I'm guessing I too would find the sound detailed with lots of presence. The response is +/- flat from 600-1800Hz and then there is a useful little bump around 6-7kHz (presence). Impressive FR curve BTW!
Frequency response is everything!?...
- Thread starter audiofull
- Start date
Much as I agree in principle, some streamers sound better than others despite the fact that all streamers do the same digital job and SOULD, according to the 1 and 0 theory, sound identical. Why a 10K streamer that operates entirely in the digital domain sounds better than one costing a tiny fraction bought on Amazon or Ebay sounds so much better, I don't know - but hopefully you can agree that the 10K one will sound better.
So, why a precious signal (even though it's still 1s and 0s) is adversely affected when subjected to a complex signal processor, I can't explain either, but I guess it has a similar explanation to the streamer difference described above.
The practical (as opposed to theoretical) test though is simple. My Dirac Live is the version that cannot adjust any frequencies above 500 Hz. If I run Dirac and save the resultant filter, the top end (above 500 Hz) remains unaltered – in theory. My amp has a Subwoofer switch that directs bass only to the Sub outputs and "the rest" to the speaker binding posts. I don't use subs but I can select a crossover frequency between 40 and 200 Hz. If I set this for 200 Hz, nearly all the bass is absent from my speaker terminal outputs and only higher frequencies are sent to my speakers. I can now listen more closely to the top end without the distraction of the bass that will sound different with or without the Dirac filter. Are you following me so far? In theory the top end, as you describe should be identical, yet (with first class speakers) it is patently obvious that some of the top end sparkle / goosebump factor, call it what you will, is missing when I switch from No Filter to a Dirac Filter. All my visitors agree that it's not my imagination, but a real reduction in the feeling of excitement when a filter is engaged.
So, I agree 100% with you in theory (this has been discussed many times in relation to digital signal transmission), but I can say with 100% certainty that in practice, there is a reduction in sound quality and I put this down to the fact that the entire frequency range has to pass through the processor and it comes out the other side in a poorer state than it entered.
Another sideline point. The theory would also say that a digital signal can be sent from one component to another (eg streamer to DAC, or CD transport to DAC) with any old cable as it carries just a stream on 1s and 0s. However we all seem to accept that it’s better to use AES cabling than coax and that better cables spoil the digital signal less than cheapo ones. Same question – how can this possibly be?
PS - I see you have rather similar speakers to my own Avantgarde Duos. Try this - switch off your subs and (as far as possible) eliminate the presence of bass to your Acapella High Violons. Then listen carefully to an exciting pience of music with and without a DSP filter that ADJUSTS only the bass. And for good measure change your costly (I guess) digital interconnects with nasty cheap ones. Will you hear any difference in top end sparkle? My guess is that you will.
PPS - I see from the diagram of your equipment setup that you crossover the signal and then bi-amp it. That's why your top end is not spoilt by DSP - it's not subjected to it! You have the system I described earlier where DSP can be used without spoiling the sparkle - by bi-amping and DSP'ing only the bass. Well done - but it would be spoilt if you used a single amp with built-in DSP for the entire speaker system.
Last edited:
Hi Amir,
I didn't address the bulk of your previous post because it just didn't make sense to me, just like your statement in bold above is a bit of a head scratcher: "Please ask objectivist to introduce us an accurate mathematic model of all the chain : audio system and Ear hearing system and Brain processing system."
I'm not a scientist or an E.E.. I don't measure or create mathematical models for the things that you're asking about. That's why I only addressed the last comments in your previous post regarding copper vs silver speaker wires. (I probably shouldn't have even done that, given that my thoughts on the topic are so at odds with what folks here believe.) Anyway, sorry, but I just don't have any good response to your posts...
Numbers don't lie but they have to be applied and interpreted.
let review the subject :
1- Objectivist believe Our hearing system can not detect any difference between X vs Y.
2- Subjectivist believe Our hearing system can detect differences between X vs Y.
which group is right? We have only two road to understand which group is right.
1- having subjective blind test
Or
2- using scientific model
we have no other way to answer to this question.
My road was blind test and I have listened to my cables in blind test and I detected the difference between X vs Y.
Yes my ears can detect it and cables are not snake oil to me.
Many instrument players in the world listened to different violins and they hear difference of violins and they do not think It is snake oil.
the second road is scientific modeling.
If you are not scientist please Ask this question from a scientist (Mr. Majidimehr is not scientist and he is just an electronics engineer that even does not know about non-linear systems and has no valid information about human hearing system).
for answering to this question you need to have complete mathematic model of audio system room acoustics human hearing system and brain.
You can not use simple measurement of cables and judge our hearing system.
again I say the little electronics knowledge of objectivist can not help .
Last edited:
I have never tried comparing a $10,000 streamer to a $100 one from eBay, but I have compared $10,000 CD transports to cheap CD transports back in the day. I never did hear a difference, or if there was one, it was so miniscule that I would not pay $10,000 for it. I agree that streamers are more complex than CD transports but I honestly can't see how they would make a difference if it enters my DAC, gets buffered, and then reclocked anyway. I know my DAC has a buffer because if you switch of the music, it keeps playing for about a second.
I know how your speakers work
I considered getting an Avantgarde myself, but then I heard the Acapella's and it was over. I have also heard maybe a dozen Avantgarde systems. I believe you when you recount your experience, but it is not the same as mine.I don't have costly digital interconnects. I only have "nasty cheap ones"
(Well, SOTM cables. They aren't too expensive). I haven't updated my system thread in a while. I think my last post in there was in 2016? Right now it has been upgraded and the system topology is different. Now, the crossover is generated in the PC, 8 channels of digital is sent to the DAC, and from there to 4 amplifiers. All the passive crossovers in the speaker have been bypassed, and the amplifiers connect directly to the drivers.
