Jump to content
IGNORED

Audio "Digititus" inducing music?


Recommended Posts

On 4/5/2021 at 2:30 PM, fas42 said:

 

 

Th clue, to me, is your use of the words, "clearer, sharper and cleaner" - this is always the result when something is done that reduces the level of audible distortion, IME - and suggests that the mode change of the Devialet, altering its operating characteristics, is enough to improve its performance.

 

A thought that comes to mind, to test this, is to play some track which is already pure mono - does activating the tone adjust still give this change - or not?

 

OK, as promised I tried this one.  The result was clear, when playing a mono track, switching to mono on the amp as described before made zero audible difference, and I mean absolutely nothing, completely imperceptible.

Windows 11 PC, Roon, HQPlayer, Focus Fidelity convolutions, iFi Zen Stream, Paul Hynes SR4, Mutec REF10, Mutec MC3+USB, Devialet 1000Pro, KEF Blade.  Plus Pro-Ject Signature 12 TT for playing my 'legacy' vinyl collection. Desktop system; RME ADI-2 DAC fs, Meze Empyrean headphones.

Link to comment

Further to my post on the previous page, I revisited the stereo / mono comparison yesterday.  As I mentioned, I had a few ideas of things to experiment with.  I had it in my head that the track I first noticed the effect with some time ago was either a Moby or Orbital track, so there I was yesterday trying this with lots of Moby and Orbital tracks, and although the effect was still there, it now seemed very subtle, far less pronounced than I recalled.  To be honest, from yesterdays listening any difference noticed was very much in the range of what you might expect considering that there are probably stereo effects in the mix to give "space" in the recording.  Otherwise, nothing much of interest to report here.

 

So I am now scratching my head a bit wondering what I might have changed in my system, either deliberately or inadvertently, that might have reduced the influence of the effect.  Maybe a mysterious external effect, changed something in the room, phase of the moon , or maybe the local electricity supplier has upgraded to supplying super clean power. 

 

Considering the subtleties of comb filtering effects and similar, I am even wondering if it is not my system but my very own ears.  I did have a minor sinus issue a while back, now thankfully 100% resolved, so who knows?

 

Anyway, the plan now is to keep an eye (ear) on this one to see if I notice anything meaningful in the future.

Windows 11 PC, Roon, HQPlayer, Focus Fidelity convolutions, iFi Zen Stream, Paul Hynes SR4, Mutec REF10, Mutec MC3+USB, Devialet 1000Pro, KEF Blade.  Plus Pro-Ject Signature 12 TT for playing my 'legacy' vinyl collection. Desktop system; RME ADI-2 DAC fs, Meze Empyrean headphones.

Link to comment
On 4/8/2021 at 3:31 AM, Rexp said:

Here's an interesting comparison of two ADC's, listen to the lossless tracks linked in the description. One version I could listen to all day, the other I want to turn off quite quickly. 

 

An interesting comparison.  I definitely preferred the JCF to the Apollo, although to me the difference is not quite as stark as you seem to have observed.

Windows 11 PC, Roon, HQPlayer, Focus Fidelity convolutions, iFi Zen Stream, Paul Hynes SR4, Mutec REF10, Mutec MC3+USB, Devialet 1000Pro, KEF Blade.  Plus Pro-Ject Signature 12 TT for playing my 'legacy' vinyl collection. Desktop system; RME ADI-2 DAC fs, Meze Empyrean headphones.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Confused said:

 

So I am now scratching my head a bit wondering what I might have changed in my system, either deliberately or inadvertently, that might have reduced the influence of the effect.  Maybe a mysterious external effect, changed something in the room, phase of the moon , or maybe the local electricity supplier has upgraded to supplying super clean power.

 

12 hours ago, Confused said:

Considering the subtleties of comb filtering effects and similar, I am even wondering if it is not my system but my very own ears.  I did have a minor sinus issue a while back, now thankfully 100% resolved, so who knows?

