pfarrell Wrote:
It is more than that. Louder is always (nearly always?)
interpreted by the brain as better.
If you don't volume match, there is no point
in doing the test.
If a difference is so subtle we can make either option sound better
simply by turning it up .5 dB, do we really
opaqueice Wrote:
That's called a non-flat frequency response, and overall it usually
sounds worse, not better (depending of course on the source material).
If there's a single central goal of hi-fi audio, it should be to avoid
that, so as to produce as accurate a reproduction of the
Originally Posted by opaqueice
That's called a non-flat frequency response, and overall it usually
sounds worse, not better (depending of course on the source material).
If there's a single central goal of hi-fi audio, it should be to avoid
that, so as to produce as accurate a reproduction of the
Phil Leigh Wrote:
Regardless of how flat the FR actually is, minor FR changes such as
treble lift or reducing upper bass can have the same psycho-acoustical
effect as boosting volume - it sounds better for a while...
You're right, but it really depends on the source. For example, I
The HF roll-off thing is interesting - it seems that a flat response is
too bright for most folks - even those (like me) who can't hear much
above 15K.
Headphones are used to check for faults - not for balance mixing or
mastering. Usually large studio monitors are supplemented by a
variety of
opaqueice Wrote:
I don't have any particular opinion regarding whether power cords could
make an audible difference, apart from some mild skepticism arising from
what I know about electronics
I'm with you on the skepticism. One of my previous roommates had a PS
Audio Power Plant which
opaqueice Wrote:
About bi-wiring, if both cables are connected to the same post on the
amp, then bi-wiring just doubles the number of wires going from amp to
speaker (so in other words it's just like using thicker speaker cable
wired the usual way).
Not necessarily. A speaker designed for
opaqueice Wrote:
Anything else (besides shielding) seems a bit hard to buy... for
example, using 12 gauge wire is fine, but what's the gauge of the
wiring in your walls? I'd guess 14, but may be wrong. In any case,
using thicker wire and conductive grease can reduce the resistance of
tomsi42 Wrote:
Not necessarily. A speaker designed for bi-wiring have 2 separate
filters. So the signal is split at the amp end, but not added again at
the speaker end. The alowws you to choose different cables for the
upper and lower frequencies.
Well, standard EM will tell you there's no
banzai Wrote:
No, the audible differences have more to do with detail and spatial
precision. It might also cause a slight volume gain (emphasis on
slight), but I'm not sure on that one (it's hard to distinguish
slight changes in volume from perceived increased detail). I have an
SPL meter
opaqueice wrote:
Fair enough... although now I can't help wondering if the volume
difference could account for this, as small differences in volume can
make a big difference in perceived quality.
It is more than that. Louder is always (nearly always?)
interpreted by the brain as better.
If
opaqueice Wrote:
Fair enough... although now I can't help wondering if the volume
difference could account for this, as small differences in volume can
make a big difference in perceived quality.
No doubt. However - if the different power cords are producing
different volume gains, that
Interesting... I've experienced this first hand as I've recently moved
into a smaller space. My hifi was built up and sized around my previous
listening area and my current one is approx. half the size.
The sound has gotten noticeably worse - not bad by most people's
standards I guess but to me
Here is a site, by the owner of RealTraps, that offers some good advice
on room treatment:
http://www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html
Here are a few good sites that offer very good room treatment
products:
http://www.eighthnerve.com/
http://www.realtraps.com/
http://www.gikacoustics.com/
For
sugarmonster Wrote:
Are we talking about coating walls with egg-cartons here or something
more subtle?
Egg carton coatings on the wall would be _too_ subtle. As Pfarrell
suggested in another thread, you need thicker material for lower
frequencies. They usually look like large tubes that
I'm new here so forgive me if this is all a re-tread of what went on in
the (apparently heated) power supply thread.
I'm a little surprised to see the second post in this thread completely
discarding the effects of power cords.
I won't go into whether or not power cords/supplies will help the
Hi Banzai,
I don't have any particular opinion regarding whether power cords could
make an audible difference, apart from some mild skepticism arising from
what I know about electronics (incidentally, I have the same skepticism
about bi-wiring speakers--assuming they're connected to the same
Wayne1 Wrote:
Here are a few good sites that offer very good room treatment
products:
Argh - No! Just when I thought I'd wrestled the hardware upgrade demon
to the floor something else comes along...
I do NOT need another excuse to get my audiophile OCD tendancies all
worked up :-)
Michael,
BINGO!!!
