Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Inguz dsp plugin - what are the results?
krzys;582845 Wrote: The only drawback is that you cannot measure the whole system since Audiolense is generating his own signal and you cannot pass it trough the SB device. I hope that my SB Touch is perfect ;-) Chris Can you clarify what you mean? I don't quite understand it all yet. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; KRK Ergo, MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Mirage MS-12 sub; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=60057 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
p-cubed;582945 Wrote: Any indication of when a 24-96 release of the Beatles catalog will happen? None. The next release is a vinyl box, mastered from the digital. And before you ask, they haven't released any details of exactly how they are making the master. Since no announcement has been made yet, you can bet the release won't be till next year, after the coming Christmas season. No word on hi-res (maybe even 24/192?)digital release, but since the vinyl is coming first, they will wait for that marketing gambit to maximize cash flow before they make another release. It may take quite a while, perhaps they want to see some more growth in the digital hi-res market before release. The market for hi-res files is still tiny (even smaller than the tiny vinyl market). Ironic, by the way, that the first release of a high-res based Beatles catalogue will be on vinyl. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; KRK Ergo, MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Mirage MS-12 sub; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
opaqueice;582922 Wrote: Apart from that, as I said I'm willing to bet that no one can tell them (i.e. the 24 bit version and its 16 bit dithered counterpart) apart blind. I've done it multiple times, even when sitting in an adjoining room. Instead of just being a knee-jerk skeptic, why don't you listen and then decide? -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; KRK Ergo, MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Mirage MS-12 sub; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
the USB release is high-rez IMO, I'm not convinced a 96 or 192 would have any real audible benefit over those. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
opaqueice;582922 Wrote: 1) Master the hi-res version to sound better 2) everyone will (incorrectly) assume it's the extra bits 3) profit. BS high-res is very close to master if not the master itself. 44.1/16 is downsampled, filtered and tortured version of it -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
I've just run the 24-bit USB version of Come Together vs the 16-bit remaster (ripped as 44.1/24 with DBP). The diff is -81dB (or about 13.5 bits) The difference file boosted by 50dB is full of random noise as you'd expect but the track is still there within the noise - words and music clearly discernible. I'd say that equates to a potentially audible difference for some people. The 24-bit version sure sounds better to me too and no it's not the 0.203dB of gain that makes me feel that :-) -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
On 15/10/10 09:27, Phil Leigh wrote: I've just run the 24-bit USB version of Come Together vs the 16-bit remaster (ripped as 44.1/24 with DBP). The diff is -81dB (or about 13.5 bits) The difference file boosted by 50dB is full of random noise as you'd expect but the track is still there within the noise - words and music clearly discernible. I'd say that equates to a potentially audible difference for some people. The 24-bit version sure sounds better to me too and no it's not the 0.203dB of gain that makes me feel that :-) Phil, I think some folk are suggesting that the 16-bit version is not a simple down-sample of the 24-bit version. Can you try down-sampling the 24-bit to 16-bit and re-doing the test? R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
firedog;582960 Wrote: I've done it multiple times, even when sitting in an adjoining room. Instead of just being a knee-jerk skeptic, why don't you listen and then decide? And i ask again: Did you try the 24bit version against the 16bit version done from the same files and how were the 16bit files created? It is NOT woth anything if you listened some fuzzy feeling 24bit version against some other version coming from a completely other source and you think hearing differences cause of the bits. -- Wombat Transporter - RG142 - Avantgarde based monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Wombat;583004 Wrote: And i ask again: Did you try the 24bit version against the 16bit version done from the same files and how were the 16bit files created? It is NOT woth anything if you listened some fuzzy feeling 24bit version against some other version coming from a completely other source and you think hearing differences cause of the bits. Take -Jasmine- by Keith Jarrett, they released it simultaneously in RB and in 24bit. I just listened today to both, 24bit version is more 'delicate' with more precise bass, and overall more enjoyable and relaxed. Do you want me to post the spectrum of the same song? -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
