The Best for the Least

[STC]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

I always think of speakers and room tmts as the most important items.  

next, source material: mastering/recording

 

maybe DAC before amp...

 

I would rate room acoustics to be more important than speakers. Ina an ideal room even a $500 speakers could sound really good compared to $10000 speakers in a bad room. Get your room acoustics right first and only then go for speakers upgrade. 

[STC]

5 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Room accoustics isn’t something that replaces gear. A room is corrected, or it isn’t, or it’s partially corrected. A perfect room does not result in perfect performance, it only eliminates the room as a bottleneck. Crappy speakers, an inferior amp and bad DAC don’t improve because your room is good. 

 

The room is a prequisite for good sound, not an upgradeable piece of gear.

 

Then why fools spend millions designing perfect concert halls? They all can play in a stadium that cater for 100000 audience and should sound the same right? 

[STC]

29 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

anyone with an Ambiphonics system will put a high priority on the room

 

- some of these ranking are difficult as they change once you reach a certain overall level

 

You cannot be more wrong than this. Room acoustics affects Ambiophonics much lesser than other setup due to the repeated signals. 

 

A paper is in progress on this subject. 

[STC]

1 hour ago, MetalNuts said:

 

You may be right in terms of the place you live but I am not wrong in the place I live. I am living in a place where the real property is amongst the highest on planet earth.  The option of having a reasonable space for placing hifi equipment is limited to very few persons.  Only after resolving the limited space, room acoustics will come to consideration. 

 

Not really. My room is small too. Room reverberation is tied to room volume. Tolerance level can be determined mathematically or just by listening. It is usually around 0.4 to 0.5seconds (RT60) for most small rooms. Ideally, it should be more than 1.5 seconds.

 

Use this calculator.

[STC]

Just now, MetalNuts said:

It does not appear to me that you are living in the place I live, so how small is your room? Before you know how small the living room we have in our place, would it be too arbitrary to disagree with me.  As I said it may be true to you that you found acoustic the most important but it is not wrong for me to consider it less important. 

 

Are you saying that you are compelling other to concur with you?  LOL!

 

I am just stating the scientifically accepted values of RT60. Preference can vary but high fidelity not. 

[STC]

6 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

you misunderstand my point

 

anyone with an Ambiphonics system will put a high priority on the room ---> you care about the sound 'effects' from time delays

 

not that room acoustics have a greater or lessor effect

 

I was about to PM you asking whether I misunderstood your intent. Thanks for clarifying. Frankly, room acoustics mattered to me most before but not so much now as it got masked by 200 hundred impulse response of 2.2 seconds RT.

[STC]

13 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Yes, you have it solved.

 

or nearly so -- maybe nothing is ever solved

 

That's a myth. I don't think we will ever "solve" in this hobby. Now, I am itching to buy high quality speakers for the surround ambience that are capable of micro details decay. This is audio satyriasis and cannot be cured.

[STC]

43 minutes ago, MetalNuts said:

There are 2 types of persons, one being idealistic, one being practical.  I, being the latter. Being restrained and confined by the space I have, I do not consider it practical to use resources into solving an extremely difficult if not impossible  room space.  Yes, you may be right there will be improvement but I do not consider it worthwhile to use quadruple or more effort to improve just a little bit.  Further, different items (not equipment) will be added/removed placed here and there and it does not make sense to me at all.  The only acoustic that I need which I can think of is to reduce the sound leaking to my neigbour next door. 

 

I understand your position. Dedicated listening room for the highest fidelity often not practical for some. 

 

But, if you want to be a recording artist, would you say that your studio acoustics is secondary to your equipment because it is not practical?  

 

You up high end hifi system is similar to your recording studio. Room acoustics comes first. Arguing otherwise will not get you to high fidelity no matter what equipment you use. You will always be the second best with someone with same equipment in a better room. 

[STC]

3 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

Can speakers made without modern driver materials and without computer modeling and manufacturing tools really compete with today’s speakers?

 

Can you confidently tell a modern speaker from a current one just by listening?

[STC]

Just now, GUTB said:

 

I can’t say that I’ve actually listened to vintage speakers in a very long time. The general concensus (amongst audiophiles) is that they suck...right? Where does one go to listen to old speakers?

 

Usually, at those places where where they use such speakers. There are many out there but usually keeping low profile for fear of being ridiculed by those who own super high end.

