|
Nothing could ever be wrong with my ~~golden ears~~!
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 17, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
thylacine posted:
I suppose that's OK for ordinary folk, but sounds are much deeper if I insert a polarized ion treated fine gold mesh in the cap before treatment. The smooth acoustically treated soapstone pebble I place in the sink when drawing the tap-water for the lavage really makes a difference as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
thylacine posted:
flosofl posted:I suppose that's OK for ordinary folk, but sounds are much deeper if I insert a polarized ion treated fine gold mesh in the cap before treatment. The smooth acoustically treated soapstone pebble I place in the sink when drawing the tap-water for the lavage really makes a difference as well. You two stop posting and start a company, you'll be richer than Croesus in two years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Dem Shakti Stones though... quote:SHAKTI Noise Reduction Technology (NRT) absorbs and dissipates Electromagnetic Interference (EMI). Automotive Computers (ECUs) and audio/video components self generate a radiated EMI field that degrades signal transfer functions. The word SHAKTI means "energy." Through an energy conversion, inductive coupling process, the "antenna-like" circuits within SHAKTI attract and then resistively convert EMI to non-interfering heat. This increases horsepower and speeds up 0 to 60 times in automotive engines and improves resolution in high definition audio/video systems. No electrical connection is required because all interactions take place through radiated field mutual coupling. One need only place SHAKTI units in near proximity to the CPU or audio component to obtain discernible performance improvements. http://www.shakti-innovations.com/audiovideo.htm
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 08:47
|
|
|
thylacine posted:
Needs a name like "Clarity Of Essance Mark III auditory enhancer applicator" and the decimal point moved one or two places right on the price tag.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
The [sic] is implied by the way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 09:47
|
|
|
Name it "Marc Vincent high fidelity ear maintenance kit". Sell it from the back of a white van.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
Has Class D amps made Class A/B completely obsolete for audio? I find it exceedingly hard to believe the claims that A/B sounds different/better than D in a DBT when all of them are competently designed for transparency and working within normal parameters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Palladium posted:Has Class D amps made Class A/B completely obsolete for audio? I find it exceedingly hard to believe the claims that A/B sounds different/better than D in a DBT when all of them are competently designed for transparency and working within normal parameters. It depends on the amp, early class D definitely had a drier sound to it due to less experience with PWM and filtering. The newer tech I think much less so, but you will always find purists who don't want to make the leap. For home audio stuff I don't really see why you would need Class D though, it's not like the weight savings from avoiding a massive toroidal are needed due to shifting the units about day in day out, and the increased efficiency also is a bit of a moot point unless you're using the amp for more than a few hours a time and over thousands of watts. Plus there's such a wealth of good quality old class A or AB out there on the secondhand market that you can pick up some real bargains.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
It's still significantly cheaper and easier to design a class A/B amp than a class D amp. Class D requires very low-tolerance components, which adds cost. Designs are also more complex than class A/B amps, and there are more design pitfalls to avoid. For instance, you need to take into account noise from the switching frequency, which has to be high enough that you can filter it out completely without any audible interference. Higher switching frequency means more expensive components and more careful designs. This is part of the reason why class D amps were originally used for subwoofers. When you only need to reach maybe 200hz at the very most, a 20kHz switching frequency is perfectly fine and acceptable. Not so much for full-range amplifiers, that now have switching frequencies of 350kHz and higher, with the attendant costs. Hifi-oriented class D amps are still quite expensive, I think the NAD C390DD is one of the more affordable units, and that's still a ~$2,500 amp. Others are significantly more expensive. The biggest benefit I see from class D in a home setting is that you can have the same power in a significantly smaller package. For instance, Pioneer makes a couple of slimline AV receivers in roughly the same form factor as a CD player, but with the power of a full-size receiver. In the pro audio segment, things are a like less crazy. Behringer's iNuke amps are quite good yet inexpensive, similarly with amps from IMG, Thomann etc., but they're still somewhat more expensive than similarly-powered class A/B amps. They're all pretty ugly to have in your living room, though. E: I completely forgot the inexpensive Tripath class D amps  Still, they don't really offer anything that a similar traditional amp doesn't.
KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
I use a cheap $20 class D amp to run some bookshelf speakers from my computer and it sounds fine. I hooked it up to my main speakers in my living room for a laugh and it got them up to about 70% listening volume. Not bad for a tiny box with almost nothing in it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:In the pro audio segment, things are a like less crazy. Behringer's iNuke amps are quite good yet inexpensive, similarly with amps from IMG, Thomann etc., but they're still somewhat more expensive than similarly-powered class A/B amps. They're all pretty ugly to have in your living room, though. Those are definitely brands that still struggle with good sounding class D topology. MC2, Lab.gruppen, Powersoft and EV are the brands who've cracked it and are well regarded, but they're a lot more cash than the ones you've listed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Behringer's offerings sound perfectly fine, FWIW. Brand snobs will never consider them, but one should never listen to brand snobs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Behringer's offerings sound perfectly fine, FWIW. They're alright, but reliability is poor and they don't manage to sustain rated power for even the sort of standard 20ms burst that other people tend to use. That and there's a high noise floor. Again it's a case of not using the cheapest for other reasons than plan audio quality at low level, particularly when they're going to be carted about and potentially abused.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Neurophonic posted:They're alright, but reliability is poor and they don't manage to sustain rated power for even the sort of standard 20ms burst that other people tend to use. That and there's a high noise floor. Well, you specifically wrote "Those are definitely brands that still struggle with good sounding class D topology". There is nothing wrong with their sound, their rated SNR is basically the same as every other class D power amp, as is THD. Funnily enough, the torture tests I've seen of the iNuke amps showed that they could definitely maintain their rated sustained power figure. Obviously you should never underspec any system, but that goes no matter which amps you're using. The only real crime that Behringer is guilty of is giving their amps misleading names. The iNuke 3000's real power figures are as follows: 300Wrms/8ohm/channel 600Wrms/4ohm/channel 1000Wrms/2ohm/channel 2000Wrms/4ohm/bridged And not 3000W as the name would lead many people to believe. And they're obviously quite ugly to look at, but that really shouldn't matter  Regarding the reliability, according to Thomann the return rate for Behringer products is ~0.73% over the last three years. That's one of the lowest return rates for any company. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
I know a fella who runs iNukes on his PA system for days on end from a generator (which class D amps loving HATE) for illegal raves in abandoned warehouses and such and he raves about them. They're nowhere near the ratings suggested (they used to include the actual ratings in the manuals online but removed them) but given a sensitive system they'll run hard for a long time and sound decent too. ...but then again they're Behringer so they can't possibly be any good. I have a Peavey IPR1600 which I've ran hard for hours on end too, sounds great to me but then I always RTA my PA kit in rooms so............ Olympic Mathlete fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Jan 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
This comment on /. accurately sums up my feelings about LPs:quote:I can also understand the attraction of vinyl, there's no more pleasant experience than putting a record on a turn table, lifting the arm, gently lowering it onto the outer groove aTHUMPlifting the arm, gently lowering it onto the outer groove aTHUMPlifting the arm, gently lowering it onto the outer groove aTHUMPlifting the arm, gently lowering it onto the outer groove aTHUMPlifting the arm, gently lowering it onto the outer groove aTHUMPlifting the arm, gently lowering it onto the outer groove aTHUMPlifting the arm, gently lowering it onto the outer groove aTHUMPlifting the arm, gently lowering it onto the outer groove aTHUMPlifting the arm, gently lowering it onto the outer groove aTHUMP...  I have actually toyed with the idea of getting a good reel-to-reel player, a good cassette player and a good turntable, and a selection of music for them, just for the fun of playing around with obsolete analog formats. Currently, I'm thinking Revox, Nakamichi and Technics. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:I have actually toyed with the idea of getting a good reel-to-reel player, a good cassette player and a good turntable, and a selection of music for them, just for the fun of playing around with obsolete analog formats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:Get a LaserDisc player while you're at it. I find laserdiscs in the record bins at goodwill all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:Get a LaserDisc player while you're at it. Oh right, analog audio on those. There may be a bit of an issue connecting it to my monitor, though. The only analog input I've got is VGA, and I don't think any LD players ever came with VGA output. E: I actually have a lovely old composite/s-video to VGA box around here somewhere that I used for my PS2 and Gamecube for a while. I'll have to dig that out of the Pile-O-Junk in the corner. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
 quote:While there's no doubt that I got better objective image quality from the Blu-ray disc, I actually found the streaming content played with the aid of the AudioQuest Diamond Ethernet cables to be emotionally more engaging, so much so that it reminded me of the first time I saw Koyaanisqatsi in the mid 80's, an experience full of nothing but awe and wonder. I know that doesn't make sense because all streaming media, even your cable TV, uses lossy compression (sort of like iTunes Plus versus Apple Lossless) and, as I said, the sharpness and color saturation from the Blu-ray disc were clearly superior; however there was no doubt that with those AQ Diamond Ethernet cables in there, I got something out of watching Koyaanisqatsi that I'd only seen in all-analog before; and that stunned me. Review is 100% Gold http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue77/audioquest_diamond.htm
