Jump to content

Grant Slack

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

176 Good

About Grant Slack

  • Rank
    50+ Post Club

Profile Fields

  • Location
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Hello LHC, how would this setup be different in principle to playing a Dirac pulse over one's stereo speakers, and moving one's head a few mm to each side of the exact centre? It would be easy to achieve a 10 µs delay in arrival time. In my home setup, moving my head about 4mm to one side of the centreline would do it. I just tried it a few minutes ago, and it sounds like the same, one click, listening head in the centre or off centre, two ears or one ear. No sense of 2 clicks, or any different sound quality to the one click. In fact, never mind 4mm, I can move hundreds of mm to one side and it makes no difference to the perception of one click or more than one, or any difference to the sound quality of the one click. Does this 10 µs test result have any relevance whatsoever to home listening to music? I am experiencing strong doubts. Regards, Grant
  2. Hello @MLXXX, thank you for the useful précis. I look forward to any legitimate evidence that these perceptual abilities apply to music that is packaged for sale at CD quality, but recorded and produced at higher resolutions. That would be of practical interest. Until then, its relevance is academic. I also question the origin of these sorts of enquiries. I tend to suspect, with good reason, that the true origin is often the common, casual home listening 'test' where CD quality audio is perceived as inferior to high-resolution audio. An inappropriate test, that is correctly explained by non-audio phenomena, is seen to be driving exotic post-rationalisations, where extreme lab tests of specially constructed signals establish the boundaries of human hearing, and which are pushed into service as possible reasons "why CD audio sounds inferior". Possible reasons. Justifying an invalid observation. The logic is backward, the rationality is backward, and naturally, the conclusion is often inappropriate. Also thanks to Dave for showing his caring side that worries for the future readers of threads full of unchallenged wrong assumptions and conclusions. I, too, worry about that. Should we? Depends who you ask, I expect. In one sense it is certainly a lost cause, in an internet world full of casual myth reinforcement. Corrections are routinely followed by the corrected people posting the very same errors in other places and other forums. In the end, I hope that one day soon the realisation will sweep the online world that discussion boards are a place for learning nothing. It is sad, and we would like to argue otherwise, but the evidence I have seen points that way. Regards, Grant (P.S. the posts, that I am (promptly) replying to, are already at least 10 posts up. Fast thread!)
  3. <<regarding drivers that cover 40 Hz and 3000 Hz>> Hello Dave, isn't the full-range, single-driver loudspeaker an entire thing in the world of hifi? And therefore worth discussing in terms other than, "I can't think of any actual ones"? A quick browse on the internet will reveal countless examples of this type of loudspeaker. And, although the majority would be home-built, they all use drivers built by manufacturers, and built by those manufacturers to be used in that fashion. Regards, Grant
  4. Hello Doppler Debaters, I must admit that I have, in the past, used the term Doppler Effect to describe the, audible or not, warbling effect on a high frequency tone being played by a driver that is simultaneously playing a low frequency tone. It never occurred to me that it might not qualify as a Doppler Effect if the underlying movement was not continuous, i.e. moving at a constant speed. In fact, the term Doppler Effect was originally coined in relation to binary stars, in which the movement is oscillatory, and more like the loudspeaker situation than not. In which case it is hard to exclude the loudspeaker situation, without also excluding the situation that Doppler himself was talking about. Regards, Grant
  5. Hello migasson I regard you as a $2,000 audiophile, sorry! (new prices for your streamer and speakers is $2,000 total). Non-audiophiles don't buy such nice gear. So, welcome back to the club! I believe our hobby embraces all sorts of mindsets, as long as they have a desire to hear the music with some degree of fidelity. You clearly fit. BTW the music library for Tidal is over 60 million tracks, vs 30+ million for Spotify, and 50 million for Apple. regards, Grant
