Jump to content

aechmea

Members
  • Content count

    1,760
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About aechmea

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Hunter Valley
  • Country
    Australia
  1. Mike Oldfield "Man on the Rocks" I bought the deluxe version because it had a bonus CD of the album played as an instrumental. I was horrified and disappointed to find that the instrumental version has a DR statistic of DR6; even worse than the vocal version (DR7) which is pretty damn poor too. This is what you expect from heavy metal bands not from new-age/prog stuff. Haven't played it since. Instead of fiddling with MQA, SACD, DVD-A, 96k, 192k etc etc studios should put good/dynamic masters on a redbook disk and be done with it.
  2. Non upsampling DAC experience

    Yeah, me too. Ever since I found out about it whilst investigating the technicalities of HDCD some years ago. It appears that it ain't gunna happen. Also have a small set of Reference Recordings (CDs (and HRX WAVs)) just in case. Ha ha. The recordings are pretty damn good even without the Pacific Micro DAC. Unfortunately not really to my musical taste but interesting to play to see how recording/mixing/mastering could/should be done.
  3. I have planars in a quite heavily treated room. Some might say, too much. I have tried most configurations. 1. Side wall absorptive treatment doesn't do anything much, if at all. 2. Front wall absorptive treatment shrinks the soundstage but it becomes incredibly precise. Swings and roundabouts. 3. No absorption at the front is more vibrant, but much of the very strong backwave can bounce directly back to the seat ie. the first backwave reflection is a bit too strong. 4. Bass response is greatly affected by speaker to frontwall and chair to backwall distances due to SBIR. Probably greater than box speakers because all of the energy of planars only goes in 2 general directions rather than being sprayed. 5. Linkwitz's idea of a dead backwall is effective. Well, I like it. 6. Neither absorption nor diffusion in front my TV screen makes any noticeable difference. 7. Ribbons on the outside widens the soundstage into the proper shape. When on the inside the image is stretched vertically. 8. Big wobbly speakers really do need to be braced and then coupled through any carpet to the floor. 9. I think that the 'waterfall' graph in REW is pretty good for seeing what is happening re treatment. 10. I think that taming reflections/reverb time is at least as important as a 'flat' freq response. 11. Get the bass right. So what I have at the moment is ... Diffusion panels at the front in a column where the first front reflection aligns with the chair. Stacked tube traps in corners Back wall almost covered with 100-200mm of full semi rigid fibreglass sheets Lounges near back wall as absorbers 'Spare' fibreglass sheets propped against bits of furniture out in the room. [Away from the walls (in velocity regions) is more effective for absorption than against walls (pressure regions).] One sub positioned on the back wall and another on the side to fill the SBIR nulls of the other bass sources at the front. Triangular buttress stands spiked through to the concrete. You can tell something has been 'done'. Walk into the room (with no music) and even the ambient 'silence' sounds different. The overall effect is of sitting in front of a stage about half way back with the sound coming from that front direction. Sort of a concert hall effect rather than being 'on-stage'. [If you are doing a bit of theoretical planning of nulls, peaks, modes, SBIR, room geometry etc. such as the programs that proliferate on the web, then they will almost certainly be wrong. They don't take into consideration that the backwave of a planar is 180º out of phase.]
  4. All businesses borrow money to do stuff and claim the interest as a legitimate deduction. If it happens to make a loss, then that offsets other profits. That's the way that all business works. A person owning a second property is a business decision and there should be no problem in doing the same irrespective of who it is doing the investing. Negative gearing, in fact, levels the playing field. Capital gains concessions were originally brought in to encourage the populace to invest in the country and drive development and the economy in general. The share market benefited too. The "halving" that we see now replaced a calculation involving CPI percentages. Don't know why that was dropped; too hard for some? The problem is that once an incentive is given its very hard to take back. What a lot of investors don't seem to understand is that property prices are just as likely to collapse as any other investment (well, almost). Govt, Treasury, Reserve Bank etc. are well aware of that and any tinkering with interest rates or capital gains taxation could send the sector (the owners, the buyers, the sellers, the banks and all sorts of associates) into a downward spiral which would be unwise/unpopular/unwelcome/unelectable/catastrophic. Govt can't just whack things on the head with a hammer without being extremely careful. Cue Harold Holt's credit squeeze, 1960. What is it that Sir Humphrey says? "An extremely courageous decision, Minister" The problems with housing affordability as I see it are 1. The somewhat overwhelming demand by half of Australia's population to live in Syd or Melb. I have never understood that. 2. Cheap money. The world is awash with cash which only fuels buying. 3. People buying at the top of the market and borrowing at the all-time minimum interest rate. Binge buying. What are they thinking. 4. People thinking that they are richer than they actually are. Or lying. 5. The need to buy everything that opens and shuts ie. as some form of entitlement/peer pressure. And not just homes. 6. There is a housing oversupply as far as I understand (Google "oversupply of housing in australia"), but the buyers seem to be ignoring those places. I guess that it will even itself out in time, one way or the other, but I am not convinced that negative gearing and cap gains concessions to individuals are the main problem or a problem at all, and need fixing with quite the urgency or heavy-handedness that is being discussed.
  5. MiniDSP, DEQX and DACs

