Computer Audio: confusing, complicated, & INCONVENIENT. About MUSIC or inner nerd?

[Steve williams]

i think Marty went down the DSP road initially to assist his efforts to integrate his Pipedreams into his room. he was not satisfied with the performance of the Pipedreams crossover that he originally used. this is from my memory from our discussions during his vsist to my room 8-9 years ago. my memory could be wrong on this, and in any case i'm sure his views have evolved since then in terms of what he sees as the significance of DSP.

i wonder did he use DSP prior to the Pipedreams. maybe Steve knows.

you had it exactly correct Mike.

Tact was used precisely for that reason and not before

 

[Steve williams]

I really don't care what other people do with their systems. If people want to tie a bow around their DSP machine and hug it and kiss it, it doesn't bother me. This tiny hobby of ours is so fractured the whole tent is filled with screwballs and assorted characters. We tend to align ourselves with like-minded screwballs and characters. As Mike said, there is room for everyone in this hobby regardless of the alter you worship at.

My point before which you want to dismiss is that you can't have two different sources which sound different one from another and then run them through a digital fix-it-all machine and the output from the two different sources now sounds the same and tell me with a straight face that you haven't homogenized the sound. And telling me the frequency response is flat means nothing in the context of homogenizing the sound. That's no different than if I took off the high performance tires from your car and substituted them with some cheap non-speed rated tires and tried to convince you it's OK because the tires are round. I think the reason for the homogenization of the sound is pretty clear: The analog output of Marty's digital sources goes to his preamp. The preamp then feeds the DSP box which converts the analog signal (which has already converted from digital to analog before it hits the preamp) back to digital, but now it's no longer in it's native format or sample rate. It only stands to reason that all former digital material that has been washed through the DSP machine no longer retains the properties it had prior to being re-digitized again.

Now you can love the sound of sameness because it may be a high quality level of sameness, but homogenized it is. That's all I'm saying.

FWIW I put up a thread here a long time ago entitled "Is flat where it's at" as I too (nor does Marty) believe that a flat frequency response will always sound good.As for homogenization of sound Mark I would love for you to hear the system and make those comments There has been great discussion here in other threads as to the target curve Marty uses and how he is constantly tweaking only small parts of the curve by no more than 1/3 -1/4 Db. He also has the desired roll off at the top end which we have also discussed here before

As for aligning with similar crazies in this hobby, I completely concur. We all do it however I always find it interesting that you arm chair quarterbacks know what a system sounds like without ever hearing it. Really now

 

[mep]

FWIW I put up a thread here a long time ago entitled "Is flat where it's at" as I too (nor does Marty) believe that a flat frequency response will always sound good.As for homogenization of sound Mark I would love for you to hear the system and make those comments There has been great discussion here in other threads as to the target curve Marty uses and how he is constantly tweaking only small parts of the curve by no more than 1/3 -1/4 Db. He also has the desired roll off at the top end which we have also discussed here before

As for aligning with similar crazies in this hobby, I completely concur. We all do it however I always find it interesting that you arm chair quarterbacks know what a system sounds like without ever hearing it. Really now

Steve-I'm only going by what you said, and that was you couldn't tell the difference between DSD and PCM on Marty's system. Those are your words, not mine. I assume you have some DSD files in your system. If so, do they sound the same as your PCM files?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

you had it exactly correct Mike.

Tact was used precisely for that reason and not before

so if the Tact is essential for the Pipedreams to work in-room properly, it would be problematic to listen to an analog signal path or pure dsd without it. i'm just say'n.

OTOH if it works great and he's getting great sound then just enjoy the ride....and why worry about another approach?

 

[Steve williams]

so if the Tact is essential for the Pipedreams to work in-room properly, it would be problematic to listen to an analog signal path or pure dsd without it. i'm just say'n.

OTOH if it works great and he's getting great sound then just enjoy the ride....and why worry about another approach?

The TacT was used to provide a better and more seamless crossover and hence integration of his subs with his speakers. From there he blossomed out into the realm of complete DSP

as for enjoying the ride and what the heck, I agree as for me that's what it's all about.

 

[rbbert]

There are a lot of comments here and elsewhere in this forum telling us what we should like and how we should like it. I think the vast majority of posters (and readers) here really like music and strive to have it sound as good as they can in their systems, as with the title of that long running thread (which of course got far off-topic) "It's all a preference..". For some (many?) to insist that their way of getting there (analog, digital, PCM, DSD, tape, LP, DSP or never DSP, etc) is the best way for others is comical, or would be except for the animosity inevitably expressed.

