totoro;144209 Wrote:
Have you tried room correction? I just started playing with the inguz
audio stuff. It's pretty cool, it works, and it's free.
That sounds like a sensible solution.
Unfortunately it's Windows. And I don't use Windows on my servers.
(My server isn't powerful enough either,
I've been using the inguz filter for months now - it makes a big
difference. For linux there's a program called brutefir - if you
search the forums you'll find someone that successfully used that.
Once you have a filter file it's not hard - you just need to edit the
slimserver config.conf file
opaqueice;144309 Wrote:
I've been using the inguz filter for months now - it makes a big
difference. For linux there's a program called brutefir - if you
search the forums you'll find someone that successfully used that.
Do you have a feeling for what sort of CPU power is needed to run the
cliveb;144363 Wrote:
Do you have a feeling for what sort of CPU power is needed to run the
inguz room correction on Linux using brutefir?
inguz says that for Windows, you need a 2GHz+ CPU. Is there anyone
about who's running it on Windows that can comment on this? Do you
really need that
opaqueice;144386 Wrote:
Brutefir is supposed to be very efficient, so my guess is 500MHz is
more than enough, especially if your server is dedicated and you don't
use sweeps longer than 45s.
Sounds like its worth testing out.
--
tomsi42
SB3, Rotel RC-1070/RB-1070, dynaBel Exact,
You wrote 15 and up -- but 15 and up to where? 20khz? In that case,
all your friend did was turn up the volume by 20db and everything
stayed linear. I don't think you understand. It matters, and it
matters a great deal, if someone raises a particular range. If you
boost the entire spectrum,
Transporter is 2-3 weeks out, I'm afraid
tomjtx;143949 Wrote:
excellent post..now, how about that
transporter lavry comparison?.pretty please?
--
highdudgeon
I repeat, I did not wrote 15 and up, I wrote 15kHz upward. I am
referring to tweaking the frequency response of his sytem, not
turning up the volume knob, I did not write boosting the entire
spectrum. So stop assuming that everyone is stupid and only you are
clever. There's enough debates about
This is the point at which I switched off from the earlier
subjective-objective thread mentioned by the OP. It pains me that
the real potential of a forum such as this will never be realized if
even one person that participates never learned how to play well with
other boys and girls. Not
joncourage;143943 Wrote:
Lot's of great theory here, coupled to well-thought-out philosophy of
the subject. (And everyone getting along so nicely!) Bright, educated
group, articulate. Impressive (and intimidating). Good Thread, OP.
Thanks - it was a pleasure to read the thread this morning.
A few random thoughts:
(1) double-blind testing ... while granting some practical limitations
(like the hangover problem, or the number of trials you need to make,
or how long you need to listen to each sample, or making it really
blind), this does have a very valuable contribution to make in
tomjtx;143877 Wrote:
I could go on, but not one great maker uses CAD or anyting like that.
They build by ear, using tap tones , adjusting bracing etc. It is an
art that cannot be fully measured.
Of course I meant electric guitars, and Suhr is most definitely one of
the finest in that field
adamslim;143980 Wrote:
Do people think that double-blind tests are genuinely accurate?
One thing to consider is who is doing the testing. I would put forward
the view that a serious professional reviewer should use double blind
as a matter of course, but for individuals, just buy what you want
CardinalFang;144001 Wrote:
One thing to consider is who is doing the testing. I would put forward
the view that a serious professional reviewer should use double blind
as a matter of course, but for individuals, just buy what you want
after reviewing and auditioning by whatever means you
highdudgeon;143957 Wrote:
Transporter is 2-3 weeks out, I'm afraid
Sorry, thought you already had it. I should have access to one in 2-3
weeks also, looking forward to your observations.
--
tomjtx
tomjtx's Profile:
I see your point, but if you read A's statement it doesn't sound quite
so ridiculous.
Lets consider musical memory, aural, visual and muscle memory from a
musicians viewpoint.
I memorize pieces quickly. If Ihave a piece memorized for a week and
then don't play it for a week I lose most of all
Double-blind testing is a tricky thing -- there's a whole science to it.
In terms of audio, done over time with one or two people, it is valid.
Use different lengths of music. Do it over different days, even. Tally
the results.
Otherwise, you need a larger sample to correct for individual
Most people would like to think they are different, even better, than
most other people in some way. An easy way for people to rank
themselves against others is money. People with money often feel they
are somehow better, more deserving, than others with less money.
People with money who
Amen. High end audio is also highly elitist...and most marketing plays
into this. In some ways, I think the high end watch market is actually
more honest. They make nifty things, they make beautiful things, they
make insanely rugged things, and they make some hedious things.
