or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › A DBT designed specifically for soundstage?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A DBT designed specifically for soundstage? - Page 2

post #31 of 98
Quote:


1. Have you ever conducted a test, DBT or sighted, specifically to check for soundstage?

No, and neither have you.
post #32 of 98
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

Yes.

Excellent!

I recall that you have an Onkyo changer. Could you try a simple A/B test with another CDP, using the methodology I've described above? An A/B portable CDP would be great, just for starters.

Since your system is capable of 3D sounstage with good image separation, I'm pretty sure you will be surprised!

Also, try the "SPL" test. Once you've got the volume at medium-high listening level, vary the volume by +/- 15% and see if the dimensions of your soundstage change.
post #33 of 98
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

1. I've done DBT's for the purposes of listening for differences. They were all level matched. I can't stress that importance enough.
2. I'm quite satisfied with my speakers and would've considered 'changing' them had I had the balls and the foresight to have bet $100 on the Giants during the entire playoffs based on what's known as the Money Line. That means, taking the winnings plus the investment and rebetting it on the total of the four playoff games. That would've netted me about 33K.

Your findings suggest you may be having room issues such as comb filtering which was described by Ethan Weiner, both here and I believe on his website. Referring to the articles which you listed would suggest that one must have their head locked firmly in a vice or between the thighs of a dominatrix in order not inadvertently introduce such ITD's. Do you hear the difference if a violin or clarinet player moves their instrument around when playing?

Regarding soundstage and all that, I have a link to a paper, actually a patent, by the late John Dunlavy on a method to optimize this using relatively available means. If you're interested, I'll dig up the link and post it. Otherwise, it's probably in the archives somewhere.

Chu Gai,
With respect, I don't know why you are deliberately not addressing my questions directly and instead throwing red herrings about room issues. (While I re-iterate that speaker placement and room acoustics is very important, they are the only among the first in the pyramid of things one needs to take care of. They can only go to a certain point in improving a non-revealing system).

You have still not stated whether you have performed tests specifically for soundstage, nor have you answered my question #2 (about whether your system can produce a 3D holographic soundstage with good image separation).
post #34 of 98
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

No, and neither have you.

An you continue parroting stuff you've been fed but never experienced.
post #35 of 98
1) I've never noticed a difference in soundstage when comparing CDP's. I've listened for differences and as far as I'm concerned, a difference in soundstage is a difference. My last comparison was with the same player as you have and one from Bel Canto that a friend of mine had.

2) This 3-D holographic thing is just a vague term to me. My speakers provide a quite realistic representation with proper imaging and spaciousness if you will. FWIW, they're Whispers.

Are you familiar with Dunlavy's method for optimizing imaging?
post #36 of 98
The problems I've had with most A-B tests is the actual music that your listening to. (note I said I'VE). When comparing amps I listened to one and then another, often not hearing much if any difference. However if I spend a week or two listening to one, and then a week or so to the other, I will find the differences in some music. Then I can take that music and put them into an A-B test and the differences are apparent. However the other problem then becomes, which one do I like better?

The other big factor that is completely dismissed is simple economics. Lots of people buy hi-fi gear enough so to support and keep hundreds of different products in many categories alive and well. If these products offered no additional value or performance, over time they simply would go away and we would be down to just a few different choices.
post #37 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakar80124 View Post

If these products offered no additional value or performance, over time they simply would go away and we would be down to just a few different choices.

Many generic products offer the same product for less money yet brand names continue to flourish. Why?
post #38 of 98
Nothing wrong with your approach dakar80124 in estabilishing what music, or snippets of music work for you. Do that sighted by all means. Then though, if you really want to know if one amp has a different sonic signature, it's helpful to run it level matched and unsighted enough times to get a statistical handle on things. Myself, I just don't worry about this, but then I just don't change my amps or whatever unless it breaks and isn't worth fixing.

Quote:


If these products offered no additional value or performance, over time they simply would go away and we would be down to just a few different choices.

You'd think so, right? How many bottled waters, shampoos, excericise programs and devices, diets, and all that do we have? Astrology is still around and strong as ever. The earth was created 9000 years ago or something like that? Homeopathic crap? The cure for Aids lies in herbs? As we have children, and our children have children, and so on, and so on, we give rise to new generations of geniuses and suckers. With the world population steadily increasing, there's no shortage of people who fall lock step with that old saying..."No one ever went broke underestimating the American people." To not be exclusionary, I can say that for every country.
post #39 of 98
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

1) I've never noticed a difference in soundstage when comparing CDP's. I've listened for differences and as far as I'm concerned, a difference in soundstage is a difference. My last comparison was with the same player as you have and one from Bel Canto that a friend of mine had.

