muski;230687 Wrote:
It's interesting to see that the ECM8000 does mostly OK in the lower
freq, but not so well above 1KHz.
muski
Very interesting! Thanks for sharing. Not a good news for ECM8000 users
like me (and like most here I guess). I assume that the response in the
treble would be
I took measurements today with both of the mics, using a Sound Devices
USBPre audio interface. Very interesting results!
The first chart shows the freq response of the left channel
measurements (Due to differing sensitivities the sweeps were at
slightly different levels. So I shifted the ECM8000
ezkcdude;229635 Wrote:
David, I read the dCS paper, actually a long time ago. If you get time,
here is a paper by Ashihara et al. (in AES, 2005) that shows *random
jitter is not detected unless greater than several hundred nanoseconds
(ns)*:
alZmtbr;230544 Wrote:
Is this a case of if you need to ask the price, you can't afford
it
Not at all. I think they are selling them for $259 and that includes
shipping. Sounds reasonable to me.
--
SatoriGFX
nuhi;230770 Wrote:
Tell me one thing please, in the first pic, which calibration file for
the ECM did you use?
The first graph is just the Impulse_Response_Measured, so there is no
mic calibration applied (ie zeros). In fact, I can't figure out how to
generate mic-cal adjusted graphs of the
jhm731;230631 Wrote:
Contact www.mauimods.com or www.db-system.ms/
hmmm...so it is possible - thanks!
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
...SB3+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some
acousticsguru;230829 Wrote:
11.2896MHz superclock from db System only, no other choice. Cost of this
modification 250 Euros (ca. 356 USD) - somewhat exorbitant.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
Yes - not exactly a cheap mod. Also, not one I am contemplating at this
time. I find that
Chinanico;230693 Wrote:
I assume that the response in the treble would be more sensitive to the
exact position of the mike than in the bass. Do you think this could
account for some of the differences or did you manage to position them
the very same?
I used a mic stand and was very careful
An external supply can't eliminate the noise from the internal
switcher.
TD
--
tyler_durden
tyler_durden's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2701
View this thread:
I like to see DBT results for shielding equipment and cables. You
wrap your stuff up and expect to hear a difference, therefore you hear
a difference. Try is when you don't know if the stuff is wrapped or
not.
TD
--
tyler_durden
Describing a trace as accounting for mic calibration is imprecise,
because it depends on your frame of reference. The key factor is
whether any trace represents an in-room response, or the response as
seen by your sound card ADC (after being filtered by an imperfect mic)
I think mortod's
Deaf Cat;230852 Wrote:
So would putting something producing/affected by rf/emi in a simple
metal box and earthing it do the same thing?
ie. protect the item from outside rf/emi and, or stop it from radiating
rf/emi.
erm...Yeah! (but watch out for the cables...)
--
Phil Leigh
You want to
So would putting something producing/affected by rf/emi in a simple
metal box and earthing it do the same thing?
ie. protect the item from outside rf/emi and, or stop it from radiating
rf/emi.
--
Deaf Cat
Deaf Cat's
muski, oh ok.
While adjusting the curve to your new comparison I was wondering are
those dBs on the phase response actually degrees or it's more like
divided somehow?
I'm asking because in the default ecm8000 there is a huge difference,
like 3 times stronger correction in phase (they use 20,
mortod;230718 Wrote:
Hang on - both Inguz's test and my own observations make sense. DRC
applies mic calibration to the filter, not the TestConvolution which
means that all those frequency responses are without mic calibration
and *are* comparable.
I don't know, mortod. According to Hugh in
nuhi;230770 Wrote:
muski, so it is confirmed, without a calibration the ECM8k is almost
useless :(
This gets more and more interesting. I sent my ECM8000 out as well to
get calibrated. I'll post my cal curve as soon as I get it back.
--
tonyptony
DRC is very cool, but it's light-years more complicated than a simple
EQ. Inguz is great and there's no need to overlap that, especially
since it's a small portion of the total users out there.
But, I'd be surprised if nearly every system out there couldn't use a
little cut here, a little bump
Pat Farrell;230613 Wrote:
I'm not SE, but 44.1 is how we get perfect sound forever. Too bad it
wasn't [EMAIL PROTECTED], we might have received what they claimed. But then,
CD
were aimed at replacing casettes, not LPs.
Based on my beliefs about human nature, and audiophiles in particular,
kifysara;230734 Wrote:
For example, a quote from the guy that opened the thread (hope he
doesn't mind):
The paper concludes with the note that the high res releases sounded
much, much better than the same music on CD, for well-known mastering
reasons.
I saw that hydrogenaudio thread
The thread has gotten off the point of my post: RF is distorting the
sound of the SB3.
How can any sort of comparison or recommendation be made when something
so prevalent as RF effects the sound?
Perhaps my SB3 with shielding sounds as good as a Transporter?