 

[mep]

There are a lot of comments here and elsewhere in this forum telling us what we should like and how we should like it. I think the vast majority of posters (and readers) here really like music and strive to have it sound as good as they can in their systems, as with the title of that long running thread (which of course got far off-topic) "It's all a preference..". For some (many?) to insist that their way of getting there (analog, digital, PCM, DSD, tape, LP, DSP or never DSP, etc) is the best way for others is comical, or would be except for the animosity inevitably expressed.

I don't know if that means you like the thread "It's All a Preference," but either way, that is my thread and I stand by every word I said when I started it. I agree with most of your above comments. Based on what I have read, I do think there are lots of people who hear a difference between PCM and DSD files. However, it doesn't mean that everyone who hears a difference has the same preference. We have people on this forum who prefer the sound of PCM over DSD and people who prefer DSD over PCM. The point is that they do sound different. If you can't hear any difference between the two in your system (and assuming you don't have a PCM file that was converted to DSD or vice versa), then something is amiss in your system I do believe.

 

[Steve williams]

There are a lot of comments here and elsewhere in this forum telling us what we should like and how we should like it. I think the vast majority of posters (and readers) here really like music and strive to have it sound as good as they can in their systems, as with the title of that long running thread (which of course got far off-topic) "It's all a preference..". For some (many?) to insist that their way of getting there (analog, digital, PCM, DSD, tape, LP, DSP or never DSP, etc) is the best way for others is comical, or would be except for the animosity inevitably expressed.

Couldn't have said it better rbbert

 

[Bruce B]

Couldn't have said it better rbbert

+ 1

 

[rbbert]

As I said, that older thread got so far off-topic that I've almost forgotten its original premise . As far as different storage formats sounding different, I think almost everyone agrees with that; where there is disagreement (legitimate, I think) it is about the quality and amount of the difference and how important those are to anyone's listening priorities.

 

[mauidan]

Steve-I'm only going by what you said, and that was you couldn't tell the difference between DSD and PCM on Marty's system. Those are your words, not mine. I assume you have some DSD files in your system. If so, do they sound the same as your PCM files?

I explained how Marty's TacT set-up works in my post #166.

To repeat, the TacT doesn't do DSD, and all analog and PCM digital signals are processed at 96khz, so there's no benefit to sending it 176.4khz or 192khz signals.

I'm sure Marty's system sounds wonderful and the TacT is great for the integration of subs.

I ran a TacT 2+2 set up for six years and "Maui Mods" started with my upgrade ideas.

Once I heard 176.4khz or 192khz recordings via a good DAC without the TacT in the signal path, I sold all my TacT gear and have never looked back.

IMO, the learning curve on Computer Audio is a lot easier to master than the use of a TacT audio system.

Just for grins, here's a picture of my TacT corrected room response before I sold everything:

 

[Steve williams]

I explained how Marty's TacT set-up works in my post #166.

To repeat, the TacT doesn't do DSD, and all analog and PCM digital signals are processed at 96khz, so there's no benefit to sending it 176.4khz or 192khz signals.

I'm sure Marty's system sounds wonderful and the TacT is great for the integration of subs.

I ran a TacT 2+2 set up for six years and "Maui Mods" started with my upgrade ideas.

Once I heard 176.4khz or 192khz recordings via a good DAC without the TacT in the signal path, I sold all my TacT gear and have never looked back.

IMO, the learning curve on Computer Audio is a lot easier to master than the use of a TacT audio system.

Just for grins, here's a picture of my TacT corrected room response before I sold everything:

View attachment 16194

Dan

Candidly if I had a Tact curve like that I would have sold mine as well . I can assure you that the Tact curve I saw was far from this

 

[mauidan]

Dan

Candidly if I had a Tact curve like thst I would have sold mine as well . I can assure you that the Tact curve I saw was far from this

Were you looking at his target curve or in room corrected response?
If he's got his corrected response better than +/- 1db from 20hz to 20Khz, I'd love to see it.

 

[Steve williams]

Were you looking at his target curve or in room corrected response?
If he's got his corrected response better than +/- 1db from 20hz to 20Khz, I'd love to see it.

