Don't listen to music on youtube as the encoding process kills the quality....


So does mp3's you want to listen to music buy the cd


As for general brightness turn the treble down a little


Oh and keep the tweeter grill on!

 

Room acoustics can over-emphasize the high end sound, so you might research room treatments and speaker placement.


Newer models of receivers have room correction software that will attempt to try to flatten the frequency response of speakers, so a new receiver might help.

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyrob425 /forum/post/21651575


don't listen to music on youtube as the encoding process kills the quality....


So does mp3's you want to listen to music buy the cd


as for general brightness turn the treble down a little


oh and keep the tweeter grill on!

x2


And in general the VF-36, is a bit lacking in the midrange.

 

Thanks for the reply's.. I don't listen on youtube unless it's a last ditch effort to see what something sounds like, that was more of a reference for posting here.


I was under the impression that mp3 had a fuller range of sounds..... I read up on it years ago about how CD's only allow a limited number of ranges so an artist has to determine what to provide......... honestly I don't know I heard it years ago and didn't understand it then and don't understand it now.


But yeah now that you mention it CD's are sounding way better then mp3


I'll put those songs on a CD and try again, i'll throw the tweeter covers back on too and if I need more then i'll look into the rest.


Thanks for the immediate responses.

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by petriebird /forum/post/21651843


I was under the impression that mp3 had a fuller range of sounds..... I read up on it years ago about how CD's only allow a limited number of ranges so an artist has to determine what to provide......

Nope. It's the other way around.

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by petriebird /forum/post/21651843


I'll put those songs on a CD and try again, i'll throw the tweeter covers back on too and if I need more then i'll look into the rest.

Are you talking about taking the MP3s and putting them on a CD? That's not going to help.


A CD you buy at store has music stored as a .wav file. That's an uncompressed music file. When an mp3 is made from a wav file, it throws out information to make the file smaller--to compress it. It is a "lossy" compression file format. It "loses" information. That information is gone forever, and converting the mp3 back to a CD won't help.


If you have music CDs and want to store them on your computer, you can other use a program to copy them as wav files, or you can use something like Exact Audio Copy (EAC) to rip them as .flac files. Flacs are compressed--they are a little bit smaller than wav files--but lossless. They don't lose any information if the ripping process is done correctly, and can be converted back again to wav files on a CD without loss of audio quality.

 

oh ok, that makes sense. I would have assumed that something better then wav would have come out in the past 20 years, yeah smaller files but still with good sound. So even higher bit rate mp3's aren't as good as .wav? Thats news to me. Well thanks for the info, I'll start getting my music from amazon in cd form instead of emusic.

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by petriebird /forum/post/21652688


oh ok, that makes sense. I would have assumed that something better then wav would have come out in the past 20 years, yeah smaller files but still with good sound. So even higher bit rate mp3's aren't as good as .wav? Thats news to me. Well thanks for the info, I'll start getting my music from amazon in cd form instead of emusic.

Nope, not even the highest bitrate mp3's are equivalent to the original .wav files. As mentioned, .flac files reduce the size of the file, but retain the full quality when ripped properly, and you can then convert the .flac file back to the original .wav should you choose to burn them to a CD-R. The whole purpose of mp3s was to reduce the file sizes significantly, allowing you to store a lot more music files in a drive with limited capacity. A regular CD can hold 700MB, which translates to about 72 minutes of music in .wav format, or hours of music in mp3 format depending on the bitrate.


Of course there are other music formats out there that offer even higher fidelity. There's SACD that uses DSD, and there are also lossless HD audio formats like DTS HD-MA and Dolby TrueHD.


Where CD's are encoded at 44.1kHz 16-bit, DTS HD-MA and TrueHD go as high as 192kHz 24-bit.


As far as your original problem, a receiver with one of the higher end room correction solutions (like the Onkyo 3009 with Audyssey XT32) have pretty powerful frequency response correction solutions. The technology is aimed at optimizing the in-room frequency response of your sound system. 'Bright' or harsh sounding speakers are a result of an uneven frequency response with too much emphasis on the higher frequencies.


Room correction technologies like Audyssey calibrate the system by measuring the frequency response of your setup in your room and then applying equalization to optimize the frequency response to flatten out peaks and dips.



Max

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 /forum/post/0



Are you talking about taking the MP3s and putting them on a CD? That's not going to help.


A CD you buy at store has music stored as a .wav file. That's an uncompressed music file. When an mp3 is made from a wav file, it throws out information to make the file smaller--to compress it. It is a "lossy" compression file format. It "loses" information. That information is gone forever, and converting the mp3 back to a CD won't help.


If you have music CDs and want to store them on your computer, you can other use a program to copy them as wav files, or you can use something like Exact Audio Copy (EAC) to rip them as .flac files. Flacs are compressed--they are a little bit smaller than wav files--but lossless. They don't lose any information if the ripping process is done correctly, and can be converted back again to wav files on a CD without loss of audio quality.