--
donwalker
muski, so it is confirmed, without a calibration the ECM8k is almost
useless :(
Tell me one thing please, in the first pic, which calibration file for
the ECM did you use?
I hope it was none (zeros) so that I can adjust mine.
Very helpful indeed, so we do have hi freq issue. I say we because I
Here are the same first three graphs for the right channel -- just to
double check things.
Freq response is very similar, though the phase plot is slightly
different. Maybe the ECM8000 is actually ok in terms of capturing
phase information.
Deaf Cat wrote:
So would putting something producing/affected by rf/emi in a simple
metal box and earthing it do the same thing?
ie. protect the item from outside rf/emi and, or stop it from radiating
rf/emi.
Yes, its called a Faraday cage.
Usually made of screen for ventilation
--
Pat
One more vote for Parametric EQ integrated into Slimserver, also DRC
too.
Doesnt Vista have some really poor eq features these days?
Nick.
--
Grumpy_Git
Grumpy_Git's Profile:
As far as I can ascertain, the EMI shielding capabilities of Carbon
Fibre are similar to those of aluminium foil. It's principle benefit is
that it is non-metallic which makes it ideal for certain critical
applications (eg avionics).
The XP is a pretty major rework of the 2.2X - the entire brain is
redone. The Altmann works perfectly with everything else. Your answer
is what TacT gave me though. :)
Vinnie at Red Wine Audio is going to do the surgery on my SB. I don't
believe he is generally offering SB mods any more but
Yeah, the Altmann is an awesome DAC. Mine would'nt work with my TacT
2.2XP, even after sending both pieces to TacT. So, the TacT went away
but I still have the Altmann.
I also have a Lessloss DAC which allows for clockery, of the superclock
kind. It will natively work with the clock frequency
I have done side-by-side experiments, albeit with a CD transport. Clock
linking sounded better in this context.
--
miklorsmith
miklorsmith's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4349
View this thread:
miklorsmith;230858 Wrote:
Yeah, the Altmann is an awesome DAC. Mine would'nt work with my TacT
2.2XP, even after sending both pieces to TacT. So, the TacT went away
but I still have the Altmann.
I also have a Lessloss DAC which allows for clockery, of the superclock
kind. It will
In the past I fashioned my own 5VDC 5A supply for about $100 in parts. I
found that it made an obvious difference when using the SB3's analog
output. Next, I purchased the CIAudio VDA-2 DAC and switched to using
the SB3's digital output to drive it - that resulted in a larger
improvement than
miklorsmith;230875 Wrote:
I have done side-by-side experiments, albeit with a CD transport. Clock
linking sounded better in this context.
I wouldn't disagree. Clock linking of a spinning transport with all its
noisy servos etc potentially messing with the SPDIF should sound
better...
Now,
If jitter-bugging isn't the theme of this thread then what is it?
As Sean said earlier, the only reason to use wordclock in the context
of hi-fi is to minimise jitter.
There are other techniques which also achieve similarly effective
results. Not just my opinion - I believe this to be a widely
nuhi;230850 Wrote:
muski, oh ok.
While adjusting the curve to your new comparison I was wondering are
those dBs on the phase response actually degrees or it's more like
divided somehow
No, it's degrees (-180-0-180). (BTW, I have no phase information in
either of my mic cal files). It
Phil Leigh;230824 Wrote:
hmmm...so it is possible - thanks!
11.2896MHz superclock from db System only, no other choice. Cost of
this modification 250 Euros (ca. 356 USD) - somewhat exorbitant.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
--
acousticsguru
tonyptony;230390 Wrote:
I agree that's a head scratcher. If Hugh is right that means your
measured curve should look quite a bit different.
Hang on - both Inguz's test and my own observations make sense. DRC
applies mic calibration to the filter, not the TestConvolution which
means that all
I'd go with the tin foil, but you might find it has more effect wrapped
round your head. Gotta be worth a try!
Adam
--
adamslim
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have
others
http://www.last.fm/user/AdamSlim/
'Last.fm group: people who don't listen to any of
kifysara;230734 Wrote:
Perhaps you would like to check the Hydrogen Audio Forums. In the
Listening Tests sub-forum there is a debate going on concerning this
AES paper which - at least for me - clarified some points.
For example, a quote from the guy that opened the thread (hope he
Phil Leigh;230845 Wrote:
I find that using the Altmann JISCO+UPCI in-between the SB3 SPDIF out
and the TACT SPDIF in (and then running the TACT at 96kHz to my DAC via
SPDIF) gives me what I perceive to be (rightly or wrongly) a
jitter-free sound.
I won't say this works to some extent, but
Again: It is my understanding that CF absorbs and changes to heat.
The others reflect.
Although a steal or copper box may help. They also change electro
magnetic fields.