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Does he think blurays use lossless compression? Yes, I know. That's the part that bothers me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
The site itself is right in a Poe's Law Valley of "wilful conartist or audifool?" because it manages to juxtapose terms that disprove their product is even needed. They list a benefit of ethernet as "bit-perfect communication" -- but then start saying how theirs is better because "Extremely high-purity Perfect-Surface Silver minimizes distortion caused by the grain boundaries" "eliminating harshness and greatly increasing clarity" Bonus: creative understanding of what a conductor is quote:Any solid material adjacent to a conductor is actually part of an imperfect circuit. Wire insulation and circuit board materials all absorb energy (loss). Some of this energy is stored and then later released as distortion. Solid High-Density Polyethylene Insulation ensures critical signal-pair geometry while minimizing insulation-induced phase distortion Remember also that audio cables are directional in audiophile land: quote:All audio cables are directional. The correct direction is determined by listening to every batch of metal conductors used in every AudioQuest audio cable. Arrows are clearly marked on the connectors to ensure superior sound quality. For best results have the arrow pointing in the direction of the flow of music. For example, NAS to Router*, Router* to Network Player. And what does their box with a light do? quote:creates a strong, stable electrostatic field which saturates and polarizes (organizes) the molecules of the insulation. This minimizes both energy storage in the insulation and the multiple nonlinear time-delays that occur. Sound appears from a surprisingly black background with unexpected detail and dynamic contrast. The DBS battery packs will last for years. A test button and LED allow for the occasional battery check. * - please don't consider the logic of whether your $30 router could possibly be a weak-point in your setup, we haven't made an audiophile router yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
I found a stack of old Popular Science magazines from 1960. Thought you guys might like this:
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Khablam posted:The site itself is right in a Poe's Law Valley of "wilful conartist or audifool?" because it manages to juxtapose terms that disprove their product is even needed. Science is pathetic, man. It brought us lousy crap like 2+ billion transistor consumer CPUs, 40+ terabit transoceanic submarine optic fibers, mercury analyzers that can detect mercury down to 0.000,000,0001% but it can't give us the correct basic signaling theory for audio applications. gently caress science.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
Palladium posted:Science is pathetic, man. It brought us lousy crap like 2+ billion transistor consumer CPUs, 40+ terabit transoceanic submarine optic fibers, mercury analyzers that can detect mercury down to 0.000,000,0001% but it can't give us the correct basic signaling theory for audio applications. gently caress science.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
You sure you got that one right? That's just 100 times the Planck constant. --edit: It's 0.178 femtowatt, which is 1.78x10^-16 if I'm correct. Still impressive. Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Radio transmission power levels will always be incredibly impressive to me. Just the knowledge that with an antenna power measured in milliwatts, using my completely ordinary run-of-the-mill smartphone, I can send and receive over 40Mbit/s. That's more than plenty to stream several 1080p streams, or approximately 30 simultaneous CD-quality audio streams. On our test network, with a phone that implements the full 4G specification, we've reached just over 260Mbit/s. That's just astounding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
I am wondering with the sick of amount money these audiophiles invested into their setups even comes close in sound quality to a pair of JBL M2 Master Reference Monitors at $20K with bundled free amps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Palladium posted:I am wondering with the sick of amount money these audiophiles invested into their setups even comes close in sound quality to a pair of JBL M2 Master Reference Monitors at $20K with bundled free amps. In objective terms, no. But to them, subjectively it will be better than anything else, because of the time they've spent choosing the "right" components, meticulously planning and finally setting everything up. And that's even before you get into the really stupidly expensive poo poo:  That's the Living Voice Vox Olympian. Thousands of hours go into the carpentry alone, and they start $385,000/pair, but can cost almost twice that, depending on how you want them finished. And of course you'll need the matching Elysian subwoofers, which start at $270,000/pair. But no matter how much you pay, they'll still be ugly as sin. That's not to say that serious pro audio can't be super expensive, too:  The cost of just the speakers in that setup is around $105,000, never mind the probably insane price for that mixing desk. I'm sure it sounds better than any audiophile setup ever, though. And it's not over half a million dollars like those Living Voice monstrosities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Of course i don't have the loose pocket cash to fall into the targeted 'audience' for the former and lack the ear-training to even appreciate the latter but it's hilarious how far apart the design goals for those products are. The first looks like someone build a real version of some Gyro Gearloose joke you'd see in a donald duck cartoon. The latter looks like if you pressed the correct button sequence it'd fly you to Alpha Centauri. It seems about as sensible (albeit illuminating!) to compare them as comparing a submarine and a space shuttle just because they're sorta similar-shaped means of transportation because the purpose they serve is so different.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure Dr. Who fought these in one season.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:That's not to say that serious pro audio can't be super expensive, too: Other than edge cases like that, I noticed pro-audio monitors tend to be very reasonably priced for the level of sound quality for some weird reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 12:41
