The $3K all in exercize.

[Jud]

Copied over from the other thread -

 

Here's mine:

 

- ELAC F5 speakers, $558/pr.

 

- James Romeyn Hypex NCore stereo amp build, $1490

 

- Schiit SYS volume control, $49

 

- iFi Micro iDSD DAC, $499

 

- UpTone Audio Regen, $175

 

- Etymotic ER4-PT earphones, $229

[Jud]

90W/ch Of Output Power

 

Sensitivity 85 dB (dB/2.83v/1M)

 

It's OK, you wouldn't wanna listen to his rig loud anyhow.

 

(/me ducks and runs...)

[Jud]

I have no idea how you are going to get sound out of that setup :-)'

 

Yep, I know. I'm not counting the cost of the computer, because virtually everybody who's interested in a site like this already has one to use for playing music, likely with more resources than the $127 machine. (That was part of what interested me in computer audio in the first place - I didn't need to buy a source component.) On the other hand, if someone wants to use a particular machine for this purpose that they don't already have, they can certainly go ahead and include it.

[Jud]

I think there is a place for both "real" experiences and also theoretical discussions / thought exercises.

 

Several people have come to the forum with the "I'm starting out, here's my budget, what do you suggest?" questions. I've heard most of the stuff I'm suggesting. So both the question and the answers are more than theoretical.

[Jud]

The real trick is to see if there is any audible difference with say 24/192 with a $127 pocket computer or a $1000 i7.

 

With the i7 you can run sophisticated filtering and in effect change DACs without paying for new hardware.

[Jud]

Or you can leave that up to the DAC.

 

So the question I have is: Can $2450 in electronics get a $560 speaker to outperform $2200 speakers with $700 of electronics.

 

I've heard both. There were the ELACs at RMAF; and years ago I owned Vandersteen 2Ci speakers (now 2Ce Signature, around $2500), with an NAD receiver and a Philips CD player that together cost around $500. The system with the ELACs unquestionably sounded better, mostly because that NAD receiver, well thought of at the time (and since) was very evidently not capable of getting the Vandersteens to do their best. That to me will be the primary problem with configuring a system on a $3000 budget with $2300 speakers: finding amplification that will do justice to those speakers. (Powered speakers are one way to attack this, but are there good full range ones available within the budget?)

 

Frankly, before I heard the ELACs there is no way I'd have budgeted so little for speakers in a system like this. But Andrew Jones is a smart man who gave me that luxury. (Bruno Putzeys too - his Hypex modules have made very high end amplification available at very reasonable prices.)

[Jud]

I suppose the question is if the ELACs would have sounded as good with only $1000 or even $500 of carefully selected electronics and what a balanced $1500 / $1500 split would have been like.

 

As for powered speakers ... well partly that skews the situation as in the speakers what % of the cost is for the speakers and what for the electronics. Interestingly this is partly possible to see with ATC as some of their speakers are available in passive and active version - for example ATC SCM40 are £3,275 and the ATC SCM40a are £6,280; SCM50 £8,700, SCM50A £11,600; SCM100 £10,100, SCM100A 13,000.

 

There is a lot of interesting math you can do with these things. I'm hard pressed to think of speakers whose value for money is multiples of the ELACs or the MMGs (nice choice, Melvin) for ~$1500. I love the Vandersteen 2Ce Signatures for just over $2500 and *do* think they're worth multiples of these others, but as I mentioned I haven't heard a $500 amp that will make them sound as good as a $1500 amp will make the ELACs sound. I think you have to jump to around $1000 or slightly over for an amp that will get there, which blows through the $3000 total budget. So I think it's the particular price points for speakers and the lack of something really good and close to full range at the $1000 level (the KEFs just about do it - can add a sub, though I'm not big on what a single sub does to arrival times) that dictates choices with a $3000 budget. As you mentioned, when the total goes up, the balance can change. For DACs there are what I consider very good choices at $150, $200, $400, $500, $600, $850, $1000, $1250, $2300 and up, so there's a lot of room to mix and match for many different budget levels.

[Jud]

What player are you using and can export the filter. I've a collection of different CPU'sh around here and interested in doing a bit of benchmarking.

 

There are several different paths you can take, though to take full advantage you want a DAC that can take DSD input, ideally DSD128 and/or higher, or at least 352.8/384KHz PCM. (That's part of the reason I chose the iDSD Micro.)

 

If I recall you're running Windows and Linux machines, or do you also have Macs? Assuming Windows/Linux, probably the preferred way to check out filters if you've got a sufficiently robust CPU is to run HQPlayer, which has a selection of different well designed filters, modulators and dither so you can see how/if each affects the sound. Another possibility is to convert offline with Audiophile Inventory, which allows you to use a less robust CPU at the price of some time and convenience. It has two filtering options, linear phase and minimum phase. JRiver I believe does conversions as well (inline, offline or both, I'm not sure), but I've never used it. If you want to try high end stuff using your own parameters on one of the best pieces of filtering software available, there's iZotope RX 5 with its included sample rate converter (PCM only, IIRC). Linux, of course, has SoX where you can play around using your own parameters. There you can get help from excellent discussions of filters/parameters by people creating filters for the Soekris DAC.