 

 

IME, it has never been "my ears" ... at times it's taken a long time, for me, to understand the influence of something in the system, or in the environment - but it's always ended up being a meaningful cause - can be unbelievably frustrating at times to work out the link; and the why the influence has the impact it does still be mysterious - to this day 🙂. But it's there. And if it's not taken into account, then the SQ is always below what it could be ...

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Confused said:

An interesting comparison.  I definitely preferred the JCF to the Apollo, although to me the difference is not quite as stark as you seem to have observed.

Ha, I preferred the Apollo. At least I do like PCM recordings, some die hard analogue fans can only bare DSD. 

Link to comment
16 hours ago, Confused said:

An interesting comparison.  I definitely preferred the JCF to the Apollo, although to me the difference is not quite as stark as you seem to have observed.

 

33 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Ha, I preferred the Apollo. At least I do like PCM recordings, some die hard analogue fans can only bare DSD. 

 

The Apollo 'rounds' off the sound - to a guitarist, the JCF captures what he hears when playing the guitar ... if you look at the comments on the YT page, most preferred the JCF, because the sense of the guitar tone is better defined.

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

 

The Apollo 'rounds' off the sound - to a guitarist, the JCF captures what he hears when playing the guitar ... if you look at the comments on the YT page, most preferred the JCF, because the sense of the guitar tone is better defined.

At least you can fix it with tweaking, you are so fortunate. 

Link to comment

 

On 3/28/2021 at 11:40 PM, patman said:

So here's a though that I don't know holds water - from the description in the original post it sounds like a higher sampling rate might help. There's a lot of misunderstanding around the Nyquist theorem - in reality it isn't possible to come close to characterizing the phase and amplitude of a (pure sine) waveform unless you have a good number (maybe 16 or more) samples per cycle - so for me with my hearing topping out at around 15 kHz that would suggest I would need audio sampled at 240 kHz. Of course the energy in higher harmonics is significantly lower that the fundamental so maybe it just doesn't matter.

Hi

 

Yes there is a lot of misunderstanding about Nyquist theorem.  With respect I'm afraid your assertions there are incorrect.

 

This video demonstrates why and busts a few other commonly held misconceptions.

 

https://youtu.be/cIQ9IXSUzuM

 

Link to comment
18 hours ago, Rexp said:

At least you can fix it with tweaking, you are so fortunate. 

 

We all do tweaking - but I use a very different approach from many; as I am reminded regularly by posters, 🤣.

 

The hardest thing to convey is the mindset, I've found - and this makes it difficult for other people to understand the approach.

 

Which is:

 

Step 1: The system I, or anyone who has a half decent audio rig, am looking at in the listening area is inherently capable of delivering exceptional SQ.

 

Step 2: The only thing stopping that happening are small flaws in the setup, which are severe bottlenecks to that quality being audible.

 

Step 3: "Bad" recordings are your best friend ... they are telling you in the clearest way possible that firstly, you do have a significant problem; and secondly, they will guide you to making the right moves to rectify the playback chain; removing the bottlenecks, one by one.

 

Most audiophiles choke and splutter at what I say in some or all of these steps - as do you, 😉. But they are what work - I am "fortunate", because I believe in those steps ... okay?

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Step 1: The system I, or anyone who has a half decent audio rig, am looking at in the listening area is inherently capable of delivering exceptional SQ.

 

Of course the room does'nt matter (in Franks case), and if there is a null at 37 hz, 74hz, and multiples there after, the bass suckout would not be OK. Not all rooms are created equal, and measurements should be an integeral part of the system set-up. There isn't anything that could correct the cancellation without REW, Accourate, Audiolense or other software. This is a gigantic error to overlook. Room modes can be ignored, but when correcting where the room dominates in the 16 to 500hz area, it also cleans up the top end as well. Overlooking this important aspect is not achieving the best experience.

 

This is the best bang for the buck "tweak anyone can do. Umik 1 is $100.00 USD and REW/Rephase is free. 

