Jump to content

tympathique

  • Posts

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    country-ZZ

Retained

  • Member Title
    Freshman Member
  1. findhdmusic, Very usefull search engine, I found 3 interesting albums listed on this site for percussion. Per Nørgård: Sceneries for percussion and ensemble (8.226092) - Dacapo Records eClassical - Aho - Symphony No.11 eClassical - Open Percussion Any positives évaluations? jacques
  2. good morning I looking for percussion instrument solo or orchestral works in the classical or more (not to disharmonic) modern creation in HR format. I prefer 24bit from 96 to 176 khz (dac limitation). There is a Bartók concerto for piano and percussion that I want, where? I would like to start this new HR collection of works in a variety of style and then see for further buyings. I'll appreciate all suggestions. thank you jacques
  3. Hey nununo You seems stuck on each sides yes. What about behind the speakers? You know that you need at least 1,2m (nose estimation) between spks and wall for scene image and less boomy LF. Bass traps? A nice schroeder 2d between spks well made is beautifull too, looks like a modern sculpture. This week, I made a hudge progress with 6 in (15cm) thick mineral wool traps on the floor behind my open baffle's woofers. It fantastic how absorbing thoses floor waves has cleaned the audio signal in a way that back spk wall rebounds are sharper than ever.. I finished the work with DRC where large corrections were to be reduced between 100hz to 300hz, a very good thing. Have fun jacques
  4. Hi all I agree once again, as many others have said. I join my humble opinion to the list of needed to be convinced of DRC to be a standalone solution. For me too it’s a question of mixed solution to the problem. Something good for mixed DRC filter solution (DIRAC) may be good for the entire system, software-hardware-room. As many pointed, and IMHO, acoustic treatment is the first thing to do. When it’s done, let’s go for the icing with DRC. Points of logic, as I see it; - Acoustically untreated room will produced summation-cancellation of +- amplitudes. Greater the amplitude to correct, greater the amount of DRC correction to be applied. - We pointed out that STRONG DRC corrections will generate dynamic range deterioration or clipping when ultimately the signal comes to the analog driver or amplifier. Please keep in mind the word “STRONG” - Reducing output level to avoid clipping from DRC treatment at a specific frequency that has not been acoustically reduced will not eliminate the problem at that frequency. - DRC alone correction passes all the stress to the analog components (poweramp-drivers). While a mixed acoustic-DRC treatments seems to me as a logic solution to reduce that stress. In conclusion, I can’t get the idea of DRC correction as a unique solution for HR reproduction. Fine for a car but not for a dedicated room. A living room with all compromises may need mor DRC than a dedicated room, I don’t know if the word WAF is politically correct but it is a inevitable factor (could be the male version, MAF), that push people to a shorter and a compromise solution. So, there is place for DRC but, I agree that we should be wiser than computers or at least be awared of what it's doing. regards jacques
  5. By chance, Someone have the "Emmanuelle Bertrand, Primary - BBC National Orchestra Of Wales, Dmitri Shostakovich, - BBC National Orchestra Of Wales, Ensemble (Cello Concerto No. 1)" 24/96 studio master, 2013 harmonia mundi at Qobuz. On first track, "I. Allegretto" at 3min 18sec, there is this low frequency Woodwind instruments (which one?) that seems to clip the microphone? What is happening there, is it normal? jacques
  6. Hi arjan I'm the one to blame about this "hi-end" confusion. It was a mistake, but it's the only part of the post that I regret not to have developed enough. It was not the goal of the reply and I was more thinking of myself 3 years ago with my old system and from many experiences with my friend's evolving systems. However, I have specified that I was talking about MY equipment and MY difficulty with filters DR effects, not specific to DIRAC which I never tried but with all correction filters whatever their gender. That said, it is a fact that there is a blurry line to be traced to establish comparisons between system sensibilities, based on personnal taste, acoustics, hardware characteristics, speakers type and positioning ect.... How can someone be able to refute this? I still think that all systems will be affected by correction filter. Digital signal modification could not be without effects as an senior HST told me recently "eventually you enter the analog world, and that’s where the headroom penalty will show up, in the form of clipping in the amplifier at the boosted frequency. Or of not there, in the speaker itself" This is just a quoted reply and just one aspect of the discussion. I respect software developers, including DIRAC 's new approaches with mixes phases filtering. Filter for filter, it sounds very much like an improvement to me. We have the right for questions, trying to be honest doing so. arjan said something that I shared and tried to support his effort. regards jacques
  7. HI This is an issue that has to be addressed. I'm inclined to agree on the fact that hi-end systems are very sensible to dynamic range downsizing. I presume that open baffle are more than bass reflex. I understand that hardware and software developpers won't take this argument in consideration for the many few it concerns. Many think they possess a hi-end system, untill they are exposed to a better one. Though, getting better have a negative side effect. Bad recording, compressed music, to say that every small flaw is perceptible and deceiving. EQing, is one of the damagable result above 200Hz on my Equipment. Like it is said here, even a tiny loss of dynamic range is more negative than the positive effect of having a better flat frequency curve at HF. It sound presumptuous to say this but it is my actual perception, a temporary truth as usual?
