Jump to content

Shadorne

  • Content Count

    308
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Shadorne

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Great review. I like the MoFi myself. Not sure you can really comment about bass accuracy with headphones. I really question your approach. No mix or mastering engineer I know of would rely on headphones to adjust bass. Large speakers with often multiple 12 or 15 woofers are used for bass checks. Of course it still needs to sound good in a car which many folks will check. Nobody I know of would use headphones as they simply are unable to provide reference quality bass - too many variables - fit, head size, adjustment of head band etc.
  2. Shadorne

    Article: New Limited Edition McIntosh System

    Beautiful. McIntosh sound beautiful too. Not perhaps as resolving as Audio Reseach but McIntosh tube amps and preamps have that “just right goldilocks” sound and much better reliability.
  3. Shadorne

    Article: A New Listening Room Part One

    Completely agree. A domestic setting will often serve multiple purposes. There is a limit to how much acoustic treatments will be acceptable. Listening position in a domestic setting may necessitate sitting close to a wall even though the detrimental aspects of this position are very easily audible. Multi-million $ studio facilities have a much higher priority on sound quality versus a multi-use domestic setting. That said, the control room needs to contain lots of equipment - the mixing console in front of the mix engineer is often an unavoidable acoustic problem itself. I have never seen or heard of a mastering or mix engineer that would be comfortable working up against a wall. The bass is terrible and the soundstage collapses with the multitude of close proximity reflections off the wall next to the listener. I would not be comfortable recommending anything less than 6 feet from a wall for a listening position. In a domestic setting, I would suggest to just pull out a chair and sit in a better position when serious listening and put the chair away when not needed - a great way to have your cake and eat it!
  4. Shadorne

    Article: A New Listening Room Part One

    GIK make great products at reasonable cost. Their corner tri-traps are excellent - you would probably need 8 of those. They work as broadband absorbers too - so you get more than just bass trapping.
  5. Shadorne

    Article: A New Listening Room Part One

    The worst thing you can do is to have clutter (or worse a wall) close to the listening position. Look at every multi million $ studio ever designed!
  6. Shadorne

    Article: A New Listening Room Part One

    Vicoustic proposal looks aesthetically good but not sure it makes complete sense. The trouble with the room is that it is roughly in the shape of a half tube. This room is going to sound like a subway tunnel unless you add a lot absorption and diffusers. I would suggest more corner bass traps and broadband absorbers at each end and around the listener (at least double what you have) and use only RPG diffusers on the slanted ceiling portions instead of the curved panels. The curved panels are great but work better for larger spaces. You actually don’t need curved panels and should not put anything on the vertical side walls except broadband absorbers by the listener. Acoustic physics is actually quite simple. To visualize what is going on simply imagine that each surface is a mirror. Your speakers will have a virtual mirrored speaker with the vertical side wall - this is a normal listening room situation and is not a problem as imaging will still work due to the symmetry with the listener (and correct drive alignment to the ear). The problem is the slanted low cathedral image speaker. Imagine again a mirror for these slanted walls - you have another set of virtual speakers sitting higher up. These virtual speakers are a problem. They will mess up imaging as well as the response at the listener from any multi-way speaker (other than coaxial) because the drivers of the virtual speaker are not time-aligned to the listener ear. This virtual speaker will be like listening to a real speaker in the nearfield but with ear level way off the proper listening height (which should normally be aligned with mid range or tweeter). So the big issue is those slanted cathedral walls - I would just place as much RPG diffusers as you can on those slanted walls in between the listener and the speakers. Of course, you might wonder why the horizontal ceiling or floor is less of an image problem and this virtual speaker can be ignored. This is fortunately taken care of by most speaker designs. The vertical dispersion is usually controlled by the speaker designer and not much energy other than low frequencies should be reflected off a 14 foot ceiling (10 feet above most speaker drivers). In addition a carpeted floor is not going to reflect much. Recall that wide speaker dispersion is desirable in the horizontal plane and unfortunately your slanted low cathedral ceiling walls are a bit too close to the speakers wider dispersion horizontal pattern. (Only perhaps 2 to 3 feet above the speaker) I think the room can be fantastic if treated properly. Of huge importance is the space around the listener. Too many domestic settings have the listener sitting close to a wall and this is a terrible place to sit. All studio control rooms have plenty of space BEHIND the listener and this is absolutely critical. You have a fantastic listening position. GOOD LUCK with this impressive project! Hopefully you don’t end up with a room like this! George Massenburg designed studio at Nashville Blackbird Studios
  7. Shadorne

