Jump to content

Le Concombre Masqué

Members
  • Content Count

    1560
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Le Concombre Masqué

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

7349 profile views
  1. THANKS for the latest version works great provided ipV6 remains unchecked maybe a help section for dummies like me would help with new SMB option ; ie share is to be filled with the path ?
  2. what to eQ to is as important as the target. About MMM : https://www.ohl.to/audio/downloads/MMM-moving-mic-measurement.pdf not so great for LF I'll give 30/40 ms IR window a try ; looks like the enveloppe of sweeps is then in the MMM ballpark
  3. sorry I missed your post. Yes you're right and it's even much too much damping with chamber music, be it piano or quartet. I gave such a target a try but never use it It s interesting to note that a downward slope is not just natural for our living rooms but for professionally designed large concert halls as well. Maybe IRCAM at Beaubourg could twist the sound that much but I doubt any concert venue we go to measures flat in 2 dB
  4. evaluation of dullness etc is not trivial First to which target has the album been mastered to ? Apart from Bob Katz nobody I know of disclaims ie Jamal s Ballades is unbearably bass heavy with any Harman type target : this record would be more enjoyed with B&K and maybe even Katz or ITU EBU type ECM I have explored so far favour B&K too But if you stay in Europe but go to a Savall recording, HArmans will suit it better. Same with MOFI SACD So I think we need at least two targets ; B&K and RR1 should be first to have yours seems an average of the two types Then subjectivity may come back depending on criteria ie Savall's Ibn Battuta has its charms with a RR1 eQued to a REW simple average ( eQ to the mandatory for phases Vector Average is unbearable IMO) if your criteria are surgical precision minute details of ambience etc. But in the hand it's stressful tiring etc when you listen to any kind of music. That lets me very dubitative about commercial softwares and @mitchco' s offer based on average of several measures. I know the answer pertains to fine tuning of FDW based on room dimensions, steady state timing of first reflections etc etc etc. The MMM based eQ is cumbersome but much better IMO and there's a several dB difference above 500 depending in the measurements depending on MMM vs Averages...
  5. at 1 K Hz dark green Katz Purple B & K Brown RR1 lighter green JBL Synthesis To be thorough ; I eQ to measurements done with Moving MIc Method
  6. And yet the sentence "Personally, I would have started to wonder if my speakers or Speakers/Room fit is kosher if i had been to find that neither of the B & K or RR1 standard was the one to go." has been edited to be as mild as possible. I have redesigned filters and questioned my comfort/certitudes ; have you?
  7. Am I just taking notes for myself here, on IMO the most rewarding and effective usage of computers in audiophilia? First impressions notes about comparisons then : Dropped the 1 dB/octave for it s rather a metaphor than an actual target in Harman s literature Dropped the JBL Synthesis but for Movies. Even on Bruce Botnick (advertised to use JBL for mastering) 's gorgeous Doors DVDAs, I can t convince myself it beats RR1: clearer thinner vocals less carnal with Synthesis. I believe it's intended for films not for music and is a clever round about X curve. I rather look at it as a 2 + dB 400 hz center several octaves dipped RR1 than as a LF bumped target. While RR1 is a LF bumped B & K. Won't bother with the Katz, except if the album, ie Chesky s, is BK mastered. I understand the strategy in the mastering room though : if one's non eQued non treated room follows a natural downward slope, mastering following Katz's will translate with more bass less treble and will generally be perceived as warmer/ more pleasant. However, latest extended research for the Cinema industry tends to prove that the X curve is a myth and good sounding theatres believed to implement it have proved to modern properly measure with a LF rise. Thus all the standards resembling it more or less, even when room size is taken into account for the HF downward slope and inflexion point are wrong, IMO. And even toxic for it requires very unnatural eQ to flatten the LF. But standards are standards. I thus keep B & K 1974 in my quiver. Seems to fit quite a lot of masterings. Especially europeans, tbc with more samples... RR1 is my default. If I'm bothered with excess LF I switch to B & K. I would really have to suffer from a lack around 1K Hz to start wonder if Katz's was the mastering target. So life made simple : RR1 but if... So don't expect the xls mapping chart, unless someone is really willing to share such a mapping of Target Curves per mastering... Personally, I would have started to wonder if my speakers or Speakers/Room fit is kosher if i had been to find that neither of the B & K or RR1 standard was the one to go. Curves below are actual convolved measurements done PN/RTA/MMMethod of Up to Down (as read in LF region ) : Synthesis, RR1, B & K, Bob Katz. L + R are averaged for clarity and were judged close enough to call it a day (well, took me more than a day...)
  8. Thank you Jussi, I should have been more precise : I love MCH sources (ie The Doors DVDAs smoke every other format) but my system is Stereo only : so 5.1 PCM at the moment, or 5.0 or 4.0 if I can play SACD sourced material in the future, but 2 channels output