2) This 3-D holographic thing is just a vague term to me. My speakers provide a quite realistic representation with proper imaging and spaciousness if you will. FWIW, they're Whispers.

Are you familiar with Dunlavy's method for optimizing imaging?

Chu Gai,
I don't believe I have read Dunlavy's method you mention, but I have read about comb filtering. FWIW, I've gone to great lengths to optimize speaker placement, much further than the "basics" (of distance apart, distance to listener, distance from walls, toe in angle, etc) as well as basic room fundamentals.

Now, based on what I've just been reading about your Whisper speaker by Legacy Audio, I'm very impressed by your choice. They cost more than my entire current two-channel system, excluding the discarded components.

Frankly, I am very surprised that you cannot tell the difference in soundstage (and I assume, imaging as well) between two CD players. When you made your comparisons, did you use the analog out or an outboard DAC? Have you compared two CD players of different price points (example: $150 versus $500?).

I'm trying not to sound assumptive, but this leads me to question the rest of your system. IME, the more transparent and revealing one's system, the easier it is to tell differences between components or cables.

I have no doubt that you have high end components to match your speakers. Are you also taking care of things like quality power conditioning, vibration damping and using good cables? IME, cleaning up the power is "critical", whereas cabling and vibration damping are of secondary importance.

By 3D, holographic soundstage, I mean the experience is an "almost" live one with the right recording. I've described in another thread:
Quote:
"a 3D, holographic soundstage, with jet black background in which each instrument and singer occupies its/his/her own space. With this kind of instrument separation, you should be able to hear the reverb, venue and hall sounds from within the soundstage and between the instruments. On certain "live" recordings, you should also be able to hear distinctly, members of the audience, conversing, laughing, whistling, and so on.

Seated in the sweetspot of listening room, especially with high quality recordings, your speakers should "disappear" and all you hear are the instruments and voices producing full bodied sound coming from distinct fixed spots. Within the sounstage these instruments and vocals should sound real or almost real, and depending on the recordings the instruments/vocalists should sound "in the room"."


My "lowly" $10K system can do this. FWIW, my speakers are just "lowly" Quad 22L's.

Cheers,
post #40 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by machani View Post

By 3D, holographic soundstage, I mean the experience is an "almost" live one with the right recording. I've described in another thread:
Quote:
"a 3D, holographic soundstage, with jet black background in which each instrument and singer occupies its/his/her own space. With this kind of instrument separation, you should be able to hear the reverb, venue and hall sounds from within the soundstage and between the instruments. On certain "live" recordings, you should also be able to hear distinctly, members of the audience, conversing, laughing, whistling, and so on.

Seated in the sweetspot of listening room, especially with high quality recordings, your speakers should "disappear" and all you hear are the instruments and voices producing full bodied sound coming from distinct fixed spots. Within the sounstage these instruments and vocals should sound real or almost real, and depending on the recordings the instruments/vocalists should sound "in the room"."

I get this kind of experience in my setup. So far more so with the W/P8s than the Salon2s, but I'm hoping that will change as the Salon2s break-in more. The combination of excellent acoustical room design and quality speakers seem to be crucial for achieving the maximum "lifelike" experience from a good recording.

I'm really hoping the Salon2s start to pull off the same level of realism, without having to be moved further into the room than I have already moved them. I am a big fan of technology.
post #41 of 98
I should mention... My Grateful Dead Dick's Picks recordings sound better on the Salon2s. That is a very important thing for me. Perhaps a little loss in resolution is a benefit to the lower quality recordings I have. I might keep both speakers and put the Salon2s in another room...
post #42 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by machani View Post

Excellent!

I recall that you have an Onkyo changer. Could you try a simple A/B test with another CDP, using the methodology I've described above? An A/B portable CDP would be great, just for starters.

Since your system is capable of 3D sounstage with good image separation, I'm pretty sure you will be surprised!

Also, try the "SPL" test. Once you've got the volume at medium-high listening level, vary the volume by +/- 15% and see if the dimensions of your soundstage change.

Actually, I have experienced an improvement in all areas of performance, including soundstage, by upgrading to Cambridge Audio components.
As I mentioned elsewhere, however, I upgraded both the CDP and the integrated amp at once. This makes it impossible to determine how much of the improvement each piece is responsible for on its own (and how much is due to their "synergy" with each other.)
post #43 of 98
Quote:


This makes it impossible to determine how much of the improvement each piece is responsible for on its own (and how much is due to their "synergy" with each other.)

