XXHighEnd - The Ultra HighEnd Audio Player
August 29, 2014, 01:18:06 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Dec. 31, 2012 : XXHighEnd + Phasure NOS1 DAC receive 6moons Blue Moon Award !
** "Lonely at the very top" **
Search current board structure only !!  
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10
 81 
 on: August 23, 2014, 02:59:12 pm 
Started by vrao - Last post by PeterSt
I like to add one thing to this all, outside of feeling that it can have come across as a sort of self-defence (it is not, and I am not saying one thing different from what I'm always saying) :

In my observation Daniel has very good ears. I hope I am allowed to say that. Or maybe put differently : he was better able to discern culprits than me from my own known system. With this in mind ...

Quote
Or maybe a little bit more of toe-in?

Now, we dit NOT talk about this subject at all. But it is spot on. It is also right on topic for our "Imaging" topic here. Let me explain, and MKII owners, be "advised" ...

Up to the lowest frequencies the bass from these speakers is "pure directional". And no, I don't recall that Daniel and me were playing something that would show it (at least I did not for the purpose), but possibly he noticed anyway, and this is related to the quote above;

What I do on purpose is not let blend the bass where I observe(d) it shouldn't. Now, with 0.00 degrees of phase difference between left and right (all NOS1(s) owners have this), this means that any not exactly same initiation of left and right of bass will create a hole in the middle.
Now, sorry to be technical, but because of "electrical" reasons almost all recordings show that not being equal of left and right (for when the sound emerges from the speaker). Let me try to explain by means of the NOS1(s) itself (but I have told this in particular before) : Any common DAC will have a phase difference between left and right of about 0.02 degrees. The NOS1(a) can do this too ... just set Switch#5 up and deactive "Is NOS1" in XXHE Settings (or use another random player).

The difference between these two settings ?
No single whatever bass will sound from one speaker only never mind it really does. Actually it is so that nobody will notice really and notice that it should be tested with the "sine" like sounds only, or otherwise the higher frequency harmonics will discover the real positioning (and now you are fooled and only with good experience you will hear that the bass still comes from the middle).
The difference is only 0.02 degrees (at 1KHz btw and for a lower frequency it will even be less) but it is totally crucial. So is the distance from the two speakers to you - just saying).

What do I want to say ?
Well, that this same difference is for similar reasons how a normal DAC operates, there for the same electrical reasons. Thus, it is almost always there. What does this mean ? ... that no bass will sound from the middle because there's a small difference (delay from left to right or the other way around) that will imply "space". Just think that with DSP you will overdo this and the result is a spatious sound. BUT :

When you allow the both LF beams to merge too much, the effect goes away. Also - and very logically, with the base of the both beams having merged indeed, they will add up fully. Result ? more bass.
Aha.
Aha, because I deliberately prevent that. How ? Toeing out more.
Aha aha.

As an intermezzo I can tell it form a different angle :
This effect - of the both channels not shooting at the exact same time - is so strong for the lowest ferquencies, that the air pressure in the room fluctuates because of it. Easy enough to understand : the SPL is now oscillating with the two beams which don't fire at the exact same time. So normally there's the one frequency only (say 30Hz) and we are used to that, but when the one 30Hz follows the other 30Hz there's actually a distortion going on. And some people are sensitive for this. They go literally sick (and I really experienced that here although it was not me myself). Remedy : Toe-in.

When a woofer is distorting to begin with, there are so many frequencies in order that what's thrown at you becomes more random and the "sick" effect stays away.
I am not bothered by this effect, but *I* am bothered by the uninteresting sound coming from the speakers otherwise. It then just "does not work" any more.

So about the imaging : Try to perceive a bass from the middle to begin with (find the proper recording). Works ? Then now toe-out. Say that you move backwards the outer wing tips for 3cm each. That should do it.
If all works as it does here, you now will perceive that hole in the middle.

Really intended or not, this is how it's in the recording.

But watch closely;
You might have perecived this before and think it is no good. Most easy thinking is that it is the high frequencies doing this to you; but it hardly can because you're listening off-axis to begin with (on purpose, since the mid-high horn is above you); so, the "on purpose" is about the toeing you can now do to your liking because the nid-high will hardly impact because of on-off axis listening (it will for reflections to the side walls, but this is another matter). Thus, concentrate on the bass because it is all about that.

Less bass, but separation in it. Do call it DSP if you like. But if all is right something now starts to "work" which otherwise could not be there at all. It is the left/roght (very fast of course) movement of how the waves emerge form the woofers. It creates spatiousness.

We could say that Daniel was thus spot-on with his idea about the toeing in with the notice that we didn't try a thing with this because it wasn't brought up as a subject. But I know ... it will work. For more bass that is. Not even about more perceived bass but about it really being more (the adding up). So blend it too much and it will happen.
And I do it the other way around on purpose ...