--
donwalker
donwalker's Profile:
Phil Leigh;230874 Wrote:
If jitter-bugging isn't the theme of this thread then what is it?
Depends on how you're using the term: the avoidance of jitter, in my
terminology, is not the same as the cleaning up of a jittery signal.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
--
acousticsguru
CPC;230884 Wrote:
Who's going to do the clock mod on your SB?
That's what I'd like to know, too.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
--
acousticsguru
acousticsguru's Profile:
tyler_durden;230859 Wrote:
An external supply can't eliminate the noise from the internal
switcher.
TD
Nobody claimed it could. But, to say that then means that using an
external supply will make no difference is like saying there is no need
to quite smoking since the air quality outside
bump...
Hugh, I'm hoping the log file will tell you something about my problem.
--
tonyptony
tonyptony's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3397
View this thread:
acousticsguru;230943 Wrote:
You do realise, however, that there are transports with lower intrinsic
jitter? So if jitter is what this discussion is about, I may be missing
your point.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
Not spinning ones...
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path
acousticsguru;230942 Wrote:
Depends on how you're using the term: the avoidance of jitter, in my
terminology, is not the same as the cleaning up of a jittery signal.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
You can't avoid it - it is present in the source material (to some
extent) and then more
I can't comment on the analogue stages of the SB3 (as I don't use them)
but a replacement PSU makes NO difference to the digital output as far
as I am concerned. I do use a linear PSU because the stock supply
interferes with my AM radio. However the sound from my external DAC is
completely
donwalker;230926 Wrote:
Again: It is my understanding that CF absorbs and changes to heat.
The others reflect.
Although a steal or copper box may help. They also change electro
magnetic fields.
And your point is what exactly? If you surround your sb in foil and it
reflects then
SatoriGFX;230952 Wrote:
Nobody claimed it could. But, to say that then means that using an
external supply will make no difference is like saying there is no need
to quite smoking since the air quality outside is bad anyhow. Every
little bit helps.
No, it's not the same.
TD
--
+1 for parametric.
It would allow us to tailor the sound to OUR preference rather than the
speaker designer. Usually boost or cut of less than 3db has negligible
effect on phase and is all most of us need.
--
konut
Phil the tin foil will reflect the waves created by the sb. So the tin
foil will create a little mircowave oven that will cook the sb and
create more distortion.
--
donwalker
donwalker's Profile:
Phil Leigh;230960 Wrote:
You can't avoid it - it is present in the source material (to some
extent) and then more gets added...
I'm talking about the path: the point of clocking backwards is
avoidance, whereas jitter bugs are devices or in-built receiver chips
that clean up - at least that's
donwalker;231005 Wrote:
Phil the tin foil will reflect the waves created by the sb. So the tin
foil will create a little mircowave oven that will cook the sb and
create more distortion.
No it won't. Where do you think these waves are coming from? The VFD,
the wireless card? Something else?
I used the Sweep (with EQ in L channel) test tone and, using the M30
microphone recorded sweeps for both the M30_normal_flat and
ECM8000_normal_flat filters. Below are the plots of
Impulse_Response_Measured and phase response (1/6 octave smoothing).
Since the M30 is pretty close to flat even
donwalker;231005 Wrote:
Phil the tin foil will reflect the waves created by the sb. So the tin
foil will create a little mircowave oven that will cook the sb and
create more distortion.
But if you earth the foil casing, won't all the rays be pulled to
ground ?
--
Deaf Cat
Phil Leigh;230853 Wrote:
erm...Yeah! (but watch out for the cables...)
Cheers Phil,
IC's are screened, ( what ever that means.. :0 )
Mains cable has an earthed shield :)
Pat Farrell;230856 Wrote:
Yes, its called a Faraday cage.
Usually made of screen for ventilation
Pat Farrell
Faraday cage does exactly that.
I can't help thinking this thread is getting confused between light and
EMR
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
...SB3+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and
donwalker;231005 Wrote:
Phil the tin foil will reflect the waves created by the sb. So the tin
foil will create a little mircowave oven that will cook the sb and
create more distortion.
You seriously need to study something other than high-end audio
marketing propaganda.
TD
--
tyler_durden;231047 Wrote:
You seriously need to study something other than high-end audio
marketing propaganda.
TD
:o) - nicely put!
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
...SB3+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn
tyler_durden;230972 Wrote:
No, it's not the same.
TD
It is the same. The less RFI the better.
Phil Leigh;230977 Wrote:
I can't comment on the analogue stages of the SB3 (as I don't use them)
but a replacement PSU makes NO difference to the digital output as far
as I am concerned. I do
Good thinking - resort to name calling and ganging up. I know more
than you do about everything Lets chase this guy off.
You have a narrow mind or are an employee of SB with an agenda.
This was fun! Giving you kids something to whack.
