Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[John Roberts {JR}]

Yup, digital technology gives design engineers new ways to screw up. I've seen subtle errors caused by layout, but if you can hear it you can measure it with the right test, and tweak it out... With complex multi layer PCBs it is not always easy or possible to tweak a design on the bench. You can't cut interior traces, and even small fractions of an inch matter. Iterative design cuts get pretty expensive.

Also all 24b convertors are not the same which is why most provide analog S/N and THD specs.

I do not find it surprising that attention to detail in premium digital design is executed to a higher performance standard. Consumers read too much into digital word length and sample rate, but what else is new? Specs have been used by marketers like blunt instruments as long as they have been published.

caveat emptor

JR

[Riley Casey]

So all those eons of evolutionary improvements in the ear / brain system design are good for something more than just avoiding becoming dinner for some other larger and faster carnivore.  Well that's encouraging.

I am somewhat at a loss to understand how the OP came to have this problem. Studio monitors are, or should be much better behaved than the large scale sound systems most of us on the board must contend with. Reference quality playback systems complete from amp input connector to loudspeaker grille can be had for less than the cost of good quality two in, six out DSP loudspeaker system controller.  I wouldnt want to denigrate the spirit of adventure and the quest for knowledge that leads many people to design the next better mousetrap. It seems however that the OP's core goal is to listen to music as accurately as possible without becoming a scientist to do it. If this is the case why not go for a known to be good, off the shelf solution?

What is strange and difficult to understand for an electronic engineer than sometimes hardly measurable circuitry differences have noticeable impact on the sound quality.

[Herman Chigrin]

So all those eons of evolutionary improvements in the ear / brain system design are good for something more than just avoiding becoming dinner for some other larger and faster carnivore.  Well that's encouraging.

I am somewhat at a loss to understand how the OP came to have this problem. Studio monitors are, or should be much better behaved than the large scale sound systems most of us on the board must contend with. Reference quality playback systems complete from amp input connector to loudspeaker grille can be had for less than the cost of good quality two in, six out DSP loudspeaker system controller.  I wouldnt want to denigrate the spirit of adventure and the quest for knowledge that leads many people to design the next better mousetrap. It seems however that the OP's core goal is to listen to music as accurately as possible without becoming a scientist to do it. If this is the case why not go for a known to be good, off the shelf solution?

This is a good point but I found that large scale monitors tend to be quite expensive (ATC, Dynaudio, TAD, Genelec). I am specifically looking for reference quality sound but with added output capability. This points in the direction of "off the shelf" large monitors OR carefully arranged PA system with attention to detail.

I already have a 3 way fully horn loaded speakers and a set of good subs. Speakers are quite capable of good sound but they need a crossover, as they are not off the shelf model rather, different components made by Funktion One.

Again, I think you are wise in your reasoning. I may end up going the "off the shelf" direction, but again what turns me off is the extraordinary high price of a large scale monitor system.

One direction that I have not seen anyone explore or bring up is the use of a good quality Cinema system, like the TAD of JBL, Meyer etc.. wonder why...

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Professional/Pro-Speakers/TSC-3415,+TSC-3215,+TSC-1118SW+Cinema+Speaker+Systems

Herman

[Mac Kerr]

One direction that I have not seen anyone explore or bring up is the use of a good quality Cinema system, like the TAD of JBL, Meyer etc.. wonder why...

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Professional/Pro-Speakers/TSC-3415,+TSC-3215,+TSC-1118SW+Cinema+Speaker+Systems

Herman

If you are not putting them behind a perf screen you might not like the sound of professional cinema speakers. They are not intended for use in relatively small rooms.

If you want studio monitors, shop around for some good used ones. Urei 800 series show up every now and then, the 809s are particularlly nice, although they are the smallest of the three.

You might find more interest in studio monitoring is a recording forum, not a live sound forum. Live sound speakers are rarely a good fit in a studio.

Since this is not a live sound topic it is moving to the Basement where off topic discussions belong.
Mac

[Ivan Beaver]

What is strange and difficult to understand for an electronic engineer than sometimes hardly measurable circuitry differences have noticeable impact on the sound quality.

This comes up all the time-especially with "audio fools".  They say they can hear the difference-but yet you can't (or their friend with an "RTA" can't.)

Well the problem is that they are simply measuring the wrong thing.

We have instruments that can measure all sorts of detail beyound what we can hear.  The problem is that you have to have the tools and the skill to use them-and knowing what to measure before you can say you can hear things you "can't measure".  This is the place where the arguments start to fall apart.

Of course the other thing is that the "hearing tests" have to be repeatable in a blind situation-or they are totally invalid.  Goood quality measurements are easily repeatable.

[Peter PAPP]

For example all manufacturers of amplifiers state typical technical parameters of equipments on resistive loading.
It is easy to measure and make differences between various devices for everybody.
However especially this is what those amps will never really see in their life -- the resistive load-- because most of the dynamics speakers are pretty complex loads. This is one reason why two exactly same (standard way) measured device could have so different sound.

I do not say that the measurement method would be bad but but may does not correlates exactly with the listening tests.
And yes, I have been thinking about multiple repeatable listening tests where the differences are trivial.

sorry for my bad English
Péter

[John Roberts {JR}]

For example all manufacturers of amplifiers state typical technical parameters of equipments on resistive loading.
It is easy to measure and make differences between various devices for everybody.
However especially this is what those amps will never really see in their life -- the resistive load-- because most of the dynamics speakers are pretty complex loads. This is one reason why two exactly same (standard way) measured device could have so different sound.

I do not say that the measurement method would be bad but but may does not correlates exactly with the listening tests.
And yes, I have been thinking about multiple repeatable listening tests where the differences are trivial.

sorry for my bad English
Péter

Yes but amplifier designers use real world loads to design their amps (at least the good ones do).

They deliver pretty bench test numbers using special low inductance load resistors, because the consumers spending their hard earned money believe them and want them...

What else is new?

JR

[ProSoundWeb Community]