Principles

[anon_bb]

If its purely in the digital chain it should be ok - but outside that it has definate limitations as is.

 

[Stereo Mic]

If its purely in the digital chain it should be ok - but outside that it has definate limitations as is.

What are the known affects of digital filters BBV?

 

[ShinOBIWAN]

Much like your attitude with Bub and ATC's then...

So we're both a bunch of tossers then.

Bub choose not to listen and just gave attitude to anything, even you agreed with some of what I said.

Let's remember, I didn't start the arrogant insults here.

Look, how about shaking hands and just get back to talking about the things we enjoy rather than carrying this tit for tat on.

With regards to the DEQX crossover, do you have an impulse response of the low pass taken using just the crossover frequency and nothing else?

No I could draw one though, I know exactly what your getting at, a low pass FIR filter used low down in the frequency range has a higher ripple noise floor for a giving slope order. Nothing is perfect, although the window functions and coeffiecients have much to do with this, its a compromise of slope steepness and ripple rejection through the passband. DEQX lowers these products to 100dB-125dB of ripple rejection depending on XO frequency.

A newish technique has been developed by a company called Algorithmix that uses time based noise filtering to eliminate the ripple problem. The problem here though is the processing power required to enable a realtime application is immense. Even with a dual processor Athlon X2 running at 2.8Ghz I have a latency of 5 seconds! Clearly no good for audio/video application but its shows the way.

Traditional IIR also have time/frequency problems and passive components make this even worse.

We all know there's no one particular way to do this, you pick a set of compromise that you best agree with and that produces the right results for you. We can pick apart anything if we look closely enough.

 

[anon_bb]

All sorts of nasties like pre-ringing and phase issues but nothing that cant be tackled with the right algorithm.

 

[KUB3]

'Smack my Bitch Up' into MG Acoustics...

Superb, lol.

 

[ShinOBIWAN]

Shin,
Have heard the DEQX in a couple of applications, I believe some of the Apogee boys quite like them (Hence the Oz connection).
Derek (who is a nice chap and I've had dealings with) had a pair x/overs modifed by Graham Folwer back in 05 (Trichord). I did spot the special psu that was made for it in a what looks like a delphini box? on one of the websites last nite

It could be that the PSU is of Trichord origin, I know for sure that the digital side of things was handled by Paul over at DEQX though. I've had a standard DEQX and this is a couple of notches above.

Well a I've yet to hear any digital x/over sound good to my ears, and in one form or another been engauged with them for over 14 years, technology has moved on for sure, but the for us the problem still remains mechanical sound.

Perhaps I like that sound. It certainly would suit my listening proclivaties.

Its all relevative to the individual, their experiences and the material. I think my system has a greater capacity to sound real than any other I've heard, I'm sure someone could come along and disagree but it wouldn't change my own thoughts.

I heard (recently) one of the lesser models being honest it sounded none shabby so a good base to which to work from (I would take them over the hypex modules for sure).

Do you mean the AKSA?

I presume you heard the standard 55 or 100. Nice amps, glad you enjoyed them.

It would be nice to hear how you feel you have managed to over come this issue Shin.

Careful cable selection :latte:

Seriously though, I'm not sure what problems there are to solve. I didn't start this project to fix or overcome what others see as issues with the technology . It was for much more selfish gain - a system that I enjoy immensely and it fits that.

My system is only a baseline by which all others should be judged for me. I never intended it as a benchmark for others.

The best way to see is to hear, PM me when you'd like to pop over and we can arrange something.

 

[ShinOBIWAN]

'Smack my Bitch Up' into MG Acoustics...

Superb, lol.

Yeah the sales guy was a little reserved and almost didn't let me even play the disk. He shut the door to the demo room anyway

 

[eisenach]

Lets start with the premis (dangerous) that hi-fi is for listening to music...

Given this what are the principles involved in creating a system to reproduce music, and is it the same root for those pursuing fidelity in sound to those pursuing fidelity to the music / composer / orchestra / band / singer etc. Are they the same?

I've been following this with interest, although some of its by-ways are a bit too obscure for non-technical me.

It seems to me, that in the end, the HiFi system one ends up with is, just like the music, a reflection of the kind of person one is. Anyway, music is too wide a parameter, there are many kinds of music, and in most cases a system will suit one or another but not all. My own set up sounds great with small-scale well-recorded baroque music on original instruments, but as that's what I'm mainly into, it would be surprising if it didn't. Pop music (sorry to use the all-embracing equivalent of "Classical music") sounds ok, if sometimes too strident, but it doesn't get 19th Century romantic music at all, but then neither do I. Now is that really the system, or just me? Me and the system, or me & the music? or both?

In fact, the system is more like me than maybe is good for me. I tend to be a bit cool and unemotional, and my taste in music reflects that, and so does my system. I sometimes wish I were a warmer-hearted more heart-on-the-sleeve type of chap, so dream of lush valves and elctrostatics, but know(?) it would all end in tears.

