The official "Theta" thread - Page 73

Nothing to use the USB port for right now so thats not a problem, is it?

You do it first and tell me if your SSP falls apart!!!???

Sort of like your sex life, eh?

Still crazy after all these years (34+.) Your Marriage Counselor, Norm

I'm only 29+ years!

17 of those having Theta Digital gear! (started with Generation VA DAC backin 1994)

Also consider the impact of there variables:

Resolution of source material: It is possible to a listerner ABC the CBIII HD sounds better than another high end processer (may be even "the best possible" i.e. SOTA) on 48/24, yet not on 88/24, 96/24, 192/24 source material. If listener ABC listens 95% of the time to 48/24 or lower source material (i.e. the vast majority of listeners), the CBIII HD is SOTA. If listener OTAH, ABC is a classical music afficionado listening 80% of the time to MCH SACD, it is not.

Room EQ impact: The impact of room EQ is a function of room, which is obviously a unique variable in every setup. If could be that the our listener ABC prefers the CBIII HD over another high end processer (that with EQ in room) in room X which benefits little from EQ, yet prefers the processor with EQ in room B which benefits tremendously from EQ.

Bass Management impact: The same argument can be made for bass management (albeit inverted). If the CBIII HD has SOTA bass management, listener ABC may pick the CBIII HD over another high end processer in a system that benefits a lot from advanced bass management, and flip the choice in a system that does not.

These three examples show that any categorical statements about which processes is "the best" are suspect, not just because different users have different preferences, but also because the same listener can change his preference depending on context.

All this notwithstanding, if a lot of different listeners in all sort of different setups, consistently pick the CBIII HD as their prefered SSP, this is a a good indication that under the most commonly found real world circumances the CBIII HD is SOTA, which is why real world shootout adds to our insight.

A final consideration is of course budget. In the (hypothetical) case a CBIII owner has a slight preference for a 30K krell over the CBIII HD - unless said listener is a hedge fund manager (or a very successfull dentist) - this is a moot point. Although not absolute SOTA, his upgraded CBIII would still be SOTA at its pricepoint (i.e. the best he can get his hands on below $10K).

Not sure if these observations qualify as trolling, but I'll soon find out. Cheers!

In fact, Roger, I did use PEQ and set it up to the best of my ability, which I am sure could be improved upon by someone who really knows what they are doing. But AGAIN, I did not say the Theta was better, just different--more likeable for what I listen to.
I got a CBI back in 97 or 98, whenever it first came out and had it upgraded into the II, and eventually sold it because it was developing too many idiosyncrasies(sp?). I tried several SSPs and only went back to Theta when it really looked like the HD was a go. The positioning of everything stayed the same--furniture, speakers, etc so those variables can be eliminated. We listen to red book CDs and watch movies, and for this we liked the 'Theta sound.'

I am not so sure about that... My wife is a "photo-phile" and they keep having the same discussions about numbers that has been here. Over in those forums it is megapixels that is the hype, but maybe less! Most of them seem to be very well aware of the fact that over resolution what kind of optics you have is a lot more important. A high quality 8 MP Nikon DSLR with a nice lens is still a lot better than a Bling-Bling camera with the double MPs. I believe that is relevant in here as well. We know that there are a lot of other things that matters, not only sample rates!

So gentlemen, can´t we skip these discussions about numbers etc by now? I think me and others are kind of tired of them, at least in the form they have taken. I am sorry if I also brought this up, but my intention was different. I just wanted to know what will be inside the unit I will receive. Not because I will be unsatisfied with that.

And also, when we know that Theta is already working on the next upgrade, I think these discussions now are kind of unnecessary. What we can get from this is that the future as CBIII HD owners seems bright.

And until then, in the Theta fan club we will now stick to and enjoy our current CHIII HD that every current owner in here says sound fabulous, and when we can do next upgrade we will do that. And to discuss what comes next is of course of great interest, but that is totally different from repeatingly complaining about the current CBIII HD specs.

Bingo - BINGO - BINGO - BIIIIIIINGOOO!

Photography is my other hobby - like my sports car hobby, carried to a quite nutty level - and the megapixel count war is the very same exact example that I was going to cite. The similarity is remarkable. You have these pocket cameras with the throw-away lens, and their tiny little sensor with 12 megapixel count!

My photography collection consists of all-out SOTA lenses and an old 4 megapixel professional camera. Friends who look at my (amateur) portfolio always have a hard time believing that it's a humble 4 megapixel camera.
https://picasaweb.google.com/1161884...29151522074338

OK, I give up. If making the observation that it is possible for someone to prefer processor A for 96/24 material and processor B for 48/24, qualifies as "repeatingly complaining about the current CBIII HD specs." is now off limits, i throw in the towel. I will shut up.