I quotet firedog cause he once mentioned hearing differences on a Coltrane fromn HDtracks. Hdtracks only sells the 24/96 version of a new transfer, no 16bit version to buy. A spectrum plot leads to nothing. This diffmaker is nice iy ou could handle it. And if you could try to bitreduse the 24bit version with sox and compare again. But this discussion leads to nothing cause no one can prove anything here. I just wonder why still no one has tried the 24bit version directly with a 16bit version from these files, not the cd release. I Hope Robin Bowes now does :) -- Wombat Transporter - RG142 - Avantgarde based monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Wombat;583012 Wrote: I just wonder why still no one has tried the 24bit Beatles version directly with a 16bit version from these files, not the cd release. There are million ways you can downsample 24bit album, I once downsampled few of my high-res albums with r8brain to bring with me to audition some speakers, but it turned to be that my host had CD version of the same album and it (CD) was better.. You can make 16bit version better (if you have the skills and equipment) than most commercial albums as these are not targeted for audiophiles.. But..I do not understand your point. There are less (destroying music) steps in 24bit mastering.. -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
On 15/10/10 13:17, Wombat wrote: I just wonder why still no one has tried the 24bit version directly with a 16bit version from these files, not the cd release. I Hope Robin Bowes now does :) No time just now - I have asked Phil to try with diffmaker. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
On 15/10/10 13:41, Robin Bowes wrote: On 15/10/10 13:17, Wombat wrote: I just wonder why still no one has tried the 24bit version directly with a 16bit version from these files, not the cd release. I Hope Robin Bowes now does :) No time just now - I have asked Phil to try with diffmaker. The main issue is I'm not confident in my understanding of sox, ie. I'd want to read up on what it does to make sure I use the right dither process. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
http://src.infinitewave.ca/ -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Inguz dsp plugin - what are the results?
Ok I will try to explain, sorry for my basic English. Ideally when measuring your system/room response, you want to include all the components of your audio chain. With Audiolense (and many many measuring software), the measuring signal is generated by the software and you cannot play it trough SBS and SB box. You have to connect your soundcard directly to your system bypassing the SB box. The measured signal, which is used to generate correction filters, does not include the irregularities of the SB box, thus this one have to be perfect ;-) Audiolense is very easy to use but is not very competent in exporting or importing recorded responses thus response recorded outside of the Audiolense is very hard to use. . There are other ways to record signals and generate correction filters but they are very annoying in use and very prone to faulty settings and processing. I dont know Accourate but it is a bit costly 290 Euros (including crossovers which I dont want) compared to Audiolense at 170 Euros, maybe it is better but It also wont play the signal through the SB box. Completely free version is the DRC software, but you have to know DOS and have to mess a lot to get it work. This software also does not play trough SB box. The use is very well explained here http://www.alanjordan.org/RoomCorrection/Directions.html just forgot the Convolver VST part, Inguz is a convolver. The only way to include SB box Im aware, is to generate a sweep signal and its reverse in Cool Edit (or similar software) , then play it from SBS, record it with for ex Audiocity and then create the impulse response needed for the DRC filters computing, long, nasty and difficult process. I tried it and the results were very strange sometimes. I prefer Audiolense even if there are some limitations. The correction is still very good and makes a significant improvement in my system (active 4 ways with cones and horns) Chris -- krzys krzys's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2256 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=60057 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Robin Bowes;583018 Wrote: On 15/10/10 13:41, Robin Bowes wrote: On 15/10/10 13:17, Wombat wrote: I just wonder why still no one has tried the 24bit version directly with a 16bit version from these files, not the cd release. I Hope Robin Bowes now does :) No time just now - I have asked Phil to try with diffmaker. The main issue is I'm not confident in my understanding of sox, ie. I'd want to read up on what it does to make sure I use the right dither process. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ You don´t have to wait for Phil. I already wrote: sox input24.wav --bits 16 output16.wav dither -a -f low-shibata works! noise shaped dither with a not to high amplitude. Diffmaker shows ~ -120dB at ear sensitive frequencies. And Michael. Sox with some 90% and allow alias should give you a similar or even better impulse as the Weiss. Weiss allows alias falling back in. Since that happens above 20kHz Weiss thinks it can´t be heard. -- Wombat Transporter - RG142 - Avantgarde based monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Review II: What conclusion can be drawn from the Measurements?
