Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


1 Follower

About Keith_W

  • Rank
    10,000+ Post Club

Profile Fields

  • Location
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Keith_W


    After talking to some Roon users and how they view music, I have come to this conclusion: some people view playback software as an archive. If you have this view, then most non-Roon software would be suitable. If you view playback software as an adventure or as a tool for discovery, then Roon is for you. And it is apparently a very powerful tool for discovering music. My personal (NOTE! PERSONAL!!) view is that I know more about what music I like more than any software could hope to achieve. I want my music presented in a logical, easily accessible form, and organized in a way that I want it to be organized. In short, I view my music player as an archival system. Show me my music the way I have organized it, and i'll be happy. Roon doesn't do that, so Roon is not for me.
  2. Joe, few questions for you. 1. Is your artwork a print or an oil painting? Reason is, oil paintings have lots of little ridges and catch the light when you try to photograph in a non-studio setting. 2. Is it behind glass? If it is, can you remove the glass? I don't mind having a punt, it will cost you nothing. Just be forewarned that whilst I understand the principles involved, this is not my area of expertise either. I have a 24MP camera.
  3. Keith_W


    I actually agree with you. I for one, am far from knowing it all. I don't even know all that there is to know when it comes to audio, let alone know about what they don't know about audio. And audio is a far less complicated field than my own actual field, and I don't know everything about that either. But I know enough about audio to know that what a microphone hears is quite different to what you and I hear. The mic measures the actual response of the system you are measuring, but what you hear is not the actual response. This is because your ears are not microphones, and your cochlea is not an ADC and your brain is not measuring software. Instead, what we perceive is weighted quite differently. This is why a horrible measuring system with large amounts of 2nd order harmonic distortion is more benign than a system with hardly any 2nd order distortion, but with proportionally more (but still tiny) amounts of higher order harmonic distortion. This is also why a linear volume control that attenuates all frequencies equally sounds thin at low volume. There are quite a few more examples. I also know enough that studies on the brain's perception of sound is quite lacking. Thinking that a system that measures great will sound great is old thinking. You have to know which measurements actually matter, and which don't.
  4. I'll put it this way - most Japanese cameras (notable exception - Fuji) are designed for automation. When i learnt photography, I was told that I only needed three controls - aperture, shutter speed, and focus. Well there's also ISO but back then you changed your ISO by loading film. First thing to be automated was focus. For a long time I hated AF because I never knew where the thing would focus on, and early AF was slow and unreliable. After a while, AF improved and I don't mind it any more. Then shutter speed and aperture became automated. This was a step that I did not like, but I could accept it if the camera gave me an easy way to bypass its automation and choose these variables myself. Sony cameras are loaded with automation. There are buttons sprouting everywhere that automates this, automates that, and so on. Just remember: anything that is automated has its quirks. Everyone knows that autoexposure will be thrown off by any scene which is not an average 18% grey. There are even more, such as all the flash quirks that were unique to the Canon system that I had to learn, and then learn a whole new set of flash quirks when I moved to the Sony system. It is pretty amazing that the Sony can focus on (say) the bride, and then maintain focus on her no matter where she goes as long as she's in the frame. But what happens if the camera locks on the waiter instead? Yes, you can make it change to lock on the bride, but quick! Which button do you press! Do you have time to pull out your manual to look it up? You don't, so you miss the shot. And what happens when there are 20 waiters in the frame but one bride, and every time you try to change the focus, it locks on to another waiter? Normally I wouldn't complain about features if I can just ignore them. Just give me my direct shutter and aperture control, and i'll be happy. But on Sony cameras, they don't even give you that in a consistent way. With Canon, Nikon, and Fuji - aperture control is implemented the same way on all lenses and bodies. On a Sony, sometimes the lens has an aperture ring, so you control the aperture on the lens. Sometimes it doesn't, so you control aperture on the body. Sometimes it has BOTH, so you have to check the setting on the lens AND body just to be able to control the aperture. I was never able to get used to the Sony ergonomic nightmare. No matter how much I admire them on a technical level, it's not a camera for photographers.
  5. Keith_W


    Back when I started in hifi (more than 20 years ago), the only way to an accurate system would be: buy the most accurate speaker you can find, and the most accurate components you can find. Accept that the very act of placing it in your room would introduce all sorts of unique distortion unanticipated by the designers. After that, play with the tonal balance by mixing and matching components ("warm" amplifiers, or balance a "dark" speaker by choosing a "bright" cartridge, etc etc) until it sounds right to your ears. How would you know a component was "accurate"? Either by trusting manufacturer published specifications (usually suspect and varies from manufacturer to manufacturer), or reading reviews (also usually suspect because they are universally glowing), or listening for yourself. That was the old way. When I got my first introduction to DSP with a DEQX many years ago, I was really excited. No more would I be subject to all the vagaries and expense of subjective tuning. I could now measure exactly what was happening, correlate it to what I think I hear, and fix it directly. For sure it is a steep learning curve, but it is well worth it. IMO this is the best path to accuracy, if accuracy is indeed your aim.
  6. Keith_W