Small disclaimer : I highly doubt whether it would have brought much difference with my Windows 7 which is not accurate in the bass at all ( way way too thick for how I DSP'd the speakers which has been done for Windows 8 ).
Anyway, MKII owners should try and I think it can be a revelation. Very easy to try as well, so let me know your findings ...

Peter

 82 
 on: August 23, 2014, 02:58:25 pm 
Started by CoenP - Last post by CoenP
Thanks Peter,

I have been thinking about my speaker balance. The last time I voiced it was in my m-audio thuneau pre-xx days. It could very well be that that sound in retrospect was more similar to win7 than 8. I remember that even small changes in slope and co point made an enormous difference.

I am also not excluding the possibility of interaction between the PC psu and the psu(s) of the "power" amplifier. This is a very likely candidate both via the USB ground wire (wich is connected) and the ac power line.

I am encouraged in this line of reasoning since some of you notice far little difference between settings. It must be somewhere in my setup.

It takes a little thought how to properly tweak the low-mid-high outputs. There already is a negative slope from 12k downward and some dips and ups in the midrange,etc,etc. this is not a quicky!

Regards, Coen

 83 
 on: August 23, 2014, 02:28:31 pm 
Started by Nick - Last post by AlainGr
But I thought you had windmills in Netherlands ? Wink

Alain

 84 
 on: August 23, 2014, 01:49:00 pm 
Started by Nick - Last post by PeterSt
So now that eh ?

The other day our water meter was exchanged. Didn't notice any difference.

Great stuff Nick. Not sure though whether that all should make us happy. To me it seems we can only be lucky when having it right.
On to our own generators !

Regards,
Peter

 85 
 on: August 23, 2014, 12:31:35 pm 
Started by Nick - Last post by Nick
Hi an update on mains company music system upgrades...

The electic company sent another notice asking to do some work on the house meter. Well actually, as seems to be the custom in the UK these days, they threatened to obtain a court order to enter my house to do work on the mains of I did not call them to make an appointment for them to attend..... nice customer service approach !!

This time it was "just" the house electric meter that needed swopping out after 25 years. So Wednesday they turn up and do the work, and I don't even think about possible impact on music until Friday when I put some music on at the end of the week. OMG ! I think they installed a Boogytron 2000 or something Wink , sound is absolutely great ! what an upgrade.

Looked at another way it's disturbing that the old meter was so s**t for sound quality. Glad to see the back of the old meter that's for sure.

Nick.


 86 
 on: August 23, 2014, 12:24:20 pm 
Started by CoenP - Last post by PeterSt
Quote
I am still puzzled why you experience a difference between the two OSses and prefer win8 over win7.  From my perspective win8 sounds truely horrible.

Coen, What about saying that the jury is still out ?
And please notice : Many if not most prefer Windows 8, so wondering how personal me can be out of line (or something Happy).

Are we going to change the subject ? hehe

Yesterday was my 8th day with Windows 7. On the first day my perception was "way more palpable". More smooth. No lack of accuracy that I noticed, because the palpable overwhelmed. But that really did not last a day before the grey took over. This ended up in last Saturday's "not listenable" any more. A next day this was counteracted by not playing the music which would show the nastyness. A next day I was fed up with that, but ended up by not even having the lust to look for a next album to play when the former was finished.
Then I found the new speaker settings;

The second day of that already made me think that I was able to quite mimic the W8 sound. One difference always to be there : the low end. There's no definition in it, but (therefore) sounds more low. This is acceptable for me, because when needed I'll dial out bass. Which I did not because the W7 is temporary for me.
Maybe. swoon

Yesterday I could have gone back to W8 but I did not because I liked to try your Q5 thing. But merely : I knew in advance that I would not care much. Maybe I was even more interseted in whether I can survive W7 in general.
And again I noticed that the difference with W8 has vanished a lot.
It's a bit like LP; With W8 we can easily be wrong (too harsh because of too much accuracy or something like that) while W7 gives way more headroom. But there's a caveat and this could resemble your situation :

I know that you too can play with your speakers / crossovers what you want. You too may have set it all to some mere extremes others do not. So just think : While I have made my W7 acceptable by means of (strange) speaker settings, what would happen if *I* now go back to W8 ? I realy know the result in advance : all will be totally out of balance. Way less perceived bass (no matter more accurate) which is not able to mask to way too much highs. So both with work in the wrong direction and I will be there with ear plugs in.

If I try to map this on to your situation, then you must lower the tweeter output by some 3dB and what needs to happen with the bass I don't know. This is because I can survive both, but W7 feels like showing 4dB or so more of it. Point is, this masks the boosted tweeter for W7 and is thus dangerous (for proper judgement). Theoretically I (and you) could add 4dB of more bass when using W8 but this will not be for the better (because the bass in W7 is not for the better). Thus solution : lower the tweeter with 3dB.