Hi: 24bit=144dBThis can't at the moment be converted to analog. Max dynamic out of a Current DAC is: 132dB (PCM1794 / PCM1792 in mono and balanced configuration). I once asked a Burr Brown sales manager why they annonced 24bit whaen it not was possible to convert this to analog. He returned with a smile and said. 24 maketing bit. -- Caad Caad's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9350 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82050 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
michael123;583015 Wrote: But..I do not understand your point. There are less (destroying music) steps in 24bit mastering.. My point is that i am fed up with reading about how much superior 24bit material is. I listen gear since a while now. I listen some very expensive Avantgarde Trio systems for example. I hear different OP Amps and electrolyts. I hear different caps in my speakers pretty clearly and so on. But i really have problems hearing differences in a good downsampled version of a 24bit file. Most often people just use a 24bit recording they got hold of and listen it against some 16bit version they have without even thinking about it may be more due to the different mastering and not the bits. I myself think to hear some more relaxed playing on music with higher samplerate. Downsampling just adds that tiny bit of hardness but not like day and night. Dithering back 24bit to 16 without resampling, as with HDCD for example didn´t show me any disadvantage at all but i don´t listen at +120dB loudness at home :) -- Wombat Transporter - RG142 - Avantgarde based monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Wombat;583025 Wrote: You don´t have to wait for Phil. I already wrote: sox input24.wav --bits 16 output16.wav dither -a -f low-shibata works! noise shaped dither with a not to high amplitude. Diffmaker shows ~ -120dB at ear sensitive frequencies. And Michael. Sox with some 90% and allow alias should give you a similar or even better impulse as the Weiss. Weiss allows alias falling back in. Since that happens above 20kHz Weiss thinks it can´t be heard. Do not know what you consider as 'works'. Resulted 16bit is essentially the same as Jarrett's version on CD, which I already listened today.. Ear Sensitive is below 15KHz? For which age? And there are clear differences in the low-freq area (which my ear distinguish as well) +---+ |Filename: 24bit.png| |Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10759| +---+ -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Wombat;583030 Wrote: I myself think to hear some more relaxed playing on music with higher samplerate. Downsampling just adds that tiny bit of hardness but not like day and night. Dithering back 24bit to 16 without resampling, as with HDCD for example didn´t show me any disadvantage at all but i don´t listen at +120dB loudness at home :) Right! But HDCD still sounds to me a bit harsh.. comparing to *good* high-rez recordings.. -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
michael123;583029 Wrote: Do not know what you consider as 'works'. Ear Sensitive is below 15KHz? For which age? This sox line works with the Beatles files Robin Bowes wants to try. Ear sensitive is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour In the ear sensitive mids this sox shaped dither is below -120dB -- Wombat Transporter - RG142 - Avantgarde based monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
On 15/10/10 14:54, Wombat wrote: michael123;583029 Wrote: Do not know what you consider as 'works'. Ear Sensitive is below 15KHz? For which age? This sox line works with the Beatles files Robin Bowes wants to try. Correction: with the Beatles files *Wombat* wants Robin Bowes to try ;) R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
On 15/10/10 13:54, michael123 wrote: http://src.infinitewave.ca/ See, that's what I mean. I don't have the time at the moment to read through what that all means and how to interpret it. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Robin Bowes;583033 Wrote: On 15/10/10 14:54, Wombat wrote: michael123;583029 Wrote: Do not know what you consider as 'works'. Ear Sensitive is below 15KHz? For which age? This sox line works with the Beatles files Robin Bowes wants to try. Correction: with the Beatles files *Wombat* wants Robin Bowes to try ;) ;) The graphs at infinitewave are of no use for the Beatles material cause we don´t do any resampling. We only add dither. So no need to go much deeper atm. -- Wombat Transporter - RG142 - Avantgarde based monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
firedog;582960 Wrote: I've done it multiple times, even when sitting in an adjoining room. Instead of just being a knee-jerk skeptic, why don't you listen and then decide? You made a dithered 16 bit version from the 24 bit, and could tell them apart blind? Again, telling the CD version from the 24 bit version is potentially much easier, since they are probably mastered differently. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
michael123;582962 Wrote: BS high-res is very close to master if not the master itself. 44.1/16 is downsampled, filtered and tortured version of it Did you ever compare CD vs 24bit? Audacity, else? No. Again, CD versus 24 bit is not a meaningful test of whether 24 bit does any good, because there is no reason to think that the CD version is simply a lower res version of the 24 bit version. (In fact there are reasons to think the opposite.) The only way to test this is to do the truncation yourself, using e.g. sox. And yes, I have done this (once), and yes, I -could- hear the difference - but only in the noise floor on silent passages. michael123;583006 Wrote: Take -Jasmine- by Keith Jarrett, they released it simultaneously in RB and in 24bit. I just listened today to both, 24bit version is more 'delicate' with more precise bass, and overall more enjoyable and relaxed. See above. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Inguz dsp plugin - what are the results?