However, there
highdudgeon wrote:
Amen. High end audio is also highly elitist...and most marketing plays
into this. In some ways, I think the high end watch market is actually
more honest. They make nifty things, they make beautiful things, they
make insanely rugged things, and they make some hedious
highdudgeon;144054
On a forum I participate it -- highly reputable, the Robert Greene forum -- a
member posted to the effect that, after years of fiddling with interconnects,
he decided to try a test himself. He had his wife change cables every few days
over a three week period. There were
tomjtx;144052 Wrote:
My point is .not all aural memry is fleeting. The more and longer we
hear something the longer we retain it in our memory .
Out of interest, there is a fairly common condition called dyspaxia and
one of the common symptons is that no matter how many times you hear
tomjtx;144043 Wrote:
Thanks for the clarification and sorry I jumped to an incorrect
conclusion about your post. Sounds like you have some excellent
guitars.
I don't know if you like clasical guitar but check out Aires Latinos by
David Russsel (that's the CD that won the grammy last year)
CardinalFang;144094 Wrote:
Out of interest, there is a fairly common condition called dyspaxia and
one of the common symptons is that no matter how many times you hear
something, it never gets registered deep in your memory and you have to
keep re-learning things like number tables to
Quite true. It really is bothersome to be the kind of person who
appreciates a device for its durability, mechanical interest, design,
and legacy, and then walk out into a world where 90% of the people who
own similar things are out to show off their good taste and deep
pockets. But, horology
Pat Farrell;144087 Wrote:
Plus, you can wear a watch to work, and show off what good taste you
have and how rich you are. High End audio is not visible at work
I wear a Rolex Presidential that I inherited from my father and I have
to say that it causes more problems that I ever imagined.
You're not kidding.
Most of my watches are inherited (I come from a very large family) and
some I simply will not wear out -- the sentimental value is too deep
and the monetary value too great.
--
highdudgeon
tomjtx;144052 Wrote:
If I had listened to unfamiliar recordings I think it would have been
harder to hear those differences.
So, is it possible that much blind testing relies on short term aural
retention rather than long term. Perhaps a blind test which uses
recordings testers are
. I'm also an (amateur) musician, have played an inssomewhere around
16kHz).
In the end, I could tell the difference, but only on some tracks I knew
very well, and even then just barely. I found it easiest to discern on
a recording of the Bach cello suites - there was a difference in
timbre,
tomjtx;144163 Wrote:
.
Do you think most people in both camps would agree that amplification
has improved to the point that the least differences exist in this part
of the audo chain?
Seems reasonable to me.
I don't have problem with this. I need to fix my room (or move) before
I swap my
tomsi42;144199 Wrote:
I don't have problem with this. I need to fix my room (or move) before I
swap my speakers. I might buy a transporter; but my reasons for that
purchase is more close to highdungeon's Rolex ravings than real
needs! But I don't mind that - if I can afford it and I believe
That looks TOTALLY promising! Too bad it's windows only. But, why not?
Why not use software on your computer to calibrate EQ via Slimserver?
Genius.
totoro;144209 Wrote:
Have you tried room correction? I just started playing with the inguz
audio stuff. It's pretty cool, it works, and it's
You got me there ;) I consider myself a realist, and that fits with the
price of my stereo (about 4000,-) But I am OK with that.
On a more serious note; I listen to blues, pop and rock (and a little
bit of jazz). Although I go concerts and blues festivals, most of my
listening are done to
This thread is a great set-up for the mother of all flame wars! adamslim
must be the kind of guy who enjoys watching people tear each other limb
from limb :-) Here's hoping that the Audiophiles forum here doesn't end
up like rec.audio.opinion.
But while I'm here, let's get into the Nomex and put
90% of the music I listen to was never live, never performed in a
concert hall, and in most cases was probably in the digital domain it's
entire life until it hit my amplifier (i.e. was never even recorded in
the traditional sense). So for me, whether a set of speakers duplicates
the sound of
I agree. I think the general motto should be *'If it sounds good to you,
then it sounds good to you.'*
I'd like to share an experience I had over the summer. I work for a
mid-size production company in central Minnesota. We have a small line
array system (8 cells aside/50,000 watts), and for the
Addendum: holy crap. Wall Of Text. Those are my opinions. Do with them
as you will.
--
flattop100
flattop100's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7760
View this thread:
adamslim;143686 Wrote:
The realists are the worst of all. They cannot get off the fence - they
can't bring themselves to buy equipment that either sounds good or
measures well, so they are condemned to unhappiness and mediocrity.
Well I would have myself a realist up until that point. I
I think this whole discussion is centred around subjectivism, after all
what do we actually mean by the term 'audiophile'. It strikes me that a
wide variety of people either identify themselves as part of, or
definitely not part of, this group for a range of reasons.