  9. what would be the best cpu to....just go DSD 128 ASD7EC/ext2 whatever rate and maybe MCH DSD? I spent the last months fronting Embedded with a good ol' MB Air 11" and it was perfect to manage library via Audirvana and let good ol' MBPr 15" 2012 run Embedded seems the loan is over for the Air rather than replacing it it might be better to use the 15" MBPr to front Embedded and get a new machine to run Embedded. but I don't necessarily have the 1600€ budget for a server that would run 256 and buy a 256 capable DAC hence, if it's significantly cheaper I would go for a cheaper/second hand PC. Suggestion ? At the moment I'm limited to 5EC modulators and can't do MCH DSD, even if limited to 128, I'd like, at least, not to be remembered I'm ageing forgetting to switch from ASDM5EC to ASDM7 when I go for DSD files
  10. I now have 5 Correction FIR Sets based on 5 Target curves I hâve created an Excel Chart to map right usage of each based on label decade etc I ll share and will readily receive too Targets are -1 dB/octave that I probably won t use for it s just a base for the more advanced RR1 by Olive/Toole advocated by Harman B & K to which I bet a good deal of albums have been eQed Bob Katz to which at least his stuff has probably been eQed too, including Chesky tests JBL Synthesis. As someone puts there https://www.gearslutz.com/board/studio-building-acoustics/1014060-room-curve-after-room-calibration-2.html #I've been listening to many commercial recordings and it sounds more true what I think the producer intended out of all the curve discussed previously. My mixing translates better too. # Interestingly enough, it s the best fit to the smoothed L + R average of my in room system s natural response and that s a factor per se I think. Taking into consideration in room system s natural response, Bob Katz s seems a good compromise for movies while applying movie industry standard (X curve) would force me to boost above 1 K, bad idea I think SETTING OPTIONS.xlsx Harman Curve.txt
  11. end of year 2019 UPDATE: 1) it s more cumbersome but more rewarding to eQ the Vector Average than the MMM response. It s not simple for the curve in RePhase is ugly being the VA with MMM FR adjustments (one needs to convolve VA with designed for MMM filters, measure MMC, correct in REW, export in Rephase a few iterations to get results below (impulse and Step look just as good as in my signature but are better because being those of the actual corrected response) 2)It s quite difficult to build differentiated B&K and Harman targeting corrections for 3 dB is close to the margin error (see below actual measurements of my system/room) ; yet they sound very different but not in a trivial way (that would be more bass etc) 3) There s rational for the optimum target as found by Sean Olive (cf Harman) being not the right one, often. Translation (read attached Sonarworks white paper) conscious engineers who have chosen to output their work following B&K have maximised the chances of a right translation, see confirmation by Sonarworks (attached picture of average of many systems in many rooms). Then when listening to a consciously made record chances are it fits BK better for it was a safe bet for the engineer. 4)I would advocate that Olive s target would be adopted by both engineers and audiophiles rather than the solution promoted by Sonarworks for the simple reason that a downward slope is natural and that unnatural makers/users standardisation via x curve has already proved wrong in the movie industry whitepaper.pdf
  12. I have been looking to PC configurations here and they are over 1500 euros with i9 9900 ks and minimum or no ssd, 16 go RAM ; why not a bargained PC such as https://www.amazon.fr/Memory-PC-i7-9700K-Graphics-Windows/dp/B07NCXK66H/ref=sr_1_8?adgrpid=67646500294&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIt7-94cnJ5gIVlJ3VCh2EAQJWEAMYAyAAEgLhYPD_BwE&hvadid=341630382846&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9055186&hvnetw=g&hvpos=1o3&hvqmt=b&hvrand=6516408233405086463&hvtargid=kwd-562296177505&hydadcr=7972_1754989&keywords=intel%2Bi9%2B9700k&qid=1577029143&sr=8-8&th=1 that includes i7 9700 for 769 euros (9900 is 200 euros more) ? will I be able to use ext2/asdm7EC and convolution @ any rate ( to DSD 128)?
  13. Works great now it would be great to have convolution SAVE option under Matrix as well
  14. The one thing I did not think of trying thank you @Miska had the exact same log error as Craig : not a Mac HW issue....
  15. Don't sweat it, I can live with that till I have a HW purchase decision to make; then I'll hope for your guidance/clarification. I then will use Matrix and Convolution to switch between my convolution profiles (-1dB/octave and B&K). When I output them from Rephase I had to lower the output to -7 and -8 (but they sound and PN measure as loud) to keep Max Response below 0. So QUESTION: I currently have lowered in Convolution -7.8 to match Matrix (MCH to ST config). Should I be better off outputting from RePhase at 0 and -1 and letting HQP take care of Max response level with just the current settings ? The rest of the equation is : 4x100 watts amps + 4 x 200/Preamp set to +17 dB gain (when reviewed in Stereophile ages ago, reviewer opted for +8 and JA measured it at +12 gain, maybe an optimum then?)/on the most hungry recordings ie LA Woman 5.1 DVDA matrixed 2.0, I reach nicely fitting SPL at 3dB of the max that my volume knob permits. I'm more typically #15 dB under the max preamp output level at knob potentiometer
×
×
  • Create New...