    Initial look indicates that it is a single band of EQ so useful only for 1 peak would have to do your own measuring to locate the peak and check the 'after' result So, not terribly useful. But I suppose fixing one peak is better than none. [I used peak deliberately. Lopping the top off a peak is OK. Trying to 'fill' a null doesn't work. One might be able to correct a shallow and wide dip but that will be barely audible so hardly worth the effort.]
  6. The sky

    Yeah I thought that too. Yaccaba head (right) and Cabbage Tree Island out in the Pacific (left). Jimmy's Beach (a sandy beach on Port Stephens). Port Stephens looks a bit choppy; must be a windy day.
  7. MiniDSP, DEQX and DACs

    Yeah that's right Andy.
  8. MiniDSP, DEQX and DACs

    Yep, @Mike13 best if you can see a system or 2 and talk to someone in the flesh to see what is possible and what will suit your needs. Go and see Andy. When next in Newcastle ....
  9. MiniDSP, DEQX and DACs

    Correct. The older models had a set of filters for the 48k/96k family and another set for the 44.1k/88.2k family, but they were also limited to 96k input.
  10. MiniDSP, DEQX and DACs

    Yes, I believe the filters are generated (on PC) then applied (in real-time) by the box at 24/96k. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that a lot more RAM and CPU power would be required to do much else. I have heard half a million lines of code mentioned in dispatches, sure, much of this would be PC software but then ... there is a lot going on in that box.
  11. MiniDSP, DEQX and DACs

    Ah, OK. If no digital output on that model then you can't do what I have done. Re speaker correction ... Back in the old days I set up 2 profiles, one with and one without, and switched them realtime as an A/B comparison. Quite easy to hear a difference (even if it was a 'sighted' test). Hard to put an adjective to it; sort of a more elegant, finer, precise structure. I suppose that a fair bit of fuzz/cloud/grey was removed. Yeah, much bigger/better than the changes due to cables and so on. Quite like comparing quality mastering (DSD layer) versus not so careful/heavy-handed mastering (CD layer) on a hybrid disk. Is it a big deal? Its a medium deal; better than some, not as good as others. Essential if you are going to active bi-or-tri-amp the mains as it can do wonders around the XO points, but still good on passive speakers too. Group delay/ phase/ amplitude between drivers and between L and R speakers are all aligned. I have this feeling that I can get even more out of it if I took the time to do a better psuedoanechoic measurement upon which to base my speaker correction filters. I don't want to go back. Put it that way.
  12. MiniDSP, DEQX and DACs

    I do all speaker and room correction in the DEQX. The DSP built into my Velodyne subs is surplus to requirements. [I had the subs before a DEQX.] Volume, input selection, processing, EQ etc is all done in one place; the DEQX. I have lost track of what hardware is available in what models of DEQX. In my model there is a digital output set of outputs that match the analogue outputs. I'm not sure if all DEQX models have digital output.
  13. MiniDSP, DEQX and DACs

    No. The subs do indeed 'hang' off the 'low' connectors but full range can still be sent to the mains, if that's what you want to do. On the setup of DEQX profiles, you tell it what sort of configuration you want. One of my DEQX profiles has full range Maggies with subs in a support role ie. 4 bass sources in the room.
  14. MiniDSP, DEQX and DACs

    There are many configurations that one can use. I like to keep things 'digital' for as long as practicable before doing one final DA conversion. Multiple AD/DA conversions can be avoided. However some people put the 'external' DAC in front of the DSP unit and are happy with that. It would need input switching though. Here is my schematic which is just one of many possible. [For completeness, the picture should show that the DSP in the subs, in my case, is disabled and also that there is a AD/DA conversion in the subs that cannot be by-passed.] The DEQX has excellent DACs already built in and my PS Audio is due to lust rather than a step-wise improvement. You only need multiple DACs if you are going to active bi-amp, which you can do but only if the main speakers allow it. Mine don't, so I just treat them as a passive speaker ie. one stereo DAC. The DEQX allows 192 input but the processing/correction filters are 24/96. The output to an external DAC (post processing) is 24/96. IMO and IME speaker correction and final room correction EQ (after room treatment and correctly positioning of speakers and the chair) that DSP affords are orders of magnitude more effective than an alternative DAC unless of course the original DAC is essentially faulty.
×