There is nothing holy about the signal

[Sal1950]

Ok, thanks, I remember that the question was clarified time ago by the OP or something else.

All kidding aside, IMHO the best news of all here is that once you've gotten your total system as close to "a perfect straight wire with gain" as you can make it, at any time after you can modify it nearly any way you like, for any reason you like, but with a click or two of a switch go back to that "near perfect" condition. But if you purchased speakers with a funky response, or have amplifiers that introduce so called "pleasant" coloration's, your stuck with them until you spend a bunch of money to replace them.

Example, I often up-sample 2ch music to some type of surround mode. But with a single click can return to the std sources 2ch reproduction.

 

[Miguelón]

All kidding aside, IMHO the best news of all here is that once you've gotten your total system as close to "a perfect straight wire with gain" as you can make it, at any time after you can modify it nearly any way you like, for any reason you like, but with a click or two of a switch go back to that "near perfect" condition. But if you purchased speakers with a funky response, or have amplifiers that introduce so called "pleasant" coloration's, your stuck with them until you spend a bunch of money to replace them.

Example, I often up-sample 2ch music to some type of surround mode. But with a single click can return to the std sources 2ch reproduction.

Yes, I absolutely agree with that point of view.

In my case that I listen to a majority of acoustic music, is also desirable to go to the most transparent reproduction as possible (on a reasonable non-obsessive and non-money pit margin) because usually it returns a most enjoyable listening.

I suppose also that having a very far from flat response speaker and with a poor directivity is difficult or even impossible to achieve a good in room response just by DSP manipulation, but I don’t know why.

Here I was advised to go on good (in my budget) speakers, so I guess that electronic manipulation of the signal cannot compensate a bad monitor.

Or am I wrong? I hope not, because my 1200€ pair of Genelecs may be cheap for the standard of audiophiles, but to me were on my top budget keeping some money to a future subwoofer…

 

[Sal1950]

Here I was advised to go on good (in my budget) speakers, so I guess that electronic manipulation of the signal cannot compensate a bad monitor.

Or am I wrong? I hope not, because my 1200€ pair of Genelecs may be cheap for the standard of audiophiles, but to me were on my top budget keeping some money to a future subwoofer…

Nope, IMO your right on the money.
You have a really excellent pair of speakers and if desireed it shouldn't be too hard for DSP to smooth out a room mode or two.

OTOH, No amount of DSP can turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

 

[Miguelón]

Nope, IMO your right on the money.
You have a really excellent pair of speakers and if desireed it shouldn't be too hard for DSP to smooth out a room mode or two.

OTOH, No amount of DSP can turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

A first analysis with the WiiM (it uses the mic of the iphone, I suppose is not trustable in details) show a bump on 70 Hz and a big deep around 90 Hz and some spikes on the mids. It doesn’t seem so bad, when I first installed the monitors I thought that my room was enormously difficult but after lowing carefully the spikes and boosting the major dips by ear, the result is a more relaxed sound and can easily differentiate the lower end.

Some of the spikes at 400, 700 and 1300 Hz were hurting my ears specially on female voices and violins, happily under control now.

On the future, when going to the sub which I suppose is more difficult to handle, I will perhaps go with the minidsp flex.

The bad thing about WiiM is that it doesn’t allow analysis of the EQ correction, only on the automatic ones which is so aggressive in my opinion.

Hope they will improve that and allow to verifications of manual corrections and to use a mic other than the iphone one.

I find manual corrections quite formative to the ears perception on the frequency range

 

[Sal1950]

A first analysis with the WiiM (it uses the mic of the iphone, I suppose is not trustable in details) show a bump on 70 Hz and a big deep around 90 Hz and some spikes on the mids.

Though not the greatest thing since sliced bread, the iphone mic or the $2 plastic free ones that come with D & M AV gear aren't as bad as might be the first guess. For finding those big + - 6db bumps and nulls they can be OK.
But sure, if your going to get more serious, something like a $100 Umik which even comes with a individually tuned calibration file, is much better. For those verifications you desire, many of us use the free REW app with the Umik to do the fine tuning of our Audyssey and other systems. It's an incredibly powerful app with abilities I'm probably only 1/4 knowledgeable of.
Cheers

 

[Miguelón]

Though not the greatest thing since sliced bread, the iphone mic or the $2 plastic free ones that come with D & M AV gear aren't as bad as might be the first guess. For finding those big + - 6db bumps and nulls they can be OK.
But sure, if your going to get more serious, something like a $100 Umik which even comes with a individually tuned calibration file, is much better. For those verifications you desire, many of us use the free REW app with the Umik to do the fine tuning of our Audyssey and other systems. It's an incredibly powerful app with abilities I'm probably only 1/4 knowledgeable of.
Cheers

Is a mandatory purchase, but I should before buy a computer: mine is dead. My closer to a computer device is a tablet.

