions in 3D space ("imaging"). Or is this a different definition?

 

I suppose binaural stuff is an exception.

 

Good point - I made the mistake of considering the ears separately without considering them together.  There is channel mixing that occurs when the original music was recorded and mixed.  But yes, I agree with you!

post #340 of 861

 Perfect measurements of a playboy centerfold don't guarantee a likeable person

post #341 of 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillmetoo View Post

 Perfect measurements of a playboy centerfold don't guarantee a likeable person

 

Having your mother tell you her friend's daughter has a great personality doesn't guarantee you will want to sleep with her.

post #342 of 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyjojo View Post

 

I've been mulling over this, and all I can think is that, for an amp say, if it maintains absolute phase for a few times the audio range (up to a few tens of KHz say, as apparently subharmonics of high frequencies are useful for imaging) then whether it images well or not is dependant only on the recording/mixing/mastering (whether the recording contains useful phase information for imaging), and the positioning/acoustics of the listening space (whether the phase information is recreated at your ears in such a way as to "transport" you to the original recording space).

 

Of amps, I've only ever seen phase shift/frequency dependence recorded for the B22. If you'll kindly go to http://www.amb.org/audio/beta22, then Specifications, and scroll to the bottom, you'll see a couple of input and output oscilloscope traces of 100 KHz sine and triangle, which show very little phase shift, and a Lissajous trace which is very close to the ideal straight line. It would be very interesting to see a lissajous for another high-end amp for comparison but sadly they are never shown. If I had a high-end amp and an oscilloscope I would definitely try it.

 

(As always, corrections welcome.)

 

I was referring to the acoustic phase response of the headphones.

 

In an amp, if you have a very wide bandwidth, say 2.5 hz- 160 kHz +/- 3 dB, with roll-offs of 6 dB/octave outside that bandwith, then you should have excellent phase response.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillmetoo View Post

 Perfect measurements of a playboy centerfold don't guarantee a likeable person

 

Well, it's a good place to start!tongue_smile.gif

post #343 of 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybob_jcv View Post

 

Having your mother tell you her friend's daughter has a great personality doesn't guarantee you will want to sleep with her.

You lost me. Maybe you have some personal issues?blink.gif

All I meant to say was this: all relative audio measurements may look perfect, but the sound may not satisfy you.


Edited by thrillmetoo - 7/30/12 at 4:01am
post #344 of 861

It's just a sloppy way of being a smart ass basically ;). Headfi-humor for you :P.
 


Edited by lee730 - 7/30/12 at 4:04am
post #345 of 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris J View Post

 

 

Well, it's a good place to start!tongue_smile.gif

Of course. We all look at the measurements. But you won't eventually be happy with a 24/24 hours nagging 34-28-34.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › I Don't Understand You Subjective Guys