Hi would adding a external DAC to the wiim ultra streamer make a difference/improve sound?

[voodooless]

Here is an interesting story about how the brain can see things the eyes cannot. I saw a picture of a person on a website and I couldn't stop thinking about that picture for the whole day - I had no idea why as it was just a picture on a web page that I saw for a split second. I clearly didn't know the person or recognize him. It turns out he was in my elementary school class and some part of my brain projected his growth as an adult and discovered a possible match - it must have been the eyes as they were almost completely unrecognizable. Obviously the same applies to sound - once the brain has to qualify the sound there's clearly an issue that the ears cannot hear but the brain is able to detect and says "no mas - there is an issue"

That story is about recognition, not discrimination.

Faces and voices are stored as high-level identity features in long-term memory and are extremely tolerant to distortion.

Audio fidelity judgments require short-term, high-resolution comparison, which auditory memory simply doesn’t support.

Recognizing who someone is years later says nothing about detecting tiny signal differences without a reference.

 

[techsamurai]

That story is about recognition, not discrimination.

Faces and voices are stored as high-level identity features in long-term memory and are extremely tolerant to distortion.

Audio fidelity judgments require short-term, high-resolution comparison, which auditory memory simply doesn’t support.

Recognizing who someone is years later says nothing about detecting tiny signal differences without a reference.

I think you missed the point - the point is that what you see and what you hear is processed by the brain. Audio fidelity judgments can also take some time to process. For instance, when my AVR reset and lost the Audyssey configuration unbeknownst to me, I didn't immediately look at my speaker and think "whoa, that range is 5db lower - Herbert Von Karajan: Eat this! ". It took me a few hours to realize that something was way off and, lo and behold, there was nothing in Audyssey.

Ditto for the dust that was causing occasional crackling that you literally had to put your ear on the driver to hear clearly. I was listening to it and my brain was telling me even though I couldn't really hear the problem. It took me forever to figure out the issue.

But generally speaking, I'm almost immediate in my evaluation. If I don't like the sound and my brain and body don't react to it, there's almost no chance I ever will unless the sound signature changes. If the brain says no, it will say no forever unless the sound becomes what I like.

 

[voodooless]

I think you missed the point - the point is that what you see and what you hear is processed by the brain. Audio fidelity judgments can also take some time to process. For instance, when my AVR reset and lost the Audyssey configuration unbeknownst to me, I didn't immediately look at my speaker and think "whoa, that range is 5db lower - Herbert Von Karajan: Eat this! ". It took me a few hours to realize that something was way off and, lo and behold, there was nothing in Audyssey.

Ditto for the dust that was causing occasional crackling that you literally had to put your ear on the driver to hear clearly. I was listening to it and my brain was telling me even though I couldn't really hear the problem. It took me forever to figure out the issue.

But generally speaking, I'm almost immediate in my evaluation. If I don't like the sound and my brain and body don't react to it, there's almost no chance I ever will unless the sound signature changes. If the brain says no, it will say no forever unless the sound becomes what I like.

Nobody disputes that the brain processes sound. That’s exactly why controlled comparisons exist. What you’re describing (Audyssey off, dust crackle) are large, real, measurable changes that cross audibility thresholds and can be noticed even without immediate awareness. That has nothing to do with detecting tiny signal differences below known thresholds or without a reference. Preference forming over time does not mean you have a perception of inaudible differences.

All you did was to prove how unreliable perception really is...

 

[techsamurai]

All you did was to prove how unreliable perception really is...

Well, interesting you should say that in the context of this conversation. If perception is unreliable and I'm not arguing that it's not, aren't many measurements, even the best ones, as unreliable (or useless) from the consumer standpoint?

If you are listening to a MTM design center channel, should you not be able to tell that it's an MTM design in a "blind test"?

If in a blind test, people can't tell that it's a MTM speaker then it's from their perspective not a MTM speaker. Objectively it is a MTM, subjectively it's not.

My point is that if we discount perception as not valuable then you have to discount measurements. If a product suffers in its measurements, it should be obvious within seconds to the listener. Otherwise, aren't all those measurements irrelevant and almost as valuable as anyone's perception? Objectively, you've measured something that is of absolutely no value except from a theoretical stance.

When folks review products here, can they tell in advance the rating the product will receive when they listen to it? If not, then the measurements reveal nothing of substance except from a technical stand.

 

[voodooless]

If you are listening to a MTM design center channel, should you not be able to tell that it's an MTM design in a "blind test"?

You clearly don’t understand why an MTM makes for a bad center speaker: because it has an extreme small sweet spot, meaning everyone not sitting dead center of it will have poor dialogue legibility.