  6. Hello there, IMHO we can certainly forget about emailing that particular author for explanations. Over the last couple of years I have seen Dr Mark Waldrep, a PhD lecturer in audio technology who actually considers Stuart his friend, get frozen out by the latter when expressing doubts and seeking explanations of MQA and particularly the justification of MQA. It seems that, at the academic level, some of Stuart's work is not well accepted. Therefore, despite his undoubted brilliance and his contribution to research, he has to be classified as an unreliable source. Especially in combination with his product history of very high-priced products that use 'unique' technologies of his invention. For too long he has been marketing products with claimed 'unique advantages' in their reproductive capability. His opinions, on what constitutes an acceptable performance standard, are distorted by the price point he wants to promote as necessary, and the use of technologies he wants to promote as elite. Brilliance can be used to selfish ends, not just in service of truth itself. It is a pity really, because Stuart will write many, many things that are absolutely of reference quality, but then adds sprinkles of not so solid information, and we mere mortals are not in a position to make the distinctions authoritatively. Regards, Grant Postscript: the tone of your posts has become interesting lately.
  7. Hello I recently hooked up a pair of mine with a modest 300B SET amp. I thought the sound was most listenable. The slightly loose bass control of the amp actually helped to fill in the bass a touch. It worked well with LP and CD. The Pioneer has a very natural sound balance, if that is important to you. Other models, with a bit more treble lift, might sound more exciting. Comparing the response with a Dali Zensor 1 that has been suggested above, the lift in the Dali treble is easy to see. Pioneer:- Dali:- © Stereophile You can also see how the Pioneer's port (in red) provides full amplitude support at its tuned frequency. I hope this is interesting, regards, Grant
  8. Hello there @LHC, thank you for the references, most pertinent to the topic. I had seen Craven's paper. [edit: my mentioning Craven's paper must have given you the wrong impression that I am referring to that paper below. The rest of my post actually relates only to your post on the Melchior paper and your interpretation of it. cheers] However, I think the bit in bold that you adjudged most important, is easily the least important, because it is almost self-discrediting. "Informally". However, in her subsequent paragraph Melchior goes on to explain, "There also have been formal listening tests specifically addressing whether test tones and their harmonics in the ultrasound region are audible. Except in cases with very high amplitude stimuli [70, 71] where thresholds can be measured for some listeners, literature studies have shown negative results." That, indeed is the important conclusion. Melchior only seems to have mentioned the informal reports by individuals, in order to state that formal tests don't support the idea. You may have accidentally misrepresented her findings. Regards, Grant
  9. Hello there, I also agree with Dave. Sampling at 1 kHz rate (or as low as you like) can still achieve a timing accuracy of a thousandth of a microsecond or better. On the other hand, in 10 microseconds, sound travels 3mm, so one had better have the speaker to listener distance matched to that accuracy or better, if, and only if, this finding has direct application to listening to recordings of music at home. I submit that there are much bigger fish to fry. Regards, Grant
  10. Hi Matty, if the supertweeter is not aligned with the next driver, then may I suggest a higher-order HP filter on it, perhaps fourth order. Being non-aligned, it doesn't need to match the LP on the next driver, which can still be first order. My reasoning is that bullet tweeters can be quite bad out of their intended band, and that could be the harshness, rather than actual volume. A sharp cutoff is the best solution for that, IMHO. regards, Grant
  11. Hello Matty they certainly look great! How close are they to the back wall, and in one case, the corner? I always wondered if placement is more critical with this type of speaker. Regards, Grant
  12. Hi there, I saw a presentation locally where the local guy did an analysis including measurements of the Mundorf AMT units, and found that the dipole units were technically better. Regards, Grant
  13. Hi everyone, perhaps this article is timely to this topic? https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2019/07/planhacker-cheapest-nbn-50-plans-around/ They don't even consider capped-data plans. Sensibly so, IMHO. Regards, Grant
  14. Yes, there are certainly other factors at work here, including the power of the mind to create a perception from a range of things other than just sound waves. It also crossed my mind that we are hearing a few over-the-top opinions about what sounds vastly better than what. Yes, some technologies should have inalienable advantages over others, but these advantages only materialise when perfectly implemented. That rarely is the case. So, in real life, "implementation is everything", and overrides differences in materials or technology. That is the reason why valves have survived, textile domes have survived, 'standard' paper cones have survived, elliptical stylii have survived, etc. Regards, Grant
  • Create New...