[newmanoc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot Quote: Originally Posted by newmanoc Here is how I puzzle out problems like this. When I suspect there might be a problem with the source, I go through this thinking process... First of all, I need to define the sort of error I'm suspecting... Harmonic distortion? Frequency imbalance? Signal to noise? What exactly is getting altered in the sound? It's important to be able to clearly define the problem before defining the solution. Otherwise you may be solving a problem that doesn't exist. (Like the thread about phase that was recently taken off the top of this forum...) Once I've described the problem in concrete terms, I try to come up with a theory about what's causing it. I try to isolate the problem to ensure that it's being caused by what I think is causing it, and not some other factor I haven't taken into consideration. And then I think about how I can address that cause to correct it.

ARGGG!!! Steve, you seem simply not to understand what I am saying. I must be absolutely incompetent at expressing it, because nothing is getting through.

My very point is that you CAN'T accurately reduce ALL audio experience into an easily quantifiable equation. This just doesn't work, as it fails to capture a breadth of common, reproducible experience in hi-fi. If you don't believe this, please just come out and say it, and although I will consider you dead wrong, I'll stop wasting my breath (or keystrokes, as the case may be).

 

[Kurt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon L I still secretly pray that Ed Meitner decides to market the DCC2 without a preamp for 1/2 the price, but that's just me..

I bet there are thousands of people who whishes the same thing, me one of them. Actually we should organize a petition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ A real-world equalizer can only smooth an already smoothed frequency-response measurement, but not a real-world frequency response.

So much to equalizers, at least for me.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarke68 Jazz mentioned he knew a better way to balance a room than the frequency sweep method you described, I'd just like to hear about it because I don't know of a better way...at least not one that uses pink noise.

A certain Amar G. Bose (yes, this one!) once has found out that in an average concert hall (and I suppose on an average listening position) 89% of the sound reaching our ears is reflected and only 11% comes directly from the orchestra. Based on this insight he created a speaker with nine fullrange drivers, one radiating to the front and eight to the back, producing about 3% direct and 97% reflected sound (numbers guessed). The discrepancy to the intended and propagated 11/89 percentage is caused by the fact that the sound radiated by the front driver -- of course -- not only produces direct sound, but a fair amount of indirect sound as well (just like ordinary direct-radiating speakers, BTW)...

This little escapade just serves for demonstrating the importance of indirect sound for music reproduction. I don't know the numbers for an average listening room, but I guess clearly more than 50% of the sound reaching the ears is reflected sound. Its dispersion within the room is extremely irregular, due to the radiation characteristic of common speakers. While on axis the FR is meant to be quite even, off axis it becomes more and more inhomogeneous, following the drivers' tendency to radiate lower frequencies spherically and focus higher frequencies within its usable frequency range. Vertically (given the drivers are placed on top of each other) the comb filter effect takes effect: Interferences between overlapping frequency areas cause severe cancellations and amplifications in FR. The latter now has no similarity to the on-axis FR anymore. And that's what's radiated to and reflected from the ceiling. Further back there are no high frequencies anymore, so what's reflected from the wall behind the speakers is virtually just lows and mids, with a quite uneven spectrum.

So the dispersion of indirect sound in the listening room has a rather chaotic pattern. Now if we're going to measure the FR of the speakers, what's our goal? Are we interested in the direct-sound frequency response (actually a legitimate goal, considering the sonic colors of the music instruments we may want to have preserved) or do we want to measure the over-all frequency response, with its inhomogeneous mixture of direct and reflected sound? For the first case there's the possibility of a near-field (problematic because of driver interaction and directivity) or FFT measurement which virtually excludes room acoustics. But then again, it can't be denied that room acoustics have a decisive function when it comes to sound perception. It's just that the microphone isn't able to differentiate between direct and reflected sound, which nevertheless has a certain importance, because our ears are able to differentiate between them. Add to this that in fact the microphones should have the exact same directivity as our ears to provide a FR corresponding to the one we will perceive. Of course that's illusionary.