|
|
|
Possibly because people who need pro audio monitors know their poo poo and won't pay in direct proportion to how much you hyped them up with technobabble.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 12:47
|
|
|
Palladium posted:Other than edge cases like that, I noticed pro-audio monitors tend to be very reasonably priced for the level of sound quality for some weird reason. Admittedly, those are Adam S7As, which is the absolute top-end model they make. They're designed for very large monitoring rooms, the room in the picture is probably on the smallest end of what they're made for. To give a sense of scale, those woofers are 15", so you do get a fair amount of size (and weight!) for your ~$48K. The speakers in front are S3X-Hs, much more reasonably priced at ~$4.5K each. SaltyJesus posted:Possibly because people who need pro audio monitors know their poo poo and won't pay in direct proportion to how much you hyped them up with technobabble. Pretty much exactly that, although there definitely is some technobabble going around in that area, too. Nothing on the scale of outright audiophoolery, but it's there. Other than the fact that most nearfield monitors tend to sacrifice some absolute loudness capability for accuracy, they really deserve to be more popular with consumers, and once you get into midfield and main monitors, that disadvantage disappears (but prices also tend to go up, sometimes dramatically). The main reason why there is relatively little use of monitors in home audio settings is probably marketing, and secondarily because most pro-audio gear simply isn't built for looks, or at least not for "living room-friendly looks". I use a set of Adam A5X monitors at home, and I absolutely love them to bits. They're relatively inexpensive at $550/each. Personally, I like the no-nonsense aesthetics, but they're probably not to most people's tastes.  And it doesn't get much better with competing products:    Obviously, it depends on individual taste, but they're not exactly designed to fit into the decor of your average home. Also notice that speaker grilles are very rare indeed on pro-audio monitors. In homes with kids and/or pets, that's probably not the best idea. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 13:14 on Jan 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
I reallllllllllllllllllllly need to move house and get a place with a decent sized garage so I can get back to making speakers and selling them to I've recommended active monitors to quite a few people for small room audio requirements, not many people take my advice but those that do are more than happy at how nice they sound. poo poo, even the low end of the monitor market are pretty decent for the cash (though they tend to be pretty ugly). A set of Adams is on my 'to buy' list assuming I can still get a pair later this year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 13:34
|
|
|
88h88 posted:I reallllllllllllllllllllly need to move house and get a place with a decent sized garage so I can get back to making speakers and selling them to If you're a bit handy with wood, and especially with veneers, you can make some really beautiful boxes. For home use, it's probably 90% aesthetics and 10% sound that sells. And of those 10%, it's mostly about the thump-thump. Expensive-looking box + cheap drivers = profit like woah. I can only give the Adam monitors the highest of praise. Skip the A3Xs, they're too small for their own good. The A5Xs are nice, and can be used in stereolink mode, where the volume control on one speaker controls both, which is ideal if you're plugging them directly into a PC. Once you get to the A7X and above, they unfortunately don't have that feature, so you'll need a volume control, a preamp or a mixer of some kind. The only drawback to the A5Xs is port noise on sustained low bass notes. Unless you make a habit of listening to sine waves, it probably won't be a problem. And it's simply the tradeoff needed to get that much solid bass from such small speakers. If you're not in a small apartment like mine, go for the A7X, or the A77X if you have the space (and cash money). The bigger series mid/main monitors are very nice too, but then you get into more serious money territory. If for some reason you can't get Adam monitors, Eve Audio is a nice alternative. As the name might suggest, the company was started by a group of former Adam employees, and they share a bunch of technology, including the brilliant tweeter design. Eve takes a slightly different approach compared to Adam, with more DSP stuff directly in the speakers, and their model range doesn't go nearly as high-end as Adam's does. I'd say they're about equal on the products where they overlap. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 14:06 on Jan 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 14:00
|
|
|
Has anyone ever looked at who these audiophile types are? I just don't get how someone dumb enough to buy into directional speaker wire and all that crap could be shrewd enough to amass tens or hundreds of thousands of spare dollars to spend on all that kit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
It's usually men who are at least middle-aged, or older. I imagine a lot of them probably remortgage their houses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 17, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
GTO posted:Has anyone ever looked at who these audiophile types are? Rational thought is only loosely associated with the ability to make money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 18:23
|
|
