Avatar

Digital EQ the room (Off Topic)

by PeterSt. ⌂ @, Netherlands, Friday, December 21, 2007, 13:00 (3681 days ago)
edited by unknown, Friday, December 21, 2007, 13:57

In the other thread ( http://forum.bd-design.nl/index.php?id=14901 ) someone (maybe it was mr. Duelund) made a remark about that we never know what reality is/was on broader sound stage and all ...

Let me first stress on how very very much the stage (width, depth, height) already varies with bit perfect playback over different XXHighEnd versions, those versions only differing in jitter.
Other means (with the phenomenon consistency as a key word) determine what would be the best jitter signature, and from (a.o.) that follows the stage ...

That stage, varying per album/recording has -to my determination- one recognizeable property only : very flat is never good.
Or to my subject : very flat will not have been reality (from in-room normal recording, or from mixing). But :

Everything else but flat is IMO not determined. Instead, I must just trust that where the jitter signature is ok, what is perceived is reality.

What is the message ?
The message is that a wider stage says completely nothing about "good" or reality. The message is also, that with DSP stuff id is dead easy to create e.g. a wider stage. Is that good ? no.
The only thing you would be doing is masking the other anomalies in your chain.

As often, things can be compared with photography;
When you have an unsharp picture, you can sharpen it just by adding noise. It really works. Sadly, now there's noise in the picture and you now see *that*.
With (computer) music playback too, you can add noise (Foobar has a plugin for that somewhere). The result ? exactly the same as with images : a more crispy sound.
But be honest ... *knowing* that this is achieved by adding (audible) noise, would you go for that ?


I put myself to the task of achieving the best SQ possible by means of one thing only : as much 1:1 playback as possible. This is applied in XXHighEnd to my best knowledge, this is applied in the nos-DAC I use, this is applied in the (speed of the) CrazyAmps I use, this is applied in the "distortionless" representation of the Orphean horn loudspeaker I use.

Do not take the direct or underlaying messages in the latter as some blahblah and "I have the best playback system on the planet". It is *THE* thing to hunt for (1:1 playback), and it just BRINGS you the best system on the planet. Don't believe it ? hop over again.
Bert again is not invited.
He has such a system himself.


Guys, I and a few others have been there for the past 24 months or so, where indeed in all directions the 1:1 playback principle was applied (mind you, this is the opposite of DSPing). The improvements by it are not known in this Milky Way, if you only think about the short time where it happened.
A lot of you share these improvements, although for a small part only : XXHighEnd. I can tell you that at least the same efforts were applied to the Orphean-MKII, as well as the development of the CrazyA amplifier. This is (except for a few) what you NOT have, which makes you blind in judging.

Ehh ... about what ? right, about applying digital means in the DSP area, which only WILL destroy.
Oh, it might come to you as better allright, and in your situation it might even be completely legit. As legit as a masking cable to cut sharp highs ...


Lastly, and GC said it in the other thread, fooling around with digital is much more, say, "persistent" as fooling with analogue. Digital fooling has an impact that surpasses analogue fooling by far. Think of this one small example only :
Not bit perfect playback, in most of the (well tweaked PC) systems emerging from (unnecessary) dithering only, implies unintentional (not on the recording) volume changes of the smallest digital step of 1/65536. You wouldn't even be able to twist the volume knob that little !. But it's audible anyway ... (various anomalies are the result, but think of the stage changing).
Btw, did you know that the best way to perceive stage changes is to listen at "sweet spot distance" but right in front of one of the speakers ? This is the best means to perceive sound coming from the left speaker only (when sitting at the left side), or the sound coming still from the middle(ish). The more the latter happens, the better it is.

Peter


PS: Probably for the good cause this subject was split from Digital EQ by the mighty mod :yes: (it *was* slightly offtopic there of course), so I hope all is still a bit consistent within itself.

Tags:
0

Digital EQ the room

by GC, Friday, December 21, 2007, 17:03 (3681 days ago) @ PeterSt.

PS: Probably for the good cause this subject was split from
Digital EQ
by the mighty mod :yes: (it *was* slightly offtopic there of course), so I
hope all is still a bit consistent within itself.

For sure it can exist here Peter. :cool:

There is a tendency that noone of us, in so to speak any topic can stay on track because everything relates to each other. And when there is something good in there that makes a point, the mighty mod :yes: is maybe a gentle one, giving a good point it's own place. In particular when it doesn't destroy the other topic.

