WindowsX posted:

We once made test comparing between ripped flac and original CD from common laptop using WMP as ripper and player (yeah non-audiophile app) plugged to musiland feeding $100K speakers system with about 10-20 audiophiles (Esoteric K-01/$10k DIY borbely preamp/Karan KA S 450/Rockport Aquila in well treated acoustic large room). The difference between flac and CD is clear like night and day to all 20 audiophiles, let alone mp3 comparing to CD. I hope this tests won't bring another placebo war though.

WindowsX posted:

I don't think you understand what guy in cnet talks about. Lossless is also compressed and also inferior to uncompressed LPCM. But MP3 is also lossy having some parts of dynamic range cut off like un-needed leftover while some are essentials to reproduce natural harmonics. You won't bother trying to believe in it though so I'll end here.

WindowsX posted:

For evidences, I forgot most places posted years back. Just feeling nostalogic to make some posts in board I was once addicted during head-fi jorney. Try searching for lossless vs uncompressed and you should find people debating with some links and information. I knew too much to make it simple to understand. There're too many things related to digital domain making atomic clock sounds reasonable in some highend systems.

IanMedium posted:

I have done extensive listening to 320/ALAC/AIFF/WAV. On poorly produced or already heavily compressed music I hear no difference but on good quality recordings there is even a difference between AIFF and Wav. The tests I have done have been over the past couple of years and that is why I have ended up ripping everything to wav as to my ears there is a difference and it is in feeling and emotion. There are as many details in 320 as in wav but it is not that I am on about and I think there lay the problem with this whole debate.

Emotion is not quantifiable, it is an individual experience and I am more than happy enough if someone does not hear what I do, I won't try to disprove them. However, what are they listening to? I think that is the more important question. Is their music largely modern pop which with a few exceptions is generally poorly recorded and heavily compressed, especially if downloading from iTunes which now actually has music mastered so as to hide the inadequacies of the format they use. This I know as I spend a fair amount of time in mastering studio's as well as recording studios.

Now. If everyone here owned say, a meeting by the river by Ry Cooder and VM Bhatt on waterlily acoustics which is an immaculate recording (I know, I was there when it was recorded), ripped that in the various formats and listened and did not hear a difference then I think the issue is the quality of your hearing as there is definite differences, subtle between ALAC/AIFF/WAV agreed but hand on heart night and day between 320 and wav.

I have done blind listening between them and it is there. Of course having heard the masters of this particular recording and live so to speak wav is a poor substitute in comparison but until I get a hi rez player (unlikely until someone comes out with a fully functioning one as opposed to all the beta ones being pumped out by iBasso and Hifiman which people are paying to be beta testers for!) it is a suitable substitute I feel.

KozmoNaut posted:

You know that bullshit audiophile woo-woo "Fidelizer" program that promises to improve sound quality in Windows, but actually does nothing at all to the sound?

The guy behind this piece of software junk is active on Head-Fi as "WindowsX", and he's absolutely batshit insane. He starts out right away by completely messing up data compression vs. dynamic compression, and he really gets going on page 2 and soon dives deep into some really amazing bullshit.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/631978/320-kbps-mp3-vs-normal-audio-cd-listening-sound-quality




Then he is joined by IanMedium, who clearly has the most golden ears of all.


It just goes on and on and on.

And this is from the Sound Science forum at Head-Fi, where ABX testing and measurements are encouraged. So while the objective truth and suggestions of ABX testing are forbidden everywhere else, the woo-woo audiophiles are completely free to poo poo all over the one forum where common sense should prevail. What a great way to run a forum

Brocialist posted:

Christ I hate that place.

Wasabi the J posted:

Yeah I went there for a while because I thought they knew what they were talking about, but I found out gradually people are just making up all sorts of crazy poo poo.

quote:

but on good quality recordings there is even a difference between AIFF and Wav.

KozmoNaut posted:

Here's another fun one (Google-translated, unfortunately):

https://translate.google.com/transl...t-text=&act=url

Sure, why not use an opamp with a 2000V/μs slew rate* and a 60MHz bandwidth for a RIAA amplifier?

* A slew rate of 5V/μs is more than plenty to handle even the most dynamic signal possible, even if you're crazy enough to use 24/192 for listening.

quote:

Yes, but it's a loving good RIAA.
Have you listened to it?

KozmoNaut posted:

Here's another fun one (Google-translated, unfortunately):

https://translate.google.com/transl...t-text=&act=url

Sure, why not use an opamp with a 2000V/μs slew rate* and a 60MHz bandwidth for a RIAA amplifier?

