Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Shadorne

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Interesting. There are countless links in countless audiophile forums that pointed to discussions and technical information on Computer Audiophile. These hyperlinks all over the Internet are now all broken and useless. These links from other sites brought you extra traffic and new subscribers. A simple website name change did not require a complete change in the domain. Domain and URL hyperlinks are what computers use to communicate. People see only what is presented to them and won’t care about URL details. You could have changed content and presentation without changing URL naming and locations for all your content. This aspect was very badly thought out.
  2. So the data fed to a DAC isn’t in a format? Changing the sample rate or bit depth fed to a DAC isn’t changing the data format? For a website titled “Computer Audiophile”, I am rather gobsmacked by this remark.
  3. Hand waving for your own products again. More unsubstantiated claims that DACs are inadequate without your magic sauce. So what’s new?
  4. Wow. This is sure to get some folks out to defend their BS. Let me get some popcorn and watch. Roon and HQplayer and many others claim to do miracles with software manipulation of original files upsampling, apodizing, minimum phase etc. Didn't you get the memo? - there is as much big business to be made massaging audio formats and files as there is in skin cosmetics!!! Don't you dare say the truth.
  5. Great review. I like the MoFi myself. Not sure you can really comment about bass accuracy with headphones. I really question your approach. No mix or mastering engineer I know of would rely on headphones to adjust bass. Large speakers with often multiple 12 or 15 woofers are used for bass checks. Of course it still needs to sound good in a car which many folks will check. Nobody I know of would use headphones as they simply are unable to provide reference quality bass - too many variables - fit, head size, adjustment of head band etc.
  6. Beautiful. McIntosh sound beautiful too. Not perhaps as resolving as Audio Reseach but McIntosh tube amps and preamps have that “just right goldilocks” sound and much better reliability.
  7. Completely agree. A domestic setting will often serve multiple purposes. There is a limit to how much acoustic treatments will be acceptable. Listening position in a domestic setting may necessitate sitting close to a wall even though the detrimental aspects of this position are very easily audible. Multi-million $ studio facilities have a much higher priority on sound quality versus a multi-use domestic setting. That said, the control room needs to contain lots of equipment - the mixing console in front of the mix engineer is often an unavoidable acoustic problem itself. I have never seen or heard of a mastering or mix engineer that would be comfortable working up against a wall. The bass is terrible and the soundstage collapses with the multitude of close proximity reflections off the wall next to the listener. I would not be comfortable recommending anything less than 6 feet from a wall for a listening position. In a domestic setting, I would suggest to just pull out a chair and sit in a better position when serious listening and put the chair away when not needed - a great way to have your cake and eat it!
  8. GIK make great products at reasonable cost. Their corner tri-traps are excellent - you would probably need 8 of those. They work as broadband absorbers too - so you get more than just bass trapping.
  9. The worst thing you can do is to have clutter (or worse a wall) close to the listening position. Look at every multi million $ studio ever designed!
  10. Vicoustic proposal looks aesthetically good but not sure it makes complete sense. The trouble with the room is that it is roughly in the shape of a half tube. This room is going to sound like a subway tunnel unless you add a lot absorption and diffusers. I would suggest more corner bass traps and broadband absorbers at each end and around the listener (at least double what you have) and use only RPG diffusers on the slanted ceiling portions instead of the curved panels. The curved panels are great but work better for larger spaces. You actually don’t need curved panels and should not put anything on the vertical side walls except broadband absorbers by the listener. Acoustic physics is actually quite simple. To visualize what is going on simply imagine that each surface is a mirror. Your speakers will have a virtual mirrored speaker with the vertical side wall - this is a normal listening room situation and is not a problem as imaging will still work due to the symmetry with the listener (and correct drive alignment to the ear). The problem is the slanted low cathedral image speaker. Imagine again a mirror for these slanted walls - you have another set of virtual speakers sitting higher up. These virtual speakers are a problem. They will mess up imaging as well as the response at the listener from any multi-way speaker (other than coaxial) because the drivers of the virtual speaker are not time-aligned to the listener ear. This virtual speaker will be like listening to a real speaker in the nearfield but with ear level way off the proper listening height (which should normally be aligned with mid range or tweeter). So the big issue is those slanted cathedral walls - I would just place as much RPG diffusers as you can on those slanted walls in between the listener and the speakers. Of course, you might wonder why the horizontal ceiling or floor is less of an image problem and this virtual speaker can be ignored. This is fortunately taken care of by most speaker designs. The vertical dispersion is usually controlled by the speaker designer and not much energy other than low frequencies should be reflected off a 14 foot ceiling (10 feet above most speaker drivers). In addition a carpeted floor is not going to reflect much. Recall that wide speaker dispersion is desirable in the horizontal plane and unfortunately your slanted low cathedral ceiling walls are a bit too close to the speakers wider dispersion horizontal pattern. (Only perhaps 2 to 3 feet above the speaker) I think the room can be fantastic if treated properly. Of huge importance is the space around the listener. Too many domestic settings have the listener sitting close to a wall and this is a terrible place to sit. All studio control rooms have plenty of space BEHIND the listener and this is absolutely critical. You have a fantastic listening position. GOOD LUCK with this impressive project! Hopefully you don’t end up with a room like this! George Massenburg designed studio at Nashville Blackbird Studios
  11. McIntosh indeed continue to make great sounding tube preamps and power amps. Neither the last word in resolution nor the last word in lush warm tube sound but often as Goldilocks would say “just right “! I would not recommend any of their SS products nearly as strongly.
  12. @Miska I am sorry but you are still wrong, as you have been from the beginning of this discussion. The very definition of apodizing is to “remove the foot” - it is to smooth or soften the transition band. The mathematics are very clear as to what this does versus the original non-Apodized filter. You can play with symmantics and you can play with filters so that the apodizing effect is small or place the filter far enough from the audible band such that it won’t affect audible frequencies (easier to do with higher sample rates than CD). Nonetheless the apodizing filter function fundamentally has the mathematical effect I describe. There is actually no way around it.
  13. All entirely straw-man arguments. I never said Apodizing Filters had to be minimum phase. I have tried only to give examples that were not behind a paywall that is all. The mathematics is the same and applies in all cases. Your reading comprehension is as bad as your comprehension of mathematics. An apodizing filter that increases ringing would not really be an apodizing filter - apodizing means “to remove the foot” the concept is based upon a soft or smooth transition band (no foot). You can add the apodizing function at any stage and in any order, as a window, or already incorporated as part of the filter coefficients - it is all just math. As I have been saying all along. Multiple times, with multiple examples. The apodizing filter function reduces time domain resolution - it blurs or smears the transient. The apodizing filter function reduces peak amplitude and widens the transient peak width. You cannot possibly keep on disagreeing with me and still retain any shred of credibility because this is quite simply and clearly the mathematics of what an apodizing filter does.
  14. The ignorance on display here is truly mind boggling. All my statements are correct. You folks are just way out of your depth and sadly, as far as physics and mathematics go, this is NOT rocket science. You folks should know better. Please refer to Section 5.4 ( page 32) for a description of apodizing filter. https://www.xivero.com/downloads/MQA-Technical_Analysis-Hypotheses-Paper.pdf Frankly, I certainly know what I am talking about. While you folks continue to embarrass yourselves.
  15. You clearly haven’t a clue. There is no difference mathematically but all you are capable of is to argue symmantics because you don’t understand.
  • Create New...