151–160 of 174 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Couple of JBL 306PII active monitors
... with a decent <100$ DAC like Khadas tone board
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>My library is 280GB currently, and storage is cheap That’s around ¾ the amount of music I carry on my iPhone :-)
I don't collect music just to collect it, I only keep artists and albums around that I really like, or if it's something special and hard to find. Everything else is on YouTube or whatever for the rare occasion I need to listen to Metallica or AC/DC or something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you can't change the laws of physics, especially not with miniscule cabinets, a single 3" woofer, two 1.5" midrange drivers and a paltry ~10W of total amplification. It simply isn't physically possible, no matter how much DSP "magic" you throw at it. If you're genuinely serious and believe these tiny speakers are truly amazing, please do spend the $30 yourself and send a set to Amir at audiosciencereview.com, so…
It can reduce the distortion which is what really matters more than frequency balance. The problem as I understand it is the equal loudness curves. The bass itself may be perceived possibly tens of dB quieter in relation to the distortion which occurs an octave or more above the original frequency, so that the perceived distortion is amplified. The measurement should be multiplied by the loudness curves, which shows…
Please provide your research or the sources you base your conclusions on.
You cannot get low-distortion bass at any usable volume out of a 3" speaker in a small cabinet, no matter how much DSP trickery you add, it is physically impossible. The driver simply doesn't have enough membrane area nor excursion to move the required amount of air. On top of this, the type of DSP tricks you are proposing require significant additional amplifier power and heavy-duty speaker drivers that can withstand it. Even then, what you're going to get is massive amounts of distortion, especially as the driver tries to reproduce anything under 150Hz at any sort of volume.
From my experience in hifi and electronics, what they're probably doing is using an off-the-shelf BT+amplifier module, with standard low-power amplifier modules. On top of this there is probably some standard EQ and maybe a "bass enhancer" module of the sort that generates overtones based on low bass frequencies, which uses the "missing fundamental" principle to fool the ear into perceiving bass that is too deep for the speaker to actually reproduce. Some bluetooth speakers make good use of this trick, but it is very much adding a bunch distortion in order to fool your ears.
I'm glad you like your speakers, but you are utterly delusional if you think they offer sound quality that is even on the same planet as a decent set of studio monitors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can reduce the distortion which is what really matters more than frequency balance. The problem as I understand it is the equal loudness curves. The bass itself may be perceived possibly tens of dB quieter in relation to the distortion which occurs an octave or more above the original frequency, so that the perceived distortion is amplified. The measurement should be multiplied by the loudness curves, which shows…
I'd love to see the sources you base your claims on, since you seem to disagree with respected professionals like Floyd Toole and Sean Olive, as well as every sound engineer employed by pro audio companies. Extensive research and listening tests have shown that a linear frequency response with a slight roll-off towards high frequencies and a slight low-frequency boost, combined with even dispersion and low distortion…
I think they might actually be doing the opposite of what you suggest - they generate overtones that cancel out the overtones produced by the speaker itself.
I have been listening on studio monitors for years, as I prefer the sound over the typical consumer audio sound.
Sure, they won't shatter your room, and they are really only powerful enough for listening from close distance, but the thing is how the bass sounds like real bass, rather than loudspeaker bass, it sort of adds weight to other sounds, rather than being directly heard and the whole sound often almost sounds like if it wasn't coming out of speakers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe Fraunhofver did a pretty rigorous scientific test that established the CD transparency quality to be around 256kbps mp3. I don't dispute or doubt that. However, obvious encoding artifacts abound on Spotify. Do I have a superhuman hearing? Probably not. My hypothesis is that not everyone authors lossy files as meticulously as Fraunhofver. Also, the performance of mp3 depends on a highly linear and faithful r…
> Mp3 is painfully obvious on crappy, processed-to-hell speaker systems like the iMac. I didn't know that was the case. Do you know why that somehow accentuates MP3 artifacts? It's not obvious to me why it would, since all the processing iMac speakers might perform is high-quality (no recompression involved). I mean, obviously the iMac isn't going to improve the MP3, it just tries to improve the speakers. But why wou…
Now if the masking sound disappears or changes, the crap is no longer masked.
In other words the psychoacoustic principles work only when we don't alter the signal too much after the codec.
