|
88h88 posted:It's a PA sub. A horn one. Which work best in pairs or groups. Wall or corner loaded. And it's not particularly sensitive. And doesn't go low because the horn path is short. And it weighs 10 tons. And is a Cerwin Vega. And needs a billion watts of fan noise power amp to move the cone. And it's ugly. And needs a whack of EQ to sound decent. 8/10
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 11:57 |
|
|
Yeah it's definitely live sound reinforcement that's meant to sound right 100+ feet away in an open space. For a home sub there are much better choices.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:Yeah it's definitely live sound reinforcement that's meant to sound right 100+ feet away in an open space. For a home sub there are much better choices. Yeah, I know. It would have gone in my basement bar for rocking out to tunes while drinking with friends.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Yeah, I know. It would have gone in my basement bar for rocking out to tunes while drinking with friends. One horn cabinet even in a corner is a risk, you don't have the horn mouth area to get the extension published when using a single box. You may never need to push it but you could burn it out from over excursion. That amount of money could very easily be better spent on any tapped horn project from DIYaudio, just need to buy some wood, screws, glue and a decent driver and borrow some tools.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
...though if spending that kinda cash just build a THT and collapse your house with SPL.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 11:17
|
|
|
http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/03/sennheiser-new-orpheus-headphones/ quote:When it comes to the very particular world of audiophile headphones, few names raise as many pulses as Sennheiser's Orpheus HE90. Designed 25 years ago, and limited to 300 pairs, the legendary headset came with its own valve amp, and a hefty $16,000 price tag. Today, Sennheiser lifted the cloth on a new Orpheus, and it's just as crazy. Apparently 10 years in the making, the new Orpheus builds on its predecessor's famous electrostatic design, bringing it up to date with a new signal processor, new marble-clad design, and wonderfully decadent motorized housing that reveals the knobs and valves when you turn it on. For that money you could buy a pair of every single electrostatic headphones ever produced.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
$55K and the marble base is hideous. It'll be a slamdunk success.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 09:31
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:$55K and the marble base is hideous. It'll be a slamdunk success. I guarantee they will sell out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
I'd like to hear it at least. Having heard some super high end stuff I wouldn't expect a ton though. I'd like to know what it needs eight DACs for. Maybe you can feed it 7.1 and it converts them separately and mixes them in the analog domain? Or it converts each stereo channel four times and checks the outputs against each other? The mind boggles...
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:I'd like to hear it at least. Having heard some super high end stuff I wouldn't expect a ton though. Higher end DAC/preamps like the Benchmark DAC1/DAC2 use several DAC chips in parallel to increase the signal/noise ratio and lower noise. It's usually hugely unnecessary unless you have a really long and complex signal chain for music production purposes or are doing scientific measurements.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
Weird. How does parallel processing do that? Does it process the signal at higher effective bit depth?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
AFAIK they run the same signal through all of the DAC chips and average the result.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
So kinda what i guessed then 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Has this been posted? https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/seiun-players-hi-res-audio-meets-4k-video#/ The repeated use of '4K' to describe 1080p and 720p devices is borderline false advertising. And then there's this: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
josh04 posted:Has this been posted? But that's...those aren't....it's not even... 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
I nearly punched my own phone looking at that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
We are also testing a 768KHz/32bit mode, however this is yet to be confirmed Can't wait to hear those sweet 300kHz tones.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
I would be shocked if there was hardware out there that could decode that. Actually, no I wouldn't. I would just be disappointed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Guys guys you're missing the point. They compared data rate to sampling rate