    High end iem life span

    I have a pair of Sennheiser IE800's. Four years now and still going strong. I also have a pair of Ultimate Ears Triple-fi 10 Pro's. 8 years now and still going strong. In general, IEM's usual point of failure is where the cable is attached to the earpiece. It is usually nothing more than a solder joint which fails very easily. This is why I usually ONLY buy IEM's that have detachable cables. If the cable fails, it's an inexpensive cable replacement, rather than a rebuild. The Sennheisers are the exception, the cables are non-detachable, but my IEM's still work as well as the day I bought them.
  7. Yes, I agree. With Acourate it is possible to force the software to correct every peak and dip so that a repeat measurement (with the mic not moved) looks impressively ruler flat with a variation of +/- 1dB. But this is only in one mic position. All you need to do is move the mic a couple of cm to the left or right, and suddenly the corrected response is all over the place, perhaps even worse than before. You have to be careful that you are not correcting for comb filtering. Comb filtering should be corrected with room treatments and not DSP. The reason? Because correction for comb filtering in one position will exacerbate filtering in other positions. You could also try a pseudo-anechoic measurement technique, but this requires that you are able to center the mic between your speakers consistently. The technique goes like this: center your mike between the speakers from 1m behind the listening position and take a sweep of left and right. Then move forward 20cm, re-center your mic, and repeat the sweep. Keep repeating until you have 10 measurements (i.e. a distance of 2m). If you have a large room, take 15 measurements (i.e. 3m). The theory is that the room response changes with the mic position, but the direct response from the speaker does not. You then average these out. I have found that this gives you a cleaner, more reliable measurement than taking a reading from a single position.
  8. Keith_W

    Keith_W system

    By the way, I came across some interesting resources for those who are interested in DSP. The first is Floyd Toole's 2015 paper on what is and is not possible with DSP. It is quite eye opening: http://www.aes.org/journal/online/JAES_V63/7_8/#paper1 The second is JJ Johnston's presentation in 2008 about acoustic and psychoacoustic issues in room correction. Taking a measurement will give you lots of data, but what should you aim to correct? Obviously, the first thing you need to correct is for what you can perceive, but what can you perceive? Traditionally, research into psychoacoustics has been lacking. This presentation goes into some detail about what is audible, what isn't, and what contributes to spatial cues, and a whole bunch of other things. http://www.aes-media.org/sections/pnw/pnwrecaps/2008/jj_jan08/ When I first went down the DSP line, I had pretty simple aims. All I wanted to do was driver correction, alignment, and room correction. Nowadays I am overwhelmed with information such as what is contained in these two papers which go above and beyond what is possible in most "normal" systems.
  9. Very nice! You should consider starting up a system thread in the Showcase instead of updating your welcome post
  10. Hi Dave, as a guide, a 50Hz wave has a wavelength of about 7m. You only need 1/4 wavelength (about 1.8m) to hear a difference. In midrange and higher frequencies, comb filtering makes much more of a difference. If you want a wider sweet spot, I would take measurements from a wider area and average them. This has been discussed quite extensively in the Acourate forum and it seems to be the consensus.
  11. Keith_W

    StereoNET Kii Three Review

    I have heard these twice now - once in the SNA show, and more recently in a friend's house. Brand spanking new pair that he bought from @WarwickF. Everything was there - clean top end, really tight bass. I only wish there was a bit more bass. I am under the impression that Kii is developing a new stand which will have an integrated subwoofer. Is this true?
  12. Keith_W

    REW Jriver playback

    Glad to hear that it worked!
  13. Keith_W

    Kyron Audio - Kronos System GTG

    Yup, those Kyrons are amazing. Would love to hear this system.
  14. Keith_W

    REW Jriver playback

    nzlowie I guess you have to do the usual: - make sure you have the latest version of REW installed - remember the file location. If in doubt, save it on your desktop.
  15. Keith_W

    REW Jriver playback

    Yeah you can certainly do that. Follow the procedure I posted and generate all the .WAV files you need on your laptop. Then transfer the .WAV file to your dedicated audio PC and continue from there. Use your laptop to take the measurement. Easy.