My point is that if we discount perception as not valuable then you have to discount measurements. If a product suffers in its measurements, it should be obvious within seconds to the listener. Otherwise, aren't all those measurements irrelevant and almost as valuable as anyone's perception? Objectively, you've measured something that is of absolutely no value except from a theoretical stance.

Expecting every measurable problem to be obvious in seconds misunderstands both perception and measurement.

When folks review products here, can they tell in advance the rating the product will receive when they listen to it? If not, then the measurements reveal nothing of substance except from a technical stand.

Reviews don’t rank sound. They legitimize products, protect margins, and justify price tiers.

 

[techsamurai]

You clearly don’t understand why an MTM makes for a bad center speaker: because it has an extreme small sweet spot, meaning everyone not sitting dead center of it will have poor dialogue legibility.


Expecting every measurable problem to be obvious in seconds misunderstands both perception and measurement.

Reviews don’t rank sound. They legitimize products, protect margins, and justify price tiers.

I sense quite a bit of bias - are you sure you're not an audiophile?

Again, my point with the MTM is that in the utmost of tests, someone should be able to sit down on a couch while sound is playing on a MTM speaker placed horizontally (not even in test conditions - knowing it's a test people will be more alert) that has bad horizontal dispersion and the person should be able to point that out immediately saying there's something wrong with this speaker.

Same with products that don't get a good recommendation on ASR due to measurements. When listening to a product that has bad measurements and playing "3 little birds are by my doorstep", people should immediately stare at it and wonder "what is this? this is not music". The ears and brains should provide the same measurements - otherwise the measurement is not a real-life measurement or one of value to humans.

Perhaps a better way to word this is that the measurements should be in alignment with the listening experience of most people and ideally noticeable without measurements.

 

[JeremyFife]

I sense quite a bit of bias - are you sure you're not an audiophile?

Again, my point with the MTM is that in the utmost of tests, someone should be able to sit down on a couch while sound is playing on a MTM speaker placed horizontally (not even in test conditions - knowing it's a test people will be more alert) that has bad horizontal dispersion and the person should be able to point that out immediately saying there's something wrong with this speaker.

Same with products that don't get a good recommendation on ASR due to measurements. When listening to a product that has bad measurements and playing "3 little birds are by my doorstep", people should immediately stare at it and wonder "what is this? this is not music". The ears and brains should provide the same measurements - otherwise the measurement is not a real-life measurement or one of value to humans.

Perhaps a better way to word this is that the measurements should be in alignment with the listening experience of most people and ideally noticeable without measurements.

I'm not following you.
Measurements are objective: speaker distortion, directivity profile, deviation from 'flat' FR, sensitivity, impedance etc

It doesn't matter if you can hear it or not, certainly doesn't matter if you like it.

The measurements stand outside that, which is why they matter.

 

[voodooless]

I sense quite a bit of bias - are you sure you're not an audiophile?

Everyone has a bias. Only an audiophile would claim they don't...

Again, my point with the MTM is that in the utmost of tests, someone should be able to sit down on a couch while sound is playing on a MTM speaker placed horizontally (not even in test conditions - knowing it's a test people will be more alert) that has bad horizontal dispersion and the person should be able to point that out immediately saying there's something wrong with this speaker.

No, that is not at all how it works.

Same with products that don't get a good recommendation on ASR due to measurements. When listening to a product that has bad measurements and playing "3 little birds are by my doorstep", people should immediately stare at it and wonder "What is this? this is not music". The ears and brains should provide the same measurements - otherwise the measurement is not a real-life measurement or one of value to humans.

That is also not how it works. You clearly don't understand how the recommendations on ASR work.

Perhaps a better way to word this is that the measurements should be in alignment with the listening experience of most people and ideally noticeable without measurements.

That is impossible. If ASR measures a cable, and finds it does exactly nothing to the sound, but people claim they hear vails lifted, then what? Clearly, the cable does nothing, so the experiences of the people who claim to hear a diffrence is based on something other than the performance of the product, in other words: not based on the sound waves that reach the ear.

 

[Mort]

Y'all this is troll feeding.

 

[techsamurai]

I'm not following you.
Measurements are objective: speaker distortion, directivity profile, deviation from 'flat' FR, sensitivity, impedance etc

It doesn't matter if you can hear it or not, certainly doesn't matter if you like it.

The measurements stand outside that, which is why they matter.

If a product measures badly and a recommendation is made, someone should be able to hear that without any test and vice versa.

Let's take 2 products. One has the best measurement in its category - 0% and the other one has the worst measurement 1%.

We conduct a blind test (ideally where folks don't even know there's a test) playing music and no one notices the terrible distortion.

That has to call into question the value of the test. Did it truly measure how the speaker performs under real life conditions with music? Was the test beyond the capabilities of human hearing? What value does the measurement then have? Does a recommendation based on a measurement make sense?