Some seem to be searching
adamslim;143686 Wrote:
This may (preferably) be unpopular with the establishment, challenge
current thinking and has every chance of being utterly wrong.
This has nothing to do with the Scientific Method.
To quote wikipedia:
Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as
Okay, okay. So my graduate degree was in the history of science -- I
studied physics, history, and philosopy for five years after college
and came away with a funny hat and a nice robe with stripes on the
sleeves. I can assure you that there are stacks and stacks of books
and arguments and
SuperQ;143793 Wrote:
This has nothing to do with the Scientific Method.
To quote wikipedia:
Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of
natural phenomena
also see this page:
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node7.html
What scientific
tomsi42;143718 Wrote:
I feel that the problem with some of the threads in this forum, is that
some the participants have a short temper (or carries a chip on their
shoulder), takes everything personally, have a personal grudge against
poster X, and/or don't cool down and reread before
I'd like to sidestep the issue altogether by simply observing the
following:
There is probably no system today, and certainly not in anyone's home,
that can really fool us into believing that the we are at the recording
venue.
As long as this is the case our ears will do just fine as the
P Floding wrote:
There is probably no system today, and certainly not in anyone's home,
that can really fool us into believing that the we are at the recording
venue.
While I tend to agree with the literal comment here, I don't agree that
this is an admirable goal.
Probably because I've
CardinalFang;143757 Wrote:
Well I would have myself a realist up until that point. I love music
above all else, but I like to know my equipment has been well designed
and well engineered both visually and sonically. I have bought it all
after reviewing some basic specifications and getting a
Pat Farrell;143852 Wrote:
P Floding wrote:
There is probably no system today, and certainly not in anyone's
home,
that can really fool us into believing that the we are at the
recording
venue.
While I tend to agree with the literal comment here, I don't agree that
this is an
P Floding wrote:
Pat Farrell;143852 Wrote:
I tend to agree with The Absolute Sound's definition when the type of
music fits: the sound of real acoustic instruments in real space.
But most music doesn't fit those restrictions. The sound of an electric
Believing doesn't necessarily mean the
Here's a question - suppose I played two systems for you blind, which
differed only in one component, and you couldn't tell the difference.
Would you be willing to spend $1000 more on one because it turned out
to have prettier cables?
I don't know anyone that would say yes to that - although
At the risk of making absolute statements on sensitive topics,
double-blind tests are the only scientific way to gauge whether or not
a subject can perceive the difference between two stimuli. This isn't
limited to audio. There are plenty of perception tests around vision,
smell, etc. that
Really, so much of this boils down to speakers. Ever heard Dali
Megalines? Spooky. Read the review. If you can find someone with a
pair anywhere near where you live, introduce yourself, buy a nice
bottle of wine, and beg your way over for an audition.
As for the pure subjectivity thing: it
adamslim;143686 Wrote:
- The subjectivists reckon that listening is the only real test.
Implicit in this position is the view that dedicated tester can hear
all differences, and that their preferences are duplicated though
others (their readers, if they are reviewers). They normally
Actually, our ears work pretty much the same. So says my wife, the
doctor. They vary, with age or exposure to excessive sounds, in range
and acuity. I'm 41 and my upper limit is a shade over 14khz. That's
pretty good for someone my age, actually, and a minor miracle,
considering the number of
highdudgeon;143922 Wrote:
Actually, our ears work pretty much the same. So says my wife, the
doctor
How do you explain, when someone tells you that he's sensitive to
upsampling DAC, he develops headache after listening to it for more
than an hour; whereas, some people (me included)
I think you missed the point of my post. The point is that our ears
work the same. Our eyes, except for when we are color blind or have
some other gross disturbances, work the same way.
What varies, my friend, is our expectations and our likes and dislikes.
You might like it because it APPEALS
Lot's of great theory here, coupled to well-thought-out philosophy of
the subject. (And everyone getting along so nicely!) Bright, educated
group, articulate. Impressive (and intimidating). Good Thread, OP.
Here's my perspective, and my approach:
You do your homework on specs and measurements
highdudgeon;143941 Wrote:
I think you missed the point of my post in an obtuse kind of way
What you are saying is, everyone has the same ear and hear exactly the
same thing, the only difference is their taste.
What I'm saying is, everyone has a different ear AND a different taste,
they do
highdudgeon;143922 Wrote:
Actually, our ears work pretty much the same. So says my wife, the
doctor. They vary, with age or exposure to excessive sounds, in range
and acuity. I'm 41 and my upper limit is a shade over 14khz. That's
pretty good for someone my age, actually, and a minor
58 matches
Mail list logo