 

Without measuring the playback chain, you don't know what you are missing... because you never bothered to investigate.  

 

 

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

 

Of course the room does'nt matter (in Franks case), and if there is a null at 37 hz, 74hz, and multiples there after, the bass suckout would not be OK. Not all rooms are created equal, and measurements should be an integeral part of the system set-up. There isn't anything that could correct the cancellation without REW, Accourate, Audiolense or other software. This is a gigantic error to overlook. Room modes can be ignored, but when correcting where the room dominates in the 16 to 500hz area, it also cleans up the top end as well. Overlooking this important aspect is not achieving the best experience.

 

This is the best bang for the buck "tweak anyone can do. Umik 1 is $100.00 USD and REW/Rephase is free. 

 

Without measuring the playback chain, you don't know what you are missing... because you never bothered to investigate.  

 

 

 

This is the obsession with bass response, which I have never understood - whenever I listen to live, acoustic sound "the bass!" is one the least interesting aspects of what I hear; the impact of what's happening in the other 99.9% of the sound is where the action is - and to this day I have not come across any rig which clarifies what the fascination with bass behaviour is all about ... 🙂.

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, fas42 said:

This is the obsession with bass response, which I have never understood - whenever I listen to live, acoustic sound "the bass!" is one the least interesting aspects of what I hear; the impact of what's happening in the other 99.9% of the sound is where the action is - and to this day I have not come across any rig which clarifies what the fascination with bass behaviour is all about ... 🙂.

 

This your own misunderstanding of what matters in the room and where the room mode dominates during replay. The 15 to 500hz area is where room interaction takes place.  It's not about the "bass".. per say. 

 

 

image.jpeg.5346dd14716d72548a41b38f3faec9e6.jpeg

 

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

 

This your own misunderstanding of what matters in the room and where the room mode dominates during replay. The 15 to 500hz area is where room interaction takes place.  It's not about the "bass".. per say. 

 

 

image.jpeg.5346dd14716d72548a41b38f3faec9e6.jpeg

 

 

Just look at that graph - from a bit over 100Hz on, everything settles down, there are very few dBs in it. And that's what my ears tell me - in the musically important parts of what is typically on a recorded track, what part the room plays in it is pretty irrelevant. The odd very low note pops up now and again, and is what it is - only my current Edifiers dig low enough so that on some tracks the intensity of the felt, rather than heard, vibration makes it feel a bit queasy in some parts of the house. "Bass boom" as something that is irritatingly obvious just doesn't figure in my world - which is to do with how I stabilise the cabinets ... this is something I worked out decades ago - and so is never an issue, I've found.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

We all do tweaking - but I use a very different approach from many; as I am reminded regularly by posters, 🤣.

 

The hardest thing to convey is the mindset, I've found - and this makes it difficult for other people to understand the approach.

 

Which is:

 

Step 1: The system I, or anyone who has a half decent audio rig, am looking at in the listening area is inherently capable of delivering exceptional SQ.

 

Step 2: The only thing stopping that happening are small flaws in the setup, which are severe bottlenecks to that quality being audible.

 

Step 3: "Bad" recordings are your best friend ... they are telling you in the clearest way possible that firstly, you do have a significant problem; and secondly, they will guide you to making the right moves to rectify the playback chain; removing the bottlenecks, one by one.

 

Most audiophiles choke and splutter at what I say in some or all of these steps - as do you, 😉. But they are what work - I am "fortunate", because I believe in those steps ... okay?

If, as you believe, the Apollo doesn't capture the correct tone of the guitar, it will be a bad recording. Will that bad recording be saveable through your rig tweaking? 

