Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why 24 bit audio and anything over 48k is not only worthless, but bad for music.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why 24 bit audio and anything over 48k is not only worthless, but bad for music. - Page 19

post #271 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComradeDylie View Post
 

On the 5.1 vs stereo thing, you are saying that you prefer to listen to a PCM track in DTS or Dolby DSP rather than the MCH Stereo DSP?  Or that you simply prefer having 5 speakers hit you instead of two?  I like the MCH Stereo DSP, and I mean since I have the 5 speakers (I got all 5 Floor Standing instead of the center and bookshelves for 3) it really pisses me off when only 2 are in use.

 

I use the 7:1 Stereo DSP on my Yamaha receiver. That is probably the same or similar to your MCH Stereo DSP. It improves the soundstage of 2 channel stereo and adds a pleasing liveness to the room. It also seems to take some of the curse off of being off axis to the mains.

post #272 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjl View Post
 

 

2) The amp's output impedance is substantially lower (preferably by at least an order of magnitude) than the minimum impedance of the headphone/speakers being driven - again, this isn't a problem for most well-designed solid state speaker amps, but it is a problem with some headphone amps. Many tube amps also have a high output impedance, which can significantly affect the sound.

I have no idea why fancy tube amps, especially the expensive ones, do not have output transformers. It takes that high voltage, high impedance output, and turns it into a low impedance output suitable for driving enough current. it's not like the expensive amps are trying to save you money by omitting 10 lbs of iron core transfomer. I would have thought having the biggest, baddest output transformer would be an audiophile badge of honor, yet it seems audiophiles would much rather have their headphones operating electrically under-damped. :confused_face_2:

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjl View Post
 

 

Sure, but if all you want is a reasonably well made cable that is electrically perfect (or at least perfect enough that it will not affect the signal in any perceptible way), you can get that for fairly cheap. I understand the people buying cables from places like Blue Jeans Cable for example, even though those still cost more than I would pay for cable, personally. At least they're genuinely just well-made cables that look a bit nicer than the ones from someplace like Monoprice (though they won't sound any different). The ones that I will never understand are the ones that are hundreds of dollars per foot, and claim that you will now be able to hear every heartbeat from the people in the booth of the recording studio where your recordings were made, because normal cables blur out the details (or other bogus nonsense like that).

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComradeDylie View Post


On the cable thing, I mean I do own Silver Dragons but I got them used and it was mainly a bling thing.  Like idk a gold watch, I didnt get them thinking it would make a sound improvement. 

 

Scientific studies have proven without a doubt that Japanese quartz has superior PRaT, but in an A/B sighted comparison, I think my Swiss mechanical's ETA 2836-2 sounds about 8 times smoother. The difference is so obvious, I don't even need to blind test to tell the difference! As a true audiophile, I obviously blame Jitter for the difference.

 

:D

 

Cheers


Edited by ab initio - 5/7/14 at 6:57pm
post #273 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

 

I use the 7:1 Stereo DSP on my Yamaha receiver. That is probably the same or similar to your MCH Stereo DSP. It improves the soundstage of 2 channel stereo and adds a pleasing liveness to the room. It also seems to take some of the curse off of being off axis to the mains.

 

What are your opinions of the 7.1 dolby and dts music DSPs?

post #274 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComradeDylie View Post

What are your opinions of the 7.1 dolby and dts music DSPs?

I think they all have merits. Right now I'm enjoying audessy and THX, I like dts a lot but not a huge Dolby fan for music. I use height channels for my 7.1 instead of side surrounds, I like what it does to the stage
post #275 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComradeDylie View Post
 

What are your opinions of the 7.1 dolby and dts music DSPs?

 

I don't have those options with my Yamaha, except with native multichannel recordings. For those, I use the Neo music setting. I think that is DTS. I haven't figured that out entirely yet because most of the music I play is 2 channel. However, the opera blu-rays I have sound fantastic, so it must work with those settings.


Edited by bigshot - 5/7/14 at 8:47pm
post #276 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

 

I don't have those options with my Yamaha, except with native multichannel recordings. For those, I use the Neo music setting. I think that is DTS. I haven't figured that out entirely yet because most of the music I play is 2 channel. However, the opera blu-rays I have sound fantastic, so it must work with those settings

 

The Neo setting is DTS, and it should work for 2 channel music.  The native multichannel should just auto play in whatever format it was produced in. Or at least thats how mine works lol

post #277 of 374
Well then, I don't use it. I use Yamaha's 7:1 Stereo DSP to play 2 channel music in 5:1.
post #278 of 374

OK, one final set of test files, just because I was curious to try this with some other samples/genres including classical music (Bigshot's sample, specifically) and a copy I have of Rhapsody in Blue. Filenames state where I set the lowpass filter. It definitely isn't as obvious as it is with some other samples (such as the ones I posted earlier), but it definitely does make a difference. Personally, I can start hearing a difference once the cutoff is set to 14kHz (on both samples), and it becomes very obvious (and a clear degradation of sound quality) with the cutoff set to 12kHz. With the cutoff set to 16kHz or above, there was no audible difference to me.

 

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/40020825/music%20test%20files/Classical%20test%20files.zip

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/40020825/music%20test%20files/Rhapsody%20in%20Blue%20Test%20Files.zip


Edited by cjl - 5/8/14 at 10:17am
post #279 of 374

Out of curiosity I tried the above. It was obvious up to 16kHz in my opinion. 16kHz was still very noticeable. At 18kHz I couldn't tell a difference though.

post #280 of 374
Try cutting out the octave between 1kHz and 2kHz and see what it does to the music.
post #281 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Try cutting out the octave between 1kHz and 2kHz and see what it does to the music.

 

Sure, it'll be way more noticeable. That doesn't mean that 10-15kHz isn't important though.

 

(Just for grins though, here it is, and the frequency spectrum is shown below. It sounds better than I thought it would, actually... https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/40020825/music%20test%20files/1-2kHz%20cut.flac)

 

 


Edited by cjl - 5/8/14 at 10:59am
post #282 of 374
Still can't play flac
post #283 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Still can't play flac

Is there no free player for mac that decodes flac?

Cheers
post #284 of 374

I pointed you to a free flac player a couple pages ago - it isn't hard to download. It would be a good thing to have, too, given the prevalence of the format. Because I'm feeling nice today though, here's an aiff, since I remember you like apple formats...

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/40020825/music%20test%20files/1-2kHz%20cut.aiff

post #285 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by ab initio View Post


Is there no free player for mac that decodes flac?

Cheers

VLC works on mac just fine.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why 24 bit audio and anything over 48k is not only worthless, but bad for music.