 

[STC]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

So has there NOT been large advancements in speakers over the last 50 years? Is this the contention? Everybody should know that I’m not out to defeat or ridicule anyone. I’m not out to trap  anyone. I’m neuro-typical, 100%. Is the contention that I should abandon plans to upgrade speakers in the $7-10k range and instead look into a set of vintage speakers that will equal anything I can buy today?

 

The loudspeaker technology is more or less remained the same. However, they have made progress in the material and design. IMO, newer speakers should sound better given that age will degrade the components but that doesn't mean they could not be restored to their former glory.

 

Technically, modern speakers may measure better but it doesn't mean they will always outperform some good old speakers.

[STC]

20 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

If you think there is an audible  difference between 'native' DSD and DSD over  DoP you are mistook.

The only difference is that DoP is an 'envelope around' DSD and that envelope is discarded before anything else happens.

 

"DSD is better than PCM"

PCM is perfect within any arbitrary limit you are free to choose, as is DSD (though DSD adds some inaudible noise,  removed  before playing).  Please explain how one is "better" than the other

 

Or do  you just make up this stuff?

 

Generally, I believe under long term difference it is possible to perceive  the difference. Long term means listening to one album of DSD and another one in 16/44.1. 

 

Provided, the DAC, speakers and amplifiers capable of producing the full spectrum of the recorded high Rez. If I am not mistaken JRiver cuts at 22khz so I stopped experimenting with this. 

 

I am a firm believer of Oohashi’s research so I avoid anything that cannot exceed 48khz as hyper frequency from 16 to 32khz causes negative effect to the musical experience. 

 

Under blindtest, with level matches and instaneous it is difficult for me to tell the difference. Others I do not know. Bone that I know ever performed the feat. 

 

[STC]

I meant to say none Not bone. Iphone and auto correct is causing more problem for me.  

[STC]

57 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

I don't know Oohashi. But it s pointless going above 48KHz as we can't hear that or even close I don't see why 16KhZ-32KHz should degrade anything.

 

Oohashi’s research is freely available online. Perceiving hyper sonics beyond human hearing involves other senses. Non of those who participated in the experience could hear slightly more than 20khz yet the brain fmri scan showed activities associated with hyper sonics. He also conducted the experiment by wearing a helmet to determine how the high frequencies reaches the brain. The most positive wave were detected when the content contains frequencies above 80khz. 

 

Having said that, I only listen to 44.1khz now as I think it is more than enough for various reasons. 

[STC]

6 hours ago, firedog said:

Oohashi’s results haven’t proved to be repeatable. Experimental results which aren’t confirmed by others don’t really count for anything in science. 

 

In addition, some people who’ve looked at the experiment think that what the subjects were reacting to was.a type of distortion caused in the playback equipment by the very high frequency sources, and not the high frequencies themselves. Oohashi didn’t control for this factor, so you can’t actually say that his results show subjects reacted to hearing high frequencies.

 

To show that the findings were significant, you have to successfully repeat them multiple times, and eliminate the distortion caused by the high frequencies.

 

It has been repeated.  I am aware of one paper ( Reiss?) to rebut Oohashi but his experimentation did not use fMRI like what Oohashi did. 

 

There should be be two more significant papers in 2013 and 2017. Somehow, non westerners discoveries seemed to be slow to receive the recognition - be it in science or in any other field. We had this discussion before.  

[STC]

11 minutes ago, mansr said:

For just about every physical ability, there is an animal that outperforms the best human. Birds and bats can fly. That doesn't mean rare golden-armed aviophiles can do the same. Just as we humans are firmly planted on the ground, so is our hearing limited to 20 kHz or thereabouts. No need to pretend otherwise.

 

Oohashi also confirmed that. We don’t hear anything above 20s khz. Not hearing and Not perceiving are two different thing. 

 

Isnt there a another research that out of range LF found to have an impact on our ears?  

[STC]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

 

Repeated is not the same as the results being confirmed. I’m totally open to the idea if it can actually be shown it occurs.

 

Repeated and confirmed. 

[STC]

20 minutes ago, elcorso said:

I was a bull on a dairy farm where artificial insemination displaced me. However cows still do not forget me

 

Did you just admit to bestiality? I have to warn all the virgin cows in my area.    

[STC]

34 minutes ago, firedog said:

what is?

 

That hypersonic content can have an affect on the overall perception of music. That’s what the papers suggest. 

 

This doesn’t mean we could hear above 20khz. Reading the papers and considering that almost nil musical albums contain frequencies above 50khz or even if your speakers could faithfully reproduce those high frequencies, it probably yield negative experience with hires. Moreover, the effect takes long time to have an impact. Instaneous blind test would not be useful to prove this point. 