 

If you have a robust CPU and a lot of memory and care to see what incredibly detailed and specific program and OS tweaking can do over and above a unique filter, there is XXHighEnd. It's not to everyone's taste - I've likened all the settings it makes available to walking into the cockpit of a 747. But it is mighty interesting to see what if any effect may result from something like tuning the amount of a music file that can be saved into memory before being dumped to the player.

[Jud]

Tomorrow I can link to a post with filter configurations I and others use in Audirvana Plus. As you would expect, filters designed by professionals work better than what I've come up with. The HQPlayer filters and modulators work better than mine for inline conversion. My preference is to convert files offline to DSD128 using Audiophile Inventory's linear phase filter and play them back through Audirvana Plus.

[Jud]

Thank Jud. The thread was his idea.

 

We can share the credit (or blame).

[Jud]

Tomorrow I can link to a post with filter configurations I and others use in Audirvana Plus. As you would expect, filters designed by professionals work better than what I've come up with. The HQPlayer filters and modulators work better than mine for inline conversion. My preference is to convert files offline to DSD128 using Audiophile Inventory's linear phase filter and play them back through Audirvana Plus.

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/izotope-sample-rate-convertor-15352/index14.html#post388435

 

But note: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/izotope-sample-rate-convertor-15352/index14.html#post387926

[Jud]

I think he means that power-limited SPL kills sound quality and the characteristics of presentation (eg imaging, dynamics, balance among instruments etc), not the equipment or the listener. And I agree that most equipment delivers its best well above minimum on the volume control.

 

Low level linearity is a problem for many inexpensive volume controls. So far my Schiit SYS is a happy exception.

[Jud]

Half your money into the DAC seems ridiculous to me, unless you intend to spend a lot more on your speakers later.

 

Heck, I've got half my money in the *amp*. But I couldn't find anything near the same value for less.

 

On the other hand, I think there are great DAC values at low prices these days, especially if you want to use software to do the filtering and upsampling task.

 

And though I don't disagree at all with the importance of speakers, there are surprising values there as well. Decades ago the Vandersteen 2 series was a screaming deal at a little over $1000. They're a little more expensive now, though you could pick up a used pair and use them as part of a $3K system. But after hearing the ELACs for $550 a pair fronting thousands of dollars worth of electronics, I think they would do an excellent job.

 

So even though the *sound* of the speakers is obviously critically important, that doesn't automatically require the *cost* of speakers to be the largest expense for the system.

[Jud]

I don't recall seeing a class D amp that doubles into 4 ohms (from 8) any where near this price range. Perhaps the 8 ohm rating is conservative.

 

Actually, at not a lot more ($1499), there's a Class D amp that starts out at 8 ohms with considerably more power (200W), doubles into 4 ohms, then 600W into 2 ohms, and will work with speaker impedance of 1 ohm, so it can drive difficult loads. That's the James Romeyn Hypex NCore NC400 stereo amp build I chose for my amp for purposes of this exercise. That's part of what choosing the ELACs for speakers allows you to do with a $3K budget.

 

mayhem's absolutely right, no magic behind the ELACs, just good solid engineering at a price point where that type of engineering and parts quality isn't usually seen.

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, Ron Scubadiver said:

So, after what I have been through since last August, I really don't appreciate how I am being treated.

 

Your correspondent makes outrageous statements his stock in trade. As you have very unfortunately found out, there are much more important things in life to be concerned with.  So if you don't worry about what your correspondent thinks, rather than being outraged and engaging with him (familiar turf for him on which he is quite happy), your life will be simpler and more pleasant.

[Jud]

28 minutes ago, Blake said:

 

 

What surprises me is how easily some in the hobby write off low bass.  If you really are interested in hi-fidelity sound, you should not be neglecting content in any frequency.

 

What you are describing is boomy home theatre sound, and it seems you you are claiming the addition of subwoofers always has a negative impact on sound quality.  I completely disagree if that is your position.  

 

It is possible to properly integrate subwoofers into any system and when they are properly integrated, subwoofers very much add to the "realism" of the musical experience.  See Jim Smith's "Get Better Sound" series for additional info.

 

  

 

I agree mostly.

 

The one additional opinion I'd offer is that careful attention ought to be paid to imaging (for example, time of arrival of bass frequencies) as well as frequency response of the system.

[Jud]

3 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Gutb2

 

OK, that was kinda funny.

[Jud]

3 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

Get the SSD off your Mac's power supply or use a SotM filter.

 

Get a linear PSU for the Oppo.

 

Upgrade from the Adcom ASAP.

 

Re-consider the mini-monitor configuration; you can still use full size speakers.

 

 

Ah, you remind me of my dear late mother.

 

Every time I saw her for decades, among the first things she said to me were that I was too fat, my teeth were yellow, and I was balding.  For nearly the entirety of this time I would reply "Great to see you too, Mom," and laugh.

