estuardo4
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2019
- Messages
- 143
- Likes
- 136
Tim, could you please tell me how are you connecting things? I have a PC connected via USB to my DAC and the DAC to my amp. Where should I put the PW Link ? Thank you.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Review and Measurements of Paradigm PW-Link Streamer/DAC
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Tim, could you please tell me how are you connecting things? I have a PC connected via USB to my DAC and the DAC to my amp. Where should I put the PW Link ? Thank you.
It can, but it seems that the SPDIF out can only go up to 48khz.
From my experience, I think the best sound quality is: With ARC on, optical in and RCA out with the PW-Link's volume set to 30% or so.
With optical in and optical out, the sound quality seems to be less good. (We will need Amir's measurement to show that).
With optical in and optical out, the sound quality seems to be less good. (We will need Amir's measurement to show that).
TimW
Major Contributor
One way that doesn't require anything but another pair of RCA cables would be PC>usb>Sanskrit>analog>PW-Link>analog>Amp. This is not ideal because you're introducing an ADC/DAC stage to the chain and the DAC part of that was just shown to be poor. A better way, in my opinion, is PC>optical>PW-Link>optical>Sanskrit>analog>amp. I have not heard any issues with the optical output and I'm hoping Amir's measurements will show that it functions properly. If your PC has an optical output all you will need is an optical cable, if not you will have to purchase a usb to spdif optical converter. As @mi-fu has said, the optical output of the PW-Link only goes up to 48kHz. I have only seen 44.1kHz or 48kHz come out of it.
invaderzim
Senior Member
Hmmm, I wonder how this would work in my old car with the 2 speaker stereo and rca jacks coming out of the CD changer.
Yes, slope, frequency, and a lot more can be configured.
The new ARC Genesis for Windows & Mac can be downloaded here and has a demo mode.
There is a good interview with a subjective review and mfg interview for the Martin Logan Unison here. I believe it is identical to the PW/Link except for cosmetics.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2018
- Messages
- 3,740
- Likes
- 6,454
From the review: I don't care how good your room or your system is, you need room equalization. The room, especially at low frequencies, changes the response of any speaker.
I think it depends on the setup. The more speakers you have in your listening room, the more problems you will likely encounter, making correction beneficial. But there is a big difference between a five to seven speaker array with multiple subs, used mostly for surround movies, and two channel stereo, two speakers aimed at a seated listener, using full range speakers with limited bass response (say, horns or electrostatic panels). From my experience (the latter minimalist setup) problems only really begin to manifest once a subwoofer is added. Then, moving the LF box around to different positions has the largest affect on the sound. With practice and experimentation, I think acceptable to very good to excellent sound can be attained, by trial and error. Of course, just moving two stereo speakers as much as a foot or two can make a huge difference.
For my location, using larger cabinet horns (not corner horns wedded to a particular spot) I found the better position was to place front speakers angled toward the listener, closer to the corners, with a subwoofer addition against a side wall, well away from the front speakers. The sound is as good as I've heard in any of my domestic environments. I will admit that electronic equalization might make an even bigger improvement, but the ear tends to adapt--and at what price?
All that said, one of the best demos I heard was a self-powered Bang and Olufsen Model 5 speaker that had a little microphone incorporated into the bottom of the speaker. The mike measured some in-room speaker generated tones, and adjusted everything. It also used circular saucer shaped wave-guides, and looked like something out of Dr. Who. Very expensive, but you got room correction and amplifiers included. I checked, but it's not in production anymore. They did have something called the 90, which was particularly ugly, and cost about as much as a new S-450 sedan. If you ever read a review about how this or that 'speaker disappeared' when playing, then that is what you'd want with the B&O 90s.
I think it depends on the setup. The more speakers you have in your listening room, the more problems you will likely encounter, making correction beneficial. But there is a big difference between a five to seven speaker array with multiple subs, used mostly for surround movies, and two channel stereo, two speakers aimed at a seated listener, using full range speakers with limited bass response (say, horns or electrostatic panels). From my experience (the latter minimalist setup) problems only really begin to manifest once a subwoofer is added. Then, moving the LF box around to different positions has the largest affect on the sound. With practice and experimentation, I think acceptable to very good to excellent sound can be attained, by trial and error. Of course, just moving two stereo speakers as much as a foot or two can make a huge difference.
For my location, using larger cabinet horns (not corner horns wedded to a particular spot) I found the better position was to place front speakers angled toward the listener, closer to the corners, with a subwoofer addition against a side wall, well away from the front speakers. The sound is as good as I've heard in any of my domestic environments. I will admit that electronic equalization might make an even bigger improvement, but the ear tends to adapt--and at what price?
