Updated NOUSAINE subwoofer data list - Page 3  

Understood...

17 db peak? Ouch.

Ran

I believe the Meridian tests showed there were no audible differences above around 20-bit, 58Khz. Some recordings are up to 24/192 and still climbing. More and more marketing bits and cycles being added everyday.

I'm sure we will eventually see 32/384 recordings.

As to the great CD/SACD/DVD-A debate, this can be very tricky to deal with. Not only are the SACD/DVD-A mixes different than the older CD mixes, but they can be different between the CD and SACD mix on the same hybird disc. For example, the new Pink Floyd "Dark Side of the Moon" CD/SACD has different equalization applied to the CD track than it has to the SACD tracks.

You may be right Tom, however, I'd MUCH rather see that bandwidth put to use as 10.2 20-bit 48kHz channels. How cool would it be to be able to raise or lower a specific instrument at will and have it come from just one specific speaker. After hearing DTS, I'm convinced that more speakers will improve sound FAR more than more bandwidth. We have a channel bottleneck, not a bandwidth bottleneck. And I think I'd rather have 10 mini-monitors and dual subs for around $2K that some ultra-high-end 5.1 system.

Supposedly, DVD-A can do up to 8 16/48 channels. We won't see it, but that's supposedly what it can do. I don't know if that's before or after MLP.

Yep, re-mixing in order to obfuscate and to make comparisons next to impossible. SACD & DVD-A will BOTH die(or remain marketing niches) unless their price is a small premium to regular CDs...and it'll most likely die anyway.

Ran

Initially, it was impressive, however, the peak wore off its welcom very quickly. Now that the response is flatter, it sounds much better because the low bass is not obscured by the false peak.

A mix of topics flying around in this thread. A few random comments thrown in by myself...

lol, John Ashman is well known in the "industry?" :D No offense John... but that one put a smile on my face, as I'm sure it did yours. :)

_____


DBT testing has is fundamentally flawed? Perhaps the implementations haven't thus far been perfect, but how could they be without the cooperation of naysayers? The standard argument against DBT, which Steve has again used here, is thus: "unless it's my equipment, in my room, with my source material, and my ears, then the test isn't valid." Well Steve, if you won't participate in one then how could it ever meet that criteria? That's the big impasse, is it not? The only people who can put an end to these decades long amp/cable/etc. debates are the "golden eared" audiophiles that claim to be able to hear these dramatic differences. If they were to volunteer to undergo DB testing in their homes, using familiar equipment, and their source material, at their leisure, then the results would be conclusive (and, I predict, damning to their POV). Amazing that they refuse to cooperate, huh?

_____


Current generation DAC's can only really provide a useable resolution of ~20 bits, so anything greater is essentially wasted space and it's not surprising that Meridian's results revealed what they did. Improving sampling rate to 96kHz and beyond may offer some slight improvements, but we are quickly reaching the point where further data density/time for a recorded track isn't going to improve the sound quality. The limitation is human ears, and those don't change with increasing technology. Something like 24/192 is all the data we need per track/time for the next several decades, if not indefinitely.

_____


I think John's on the right track with the number of channels. Each channel now has plenty of bandwidth. More storage density should ideally be used for more discrete channels. Though, I do have an idea for a rather unique and potentially revolutionary use for the extra bandwith that doesn't involve more spatial channels or a higher resolution of any one channel.

I think I missed something! I don't know if I'm "well-known", but I think I'm getting close to "infamous". And?!?

Bigus,

Bring it on! I'm not hiding anything nor have a hidden agenda! I'm willing to participate in a properly designed audio test. And if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I get to control the music, the volume, and the set-up of everything except the tested piece.

See, I didn't get to my "position" by reading what others have to say...I got here, very reluctantly, by changing through 5 different amps in my home system and hearing the difference. I didn't want to, but there it was, plain as day. Even my "who cares" wife could tell a difference between the best of the 5 and the worst. After my 5 amplifier test (I was a believer in the DBT tests and audio objectivenists prior to this) I realized the amplifier can have almost as much impact on the character of the sound as the speakers themselves!

People that listen to 2 channel music through artificial processing modes, ummm..no comment! This is what i'm up against lol

I think you are not agreeing. Bob Stuart's study indicates that there are improvements above standard redbook, just that above a certain limit, there is no audible improvement.

The reason high bit DACs are used is because a given one rarely performs to specification. Plus going to 88.2/96khz is due to the ability to upsample 44.1/48khz signals. Plus, he upsamples DD/DTS, which according to Bob Stuart, has added benefit even though they are at 96khz sampling rate.

That is why Bob Stuart is such an advocate of Ambisonic encoding. The ability to encode recording capturing the entire 3-D space and playing it back in any number of arbitrary channels, all by utilizing 4-5 carrier channels. If that technology was adopted as a standard in the early 80's, then there wouldn't have been the need for DPL/6.1/6.1 matrixed/6.1 discrete/10.2... The same technology would have accomondated whatever number of playback channels a use wants to utilize from day one and not have to constantly upgrade to another soon to be obsolete technology.