So my solution is to simply use my ears as measuring array. Now sine sweeps will be affected by extreme amplitude jumps caused by the interferences between the erratic sound waves (like the jagged curve above shows), so it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to draw any conclusion about their amplitude dispersion throughout the frequency spectrum. A much better signal for this purpose is pink noise. Although it will not clearly reveal a tilted curve -- this will just make for a brighter or darker noise which still sounds «right» in some way --, it's quite easy to hear colorations in it, and a parametric equalizer helps with identifying them quite reliably (by correcting them!). Pink noise sounds sort of like a waterfall; and we all know how this should sound.

This method has the advantage of being able -- to a certain degree -- to take direct and reflected sound into account: Your ears tell you how much to follow which parameter: the mere direct sound and the sum of direct and reflected sound. Intuitively, without analyzing. Finally music with its high content of transients and as a real-life signal will offer the opportunity to identify which frequency areas still need to be tweaked in order to achieve an optimal «subjective» frequency response as a synthesis of direct and over-all FR. This method has served me well for tuning my speakers, more precisely their crossover network. It's the only function of my equalizer at all.

 

[clarke68]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ Based on this insight he created a speaker with nine fullrange drivers, one radiating to the front and eight to the back, producing about 3% direct and 97% reflected sound (numbers guessed).

Yeah, I have a pair of those very speakers in my living room. Don't flame me!!! They were a gift.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ Are we interested in the direct-sound frequency response (actually a legitimate goal, considering the sonic colors of the music instruments we may want to have preserved) or do we want to measure the over-all frequency response, with its inhomogeneous mixture of direct and reflected sound?

Of course...that's what balancing a room is all about. The FR of my source and amp are flat (for all practical purposes), my speakers are colored, but not nearly as colored as my room.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ So my solution is to simply use my ears as measuring array.

Okay...we agree so far.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ Now sine sweeps will be affected by extreme amplitude jumps caused by the interferences between the erratic sound waves (like the jagged curve above shows), so it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to draw any conclusion about their amplitude dispersion throughout the frequency spectrum.

Not following you here. I would think a pure tone would generate fewer "erratic sound waves" than music, let alone pink noise. If you get an amplitude dip when the sweep hits 100Hz, you've got an anti-node around 100Hz that needs to be dealt with. If you get a gain when the sweep hits 60Hz, you've got a node to deal with. Not difficult at all...unless I'm just not getting what you're talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ it's quite easy to hear colorations in it, and a parametric equalizer helps with identifying them quite reliably (by correcting them!). Pink noise sounds sort of like a waterfall; and we all know how this should sound.

Yeah...that's what I thought you were going to say. I have my doubts that everyone has an innate reference of what perfect pink noise sounds like, although the idea of identifiying the troubled frequencies with an eq has merit.

I find the freq. sweep method less subjective, because variations in volume are easy to hear (especially when they're huge variations, like in my room), of course its not helpful if you don't know what frequency is playing the moment you have a big peak or dip. As to the room reflections argument, I don't see how pure tones are any more or less subject to reflections than any other sound. All that really matters is the flatness of response at the listening position, but I can play the sweep and, standing in different spots around the room, hear the peaks and dips in different frequencies.

But hey...if you tune your room with pink noise and you like the way your system sounds, that's great for you.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarke68 Yeah, I have a pair of those very speakers in my living room. Don't flame me!!! They were a gift.

Why should I! Although I'm not convinced of Bose's implementation of the direct/reflected idea, it has nevertheless its merits, and the bass concept is quite good (at least in the original 901). The fullrange drivers aren't highlights in terms of resolution though.


Quote:

Of course...that's what balancing a room is all about. The FR of my source and amp are flat (for all practical purposes), my speakers are colored, but not nearly as colored as my room.

