Jump to content


Full Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by davewantsmoore

  1. That depends on the output of the source. My DAC outputs 0dBFS from a digital media as 2V RMS .... then it will achieve full amplifier swing.
  2. I couldn't find any "coke jokes" on their website. Seems like a missed opportunity. Lame and disappointing.
  3. Yes, 10% is a small amount for some/many things. (Remember .... 3dB is +/-100%) Speaker frequency response vs angle (ie. driver xo, summing and layout) is critically important, and very audible. I use winisd to verify quick ideas about box volumes and what will be the resulting excursion and power for a driver. I use VC2 to look at drivers (including "off axis") and cabinet diffraction .... although the gold standard is just build / measure a prototype. I very rarely build passive XOs but when I do I model them with VC2 also
  4. LOL. You understand how large that is, right?! Let's say., for example... that I set my playback so the loudest sound (0dBFS) is played at 120dB.... ie. extremely loud! The ambient noise (ie. silence) in my room is (let's say) 30dB..... ie. that a very very quiet room. Only the top 90dB of the recording is audible.... the bottom 30dB is quieter than the room is silent. Far from being "nitpicky" .... the above example, is very generous .... and doesn't go into futher issueswhich make it worse in practice. A similar example can be w
  5. The floor is a significant part of the horns mouth area (it's one "wall" of the mouth/exit). Without it the mouth area would ne much much much larger. LOL
  6. It isn't (in an any practical way) ..... but he is talking about improving the SNR in the quieter parts of the encoding..... but this will still be limited by the SNR of the digital electronics (assuming good quality electronics).... That is unless the commanding is done in analogue. (ie. encode/decode digital using the higher SNR parts of the equipment...... and then "recover" the compressed DR using analogue electronics. Given modern high SNR converters.... and the very small dynamic range of recorded sound (50dB is huge) .... then I still don't think its very useful.
  7. I don't know what the 3 color lines are in the magnat data. Nor what SPLs the CSD data was captured at. But, I would expect these speakers both have very different frequency response vs angle..... so thy will sound quite different. Both should offer acceptable distortion vs SPL, when EQed to have substantial bass in room...... unless, of course, you would like to them to play super-loud.
  8. CDs can already store ~96dB of dynamic range. Why would more be useful?
  9. Impossible to say without knowing what frequencies are the problem (or being helped by the cushions)
  10. Some good advice in this post.... Yes... the bigger=better theme in this thread seems somewhat misguided. Yep... it's a balance between this and SBIR and early reflections. Yes.... al least. Too many setups have the listener without enough space behind them. Ideally the rear should be far enough way that it's not big issue. Is it? Which bits cost a lot?
  11. No... that's exactly what I'm telling my kids. 😃👍 In a way which doesn't give them too much of a scarcity complex, of course..... but "figuring things out", and "solving problems" are good life skills (understatement) .... and few cuts from rusty nails won't hurt one bit.
  12. If we are testing the performance of a circuit.... we care about the performance at all levels, not just at the average. It is not misleading to test a device with 2V. If people misunderstand what the test means the that is their fault...... so the "people doing tests at ASR with 2V" are not being "misleading".
  13. Why RMS? I think you write this in a strange way that will confuse many..... but I agree with you. Gain structure is of upmost importance...... otherwise we will need to add amplifying (or de-amplifying) components in between our source and (ideally a single) gain stage..... which will likely have unwanted reactance.
  14. The effect starts a lot higher than most expect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lindos1.svg
  15. Is it? ... or is a fun topic to discuss about yes/no/why? 😳 Which one is "the most solid and 3d" has a lot to do with preference...... but also a lot to do with how well the system is configured (most surround setups are setup like garbage)
  16. I should clarify that I mean it says a lot about what is required for high performance sound...... not "a lot" about the person, or their ears, or anything.
  17. Yes.... by Pascal. The DSP, etc is implemented on a computer, looks like a Beagle (similar to a raspberry pi) D Both Hypex (yes, for Kii, and "I think" for Buchardt)
  18. Audiophiles wax lyrical about their multi thousand dollar amplifies and xpnsiv drivers..... and the thy move to amplifies that are $50 per channel and $20 drivers and say it's better. Says a lot.
  19. Scales on those chart make them quite difficult to compare These things are harder to develop to 'prime time' than it might seem for a small company (like D/D)... Ask me how I know..... (I'm not the sort of person who likes to "go with something very basic" ..... but it looking more and more like that will b the only workable way).
  20. I don't think what you are planning here will achieve what you think it will. It seems unlikely you can find enough information on th drivers to b helpful to crossover/box design. What you should do is make th internal volume of th box(es) the same as the originals.... and make the baffle with the same. Keep the spacing and layout of the drivers identical. If you don't do these things, then you'll need to redesign the crossover filters.
  21. You hav tried it? I think on a well configured surround setup ... that dolby (atmos) surround processing of stereo sources does a very good job. It must be a well stetup system .... otherwise misplaced speakrs draw attention to thmslvs
  22. In most ways I think this is terrible advice. Most things I fix in audio systems, I wouldn't be able to "pick out" with my ears.... but one the thing is fixed, and you (if you have the opportunity) switch back and forth, the difference is well audible. But... the opposite (agonise over every wiggle in the response), can be problematic too. The perhaps obvious thing is that the solution is knowing what in a chart is problematic, and whether it can be solved (with practical / available options). In this case (like many/most) the chart makes it look w
  • Create New...