zerogain name change -hi fi rage

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've deleted some more posts. Bans will follow for anyone who continues to behave in this manner. Antonio, this really is your last chance. Do you understand?
 
ShinOBIWAN said:
For kicks I created a target similar in profile to the Robinson/dadson equal loudness curve. Hmm didn't sound too hot, all bass and treble with very recessed mids. I understand that its really more suited to headphones rather than loudspeakers.
Click to expand...

It doesn't reall work as you don't have a dynamic filter so it will of course only be accurate at one level. As you say, it was also created using headphones, so it will be incorrect for the more complex interraction of front mounted speakers because of HRTF.

It's fun to map the anechoic measurements of top audiophile speakers in Soundstage and Stereophile though - just to see why Wilsons for instance generally sound like they do.

Floyde Toole did a lot of research which shows people prefer loudspeakers with an FR plot like the one you have settled on. I did similar although I shelved down at 1khz IIRC, rather than having a gentle transition. This is what I have been trying to get across to some of the "others" - I found that measurements show us why we get things like depth, dynamic punch, and vocal intelligability - it's simply a case of being able to interpret them. The response has been unfortunate.
 
lordsummit said:
I've deleted some more posts. Bans will follow for anyone who continues to behave in this manner. Antonio, this really is your last chance. Do you understand?
Click to expand...

I never gave you the right to threaten me. If you dont want me to post in Zerogain all you have to do is ask, politely, I am not your age to be threatened by you, or anyone, particularly in a forum where one idiot insults whoever he wants with the moderators approval...
 
Antonio, stop being such a drama queen. It's only a forum, there's really no reason to get so upset.
If you feel so strongly, put Mike on your ignore list and you won't be able to see his posts.
Simple.
I personally don't have a problem with either of you and don't want to see either of you get banned so play nicely or not at all, yeah? :D
 
By joining this forum Antonio, you agreed to abide by the rules. Moderators only become involved when you break the rules. I'm not threatening you, I'm simply telling you that if you break the rules one more time you will be banned. I think that is clear enough don't you.
 
So now I am the scapegoat on your witch hunt, no problem, everybody but you knows the problem lies elsewhere...
 
ShinOBIWAN said:
Yes the DEQX is a quite stunted compared to what is available now but that's not to say that even the best digital methods, such as the one above, aren't without significant problems but thankfully these can largely be worked around or at least you learn to live with them and when it comes down to it the same is true of any and all crossover technologies.
Click to expand...

When you say that DEQX is stunted compared to what is available now, what are you referring to? I understand that DEQX is an improvement over TACT, but there is still a lot more room for improvement. Have you found a product that offers better DSP than DEQX?
 
bemcsa said:
When you say that DEQX is stunted compared to what is available now, what are you referring to? I understand that DEQX is an improvement over TACT, but there is still a lot more room for improvement. Have you found a product that offers better DSP than DEQX?
Click to expand...

The DEQX hardware and software is knocking on for 5 years old now. When it hit the scene all those years ago it was revolutionary. In the digital world time isn't kind though.

I think the main issue to take is the 32bit processing(20bit in some places). Nowadays we're looking at 64bit which are less prone to rounding errors and have far higher precision leading to more transparent processing.

Then looks at the DAC's in the DEQX, 107dB Dynamic range and -100dB THD+N aren't particularly impressive now. You can of course add an outboard DAC but you need to figure that on top of the £2k admission fee for the DEQX.

The DSP processing horsepower isn't comparable to today's best solution. This means you don't have the necessary clout to process higher quality filters and the software itself doesn't incorporate the recent advancements in psychoacoustic filtering and the more advanced driver and room corrections.

All in all its looking a little dated now.

For the moment, the best and most advanced correction solutions are all PC based using high quality filters generated by specialist software which are passed through convolvers using the ASIO transport and then out through studio grade soundcards and converters. If this is the route that your wanting to take then it doesn't get any better than this.

I'm an ex DEQX user and can say its a further refinement in sound. Most TACT/DEQX users also seem to migrate to the PC if they find this approach to their liking and others like Mike prefer firmly rooted and mature solutions such analogue.

I think all the digital approaches to loudspeaker and room correction are in a relatively early stage of development. The groundwork has been laid by product such as the DEQX and Tact but the sound and technology needs to mature. There's no doubt that this is the future of the highest fidelity playback, surpassing all others but there's some way to go before that's a reality. Things can only get better right now whereas analogue solutions can be considered mature with very little real advancement in recent years but already the current best digital crossover and correction surpass analogue in some areas.

I'm sure in another 50 to 100 years analogue will have virtually disappeared and there will be impossibly advanced digital methods. Its exciting to be at the start of something that will become the future.
 
I'd agree with everything Shinobiwan says with regards to digital correction. I think there is little doubt that the computer and digital technology will eventually usurp the analogue alternatives and prove better in all areas. Right now, to my ears, they better analogue in a number, but not all, and not some important to my enjoyment of music. In terms of the presentational elements of sound reproduction, the digital solutions are quite remarkable given enough attention to setup and programming.

At the end of the day, they are heavily reliant on you the user, inputting the correct data, and possibly the most crucial part of getting good results, is taking good measurements in a semi anechoic enviroment in the first place. That can be a pain - especially if like me you live near a main road and have very heavy loudspeakers! Still that's just as much of a pain with Clio so I guess I'll just have to find a ground floor place in the country.

I remember many moons ago an interview with Mark Levinson who has always been unconvinced by PCM sound. His feeling was that it may well become the defacto standard once it reaches 128bit. I look forward to hearing the generation of devices working at that resolution.

Right now, the DEQX is still an appealing package, given that it is also a very decent preamp and ADC DAC unit. Add a couple of PWM modules and some decent drive units and you can put together in many ways a world class system for around £4K with a little patience and time. You will learn an awful lot along the way too - always rewarding. A nice product for your audio rack if you don't like PC's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top