Ok I will try to explain, sorry for my basic English. Ideally when measuring your system/room response, you want to include all the components of your audio chain. With Audiolense (and many many measuring software), the measuring signal is generated by the software and you cannot play it trough SBS and SB box. You have to connect your soundcard directly to your system bypassing the SB box. The measured signal, which is used to generate correction filters, does not include the irregularities of the SB box, thus this one have to be perfect ;-) Audiolense is very easy to use but is not very competent in exporting or importing recorded responses thus response recorded outside of the Audiolense is very hard to use. . There are other ways to record signals and generate correction filters but they are very annoying in use and very prone to faulty settings and processing. I dont know Accourate but it is a bit costly 290 Euros (including crossovers which I dont want) compared to Audiolense at 170 Euros, maybe it is better but it also wont play the signal through the SB box. Completely free version is the DRC software, but you have to know DOS and have to mess a lot to get it work. This software also does not play trough SB box. The use is very well explained here http://www.alanjordan.org/RoomCorrection/Directions.html just forgot the Convolver VST part, Inguz is a convolver. The only way to include SB box Im aware, is to generate a sweep signal and its reverse in Cool Edit (or similar software) , then play it from SBS, record it with for ex Audacity and then create the impulse response needed for the DRC filters computing, long, nasty and difficult process. I tried it and the results were very strange sometimes. I prefer Audiolense even if there are some limitations. The correction is still very good and makes a significant improvement in my system (active 4 ways with cones and horns) Chris -- krzys krzys's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2256 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=60057 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Inguz dsp plugin - what are the results?
Firedog thanks for the question, it made me do some search and discover the Waveinput plugin for SBS. http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.php/WaveInput_plugin In theory it let you send the soundcard output to the SBS. If it works the test signal from Audiolense could then be sent to SBS and recorded with the SB box in the chain. I will try it but it is not a very friendly plug-in and some parameter have to be carefully monitored ex sample rate Chris -- krzys krzys's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2256 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=60057 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How much can transport mechanism affect SQ?
opaqueice;582925 Wrote: Do I hear more information on the main system? I'm trying, but I can't think of any sense in which that's true. It's simply that music has more impact, more clarity, a greater sense of space - it simply sounds much more like it does live. There you go, you've just described your experience of more musical information. So I'm relieved to hear that you haven't wasted your money and that, indeed, you have gained deeper insight into the music material you're listening to. Good job. -- magiccarpetride magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82520 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] DAC Resolution Test and Don't EVER use Digital Volume Control
Just decided to experiment with direct connection and I'm glad I did. Going direct instead of through my BAT 3iX tube pre-amp really wakes up my Vandersteen Quatros (I bought the BAT before I bought the Quatros). Going direct really brightens things up. But I have to attenuate at least 20dB to get to my preferred serious listening volume. I ordered a pair of Endler stepped attenuators for this. -- Daverz Daverz's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=32335 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=77725 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