All that said, one of the best demos I heard was a self-powered Bang and Olufsen Model 5 speaker that had a little microphone incorporated into the bottom of the speaker. The mike measured some in-room speaker generated tones, and adjusted everything. It also used circular saucer shaped wave-guides, and looked like something out of Dr. Who. Very expensive, but you got room correction and amplifiers included. I checked, but it's not in production anymore. They did have something called the 90, which was particularly ugly, and cost about as much as a new S-450 sedan. If you ever read a review about how this or that 'speaker disappeared' when playing, then that is what you'd want with the B&O 90s.
Any room correction product complete with a usable microphone AND digital in/out for ~$150 is a steal of a deal.
If you haven’t experienced room acoustic correction before, you’re yet to realise that this makes a bigger difference than a new DAC or amp.
Short of a new room or set of speakers, its almost magic.
If you haven’t experienced room acoustic correction before, you’re yet to realise that this makes a bigger difference than a new DAC or amp.
Short of a new room or set of speakers, its almost magic.
Last edited:
You make good point. I found a photo that seems to describe your setup. Is that you?
Your are right that electronic room equalization has its downsides. Ethan Winer discussed some electronic room correction problems in this January 2019 article. Among them, correcting for 1 location can cause more problems in others. Ethan sells Realtraps room treatments which correctly done may have fewer artifacts. Carefully chosen and placed components, room treatment, and ARC/Dirac type devices, all can help alleviate room problems. But, the first step is realizing you have a problem and most of 2 channel audiophilia has not admitted that yet.
In the US it is available direct from Paradigm here. It is also listed at full price from Paradigm on eBay. But, they are accepting offers and earlier this year they accepted my $157 offer.
If they do not have the same offer in your country, your only solution may be eBay through a transshipper.
Last edited:
jazzendapus
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2019
- Messages
- 71
- Likes
- 150
UMIK+REW+Equalizer APO+rePhase is still 75$
Though I'd like to see someone measure what ARC actually does, the "before" and "after" measurements that DRC solutions have a tendency to hide...
w
Sorry, but REW, EQ APO and Rephase are not plug and play.
From the impression I get from amirm’s review is that ARC is. Something perhaps even my spouse could do.
UMIK+REW+Equalizer APO+rePhase is still 75$
Though I'd like to see someone measure what ARC actually does, the "before" and "after" measurements that DRC solutions have a tendency to hide...
Sorry, but REW, EQ APO and Rephase are not plug and play.
From the impression I get from amirm’s review is that ARC is. Something perhaps even my spouse could do.
jazzendapus
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2019
- Messages
- 71
- Likes
- 150
That's true of course, but I'd still like to see what exactly does it do automatically and whether it's worth it (maybe Amir is up for task for a quick REW before and after measurements?). My Denon AVR with its automatic Audyssey DRC refuses, for some reason, to correct a certain bass peak, but I've no trouble correcting it manually with the aforementioned tools.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2018
- Messages
- 3,740
- Likes
- 6,454
Good grief, man! I thought I had deleted all those pics from the Net. I guess it's true, nothing on-line is ever completely gone.You make good point. I found a photo that seems to describe your setup. Is that you?
Your are right that electronic room equalization has its downsides. ... But, the first step is realizing you have a problem and most of 2 channel audiophilia has not admitted that yet.
.
RE: 2 channel audio, you have a point, as far as it goes. How far it goes kind of depends on how far your wallet extends. The other factor is acoustic: any time you introduce multiple channels into your system (systems with multiple drivers attached to multiple speakers, all attempting to act together as one coherent source), reproduction problems in a room multiply exponentially. The only way to get it right will probably be electronic correction. Too many acoustic variables, otherwise.
Now let's talk a bit about recordings. Multi channel v. two channel.
I think it was Tom Nousaine who argued repeatedly that 2 channel was essentially 'dead'. In a 1984 essays he wrote, "I would say that by 2005 two-channel recording will be history." Never try to predict the future. Seasoned critic Peter Aczel eventually came to the conclusion that 2 channel was 'better' than multi-channel, IF the recording was done correctly, and IF one had high quality speakers. Surely, two big IFs. For surround I believe Peter was using a no longer in business Canadian speaker system (Waveform), and for two channel, Dr. Linkwitz's minimal baffle designs--multi-amped electrically compensated crossover corrections. I know that originally his sources included second generation analog master tape recordings (but by the time he retired I'm guessing he'd sold both his Stellavox and Mark Levinson modified Studer A80).
Loudspeakers in a living room are the last remaining subjective components. And subjectively, I never felt deprived listening to the original Quad, (designed, by the way, during the monophonic era) in stereo (although I would have liked it to play louder, and have deeper bass). Would it have sounded better in a five or seven channel iteration? Certainly not for Furtwangler. When the next Furtwangler/Berlin combo shows up, we can talk. But now we are back to performances and recording, which, after all, is the method to all this madness. Obviously those are my prejudices, and not prejudices others might share. I get that.
