AVS Forum banner
5M views 55K replies 2K participants last post by  TurboGuard 
#1 ·
 http://www.rythmikaudio.com/index.html


There never seems to be an 'Official' Rythmik thread so....


Hopefully members can post here and representatives from Rythmik (Brian) can more readily answer questions that are normally strewn about in many threads.


Rythmik now offers complete subwoofers as well as the traditional kits.


Maybe Brian will subscribe.
 
See less See more
1
#28,021 · (Edited)
Thanks. I'll read it carefully later, but my comments above hold.
This is marketing trickery about the very well studied and very marginal benefits of hi-res audio.

They are using different types of filters with pros and cons, and marketing the pros as their special sauce. Standard DACs use the types of filters they use for good reasons. These differences are especially unimportant at high sampling rates.

When Dirac talks about time-domain correction, they are talking about the kind you can hear.
 
#28,023 · (Edited)
MQA is a proprietary quasi-solution to a conjured up problem. Thus far there is no compelling evidence it is beneficial, yet there is some evidence that with certain demos MQA has "sweetened" the mix to create a false difference.

As rcohen has said, from what I have read MQA is just a lossy metadata compression scheme. All the "special-sauce" filters is the "scientific" smokescreen to convince folks that there is something new and compelling being brought to the table.

At this point in the Hi-Fi audio world the only thing will actually improve sound quality would be establishing sensible audio mixing and engineering standards.
 
#28,024 ·
MQA is a proprietary quasi-solution to a conjured up problem. Thus far there is no compelling evidence it is beneficial, yet there is some evidence that with certain demos MQA has "sweetened" the mix to create a false difference.

As rcohen has said, from what I have read MQA is just a lossy metadata compression scheme. All the "special-sauce" filters is the "scientific" smokescreen to convince folks that there is something new and compelling being brought to the table.
Ha. I said almost exactly the same thing in my last edit, above. :)
 
#28,026 · (Edited)
MQA is trying to fix something that is not fixable: ultra heavy dynamic compression on the mastering process. If I switch between TIDAD HiFi and MASTER, I can hear just a little bit of improvement on the detail but the heavy dynamic compression is still there as it has been in any record mastered from 1996.
 
#28,027 ·
I do believe the MiniDSP stuff can be swiched with a remote.

After that, you could use a receiver with a single preset.
That is good news. I could get a receiver with enough Atmos channels for my taste and Audyssey, I think this means I would have MultiEQ32 since I want 7.2.4, and just use it for a while. If I am happy with the sound then great. If not then I could add on a MiniDSP and gain switchable filters, as well. Plus I could use DynamicEQ.

Two questions then:

1) Don't I need to have Audyssey active on the reciever to use DynamicEQ? I wouldn't want to mix Audyssey and Dirac.

2) Atmos probably throws a wrench in things. I thought you could get a MiniDSP with Dirac with up to 8 channels. So either I could get two of those, which is quite expensive or maybe the top speakers would have any room EQ?
 
#28,028 ·
FV15HP Set up advice

I got my FV15HP yesterday, and my first impression was underwhelming. I want to get the most of my system and hoping that with some adjustments to settings(with help from the forum) I may be happier

I currently have 2 Sierra 2 as LR, Horizon as a C and CMB -170 as surrounds. Reciever is a Onkyo NR636 With this set up I was a little underwhelmed at first too but started to love it in a couple of days. With the FV15HP I have seen a pretty immediate in TV/movies as if the LRCs "don't have to work as hard". The speakers perform better at lower volumes and do get some bassy effects in movies. But with music the performance is pretty on par to before having the sub and not seeing much of a difference. I have played with damping from low to high but really not seeing a difference. I have followed all the recommended settings in the paperwork included in the sub.

My receiver auto setup set sub to -2db. I read on a forum that in should be around -6db. What is recommendation?

Also I am confused about input cables. My old sub(HTIB onkyo sub) only had a single RCA cable input while this one has 2 for right and left(LFE and input). Looks like my Onkyo does have two outputs but I originally thought it was for two separate subs. Should I run a single cable to line in or LFE, should I split a single cable to one of each, or should I run two cables from sub to each.

Thanks guys in advance!
 
#28,029 ·
That is good news. I could get a receiver with enough Atmos channels for my taste and Audyssey, I think this means I would have MultiEQ32 since I want 7.2.4, and just use it for a while. If I am happy with the sound then great. If not then I could add on a MiniDSP and gain switchable filters, as well. Plus I could use DynamicEQ.

Two questions then:

1) Don't I need to have Audyssey active on the reciever to use DynamicEQ? I wouldn't want to mix Audyssey and Dirac.