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Just look at that graph - from a bit over 100Hz on, everything settles down, there are very few dBs in it. And that's what my ears tell me - in the musically important parts of what is typically on a recorded track, what part the room plays in it is pretty irrelevant. The odd very low note pops up now and again, and is what it is - only my current Edifiers dig low enough so that on some tracks the intensity of the felt, rather than heard, vibration makes it feel a bit queasy in some parts of the house. "Bass boom" as something that is irritatingly obvious just doesn't figure in my world - which is to do with how I stabilise the cabinets ... this is something I worked out decades ago - and so is never an issue, I've found.

 

You failed to answer how to correct for any room nulls, step response, phase, crossover etc.. Again, its not about the bass response as you try to make it to be. You are avoiding a tremendous opportunity to significantly improve the replay chain. If the room is the weakest link, don't you want to address it?

 

The graph is a representation of room/speaker interaction. You are intentionally taking it out of context to make a baseless claim. It is not a capture of an actual system..  You look foolish doing so.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Rexp said:

If, as you believe, the Apollo doesn't capture the correct tone of the guitar, it will be a bad recording. Will that bad recording be saveable through your rig tweaking? 

 

Yes. The recording is what it is, and everything from prior to, say, 1950 had major limitations in its technical quality. How much the Apollo differs from the other is very minor compared to that; and those recordings pre-1950 are certainly 'saveable'.

 

The problem is using the word "bad" - no recording can ever be perfect, so what counts is whether whatever has been captured can be experienced as pleasing, satisfying in a listening session. If one has no reference to "how good" the actual event was, then why fuss about what you do have - of course, as soon as you have two versions, two recordings, of an event then there is every likelihood that one is better than the other. For you. And that's fine  - as far as I'm concerned.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

 

You failed to answer how to correct for any room nulls, step response, phase, etc.. Again, its not about the bass response as you try to make it to be. You are avoiding a tremendous opportunity to significantly improve the replay chain. If the room is the weakest link, don't you want to address it?

 

If I had a system that I couldn't tweak - and the room it was in was making things worse - then I would certainly consider it. But my experience is that the most effective way of improving it is to work on the playback chain - it's worked for over 30 years, for me, so why should I change my method?

 

20 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

 

The graph is a representation of room/speaker interaction. You are intentionally taking it out of context to make a baseless claim. It is not a capture of an actual system..  You look foolish doing so.

 

I interpreted the graph as per it being "a representation of room/speaker interaction" - which indicates that the room counts far less strongly after 100Hz; as I stated.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes. The recording is what it is, and everything from prior to, say, 1950 had major limitations in its technical quality. How much the Apollo differs from the other is very minor compared to that; and those recordings pre-1950 are certainly 'saveable'.

 

The problem is using the word "bad" - no recording can ever be perfect, so what counts is whether whatever has been captured can be experienced as pleasing, satisfying in a listening session. If one has no reference to "how good" the actual event was, then why fuss about what you do have - of course, as soon as you have two versions, two recordings, of an event then there is every likelihood that one is better than the other. For you. And that's fine  - as far as I'm concerned.

If, as you say, the Apollo version wouldn't be 'pleasing' to a Guitarist, would your rig tweaking fix it? 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

How do you know you made any improvement without measurements. Maybe you made it worse.. Measured with your ears?? 

If the room is the weakest link, don't you want to fix it??

 

What counts is whether the sense of "realness" improves - measurements of peaks and nulls have nothing to do with this; because the brain automatically compensates. If this were not so, then every real piano in a real, everyday room would sound awful - because nobody had run around, and did the million calculations, and fiddled to the n'th degree with the setup of the room ... makes sense? 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Rexp said:

If, as you say, the Apollo version wouldn't be 'pleasing' to a Guitarist, would your rig tweaking fix it? 

 

Probably not ... because he is chasing 'tone' - he is a creator of the musical sounds, and wants it, just so. As a 'non-perfectionist' listener I would not be so fussy - and accept what's on the recording.

 

The creator of the sounds is on an endless journey; he always wants his instrument to "sound better" - and he is perfectly entitled to be like that. But once a particular performance is locked in, via a recording - that's it ... doesn't mean that he shouldn't keep chasing a better encoder, for use in the next recording of his playing on the instrument, 🙂.