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:Guys I didn't even want to bring that up for fear of legitimizing it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I would be shocked if there was hardware out there that could decode that. Actually, no I wouldn't. I would just be disappointed. There's scientific equipment that'll do it for advanced experiments. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Who's this Nyquist guy, anyway? Edit: Wait, didn't even notice MP3 being represented as a waveform. Heh. Edit2: I guess many of you know this stuff already, but this is one of my favorite articles on audio quality, addressing the Nyquist frequency, sampling rate, and bit depth with regards to human perception. ColdPie fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Nov 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I would be shocked if there was hardware out there that could decode that. Actually, no I wouldn't. I would just be disappointed. There are plenty of high sample rate converters out there, but they're not necessary in audio applications. (32 bits is horseshit though. Even 24-bit ADCs and DACs seldom manage to deliver as much SNR as their 24 bit word size would suggest.) It should be mentioned that Sony's SACD format (an attempt at designing a mass market successor to the CD) sampled at 2.8 MHz... but the samples were just 1 bit. They used some interesting noise shaping techniques to push the quantization noise from 1-bit sampling into inaudible frequencies. It was mostly an exercise in trying to come up with something that was more patentable than CD, rather than being driven by real technical advantages over ordinary PCM sampling techniques. It failed to gain any traction outside of audiophiles because 16/44.1 is pretty much good enough for an audio distribution medium. (and also because mp3 adoption happened at about the same time, and the market turned out to be way more interested in that than a new and incompatible optical disc medium) BobHoward fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Nov 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
I'm unreasonably annoyed by how you phrased that. I'm almost sorry for bringing it up. "... but the samples were just 1 bit" invites us to make a comparison with other familiar (PCM) bit depths and marvel at the idiocy or something. Whereas DSD, I'm sure you actually know, simply works differently and doesn't actually have a concept of bit depth as we usually know it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
ColdPie posted:Who's this Nyquist guy, anyway? Gotta link Monty's videos too, even though probably everyone here has already watched them multiple times  http://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml E: Would better heatsinks help high sampling rate DACs? I mean, we're at a point where we can cool multiple core CPUs running in the gigahertz range with no problem, so surely a large-ish (on a DAC) scale could at least reduce the thermal noise issues? Panty Saluter fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Nov 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
My brain is capable of filling in the gaps? Oh awesome, I'll just buy this cheap stuff then because I know that my brain is far more incredible than some piece of poo poo audio hardware that does the same thing. MP3 128kbit is quite amazing, as I got to remember what it was like to be back in 1997 again for a few minutes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
I tried that song clip since I usually leave my DAC at 96 kHz on my computer. The hi-hat was still very audible even though it had been shifted up by 24 kHz. THAT is some nasty-rear end IM distortion (and probably why everything sounded "brighter" with the DAC at 96 kHz). I rolled it down to 44.1 and no more noise. Band limiting is pretty cool you guys
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
There are off the shelf DSP chips doing 384 KHz / 32 bit audio processing now. I don't know if they're widely available in consumer audio equipment yet but expect them to start showing up in marketing materials within a year or so if they aren't already.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Also lol at that graph showing FLAC as both better audio quality than CD and also more convenient than MP3s and streaming services. If that's true then I'll have the FLAC please, you can keep your hi-res audio.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
Isn't the real reason SACD died due to the fact it was nearly impossible to get an approved reader in a computer, and a major pain to get a portable or car based player?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Isn't the real reason SACD died due to the fact it was nearly impossible to get an approved reader in a computer, and a major pain to get a portable or car based player? That was probably a factor. That and the lack of an appreciable difference in sound quality The funniest bit to me is that DSD releases are often processed in PCM since DAW software largely doesn't know what the heck DSD is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:MP3 128kbit is quite amazing, as I got to remember what it was like to be back in 1997 again for a few minutes. 128kbit MP3 is actually a lot better today than it was back then, due to massive advances in encoder quality. To simulate the sound quality of a ~1997 Xing-encoded 128kbit MP3 using LAME, you have to encode it at 48kbit with the quality setting biased towards speed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 08:58