Not to mention how much of the "improvement" is due to non-sonic factors.
post #44 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

Actually, I have experienced an improvement in all areas of performance, including soundstage, by upgrading to Cambridge Audio components.
As I mentioned elsewhere, however, I upgraded both the CDP and the integrated amp at once. This makes it impossible to determine how much of the improvement each piece is responsible for on its own (and how much is due to their "synergy" with each other.)

Why can't you just put back one of the pieces and test them independently? Don't have them anymore?
post #45 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summa View Post

Why can't you just put back one of the pieces and test them independently? Don't have them anymore?

I don't have the Onkyo changer or Carver integrated anymore. Between then and now, I was using another Onkyo, but it is a CD/receiver in one unit.
post #46 of 98
IMHO soundstage is mainly due to the recording itself, so the sounstage differences (if any) due to different gear would be very difficult to notice.

What do you think guys?
post #47 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by JorgeLopez11 View Post

IMHO soundstage is mainly due to the recording itself, so the sounstage differences (if any) due to different gear would be very difficult to notice.

What do you think guys?

The soundstage my system produces definitely appears to change based on the recording.
post #48 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

I don't have the Onkyo changer or Carver integrated anymore. Between then and now, I was using another Onkyo, but it is a CD/receiver in one unit.

Cool, so are you pretty happy with the Cambridge gear? Seems to be well-regarded stuff.
post #49 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summa View Post

Cool, so are you pretty happy with the Cambridge gear? Seems to be well-regarded stuff.

I am very happy with it (not just the sound, but the looks/build also.) Assuming I upgrade my 2-channel electronics again, it will be to move up in the Cambridge line rather than to change brands. When I see other CD player and integrated amp pairings in magazines, none look more appealing than the Cambridges.
Their speakers are also outstanding for the size, though upgrading would require changing brands (they don't make any larger ones.) I actually prefer them to my Mirage floorstanders in many ways.
post #50 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

I am very happy with it (not just the sound, but the looks/build also.) Assuming I upgrade my 2-channel electronics again, it will be to move up in the Cambridge line rather than to change brands. When I see other CD player and integrated amp pairings in magazines, none look more appealing than the Cambridges.
Their speakers are also outstanding for the size, though upgrading would require changing brands (they don't make any larger ones.) I actually prefer them to my Mirage floorstanders in many ways.

That's awesome. I was very close to buying their 840 CDP until I got all on this squeezebox kick. I don't have either in here yet, but getting there.
post #51 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summa View Post

That's awesome. I was very close to buying their 840 CDP until I got all on this squeezebox kick. I don't have either in here yet, but getting there.

http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/summar...k+music+server
post #52 of 98
Quote:

That looks like a very cool product. I had considered some music servers, mainly the Olive Opus, but then learned about the SB. I may end up not liking it, but I'm pretty interested in iTunes and Apple Lossless compatibility, so I pulled the trigger on it. I'm not sure I could see the display of a server from my chair, either, and it's not really feasible for me to fire up my projector just to see an on-screen display. Otherwise I may have gone in that direction. If the SB doesn't work out, I will definitley reevaluate, though. Thanks for the info
post #53 of 98
Hard to argue with what you said Jorge. After that, it's just a question of how well or poorly the speakers work with the room.
post #54 of 98
What I would be interested in is if people vary in the interpretation of image with the exact same parameters. After all, stereo is an illusion anyway so I would love to see tests to see if the same areas of the brain are affected by different people listening to the exact same system and source material. Don't know if it would tell you anything but I have heard quite a number of systems and many in my own possession, and I have never experienced that precise soundstage people talk about especially depth, altough I suspect that has a lot to do with rear refections. Is it possible people vary in their interpretations?
post #55 of 98
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randybes View Post

What I would be interested in is if people vary in the interpretation of image with the exact same parameters. After all, stereo is an illusion anyway so I would love to see tests to see if the same areas of the brain are affected by different people listening to the exact same system and source material.

The study of spatial sound is not new. Look up my previous posts in this thread for the wiki links. Stereo is an illusion, but it is not something the brain "conjures up" at will. The ability to interpret spatial sound is something that is "hard wired" in the brain. Here is a link to a recent study at the Helsinki University of Technology:
http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2007/isbn9789...9512290512.pdf

Quote:


Don't know if it would tell you anything but I have heard quite a number of systems and many in my own possession, and I have never experienced that precise soundstage people talk about especially depth, altough I suspect that has a lot to do with rear refections. Is it possible people vary in their interpretations?