My point is that a lot of people take measurements as seriously as perception. I have lived with a MTM for 20 years - I don't know its dispersion. If I move to another seat, I honestly can't tell the difference Granted, it's in a BDI cabinet and that might affect the dispersion (maybe fixes it assuming the speaker had bad dispersion) and sound quality but I have not measured it and clearly I'm still using it instead of getting up every day when I watch anything and screaming "This will not stand! I shall fix the frequency of the speaker that plays back 70% of the sound or die trying! Measurements that I won't know about for a decade clearly demand that I and others do so!"

In fact, no one took a stand against the MTM center speaker channels and the auditory crime that was being committed. The Supreme Court of Sound never reviewed the case of the countless lives that were afflicted by this atrocity as was demonstrated clearly in measurements. We were all in fact very happy with the sound and when it played music with DTS or in movies, it sounded amazing. I have held onto my MTM speaker while knowing that it might measure horribly.

And I did bring up the MTM by happenstance. Its implications on sound are massive.

 

[voodooless]

if I move to another seat, I honestly can't tell the difference

Your ears must just not be resolving enough... There I said it...

Liking something for 20 years doesn’t make its limitations disappear. It just means you adapted to them.

In fact, no one took a stand against the MTM center speaker channels and the auditory crime that was being committed.

That is factually incorrect. MTM centers have been called out for decades because of their limitations. That is why they are currently basically non-existent in anything other than the lowest budget of speaker lines.

We were all in fact very happy with the sound and when it played music with DTS or in movies, it sounded amazing. I have held onto my MTM speaker while knowing that it might measure horribly.

This only shows that to you at least, the MTM is an acceptable compromise. That does not mean that it is true for everyone.

 

[techsamurai]

Your ears must just not be resolving enough... There I said it...

This only shows that to you at least, the MTM is an acceptable compromise. That does not mean that it is true for everyone.

Ha-ha, perhaps that is true. But in order to make that statement you would need to know a few things:

1. The seating positions (the angles in my home)
2. The dispersion issue with the speaker itself
3. The dispersion issue within my room
4. The additional sound changes that being enclosed in a cabinet may add along with the cover
5. The impact of room correction (it cannot overcome the inherent measurement issues but it will change the sound)
6. The vertical elevation of the speaker to the ears

I know the answers to some of these and I'm the only who has heard the speaker in my room.

And the most important question would be is my MTM a 2.5 way speaker?

Apparently, that happens to be the case with my center channel. I didn't know that until 1 minute ago. Apparently, my ears have gone from not being resolving enough to being able to detect a 2.5 way system and stay true to my decision for 20 years.

Does that not turn it into a WMTW or WTMW design depending on the woofer handling midrange?

Perhaps, I should be nominated for the Nobel Prize for hearing

Liking something for 20 years doesn’t make its limitations disappear. It just means you adapted to them.

On the scale of adaptation, I'd rank myself as the president emeritus of the non-adaptation club. But that might be subjective.

That is factually incorrect. MTM centers have been called out for decades because of their limitations. That is why they are currently basically non-existent in anything other than the lowest budget of speaker lines.

Here's an article by Gene and I'll quote his conclusion below:

Vertical vs Horizontal Center Channel Speaker Designs – An Alternate Perspective

This article contains an in depth discussion of the trade-offs of different center channel designs (MTM vs WTMW, etc) and their real world applications and limitations.

www.audioholics.com

MTM and W(T/M)W are the two basic center channels designs that are most popular. There are many variants of each all with their associated strengths and weaknesses. The best advice one could give when choosing a center channel speaker or any of the speakers in your theater room is to NOT just blindly rule out a particular type of design because someone says it theoretically cannot work. Test them with your ears in your listening environment across your listening area to decide if they are right for you.

The last sentence is essentially the whole point here - "test them with your ears in your listening environment across your listening area to decide if they are right for you".

I would say that a huge number of home theater center channels have MTM designs and I would not be surprised if soundbars have them too. It's a bit elitist to say that it's only for the lowest budget of speakers when the majority of folks may only be able to afford those.

 

[techsamurai]

Y'all this is troll feeding.

That's a biased audiophile comment - do you possess any objective measurements to back that up? The start of the sentence was also heavily distorted.

 

[voodooless]

The last sentence is essentially the whole point here - "test them with your ears in your listening environment across your listening area to decide if they are right for you".

Why would one not dismiss it, if, for similar money, you can get a product without that compromise? As for testing in your environment, with speakers, that is basically a given, although with good speakers, you can tailor them to most rooms without many issues. I'd be happy to buy speakers without listening to them; in fact, I did several times, and they were always excellent, at least so far.

I would say that a huge number of home theater center channels have MTM designs and I would not be surprised if soundbars have them too.