2) Atmos probably throws a wrench in things. I thought you could get a MiniDSP with Dirac with up to 8 channels. So either I could get two of those, which is quite expensive or maybe the top speakers would have any room EQ?
1) DynamicEQ and MultiEQ can be switched on and off separately. You are correct not to use MultiEQ and Dirac Live at the same time.

2) True there are still limited options for Atmos:
a) Wait.
b) Arcam's receivers with Dirac + Atmos. (There have been questions raised on AVS whether it is a bad implementation.)
c) Datasat. $$$$$
d) Use a single MiniDSP, and miss out on Dirac for the height channels.
e) Use two MiniDSPs, plus lots of wires and extra hair pulling.
f) Just use Audyssey.

I have been using Dirac Live for PC for years for 7.1, and I am still waiting for a good Dirac Atmos option. My fingers are crossed for the RMC-1.

My overall recommendation is to try the free demo first, to see this stuff is worth it to you.
 
#28,030 ·
MQA is trying to fix something that is not fixable: ultra heavy dynamic compression on the mastering process. If I switch between TIDAD HiFi and MASTER, I can hear just a little bit of improvement on the detail but the heavy dynamic compression is still there as it has been in any record mastered from 1996.
Really, I missed that part. I guess that goes back to KMFDMvsEnya's point about establishing mastering standards.
 
#28,031 ·
Emotiva XMC-1 has an updated Atmos board coming soon ($499) and the XMC-2 Gen 3 is going to be full Atmos with Dirac Live running at 96Hz.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rcohen
#28,032 ·
I got my FV15HP yesterday, and my first impression was underwhelming. I want to get the most of my system and hoping that with some adjustments to settings(with help from the forum) I may be happier

I currently have 2 Sierra 2 as LR, Horizon as a C and CMB -170 as surrounds. Reciever is a Onkyo NR636 With this set up I was a little underwhelmed at first too but started to love it in a couple of days. With the FV15HP I have seen a pretty immediate in TV/movies as if the LRCs "don't have to work as hard". The speakers perform better at lower volumes and do get some bassy effects in movies. But with music the performance is pretty on par to before having the sub and not seeing much of a difference. I have played with damping from low to high but really not seeing a difference. I have followed all the recommended settings in the paperwork included in the sub.

My receiver auto setup set sub to -2db. I read on a forum that in should be around -6db. What is recommendation?

Also I am confused about input cables. My old sub(HTIB onkyo sub) only had a single RCA cable input while this one has 2 for right and left(LFE and input). Looks like my Onkyo does have two outputs but I originally thought it was for two separate subs. Should I run a single cable to line in or LFE, should I split a single cable to one of each, or should I run two cables from sub to each.

Thanks guys in advance!
Just use a single cable from one sub output.
Try increasing the gain on the sub, to see if you prefer more bass.
Other issues to watch out for are time alignment and placement.
Are your mains set to small? I'd recommend the small setting. YMMV.

Beyond that, you could get a calibrated mic and try REW. That will tell us a lot.
 
#28,033 ·
I got my FV15HP yesterday, and my first impression was underwhelming. I want to get the most of my system and hoping that with some adjustments to settings(with help from the forum) I may be happier

I currently have 2 Sierra 2 as LR, Horizon as a C and CMB -170 as surrounds. Reciever is a Onkyo NR636 With this set up I was a little underwhelmed at first too but started to love it in a couple of days. With the FV15HP I have seen a pretty immediate in TV/movies as if the LRCs "don't have to work as hard". The speakers perform better at lower volumes and do get some bassy effects in movies. But with music the performance is pretty on par to before having the sub and not seeing much of a difference. I have played with damping from low to high but really not seeing a difference. I have followed all the recommended settings in the paperwork included in the sub.

My receiver auto setup set sub to -2db. I read on a forum that in should be around -6db. What is recommendation?

Also I am confused about input cables. My old sub(HTIB onkyo sub) only had a single RCA cable input while this one has 2 for right and left(LFE and input). Looks like my Onkyo does have two outputs but I originally thought it was for two separate subs. Should I run a single cable to line in or LFE, should I split a single cable to one of each, or should I run two cables from sub to each.

Thanks guys in advance!
Ed, just follow @laulau setup guide and you should be OK.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1870737&d=1483483727
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ed Ramcharran
#28,034 ·
Just use a single cable from one sub output.

Try increasing the gain on the sub, to see if you prefer more bass.

Other issues to watch out for are time alignment and placement.

Are your mains set to small? I'd recommend the small setting. YMMV.



Beyond that, you could get a calibrated mic and try REW. That will tell us a lot.