A patient offered me a Behringer mic second hand, are they good?

I realized that the WiiM PEQ can handle two channels, interesting. May I save some money for the DSP and have a better computer

 

[Sal1950]

A patient offered me a Behringer mic second hand, are they good?

Don't know anything about them except to say they're designed for stage work,
Not doing DRC measurements.

 

[HDaudio008]

* Music signal is the most critical component in an audio system ~ If it was mastered by engineers with equipment, then the signal should sound pristine.

* If the signal was mastered by a computer, then there are issues in the signal, and that, despite everyone assuming that all tracks available anywhere where mastered and sent to market in what the artists intended, are more wrong and incorrect in their thinking, and should pause and understand that digital mixing and mastering have flaws.

* Take for example a CD disk that was Sold as Remastered: one would assume that the disc would have a pristine listenable sound, this clearly is not the case when listened to closely and carefully. In fact the CD sounds like the audio was cut above 14khz, as well it sounds very tonally distorted. This being a Label CD that was supposedly Remastered ~ Does not sound any different than an poor mp3 music file.

All music has to travel through Ethernet cables that presumably have large amounts of jitter> ethernet cables introduce distortion and other anomalies into the sound, and reduce the amount of the Studio Sound the original signal was mastered as.

* Millions of dollars of HiFi Audio equipment, by themselves will never make bad music sound good.

Since music switched to Digital, it has been used recklessly to appease a market that listen to audio via $20 audio equipment, or at least via headphones< where the music needs to be squeezed smaller to sound more punchy.

* If it is possible to make bad audio equipment sound good with upgrades and improvements, it is also possible to make a bad Track sound reasonably better than the original Audio File ~ This includes utilizing Various VST software to better align the track to its Original Studio Sound ~ That being, preserved Stereo Separation Soundstage height preserved and not accentuated, as well as keeping the economy of the entire bandwidth from overpowering the rest of the Freq's in the signal.

* To think of music audio a just freq's is incorrect> it should also be viewed electrically, and how VST software when properly scaled and implemented can bring about better voicing to the Audio Signal without corrupting anything. Just as upgrading audio equipment better adjusts the audio clarity to the original equipment. etc.

 

[Sal1950]

* Music signal is the most critical component in an audio system ~ If it was mastered by engineers with equipment, then the signal should sound pristine.

* If the signal was mastered by a computer, then there are issues in the signal, and that, despite everyone assuming that all tracks available anywhere where mastered and sent to market in what the artists intended, are more wrong and incorrect in their thinking, and should pause and understand that digital mixing and mastering have flaws.

* Take for example a CD disk that was Sold as Remastered: one would assume that the disc would have a pristine listenable sound, this clearly is not the case when listened to closely and carefully. In fact the CD sounds like the audio was cut above 14khz, as well it sounds very tonaly distorted. This being a Label CD that was supposedly Remastered ~ Does not sound any different than an poor mp3 music file.

All music has to travel through ethernet cables that presumably have large amounts of jitter> ethernet cables introduce distortion and other anomolies into the sound, and reduce the amount of the Studio Sound the original signal was masterd as.

* Millions of dollars of Hifi Audio equipment, by themselves will never make bad music sound good.

Since music switched to Digital, it has been used recklessly to appease a market that listen to audio via $20 audio equipment, or at least via headphones< where the music needs to be squeezed smaller to sound more punchy.

* If it is possible to make bad audio equipment sound good with upgrades and improvements, it is also possible to make a bad Track sound reasonably better than the original Audio File ~ This includes utilizing Various VST software to better align the track to its Original Studio Sound ~ That being, preserved Stereo Seperation Sounstage height preserved and not accentuated, as well as keeping the economy of the entire bandwisdth from overppowering the rest of the Freq's in the signal.

* To think of music audio a just freq's is incorrect> it should also be viewed electrically, and how VST software when propery scaled and implemented can bring about better voicing to the Audio Signal without corrupting anything. Just as upgrading audio equipment better adjusts the audio clarity to the original equipment. etc.

Welcome to ASR, You have a lot to learn here.

