View Poll Results: Am I wasting my valuable time?
Voters: 31. You may not vote on this poll
Ask Me Anything About Audio System Design
11-19-2010, 12:51 PM
#191
Thanks so much for this detailed answer, I've always wanted an answer on something like this.
I will try to find a better location for my tweeters so that they are closer to mids, I should be able to axis them a little towards my ears also.
And you are correct about the tweeters being 75% of the soundstage, The sound is much louder with the tweeters up high.
The Speakers I have are Morel Tempo's and I really want to get the best out of them.
Thanks for your help!
I will try to find a better location for my tweeters so that they are closer to mids, I should be able to axis them a little towards my ears also.
And you are correct about the tweeters being 75% of the soundstage, The sound is much louder with the tweeters up high.
The Speakers I have are Morel Tempo's and I really want to get the best out of them.
Thanks for your help!
I don't agree wit this so much "...move your tweeters -move your sound stage; ... "
Sure if you move the tweets higher up, you might benefit from a higher stage.... but it will not affect (or it might a little bit if the tweets are crossed particularly low) the width\depth of the stage. In fact you can put both tweets in the middle of your dash and get surprising results: besically the stage remains (assuming you had one to begin with) because the stage isn't coming from the tweets.
11-19-2010, 01:59 PM
#192
trimed for quoting purpouses
So as you can see, there is a lot of room for error - All of the signal goodness is based primarily on sample rate – then processor rate and software/algorithm quality – and lastly circuit and board design.
So as you can see, there is a lot of room for error - All of the signal goodness is based primarily on sample rate – then processor rate and software/algorithm quality – and lastly circuit and board design.
It is enlightening as to the different things someone who designs these has to deal with, there are obviously many things to consider. Does this mean that since there are places for errors that necessarily it becomes a problem? From an outsider there can be 2 conclusions.
1)This stuff is so complicated you need to pay a lot to get the best.
2)This stuff has been around so long that’s it’s childsplay to do on the cheep without any audible affects for human hearing.
You can guess what side of the fence I am on… I mean technology gets ever faster better more precise more efficient but human hearing remains just as narrow as it has always been.
I did mention that you seemed to be talking about ONLY jitter and you clarified that you are not. Rereading there is indeed other things you are referring to without using the term that defines them. But it did seem like you are mostly referring to the DAC quality and in my limited understanding, jitter would be the only thing that could really make a difference. I realize your point is that they eventually combine....
In closing,
My point was and is that it has offend been argued that all CD Players/DAC’s should and do sound the same – but, that argument began in 1980 and has most been mostly abandon,
My point was and is that it has offend been argued that all CD Players/DAC’s should and do sound the same – but, that argument began in 1980 and has most been mostly abandon,
as we have all experienced different tonal qualities (sonic signatures) from different DAC’s, as evidence by the fact that, year after year, as a myriad of audio companies release new and improved variants, we continue to trade-up.
If you have the opportunity, listen to some older DAC’s within your existing system for a few hours - then put yours back in – I am highly confident that you will hear a difference – who cares if it’s an improvement or not – that would be subjective – but you should perceive a difference and I am sure you will, unless the audio system is very poor, as a whole.
If you’re unable or unwilling to attempt the aforementioned then at least ask yourself this: why if most of us have not perceived such, why have we all been gear junkies for the last 5-10-15-20-25-30 plus years... the answer, simple – if technology hasn’t in fact improved year after year, as objectively verifiable advancements in science and mathematics have claimed, then it can be for no other reason than, wait for it – we must be able to hear the difference...
I good strategy to get people to keep buying is to keep coming up with something new for them to buy:a new angle or feature.
So now ask yourself, where did that difference come from?
Now this is for a few readers specifically: the answer is NOT FROM OUTER SPACE, but from the group effort of Scientists and Engineers!
So what was once argued has passed because the mass major of people have in fact, been able to hear the improvements within each new variant of DAC’s (and other devices) and also that we have been able to start objectively measuring and therefore map more of the contributing: electrical, electro-mechanical and digital factors, which govern the transfer function of the data that is requisite to high quality audio reproduction.