--
highdudgeon
highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22000
ezkcdude Wrote:
I'm sticking with my sub-$300 NOS DAC for now ;)
What you dont want a $1000 power cord to give your vocals more more
air and naturalness. ;)
I mean you know your power cord is sub par if it is not double cryo
dipped!
Do people really buy into the crap? I will give you that
m1abrams Wrote:
What you dont want a $1000 power cord to give your vocals more more air
and naturalness. ;)
I mean you know your power cord is sub par if it is not double cryo
dipped!
Do people really buy into the crap? I will give you that a linear
power supply will help with the
ezkcdude Wrote:
Well, my DAC has a DC input like the SqueezeBox. So, there's no need
for $1000 cord. Otherwise, I'm sure I would go for it ;)
What is the biggest difference using the NOS dac, compared to the
analog output of the SB? PRAT? Dynamics? Imaging?
Just curious, as I read that
Skunk Wrote:
What is the biggest difference using the NOS dac, compared to the analog
output of the SB? PRAT? Dynamics? Imaging?
Just curious, as I read that another member prefers the sound of the SB
DAC to his audio mirror NOS DAC (can't remember which member, or if it
was a daydream).
ezkcdude wrote:
speakers: 65%
amp: 25%
DAC/source: 10%
So, in the future, I will allocate my resources accordingly. For
example, if I were given (or earned, I suppose) $10,000, I would spend
$6500 on speakers, $2,500 on amplification, and $1000 on a source/DAC.
It is interesting how the
ezkcdude Wrote:
speakers: 65%
amp: 25%
DAC/source: 10%
Interesting numbers. The last few times I have been to Hi-Fi shows,
there have been many who say that you need to spend a lot of money on
the source (CD-transport, DAC, etc.). Their argument is that the the
end result cannot be
Like I said, it's all about getting above a certain threshold. Maybe
it's just like with computer programming in that you keep improving
components one at a time until you remove most of the bottlenecks,
which in this case, represent signal degradation. Perhaps, now that my
amp is up to snuff, I
ezkcdude Wrote:
Like I said, it's all about getting above a certain threshold. Maybe
it's just like with computer programming in that you keep improving
components one at a time until you remove most of the bottlenecks,
which in this case, represent signal degradation. Perhaps, now that my
ezkcdude Wrote:
Like I said, it's all about getting above a certain threshold. Maybe
it's just like with computer programming in that you keep improving
components one at a time until you remove most of the bottlenecks,
which in this case, represent signal degradation. Perhaps, now that my
The 'reclocking' done by the Benchmark and the DA10 are radically
different. The Benchmark uses an oversampling chip, which when it
resamples at a higher frequency, maps jitter to broadband noise and
changes the bits during the process. The reduction in jitter is very
good and is cheaply
I'm sticking with my sub-$300 NOS DAC for now ;)
--
ezkcdude
SB3-Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC-MIT Terminator 2
interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)-Parasound
Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier-Speltz anti-cables-DIY 2-ways + Dayton
Titanic 10 subwoofer
He's not hi-fi,
Jenks Wrote:
The Lavry allows the incoming stream to fill up a buffer and the Lavry
then extracts (reclocks) the data in that buffer using its own clock.
This method of reducing jitter can be more expensive to implement for
any targeted level of jitter reduction,
That seems a lot like
Question - is the power supply quality of any relevance if I'm using
coax digital out to an outboard decoder? Or would the power supply
question only be relevant were I using the SB3's analog outputs?
--
Cleve
Two-channel system;
McIntosh MC2205 amplifier
McIntosh MAC4100 receiver
Klipsch
Cleve,
Nice rig, by the way. The short answer is this: if you're using the
coax output to an external DAC that completely re-clocks the incoming
signal, then all of this stuff, including power supply questions, is
rubbish.
Other stuff: look up the well-know Bay Area Audiophile Society blind
highdudgeon Wrote:
Other stuff: look up the well-know Bay Area Audiophile Society blind
test of power cords. Even with a sales rep present and extolling the
virtues of kilo-buck power cords, over the course of a day audiophile
listeners never really scored better than 50% in guessing the
Mike Anderson Wrote:
I've read that. I enjoy reading about folks' blind testing,
particularly when it's done fairly rigorously, and the numbers are
presented, p-values calculated, etc.
I enjoy reading those too, so don't get me wrong. The arguments by
example, however, prove something
highdudgeon Wrote:
The short answer is this: if you're using the coax output to an external
DAC that completely re-clocks the incoming signal, then all of this
stuff, including power supply questions, is rubbish.
Please specify what you mean by re-clock, and please give an example
of such a
36 matches
Mail list logo
