-
Posts
492 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Store
Forums
Gallery
Videos Directory
Everything posted by GFuNK
-
I've awoken from a slumber... I can answer this one. I do know mass loading is a great way to control vibrations. F = m*a, so more mass (m) equals less acceleration (a), or velocity or displacement for that matter. This is with regards to equal force. Voila! Also, yes, tuned absorbers, like the toppers, can increase vibrations if tuned incorrectly. That's right, they are not a one size fits all.
-
Great Buys On Ebay, Gumtree, Marketplace etc.
GFuNK replied to Drizt's topic in Great Deals, Bargains, Specials Alerts
Squeezebox boom starting at 50 bucks. http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Logitech-Squeezebox-Boom-Wi-Fi-radio-and-streamer-with-integrated-amp-/222842971059 -
Great Buys On Ebay, Gumtree, Marketplace etc.
GFuNK replied to Drizt's topic in Great Deals, Bargains, Specials Alerts
Squeezebox touch starting at $50 https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/LOGITECH-SQUEEZEBOX-TOUCH-MUSIC-PLAYER-STREAMER/222832301174?hash=item33e1d71476:g:G20AAOSwALtafpo9 -
Why does B&W currently sell the Nautilus for more money? Anyway, regardless, I believe the two speakers should sound different. They both have completely different design philosophies. The nautilus use drivers driven in their pistonic range and uses a closed bass driver. The 800 is ported and relies on controled breakup for some of the drivers. Completely different crossovers and dispersion characteristics. Theoretically the closed woofer in the nautilus should have less group delay and a shallower rolloff at low frequencies. I'd be interested to see the distortion specs between the two. Anyone seen measurements of the nautilus? The new materials and new tech in the 800s mean naff all If they aren't measurably better. Otherwise it's just a different flavor... expensive flavors! Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
-
Yammy have you listened to these by any chance: Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
-
Pm sent Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
-
Perhaps its a case of different language but I was using breakup to describe the speaker cone resonating and not vibrating as a rigid body. This of course is a function of wavespeed of the cone material, diameter and supporting structure. What you are describing is what I would call radiation efficiency saturation of a rigid piston, ie diameter is equal to a half wavelength. Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
-
I think the challenge is: to compare them under the conditions of "all other things equal" I'd be interested in people's opinions on that one. Perhaps: same box, mounting geometry and cross-over frequency and both with similarly tight frequency response, ie, +- 0.25 dB with octave band smoothing. Sensitivity doesn't need to be matched but volume does. You'd probably want to feed them high pass filtered music to remove any masking due to differences in bass response as well. Then you'd need to repeat with a few examples to get a statistically significant result. We having fun yet Many of the characteristics described can come about due to the cross-over design. Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
-
My understanding is that they require very different design philosophies. Metal domes, ceramic or diamond tweeters are often designed to be driven in their pistonic range, ie, without cone breakup. Silk dome rely on controlled breakup. This results in differences in dispersion and distortion to name but two. Controlled breakup improves dispersion but can suffer from higher levels of distortion if the loss is not suitably high. Metal drivers usually have low loss and suffer nasty breakup outside the range of interest which can be difficult to control. Anyway point is there are inherent differences which means they will inevitably sound different. I've used controlled breakup drivers and love the sound. I'm very much interested in comparisons though with rigid drivers. Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
-
I built me a trap (Polymax)
GFuNK replied to Ugly's topic in Room Acoustics, Construction and Design
If you find pure diamond at $100 per sqm let me know! [emoji2] Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk -
I built me a trap (Polymax)
GFuNK replied to Ugly's topic in Room Acoustics, Construction and Design
Good job on the frame! High density open cell foam from say Clark rubber will most likely perform better than polymax and I wouldn't use fiberglass, ie earthwool, if I didn't have to, nasty stuff. I did something similar with some offcuts Ive since covered this in a bone coloured linnen. We tested the HD open cell foam against some pretty expensive proprietry "acoustic batts" in an impedance tube and the pink foam from clark rubber won! It too is not exactly cheap at around $100 per sqm. The green HDF was pretty good too and a little cheaper. Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk -
PS Audio DirectStream Junior
GFuNK replied to Marc's topic in Digital Sources, DACs, and Computer Audio
Interesting, alot of empty space in there...Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk -
Upgraded DAC makes no difference?