 

Maybe, those who now listen to hires files can share if they are more comfortable listening to hires long hours compared to 16/44.1. 

 

I am just pointing out that the hypersonics effect should be studied more. 

 

For me 16/44.1 is enough. 

[STC]

2 minutes ago, firedog said:

okay.

I think hi-res can in some instances sound slightly better - a bit more detail and decay, a bit more natural tone. Not a huge difference compared to good Redbook. Something I have to concentrate on to notice. It is of course possible that it is adding some kind of noise interference that I/we like. 

 

In any case, I think hi-res is sometimes better because of different filtering or different mastering and I'm also okay with that. Don't really care why it sounds better, if it does.

 

Original DSD and its downsampled 16/44.1  should sound identical provided the dynamic range is of the DSD musical content is within redbook. 

 

Filters can always change the sound so that was not intended to be included in this discussion. Contrary to what many allege that Oohashi papers say; it only reconfirmed that we cannot distinguish the difference under the normal  ABX. 

 

 

[STC]

It is hard to be certain. What kind filters they use. Whether the media player is capable of sending the hypersonics to the amplifier or whether the speakers could faithfully reproduce these frequencies. IMO, sometimes they might sound different because it could be due to the extra frequencies beyond the upper limits of the speakers may itself have and impact to the audible frequency range. 

 

I think under these circumstances and too many variables we have to just accept when some claim to hear the difference instead of proving or disproving the other. 

[STC]

19 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I am not sure i follow what you are saying?  Do you suggest an SACD will sound the same as a redbook CD also?

 

I do not have have a SACD rip so i cant answer that. But based on the numerous 2L samples blindtested randomly I guess they too should be identical or whatever difference should be insignificant. 

[STC]

9 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

...."insignificant" differences.

 

I used insignificant difference to refer to claims that cannot be proven under blind tests when different music samples( Not different format of the same track) randomly played.  

 

That means randomly arranging different musical recordings in hires and 16/44.1. Unless someone could identify every different track whether they are hires or 16/44.1 then the so called audible difference which may be audible under instaneous AB comparison of the SAME track becomes insignificant difference to me as there is no way I could tell which is which reliably. 

 

 

[STC]

2 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

Most pepole can tell the difference easily between sacd and cd.

 

 

Unless you have the means to verify that both SACD and CD were from the same master then there cannot be a firm conclusion we could draw from the observation. 

[STC]

16 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

As published by the manufacturers of SACD:

 

How does High-Res Audio Compare to CDs and MP3s?

When comparing bitrate, or the amount of data transferred per second, High-Resolution Audio’s bitrate (9,216 kbps) is nearly seven times higher than that of CDs (1,411 kbps) and almost 29 times higher than that of MP3s (320 kbps). And the higher the bitrate, the more accurately the signal is measured.

 

Bitrate has a direct impact on sound quality. When an original recording is compressed into an MP3 file, a lot of information is lost. A lower bitrate could translate to a softer bass response or weak-sounding drum cymbals, or it could blur the attack and decay of a plucked guitar string. Imagine the horror of listening to a dulled-down “DARE” by Gorillaz! A lot of the details that artists and mixing engineers work hard to put into a recording are diminished or disappear entirely in an MP3 file.

 

High-Resolution Audio has the opposite effect. You could listen to one of your favorite recordings in high-resolution that you might have heard hundreds of times and still discover details that you’ve never heard before. That’s because High-Resolution audio formats are compressed in such a way that no audio data is lost

 

I think I must have quoted this multiple times about 10 years ago when I was hearing so much details with the SACDs.

 

Difference to me is the readily recognizable difference that you hear like when vinyl and CD player side by side. All the things alleged that is possible with SACD - according to their marketing brochure - can also be reproduced faithfully with CD. 

 

There is is a reason why mp3 is good enough for 99.9% of human beings. There must be a reason why SACD or DVD-A did not make it to the main stream. It is not people don’t care about sound quality, they only care that is good enough to convey all the information that is audible for the enjoyment of the music. 

 

SW station collapsed because the FM sounded better. You don’t need blind test to figure that out. That’s the same with Sacd. People couldn’t reliably hear the difference nor it matters for the purpose. 

 

I am afraid I cannot add more to this without being seen going in circles. 

 

None of the the things I write or others write in this forum going change the opinion of active members who participate in the thread. Usually, only some silent readers pay attention to both sides of the arguments and decide for themselves.