** OFFICIAL ** -- Sound Quality (SQ) Discussion - Page 8

amen... imo/ime, if the mix/master is good, it doesn't really matter a hill of beans what the bit/sample rates are... i buy and spin sacd's, for three reasons:

- the mix/master tends to be better...
- multi-channel...
- because i can...

but if a hybrid sacd has as "good" of a mix on the cd layer as the sacd layer, and i ripped that cd layer to a 256vbr aac file and play it back from my mac mini, you have to listen VERY hard and know what to listen for in order for any differences to be heard... you can compress the crap outta stuff with a "modern" codec and get very good results... and if you are a bit more generous than 256vbr, you can get outstanding results...

whereas if the mix/master is crap, all the bits in the world won't make a difference... it's gonna sound horrid, regardless... and the sad part is, as you move up the sq ladder (better speakers, improved room, better resolution room eq), it only sounds MORE horrid...

there's a lot of preconceived notions about bit/sample rate, some from experience (i.e. people who listened to a mp3 10 years ago on a crap pair of buds, for example), and some from assumptions (i.e. "more" data HAS to result in "better" sound)...

ymmv, imo, ime, etc.


gee, what a surprise, we agree again...

you can't spend a better 25 bucks in audio than the everest book... the bang for the buck is off the charts... and for someone like me, who doesn't have any advanced degrees (unless you consider a hs diploma an advanced degree ), it's very accessible... i don't have to reference another book to understand what he's trying to tell me...



the hard stuff is what you guys are around for... the stuff i don't understand, i "accept to be true" when advice is given from people i trust, and simply apply the advice... eventually, by applying that advice, i come to at least a rudimentary understanding of what i'm doing...

That seems to be the new definition of "trolling." Fwiw, I had the same thing happen and had to recheck my posts only to find others were reading into them something that was not there.

For Acoustic Panels Auralex also makes the Sonic Print. Not sure if available down under.
http://www.auralex.com/sonicprint/

Many other companies make similar panels but you can do much of this yourself with regular art. Take a regular painting or picture printed on a fabric and put raw fiberglass (not the insulation kind) behind it. Make sure you have enough thickness in the frame to fit the panels behind it. You want at least 1" and preferrably 2".

BTW, you don't always want to treat first reflections with absorption, sometimes diffusion or not to treat at all is a better option. Depends on the off axis response of the speaker at thereflection point and the amount a delay the reflection causes.

If you treat good first reflections with absorption you can hurt your enevopment or what Floyd referes to as apparent source width. I think most audiophiles would use the term soundstage and a wide or narrow soundstage can be affected by acoustic treatments as well as focus (aka imaging for the audiophiles) and clarity/ detail.

Much of this is covered in Floyd's book.

With older material, there are multiple potential problems with the master. Tape ages, and you can lose FR just because it's old. Multiple generations of a master may exist. Whatever one thinks about the audibility of changes wrought by a few DA/AD/DA/AD steps, there is no question that even the highest end tape machines are physically incapable of avoid losses when you copy from one tape to another. The first time I heard a CD of Miles' Kind of Blue, I was shocked at how lousy the music was. The murkiness of the multigenerational copy used to master the early cd was so bad it literally interfered with the ability to hear these masters at work. I got a copy tha thad been mastered from a clean master with attention to appropriate CD mastering and viola! music!

This use of degraded tapes happened a lot in early CD, as I understand it. Somehow labels thought that "perfect sound forever" eliminated the basic GI/GO axiom. Doesn't.

While I've seen numerous recording engineers who say they can hear the improvements in A/D stages available for the recording process versus the early ones, I'm relatively agnostic on the topic. But as I understand it, in early CD production from analog masters, the approach used to get the frequencies above 22 KHz out (onaccounta they'll cause bizarre and ugly noises when digitized with a system that can't "see" that high a frequency) actually did much of the early CD damage. Steep filters, badly implemented, caused problems that have since been essentially eliminated AFAIK.

Now all we have to deal with is the utter removal of dynamics form much popular music . . . .

I just, at this very late stage, acquired a player that can play SACD (because I wanted real surround mixes). I like it, but have not (and never may) attempted to assess whether I can hear differences between the DSD and CD layers on my system. A little like the lossless BD codecs, I play 'em because I can (so why not?), and don't worry about whether they make much difference . . .

"Sraight and untouched from the master tape" is not always the best idea...

Those early ADCs had some issues, true. Still, some amazing CDs were produced, proving again it ain't (all) the bits, at least to me. Remember Sheffield Labs, etc.? Delta-sigma converters (1-bit, PCM, whatever) are largely responsible for reducing the imapct of those nasty filters.... Higher sampling rates (in any architecture) also helps a great deal.

The room size is 9.0m (29.5') across the front (in line with the front speakers) which included the void over the stairwell, and 7.5 m (24.5') front to back. I've added a couple of photos. The ceiling is 2.7m high (9') and the floors are polished wood with a rug in the central area. The rears are ceiling speakers because of the size of the room





Any suggestions for acoustic panels?