Sounds logical at first glance. But what would you do if there was a real vioin playing in your listening room? Supposed you could equalize the whole sound, acoustics included? You see what I mean? With the correction of the room acoustics you also correct the violin sound.

I'm not saying only the direct sound counts, don't get me wrong. That's why I have introduced a subjective matrix for balancing the need for eliminating coloration induced by room acoustics and the need for preserving the actually (supposedly) already balanced direct sound from the speakers. The latter component isn't respected by the technocratic microphone-measuring approach.


Quote:

Not following you here. I would think a pure tone would generate fewer "erratic sound waves" than music, let alone pink noise. If you get an amplitude dip when the sweep hits 100Hz, you've got an anti-node around 100Hz that needs to be dealt with. If you get a gain when the sweep hits 60Hz, you've got a node to deal with. Not difficult at all...unless I'm just not getting what you're talking about.

I'd say in the bass the sine-sweep method is usable and better than the pink-noise method. But I had the rest of the frequency spectrum in mind (as I don't use my equalizer for equalizing, but for tuning the crossover networks). If you look at the jagged red curve above, a reasonable interpretation of the extreme amplitude jumps you'll encounter with sine sweeps is unrealistic.


Quote:

As to the room reflections argument, I don't see how pure tones are any more or less subject to reflections than any other sound.

Pink noise has a transient nature, and this may be the reason why it allows to identify hollowness and reverberativeness, in contrast to sine waves.


Quote:

But hey...if you tune your room with pink noise and you like the way your system sounds, that's great for you.

Yeah, it's great and I'm happy.

Although it's not exactly «the room» that I tune, but the speaker/room system.

 

[clarke68]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ Sounds logical at first glance. But what would you do if there was a real vioin playing in your listening room? Supposed you could equalize the whole sound, acoustics included? You see what I mean? With the correction of the room acoustics you also correct the violin sound.

I don't think we're disagreeing here...in a perfect world, all your imbalance problems could/should be corrected at the room level...the eq is a band-aid. However, my "listening room" is actually my kids' play room that used to be a bedroom, and I have almost no flexibility on speaker placement or anything else. I don't own an eq, either...I started hanging out on Head-Fi because I didn't want to have to deal with my room!


Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ I'd say in the bass the sine-sweep method is usable and better than the pink-noise method. But I had the rest of the frequency spectrum in mind (as I don't use my equalizer for equalizing, but for tuning the crossover networks). If you look at the jagged red curve above, a reasonable interpretation of the extreme amplitude jumps you'll encounter with sine sweeps is unrealistic. Pink noise has a transient nature, and this may be the reason why it allows to identify hollowness and reverberativeness, in contrast to sine waves.

Now that you mention it...I don't get as much variation at the high end of the scale as in the bass with the sine-sweep. I thought that was just because bass was more problematic...the sound waves are so much larger, plus I've got a subwoofer.

Let me give that a try...I'll get back to you.

 

[boodi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by recstar24 A great example that goes along with your requests and Jon L's post is the Meridian G08. Meridians have been known and still are for their smooth, non-fatiguing sound. Their output circuitry is very good and is designed well. The Meridian G08 has nicely executed upsampling, that does what Jon L is referring to. It makes CD's sound more analogue and liquid than they were recorded/mastered, so you get a very smooth, liquid, non-fatiguing sound. However, you said you also wanted coherent timing, and while the Meridian is serviceable in that department, its actually one of its weak points, it sacrifices some rhythmic tightness for the sake of liquidity and soundstage. As comparison, Meridian is like Sennheiser vs. Naim which is kind of like Grado. The Meridians are slightly warm and smooth, great liquid sound with massive soundstage, at expense of sounding slightly slow, and some would even say veiled or unemotional. If you want an analogue type sound with rhytmic tightness, a sound that is smooth, warm, yet extremely resolved and detailed with great punch and rhytmic drive, I haven't heard a CDP yet that can match even the most basic turntable in accomplishing such a wide variety of musical aspects so well. Of course,i would imagine something like the 10,000 crowd probably gets close,but i haven't heard any that price range.

sorry for not seeking the thread , I've been on a short holyday

yes.

