Eggcup The Daft

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Eggcup The Daft

  • Rank
    500+ Post Club


  • Location
  • Country
  • First Name

Recent Profile Visitors

1,623 profile views

Display Name History

  1. Whereas every great component ever developed was produced without a single measurement ever being taken! Seriously, with two such opposed sides in the argument, every experiment in this area gets picked over for any reason to discredit. There have been flaws in many of them anyway. One thing I would say is that, if you want to be sure, there is no issue with reproducing ultrasonic frequencies, recordings are available with them intact and equipment is available, if you want to be "on the safe side" and deny the 20kHz limit. Or you can carry on playing LPs, nothing there but distortion - it's been, er, measured
  2. Actually, the harmonics depend on the air in a smaller portion of the pipe vibrating for each harmonic. By the time you get to the highest notes of the organ, you get fewer harmonics, because in the smaller pipes that have to be used for higher fundamentals, the amount of pipe and air just becomes too short to produce any kind of meaningful volume for the higher harmonics of their notes. As usual with musical instruments, the amount of sound above 20kHz is very low from pipe organs. Pipes could be designed to produce higher harmonics of those high notes, but the energy directed into doing that would be lost to the production of the fundamental and lower harmonics that we can hear: so the opposite has actually happened over time, pipes are designed to produce the sound that we can hear, more efficiently. So it is with other instruments - there is no point wasting energy on what can't be heard. Similarly with bass instruments, where often the design is more about producing volume in the lower harmonics (which, by the way, is why loudspeakers without the bottom octave can adequately produce notes where the fundamental is effectively out of range - because we hear the low harmonics primarily anyway!).
  3. That's already going on in the UK, apparently, Strange because they weren't taken up there the first time around...
  4. Both true, but technically MLP is not an "EPIC FAIL" and is behind one hell of a lot of good sound. Just not DVD-audio, which I suspect failed for packaging reasons (no dual layer) rather than for sound quality or DRM issues. SACDs could be dual layer and that is why they "won" the war to be the preferred, um, struggling alternative disc format.
  5. The couple I got were terrible. I reckoned I was unlucky, but moved on.
  6. Most of these frequency range charts are produced for people making recordings. They ignore content over 20kHz because their intended market, for the most part, don't want to record those frequencies having been told not to - another argument against "emotion being recorded outside of 20Hz-20kHz". For @Wimbo 's benefit, most LPs contain no useable information above 22kHz at very best; at least some cutting engineers try to avoid higher frequencies in the signal because they waste cutting amplifier power. You'll see references to higher frequency reproduction from LP in various places. It's just noise. If you REALLY want to believe your high frequency theory you'll need genuine "high resolution" recordings, where the initial recording was made to higher than CD bitrates using suitable recording devices. LP doesn't cut it (pun intended).
  7. The harmonic frequencies of the piano go over 20kHz (though at very low volume). You will also get something from some violins, and a bit more from some percussion instruments. There can on occasions be noise at higher frequencies still, but they are not usually part of the performance. Timbral and tonal differences - you could follow the link I added in that long post, which explains them. Each instrument puts out its own distinctive waveform, and parts of instruments vibrate at different harmonics of the fundamental, as well as more specific, set frequencies determined by the size, shape, construction and materials in the instrument. Some instruments can be played with tonal variety (the classical guitar being one of these). Timbre and tonal differences appear through the frequency range of the instruments concerned. All below 20kHz as far as our ears are concerned, of course.
  8. MLP remains at the heart of all of the Dolby multichannel Bluray formats including Atmos and TrueHD. It's Meridian's biggest selling and probably most profitable product to date. And I don't see people burning their Bluray discs because of DRM.
  9. On the other hand, the DAB transmission of Classic FM is 20-20k, and bears no resemblance to high fidelity at all, at least in Sydney.
  10. For this to affect emotion, it's probably not enough that such frequencies do or don't exist, those frequencies have to be better employed by some musicians than others. I'm not aware of any evidence that musicians do that on regular instruments, even coincidentally. And it's a moot point in the case, for example, of the 'cello, which emits nothing over 10kHz. Come to that, electric guitar speakers (that's what you actually hear when listening to an electric guitar) typically only work to 5 or 6kHz and are rolled off to pretty much nothing by 9kHz. Obviously, no cellist, no electric guitarist has ever given a performance with emotional content... you can't admit one without your argument being lost.
  11. Emotion, ah. Emotion is not at any one "frequency". It is the cause of a musician varying their input of energy (touch or breath) to the instruments, the timing between notes - how they start and stop, the particular use of dynamics (loud and soft). I try to play classical guitar. I use a range of techniques, inspired by what the composer has written and my understanding of why. So I can change my hand positions. I can play a particular note on different strings sometimes, they sound different. I can play louder or quieter. I can move my right hand towards the frets, which encourages some dynamics leading to a softer sound, or I can play closer to the bridge, to play a sharper sound. I can be told to do this by a composer or editor in the score, or I can make my own choice. I can choose to roll a chord, or play it in strict time. I can play the music in phrases, to match the intent of the composer and the "rules" of music, but I can choose occasionally to break those rules for a particular effect. I can simply turn my right hand slightly to change the tone. I can mute the strings in various ways, or muffle them to sound a bit like a cello playing pizzicato. There are a number of other techniques that I can use, or a composer can have me use. Every instrument has its own versions of these techniques. For example, violinists can play extended notes at the same volume, or vary the volume through the note, by use of the bow. I can only pluck a note, and (with a hard to play exception) my notes will only fade once struck. WIth a bow, or with breath, you can increase or decrease the volume through a note Most instruments, though, share the same basics. There is a fundamental note, the one you are playing, That has a particular waveform related to the instrument and the technique used to play the note. Then there are the harmonics of that note, which in most cases are parts of the vibrating unit that can vibrate in sympathy or along with the main note. In a guitar, as well as the length of string for the main note, a harmonic an octave above is generated by half of the string vibrating. Other subdivisions of the string also vibrate giving other harmonics, while the soundboard (which amplifies the string through the bridge) will also amplify some harmonics more loudly than others. That's a gross oversimplification, but it will do for now. The guitar will also give out a frequency based on the resonance of the body (which is a box with a hole in it). A wind instrument gets its fundamental and harmonics from portions of the cylinder vibrating in response to the reed or mouthpiece. A piano has a string or strings for each note in its range that are placed in motion by hammers hitting them, and they can be damped or the hammer moved away to allow the note to sustain, while the soundboard amplifies the notes. The general and oversimplified case is that you are manipulating the note values (main frequency of each note, the timing, the dynamics/volume, and the amounts of different harmonics that accompany the fundamental, and the other features that are specific to the instrument being played. The "magic" comes from a good musician successfully manipulating those features of their instrument. The hifi system cannot do that for them nor for you. Its job is to accurately reproduce the sound of the manipulations as it may be expected to be heard by a listener at the performance. There is one other thing that it has to do. The performance takes place in a particular acoustic, and most often in the presence of other musicians. On playback, we also want to hear something of the acoustic, and the relationship between the musicians. Musicians respond to both other musicians and to the room/hall/studio in which they are recorded. Of course, it is effectively impossible for a system to exactly mimic the sound of a cathedral, a particular part of the recording studio, a medium sized orchestral hall or a jazz club. Unless the recording space and the listening area are close enough, the best you can do is try to play back some taste of the acoustic. The low end is where a lot of the clues to the acoustic are, so reproducing down to 20 Hz will give you more of an impression of the acoustic. That's why it can be important with instruments like the guitar (low E on a classical instrument is a little over 90Hz at standard pitch, if I remember rightly). There are a number of good books that explain how instruments and music work in more detail. Here's a link to an old work from 1937, but a classic: The rules have not changed since then.
  12. Looks like yet another case of floorstander in the corner, on top of everything else. If you can't move out of the corner and well away from the side wall into the room, use the standmounts and get a sub for low frequencies. Front or no ports help in these cases as well. It's definitely curtains over that glass, and I'd suggest lined ones. Curtains generally don't damp bass and so won't help with the floorstander in the corner. If that rug is to scale, get a bigger one (closer to the speakers, not so far to be under them). Do those first, and consider treatment behind the seat once you know how those changes sound. In a living room, do the things that look "normal" first.
  13. If only the average CD came close to, er, CD qualilty. The best CDs are quite good enough.
  14. First thought - the Oppo menu system is (to be kind) a bit "basic" so make sure you try it out, I'm sure what you have at the moment is nicer to use, at least with the CDs. On the assumption that your speakers are working well in your room, the rest of your system will easily show differences between different DACs. While not knowing the Meitner, it's likely to at least sound different from any modded Oppo. I'd expect you to prefer the Meitner in this case, though I could well be wrong. I've only recently started on Tidal, and from what I've heard, it is CD quality, so don't put it down or think that using it makes a superior DAC not worth having. So I wouldn't agree with your suggested change without you having both heard, and used, the alternative first. Try your existing Oppo as a first comparison for the ergonomic side of the equation, you'll see what I mean.
  15. "In particular, they need to remove the current Tidal and Spotify integration and try to work on having services available in that region added to the application." Let me guess, Tidal (which I'm listening to right now) and Spotify aren't available in Australia, right? And won't most people in Australia use this DAC with a computer or server for other Australian services? I don't know which one is more accurate, but I think I know which of those two answers comes with the most BS, at least.