In audio, you win some and you lose some. What I MAY have potentially lost in transparency by going with a digital crossover, I have gained back in spades by removing the passive crossover in the speakers. Not only that, I have linearized my drivers, time aligned them, fixed the room response, and I can design any target curve that I like. I can install VST's, and there are some very interesting VST's out there. For example, I use a "dynamic range expander" that looks at your audio signal and tries to increase dynamic range. There is another VST I use called a "declipper" that interpolates missing peaks that were destroyed by the loudness wars. I have yet another VST called MSED whose effect is to widen and deepen the soundstage. And my volume control is not like yours - it applies ISO226 equal loudness curves to the signal which gives you more bass and treble when the volume gets lower. And it does it progressively, not like the old "loudness buttons" that were either on or off. If I want to, I can perform all my processing in DSD with no conversion to PCM whatsoever. My next step would be to install BACCH crosstalk cancellation.
These are things which bring real tangible benefits which are easy to hear (and measure!) and the way they work is not mysterious or nebulous like say, a costly digital interconnect.
Neither do I subscribe to the objectivist mantra of "if it measures the same, it sounds the same". I am with Amir (the Amir on this forum, to be clear) that steady state measurements don't tell you the whole story. Which is why I use valve amps and strategically deploy good cable where I think I can hear a difference. I use Acrolink, and because it's so expensive it gets reserved for the midrange horn and tweeter. The subs and woofers have cheaper cabling.
Last edited:
Yes, blind testing or measurements are the only ways one can conclude with confidence whether X and Y sound different. Sighted tests are prone to expectation bias problems.
As I responded to your similar statements in a prior post, I wasn't there when you did your blind testing, so I don't know what cables you were testing or whether your test conditions were sufficient to reach a reliable conclusion. I've read other blind cable test results that had different conclusions than yours. I don't have enough information to know why the conclusions differ.
Re: "If you are not scientist please Ask this question from a scientist...", sorry, but it's your responsibility to find an expert that you trust if you want to find those answers. Or read a book. Or Google. Or ChatGPT.
Assessing the impact of frequency response is impossible in either blind tests or scientific models as you cannot change that one "parameter" without affecting other aspects of sound reproduction (unlike assessing a change in cable, for instance).
Your argument fails to see that at some point the "0"'s and "1"'s are fed to a DAC, and re-clocking bits does not make them immune to carrying noise. The influence of digital induced noise in our systems is still a poorly understood subject.
What I know is "if the science give us answer to a question then no body speak/discuss about it", for example no body speak about physics E= MC2 formula , nobody speak about 2 x 2 = 4 or 5.
Nobody speak about NA + CL = NACL or ...
If we had a scientific answer to this topic then we never discussed about it.
about my blind tests I should say me and my friends had many many blind tests in past. I remember sometimes our ears could not detect any difference between X vs Y , for example I have used some cable lifters but I did not detect any difference and I repeat the test but It proved me I can not detect effect of cable lifter under cables.
There are many tweaks that I can not detect any difference in blind tests but cables have very audible effect on sound.
My blind test:
1- I listen to A for hours and my brain focus on the sound to learn/memorize
2- I listen to B for hours and my brain focus on the sound to learn/memorize
I use different records.
3- I close my eyes and ask my friends to start the test. They repeat the test for 10 times and I should correctly detect which test is A or B. If my 10 answers are correct then it means I can hear the difference. If only one of answers be wrong then It means I can not detect A vs B.
Actually the difference are far more evidence if we have properly setup high performance systems. In many audio setups the difference of A vs B is very small.
Last edited:
If you think Digital is only 0 and 1 then there is no difference between CD transports.
again the "little electronics knowledge" is claiming DSP is OK and All CD Transports are equal.
Me and my friend had a test between my $30K CEC TL0 3.0 Transport and a $1000 TEAC CD Transport.
My friend told me bits are bits and we should not hear any difference between two CD transports.
When we switched from CEC to TEAC he shocked.
My friend told me wow , CEC is far better than TEAC.
again the "little electronics knowledge" is claiming DSP is OK and All CD Transports are equal.
Me and my friend had a test between my $30K CEC TL0 3.0 Transport and a $1000 TEAC CD Transport.
My friend told me bits are bits and we should not hear any difference between two CD transports.
When we switched from CEC to TEAC he shocked.
My friend told me wow , CEC is far better than TEAC.
I m not stating my speakers or other speakers are any good because of a reasonable good FR tolerance .( + - 2 db or + - 3 db )
But if you also look at the recording side of things you cannot deny its extremely important though.
Recording/ mixing monitors :
Last edited:
I've never been involved in blind testing, so this is just spitballing, but
What speakers were you listening to?
Which brands & models of speaker wires were you testing?
What lengths?
What gauge wire?
Were your friends just switching back & forth between the wires, or did they randomize which ones you were listening to (eg. coin flip where heads is cable A & tails is cable B)?
You had no visual or audible clues if the wires were swapped or not swapped between tests?
Was the volume identical for every test?
What were the results (number of correct & incorrect guesses)?
Did you take any measurements?
Last edited:
Not sure if that means that you were for or against the proposition that "pseudoscience is good enough for WBF". It was just a little joke however, so no worries...
Ron
As pink noise slopes 30db from 20 to 20,000 hz that plot is quite flat .. it rolls off around 15khz which is prob above most elderly gents hearing range.. that roll off would be most likely the lack of toe in making tweeters of axis
Phil
That is not a problem. Your friend is above the average and you are below the average.
Similar threads