 

I soon figured out this came from her need to feel in control by causing me (and my brother and sister, who got similar greetings) to want the approval she was withholding.

 

I don't know whether you need to feel in control or knowledgeable or just to have others pay attention, but the need is obvious.  I hope (seriously) that you figure out a way to get whatever it is you need while being helpful and courteous to others.

 

I wanted to let you know, in case you might want to respond, that I have you on my ignore list, but I "check in" every so often to see if anything's changed.

[Jud]

11 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

Setting aside her motives, was your mother right? Would you have been better off if you had listened to her?

 

It varied.  Sometimes I was overweight, but she would say the same when I wasn't.  Back when she first started saying this my teeth were yellowed, but she would say the same after they were whiter (enough not to be noticeably yellow).  And I didn't actually start noticeably balding until probably a couple of decades after she began talking about it.

 

As far as following her advice, she gave little.  It was primarily criticism.  Is it better not to be overweight and does it look nice to have bright white teeth? Sure. If I talk to anyone about weight, I do so only if invited and try to be practical and encouraging, since discouragement and criticism of appearance really isn't an effective way to help folks live healthier.  As far as thinning hair, that always made me chuckle.  It's nature's way and the last thing I care about.

 

11 minutes ago, GUTB said:

I don’t want to ignore your analysis of me out of hand, I strive to be reality-based and get past my ego. It’s an interesting thought. In exchange, don’t you see that you’re being somewhat hypocritical by having a much higher end system than OP and pretending that he’s well positioned in audiophilia?

 

On the contrary, I have an office system I love listening to that cost far less than $3000.  It's quite possible to get what I feel is very fine sound in this price range, and I've enjoyed the wide range of ideas that have been shared about how to do it.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, Ron Scubadiver said:

I find that offensive.

 

Aw heck.  Though my Jewish mother wasn't anything much like a stereotypical Jewish mother, I do know a couple of good Jewish mother jokes.

 

Q: How many Jewish mothers does it take to screw in a light bulb?

 

A: None. "I'll just sit here in the dark."

[Jud]

1 hour ago, Ron Scubadiver said:

It delves into stereotypes.  Not that many Jewish women are so critical.  Believe me, I know tons of them, and many are close relatives.  

 

Critical isn't even the stereotype.  It's being able to elicit feelings of guilt from others.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

Is Scubadiver a common Jewish last name?

 

It was Scubadiverwitz before it was shortened.

[Jud]

17 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

I am convinced that one day he will wake up with an epiphany, and realize it's not the rest of the world that is screwed up....

 

As my mom used to say (she seems to be coming up a lot in this part of the thread): "Oh Jud, people don't change, they just get more like themselves."

[Jud]

31 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

a person here simply to see how much he can antagonize other people simply for his own amusement.

 

This, or close enough as makes no difference.

 

I doubt it's an accident that when we'd all started laughing off his usual nonsense, he upped the ante with the racist crap.

 

Maybe no one will talk to him in real life (quelle surprise, eh?), so he tries to force interaction by being a troll on the Internet.

[Jud]

40 minutes ago, mansr said:

There is, however, a difference in IQ between racists and other people.

 

I was about to say there is actually no such thing as IQ, but I might like your formulation better.

 

Regarding IQ: This is supposed to be a "general factor" of intelligence that makes you good at all cognitive tasks.

 

Consider for a minute a corresponding general factor of physical prowess - we'll call it "athleticism." OK, who had/has more athleticism - Mary Lou Retton, the Russian wrestler Karelin, Tiger Woods, Usain Bolt, or Michael Jordan?  Do you see how the concept is so vague and amorphous as to be useless?

 

Now consider human intellectual capabilities.  Might they be even more various than physical ones?  (Think of Stephen Hawking.)  Yes they might.  So any notion of a general factor of cognitive prowess can easily be seen to be so vague and amorphous it is useless.

 

What, then, do IQ tests measure?  Please read the linked article by a statistician: http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html

 

For the 99% of you who won't bother, here's a summary: The statistical analysis used with IQ tests is designed to, and will always, find a "common factor" between a series of tests.  The tests could be the Olympic decathlon and the Pillsbury Bake-off, and this statistical method would find a common athletic/baking factor or aptitude.

 

So when you take a series of tests and the statistical analysis is done, it will *always* determine that some portion of your scores on the individual parts of the test is due to a common factor rather than just your aptitude on the individual tests.  It is sheer mathematics, a mathematical artifact, not a measure of something useful about human cognitive abilities.

 

Also: Variation *within* any large group of people is always greater than average variation *between* groups.  The difference in height between the tallest and shortest women is far greater than the average difference in height between men and women.  So it is with our many varied cognitive abilities and the genetics of skin color (as @Ralf11 says, in an evolutionary and population genetics sense, there are no such things as "races"): Variations within the group of those with similar skin coloration will always be vastly greater than the (nonexistent) average difference between those of different skin tones.

 

Put all these together, and it's easy to see that what you get when people talk about IQ and race says nothing about IQ and race, which don't exist anyway; but says everything about the people talking or writing about the subject.