Now this is for a few readers specifically: the answer is NOT FROM OUTER SPACE, but from the group effort of Scientists and Engineers!
So what was once argued has passed because the mass major of people have in fact, been able to hear the improvements within each new variant of DAC’s (and other devices) and also that we have been able to start objectively measuring and therefore map more of the contributing: electrical, electro-mechanical and digital factors, which govern the transfer function of the data that is requisite to high quality audio reproduction.
.The rest of the text also uses your flawed logic to come to flawed conclusions IMO.
11-19-2010, 02:54 PM
#194
50 Watt CAFz'r
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 230
It is enlightening as to the different things someone who designs these has to deal with, there are obviously many things to consider. Does this mean that since there are places for errors that necessarily it becomes a problem? From an outsider there can be 2 conclusions.
1)This stuff is so complicated you need to pay a lot to get the best.
2)This stuff has been around so long that’s it’s childsplay to do on the cheep without any audible affects for human hearing.
You can guess what side of the fence I am on… I mean technology gets ever faster better more precise more efficient but human hearing remains just as narrow as it has always been.
I did mention that you seemed to be talking about ONLY jitter and you clarified that you are not. Rereading there is indeed other things you are referring to without using the term that defines them. But it did seem like you are mostly referring to the DAC quality and in my limited understanding, jitter would be the only thing that could really make a difference. I realize your point is that they eventually combine....
I think any body who has tried to find evidence to support this has found that there is NO info pointing to obvious differences to the human ear.
This is hardly any evidence that dacs are getting better…. We trade up for many reasons but certainly not for dacs hehehe. Some might do it for it, but the results-if they claim any-ares most likely in their mind.
How can someone listen to a DAC? Don’t you see something incredibly wrong with your test? Ever hear of something called the scientific method? The test above is meaningless.Litteraly.
I really –really- think your conclusion is flawed. Companies mostly do things for ….. wait for it –PROFIT-.
I good strategy to get people to keep buying is to keep coming up with something new for them to buy:a new angle or feature.
And then with practice and refinement, we are at a point where these things have been resolved and benefits are only measurable with something other then the human ear.
The rest of the text also uses your flawed logic to come to flawed conclusions IMO.
1)This stuff is so complicated you need to pay a lot to get the best.
2)This stuff has been around so long that’s it’s childsplay to do on the cheep without any audible affects for human hearing.
You can guess what side of the fence I am on… I mean technology gets ever faster better more precise more efficient but human hearing remains just as narrow as it has always been.
I did mention that you seemed to be talking about ONLY jitter and you clarified that you are not. Rereading there is indeed other things you are referring to without using the term that defines them. But it did seem like you are mostly referring to the DAC quality and in my limited understanding, jitter would be the only thing that could really make a difference. I realize your point is that they eventually combine....
I think any body who has tried to find evidence to support this has found that there is NO info pointing to obvious differences to the human ear.
This is hardly any evidence that dacs are getting better…. We trade up for many reasons but certainly not for dacs hehehe. Some might do it for it, but the results-if they claim any-ares most likely in their mind.
How can someone listen to a DAC? Don’t you see something incredibly wrong with your test? Ever hear of something called the scientific method? The test above is meaningless.Litteraly.
I really –really- think your conclusion is flawed. Companies mostly do things for ….. wait for it –PROFIT-.
I good strategy to get people to keep buying is to keep coming up with something new for them to buy:a new angle or feature.
And then with practice and refinement, we are at a point where these things have been resolved and benefits are only measurable with something other then the human ear
.The rest of the text also uses your flawed logic to come to flawed conclusions IMO.
Just one note though on the DAC swap thing - I was suggesting that if you are using external DAC's to perform a swap for an older one - and if you're using a CD player with an internal DAC then swap out the entire source unit for an older etc...
Perhaps I could have worded that more clearly...
So in the end we agree to disagree on a few points - nothing wrong with that.
All-in-all - I'd say decent convo - thanks for the question...
Please note that jitter is a generic term that refers to no fewer than a dozen types of time errors and many of them are without question, are of a nature that you can hear and do hear, such as clicking...