Dan

I have watched Marty tweak his response literally on a daily basis often hours at a time. He started with a recommended Tact curve and then modifies that on an almost daily basis. He is a master at this piece of software. I have watched corrections by as little as 1/4-1/3 Db change in a specified part of the curve with audible changes in the room. So yes Dan next time you're on the east coast let me know and I'll put you in touch. It is a system that needs to be heard. If after listening I would be interested in knowing if you remain unswayed to DSP.

 

[dallasjustice]

David Chesky on Hirez

David Chesky says regarding hi-rez audio at 13:31:
"192/24 in not a panacea, give me a guy like Keith Johnson, Reference Recordings, and send him into the field with a cassette player and he's going to make a great recording . . .it's an artform . . .99% is the Engineer, the Musicians and the hall and that's it."

 

[BlueFox]

David Chesky says regarding hi-rez audio at 13:31:
"192/24 in not a panacea, give me a guy like Keith Johnson, Reference Recording, and send him into the field with a cassette player and he's going to make a great recording . . .it's an artform . .

True, but the artist will create a better picture if the palette is capable of showing more detail. Assuming we aren't talking about obscured, muddy art. Then the cassette palette will be better.

 

[mauidan]

Dan

I have watched Marty tweak his response literally on a daily basis often hours at a time. He started with a recommended Tact curve and then modifies that on an almost daily basis. He is a master at this piece of software. I have watched corrections by as little as 1/4-1/3 Db change in a specified part of the curve with audible changes in the room. So yes Dan next time you're on the east coast let me know and I'll put you in touch. It is a system that needs to be heard. If after listening I would be interested in knowing if you remain unswayed to DSP.

Mahalo for your kind offer, I'd love to meet Marty.

I was raised in NJ, but all of my elders have passed away,so there no 12 hour plane trip in my immediate future.

With all due respect to Marty's TacT skills, I think I know a lot more about the software and hardware. It's much more than just adjusting the stock TacT target curves.

You need to pick the right x-over points/slopes, measurement levels, use something other than the stock mic and pick the right OPAMPs for the DAC cards.

I don't want to hurt my arm padding myself on the back (mygolf swing isn't that good), but a large part of SQ that Marty now enjoys are a result of the TacT hardware upgrades I started.

Finally, I'm not unswayed to the benefits of DSP, I used DSP for six years. If Boz didn't screw up TacT and launched the promised RSC 4 withprocessing at 192khz, I'd still be a user.

 

[edorr]

Once I heard 176.4khz or 192khz recordings via a good DAC without the TacT in the signal path, I sold all my TacT gear and have never looked back.
]

What this tells us is your primary interest is sound quality for its own sake (Assuming anything up to 96/24 still benefited from tact drc and considering that >90% of content exists in 44/16). This to me disqualifies your entire approach to sound reproduction. Also, I have used both trinnov and Dirac at 96/24 with very high grade (MSB) dac, and there is not a chance in hell that the marginal benefits of playing at higher resolution more than offset the benefits of applying DRC. At least in my system.

 

[mep]

Edorr-That was quite the slam against Dan and quite undeserved in my opinion. From what I have read, Dan took his system to the highest level he could with DSP, but it hit a ceiling with it and decided not to stay there.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

What this tells us is your primary interest is sound quality for its own sake....

if preferring 192/24 or 176/24 to 96/24 or even 16/44 "disqualifies your entire approach" then why go from MP3 to 16/44?

is it ever ok to prefer better sound? or is it somehow an arbitrary level decided by whom exactly?

or maybe we all should simply pursue the level of sound quality we might desire? isn't that what this hobby is all about, the pursuit of fine audio and higher enjoyment of the music we love?

(Assuming anything up to 96/24 still benefited from tact drc and considering that >90% of content exists in 44/16). This to me disqualifies your entire approach to sound reproduction. Also, I have used both trinnov and Dirac at 96/24 with very high grade (MSB) dac, and there is not a chance in hell that the marginal benefits of playing at higher resolution more than offset the benefits of applying DRC. At least in my system.

maybe as your system is currently constituted that could be correct. but how exactly do you know that? have you tried higher levels of resolution, dsd, 2xdsd, vinyl and determined that the DSP brings you more net gain? or are you assuming that end result?

and 90% of who's content exists in 16/44? maybe yours, but not mine, not even if I only stay to PCM. and if I include dsd, 2xdsd and SACD, then 16/44 even including my non-server based 4000 CD collection it's not even half. and if I add my vinyl then 16/44 is only about 20%, and maybe 5% of my listening time.