Meridian have that ultra smoothness / other machines share (1212m for ex. is not distant from meridians quality , might be they're on par ) but they are mmm .. bit "loose" on timing and on lifelike coherence and a serious turntable system could sure be the wisest choice for me in the end , I'm speaking soundwise only though ..

It's probable that as yet mentioned a dedicated Dac in a researched bunch could very well sort out that combination , still remaining refined and well resolved , as to give out a balanced&refined but very solid sound

 

[Colhd]

I personally am very happy with my Apogee Min-Dac but whether it sounds "analogue" - not sure; it does sound solid and is good value for money.

Other names to throw in the pot:

Chord Dac64 which I am told is a favourite with vinyl lovers but I have not heard it.

Burmester - I have heard it and it is wonderful, definitely in the direction you are looking, but it is very expensive, even in Europe.

Cheers,

Col

 

[earjam]

dac1 cured my digitituss.

 

[sacd lover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boodi isn't it nice ? .. i know someone here have tried a Dack! ..

I just got one of these last week and I find the dack very good sounding. The sound is rich toned and non-fatiguing but still has good resolution. Paired with a good transport I could happily live with this dac as my main source. I would definitely recommend you give this dac a try.

 

[boodi]

sacd lover .. can you say how it compares to your other sources ( ex. the modded Music Hall 25 ) ?
thanks..

 

[sacd lover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boodi sacd lover .. can you say how it compares to your other sources ( ex. the modded Music Hall 25 ) ? thanks..

Very well.

The dack is probably even smoother sounding. The cd-25 has slightly more treble refinement but otherwise I prefer the dack. The dack is being driven by my sacdmods 555es which has a clock upgrade.... so the jitter is probably quite low and thats undoubtedly contributing to the extremely good sound from the dack. The dack has absolutely no digititis and the bass and midrange is very rich and smooth sounding. The dack has a nice top to bottom coherency too. The treble may be very slightly rolled off but this just adds to the units non-fatiguing nature.

If I can find a used dack I am going to get another one. Since I already have good transports these units are a steal. The build quality of this dac is also exceptional. I was very impressed by the dack in general.

The battery power definitely improves the sound quality IMO. I have never heard a less digital signature from any dac. I liked this unit much more than a friends benchmark dac I had hooked up to my SLAM ppx3 driving senn 600 headphones recently. The comparison was brief so dont read to much into that comparison.... but I thought the benchmark was to thin and brightish for my taste. Hope that helps.

 

[boodi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacd lover Hope that helps.

sure it helps ! , thanks mate

 

[Zuglufttier]

Just read this thread and I find it very interesting. But now that I'm thinking about it, it's rather impossible to tune your room/speaker without very expensive gear...

But headphones could be tuned rather easy I think or am I wrong? It must be possible to find out how your ear behaves and what frequencies are heard at normal levels and which frequencies are heard too quiet. But then again your ears don't work linear...
After this thread, I'm pretty convinced that it is completely impossible to tune your system in a way that makes all frequencies sound equally loud. Even then your ear still works not linear and a peak in the music signal would mean that the sound might not be right.
English is not my native language and I'm not quite sure whether you will understand what I wanted to say

But anyway, good music will always sound good. It doesn't matter where you hear it, so it must be pretty much more than only frequencies und distortion. You can really enjoy music even if your setup cost less than 30 dollars

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zuglufttier After this thread, I'm pretty convinced that it is completely impossible to tune your system in a way that makes all frequencies sound equally loud.

Get an HP signal generator. They aren't that rare or expensive, and they can help you smooth out response problems in your cans. It is a lot easier to equalize cans than it is speakers, because none of the room issues exist with headphones.

See ya
Steve