This is probably because he has 2nd order ambisonic encoding in mind, which would probably utilize 8+ channels when it comes out.

That's the whole premise of double blind testing, though the volume has to be level matched between A and B to make it a valid test. You can choose whatever that volume is, however. Though if you're wanting to compare a 10 watt amp vs. a 100 watt amp, both trying to output 15 watts, I don't think that is a very useful DBT. ;)

You better hold your tongue then. :) The processing that a correctly set up "two channel" room does to a sound is unavoidable and hardly natural. Should you really disagree with people wanting to transfer that task of processing to something more flexible and accurate than wood and fiberglass... like, say, a processor?

I certainly am not the guy to question TN's meter reading abilities, but I've been in alot of studios since age 13 and I can yank 4 strings with the best of them.

In the days of analog 2" tape, saturation was not a bad thing. With digital, it's an unacceptable nightmare. It's not quite as much the word length and bitrate as it is the huge headroom advantage...times 6 full range channels.

If a producer chose, years ago, to bump the bass track(s), it was his/her perogative and gives zero evidence that the disc in question was 'cooked' to fool anyone. SACD allows you the option. CD doesn't.

It's funny, to me, to read a post regarding DSOTM, MC version SACD that read to the effect that the intro to 'Money' was distracting because it ping-ponged between 4 channels, yet it was apparently OK to ping-pong between two channels in stereo. But, it's sad to hear an opinion like the one you related by a supposedly knowledgeable person.

I don't have experience with DVD-A playback (though I have extensive 24/96 PCM digital recording experience), but I definitely will submit to a stereo CD through L7 (or ANY matrix) vs. a DSD MC SACD test. ANY criteria, any time, with any stakes.

To be told that I'm being fooled by level/EQ tweaks is insulting and, well just ridiculous. What next...? When a schooled principal violinist with ears that got him where he is tells me that he couldn't distinguish the master recording from DSD when it was switched back and forth on-the-fly, I don't think he was fooled. Try that same test with the same guy using the original master and a CD version, and he'll be pissed you wasted his time.

Fabulousfrankie,

Help! Velodyne CHT-15 -107.3 dB/ 25hz~92dB__32hz~108.4dB (105.1dB)

What do these numbers mean? Are they anechoic? How far away was the mic?, etc. Sorry for the dumb question, I just don't know how to decipher the info.

There is only ONE subwoofer with low distortion. And that is a sealed box, or infinite baffle (similar) that has qt. in the 0.5 range. It has to be non-compressive over a large dynamic range. Any other box/driver design is high distortion, and is a compromise. A severe compromise at that. And, unless you do proper low frequency acoustical treatment to your room, you are unlikely to get a real solid performance and enjoyment out of that sub. Add to that, the fact that if you have a hard time telling the difference in the phasing of the sub...the room acoustics or the sub's phase response really suck. As for the average audio system employing a sub, the odds of the statement about the phasing and the distortion stand a 99.99% chance of being true. Sad....but true. Very few people have heard anything approaching real bass in any reproductive audio system. Very, very, very few.

Bossobass,

I'm gonna try to find TN's e-mail address so as to shoot him a message regarding this thread. In any case, I'm sorry to read that his opinion touches such a raw nerve with you. I don't have any personal investment in the debate, so to me, I just take it all in and let the preponderance of respected opinion lead me towards the well..not all the way into it, but TOWARDS it. Hey, if you can hear differences between redbook CD and 20/88, 24/96, 24/384, etc etc, more power to ya!
As for your CD thru L7 vs. DSD SACD "challenge", isn't that more a matter of apples and oranges personal preference? With SACD(or ANY) multichannel, you take what the producer/mixer gives ya...end of story. If the mixer wants to put a tuba in the left rear and a xylophone in the front right, that's his prerogative. If his preferred listening perspective is in the middle of an orchestra, THAT's what I'm getting, like it or not.
Personally, I like the perspective of the usual audience member that I get with stereo, and I don't think I like tubas in the left rear and drums in the to the right rear etc. With CD thru Logic7, I can have the usual stereo spread up front with ambience off to the sides and rear which lend more credibility to recreating the original soundstage. On the other hand, if I WANT the tubas in the rear and the guitar on the side, I CAN'T get that with unless I'm listening to an original multitrack recording. Like I said, it all boils down to personal preference, and at this point in the mixing curve(NO standardization), mine is still stereo with the bonus of side and rear generated ambience ala Logic7.


Ran

For those interested in reading more about the actual differences in the recordings of the stereo layer vs the SACD layer of the new Pink Floyd DSOTM disc, go to:

http://www.stereophile.com/shownews.cgi?1649

There have been other examples where reviewers have found differences in the frequency graphs and mixes between the 16/44 and 24/96 layers on hybird discs. Almost like they are purposefully looking to manipulate listeners into finding large differences and attributing them to the higher resolution.