Oh yes I just put the carbon fiber on to impress my
muski;231024 Wrote:
I am surprised by the phase behavior of both filters in the low freqs.
That phase response may not be as bad as it looks. The point is that
if a filter is linear phase it's perfect (just as good as 0 phase
shift), because linear phase is simply a time delay. That's
muski;231024 Wrote:
It is interesting that the ECM8000 plot, though not without some
issues, does looks flat-ish (ie at least it doesn't have the huge hump
like the ECM8000's mic freq reponse plot).
There are 6dB jumps all over the high frequencies, that's too much (3dB
is 2 times
Yes, definitely seems that the gain setting isn't being picked up
properly. You only have one InguzDSP.exe.config file, and it's in the
same folder as InguzDSP.exe, right?
--
inguz
inguz's Profile:
Damn! I had two instances of Slimserver installs! Only one is actually
running, but I was going to the older (defunct) install to adjust the
config file. Thanks for that suggestion, Hugh. Talk about brain dead!
--
tonyptony
Sorry what do you mean by that, didn't you say that the mic cal files
weren't applied?
The mic cal files were indeed applied to create the two filters. The
M30 mic cal file was not applied to the measured results shown above,
but as the M30 is reasonably flat it shouldn't make much
Woo-hoo! Thank Hugh. That did it.
I had to crank the Gain down to -19dB, but that cleaned it up fine. I
guess my description of what I was hearing was pretty bad! :-) The one
remaining question, though, is why does Inguz allow any processing at
all to happen even if EQ is set to None? Recall
If the issue is RFI being generated by the supplied wall-wart, making it
across the SB3 onto the analog output cables, then a cheaper solution
would be to put an RF choke, (wrap the DC cable into a bunch of turns
around a ferrite bead,) right before the cable goes into the SB3.
I looked at the
Partly to keep volume fairly constant (otherwise you'd see a sudden jump
when adjusting EQ away from flat), and partly so it can respond in the
middle of a track...
--
inguz
inguz's Profile:
Makes sense. Does reducing the gain like this hurt things in any way?
Reduction in effective bits, or anything like that?
--
tonyptony
tonyptony's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3397
View this
I have to take issue with the assertion that Monopoles produce a simple
radiation pattern which is non-directional. A typical direct radiating
loudspeaker system with a dome tweeter and a cone woofer mounted on a
box is NOT non-directional at all! At least not until you get down to
frequencies
No... unless it's *way* low, in which case there are I think three
risks. 1) worse S/N ratio, 2) more amp power needed, and 3) if
anything suddenly starts playing at really full volume, more chance of
damaging your speakers ;-)
(The other night I had a power glitch or something, which caused a
I played with REQW and think I have my impulse response measured and
normal test convolution file in a form you can all get a good look at.
These measurements were generated using a flat target file.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Inguz DRC has improved my system
dramatically, but I'm
SoftwireEngineer;230562 Wrote:
I think it is highly fruitless to talk about 'audibility'. This seems
like a relative/subjective thing. There are people who cannot tell the
difference between a boombox sound and separates sound. If I am in the
academic world, I would just devote my time to
jt25741;231080 Wrote:
Indeed. Nyquist says that any frequency above 2X the sampling frequency
is garbage, and must be thrown out(filtered).
The key word here is *must*. Its not optional, you must do it.
And one of the claims in favor of higher sample rates, and oversampling
in general, is
jt25741;231080 Wrote:
Indeed. Nyquist says that any frequency above 2X the sampling frequency
is garbage, and must be thrown out(filtered).It doesn't say that
sampling frequencies that are higher do not approximate the analog
waveform more precisely! This is a common misunderstanding.
jdm56;231072 Wrote:
I have to take issue with the assertion that Monopoles produce a simple
radiation pattern which is non-directional. A typical direct radiating
loudspeaker system with a dome tweeter and a cone woofer mounted on a
box is NOT non-directional at all! At least not until you
opaqueice wrote:
Just ask yourself what the difference is between a 20 kHz square wave
and a perfectly smooth 20 kHz sine wave.
Answer - a 60 kHz sine wave (plus higher frequencies). So if you can
hear 60 kHz, you'll know the difference.
I'm lost.
Nyquist deals with sine waves. Any
Pat Farrell;231084 Wrote:
I'm lost.
Nyquist deals with sine waves.
NO! Nyquist deals with _signals_. ALL signals can be expressed in terms
of sine waves. That includes square waves, triangle waves, flute waves,
Christina Aguilera waves, pink noise, stock prices, daily temperature
Okay, this probably doesn't belong here, but I'll try. I have two
systems in my house: the main system, which runs almost $20k, a nice
office system that runs around $2k, and (okay, three) two of those
Tivoli Model 1's. One is in the bedroom and one is in the kitchen.
Oh, and my daughter has a
79 matches
Mail list logo