Roger, please refrain from mentioning that the impact of EQ (which varies by room) may have an impact SSP preference, because by current standards of admissible discussion topics this clearly qualifies as ""repeatingly complaining about the current CBIII HD specs. (i.e. lack of EQ)".

Happy listening everyone.

Ed there is not much disagreement I have with this well thought out summary, except for the part highlighted. You own Avalon - I knew there was hope for you! Just kidding/teasing. The part highlighted: Not necessarily! As mentioned several times: You can't use numbers to predict quality. What listening test do you have to prove that it's not SOTA when listening to SACD?
IM very humble opinion, the (major) flaw of many of your arguments is that speculative conclusions have been made based on numbers, and not actual listening test. Did you buy Avalon because of its frequency response? How would you like it if I say the Avalon sounds like **** because the woofer is not 12 inches, or there are not two of the 11" drivers, or what have you, or its in-room response is suspect? Numbers are not everything and the Eiodolon is SOTA because of listening test shows it to be so, not because of a frequency response graph, no?

BTW, am I correct or this statistics shows that 0.67% of movies are done at 96?
http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/Stats.php
The table in the lower left hand corner shows audio, 96 khz, 0.67%? Anyone please correct me as needed.

The interesting thing about the point of PEQ making the Classe sound "better": If, a big if, Classe could then match Theta's sound quality because of that, it is because of PEQ, not 96/24.

I believe EQ in some rooms and setups can be needed, but I think many in general has a tendency to exaggerate the importance of EQ. In my experience so far, a lot of Audio Equipment with EQ actually can sound worse with EQ applied than not. That is if it isn´t of absolute top quality, at the same level as the rest of your gear and also if you have a well treated room. EQ has a tendency to be a dynamics killer, and also often removes some of the fullness and ´body´of the music. I had some big issues in my system earlier, and EQ just couldn´t solve it.

I think it is best to try to optimize everything else in the setup and let EQ be the last thing you do, and maybe only if you absolutely need it. You can not apply EQ as a magic formula. EQ should only be the icing on the cake.

Some of the equipment with EQ that I have some negative experience with has been Anthem d2v, Cary Cinema 11a (which I must say sounds terrible with EQ applied), Lyngdorf integrated amplifier and Aerial SW12 sub (EQ in analog domain. Sub gets noticable slower). I am not saying that these cannot work in some others setups, but these are my subjective experiences. But I have a couple of nice experiences with EQ as well. That has been with ProFabfilter software for Mac (plug-in with Pure Music, and done in the digital domain) and the PBK EQ software for Paradigm subwoofers.

Below 80-100Hz I believe EQ often is needed, but for higher frequencies my advice will be to try to avoid it. When I bought the CBIII HD I did not know – and did not expect - that there would be a future option for EQ. The lack of EQ was never a major issue when I placed my order. Why? I have very nice EQ on my subs, and I also have a well treated room so I am not sure if I will need EQ at all.

I believe a discussion like EQ or not EQ easily ends up in the same ditch as the discussion of sample rates - or megapixels! It is not necessarily better with EQ than not. It is the quality of the software and how it is implemented which is crucial. But I have faith in ATI/Theta that when they do this, and for a product which already is considered SOTA, it will be a plus. Icing on the cake

Maybe you have not been complaining about the CBIII HD. Forgive me, I am not fluent in English, but maybe a better word would be "questioning". Well the point is that there is no guarantee with SACD or hirez audio that processor A which is capable of 96/24 is better than processor B which only is 48/24 capable. It could be, but you cannot say that because of the specs in the way you did. I think that is all a lot of us have tried to explain lately. Not that it is not a good thing to be capable of 96/24 or 192/24, but there are so many other things that are important as well.

I can give you an example from my own audio journey. At one time, I owned both the Burmester 069 CD player (redbook only player) and an Accuphase DP700 CD/SACD player. When playing a hybrid SACD where I knew that the SACD layer was better than the Redbook layer I still preferred the Burmester playing the redbook layer over the Accuphase on the SACD layer. The latter was the most ´capable´player according to specs in this scenario, but nonetheless the Burmester was clearly superior. Actually I ended up selling the Accuphase player. The Burmester always killed it... - but it is still not possible to play hires SACDs with it! But is the Burmester a SOTA player? I promise you, it is!!!

ps/edit: You did not only say that someone could "prefer" A over B, you say that now, but this is what you said in your previous post: "If listener ABC listens 95% of the time to 48/24 or lower source material (i.e. the vast majority of listeners), the CBIII HD is SOTA. If listener OTAH, ABC is a classical music afficionado listening 80% of the time to MCH SACD, it is not.".