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:That was probably a factor. That and the lack of an appreciable difference in sound quality One of the things I love about the SACD format was the fact that Sony sometimes (often?) used completely different masters for the DSD and PCM layer. So while audiophiles were correct that DSD could sound different to PCM, their complete lack of investigative skill lead them to automatically assume DSD was better than PCM. DSD was one seriously stupid format, no matter which side of the fence you were on. Its a format that isn't compatible with the vast majority of hardware and software, files sizes are loving huge, and its actually objectively a shittier "high resolution" format compared to PCM if you're one of those crazies who believe in the importance of ultrasonic frequencies. KozmoNaut posted:Turning on the new $50K Sennheiser HEV-1060 that 88h88 posted earlier: Gotta say, the volume knob taking longer to extend out than the tone (?) controls would really piss me off. Chafe fucked around with this message at 10:59 on Nov 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 10:41
|
|
|
Turning on the new $50K Sennheiser HEV-1060 that 88h88 posted earlier: https://i.imgur.com/epyzfv9.gifv 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 10:55
|
|
|
Like pieces of poop being pushed out of marble sphincters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 11:18
|
|
|
I don't get the impression that audiophiles are looking for ultrasonic frequencies. I think they don't understand the Nyquist theorem or digital audio and think that higher frequency resolution leads to this: because they think that the speakers are somehow jumping between steps like stacked square waves. Basically, they're looking for better reproduction of stuff in the audible range. In that context, the vague idea of DSD sounds great because the super high sampling frequency would lead to very small width in each of your steps, or something. fart simpson fucked around with this message at 11:45 on Nov 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 11:37
|
|
|
Yeah, that's a really common misconception. They would have a point if DACs used for audio were simple "sample and hold" devices, then the output would actually be a discrete series of stairsteps. But audio DACs obviously don't really work that way, and most DACs these days are actually Delta-Sigma DACs that work in manner that's closer to DSD than PCM. So it's all getting wonderfully mixed up, and the much-vaunted "purity" that audiophiles seem to crave is long gone. Still, as each sample's amplitude in 16-bit PCM audio must be one of 65,536 discrete values, there will be some approximation of the original analog signal. But the resulting quantization noise comes in at around -96dB, way way WAY lower than the base noise level of even the finest studios in the world, never mind the end users' listening rooms. But of course there's no such approximation happening with the sample rate, something which a lot of audiophiles continue to misunderstand. They just don't understand that all you need to perfectly capture audio with a certain frequency is a sample rate that is twice the frequency you want to capture. And that's before we even get to the fact that the majority audiophiles are 50+yo, with unavoidable age-related hearing loss, and probably can't hear anything beyond maybe 10-12kHz. Don't get me started on the bullshit about why they think sine waves are not appropriate to use when measuring audio equipment. When you're trying to detect distortion and noise, you want the cleanest and purest signal you can get, and it doesn't get any cleaner and purer than a sine wave. Or a couple of sine waves, if you want to detect intermodulation distortion. But oh no, "I listen to music, not sine waves, fnar fnar fnar". KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 11:59 on Nov 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 11:54
|
|
|
Chafe posted:One of the things I love about the SACD format was the fact that Sony sometimes (often?) used completely different masters for the DSD and PCM layer. So while audiophiles were correct that DSD could sound different to PCM, their complete lack of investigative skill lead them to automatically assume DSD was better than PCM. I had a Sony DVD player back then that would play SACD, so I picked up Dark Side of the Moon just to see what it was like. The DSD layer really did sound better than the PCM layer, but only because the PCM was a brickwall compressed dumpster fire while the DSD was actually properly mastered. The DSD layer's 5.1 was pretty cool, but that doesn't have anything to do with being ~high resolution audio~.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:128kbit MP3 is actually a lot better today than it was back then, due to massive advances in encoder quality. Oh for sure, but it's been at least a decade since I've seen an MP3 encoded that low, except for audiobooks and similar. The author still lives in a fantasy world where all MP3s are low bitrate, poorly encoded pieces of crap found on Kazaa.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 12:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 11:57 |
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Still, as each sample's amplitude in 16-bit PCM audio must be one of 65,536 discrete values, there will be some approximation of the original analog signal. But the resulting quantization noise comes in at around -96dB, way way WAY lower than the base noise level of even the finest studios in the world, never mind the end users' listening rooms. What do you think of the argument for a 24bit dac being better when you have digital volume control?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 13:43
|
|