    Article: McIntosh MS500 Music Streamer Review

    McIntosh indeed continue to make great sounding tube preamps and power amps. Neither the last word in resolution nor the last word in lush warm tube sound but often as Goldilocks would say “just right “! I would not recommend any of their SS products nearly as strongly.
  8. Shadorne

    MQA vs HiRez: an apples-to-apples comparison II

    @Miska I am sorry but you are still wrong, as you have been from the beginning of this discussion. The very definition of apodizing is to “remove the foot” - it is to smooth or soften the transition band. The mathematics are very clear as to what this does versus the original non-Apodized filter. You can play with symmantics and you can play with filters so that the apodizing effect is small or place the filter far enough from the audible band such that it won’t affect audible frequencies (easier to do with higher sample rates than CD). Nonetheless the apodizing filter function fundamentally has the mathematical effect I describe. There is actually no way around it.
  9. Shadorne

    MQA vs HiRez: an apples-to-apples comparison II

    All entirely straw-man arguments. I never said Apodizing Filters had to be minimum phase. I have tried only to give examples that were not behind a paywall that is all. The mathematics is the same and applies in all cases. Your reading comprehension is as bad as your comprehension of mathematics. An apodizing filter that increases ringing would not really be an apodizing filter - apodizing means “to remove the foot” the concept is based upon a soft or smooth transition band (no foot). You can add the apodizing function at any stage and in any order, as a window, or already incorporated as part of the filter coefficients - it is all just math. As I have been saying all along. Multiple times, with multiple examples. The apodizing filter function reduces time domain resolution - it blurs or smears the transient. The apodizing filter function reduces peak amplitude and widens the transient peak width. You cannot possibly keep on disagreeing with me and still retain any shred of credibility because this is quite simply and clearly the mathematics of what an apodizing filter does.
  10. Shadorne

    MQA vs HiRez: an apples-to-apples comparison II

    The ignorance on display here is truly mind boggling. All my statements are correct. You folks are just way out of your depth and sadly, as far as physics and mathematics go, this is NOT rocket science. You folks should know better. Please refer to Section 5.4 ( page 32) for a description of apodizing filter. https://www.xivero.com/downloads/MQA-Technical_Analysis-Hypotheses-Paper.pdf Frankly, I certainly know what I am talking about. While you folks continue to embarrass yourselves.
  11. Shadorne

    MQA vs HiRez: an apples-to-apples comparison II

    You clearly haven’t a clue. There is no difference mathematically but all you are capable of is to argue symmantics because you don’t understand.
  12. Shadorne

    MQA vs HiRez: an apples-to-apples comparison II

    Glad you made the huge mental leap. “You can talk about both in the same terms, you just have to remember that both are used in different contexts.” This is has been my point all along. To understand what Apodizing Filters do we can look at window functions as there is tons of information about window functions readily available. Or is is there something about “You can talk about both in the same terms” that you don’t understand? Or is specific context a hang up for you even if mathematics are the same.
  13. Shadorne

    MQA vs HiRez: an apples-to-apples comparison II

    A window is just a filter but clearly folks here are not able to make the huge mental leap.
  14. Wow you are brave! This has to be one of the worst albums ever recorded! I have the German version. Today has a DR of 7.6. It sounds like they are playing somewhere in the bottom of a cave - not much high frequency content - kind of like old analog telephones! I think given the terrible studio recording quality, there really isn’t much one can do except put lipstick on a pig!
  15. Shadorne

    MQA vs HiRez: an apples-to-apples comparison II

    I have not misunderstood anything. I have simply made an effort to explain why an apodizing filter affects peak amplitude and broadens peaks. I can’t dumb it down any further for you. I provided a multitude of examples from respected sources (apodizing functions = apodizing filter - there is no fundamental difference). Ultimately I had resorted to a reference to optical apodizing (same maths same term for obvious reasons) in the hope it might help you and others grasp the well known principal effects of apodizing. However you and others here choose to attack the analogy and attack my statements without offering any contrary evidence at all. If anything you said was correct then I am sure you could easily provide a link showing mathematical proof or engineering documents to the effect that apodizing filters do NOT affect peak amplitude and peak width. However you can’t provide a link or reference because you are wrong and probably too embarrassed to admit it. Apodizing filters do exactly what I described.
×