Soundbars generally use all kinds of setups, and they are way smaller. That helps a lot in preventing lobing effects. Also, a lot of them don't even use tweeters, but just a wideband driver that has none of these issues. But sure, some of those will have issues, just as some speakers still are classical 2-way MTMs. Soundsbars are compromised in so many ways... Still, it works for a lot of people.

It's a bit elitist to say that it's only for the lowest budget of speakers when the majority of folks may only be able to afford those.

It's the reality... I can't change it, even if I would like to. The fact is that even a 2.5-way system is more expensive than a similar 2-way system. A 3-way adds even more cost and complexity. They simply save that for the higher-tier products. But the budget gems are out there, just a lot harder to find.

 

[techsamurai]

Why would one not dismiss it, if, for similar money, you can get a product without that compromise? As for testing in your environment, with speakers, that is basically a given, although with good speakers, you can tailor them to most rooms without many issues. I'd be happy to buy speakers without listening to them; in fact, I did several times, and they were always excellent, at least so far.

Soundbars generally use all kinds of setups, and they are way smaller. That helps a lot in preventing lobing effects. Also, a lot of them don't even use tweeters, but just a wideband driver that has none of these issues. But sure, some of those will have issues, just as some speakers still are classical 2-way MTMs. Soundsbars are compromised in so many ways... Still, it works for a lot of people.

It's the reality... I can't change it, even if I could. The fact is that even a 2.5-way system is more expensive than a similar 2-way system. A 3-way adds even more cost and complexity. They simply save that for the higher-tier products. But they are out there, just a lot harder to find.

I agree. Sometimes choices are limited. My center is at least from the same brand and the REW measurements didn't show anything crazy other than the fact that it seems capable of playing really low (under 30hz) at very high volume.

Does the 2.5 way resolve the dispersion issues of a standard MTM?

 

[voodooless]

Does the 2.5 way resolve the dispersion issues of a standard MTM?

Yes, it does, at least mostly. However, there will be some horizontal asymmetry because there is only interaction with one of the two woofers. Just look at any standard 2-way vertical dispersion plot.

 

[kyuu]

You clearly don’t understand why an MTM makes for a bad center speaker: because it has an extreme small sweet spot, meaning everyone not sitting dead center of it will have poor dialogue legibility.

I feel like I must defend the honor of the toppled MTM as they are unfairly maligned, I think. Good designs generally manage +/- 20-degrees or so from on-axis before significant lobing effects occur. At 2 meters away, that makes the "sweet spot" about 1.5 meters wide. Plenty wide enough for a single listener, or even a couple if they don't mind being close. At 3 meters, it's roughly 2.2 meters wide. That should cover the entirety of a small couch, seems to me.

Not saying, of course, that a 3-way isn't plainly better. But those are inevitably larger (a big problem on its own for many setups) and more expensive.

 

[techsamurai]

I feel like I must defend the honor of the toppled MTM as they are unfairly maligned, I think. Good designs generally manage +/- 20-degrees or so from on-axis before significant lobing effects occur. At 2 meters away, that makes the "sweet spot" about 1.5 meters wide. Plenty wide enough for a single listener, or even a couple if they don't mind being close. At 3 meters, it's roughly 2.2 meters wide. That should cover the entirety of a small couch, seems to me.

Not saying, of course, that a 3-way isn't plainly better. But those are inevitably larger (a big problem on its own for many setups) and more expensive.

For some reason, I always think of speakers as 2-way and 3-way. In all honesty, I'd never even considered a center channel being 2.5. I was actually shocked to see that my speaker was 2.5 way this morning. In fact, I'm now shocked that the more expensive ($1,650) 20-year newer B&W HTM72 S3 is a 2-way design.

I almost wonder why MTM center channels don't automatically opt for a 2.5 way design.

 

[voodooless]

I feel like I must defend the honor of the toppled MTM as they are unfairly maligned, I think. Good designs generally manage +/- 20-degrees or so from on-axis before significant lobing effects occur. At 2 meters away, that makes the "sweet spot" about 1.5 meters wide. Plenty wide enough for a single listener, or even a couple if they don't mind being close. At 3 meters, it's roughly 2.2 meters wide. That should cover the entirety of a small couch, seems to me

Fair enough, but the main issue is that those 20deg are only for a limited bandwidth. The rest will be a lot wider. So the reflected sound will be influenced heavily. Also, there will be more floor and ceiling bounce.

 

[kyuu]

I almost wonder why MTM center channels don't automatically opt for a 2.5 way design.

Going to a 2.5-way design isn't a cure all. It can sometimes make the response messier. Even in good designs it doesn't seem to be a major improvement to the directivity; you're still generally looking at around +/- 20-degrees from on-axis before lobing becomes a problem. In any case it's a more complex crossover and therefore will be more expensive.