Since I raised the EQ issue, allow me to clarify that by no means was I advocating EQ in general. The discussion was regarding the SSP-800 and its PEQ, which, owing to being inside its DSP and running with extended resolution processing, imposes no sonic degradations as from cascaded A/D or other technical limitations of outboard EQ.

The question of exaggeration is a matter of opinion. Theta owners appear to be tuned in to small sonic details more than most, and willing to pay a premium to get improvements, even if those would be lost on "regular folk." Nothing wrong with that--it's the nature and fun of the enthusiast hobby.

Why, then would an improvement, even a small one, from the use of EQ not be similarly embraced? Well, because for Theta users that was not an option. That is going to change once Dirac Live is made available.

Exactly. There is no substitute for a well-treated room. No EQ can fix that.

If the sub gets slower, it was not because of the EQ circuitry, but how it was adjusted to work within the room. Can't blame the sub for that. But you are dead right that not all EQs are created equal. Some are even scary.

The full band automatic EQ systems raise three concerns for me. 1) They may be fiddling with parts of the spectrum that need no fiddling, 2) they may be applying more "correction" than necessary, and 3) they offer no means to tweak the results.

MultEQ Pro allows adjustment of the global target curve, and Dirac allows the target for each channel to be adjusted. That's important IMHO. ARC allows the correction to be limited to a set frequency between 200 Hz and 20 kHz, IIRC, but no adjustment of the target curve except "room gain."

As for scary, MultEQ XT has an odd characteristic of applying higher resolution as frequency increases. See the blue trace in the first attached plot. If that degree of "correction" was justifiable, then why would the new/improved XT32 eliminate it (red trace)? Please note, these plots are the electrical response of the equalizer, not acoustic measurements.

Dirac has no option to restrict the correction range like ARC.

Need? No. Benefit from? Probably.

The second of the attached plots shows three flavors of icing. Red is MultEQ XT, gold is Dirac Live, green is PEQ in SSP-800 (based on the Dirac curve). And just as with pictures of cakes, there's no way to tell which will taste best.

"- and the megapixel count war is the very same exact example that I was going to cite. The similarity is remarkable. You have these pocket cameras with the throw-away lens, and their tiny little sensor with 12 megapixel count!

My photography collection consists of all-out SOTA lenses and an old 4 megapixel professional camera."

But on the flip side of that... you take your same lenses and uses them on a current state of the art camera (with increased pixel count) and your picture quality is going to improve. More dynamic range, greater flexibility in ISO (less noise) and of course the ability to crop/enlarge a lot further before pixels get in the way.

I can take great pictures with my 2.7ish MP Nikon D1H... in the right conditions. My 12mp D700 can take better pictures in far wider conditions.

Shawn

Armand, you misunderstood what I was saying. The quote you added was contingent on the preceding sentence, which you did not include in the quote. What I tried to say is that it is conceivable (NOT a forgone conclusion) that someone prefers the CBIII HD over the Meridian 861v6 with 48/24 material, but the Meridian over the CBIII HD on 96/24, because some resolution is lost on the CBIII. If this is the case, what is the "best" processor for this listener depends on his listening profile. For the vast majority of users it would the CBIII HD, but say Kal R. would pick the Meridian because he uses his processor mainly for high rez music. It is also conceivable someone always prefers the CBIII HD over the Meridian or vice versa, because a preferrence of the sonic signature of one over the other trumps all other difference. I did not think this would be an overly controversial idea, but I may be wrong. Like you, I am not a native speaker, so may be I did not express myself clearly.

The notion that 96/24 sound better than 48/24 just because it is higher resolution is of course ridculous, and I would never suggest such a thing, nor recall having done so in the past.

Cannga, I have been extremly carefull not draw ANY speculative conclusions about sound quality on this forum (please show me where I did). The point I was trying to make in my post was that whatever piece of equipment sounds best is dependent on a lot of variables and chaining these variables may flip the vote.

Come to think of it. I predicted DSD direct analog out would sound better than converted to PCM over HDMI into the CBIII HD with Xtreme cards. This was based not on numbers, but on my personal experience with loss in SQ when switching from DSD direct to PCM in my source player. It is entirely possible I am wrong on this one.

All one really needs to test is 24/48 to see which processor they prefer. It's likely that which ever one you like most, the results will hold as you increase resolution. That's been my experience. If you prefer the Theta at 24/48, just wait for the "bottle neck," to be removed and you will like it even more. If the Meridian, then you are good to go right now.