How do you correctly convert to flac? I've been using itunes loseless for my cd collection

 

Nothing wrong with Apple lossless, no need to convert to flac....at least in my opinion.

 

Have to agree with Gooddoc.


I'm just getting into music downloads. Doesn't lossless reduce the original file to roughly half-size? Even if so, I know I have a hard time discerning any difference from Redbook, at least with my low/mid-fi equipment ... and 59 year old ears.

As to the OP's problem, yes, a new receiver with proper room EQ will go a good ways to taming some of that brightness. Toggling EQ on/off shows just what is going on in your listening space, despite any preconceptions you might have about the in-room sound, especially if untreated. It can be quite eye-opening. And as I recall, older Yammy entry-level models had a reputation, deserved or not, for being bright sounding. In combination with some Klipsch speaker models, it might make for an unpleasant experience at times

 

Thanks for all the input. I looked up that onkyo and it's over 2 grand, thats more then i'm going to spend on my setup entirely. Is there some sort of equalizer that I can buy seperate or perhaps a cheaper reciever with a good equalizer? My reciever only has treble and bass adjustments.


Just out of curiosity, where do you get audio with higher quality then CD? I doubt I'll ever have a system that requires anything better but I'm still wondering.


Oh another thought that is sort of inspired by a friend of mine who is harping on how underpowered my reciever is.... which it is......


would providing more power to the speakers bring out more sound? I kind of assumed that low watts on one reciever is low watts on another reciever and both are at low volumes..... isn't hitting 125 recommended watts or what ever the case is only for high volumes? low volume = low watts on any reciever?

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin /forum/post/21652735


How do you correctly convert to flac?

Several programs will do it. Google it. Take your pick. I still prefer 'FLAC Frontend' to go both FLAC>WAV and WAV>FLAC. If I ever have to convert all my CDs that I have converted to Apple Lossless (~425GB) to FLAC, though, I will probably be looking to something that will allow me to batch it. Like Foobar2000.

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by ClarkeBar /forum/post/21653508


Doesn't lossless reduce the original file to roughly half-size?

It depends upon the complexity of the source material, but it doesn't reduce it by that much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClarkeBar /forum/post/21653508


Even if so, I know I have a hard time discerning any difference from Redbook............

If it's lossless there IS no difference. That's what "lossless" means.

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by petriebird /forum/post/21651542


I have a pair of Klipsch VF-36 and absolutley love them. For most of the music I listen to they're amazing. Right now i'm listening to this song and love it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsJjgLaWU0s


and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm-aq3rrDe4


But I just pulled up some previous music of mine and the speakers sounded very bright and didn't have that full sound to them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTMrlHHVx8A&ob=av2n


and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbCfyZHSQbE&ob=av2e


The speakers have inputs for tweeters as well as woofers.


What can I do to even these out for a larger range of music?


I'm going to get a new reciever eventually, will that help?


I'm on an old entry level yamaha and most of my listening is at low levels but tonight I've got them up cause I've got a friend over.


(yamaha r-v503)

Put a sock on it...literally

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by petriebird /forum/post/21657071


Oh another thought that is sort of inspired by a friend of mine who is harping on how underpowered my reciever is.... which it is......


would providing more power to the speakers bring out more sound? I kind of assumed that low watts on one reciever is low watts on another reciever and both are at low volumes..... isn't hitting 125 recommended watts or what ever the case is only for high volumes? low volume = low watts on any reciever?

There is only so much you can do with the VF-36 - more power can

make it sound bigger. However, if you put 125 watts on that 97db

sensitive speaker - you may give up, before that speaker does. More

power will not give the speaker more resolution in the midrange. And,

it will not take a bright or harsh type tweeter, and give it new character.

Some room treatments, and better source material - can help you out.

Also a receiver with better room EQ, can help.


I have listened to the Klipsch Reference series speakers, with real expensive

McIntosh amps. And the nature of the Klipsch stayed the same. In the end the

result was, less distortation at higher volumes.

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by petriebird /forum/post/21657071


Thanks for all the input. I looked up that onkyo and it's over 2 grand, thats more then i'm going to spend on my setup entirely. Is there some sort of equalizer that I can buy seperate or perhaps a cheaper reciever with a good equalizer? My reciever only has treble and bass adjustments.


Just out of curiosity, where do you get audio with higher quality then CD? I doubt I'll ever have a system that requires anything better but I'm still wondering.


Oh another thought that is sort of inspired by a friend of mine who is harping on how underpowered my reciever is.... which it is......


would providing more power to the speakers bring out more sound? I kind of assumed that low watts on one reciever is low watts on another reciever and both are at low volumes..... isn't hitting 125 recommended watts or what ever the case is only for high volumes? low volume = low watts on any reciever?

Yes, there are various EQ options available that are much more modestly priced.