I would agree completely with all of this, particularly the point about sub position, it makes a huge difference. Also try to avoid sitting in a null (the worst of all is the middle of the room).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#28,036 ·
MQA is a proprietary quasi-solution to a conjured up problem. Thus far there is no compelling evidence it is beneficial, yet there is some evidence that with certain demos MQA has "sweetened" the mix to create a false difference.

As rcohen has said, from what I have read MQA is just a lossy metadata compression scheme. All the "special-sauce" filters is the "scientific" smokescreen to convince folks that there is something new and compelling being brought to the table.

At this point in the Hi-Fi audio world the only thing will actually improve sound quality would be establishing sensible audio mixing and engineering standards.
And let me guess, the basis of your belief is the articles put out by meridian competitors such as Linn or Benchmark or Schiit?

Since they aren't biased at all.

If you are going to argue with science, then you should try and use science to do so. Did you read the article I posted?

It is somewhat ironic you mention mastering standards since that is the other half of getting full MQA quality.

The closest equivalent technology to what MQA is trying to do is actually Dolby Vision.

For example the claims about DRM are totally bogus. MQA is designed to fall back to its parent container, and MQA encoding can improve audio even if it is never unpacked. But the only part of the data with DRM is the dedicated MQA bits for time correction, which aren't particularly useful without a MQA processor.

They encoded this part to avoid having people reverse engineer their metadata and try and find their own way of using it, which seems fair to me. They are NOT doing anything that would prevent playback or copying of files. That is just fear mongering bs.

I can understand skepticism, but you aren't even considering that it COULD be better. You are just assuming they are lying.
 
#28,037 ·
Plus I could use DynamicEQ.
More detail on the problem of combining DynamicEQ and Dirac.

You need to switch DynamicEQ off during Dirac measurements (depending on your signal flow). Otherwise, DynamicEQ will crank the EQ up and down while Dirac is trying to measure/calibrate.

After the measurements, you can turn DynamicEQ on and start trying different target curves.

This stuff is really the same as using DynamicEQ with MultiEQ, except Audyssey knows to automatically turn DynamicEQ off during calibration.

For whatever reason, though, I was happier with the results from turning DynamicEQ off.
 
#28,038 ·
And let me guess, the basis of your belief is the articles put out by meridian competitors such as Linn or Benchmark or Schiit?

Since they aren't biased at all.

If you are going to argue with science, then you should try and use science to do so. Did you read the article I posted?

It is somewhat ironic you mention mastering standards since that is the other half of getting full MQA quality.

The closest equivalent technology to what MQA is trying to do is actually Dolby Vision.

For example the claims about DRM are totally bogus. MQA is designed to fall back to its parent container, and MQA encoding can improve audio even if it is never unpacked. But the only part of the data with DRM is the dedicated MQA bits for time correction, which aren't particularly useful without a MQA processor.

They encoded this part to avoid having people reverse engineer their metadata and try and find their own way of using it, which seems fair to me. They are NOT doing anything that would prevent playback or copying of files. That is just fear mongering bs.

I can understand skepticism, but you aren't even considering that it COULD be better. You are just assuming they are lying.
No. Hi-res audio and AD/DA conversion is just very mature and very well studied. There is a ton of research and studies available on these topics.

Sony made a lot of similar claims with SDDS.

Just like with SDDS, you can go with your gut, or you can go with the research.
 
#28,039 ·
No. Hi-res audio and AD/DA conversion is just very mature and very well studied. There is a ton of research and studies available on these topics.

Sony made a lot of similar claims with SDDS.

Just like with SDDS, you can go with your gut, or you can go with the research.
But everyone who actually tries MQA or does A/B demos agrees there is a not insignificant improvement AND the science says it should be better.

You have provided nothing to contradict this at all. Just your gut. It has been proven humans can perceive Time-Domain smearing down to ~5μs. Normal audio has something like 100μs. MQA is targeting 10μs for music remastered into MQA and 3μs for music that is MQA end to end. Do you have ANYTHING other than your gut that would indicate this would not be beneficial?
 
#28,040 ·
But everyone who actually tries MQA or does A/B demos agrees there is a not insignificant improvement AND the science says it should be better.

You have provided nothing to contradict this at all. Just your gut. It has been proven humans can perceive Time-Domain smearing down to ~5μs. Normal audio has something like 100μs. MQA is targeting 10μs for music remastered into MQA and 3μs for music that is MQA end to end. Do you have ANYTHING other than your gut that would indicate this would not be beneficial?
There's nothing new about apodizing filters or hi-res audio.
The only thing new here is a marketing scheme, not science.
Yes, ringing can be audible.
Filters have tradeoffs, and the filters selected in modern DACs are the result of decades of research and human studies.
At hi-res sample rates, this stuff is way below the audible threshold.
 
Top