Many diminutive speakers make use of techniques like multiband compression (dynamics, not entropy) to produce "larger" sound. That wreaks havoc on the psychoacoustic model of lossy codecs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe Fraunhofver did a pretty rigorous scientific test that established the CD transparency quality to be around 256kbps mp3. I don't dispute or doubt that. However, obvious encoding artifacts abound on Spotify. Do I have a superhuman hearing? Probably not. My hypothesis is that not everyone authors lossy files as meticulously as Fraunhofver. Also, the performance of mp3 depends on a highly linear and faithful r…
Spotify doesn't use MP3, though. So if you're hearing MP3-specific artifacts (pre-echo, washy "underwater" cymbals), those are probably the result of bad mastering or perhaps using MP3-encoded samples in some tracks. I hear this on some lossless tracks I have, unfortunately if the source material is flawed, there's nothing you can do. Spotify uses Ogg Vorbis, except the lowest bitrate on mobile, which is HE-ACCv2, an…
The most common problem is when the master is hot and encodes clipped waveforms. It sounds even stranger on lossy. In fact I'm not sure if the codecs' filter banks still have perfect reconstruction in this case or if it's just a borked master. In any case, it always tends to be quite clear when I switch between lossy and lossless on Tidal.
Anyway, it's complicated and brittle, and lossless 44/16 is only something like 2x bitrate and bit-perfect (so you can write proper regression tests for codecs very easily) shrug, I think I'll go that route.
disclaimer: occasionally get paid for mastering music, so I'm wired to prefer simplicity, transparency and don't mind some redundancy in ensuring signal integrity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd love to see the sources you base your claims on, since you seem to disagree with respected professionals like Floyd Toole and Sean Olive, as well as every sound engineer employed by pro audio companies. Extensive research and listening tests have shown that a linear frequency response with a slight roll-off towards high frequencies and a slight low-frequency boost, combined with even dispersion and low distortion…
The problem is that you seem to be assuming I like them for the opposite reason why I do, so I guess you will just need to listen for yourself. I think they might actually be doing the opposite of what you suggest - they generate overtones that cancel out the overtones produced by the speaker itself. I have been listening on studio monitors for years, as I prefer the sound over the typical consumer audio sound. Sure,…
That sort of statement needs to be backed up by serious, verifiable facts.
So please go right ahead and back up your extraordinary claims with some verifiable proof. Distortion measurements would be a good start.
As I previously mentioned, Amir at audiosciencereview.com has the necessary tools for thorough speaker measurements, and he accepts shipment of speakers for testing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Mp3 is painfully obvious on crappy, processed-to-hell speaker systems like the iMac. I didn't know that was the case. Do you know why that somehow accentuates MP3 artifacts? It's not obvious to me why it would, since all the processing iMac speakers might perform is high-quality (no recompression involved). I mean, obviously the iMac isn't going to improve the MP3, it just tries to improve the speakers. But why wou…
Mp3 relies on the fact that loud sounds mask spectrally and temporally adjacent softer sounds (psychoacoustic masking) and allows the noise floor to rise for some bands in such conditions to reduce the required number of bits to encode the band signal. Now if the masking sound disappears or changes, the crap is no longer masked. In other words the psychoacoustic principles work only when we don't alter the signal too…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that you seem to be assuming I like them for the opposite reason why I do, so I guess you will just need to listen for yourself. I think they might actually be doing the opposite of what you suggest - they generate overtones that cancel out the overtones produced by the speaker itself. I have been listening on studio monitors for years, as I prefer the sound over the typical consumer audio sound. Sure,…
You claimed that those speakers had more accurate sound, clarity and bass reproduction than a set of studio monitors costing 100x as much. That sort of statement needs to be backed up by serious, verifiable facts. So please go right ahead and back up your extraordinary claims with some verifiable proof. Distortion measurements would be a good start. As I previously mentioned, Amir at audiosciencereview.com has the ne…
Then tell that Amir guy to test them. I don't know him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a hard time taking your recommendation seriously, unless you have never heard a good set of speakers in person. A pair of JBL 305P MkIIs will absolutely wipe the floor with discount speakers like those, with such a huge margin, that it's not even remotely fair. $300 for a pair, certain a lot less than 100x price difference.
You have not heard those, they absolutely do sound more precise than cheap studio monitors. I think they may actually be flat with both bass and treble all the way down, but then they just don't sound like loudspeakers at all.