* A slew rate of 5V/μs is more than plenty to handle even the most dynamic signal possible, even if you're crazy enough to use 24/192 for listening.

KozmoNaut posted:

flosofl posted:

(you realize the guys on those forums think you're the one with your finger in your ears, right )

KozmoNaut posted:

It doubles the amount of copper in your speaker wires, and that's about it. It could make a difference if you were using thin speaker wire, but it's better to just buy correctly sized wire in the first place.

And passive bi-amping is worthless too, you have to use a crossover before the amps and remove the crossovers from the speakers, for it to have any benefit.

quote:

What is bi-wiring and what are the advantages?

Bi-wiring uses two separate sets of speaker cables to connect a single pair of loudspeakers to an amplifier. Coupled with a crossover designed specifically for bi-wiring, it offers many of the advantages of bi-amplifying the speakers with two separate amplifiers without the cost and complexity of two amplifiers.

We began experimenting with bi-wiring back in the early '80s, an era when horizontal bi-amplification was considered the ultimate way to drive quality loudspeakers. (Horizontal bi-amplification used one amplifier to drive the low-frequency section of a speaker and a second amplifier to drive the high-frequency section.) We noted that speakers sounded better when bi-amplified by two amplifiers than when driven by a single amplifier. Surprisingly, this superior performance was evident even when the speakers were bi-amplified by two identical amplifiers at a low volume level and the amplifiers were each driven full-range without an electronic crossover. We initially believed that the double power supplies and other components of two amplifiers were responsible for the improvement, however building amplifiers with twice the power supply and doubling-up on other critical components failed to provide the bi-amplification benefit.

So we looked at the speaker wires. With two amplifiers, bi-amplification used two sets of speaker cables so we experimented with doubling-up the speaker wires and with larger wire. Neither duplicated the bi-amplification improvements. Then we considered that in a bi-amplified system, one set of wires carries the low-frequencies and the other set of wires carries the high-frequencies. We modified a speaker's crossovers to accept two sets of cables and present different load characteristics to each set so that the low-frequencies would be carried by one set of wires and the high-frequencies by the other set of wires. Finally we heard the sonic improvements of bi-amplification with a single amplifier.

Additional experiments with a Hall Effect probe revealed that high-current bass frequencies created a measurable field around the wires that expanded and collapsed with the signal. We believe that this dynamic field modulates the smaller signals, especially the very low level treble frequencies. With the high-current signal (Bass) separated from the low-current signal (Treble) this small signal modulation was eliminated as long as the cables were separated by at least an inch or two. (To keep the treble cable out of the field surrounding the bass cable.)

The crossovers in Vandersteen bi-wirable speakers are engineered with completely separate high-pass and low-pass sections. The bass inputs pass low-frequencies to the woofers, but become more and more resistive at higher frequencies. The treble inputs pass high-frequencies to the midrange and tweeter, but become more and more resistive at low-frequencies. The output from the amplifier always takes the path of least resistance so deep bass frequencies go to the bass input (Low impedance at low-frequencies) rather than to the treble inputs (High impedance at low frequencies). For the same reason, treble frequencies go to the treble input (Low impedance at high-frequencies) rather than to the bass inputs (High impedance at high-frequencies). At the actual crossover frequency, the output from the amplifier would be divided equally between the two inputs as they would both have the same impedance at that frequency. Because of the different reflected impedances of the cables, the crossover between the woofer and midrange actually occurs at the wire ends where they connect to the amplifier.

The benefits of bi-wiring are most obvious in the midrange and treble. The low-current signal to the midrange and tweeter drivers does not have to travel on the same wire as the high-current woofer signal. The field fluctuations and signal regeneration of the high-current low-frequencies are prevented from distorting or masking the low-current high-frequencies. The back EMF (Electro-Mechanical Force) from the large woofer cannot affect the small-signal upper frequencies since they do not share the same wires.

The effects of bi-wiring are not subtle. The improvements are large enough that a bi-wire set of moderately priced cable will usually sound better than a single run of more expensive cable.

All the cables in a bi-wire set must be the same. There is often great temptation to use a wire known for good bass response on the woofer inputs and a different wire known for good treble response on the midrange/tweeter inputs. This will cause the different sonic characteristics of the two wires in the middle frequencies to interfere with the proper blending of the woofer and midrange driver through the crossover point. The consistency of the sound will be severely affected as the different sounding woofer and midrange drivers conflict with each other in the frequency range where our ears are most sensitive to sonic anomalies. The disappointing result is a vague image, a lack of transparency through the midrange and lower treble and a loss of detail and clarity.