GC :grin:

Tags:
0

Avatar

Topic tracks...

by Bert @, Friday, December 21, 2007, 17:34 (3681 days ago) @ GC

GC,

There is a tendency that noone of us, in so to speak any topic can stay on
track because everything relates to each other.

Any topic can stay on track, just give it its own topic if you want to discuss something related and, if needed, add a link as reference...

Bert (Moderator)

--
BD-Design - Only the Best!

Tags:
0

Topic tracks...

by GC, Friday, December 21, 2007, 17:47 (3681 days ago) @ Bert

GC,

There is a tendency that noone of us, in so to speak any topic can stay

on

track because everything relates to each other.


Any topic can stay on track, just give it its own topic if you want to
discuss something related and, if needed, add a link as reference...

Bert (Moderator)

I know what you mean Bert.

It is just so difficult sometimes when talking about let say a topic called
"Michrophones", not also to mention words like concert hall, studio, mixing, gear, recordings, cables, people, CD's, ripping, playback, amps, speakers,rooms, ears and brains. :no:

It is hard to be your own moderater. :grin:

GC

Tags:
0

Avatar

Topic tracks...

by Bert @, Friday, December 21, 2007, 17:51 (3681 days ago) @ GC

Hi GC,

It is just so difficult sometimes when talking about let say a topic called
"Michrophones", not also to mention words like concert hall, studio,
mixing, gear, recordings, cables, people, CD's, ripping, playback, amps,
speakers,rooms, ears and brains. :no:

No problem to talk about related things to make it more clear but one should not pick out a sentence or word that is not related to the original topic and then continue to talk about that...

Bert

--
BD-Design - Only the Best!

Tags:
0

Avatar

Topic tracks...

by PeterSt. ⌂ @, Netherlands, Friday, December 21, 2007, 18:07 (3681 days ago) @ Bert

But about ripping ...

I think that we must emphasize on the matters of influence of the rarities caused by the specific chance -at reading- that ...

Ah, wrong subject.
Hahaha, it's okay Bert. But it's not easy when indeed all is related.

Peter :satisfied:

Tags:
0

Avatar

Topic changes...

by Bert @, Friday, December 21, 2007, 17:27 (3681 days ago) @ PeterSt.

Hi Peter,

PS: Probably for the good cause this subject was split from Digital EQ by
the mighty mod :yes: (it *was* slightly offtopic there of course), so I hope all is still a bit consistent within itself.

The topic was already starting to become more and more off-topic, I had to stop it somewhere. You linked at the top to the topic related to your topic so I feel that things are still consistent...

Bert

--
BD-Design - Only the Best!

Tags:
0

Topic changes...back to Digital EQ

by Don Reid, Rural Northwest Georgia, USA, Saturday, December 22, 2007, 20:04 (3680 days ago) @ Bert
edited by unknown, Saturday, December 22, 2007, 20:56

Bert,

You would be much more convincing if you spent more time and words telling us about the listening sessions when you properly installed and tweaked a good quality DSP such as the DEQX into your system and fairly compared the overall sound of the DSP to your old fashioned analog filters over several listening sessions rather than just telling us why DSP can't work well and why you will never like it.

Do you listen to a very great deal of live UNAMPLIFIED acoustic music on a very frequent basis? Do you or members of your household make such music so that you hear it on a daily basis? What is your musical standard of comparison?

I am a "keeper". I have a number of sound systems including a neat old Columbia horn loaded wind-up floor standing acoustic phonograph my father bought new about 1925. If a short signal path were the key to audio perfection it should sound wonderful. It sounds bad. Yet when electric phonographs were introduced many audiophiles rejected their sound as unatural. Luddites.

Bye,
Don Reid

Tags:
0

Avatar

Digital EQ?

by Bert @, Saturday, December 22, 2007, 20:46 (3680 days ago) @ Don Reid

Don,

You sound frustated, why?

You would be much more convincing if you spent more time and words telling
us about the listening sessions when you properly installed and tweaked a
good quality DSP such as the DEQX into your system and fairly compared the
overall sound of the DSP to your old fashioned analog filters over several
listening sessions rather than just telling us why DSP can't work well and
why you will never like it.

As stated elsewhere before, when in the digital domain the sound is already very much different between software players (all being bitperfect) using exactly the same PC, DAC, Amp and speaker route makes me clear that manipulating is changing things in one way or the other. Call it jitter caused by whatever things used but then in the least possible destroying way.