 

[Doodski]

* Music signal is the most critical component in an audio system ~ If it was mastered by engineers with equipment, then the signal should sound pristine.

* If the signal was mastered by a computer, then there are issues in the signal, and that, despite everyone assuming that all tracks available anywhere where mastered and sent to market in what the artists intended, are more wrong and incorrect in their thinking, and should pause and understand that digital mixing and mastering have flaws.

* Take for example a CD disk that was Sold as Remastered: one would assume that the disc would have a pristine listenable sound, this clearly is not the case when listened to closely and carefully. In fact the CD sounds like the audio was cut above 14khz, as well it sounds very tonaly distorted. This being a Label CD that was supposedly Remastered ~ Does not sound any different than an poor mp3 music file.

All music has to travel through ethernet cables that presumably have large amounts of jitter> ethernet cables introduce distortion and other anomolies into the sound, and reduce the amount of the Studio Sound the original signal was masterd as.

* Millions of dollars of Hifi Audio equipment, by themselves will never make bad music sound good.

Since music switched to Digital, it has been used recklessly to appease a market that listen to audio via $20 audio equipment, or at least via headphones< where the music needs to be squeezed smaller to sound more punchy.

* If it is possible to make bad audio equipment sound good with upgrades and improvements, it is also possible to make a bad Track sound reasonably better than the original Audio File ~ This includes utilizing Various VST software to better align the track to its Original Studio Sound ~ That being, preserved Stereo Seperation Sounstage height preserved and not accentuated, as well as keeping the economy of the entire bandwisdth from overppowering the rest of the Freq's in the signal.

* To think of music audio a just freq's is incorrect> it should also be viewed electrically, and how VST software when propery scaled and implemented can bring about better voicing to the Audio Signal without corrupting anything. Just as upgrading audio equipment better adjusts the audio clarity to the original equipment. etc.

Are you serious? I ask because you are pretty much incorrect on all the comments that you made. We get trolls here that carry on like this and that's why I asked if you are serious.

 

[Miguelón]

* Music signal is the most critical component in an audio system ~ If it was mastered by engineers with equipment, then the signal should sound pristine.

* If the signal was mastered by a computer, then there are issues in the signal, and that, despite everyone assuming that all tracks available anywhere where mastered and sent to market in what the artists intended, are more wrong and incorrect in their thinking, and should pause and understand that digital mixing and mastering have flaws.

* Take for example a CD disk that was Sold as Remastered: one would assume that the disc would have a pristine listenable sound, this clearly is not the case when listened to closely and carefully. In fact the CD sounds like the audio was cut above 14khz, as well it sounds very tonaly distorted. This being a Label CD that was supposedly Remastered ~ Does not sound any different than an poor mp3 music file.

All music has to travel through ethernet cables that presumably have large amounts of jitter> ethernet cables introduce distortion and other anomolies into the sound, and reduce the amount of the Studio Sound the original signal was masterd as.

* Millions of dollars of Hifi Audio equipment, by themselves will never make bad music sound good.

Since music switched to Digital, it has been used recklessly to appease a market that listen to audio via $20 audio equipment, or at least via headphones< where the music needs to be squeezed smaller to sound more punchy.

* If it is possible to make bad audio equipment sound good with upgrades and improvements, it is also possible to make a bad Track sound reasonably better than the original Audio File ~ This includes utilizing Various VST software to better align the track to its Original Studio Sound ~ That being, preserved Stereo Seperation Sounstage height preserved and not accentuated, as well as keeping the economy of the entire bandwisdth from overppowering the rest of the Freq's in the signal.

* To think of music audio a just freq's is incorrect> it should also be viewed electrically, and how VST software when propery scaled and implemented can bring about better voicing to the Audio Signal without corrupting anything. Just as upgrading audio equipment better adjusts the audio clarity to the original equipment. etc.

Knut?

 

[HDaudio008]

* Music signal is the most critical component in an audio system ~ If it was mastered by engineers with equipment, then the signal should sound pristine.

* If the signal was mastered by a computer, then there are issues in the signal, and that, despite everyone assuming that all tracks available anywhere where mastered and sent to market in what the artists intended, are more wrong and incorrect in their thinking, and should pause and understand that digital mixing and mastering have flaws.

* Take for example a CD disk that was Sold as Remastered: one would assume that the disc would have a pristine listenable sound, this clearly is not the case when listened to closely and carefully. In fact the CD sounds like the audio was cut above 14khz, as well it sounds very tonaly distorted. This being a Label CD that was supposedly Remastered ~ Does not sound any different than an poor mp3 music file.

