davewantsmoore

Members
  • Content count

    12,847
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

About davewantsmoore

  • Rank
    Log! It's big, it's heavy, it's wood.
  • Birthday October 16

Uncategorized

  • Location
    Hobart
  • Country
    Yes
  • First Name
    Dave

Display Name History

  1. Yes, but as mentioned, not as "complicated" as more appropriate test signals. Either you have drastically oversimplified this comment, or you are wrong. The notion that test equipment cannot capture/quantify/reproduce, something about the input signal (harmonics, dynamics, everything) - isn't right. ... and as mentioned. Music is mostly inadequate to test the ability of a system to reproduce dynamics, or harmonics (or whatever term). More difficult benchmarks are recommended (becuase the music you choose to use, does not contain all the possible harmonics, or dynamics, etc.... and so it is an incomplete benchmark). When I test this hypothesis by removing content above 20khz (and keeping everything else identical), I am not able to hear any difference. When I go "mythbusters style", and attempt to change the situation to force a difference to be audible - nothing I can do makes it audible. eg. relatively extreme boost at HF ... eg. sitting very close to dedicated very-high frequency transducers (eg. ribbon) FWIW -- If you are looking for an explanation about why your LPs sound superior to other formats - this is not it. However there are a lot of other reasons why an LP may sound different - and hence potentially better - to something else (eg. a CD) I do not suspect malice.
  2. Music is not a particularly 'revealing' test signal. There are other test signals which are much more difficult to reproduce, and so are much more revealing of the distortion in a system. You can of course, use music, or more music-like test signals. What you see .... is how the output signal differs from the input signal.
  3. Enjoy it while it lasts
  4. I've never seen anything seriously calling it into question
  5. Typical content doesn't contain very much (if anything) in the top octave. When it does, then this can be a relevant factor.
  6. Shame. I was wondering about whether they used a cd player, or some other digital transport.... how the track were switched.... what where the tracks .... etc. etc.
  7. This. I wouldn't say it has to be completely matching (although if you're not certain, then it's a safe bet) ... but a poorly performing, or a poorly positioned centre (or surround) speaker is much worse than none, IMHO.
  8. The flip side of this is perhaps if it doesn't sound fully terrible (I'm not familiar with how it sounds on a good stereo) then the system is hiding something.
  9. Did anyone do this? It is possible to game these demonstrations .... not being able to change the schedule on the fly could possible be a tell for that. 'd be interested to hear more about the demo.
  10. My approach to computer audio is thoroughly different to most of this thread. The transport and DAC must be welded together using I2S I2S over a consumer cable (eg. HDMI, ethernet) is not sufficient I2S over something else, eg. your own wires with uFL connectors or something - is insufficient unless you are an expert with fast signals Basically what this means is that you need the transport and DAC to be in the same box.... people approach this scenario by using a "2 PC solution" with a dedicated transport computer that does little but simply connect to the DAC. For mine, a more modern DAC that includes some sort of "computer" inside, like a FPGA, or some other optimised/dedicated silicon are required. The DAC must go to extreme lengths to attenuate jitter. More extreme versions that what is found in most hifi oriented equipment. There are a few patented solutions for this which work well. There shouldn't be any/much electrical connection between 'noisy' computers (where you run your OS, player, DSP, etc.) and you DAC This includes maximum electrical isolation for the signal cables between the computer, and the transport/DAC (eg. optical cables, opto isolated, or non-grounded cables) This also includes mains cabling - running devices on different circuits, or transformers is helpful. The goal is to have a DAC which is not affected by goings on further upstream. A situation where small changes upstream (eg. in the computer) produce changes downstream, means that this hasn't been achieved. I wouldn't say that flavouring the system with noise (or lack of), is an invalid approach..... but it's certainly more difficult and less reliable.
  11. Drivers in an open baffle have an extra rolloff at low frequencies. This means that you need to design a filter to flatten this rolloff, and also be prepared to accept a lower maximum SPL at low frequencies (vs a box). That is where the comment around not being suitable, and needing a larger driver and/or a subwoofer .... you will not have a lot of maximum SPL (with a 6" driver). Open baffle speakers are often thought to be an 'easy' approach, because they are simpler to construct ..... but they are just as complex (or more) than any other speaker.
  12. .... No way. I was certain... just CERTAIN, this was leading to a line with "SDI". How disaapointing.