The depth cues in the soundstage are definitely not due to rear reflections.

IME, even with expensive systems, pin point imaging with proper depth cues is not possible if there is noise present in the audio signal or if the speakers are placed incorrectly, especially too close to the rear or side walls.

Unfortunately, a lot of vendors of high end products also do not se up their listening room properly, either.

However there are many that do. An example is Singnature Audio in Vancouver. The last time I visited them, they had their system set up right and I experienced some pretty astounding 3D holographic sound.

It really beats me why the "objectivist" community discounts, and even worse, disapproves of, power conditioning, likening it to snake oil. Since we are talking about ITD (interaural time delays) as low as 10 microseconds, the output signals have to be pretty clean and interfernce can mess it up. Of course, you need to start with a pair of phase coherent speakers.
post #56 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by machani View Post

The depth cues in the soundstage are definitely not due to rear reflections.

I agree with that. My speakers are much too far from the wall behind them for that to be a factor (about 8 ft.) In fact, I think reflections have little to do with soundstage because I have heard a great soundstage from speakers set up outdoors, with no nearby walls to reflect off of at all.
post #57 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by JorgeLopez11 View Post

IMHO soundstage is mainly due to the recording itself, so the sounstage differences (if any) due to different gear would be very difficult to notice.

What do you think guys?

I have three different means of listening to music. One, is a Denon DVD-5910 with HDCD. Two, is the Meridian 861 DACs with Room correction. Three, is the Ayre C-5xe without room correction or HDCD.

All three sound different soundstage-wise in terms of positioning, depth, width, so on and so forth. Of course, there are good reasons why this is the case (HDCD vs. Room Correction vs. none)... In these comparisons the differences are not difficult to notice. I don't think that is what you had in mind though.
post #58 of 98
I've run through the link you provided machani. On page 22 he states, "Visual dominance
over hearing has been shown also in modern experiments, for example with the ventriloquism effect, where a voice is perceived to emerge from other than the actual sound source [6]. There visual domination is however not universal. In accordance to Gestalt principles, conflicting sensory information can result in a totally unexpected perception, as demonstrated by the McGurk effect and related experiments [7, 8]."


This indicates as others have repeatedly stated that your sighted tests need to be conducted unsighted in order to obtain any validity. Also, on page 41 he states, "The perceived direction can be manipulated by adjusting signal amplitudes [83]." Now this directly contradicts your personal assessment that varying the volume doesn't change the soundstage within a certain range,

The paper itself looks to examine perception of direction in an anechoic chamber using multichannel reproduction. It does not deal with music, but with probes of a restricted frequency span.

As it stands right now machani, you've not taken to heart the recommendations of people here and ignored the admonitions in the paper you cite. So, you're making predictions and speculations on personal investigations that do not approach even a modicum of rigorousness. You use information from the paper out of context (you read the entire thing?!) to support your non-rigorous investigations and have not proposed an invesigation that will do so.

In many ways this is so much like Dr. Brian Josephson, nobel laureate in Physics, who proposes quantum mechanical models to account for parapsychological phenomona without first determining whether the claims are valid. Or like Fleishman & Pons who never performed replication expermiments or peer review before telling the world cold fusion is real. Don't create your own version of the Maginot line.
post #59 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randybes View Post

What I would be interested in is if people vary in the interpretation of image with the exact same parameters. After all, stereo is an illusion anyway so I would love to see tests to see if the same areas of the brain are affected by different people listening to the exact same system and source material. Don't know if it would tell you anything but I have heard quite a number of systems and many in my own possession, and I have never experienced that precise soundstage people talk about especially depth, altough I suspect that has a lot to do with rear refections. Is it possible people vary in their interpretations?

I would wager, based on studies posted awhile ago about how people experience stereophonic illusions differently, that different brains can process stereophonic effects of particular speakers differently. It does explain why people can experience different things with the same speaker.

Here is the link that was posted awhile back: http://deutsch.ucsd.edu/
post #60 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

In many ways this is so much like Dr. Brian Josephson, nobel laureate in Physics, who proposes quantum mechanical models to account for parapsychological phenomona without first determining whether the claims are valid. Or like Fleishman & Pons who never performed replication expermiments or peer review before telling the world cold fusion is real. Don't create your own version of the Maginot line.

Yes, some guy on a message board not conducting audio experiments in a manner that several other guys on a message board say he should is just like those things.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › A DBT designed specifically for soundstage?