The Stax Thread III

Discussion in 'High-end Audio Forum' started by currawong, Aug 20, 2013.
Tags:
First
 
Back
933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942
944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953
Next
 
Last
  1. rpeebles
     
  2. rpeebles
    Dear TypodCrowd...that is very kind...much appreciated !! Lots to investigate !!

    Thanks very much.

    Best regards,
    Robert
     
  3. TypodCrowd
    I understand that we wil never reach this "perfection" that I may seek. I also understand that a lot of the "perfection" I may be paying for is mostly inaudible. However, I am not talking about headphones or speakers. I'm talking about the DAC and the AMP portion of a stack. These two components can quantitatively be measured by many individuales and can therefore be quantitatvely assessed for change in comparision to a baseline, and also have these assessments verified by other individuals using measurement instruments (RMAA, electrical scopes, frequency analyzers, etc.). When we express these changes in numbers, we can evaluate the dirrerence, deviation, whatever you'd like to call it from this baseline. These baselines exists for measurementes like freq response, the various types or noise, cross talk, Dynamic range, etc. and often sit at absolute zero, or negitive infinity. These exist in theory, however, in application, can only be approached within some bounded error. This error bound decreases as our technology progresses.

    I stand by KG compeltely from a qualitative prespective; There is no "Normal"; Humans all percieve sound differently; Everything is relative; Hakuna matata. I also understand that audio (and music, as its more relevant subset in this context) is a qualitative experience. I myself own a set of Alpha Primes which color audio like hell and they do so beautifully. However, I must come full circle and say that we actually can quantitatively analyze audio as well. A sound wave is a pattern that can be defined by a mathematical function (however complidated, unnecessecary, and pointless it may seem to most of the audio community), and as long as we can define something methematically, we can assess it mathematically and compare and evlauate it quantitatively; Regardless of whether "perfection" exists (yet) or not.

    As for "having no reason to dislike their EQ" - I strongly disagree. Almosts every audiophile you talk to will have positive things to say about one manufacturer or one of their products and a negative things to say about another. It is the existance of this qualitative bias that has lead to the growth of the audio industry, as well as most other industries in the world. We have choices in, manufacturers, product lines, price ranges, physical models, design philosiphies, and even Beats vs Bose (Yes, I know to some of you I just swore twice in that sentence there) simpy because individuals have the right and the psychological ability to "dislike their EQ".

    The equation is actually:

    EQ_headphones * EQ_custom = EQ_total

    Where EQ_custom can reperesent the multiplied EQ of your source, DAC, AMP, and anything else you'd like to put in the stack, including a little 16ohm resister (Cheers Etymotic, incredibly well played in reference to the ER4P vs the ER4S).

    My point is that your sound is a combination of everything in your stack. It is not just some EQ you cannot change and have to accept as it is. It is also something you can control and understand more throughly by minimizing the EQ effects of certain parts of your stack, especially your DAC and AMP.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2018
  4. Pokemonn
    you modified my equation. you wrong. i said..

    1EQ(headphone) x 1EQ(EQer) = 1EQ(as same as another physically EQed headphone)

    1 x 1 = 1

    its primary school level mathematics. even kids can understand it.
     
  5. TypodCrowd
    My point was to change the equaition on purpose to reflect reality. The EQ your headphone applies will naturally be fundamentally different than the EQ your amp/dac/source components apply. Because they are different, they can't be represented by the same quantity (1EQ - as you stated) but instead, must be represented as individual quantities with their own values.

    For example, You can definitely own a headhone with a very distinct bass boost in its sound character vs. an amp that has a bass roll off. Those two EQ's are not the same and therefore can't be represented by the same "1EQ" identifier.

    If we're taking this into highschool mathematics, you're trying to say:

    a * a = a

    whereas my correction was to state:

    a * b = c

    with the adendum being;

    if b = 1
    then a * 1 = c -> a = c

    Therefore, the final EQ (character of sound, nuance, color, whatever you want to call it) that you are finally listening to (the variable c, if it needs pointing out) acutally can be isolated to only reflect the EQ of your headphones (varuiable a) if and only if your DAC, Amp, source EQ's are all flat or close to flat (represented by setting variable b = 1). As a catch all, once again, I agree that this "perfection" doesn't exist in the audio world or in any world. However, in mathematics (and in engineering) we denote this imperfection as tolerance. My equations are a generalization and are stated as such to implore you to see that the EQ of each of a stack's components can't be represented by the same quantity. Each component can actualy be isolated given the correct conditions (other components being as close to "perfect" as possible) and by setting the appropriate tolerance around the ideal perfection (1.0). How do we get these to be "perfect"? By measuring them and evaluating them quantitatively; with numbers; just as we are trying to do with this oversimplified math equation.

    To avoid carrying on this futile line of questioning surrounding how to multiply variables, constants, and before we get derailed further into how to multiply a curve (which is what EQ actually is), we shuold drop this and return to the original topic of the thread.
    F'kin Stax. The beasts almighty.

    PS. I realize I got a little agressive there - apologies. Kinda.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2018
  6. Pokemonn
    I just noticed 1EQ x 1EQ = EQ^2......LOL
    you just need EQ = 1 then

    1 x 1 x 1 x 1 = 1 x 1 = still 1

    or

    0.5(headphone) x 2(Eqer) = still 1

    or

    2(headphone) x 0.5(EQer) = still 1


    I mean is you can not hear diffrence between electrical EQed HPs and phisical EQed HPs if EQed same.
    anyway please dont be sirious its just crazy hobby anyway...

    > PS. I realize I got a little agressive there - apologies. Kinda.

    no problem at all. i am super relaxed. please be relax. please enjoy your music.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2018
  7. misooooo
    what am I reading
     
  8. TypodCrowd
    Grade 10 mathematics. Once again, apologies.
     
  9. SeaWo|f
    At least it's rational, unlike what goes here most of the time..
     
  10. mtoc
    since none of stax is on WoF no more, there's nothing to discuss/be excited about, like a stax wake up thread, but you know it' too heavy for core-fans (at least to those self-tag stax and only fans, love stax and no else, at least in public eyes)
     
  11. TypodCrowd
    WoF?
     
  12. wink
  13. AudioThief
    Tyll is entitled to his opinion, and this isn't the first time I disagree with him, but removing the 009 is a joke.
     
  14. Whitigir
    I don’t care about whose opinion it is and what WOF is. All I can say is that I am glad that I have T2 and 009, and I am blessed. It has kept me away from HF for a bit, and likely to down size to keep only this system. I only have a set of ears and so much time to enjoy, no time to listen to anything else or read BS anymore

    CC969B6E-1417-4529-B152-6F332380B81B.jpeg
     
    purk, Rayzilla, misooooo and 2 others like this.
  15. Jones Bob
    Tyll lost me when he stopped trusting his own ears and opinions and started listening to Katz.
     
    HoloSpice likes this.
First
 
Back
933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942
944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953
Next
 
Last

Share This Page