Calling something jitter is like naming it fruit - it begs the question: what type of fruit... check into it and you'll find that I am correct... Some fruits taste different then others, some make you and some don't. So some jitter is audible and others not so much, but when combined within one output stream, they become addative - and the sum of their errors becomes audible and that's where their respective flavors come in, if you will.
Also, each time you re-read my text, you seem to understand better what I am attempting to translate (at a low level), so perhaps if you read it again you'll notice that within the context that I outlined at the beginning of the text - that my logic is infact sound...
Cheers!
Last edited by dogbaker; 11-19-2010 at 05:45 PM.
11-19-2010, 02:58 PM
#195
50 Watt CAFz'r
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 230
But the type of collective errors that I am talking about anyone can and does hear, they just don't often realize that there errors...
In other words, they don't know what there missing out on etc... which is a better sonic experiance...
Thanks for your comments
Last edited by dogbaker; 11-19-2010 at 05:16 PM.
11-19-2010, 03:15 PM
#196
500 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 849
dogbaker - What are you credentials on Audio anyways?
Just wondering.
Just wondering.
11-19-2010, 05:13 PM
#197
50 Watt CAFz'r
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 230
Hi Darin
I have been asked a similar question to this earlier on, within this thread and provided a fairly robust list of my endeavours, stopping just short of listing the actual projects, studies, diplomas and certificates that I have to my credit.
Even with me applying the breaks, if you will, some still thought that I was postulating - when I was simply striving to answer their question, in as complete a manner possible, without coming across as a braggart.
It seems that I failed. So I fear if I was to provide more detail - I would be attacked again...
If you dig back into previous texts within this thread, I think you will discover much of what you might be looking to discern.
I have been asked a similar question to this earlier on, within this thread and provided a fairly robust list of my endeavours, stopping just short of listing the actual projects, studies, diplomas and certificates that I have to my credit.
Even with me applying the breaks, if you will, some still thought that I was postulating - when I was simply striving to answer their question, in as complete a manner possible, without coming across as a braggart.
It seems that I failed. So I fear if I was to provide more detail - I would be attacked again...
If you dig back into previous texts within this thread, I think you will discover much of what you might be looking to discern.
11-19-2010, 05:33 PM
#198
50 Watt CAFz'r
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 230
75% of the soundstage is not in the tweeters... he said bandwith, it's an observation that has little meaning but souidns like there is a lot. Really the meat and potatoes of sound comes from the remaining 30% of the bandwidth really.
I don't agree wit this so much "...move your tweeters -move your sound stage; ... "
Sure if you move the tweets higher up, you might benefit from a higher stage.... but it will not affect (or it might a little bit if the tweets are crossed particularly low) the width\depth of the stage. In fact you can put both tweets in the middle of your dash and get surprising results: besically the stage remains (assuming you had one to begin with) because the stage isn't coming from the tweets.
I don't agree wit this so much "...move your tweeters -move your sound stage; ... "
Sure if you move the tweets higher up, you might benefit from a higher stage.... but it will not affect (or it might a little bit if the tweets are crossed particularly low) the width\depth of the stage. In fact you can put both tweets in the middle of your dash and get surprising results: besically the stage remains (assuming you had one to begin with) because the stage isn't coming from the tweets.
AAAAAA - if you're going to disagree with everything I say, then please open your own thread, so you don't confuse those of whom that are actually trying to learn something in here...
It isn't clear whether you believe what you are saying is correct, or if you're simply trying to pick a fight!
But what is clear, you have no regard for learning!
If you couple two tweeters in the middle of a dash there like output signals will sum, and there dislike signals will cancel and you will end up with a phasy, mono, highly discernable source of sound propagation that will not image at all...
Statements like this are cancerous - I am sorry that you're so sick!
Go learn something and get well!
11-19-2010, 07:54 PM
#200
500 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 849
It seems with the tweeters up high there is a very slight delay/phase. I find it really hard to tell.
But I do believe if the tweeter was closer to the midrange the sound would be more "direct".