Many, starting with a rug and bass traps, but check out all the info on www.realtraps.com. Ethan posts here often.

Folks, there's reference in ccotenj's recet post to a book by Everest and another by Toole. There's also reference in a recent post by BobL to a book by Floyd.

It would be helpful to know the full book titles of these three books?

Best for room acoustics and practical knowledge for HT.
http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduc...0020595&sr=1-1

Other reference books:
Good reference on acoustics.
http://www.amazon.com/Master-Handboo...0020817&sr=1-1

Good reference to learn about sound, frequencies and listening skills.
http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Liste...0020817&sr=1-2

Steve,

Bring your speakers forward. The center speaker should be at the front of that entertainment cabinet, you are reflecting sound up from the cabinet as it is now. The L/R speaker bring them out more to the sides so they are not right against the cabinet and if you add drapes slightly in front of the windows. Also, bring them forward to be even or slightly in front of the cabinet and toe them in slightly towards the main listening position.

Your room looks pretty live and bringing down the overall reverberation in that room would help a lot. Heavy drapes/curtains (or acoustic shades - expensive) for the windows and sliding glass doors would help. The artwork you have behind the table could use some fiberglass behind them. Other art elements like that would help.

I'm not sure how thick the throw rug is but a thick throw rug with a pad under it would also help.

Bob

Bob,

Excellent advice! I looked at the pictures of Steve's room and did not focus on the location of the speakers. Something as simple as moving the center forward and moving the R&L speakers out from the stand and forward will be a big help. There is definitely plenty of space to make all those changes.

Bill

Hmmm..... I believe that advice has already been mentioned. What do you mean by "and not symmetrical about the Centerline"?

Bill

I try to place my speakers a bit forward of my AV furniture with the idea to avoid interference. Not sure important that is - acoustics is somewhat of a mystery to me with that boundary interaction stuff.

Thanks Guys,

I've moved the speakers to the front of the AV cabinet which gets them about 15-16" (at the back of the speakers) off the back wall. It does seem to make a noticeable difference.

I'll put roman blinds on the windows (2 at front and back) made out of heavy fabric - this will also help with light control during the day (only venetian blinds there now).

The rug in the centre is thick shag pile it's about 5'6" x 7'6" - is that enough for floor coverings??

Maybe the artwork on the back wall is a bit small and a larger piece is needed.

The Sub is 12" and out of view behind the half height wall. I'm not sure about the centre channel being off centre?

I went to Hifi store nearby on the weekend who carry mostly hi end gear. The salesman really knew his stuff and really stressed he importance of a power conditioner to improve sound quality and reduce the noise floor - is the power conditioner going to deliver SQ improvements that you can notice?

Again guys thanks for the good advice.

That book by Floyd looks great for HT - but $46 up there a bit - pitty I wasn't an Audio engineer, then I could right it off as a tax deduction!!

I'm certainly not an expert on Power Conditioners. But I do not think the addition of one to your system would deliver any SQ improvements you would actually notice. I think by moving your speakers and adding the window treatments will help much more so than a Power Conditioner would.

Bill

Dear BobL

Thanks very much for you three book recommendations. It helps understand that there is a depth of literature beyond online forums and magazine content.

A few weeks ago on another forum I became aware of the following. It was useful.
The Complete Guide to High-End Audio (Paperback) by Robert Harley (Fourth Edition).

just as a fwiw... while the harley book is likely an entertaining read, don't consider it as an "equal" to ther others that were linked to...

he's blowing smoke up your behind...


^^^

this....

I understand the importance of being centered between ones speakers for optimal SQ. I was just curious as to your wording of "and not symmetrical about the Centerline". I thought maybe you would explain your thoughts on that statement without making references to audio reference books. By the way I could not access the three links you provided.

Bill

@dps...

are you sure?

DenPureSound, your statements require some clarification regarding "centerline," which is not synonymous w/ "listening position," and "asymmetrically spaced" loudspeaker placement.

First, true, L/R loudspeakers need not be symmetrical about the centerline of the room. In fact, symmetrically placed L/R share the same room modes, hence they cooperatively exacerbate those room modes. But asymmetrical placement can help mitigate room modes by distributing them in frequency and lessening them in amplitude.

Additionally, the listening position need not be on the centerline of the room. However, it does need to be on the centerline of the L/R loudspeakers. In other words, if L/R are symmetrical about the centerline of the room, then the listening position needs to be on the centerline of the room. Conversely, if L/R are asymmetrical about the centerline of the room, then the listening position can be off the centerline of the room but still needs to be on the centerline of L/R. The centerline of L/R is the only location that experiences proper stereo imaging in both amplitude & time.

All that said, SteveD61 has an irregularly shaped room. Review his room photos. His L/R loudspeakers are already well off the centerline of the room.

AJ

read aj's post... edit: both of them...

it's not a question of "belief"... it's a question of understanding what toole is trying to tell you...