Higher quality audio is available in several different formats and forms. You can purchase SACDs (mostly online as regular stores like Best Buy don't tend to stock them), DVD-Audio (a mostly dead format with hardly any/no new material being released on it). These days, Blu Ray HD audio is beginning to appear (different from regular BDs in that the disc only holds audio. They use it because it supports up to 192kHz 24-bit audio and can hold way more data).


You can also download HD-audio files from various online sites.


As far as power goes, you only need more power if you need more volume. With a 97db sensitivity, you don't need much power at all to get high volumes out of those speakers, and as mentioned, more power isn't going to alter how the speakers sound tonally (unless you're getting compression/distortion, (which is unlikely with those speakers if your avr can put out at least 40 watts per channel cleanly).



Max

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by petriebird /forum/post/21657071


Thanks for all the input. I looked up that onkyo and it's over 2 grand, thats more then i'm going to spend on my setup entirely. Is there some sort of equalizer that I can buy seperate or perhaps a cheaper reciever with a good equalizer? My reciever only has treble and bass adjustments.

The Denon 1712 has Audyssey MultiEQ XT which has filters to equalize your speakers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin /forum/post/21652735


How do you correctly convert to flac? I've been using itunes loseless for my cd collection

EAC is what a lot of people use. Don't ask me how I know this, but EAC is the one that you see regularly used by serious rippers on Bittorent downloads

Hydrogen Audio has a good wiki with configuration guides for EAC .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc /forum/post/21652853


Nothing wrong with Apple lossless, no need to convert to flac....at least in my opinion.

Agreed.


Although iTunes as a media player is a problem if someone wants to play flacs that other people have created without having to convert them. This is one reason why I refuse to use iTunes, because they refuse to support the open standard lossless format to try to lock people into using iTunes and Apple file formats.

 

I have the VF 36's paired with a Pioneer SC 35 and the sound is awesome with HT and music. You most likely need a better avr with room correction. The mid-range stuff is from a few reviews on the net. They produce a very good mid-range sound if properly set with a good avr and room correction. I have compared my system to B&W, Klipsch Ref. series and Paradigm HT systems in custom audio shops and find my system to be very good compared to those systems. My speakers are not bright and sound well balanced.

 

I have since listened to both of the offending songs at lower levels and they sound perfect. I'm guessing that it's my reciever that isn't getting the job done or these speakers don't respond well at higher volumes.

 

Check out the 1712 as mentioned by CEL above. My brother just picked one up for $309 shipped from Electronics Expo (authorized Denon dealer).

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim /forum/post/21657097


Several programs will do it. Google it. Take your pick. I still prefer 'FLAC Frontend' to go both FLAC>WAV and WAV>FLAC. If I ever have to convert all my CDs that I have converted to Apple Lossless (~425GB) to FLAC, though, I will probably be looking to something that will allow me to batch it. Like Foobar2000.

I prefer dbpoweramp, in fact I just finished archiving about 900 cd's (with exactly 17 songs that would not rip - pretty darned good!). In one pass I ripped to FLAC, 256kb MP3 and WAV. I did a lot of research before I began, including trying out both EAC and Foobar2000 for ripping. dbpoweramp's multiprocessor capabilities, multi-encoder and ease of use trumped out EAC by a large margin, and with Foobar2000 I had errors that dbpoweramp never saw. I could also use multiple instances - I had 3 CD players ripping at once.


Since you are listening to youtube I presume you are directly connected to a PC. If so you have multiple EQ choices, and if using Winamp or MediaMonkey there are plugins that can help tame bright tweeters.


Here's a good reference for further learning: Media Formats Explained . Its a bit old (very little info on FLAC, but just treat it as the best lossless format and you will get the gist) but it cleared up all of the questions I had.

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc /forum/post/21652853


Nothing wrong with Apple lossless, no need to convert to flac....at least in my opinion.

If archiving your collection for the first time go with FLAC for longevity and wider support. ALAC is proprietary and you never know what may happen in the future (with any proprietary format). But if already ALAC and all you will ever do is listen on Apple hardware you should be fine (but I do pity you

).


Edit: Oops, I forgot, Apple open sourced ALAC last fall. Even so, hardware support is abundant for FLAC but very limited for ALAC, and FLAC has a much wider following.

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Nethawk /forum/post/21678493


Since you are listening to youtube I presume you are directly connected to a PC. If so you have multiple EQ choices, and if using Winamp or MediaMonkey there are plugins that can help tame bright tweeters.

I just installed winamp and have to say a quick adjust of the EQ in it has worked wonders. Now I need to find an EQ for my stereo so i'm not relying on my PC for everything. Anyone have suggestions?

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by petriebird /forum/post/21688391


I just installed winamp and have to say a quick adjust of the EQ in it has worked wonders.

You might want to install and test out Studio Sound FX plugin for winamp. There is a "Tweeter tuner" setting to change from aluminum to silk that really worked wonders while I was auditioning speakers. I got Energy RC-10 to almost equal the more subtle high ends of the Mordaunt Short silk tweeters.