Sometimes the system sounds great, sometimes the music sounds great, and sometimes I'm crap, it depends on my mood. Titian asks how often any of us sit down and solely listen to music? I've always felt guilty: it's usually combined with something else, usually reading a book. In the system's latest incarnation, though, more and more I find myself letting the book drop and being brought into the music. Reading's taking a lot longer! Is the system more involving? Is the music more involving? Or am I just turning into an agèd brain-addled wino who can't do two things at once anymore?

Who cares!

Whether in the pursuit of great HiFi / musical experience, there really are two differentiated paths (music / equipment), I don't know, but in the end I suspect the one is unavoidably compromised by the other, and it all ends up being a reflection of: - you.

 

[Richard Dunn]

I've been following this with interest, although some of its by-ways are a bit too obscure for non-technical me.

It seems to me, that in the end, the HiFi system one ends up with is, just like the music, a reflection of the kind of person one is. Anyway, music is too wide a parameter, there are many kinds of music, and in most cases a system will suit one or another but not all. My own set up sounds great with small-scale well-recorded baroque music on original instruments, but as that's what I'm mainly into, it would be surprising if it didn't. Pop music (sorry to use the all-embracing equivalent of "Classical music") sounds ok, if sometimes too strident, but it doesn't get 19th Century romantic music at all, but then neither do I. Now is that really the system, or just me? Me and the system, or me & the music? or both?

In fact, the system is more like me than maybe is good for me. I tend to be a bit cool and unemotional, and my taste in music reflects that, and so does my system. I sometimes wish I were a warmer-hearted more heart-on-the-sleeve type of chap, so dream of lush valves and elctrostatics, but know(?) it would all end in tears.

Sometimes the system sounds great, sometimes the music sounds great, and sometimes I'm crap, it depends on my mood. Titian asks how often any of us sit down and solely listen to music? I've always felt guilty: it's usually combined with something else, usually reading a book. In the system's latest incarnation, though, more and more I find myself letting the book drop and being brought into the music. Reading's taking a lot longer! Is the system more involving? Is the music more involving? Or am I just turning into an agèd brain-addled wino who can't do two things at once anymore?

Who cares!

Whether in the pursuit of great HiFi / musical experience, there really are two differentiated paths (music / equipment), I don't know, but in the end I suspect the one is unavoidably compromised by the other, and it all ends up being a reflection of: - you.

I was starting to despair of this thread as the usual parties turned it into their usual computer semantic game of chess. Life is full of surprises and at last a response that really justifies it.

A person can only reflect their experience, and they can only reference that experience to themselves. This is at it should be. We exist as individual entities within a larger reality, call it a gestault if you wish. The individual is alway either in conflict or in support. Both of these create conflict and get in the way of reality, create wars - divorces etc. The larger reality is not word or concept driven it is a joining. I submit that when you are quiet (relaxed) then you join that, and in Hi-Fi terms that refers to those who are trying to communicate and influence you i.e. the composer and the musicians. You join them as you feel what they feel, you understand what the composer was trying to convey. These are emotional experiences, so by their very nature they are subjective!!!

When a system is technically correct but musically uninvolving then it stimulates the frontal lobe and you intellectualise the experience and you wish to intellectualise it with others, either because you are unhappy or that you wish to impose your happiness on others - human nature! Ultimately facile as it is illusion and it will change week by week and you get more confused or more beligerent depending on your personality. This it seems is the modus operandi of this group.

If however it is emotionally involving then you feel it, the mind goes quiet and peace or elation is the result, both just the yin and yang of the process. Both make you *tingle* and you don't (in fact, cannot) do anything else at the same time, as you are drawn *into* the music like a suction pulling you in. Time has no meaning, true meditation.

This *is* music, and the type means nothing, the reality is all that matters.

Richard

 

[ShinOBIWAN]

When a system is technically correct but musically uninvolving then it stimulates the frontal lobe and you intellectualise the experience and you wish to intellectualise it with others, either because you are unhappy or that you wish to impose your happiness on others - human nature! Ultimately facile as it is illusion and it will change week by week and you get more confused or more beligerent depending on your personality. This it seems is the modus operandi of this group.

If however it is emotionally involving then you feel it, the mind goes quiet and peace or elation is the result, both just the yin and yang of the process. Both make you *tingle* and you don't (in fact, cannot) do anything else at the same time, as you are drawn *into* the music like a suction pulling you in. Time has no meaning, true meditation.

This is a forum, our only form of communication is words and pictures. Discussing audio using subjectives is fine but its entirely down to individual interpretation. Being objective in nature whilst discussing matters here is the lesser of two evils IMO. We've already seen that people can derive emotion from very differing methods of system makeup and musicality is misnomer that can't be broadly pinned down in that case.

When I sit to listen I stop being objective and then the experience is an entirely subjective one, I don't play back a passage I measured and compare my subjective opinons to any form of data.

I use objectivity to reach my goals and then enjoy the results

What your trying to get to the bottom of is both the beginning and the end and your very likely to end up going around in circles.

 

[Richard Dunn]

This is a forum, our only form of communication is words and pictures. Discussing audio using subjectives is fine but its entirely down to individual interpretation. Being objective in nature whilst discussing matters here is the lesser of two evils IMO. We've already seen that people can derive emotion from very differing methods of system makeup and musicality is misnomer that can't be broadly pinned down in that case.

