Jump to content

tuga

Wammer
  • Posts

    10,928
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by tuga

  1. I have been using a dedicated network to stream files for some years. This network only serves the file playback system, over ethernet, and is not connected to the internet. Two years ago I bought a wired router with an SMPS wallwart and last year I decided to add switch with internal LPS; contrary to my expectations I am convinced that I can hear an improvement when the switch is in place. The files are processed/played by a computer and then sent over ethernet to a buffer/endpoint/bridge (microRendu) which connects to the DAC over USB. I am also convinced that I can hear an improvement over connecting the DAC directly to the computer that is processing/playing the files.
  2. It's an oversimplification but people like simple, hence star-ratings.
  3. Mine's the original model without Bluetooth:
  4. If you are talking about SINAD forget it, it's a poor metric.
  5. The shape of the baffle edges matters. In their R and Reference series Kef chose to have a flat baffle with sharp edges for aesthetic reasons and there is a drawback to that design. So they set out to minimise the impact and created a waveguide they called "Shadow Flare": https://www.shop.us.kef.com/pub/media/wysiwyg/documents/thereference/REF_White_Paper_preview_path_200514.pdf
  6. About baffle design, edge diffraction, secondary sound sources, and their influence on the sound quality of loudspeakers https://heissmann-acoustics.de/en/kantendiffraktion-sekundaerschallquellen-treiberanordnun/
  7. Yes, I should rephrase it for clarity. I would say that comparable Kefs and Revels are flatter off-axis than the SCM11. This means that in a more reflective domestic environment the combined direct-reflected balance will be less flat with the SCM11s, but the off-axis behaviour is actually not bad (crossover frequency) for a non-waveguided design.
  8. I am attempting to demonstrate that the response of both speakers playing simultaneoulsy will produce a combined response that when EQ'ed will not correct either speaker.
  9. I think he means more advanced designs, with high-performance complex waveguides, DSP, cardioid response.
  10. Lack of knowledge is a liability, regardless of whether one's approach is more objective- or subjective-driven. People will also hear something then pick up a cause as meaningful out of context...
  11. And in what way does measuring and EQ the response of both speakers simultaneously more effective than EQ'ing the responses individually?
  12. All measurements are relevant or they would have not been created. Some parameters have more important/audible effects than others. And some types of distortion sound nice to some people, which makes it difficult for those people to accept that something which sounds good can be labelled as distortion. Round and round we go...
  13. Quite a number of worth listening to people at ASR rate directivity as the most important parameter of performance. But it is not the only one, other aspects are quite relevant too. ATC speakers in general tend to perform well in most parameters but their off-axis response shows slight to moderate levels of directivity mismatch. That is why they are not particularly well regarded, but mostly because an older model was measured and didn't do well.
  14. How would that be different? You'd probably just as upset and defensive if someone had listened, as you are with GS. He posts a lot at Audiophilestyle and also at ASR. I he's not your typical reviewer, he is reasonably knowledgeable and his listening methodology seems quite fit for purpose. Until he badmouth's one my components; then he'll become my mortal enemy.
  15. Would you mind exporting the plots with the vertical (Y) scale reduced to 50dB and apply a bit less smoothing (perhaps 1/24 octave)? As it stands the resolution is very limited.
  16. It is never wrong if someone likes the result. It just does not make for a more accurate transduction of the recording/sugnal at the listening spot. When room boundaries affect frequency response do they not also affect phase?
  17. I don't agree. Unless the speakers are positioned in such a way that their response below 300Hz is identical, applying the same EQ correction to two speakers with a different response will neither make the individual nor the combined sound flatter at the listening spot. See below at 64Hz, 87Hz, 100Hz...
  18. That makes sense (regarding decay). Interaction information I don’t find particularly useful but it could be if you are using a sub (or a pair of subs).
  19. The difference between us it that I attack ideas whilst you attack the person.
  20. Does that bother you? I find it silly if people go by any review, be it GS or Darko or that nice chap with the long hair whose name I can't recall. If they're interested they should hear it, yes. They may like it, and they may not like it. Someone else's opinion won't change that, yours, GS', etc. As reviews go I find GS' more trustworthy than the typical. He has decent critical listening methodology and performs measurements. He badmouthed your DAC. So what? By the way, there's a lot that one can antecipate from looking at a comprehensive set of measurements...
  21. So you feel that your comments are less agreesive and ad hominem by adding a dumb Good for you. Yes I use graphs to prove and also to illustrate a point. I also find it strange that people would rather read reviews instead of learning about audio. Strange world...
  22. There's no point in saying that it is or isn't good: what's true to you might be true to Peter but not Paul nor Mary... GS mentions an objective audible issue that he identified through listening. Do others hear the same issue? Are they able to identify that issue if present? All the rest is, well, subjective...
  23. I don't ever measure both speakers at the same time or we could test your hypothesis. From which source did you get the idea that the two speakers should be measured at the same time?
  24. Also I do my best to help people, and that includes you. It's disappointing to read your comment. That includes telling them things they don't want to hear instead of patting their backs.
×
×
  • Create New...