[humanflyz]

@Sleestack:

So, how about pointing us toward some of those freeware solutions eh? Because I've looked at the TACT website, and I'm afraid I won't be able to afford that for a while

 

[KrustyK]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nelamvr6 I still have a deep seated suspicion when it comes to altering the signal in any way. I don't even use tone controls for example.

I have to agree with nelamvr6. Introducing a signal, in addition to the source signal, or modifying the original waveform, would have to be a last resort in my opinion. If I think way back to when I first got into high-end, and learned of the ultimate audiophile dream... "a straight wire with gain". I don't think there was a "straight wire with gain and equalization". But, having said that, I do believe in the merits of active room correction... but done minimally, and after all reasonable efforts (I define reasonable as what you're willing to relocate and, more importantly, what your significant other will let you relocate) to correct room acoustic anomalies with tuning devices (foam, sofas, carpets, moveable fireplaces, moose heads, stuffed beavers, etc.) have been exhausted. So, once all the major problems have been fixed by adjusting things out of the signal path, apply the active correction as "icing on the cake". By the way, TACT Dynamic Room Correction is AMAZING technology, and I'll probably be putting down some money on a processor in the near future for that "icing".

 

[edstrelow]

I would say that equalizing can only be done effectively with measuring equipment, otherwise its just guesswork. Measuring equipment is hard to find however. I use an old dBx equalizer that uses a pink noise generator and a microphone to tell you pretty precisely where the problems are in you set up. Once this is done, I don;t find a need to readjust the system much if at all for different recordings. Maybe some treble attenuation and that's about all.

 

[Sleestack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KrustyK I have to agree with nelamvr6. Introducing a signal, in addition to the source signal, or modifying the original waveform, would have to be a last resort in my opinion. If I think way back to when I first got into high-end, and learned of the ultimate audiophile dream... "a straight wire with gain". I don't think there was a "straight wire with gain and equalization". But, having said that, I do believe in the merits of active room correction... but done minimally, and after all reasonable efforts (I define reasonable as what you're willing to relocate and, more importantly, what your significant other will let you relocate) to correct room acoustic anomalies with tuning devices (foam, sofas, carpets, moveable fireplaces, moose heads, stuffed beavers, etc.) have been exhausted. So, once all the major problems have been fixed by adjusting things out of the signal path, apply the active correction as "icing on the cake". By the way, TACT Dynamic Room Correction is AMAZING technology, and I'll probably be putting down some money on a processor in the near future for that "icing".

I think when it comes to amplification, "straight wire with gain" continues to be a sound principle. Nevertheless, I think that digital processing has reached a point where it can handle correction in the digital domain and provide complete transparency that only serves to improve the listening experience.

In many 2 channel setups, a combination of sensible acoustic treatment and proper digital equalization is all that is required. This is particularly true of limited range or nearfield listening where lower frequencies aren't creating havoc.

In systems where loud volumes and low frequencies come in to play, the benefits of equalization become immediately apparent. Beyond that, advanced room correction allows you to go further and create a unique visceral audio experience by using speakers like the W210 cornerloads.

In multichannel setups, I can't even imagine trying to properly integrate and balance multiple speakers without advanced room correction. Actually, I can imagine it because I did it for many years.... it was fruitless effort. When you listen to well recorded multichannel audio like Porcupine Tree's DVD-As, you gain a true appreciation for the benefits room correction.

Acoustic treatment is an important first step. I will spend a considerable amount of time with Rives Audio planning the acoustic treatments in my audio rooms, but will definitely need to use the TACT gear to perfect frequency response and provide proper correction for using cornerloads.

 

[Sleestack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by humanflyz @Sleestack: So, how about pointing us toward some of those freeware solutions eh? Because I've looked at the TACT website, and I'm afraid I won't be able to afford that for a while

I'm trying to find the link for the one developed by Uli, a former TACT user. It is supposed to be great.

Depending on your setup, you may just need a great EQing correction program that utilizes sweep tones.

What kind of setup would you be using this for? Are you using a PC based source or CD?

 

[humanflyz]

This setup will be a 2-channel setup, using a PC as transport.

 

[Sleestack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by humanflyz This setup will be a 2-channel setup, using a PC as transport.

Limited range or full range? Subs?

 

[humanflyz]

@Sleestack:

I will be using 2-ways with no sub.

 

[Azure]

I think I'd much rather enjoy speakers, but there are 4 reasons that I stick with headphones:

1. Cost - Pretty obvious.

2. Isolation - I can't listen to speakers at my optimal listening level unless I want everybody in the house and possibly my neighbors to hear my music. No problem with headphones. This is quite a limitation to me with speakers; you can create a little concert in your head with headphones easily, but with speakers you have to make sure that you don't bother anybody else in the house or your neighbors. And considering my optimal listening period (8:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m.), speakers would be an issue.

3. Ignorance - This speaker stuff is really complicated and there's so many options (Both "real" high end and "consumer" high end, all mixed in together) that it's just too overwhelming.

3. Privacy - Not the usual kind of privacy that people refer to in the headphones vs. speakers thing, but the kind of privacy as a result of a degree of embarassment of the kind of music I listen to. Call me shallow, but I feel uncomfortable when people hear the weird kind of music I listen to, and I fear the way people would think of me when they hear the kind of music I listen to (Especially when I'm so passionate about it). With headphones, this isn't really an issue, but with speakers everybody (Unless you live alone and aren't close to neighbors) hears what you're hearing and can judge you based on your music choice. Yeah, it sounds shallow, but I honestly think people would think less of me (to a degree) if they heard the strange electronic music and the female-vocal heavy music that I listen to.

 

[J-Pak]

Part of the fun is learning. I did a lot reading/searching before finally settling on headphones I'm using. I think it's fun to read about stereo reviews as well. This TacT stuff has given me a whole another few weeks worth of reading which is pretty cool.

 

[J-Pak]

Part of the fun is learning. I did a lot reading/searching before finally settling on headphones I'm using. I think it's fun to read about stereo reviews as well. This TacT stuff has given me a whole another few weeks worth of reading which is pretty cool.

@ Sleestack: is the TacT RCS 2.2XP used just for the 2 speakers in your 2 channel setup (not counting subs)?

edit: meant to edit not quote :/