When I sit to listen I stop being objective and then the experience is an entirely subjective one, I don't play back a passage I measured and compare my subjective opinons to any form of data.

I use objectivity to reach my goals and then enjoy the results

What your trying to get to the bottom of is both the beginning and the end and your very likely to end up going around in circles.

My circles create products that prove my point!

But that is not relevent as many other do as well, though mostly by accident. If a manufacturer understands this why is there so much unfullfilling product around and yet they can come up with a gem - Lottery - not understanding principle (the title of this thread). I have enough of the principles that this does not happen, though I am sure I can discover others. If you actually understood what you are doing instead of ******* into the wind with intellectual waffling you would realise the concept behind this thread. I believe you have the process the wrong way around, get something to involve you even if it fries within 10 seconds. Then discover how to make that not fry and live in the real world, as little compromise as possible.

I don't know you but from your posts and responses you seem to wish to satisfy your intellect. If you achieve emotional satisfaction it is a by product. Again read Eisenach's post, what is he saying to you?

I ask again what are the principles to make (create) hi-fi that plays music. Not *one* contribution yet!

Richard

 

[anon_bb]

If soemthing is uninvolving it is technically incorrect - however the narrow range of specs used may be correct.

Easinach is repeating what I have said already - and is entirely correct. People like different music and are prepared to accept different compromises.

 

[Richard Dunn]

If soemthing is uninvolving it is technically incorrect - however the narrow range of specs used may be correct.

Easinach is repeating what I have said already - and is entirely correct. People like different music and are prepared to accept different compromises.

Then you are playing lottery, a musically correct system will make every form of music correct - er. Not perfect technically or even necessarily an exact sound reproduction of the original, but music. Enjoyable, appealing, satisfying to the nature not the intellect.

Richard

 

[ShinOBIWAN]

I believe you have the process the wrong way around, get something to involve you even if it fries within 10 seconds. Then discover how to make that not fry and live in the real world, as little compromise as possible.

But I do have a system I enjoy greatly. Read that back! I also enjoy discussing technical merits on forums and try to avoid the subjectives because its down to individual interpretation.

Your not going to find an answer to your question because it clearly means different things to different people.

I've given you my answer for what makes an involving system for me. I think your just looking for affirmation of your own beliefs on a moving target here because your not listening to what I or others are saying.

What your essentially trying to do is unify 'religions'.

 

[ShinOBIWAN]

Then you are playing lottery, a musically correct system will make every form of music correct - er. Not perfect technically or even necessarily an exact sound reproduction of the original, but music. Enjoyable, appealing, satisfying to the nature not the intellect.

Richard

Hence my system does home theater, music, TV, gaming and I love every minute of it. I'm satisfied! Which is what I've been saying all along.

 

[Richard Dunn]

Hence my system does home theater, music, TV, gaming and I love every minute of it. I'm satisfied! Which is what I've been saying all along.

A jack of all trades is a master of none.

Richard

 

[anon_bb]

Yes it would but I dont think it exists yet

I think that for a system that is not accurate reproduction then the inaccuracy will be ok for some recordings but not others. Maybe you should try some punk!

 

[eisenach]

Older and wiser? I'd say these days, go with your subjective response to what you listen to.
If I had my time again? I'd have stuck with the system I had ten years ago until now. (It worked nicely, though there was a fault with the amp that has been the cause of my subsequent undoings.) In other words, find something you can live with, enjoy the music, enjoy life, bring up the little ones if you have any, and then in your forties, if you still feel the need, go for the system that will end it all. By now, if you're lucky, you know who you are (a bit), what you like and maybe even what you want. Sell what you have. Find a good dealer, fill him in on the details (but don't tell him what your system was before!), get him to demonstrate as many different kinds of sytem as you need, and buy the one you end up liking, lock stock and barrel, then never read another HiFi mag or frequent a forum like this.
In trying, first of all to find out what was wrong with the amp, I've gone down several "wrong" paths, done it all in bits, and am now too financially committed to what I've got. It works, it sometimes sounds very good, but ...
So by all means work out what you want, but wait a bit before committing lots of money - you change. Then go with your feelings.

I'm satisfied! Which is what I've been saying all along.

Good for you!

 

[ShinOBIWAN]

A jack of all trades is a master of none.

Richard

Agreed. Current loudspeakers/systems by their very nature strongly adhere to that statement. The trick is to make each enjoyable and involving.

I fully believe it would be possible to create a system that will play one track and in only one room that could suspend disbelief. You've got a fixed set of variables to work around, if only it was all so simple.

This has actually already been done by Von Schweikert to an audience of journalists, industry insiders and enthusiast who AB'ed a live performance which was recorded and then played back through a pair of VR11 loudspeakers in the very same room. Apparently it was a tough call.

It only worked on one track, which happened to be recorded in the exact same room as the loudspeakers themselves.

 

[KUB3]

Isn't Art just a label applied to the gaps in scientific knowledge?

As knowing all is impossible, there will always be Art.