GFuNK replied to o2so's topic in Digital Sources, DACs, and Computer Audio
Yep, as long as you account for any power removed by windowing. Presuming you windowed to remove the potential for spectral leakage.Point was, noise floor is not related to how you process the signal. Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk -
Upgraded DAC makes no difference?
GFuNK replied to o2so's topic in Digital Sources, DACs, and Computer Audio
Apologies I realise why that is the case, you should be measuring power spectral density, not a straight fft for broadband noise measurements. Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk -
Upgraded DAC makes no difference?
GFuNK replied to o2so's topic in Digital Sources, DACs, and Computer Audio
That should not be the case. The bin size controls the frequency resolution, ie delta f, and the sample rate controls the highest frequency you can view. Hopefully your analyser is implementing anti aliasing and windowing properly too. It's worth doing some averaging to smooth out the signal this will require longer time records. The only way to drop the noise floor in processing is to do coherant averaging. This is used to extract deterministic signals from noise, not to get a measure of the noise. Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk -
Upgraded DAC makes no difference?
GFuNK replied to o2so's topic in Digital Sources, DACs, and Computer Audio
No comment [emoji4]. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk -
Upgraded DAC makes no difference?
GFuNK replied to o2so's topic in Digital Sources, DACs, and Computer Audio
Those measurements were using toslink not USB, they mention the SPDIF is "just as impressive". We were talking about measurements, and the measurements I have spoken about were chosen by the folks at stereophile, they think they are relevant. My point was, if you are handing over 14k for a dac, You would expect that it is measurably better in all regards. In this case, stereophile present plots which demonstrate that the M1 has poorer IM distortion results and comparable jitter measurements to a $500 dacmagic. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk -
Upgraded DAC makes no difference?
GFuNK replied to o2so's topic in Digital Sources, DACs, and Computer Audio
Perhaps I'm missing something, but if we compare the jitter measurements of the M1 with a dacmagic they look almost identical... Am I missing something? In the words of Manuel, "keh?". It's something that has confused me for some time, the words they write aren't always consistent with the piccies, the words usually correlate with price though. . Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk -
Upgraded DAC makes no difference?
GFuNK replied to o2so's topic in Digital Sources, DACs, and Computer Audio
Well I already pointed out one area of weakness so I'm unsure how old mate can claim outstanding performance across the board.According to stereophile measurements, it also has higher levels of IM distortion than say a squeezebox touch or dacmagic. Are these audible? Probably not, but it does beg the question: is the extra 13.5 k worth it? Also, how can someone who, I'm assuming is reputable, make a claim which is clearly not the case? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk -
Upgraded DAC makes no difference?
GFuNK replied to o2so's topic in Digital Sources, DACs, and Computer Audio
Possibly not, but if you're going to bring up measurable differences it's worth considering a range of metrics. Also, for 14k I'd expect it to be measurably better in all respects. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk -
Upgraded DAC makes no difference?
GFuNK replied to o2so's topic in Digital Sources, DACs, and Computer Audio
Looks to be -0.25 dB at 20 kHz... Large compared with other DACs. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk -
Upgraded DAC makes no difference?
GFuNK replied to o2so's topic in Digital Sources, DACs, and Computer Audio
Also, it depends what your looking at, that bricasti dac has a, comparatively speaking, large dip in its frequency response at high frequencies: http://www.stereophile.com/content/bricasti-design-m1-da-converter-measurements#ph5JFKJgbleWFXi4.97 Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk -
I think it's hard not to get sucked in to the belief that audio gear just keeps sounding better and better the more money you spend. Certainly if you read the reviews of gear it gives that impression. People talk of night and day differences, well I must have cloth ears because I cannot hear many of these night and day differences. I still remember doing a side by side comparison of a rega and dacmagic in carlton audio, there were 4 other blokes in their 50's and 60's, I was 31 maybe. Anyway it was a sighted test and the whole time the carlton audio guy was telling us the improvement he was hearing. When I said I couldn't hear a difference I was mocked by the others. My hearing is good, perhaps not musically trained but I'm sure it trumped theirs, the point was if it was a night and day difference I would expect that it would be easy to distinguish the difference. Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk