Jump to content

Keith_W

Members
  • Content count

    10,517
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

1 Follower

About Keith_W

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Melbourne
  • Country
    Australia
  1. THOMO, I totally agree with you, but with the following caveats: - You have a large enough room to show up the limitations of 2 way. In a smallish room or at closer listening distances their limitations aren't so noticeable. - You listen to "full range" music. Not just music with bass (e.g. pop with a bass beat), but music which have instruments that extend down to the bass (e.g. a pipe organ). - You are comparing it to a suitably well engineered 3 or 4 way system in the first place (and these are not very common, certainly not as common as a well sorted 2 way). If you are looking for a cost no object system, in general, most people would not choose 2 way. Unless of course you go exotic. One of the best systems I have heard was a massive 2 way system - a Tannoy Westminister.
  2. People who hog the sweet spot and then talk to each other!
  3. Try Lucas at Black Art Audio.
  4. Valve amp, Which one ?

    You'll regret that decision. It is far easier to choose an amp for speakers than the other way round.
  5. Canon EOS M5

    Thanks fury. Do you know if the M6 EVF is articulating? Also, is there a function to turn the main LCD off if you have the EVF mounted?
  6. Canon EOS M5

    I am considering a backup body for my main camera (Leica M10), and I thought I would return to Canon. The major turn off with entry level Canon (and Nikon and Sony) cameras is that they are designed with automation in mind. For years I have been shooting in manual mode, and my no.1 priority is to make sure the camera doesn't get in my way! So the EOS M6 is quite an attractive prospect, given that it has enough dials to directly control aperture, shutter speed, and ISO. I have a question though - can it natively accept EF lenses, or does it need an adapter?
  7. There are lots of people who look in the classifieds but don't post. I personally have no problem selling to them if they are happy to meet and inspect the goods.
  8. Do you have XXXXXXL size? This one is too small
  9. Keith_W system

    Part of the problem I think is that the measurement loop is different to the listening loop. Measurement loop goes like this: Acourate -> RME -> System -> Microphone -> RME -> Acourate Listening loop goes like this: HQPlayer -> NADAC -> System -> Ears I have no way to run an ideal measurement loop, which would go like this: Acourate -> HQPlayer -> NADAC -> System -> Microphone -> RME -> Acourate The reason it is not possible is because HQPlayer does not have a digital input. So it is possible that either HQPlayer or the NADAC is generating the spurious frequencies which I can hear (and yes I can hear pretty well, thank you very much). I have tried eliminating both variables by doing these permutations: - JRiver -> NADAC -> System -> Ears - HQPlayer -> RME -> System -> Ears - JRiver -> RME -> System -> Ears Some permutations get rid of the problem frequency better than others. And before you ask, the frequency response neither shows a peak at the problem frequency nor a "finger" on the waterfall graph. And yes, there is a SQ difference between HQPlayer and JRiver. Neither of these players is ideal.
  10. Keith_W system

    @Rob181 the RME in some ways is better suited to my system. The reason why is because of the gain structure of my speakers. It has a very high efficiency horn, which has been made even more high efficiency by removing the passive crossover from the signal path. This is paired with a low efficiency woofer, which has been made even more low efficiency by swapping the standard driver with a modified one. Therefore I need to cut down the signal to the horns and boost the signal to the woofers as much as possible. The RME is capable -30dB to +20dB gain. In contrast the NADAC is -12dB to 0dB from memory. I emailed Merging to tell them that the range of the individual channel trim is not enough when you are running an active system but I don't think they wanted to listen. As for the SQ, the NADAC does appear to sound more refined than the RME. It's a taste thing. But what is not a taste thing is the obvious computer noise that you can hear with the RME at times. I don't know why or where it comes from, but it's there. @Primare Knob I knew that someone would eventually ask me that question! Measurements are one thing, but sound quality is another. What has been driving me nuts for months is a smearing effect that I can hear in some frequencies but not in others. My ears tell me it's around 2000Hz so I don't think it has anything to do with the crossover, or distortion from the tweeter or horn (because the horn should be running well within their linear range, and the tweeter crosses in at 3500Hz). It doesn't show up in my frequency sweeps or waterfall graphs or any sweep that I can think of. I have complained about this to some friends including another Acourate user who reads this forum but doesn't post (hello Aris!). And some other SNA'ers who have visited have remarked on it either voluntarily or noticed it after I point it out. This smearing effect seems more pronounced on the NADAC than the RME. It is also worse with HQPlayer compared to JRiver. It makes no difference if I switch HQPlayer from DSD to PCM. The other issue is that computer noise is transmitted to the DAC's. The folks at Computer Audiophile forum were quite unhelpful - when I asked the question, half the respondents denied there was a problem and refused to consider that the PC would be the source of the noise. The other half suggested magic cables. When I reported that switching from an SMPS to an LPSU helped reduce the noise, half of them accused me of making things up. I therefore no longer visit Computer Audiophile. I don't think anybody on this forum will be able to solve my problem short of actually visiting the system and hearing it for themselves. I will eventually diagnose it and fix it.
  11. Keith_W system

    There is no issue swapping the NADAC for a multi-channel PCM DAC. In fact, I already do it at the moment. The RME DAC is an 8 channel PCM DAC.
  12. Keith_W system

    To be honest, it's because it seemed like a good idea at the time. I have owned an SACD player since the very early days of DSD - I bought my first SACD player in 2001, only 2 years after it came out. Time and time again I heard the difference between SACD and plain CD. Despite what the naysayers say, I still think there is a difference. When it came to changing my system from analog active to a full DSP based setup, I did not want to lose DSD capability. After all, I already had an awesome SACD player (Playback Designs MPS-5), and to go back to PCM seemed like a backwards step. So it was with great excitement that I discovered HQPlayer. Here was a player capable of accepting DSD input, performing the convolution in DSD with no conversion to PCM (albeit at high CPU overhead), and pass DSD out. This meant that the DSD files would be created in the studio directly from analog, be sent through the chain, and then into the DAC in DSD with no format changes whatsoever. There was something about that idea that I found quite appealing. The reality of it is: - the machine I have is nowhere near powerful enough to do the job, and it was the "best" CPU at the time I built it. - a more powerful machine would inflate lots of things - more heat, therefore more cooling, therefore more noise (or more complexity), and more cost. - the difference in sound between DSD and PCM pales in comparison to the difference between a well designed filter and a poorly designed one. If you imagine the difference in sound between one amplifier and another, this is ten times that. It's almost the difference in sound between one speaker and another. All that I have learnt really makes me wonder whether DSD is really all that important in the scheme of things. Attempting to go full DSD was part of my "final 1%" philosophy. Since I already have most of the chain in place, I may as well keep going. But if I knew then what I know now, I would have settled for PCM. It's easier.
  13. Sold to radium55! Thank you all for your interest.
  14. Keith_W system

    As I said in my post, there is no way for me to connect to it at the moment, which is why it is off my shopping list. IF David finds a way, perhaps by using an 8 channel USB module, then I would very strongly consider it. But before I buy one it has to beat the NADAC in a head to head shootout. I am sure it won't be that difficult.
  15. Keith_W system

    Peter, the output from the computer is either RJ45 network cable (i.e. Ethernet) using the Ravenna protocol and into the NADAC, or 8 channel USB into the RME. The current configuration is in the second post in the first page.
×