Add some DSP to it, some IC's and more things will be changed for the worse in that respect already.

Is this not the truth? Or is it ONLY getting better by adding a digital EQ to the system?

You all (i.e. pro digital DSP people) only talk about the major advantages but what do you have lost along the way? Why are you not worried about that?

This part is what worries me the most and not without reason...

Perhaps one needs an honest and transparent system to hear those changes. It will already be more difficult if the source is corrupted beforehand (upsampling, jitter, etc.).

I am not a negative person in general and open to any suggestions but I do want to make it clear that there is more to it then just adding a DEQX to the system and that this is all you need for solving all your problems? :nah:

Bert

--
BD-Design - Only the Best!

Tags:
0

Avatar

A quick test...

by Bert @, Saturday, December 22, 2007, 21:02 (3680 days ago) @ Don Reid

Me again...

If I would take the time to get a DEQX here and connect it within my system without using any EQ (just power it on and have all DSP settings disabled) and I can already hear a degrade, would that prove my first point?

Bert

--
BD-Design - Only the Best!

Tags:
0

Avatar

A quick test...

by PeterSt. ⌂ @, Netherlands, Sunday, December 23, 2007, 09:49 (3679 days ago) @ Bert

If I would take the time to get a DEQX here and connect it within my
system without using any EQ (just power it on and have all DSP settings
disabled) and I can already hear a degrade, would that prove my first
point?

Strangely enough, that sounds unfair (and a tad inconstructive, but that's more phsychics I think).

So what would come from this ? the DACs of the DEQX are worse compared to a general stand alone DAC of the same price, and it's oversampling as well so all our Yello albums can be thrown out.

See, now such a device lost in advance. It can be predicted, and btw it WILL be so. But then ... this is not fair. This would not be about the net result. This would not be about other aspects of Yello and all possibly coming forward. This would not be about squeezing all out of the digital xovers, which needs (mucho) experience on the device (as it seems).

But Don, please ... listen do this too :

I know Bert is not about the real life examples to kind of prove statements, where I just am;
Some eight months ago there was this day that both Bert and me called the distributor of the DEQX in Holland. In fact we both arranged for such a device, just for trying it out. Coincidentally we came together on that day and we learned from eachothers' intentions. We talked for hours about how to set it up, and we came to the conclusion that theoretically it was not possible.

The latter is about the 16 bit processing the DEQX would apply which really is nothing to hope for results. Even with 24 bits and a digital volume only, the sound gets so much degraded that there's *really* no hope for a better net result.
The least it would need is 32 bit digital input, hence a player that would output that. So we talked about adjusting GC to that, which just can be done.
Note for those who come up with it : E.g. Foobar can do it.
... But what to do if you don't like the sound of Foobar at all (as how we percieved that at that time).

Now, all together - and that's how complicated it is - Bert's suggestion of just connecting the DEQX *is* legit, because the potential remainder of it all will fail anyway. That is, unless you are able to justify DSP in the 16 bit domain or chose Foobar as your player ...
(please note that this would come to a similar decision as throwing the 6K CDP out, and use a $100 instead to let the DEQX work -> hard to decide for).

What the DEQX discussion comes down to, is that actually the device itself flaws. It flaws for its processing with a number of bits that equal to the input.
This is unrelated to the DSP subject itself ... :yes:

Oh well ...
Let me finish with that it may be not the best idea to point out how people should listen (more) to live instruments, because IMHO the gang overhere is too profesional to not do - or interpret like that. Remember, this (work) is not about setting up the best system for our own room ... it is about creating the best elements (for any room). Might you not have noticed, I for one plain buy the instruments in order to compare. :grin:

And then the biggest bang : in my room I listen to complete live instruments from the audio playback chain. This by itself is dangerous to say, because 5 months ago I already said it, but it still improved. But mind you, 6 months ago I sure was not. Now :
Anyone being sure that he is listening to live instruments (start with the cymbals !) and using DSP (needed to get there or not) is entitled to tell the other to improve (by whatever means). But be very careful that you indeed listen to these live instruments ... and that your jaw won't drop when listening at my place (or Bert's for that matter).
I know how dangerous it is to say all this, but might it be true in *your* eyes (ears hehe), you know that DSP is not needed.

But let's start with your own interpretation of your live sound. You know mine now ...

Peter


PS: Sorry for blund statements, but I'm honest anyway.

Tags:
0

RSS Feed of thread