I left out the 1K-5K attenuation (for W7) because you will not be able to do that.
And of course nothing is as easy as I say because you can not just "lower the tweeter". Still you can try (put a 5.6 Ohm or so resistor in series).

Today I will be back on W8. Well, I am curious myself.

Peter

 87 
 on: August 23, 2014, 12:02:10 pm 
Started by vrao - Last post by PeterSt
I was a little bit astonished to read that the Q5 (http://www.stereophile.com/content/magico-q5-loudspeaker-page-4) produces more bass than the Orelo MKII, because I felt that the bass in Peters room was exceptional (in the year 2010).

I always like to reason out what's really going on when people have perceptions which can't agree with my own. Daniel will know I already tried, actually no different than I would do on this forum. The forum is more "easy" so to speak because people could take for granted what I say. Still though, I always try to support my "statements" (if I ever have those) with logical reasoning. I am going to do the same here too, with for Daniel the knowledge that it really is not different at all from what I already told him while here, and the fun, this was without my knowledge of his speaker, let alone that I could implictly have referred to that Stereophile review. The more speaking the below should be. Well, that's what I hope.

Let me first tell that I know John Atkinson and he is no fool at all. If he says that a speaker doesn't have the punch etc., it is so. BUT, you'd have to know that he knows what to listen for in order to make such judgement. Like he in there refers to rock to show it (from the Q5).

So there we are. The Q5 lacks low while the MKII does too according to Daniel. Where is the contradiction ?

http://www.stereophile.com/content/magico-q5-loudspeaker-measurements

I tried my best to show where low is to be low and where it is not to be that. Thus, reflection to reality. This is a hard thing to do when not knowing the real reality; we should drag in the real basses and such. Still the MKII measures completely flat (+/- 0.5dB up to 19Hz) and now compare with the Q5. What do we see ?

I say Ouch !
If I am as honest as I can be, then I take the avarage "level" between 200 and 6000 Hz and I see a ~2.5dB for that line (with the 0dB line as the reference). This is to be compared with an output at 50-60Hz of 8dB. Uhm, this is 5.5dB More ?!?
If I am less honest (but also more normal) then the average line is at something like 1dB (real rise starting at 300 Hz leftwards) and the difference is thus a sheer 9.5dB.

Are we crazy here ? MKII owners, add 5.5-9.5dB to your bass section and tell me what happens.
But I know, the whole thing will blow itself backwards at a good punch of sound.
Of course, for real comparison only that 50-60Hz area should be boosted. Can be done, but uit will colour as hell.

So ... before we can compare such things, we must first acknowledge that something is the most wrong with the Q5, no matter it may sound very OK. But is it reality ? Well, how can it be.

Now how I read reviews and how you get to learn reviewers :

It is impossible that no notice is made of some superbly high output bass. Well, "superbly" can hardly be in order, but for level it should have been noticed. Still it was not.
But learn to read reviews ...

Where is the distortion plot eh ? It is not there. Why is it not there ? well, me says because it was too poor to show. That is how reviewers work, with the notice they receive gear to review it and no reviewer likes to express badly about that gear because it relates to manufacturers which are people. And why bash on people. Still, what's left out is the explanation how bass does not come forward. But depending on how smart you are (as the reviewer) to leave out things, OR put in things to show you are sure not lying. And while discussing the exact same matter over here last week, this is what I explained :

Any not high passed (for LP) recording, will show a kick drum at ~38Hz that "rolling" all the way to about 20Hz. And this is not the (my) room doing it, because measured from a 2cm distance. It is that (very) low end where the kick in the stomache happens, obviously. Also : A high passed recording will not show a thing of it. Remember, same speaker of course. It's just not in the recording.

Now again look at that plot, and know that any John Atkinson (or me for that matter) *first* seeing that plot, can next see what type of music will work out, and what will not. Also, and this is crucial, envision what the volume know will be tuned to with such a speaker; It will be that 50-60Hz because it is the loudest part. Also (and also crucial) this is where many instruments play. The electric basses and such. And also : this is how the speaker will sound very smooth because the low frequencies will mask the higher ones to a large degree. It's 5.5-9dB higher you know, and this is so much that ... well, what to say.
Anyway, now any electric bass or higher keyed upright bass (up to cello) will be very profound. Nice (but never even for the whole range of the instrument - obviously).

Once you know how the speaker (or the whole lot) measures, you can see that no kick drum (~38Hz) will excel or jump out in the first place because it is 6dB lower than that nice bass playing. So there it starts. Next though there's a very steep roll off and it is right in the area the kick drum likes to play (as said up to 20Hz and this goes in flat fashion !).