Personally, I would have preferred it, if instead of 2 channel stereo, 3 channel (three front speakers to minimize the center channel phantom image) could have been developed. But hardware for that could never leave the studio, and enter the living room. Paul Klipsch attempted a kludge, with some mixed results. 3 channel would have been fine for me...for music. I'm not much of a movie special effects fan, so that doesn't interest me.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #38
Ethan and I (and countless others) have argued this forever.
Including some in this forum.ARC performs measurements at 5 locations as do many others. They then apply various algorithms in deciding how much to correct and as such, mitigate the "it is only good for one location." To wit, I hard the same great improvement with PW-LINK as I moved around in my chair.
On using acoustic panels, the wavelengths in bass frequencies are very large which means thin panels (a few inches thick) are not effective at all. They are good for 200+ Hz but down at 20 to 80 Hz, no. If you put enough of them in there you can get some improvements as Ethan has done in his living room but then you wind up with too much absorption at high frequencies, resulting in a dead room. Some people like Ethan prefer that sound but for most listeners, it is a step backward.
The beauty of room EQ, literally, is that it is invisible in the room. No need to litter your room with acoustic panels. In my case my lab is a loft that is open to the rest of the house so no way I am willing to put any panels on the wall.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #39
The sub makes things far worse, requiring someone become a speaker designer to blend them properly into mains. So yes, room EQ products can do a remarkably good job of integrating them into the room.
However, 2-channel systems also benefit greatly from room EQ without a sub. The difference is amazing. This is why I recommend people get this solution and quickly experience what it is about. There is no mess, no acoustic products, no nothing. Run a calibration for 5 minutes and you have the results.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #40
I don't have much time right now but here is a quick dig into what ARC2 is doing. First is the change in frequency response with or without ARC2:
The dotted line is without EQ. The solid red and blue are the corrections for each channel. As I have noted, it uses a mild hand with respect to boost as to not blow up your speakers. It seems to literally clip the correction as I have shown with the arrow. This would also help with digital overflow in the DSP pipeline.
This was a quick run and likely I did not have the mic in the center position and hence the asymmetrical correction for each speaker. They are not acoustically identical either. Dialing these by hand using parametric EQ would be a lot of work.
As noted, the correction stops below 80 Hz or so due to its assumed subwoofer crossover. It is also smart to not attempt to correct higher frequencies and stops at around 5 kHz. If you don't like what is up there, the solution is always a better speaker, not EQ.
Here is what REW shows for one channel. Note that it is NOT the same position as the above correction/measurement as that was done by me holding the mic. Whereas the REW measurement below is with a tripod. I will need to repeat the calibration and REW using the same tripod to arrive at a more correct comparison:
We can easily see that the low and high frequencies are left behind as the previous measurement showed.
As expected, the peak at around 100 Hz is dialed down as is the one at 300 Hz.
One of the past issues with ARC was that its target curve is too flat. That seems to be the case still. Normally after you flatten the peaks, you then apply a global EQ to bring up the low frequencies to compensate for lower amount of bass. That doesn't seem to be here and hence the reason I thought it sounded a tough bright.
Don't run home with this data. It is just some quick information and not a proper way to reverse engineer what it is doing.
The dotted line is without EQ. The solid red and blue are the corrections for each channel. As I have noted, it uses a mild hand with respect to boost as to not blow up your speakers.
It seems to literally clip the correction as I have shown with the arrow. This would also help with digital overflow in the DSP pipeline.This was a quick run and likely I did not have the mic in the center position and hence the asymmetrical correction for each speaker. They are not acoustically identical either. Dialing these by hand using parametric EQ would be a lot of work.
As noted, the correction stops below 80 Hz or so due to its assumed subwoofer crossover. It is also smart to not attempt to correct higher frequencies and stops at around 5 kHz. If you don't like what is up there, the solution is always a better speaker, not EQ.
Here is what REW shows for one channel. Note that it is NOT the same position as the above correction/measurement as that was done by me holding the mic. Whereas the REW measurement below is with a tripod. I will need to repeat the calibration and REW using the same tripod to arrive at a more correct comparison:
We can easily see that the low and high frequencies are left behind as the previous measurement showed.
As expected, the peak at around 100 Hz is dialed down as is the one at 300 Hz.
One of the past issues with ARC was that its target curve is too flat. That seems to be the case still. Normally after you flatten the peaks, you then apply a global EQ to bring up the low frequencies to compensate for lower amount of bass. That doesn't seem to be here and hence the reason I thought it sounded a tough bright.
Don't run home with this data.
It is just some quick information and not a proper way to reverse engineer what it is doing.Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