Personally, I like all of the Meridian products I have tried. Could live with either brand. Theta was easier to acquire, more units for sale. Later, I found that I preferred the sound of the Casablanca as well. Also, at the time, I did not like the fact, that Meridian digitized everything,analog. I am not sure what happens now. Either processor is first rate. I wonder how the 861v6 would fair against the Casablanca HD/Gen VIII combo as well?

Good point, fellow photographer. And the flip side of *that*: one, my analogy is set for throw-away cameras only. Here increased megapixels don't necessarily help, and could hurt. Second, in *your* analogy, the Theta at 48 *is* the D700 - or whatever "best" megapixel you determine it to be, the next step up is therefore of questionable value. Sorry - I set the analogy, I get to set the conditions.

Regardless, you could win this argument about analogy, but that would not alter my beliefs.
**One, the basis for this audio hobby is the listening test.
**Two, the possibility is distinct, that a Theta 48/24 machine *could* sound better than a Classe 96/24, invalidating using 96/24 standard as the sole criteria, or perhaps criteria period (remember we have no proof so far, in fact Classe even claims they prefer 96 to 192 implying the issue is more complicated than we think), to predict sound performances between 2 machines.

I have another interesting thought, to me anyway: Assuming that my interpretation and this site are correct (anyone pls correct me as needed) http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/Stats.php, 99.33% of Blu-Ray is at 48/24. Now, what proof or conclusive test do we have that over-sampling to 96 and processing at 96 helps, and not **hurts**, the sound of these particular movies?! I don't know. Anyone wants to tackle this?

I think you meant they prefer 96 kHz to 192 kHz (for their DACs). Right?

^^^Yes. Thanks Roger.

No one ever suggested upsampling to 96/24 is beneficial, and it has been repeatedly stated that for the vast majority of content lack of 96/24 capability of the CBIII HD is a non issue. However, it is a fact that when native 96/24 is downsampled to 48/24 some resolution is lost, which will impact mostly SACD. Even at that, no one has even ruled out the possibility that 96/24 downsampled to 48/24 on the Theta is not the best available SQ available - better than anything else in native 96/24. Only our ears will be able to make that judgement. The only thing we can say with any level of certainty that a CBIII HD 96/24 will sound better than a CBIII HD 48/24.

Wow- what a thread/last few pages---AVS should make this a PPV channel for entertainment...and Jeff/Thebland did not contribute a single post

I am amused but not surprised to see apologists justify lack of features- it is deja vu like HDMI (hdmi is poor) among Meridian and Theta owners when their products did not have it, and EQ (not up to stuff, or poor implementation). When feature comes along there are no complaints-and everything is excellent

I would like my CB3HD with 24/96 support for few of my albums and am not satisfied even if it is the 'best' processor- since it has even better potential Folks at Theta are working on it. A passionate user/forum member has every right to highlight or even vent (like edorr).

Agree ultimately it is your ears but more importantly hearing it in your system/room that counts when you make your informed choice.

Back to regular programming..

Regards,
Kishore

Absolutely, we want the "best" with no bottleneck. But we are glad to have got the "bottleneck" 48k that we got because in this lousy economy we were darn lucky to get it for a reasonable price. Here's hopin' we can get the rest of the way, too!

Just remember, the CB1 was improved sonically by the CB2. The CB2 was improved sonically by the CB3. Now the CB3 is improved sonically by the CB3 HD, even if the CB3 HD didn't have the new audio hi rez processing.
At the higher end of the spectrum, sonic improvement tends to come in stages!

Me too, a V and a Data I, I think in '90 - '92. Norm

You beat me by a few years on Theta gear.

Back 1992 I was just "downsizing" by selling cheap my Infinity 2002 4 way monstrous boxlike speakers and a Pioneer 1010 100 watt per channel stereo receiver and a Dual turntable that I bought back in 1974 upon graduating college and which got me thru law school 1975 -78. Our then new and still current home, my first home theater was down our basement, with in wall speakers to keep the wife happy! My andio and home theater evolution thereafter has been an accumulationof theta and aerial particles ever since!

Ok, thanks. Nice to know.

I believe Meridian and Ayre have shown their upsampling apodizing filters yield benefit. Each have provided white papers about it. I'm not saying this is conclusive proof, just entering it into evidence.

You can include PS Audio as well

Ayre whitepaper is here

Can-no guarantee or proof-ultimately it is about implementation and more importantly your sonic preferences. Folks have preferred other gear in comparison to Ayre/Meridian equipment and vice-versa.

Regards,
Kishore

Any yet you switched to Theta from Meridian??? You gave up room correction? HDMI is poor. The standard has constantly changed, the connector is flimsy, and apparently it lacks the band width to allow EQ in a third party box for 7.1 at 24/96. I suspect that like Lumagen with video processing, the best "room correction," would come from third party specialists.