  8. Hi Matt Jriver makes it all :-) I found the application in your advance Tools. Excellent tool. "you could convert them with MC while applying any DSP" I'm afraid not to catch this part of the process "converting files". regards jacques
  9. Hi Thanks jvlata This soft is close to what I'm looking for. I red the PDF manual and it surely gives the right numbers for DR. Now the problem is that I'm using Jriver's MC19 7.1ch at HD sample rate. This is where I would have liked to test the DR of the output tracks after DSP manipulations. This DR scale meter stands for 44.1 khz and 2ch out. Yes dynamic range is a real fact for the audiophile point of view. Dynamic shading/PRaT/swing/toe tapping, as you say are still good values in human appreciation. Espacially for me the PRaT reputation of my Linn poweramps.
  10. Hi I use REW for all my needed measurements, but I'm looking for a beter dynamic range meter software that would be able to analyze music tracks for checking different sample rate formats or played at different EQ corrections. Is it possible that I overlooked REW's option for it? I what to closely see any small impacts from modifying playback parameters in dynamic range. What would be your best recommandation? And maybe interpratation advices. thank you jacques
  11. room modification, 1,7 meter longer than before. It has changed the propagation pattern for 65Hz waves in a manner that it is now possible to get out of the cancellation room mode dip (unmanageable by EQ) by moving the listening position (less than 20cm). Don’t think it’s the subwoofer new location that makes the changes. Report on attachment of post 34 where just half of the wall was opened and the subwoofer wasn’t moved. The actual results are consistent with it. This must be the end of this 65Hz dip adventure. I’ve joined the RTA measurement before and after modification where the dip can be seen before. Hope for comments. jacques
  12. I can see that you did tryied this concept and was disappointed a little. Rapidly this morning, I’ll give you some precisions on speaker used and XO design. Woofers are 15” Supravox 400gmf (24Hz-4Khz range, 96db sensibility and 0,32 QTS), so they can be very powerful when needed. The 15” subwoofer is restricted to very LF. The 215RTA mid range drivers have a better efficiency from 110hz and higher than 400GMF woofers to get the SNAP reproduction of any string instruments especially guitar and for percussion too. It may be a question of taste here. All drivers are in active digital DSP controlled, 3 way spks and individually poweramps levelled at the beginning. The crossovers are tuned after major EQing. -Low-pass sub 50hz (36 db/oct) -High pass woofer 50hz,(36 db/oct) RESULTING in an acoustic crossover at 41Hz Low pass woofer 125Hz (48db/oct) High pass mid 155Hz (48db/oct) Low pass mid 3500Hz (48 db/oct) High pass tweeter 3600Hz (48 db/oct) Low pass tweeter 20Kz (48 db/oct) The values for subwoofer/woofer “XO” may sound very low for you? Woofers were first REFLEX mounted in 300 litres boxes and they could not equal the 215RTA mids at crossover point for tight accuracy snaps I wanted. Since I’ve brought them in OB mode they are more able to sustain an adequate transition at the 150hz XO frq. Many possibilities indeed.
  13. There is the on and off axis measurement you asked Alex. Right speaker, tweeter height (90cm), woofer, mid and tweeter, 20hz-20khz sweep. There is no great variation. The 400Hz dip "could" be in the range of a acoustic short-circuit, D=40cm. Microphone at 1 meters distance, off axes 25deg.
  14. Alex, I really hope we’re not in a professional speaker design web site  I’ve followed basic information from mentors and I did modifications from trying things. I've found the Dominique Petoin's calculation of acoustic short-circuit from his web site. He was our main reference for this design, especially my French friend (Supravox retailer) Michel who provides us all needed information. Dominique Pétoin calculation for acoustic short-circuit (see attached figure) Le sujet : Baffle plan complet The direct distance is “A” and the back signal distance is “B”. F= C/D/2 Where; C= 343,4m/s, D= (B-A), F= short-circuit frequency. In my case, there are two sides, the wall and the center. The important one is the center. D= 3,6m-3,0m= 0,60m, though F= 286hz. From this frequency there will be a wider interaction between front and back driver waves for LF. This is where I have a quite good cancellation on my frequency response curve, around 300hz. Fortunately, it can be considered that from 286hz and higher, there won’t be any problems from the OB. If I recall, in Petoin’s references, for all frequencies below 300Hz, the room configuration is entirely considered to be part of the speaker. Like for the wall side of mine, I have a panel that extend the D value to 1.8 giving a 95Hz acoustic short. In fact, the wall is there, also floor and ceiling, though this panel is not helpfull at all. For the rest of your concerns, the baffle size, I can't be sure, mabe true or not that smaller are better? I won’t cut my 1 ¼”thick plexiglass board for trying again, go ahead yourself :-). I did a plywood one before to test it and I kept the same size because it sounded very-very good. We always got the idea that available space in the room was the main argument for smaller ones, and this is without manufacturers needs. You first saw the large size of my OB. Imagine if it were made of plywood. I would not liked it very much because of the bad stage hiding effect. No one likes this size unless you can see through it. Plexiglass was available from a construction guy, very cheap (bank renovation) and it is easy to work with a router. If tou can’t see through, the lateral wings are good too.
×
×
  • Create New...