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, fas42 said:

What counts is whether the sense of "realness" improves - measurements of peaks and nulls have nothing to do with this; because the brain automatically compensates. If this were not so, then every real piano in a real, everyday room would sound awful - because nobody had run around, and did the million calculations, and fiddled to the n'th degree with the setup of the room ... makes sense? 

 

Nope. Audio science/psychoacoustics has proven how we hear and what it takes to acheive the goals we are looking for. Speakers are engineered with solid science. Nulls and peaks have a lot to do with our perception of the replay chain. Maybe you could convince Toole, Mitchco, or others of your stance????  You could'nt hear the piano accurately as we do without the science behind speaker development as well as room interaction. They both play an integral part of the listening experience and the science is related. 

 

I doubt adding a 100 ft extension cord would provide the improvement that DSP could do for the room. Don't suggest that the Edifiers are not using DSP as part of the crossover design. DSP, used in the proper manner is a wonderful tool that has helped move this hobby forward. 

 

Anyhow, your statement that nulls and peaks have nothing to do with hearing perception is a crock of baloney. 

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

 

Nope. Audio science/psychoacoustics has proven how we hear and what it takes to acheive the goals we are looking for. Speakers are engineered with solid science. Nulls and peaks have a lot to do with our perception of the replay chain. Maybe you could convince Toole, Mitchco, or others of your stance????  You could'nt hear the piano accurately as we do without the science behind speaker development as well as room interaction. They both play an integral part of the listening experience and the science is related. 

 

Well, I disagree, strongly, with Toole for a start 🙃 ... I have access to his book, and in all the key areas where he talks of what he thinks is important, I start shaking my head, 🙂.

 

When a system is working right, a recording of a piano sounds like a piano - as in, someone comes to the front door, and says, my goodness, who's playing your piano! That's what I'm after - why playback usually fails to convince is that there are quite audible anomalies in the sound, which instantly kills the illusion - flattening nulls and peaks doesn't fix that, I'm afraid ...

 

48 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

 

I doubt adding a 100 ft extension cord would provide the improvement that DSP could do for the room. Don't suggest that the Edifiers are not using DSP as part of the crossover design. DSP, used in the proper manner is a wonderful tool that has helped move this hobby forward. 

 

Anyhow, your statement that nulls and peaks have nothing to do with hearing perception is a crock of baloney. 

 

Yes, I've already posted that the DSP in these is effectively 'transparent' - that is, switching in different curves did nothing to enhance, or degrade the SQ; its effect was, subjectively, invisible.

 

I need to get rid of the remaining interference effects - and it was obvious very early in the piece that mains noise was highly significant to this setup ... the silly lengths of extension cord are a quick and easy workaround, for the moment, to (mostly) cancel out that influence. My philosophy is to do cheap and dirty experiments to work out what's important - tarting up the final configuration can come in at the end.

Link to comment

Here is a YouTube clip of the Edifier S3000.  This is quite good fun as it compares the DSP modes.

 

Have a listen and see (hear) what you think.

 

 

 

Based on what I am hearing in the clip, I suspect that if I had a pair of Edifiers I would most likely leave them in "Monitor Mode".  In terms of the topic of this thread, I suspect that for my ears the "Dynamic mode" would be the one most likely to induce "digititus".  I could see myself using the "Dynamic Mode" (or maybe one of the others) if presented with an inherently dull recording though.

 

I would be interested in what other think in this regard, I note that many of the comments made on the YouTube page itself do not agree with me.

Windows 11 PC, Roon, HQPlayer, Focus Fidelity convolutions, iFi Zen Stream, Paul Hynes SR4, Mutec REF10, Mutec MC3+USB, Devialet 1000Pro, KEF Blade.  Plus Pro-Ject Signature 12 TT for playing my 'legacy' vinyl collection. Desktop system; RME ADI-2 DAC fs, Meze Empyrean headphones.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...