All music has to travel through ethernet cables that presumably have large amounts of jitter> ethernet cables introduce distortion and other anomolies into the sound, and reduce the amount of the Studio Sound the original signal was masterd as.

* Millions of dollars of Hifi Audio equipment, by themselves will never make bad music sound good.

Since music switched to Digital, it has been used recklessly to appease a market that listen to audio via $20 audio equipment, or at least via headphones< where the music needs to be squeezed smaller to sound more punchy.

* If it is possible to make bad audio equipment sound good with upgrades and improvements, it is also possible to make a bad Track sound reasonably better than the original Audio File ~ This includes utilizing Various VST software to better align the track to its Original Studio Sound ~ That being, preserved Stereo Seperation Sounstage height preserved and not accentuated, as well as keeping the economy of the entire bandwisdth from overppowering the rest of the Freq's in the signal.

* To think of music audio a just freq's is incorrect> it should also be viewed electrically, and how VST software when propery scaled and implemented can bring about better voicing to the Audio Signal without corrupting anything. Just as upgrading audio equipment better adjusts the audio clarity to the original equipment. etc.

* To say that the Studio / Artsist Mastered the Audio in what they perceived as the best artistic representation of their music and should not be

Are you serious? I ask because you are pretty much incorrect on all the comments that you made. We get trolls here that carry on like this and that's why I asked if you are serious.

* How can I be incorrect if its something that can be demonstrated? Such as a Poorly Sounding CD? Is that considered trolling?

* And if because there are some who still believe that Audio equipment is more Holy than Signal, can you Prove that it will make a CD sound better?

And if Audiophiles can upgrade their existing poorly sounding equipment with expensive upgrades, then why can't an audio signal be improved? Is it not taking away from what the product engineers intended?

* If companies sell poorly made products ~ why does the audio signal have to be pristine ~ then would it not be more expensive? Unfortunatly that is not the case ~ some music is poorly developed into an audio product to cut costs.

Concept: A True Mastering Engineer uses equipment to Master audio for bands ~ it can also be done with a computer / VST software if the correct principles are applied.

 

[HDaudio008]

Welcome to ASR, You have a lot to learn here.

* This was an interesting subject, which in turn has developed into a ~ sound improving function Dialogue utilizing other means than equipment to improve the sound of audio.

 

[Doodski]

* If the signal was mastered by a computer, then there are issues in the signal, and that, despite everyone assuming that all tracks available anywhere where mastered and sent to market in what the artists intended, are more wrong and incorrect in their thinking, and should pause and understand that digital mixing and mastering have flaws.

You propose that a old analogue mixing setup is better?

All music has to travel through Ethernet cables that presumably have large amounts of jitter> ethernet cables introduce distortion and other anomalies into the sound, and reduce the amount of the Studio Sound the original signal was mastered as.

Are you again saying analogue signal transmission is better than digital?

 

[HDaudio008]

You propose that a old analogue mixing setup is better?

Are you again saying analogue signal transmission is better than digital?

* No. Analogue has it principles ~ Digital can in some ways exceed those principles unnecessarily.

 

[Doodski]

* No. Analogue has it principles ~ Digital can in some ways exceed those principles unnecessarily.

What do you mean by principles. Are you commenting about the operation of the systems or some other principles. Principles to me means like The Principles of Electron Flow (A study I completed.) or a person's principles.

 

[Miguelón]

* No. Analogue has it principles ~ Digital can in some ways exceed those principles unnecessarily.

Knut! How much time without reading your posts…

 

[HDaudio008]

* Example : When digital is used in Mastering, it is far easier to increase the perceived output without " clipping the signal" using Digital limiters. Bernie Grundman ( A famous Mastering Engineer) Stated that Digital Limiters can do more to a signal than can an analogue equipment can ~ The concept is Limiters do too much ~ and can actually re-shape the sound stage unnecessarily. * In analogue equipment it is not as easy (apperantly).

 

[Doodski]

* Example : When digital is used in Mastering, it is far easier to increase the perceived output without " clipping the signal" using Digital limiters. Bernie Grundman ( A famous Mastering Engineer) Stated that Digital Limiters can do more to a signal than can an analogue equipment can ~ The concept is Limiters do too much ~ and can actually re-shape the sound stage unnecessarily. * In analogue equipment it is not as easy (apperantly).

That appears to me to be a case of inexperience and using too much of a good thing.

 

[Anton S]

What's with all the * * * * * * ?