I am happy

Discussion in 'Picture Show' started by Jack, Feb 9, 2011.

  1. chad

    chad Well-Known Member War Zone Member Top Poster

    Yep, mine does BUT I don't use it... I use my SPL meter too. It's a digital. My first was analog and I think it worked better.
  2. Jack

    Jack Well-Known Member Donor War Zone Member Top Poster

    Now we are on track. I knew it would take an engineer to get to the point. :laugh:

    Nope, I am just watching more movies and listening to more music.
    I am watching more deeply into the films I am perusing as there are no distractions of any importance at this time. Fuck the experts, my way works.
    I have had my phone off all weekend, I am hibernating and trying to work out some personal issues and except for having dinner with our daughter I am quiet and guess what, the shit on the shelf works.

    Fucking A Baby, if I may quote Mike B.
  3. Randy Rhoton

    Randy Rhoton Well-Known Member Donor War Zone Member

    I'm not real sure how this might relate to the discussion, but the other night I attended a demo by several different equipment makers featuring some brand new gear. Most of it was related to the newest digital conversion/computer driven stuff, and one in particular was some new speakers I wanted to hear. Golden Ear Triton II's specifically. In all cases, and that one specifically, I was rather disappointed with what I heard, mainly because of the choice of music. The choices were what I would consider "audiophile/highbrow" stuff, typically some droning choral group recorded in a church. I know these people spent a great deal of time setting their stuff up, but they blew it big time. The music did nothing to really exercise the equipment. They could have just as easily left a tone generator on and walked away. So if there was some "standard" to what was going on, I didn't get it. This was a stereo only event, no HT involved.
    The one really interesting spot to the evening was one guy played a selection at hi-res, and then played it again at mp3 decoding. It was very noticeably different, and not as good. He then played a bit of the same track that consisted of just what mp3 takes away, and there was quite a bit of OMFG going on around the room.

  4. Jack

    Jack Well-Known Member Donor War Zone Member Top Poster

    Randy everything fits here. IMHO there is a substantial difference between lower rez mp3 and loss-less. This is system dependent of course, but I record at lossless always. I have compared 256kbs, 320 kbs and lossless and the differences were moderate to be sure, but audible. Mainly in way of quiet parts and ambiance. I am thinking that when compressing, oft times and computer may "think" that the quiet bits are not important and block the reproduction of same. I know Digital is much better at the loud end of the spectrum, I do not know why, and I know that on occasion I can hear more on a lead out groove of an album than a cd, so I am "Assuming" digital may ignore the lower level signal.
  5. Tom R S 4

    Tom R S 4 New Member War Zone Member

    Well, I'm sure your face clearly shows it, at least. ;)
  6. Saurav

    Saurav Active Member War Zone Member

    For what mp3 is designed for, the quiet bits are not as important. AFAIK, it strips out a lot of the low level cues that create the ambience in a good recording. So the better the system, the better the source recording, the more likely you are to hear the differences.
  7. chad

    chad Well-Known Member War Zone Member Top Poster

    Ohhhhh that explains why my phone battery lasted so long this weekend :laugh: Be well!
  8. LarryB

    LarryB Active Member

    I keep hearing about calibration for HT but - and please correct me if I'm wrong (as I know you will gladly do :) ) - the only calibration of which I am aware is to equalize the volume in all 5.1 (or 7.1) channels. This in no way affects the tonal balance, dispersion properties, dynamics, etc. of the system, which explains why two fully calibrated HT systems can sound different as night and day.

    I am aware that the studios advocate TXH-certified speakers but few here seem to use them, and Mike has expressed his opinion that he does not care for them. So here too, hearing "what was intended" seems a goal that is spoken of but not actually persued.

    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 14, 2011
  9. LarryB

    LarryB Active Member


    I agree completely but as it seems I am always wrong around here, you too must be wrong. ;)
  10. CJ

    CJ Bronze Member Admin War Zone Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Many modern calibration systems will also EQ the speakers to remove major deviations from flat response usually caused by room modes (and theoretically the actual speakers but I'm talking about major deviations like a 20dB spike due to a room mode).
  11. Mike

    Mike Bon Vivant Top Poster

    I would like to clarify that I do not care for THX spec speakers for stereo music reproduction. they do just fine for films.

    The only consumer calibration standard (that I know of) for a HT audio system is level control. However, this one thing is absolutely crucial to have correct...so much so that if it is left unattended, the other things Larry mentioned are of little or no consequence in the scheme of things.

    Each HT will have it's own flavor depending on the speakers (not so much the electronics) chosen. The balance of the speakers is the most important aspect to the soundfield. The other stuff is personal taste I suppose.

    Eliminating speakers is not part of personal taste in a HT system any more than playing your stereo through one speaker would be considered personal taste.

    If the soundtrack has 6 digital channels, you need 6 speakers to reproduce it...or the soundfield will be compromised. While that may be OK for many, many people, and may well sound great...it does not mean the soundfield is not compromised.

  12. LarryB

    LarryB Active Member


    Though out of curiosity, I wonder if such systems are used in the control rooms.
  13. Mike

    Mike Bon Vivant Top Poster


    Yes but I dont think the EQ is part of a standard. I may be wrong, it has been a while since I bought any new gear.

  14. LarryB

    LarryB Active Member


    I have not compared phantom with matched center so I cannot comment in a meangingful manner, though I have made the decision - based largely on faith - to use 3 matched speaker speakers in the front. However, what Jack, Chad and perhaps others have been saying is a bit different. Specifically, their position is that given their less than optimal options, phantom proved to be the best choice. I suspect that if they had the ability to use 3 identical speakers in the front, they would do so.

    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 14, 2011
  15. LarryB

    LarryB Active Member

    I was afraid to say that for fear of being ganged up on. ;)
  16. Mike

    Mike Bon Vivant Top Poster

    Afraid to say that EQ was not part of the standard or that I may be wrong?:lol:
  17. LarryB

    LarryB Active Member

    Afraid that I was wrong.
  18. Mike

    Mike Bon Vivant Top Poster

    As I have said many times, it may be the best choice for many people. A mismatched center will sound worse than a phantom in my opinion.

    Still, anything less than a speaker for each channel is a compromise, albiet a necessary one sometimes.

  19. LarryB

    LarryB Active Member

  20. LarryB

    LarryB Active Member

    My three identical speakers will be a bit lower than optimal but fortunately, they have larger than usual dispersion. I can also tilt them slightly if necessary.

Share This Page