Some of the benefits of bi-wiring are from the physical separation of the high-current bass and low-current midrange/tweeter wires. So-called bi-wire cables that combine the wires in one sheath do not offer the full advantages of true bi-wiring although they may be an excellent choice for mono-wiring the speakers.

The cables should all be the same length. This is not due to the time that the signal takes to travel through a cable, but rather that two different lengths of the same cable will sound different. If the cables connecting one speaker are a different length than the cables connecting the other speaker, the resulting difference in sound between the two speakers will compromise the imaging and coherence of the system. If different lengths of cable are used for the bass and midrange/tweeter inputs of the speakers, the effects will be similar to those experienced when using two different cables as described above.

Since short runs of speaker cable sound better than long runs, consider placing your electronics between the speakers rather than off to one side. If for convenience or aesthetic considerations, the electronics must be located a considerable distance from the speakers, it is usually preferable to place the amplifier between the speakers and use long interconnect cables and short speaker wire.

Panty Saluter posted:

Richard Vandersteen has some interesting thoughts on bi-wiring:


Now someone who is more electronically savvy than I am could probably pick this apart pretty hard, but Vandersteen has his head screwed on pretty straight. Personally I give his opinion on things like this much more weight than a lot of people. Maybe that makes me the thread's gullible audiophile but I'm OK with that.

flosofl posted:

I'm not an electrical engineer, but that sounded like it was wandering suspiciously close to Tubroencabulator babble.

Panty Saluter posted:

Sounds to me like the internal wiring and crossovers are completely separate inside the speakers. As far as the attenuation of the stopband frequencies on each wire pair that sounds pretty correct to me. I've had only an intro to electronics so don't take my word as gospel. As far as lower frequencies modulating higher ones, that's a pretty well known occurrence. How much difference it makes to your listening experience is another thing, but LFO's are a thing so maybe?

quote:

The effects of bi-wiring are not subtle. The improvements are large enough that a bi-wire set of moderately priced cable will usually sound better than a single run of more expensive cable.

Zorak of Michigan posted:

Here's my problem:


Has there ever been a proper test that showed any "not subtle" differences between moderately priced and more expensive speaker cable?

"Vandersteen" posted:

We modified a speaker's crossovers...

Panty Saluter posted:

Does anyone know of some good, not too expensive acoustic treatments? My living room is live as heck (really, I just need something to eat up 1k and up) and unpleasant at more than moderate levels. I already have a curtain, throw rug, and couch and while that's better than nothing, there's just a lot of bare surfaces. I've considered a nice huge black velvet Elvis painting for the rear wall.

Zorak of Michigan posted:

Has there ever been a proper test that showed any "not subtle" differences between moderately priced and more expensive speaker cable?

Panty Saluter posted:

Richard Vandersteen has some interesting thoughts on bi-wiring:


Now someone who is more electronically savvy than I am could probably pick this apart pretty hard, but Vandersteen has his head screwed on pretty straight. Personally I give his opinion on things like this much more weight than a lot of people. Maybe that makes me the thread's gullible audiophile but I'm OK with that.

Croc Monster posted:

So, looking at this picture (for example) of the back of a Wharfedale Jade 3, which has a bridge plate between bi-wire/amp terminals, and reading the manual (http://www.wharfedale.co.uk/files/manual/20131112071411_12.pdf), they make no mention of any change to the crossover when you remove the plates, so this really isn't doing anything useful at all then, right? That is, I don't see how removing the plate can also change the crossover.

Panty Saluter posted:

Sounds to me like the internal wiring and crossovers are completely separate inside the speakers. As far as the attenuation of the stopband frequencies on each wire pair that sounds pretty correct to me. I've had only an intro to electronics so don't take my word as gospel. As far as lower frequencies modulating higher ones, that's a pretty well known occurrence. How much difference it makes to your listening experience is another thing, but LFO's are a thing so maybe?

Really, I'm not saying Vandersteen is right all of the time but he doesn't strike me as the type to talk out of his rear end either. It's at least worth of consideration, IMO.

Waldo P Barnstormer posted:

Diffusers can even look pretty cool:

Collateral Damage posted:

I love the looks of that but I shudder at the thought of keeping it free from dust.

Panty Saluter posted:

As for biwiring - is there any truth to the lower frequencies modulating the higher ones?

Panty Saluter posted:

Actually I was hoping for more specific recommendations, I've read and reread all the basic info on acoustics

As for biwiring - is there any truth to the lower frequencies modulating the higher ones?