While I think there is a difference between 24/96 and 16/44, there are three main problems. One, the differences are not nearly as much as one would like to hope. Two, most recordings can't even live up to the quality of 16/44, let alone higher rates. Three, for those people that want DVD-A to sound more like vinyl, well, sorry, it sounds just like CD but with a little smoother highs and a slightly more natural midrange. As I recall, despite wild claims to the contrary, bass really wasn't a factor as CD does bass extremely well, essentially perfectly, despite claims from vinyl lovers that LPs are better in this regard (and in other ways). I think Sony has been able to pull somewhat of a hat trick in that SACD is *slightly* euphonic, just enough to nail down the LP and "audiophile" guys whereas high rate PCM is tested to be transparent to a live signal. Note that many audiophiles prefer SACD even when the original recording was PCM and they prefer CDs that were mastered in DSD when just changing the format alone would create problems and by rational thought alone, a CD dropped from a PCM master should sound better (unless the 96kHz to 44.1kHz conversion is causing issues).

"most recording can't even live up to the quality of 16/44, let alone higher rates"

Ain't THAT the truth! Most folks don't "get it" that the RECORDING is the most important part of the audio signal chain and that what we need are BETTER RECORDINGS!

Ran

Better recordings is definitely the answer. I like Norah, Holly Cole, Jesse Cooke etc., but there have got to be more well recorded CD's. It'd be nice to know that when you buy a CD, it is top notch, but the way it is right now, it's a gamble every time. Sometimes I bring home a CD that I'm excited about only to find out it sounds like crap, and only gets played from time to time. That's the fine line you play with....you want a detailed system, but then you limit what you can listen to, to a certain extent. Get a crappy system, and everything sounds the same....not very good, but the same.

KBK,
Your post is deadly accurate, IMO.

Frankie,
Sorry, I should have been more observant. Thanx for the heads up, and great info.

Theranman,

I appreciate your preference. Also, to me, if your gonna matrix a stereo mix, Lex is the way to go. I was mostly referring to the vast difference between a pure DSD MC recording vs a stereo CD...matrixed or not. I don't consider a MC rehash of some 2" tape that's been rotting on a shelf for 30 years to be a good example of what a MC SACD can offer either, FWIW.

Notice that most people mention Norah Jones, Diana Krall and other like discs where the voice is exquisitely miced and the music is miced acoustic instruments as being 'good recordings'. This is because these recordings don't tax the headroom of a CD nearly as much as, say, a high volume electric rock band.

I've found that recordings are usually the best they can be for a given genre. It's generally the CD mastering process that turns a good master into crap. The conversion to 16/44 requires info to be tossed. Less info (acoustic bass, piano, guitar, strings vs full blast electric guitar, bass, keyboards cymbals, etc.) = less tossed out. I've been there many times feeling great, listening to the master in the playback monitors, only to become ill when hearing the finished CD.

Remember, the CD people aren't ready and willing to toss away their equipment and means of income to jump on the hi-rez boat and the hi-rez boat has 2 captains fighting for the helm. So, don't believe most of what you read about the abilities/shortcomings of the new formats.

Anyway, I appreciate the rant space.

Good 16/44.1 can sound remarkably good. It's also worth noting that the best DACs I'm aware of can actually deliver 19-20 bits of resolution. It's hard to build the analog section with < 114-120 dB noise!

I own a couple JVC XRCDs, and within the limits of 40+ year old recordings, they are remarkable. At the same time, the San Francisco Symphony's Mahler No. 1 in multi-channel SACD is fabulous, too.

Drew Dean

"So don't believe what you read about the abilities/shortcomings of the new formats."

I have a pretty good handle on the higher resolution capabilities of the new formats and merely feel that it is mostly wasted. 20 bit resolution is all we need, and in my opinion, the rest is wasted. Being able to accomodate more channels would have been MY preference.
As for sonic differences, I don't believe that ANYBODY can tell the difference between 20 and 24 bit rez, and probably 95%+ of listeners wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a well mastered 16 bit CD and a 20 bit.
As for the shortcomings of these new formats, I chalk it up to wasted space and overambitious marketing. Sonically, they're great, but then ya get back to the 2 captains fighting for control of the helm.

Ran

Frank,

Very well done, sir! NOW I can easily decipher the #s at a glance.

Thanx for formatting the tons of info so a non-tech like myself can appreciate it for what it's worth.

That's some interesting stuff, though it's unfortunate that it doesn't talk about actual sonic performance, just raw volume. And I can't believe he measure subwoofers by jamming them into the corners. If that were the standard for audio performance, we'd all just jam Klipsch Horns into our corners and be done with it. I'd rather know what subs have a flat response and what they can do at 1% distortion rather than 10%.

He is easy to question as he posts on the newsgroups such as here:

http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=d...audio.high-end

He is very responsive and even answered an email within a couple days (very helpful); however, he is an objectivist and does not think subjective reports etc. (and all that entails) are necessarily all that helpful.

Cmon fabulousfrankie: :)

Hsu VTF-2 (max output) – 109.7dB /32Hz
Hsu TN1225HO - at least as loud as VTF-2 with both ports open, 25Hz extension (see Hsu website review for specifically what was wrong with the TN1225HO that was test in 1997)

Both of these product have gone through several version of drivers and amps since these old reviews.