Look again at the review; "rated to 29Hz" (similar). Yes ? NO! It is 29Hz if it is related to my mentioned avarage ! Thus, it is 29Hz compared to anything playing in the 200 - 6000 area. It is not 29Hz at all when related to 50-60Hz. And so the bass playing in that 50-60Hz area (but you can make it somewhat broader) is completely masking any kick drum.
And I say it again, only MKII owners know what a difference of already 1dB brings in that area, because it really comes out. Not so with a speaker like this because it will only distort (and I guarantee you that). So instead of the energy given to for example 30Hz it will spread to harmonics like 60Hz (and 90Hz and so on). It is just a stupid fact that it works like that, once you see the plot going as it does. Compare with the MKII's if jou like with further the knowledgs that the super steep roll of beyond 19Hz (leftwards) is there to prevent any 18Hz etc. from turning into 38Hz etc. This is also how the plot gets super straight, would you put up an 18Hz or lower signal and observe what's happening higher up.

If you're almost satisfied with my description of matters, let me also tell you that this plot is highly averaged to maybe 1/2 of an octave which is quite much of averaging. IOW, would it have been done like my plots do (1/12th) than the peak at 50-60Hz would even have been higher and the whole plot more of a mess. Compare with the plot under it where the comparison with the Wilson is made. Even that is already averaged to 1/6th.
Reviews ...

More back to the beginning of this post and my always telling about how distortion fools us :

That low end will show super high distortion. Probably so much that J.A. did not want to show it. But, he justifies that by means of "text" and tells you that you better shouldn't play Rock. But what happens - and I showed that while Daniel was here - is that any distorting low frequency is perceived as an even lower one. You see this happening when a nice sine of say 30Hz is (synthesized) into a more square tone. So first you hear a low sine indeed and which is just perceived by us at a low level because we are not able to hear such low levels so well, and when the harmonics of it (that's what square does) jump in, the first what happens is that we perceive that beter, thus louder. And you know, there is no difference between a sine which is synthesized into a square and a sine which is receiving odd order harmonics because of not being able to do it and thus distorts. It's just the same.
What happens here is different from what I talked about earlier in this post because now any distorting 50-60Hz which is at a too high level to begin with (that 5.5-9.5dB) will show harmonics and you know what ? they are at a lower level (it is just spreading of energy). Now we could say that the Q5 has been designed very smartly, because this blends to a perceived somewhat same level. Think of my often given example of 24Hz we can just hear, and when this distorts you hear 48Hz only and this is only because we perceive 48Hz better than 24Hz. But do this in a smart fashion and the 48Hz will be as loud as the 24Hz. And now you have a nice blend of the both and you think the instrument sounds like that.

Well, I better stop. And anyway, whether I am right or not, this was all already discussed when Daniel was here and then undoubtedly could have come across as stupid theory only. But with now the measurements of the Q5 at hand, I think I did not lie a thing and theories are not so much theory.
Whether this all leads to a better accepted sound (or music) is something else. At least I know with a year of experience with this, that this doesn't bother me at all. The contrary, it is for the better. Sadly though examples exist of things "working" with a normal speaker, now not working any more and this is only because the recording engineer "utilized" the distortion in a speaker to produce the recording. I showed an example of that too, just nothing audible while my old fine speaker showed shaking Whooosh. Now though it appears that the frequency is so low that we can only feel it. Bad luck for that particular track.

Peter

 88 
 on: August 23, 2014, 11:30:14 am 
Started by CoenP - Last post by CoenP
Thanks for the trouble Peter,

Things are very different in here with the Q5 settings. I must have some "leak" in my system that makes the PC and some software settings audible. Most likely not via the NOS1a but through something else; prime suspect is the pc.

I am still puzzled why you experience a difference between the two OSses and prefer win8 over win7.  From my perspective win8 sounds truely horrible.

Regards, Coen

 89 
 on: August 23, 2014, 09:57:36 am 
Started by CoenP - Last post by PeterSt
So Coen, I tried it. But in an hour of time I couldn't find differences. I also tried the Q3,4,5 = 1,1,1 setting because that appears more logical to me to impact, but no.
SFS was 20, ClockRes was 15. Core 1-2 for the 8 core in there.

This wasn't critical listening, but I never do that. This can imply that I should have let it stay for a day at least, but now this won't work for me becaue of the (W7) sound I don't like much to begin with plus I am not used to it at all.

Regards,
Peter

 90 
 on: August 23, 2014, 09:51:28 am 
Started by vrao - Last post by PeterSt
So much for Litte Feat's Waiting for Columbus. I think Stereophile talks about LP (MFSL ?) while I only have the normal CD and no running through a drum kit is there at the start of the album/performance.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.404 seconds with 15 queries.