|
Post by Gary Cook on Jan 23, 2016 15:12:53 GMT -5
More confusion, no problem.
I've not found a DAC that I like connected direct to power amplifiers (or powered speakers), DC-1, XDA-1, XDA-2, numerous Mac's, UCA202 (which was amazingly good for its cost), Oppo 103, 105 etc. They all have some artifact that I don't like, commonly what I'd call a "dull" midrange. Put a preamp in between and there's always a noticeable difference, an improvement. I'll admit I really like a full strength midrange, for the saxy sax and the female voice, the male tenor, the howl of a Stratocaster etc. So any difficiency in that range really hits me, right between the eyes (ears).
But, there's always a but, I have a BigEgo and in it I find no such deficiency. So perhaps an "XDA-3" based on the TI/BurrBrown DAC might be an answer. It still of course won't have the noiseless switching capability and the glorious phono pre amp, but maybe an XPS-1 might solve that issue.
So there you go gar, a little more confusion to add to the pile. Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 23, 2016 15:58:55 GMT -5
More confusion, no problem. I've not found a DAC that I like connected direct to power amplifiers (or powered speakers), DC-1, XDA-1, XDA-2, numerous Mac's, UCA202 (which was amazingly good for its cost), Oppo 103, 105 etc. They all have some artifact that I don't like, commonly what I'd call a "dull" midrange. Put a preamp in between and there's always a noticeable difference, an improvement. I'll admit I really like a full strength midrange, for the saxy sax and the female voice, the male tenor, the howl of a Stratocaster etc. So any difficiency in that range really hits me, right between the eyes (ears). But, there's always a but, I have a BigEgo and in it I find no such deficiency. So perhaps an "XDA-3" based on the TI/BurrBrown DAC might be an answer. It still of course won't have the noiseless switching capability and the glorious phono pre amp, but maybe an XPS-1 might solve that issue. So there you go gar, a little more confusion to add to the pile. Cheers Gary Yes Gary you get me. It's that mid range. That full strength slam. You know it when you've got it! Now interestingly though I thought the DC-1 did better than the other DACS direct to amp. But didn't think it did better than an XSP-1. For some WEIRD reason with the XPA-1s the DC-1 doesn't appear to exhibit those problems I heard on the UPA-2 and I found myself preferring the sound direct to amp. This goes against all my experience The only difference I can think is that a. I went via XLR cables, fully balanced. b. The XPA-1 is much more powerful and has a lower gain. Another thing struck me. I noticed that the DC-1 when going direct to the amp was sensitive to XLR cable legnth. So I'm not sure if that had anything to do with it. B'zilla mentioned maybe the DC-1 was never meant to be attached to a preamp but to drive the amps directly in pro applications.
|
|
novisnick
EmoPhile
CEO Secret Monoblock Society
Posts: 27,230
|
Post by novisnick on Jan 23, 2016 16:11:41 GMT -5
More confusion, no problem. I've not found a DAC that I like connected direct to power amplifiers (or powered speakers), DC-1, XDA-1, XDA-2, numerous Mac's, UCA202 (which was amazingly good for its cost), Oppo 103, 105 etc. They all have some artifact that I don't like, commonly what I'd call a "dull" midrange. Put a preamp in between and there's always a noticeable difference, an improvement. I'll admit I really like a full strength midrange, for the saxy sax and the female voice, the male tenor, the howl of a Stratocaster etc. So any difficiency in that range really hits me, right between the eyes (ears). But, there's always a but, I have a BigEgo and in it I find no such deficiency. So perhaps an "XDA-3" based on the TI/BurrBrown DAC might be an answer. It still of course won't have the noiseless switching capability and the glorious phono pre amp, but maybe an XPS-1 might solve that issue. So there you go gar, a little more confusion to add to the pile. Cheers Gary Yes Gary you get me. It's that mid range. That full strength slam. You know it when you've got it! Now interestingly though I thought the DC-1 did better than the other DACS direct to amp. But didn't think it did better than an XSP-1. For some WEIRD reason with the XPA-1s the DC-1 doesn't appear to exhibit those problems I heard on the UPA-2 and I found myself preferring the sound direct to amp. This goes against all my experience The only difference I can think is that a. I went via XLR cables, fully balanced. b. The XPA-1 is much more powerful and has a lower gain. Another thing struck me. I noticed that the DC-1 when going direct to the amp was sensitive to XLR cable legnth. So I'm not sure if that had anything to do with it. B'zilla mentioned maybe the DC-1 was never meant to be attached to a preamp but to drive the amps directly in pro applications. All that said, I found that the DC-1 shined the most with the XSP-1 in the chain, weather it was the XPA-1Ls or XPR-1s. The DC-1 was just missing a little,,,,,very little something!!! Maybe detail, but it was something. My two cents,,,,,,,again!
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 23, 2016 16:40:21 GMT -5
...B'zilla mentioned maybe the DC-1 was never meant to be attached to a preamp but to drive the amps directly in pro applications. That isn't exactly what I meant. I think that in pro applications, the DC-1 would be attached to a mixing board (that serves a sort-of preamp function). But in pro use, the gear rack would probably be a compact thing with very short interconnects.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Mar 18, 2016 14:09:51 GMT -5
I am thinkking of changing my upgrade path direction. The components are still on the list...but the priority may change. I have been experimenting with a single 4 inch acoustic pad vs the larger 2 inch acoustic pad I have. I found the 4 inch acoustic pad did allow some superior bass reproduction but there was something missing. And I think that may just be because it was too small to sufficiently cover enough area. My listening are half of the side to the right has an enclosed wall close the couch. The right side behind my head this wall ends followed by a different wall a few feet further away made out of a different material. This does lead to some audible issues which the larger pad was able to help by making a small pseudo close wall where the left close wall stops.
I am thinking what if I bought a lot more acoustic pads of the thick 4 inch kind? Would it help? My room is small for a living room. My current two inch padd allows for a very natural sound. However it doesn't really do a whole lot of bass absorption causing my axioms to lack a bit of the dynamic punch it can deliver with the smaller four inch absorber.... Should I apply cash towards this first rather than for the Schiit Yggy DAC and Audio GD He-1 preamp?
|
|
novisnick
EmoPhile
CEO Secret Monoblock Society
Posts: 27,230
|
Post by novisnick on Mar 18, 2016 14:45:28 GMT -5
My friend, I have 4" behind my seated area and it is better then 2",,,,,,, who said size doesn't metter,,,,,,,he,,,,he,,,,he,,,,,,,, Of course it is 2' wide by 5' tall as well, two of them. They do have a 8" space between them also. for the relatively inexpensive price to make them I'd go that route first. My two cent
|
|
|
Post by yves on Mar 19, 2016 4:06:49 GMT -5
Yes, you can put thick porous absorber panels on movable stands to help restore room left/right acoustic symmetry where needed. A porous absorber only 2 inches thick is capable to absorb only a very small portion of lower mids and close to no bass frequencies so aim for at least 4 inches thickness, leaving an air gap behind it to increase the total thickness even further if possible. You can stick an additional 2 inch layer of porous absorbing material to the back of a 2 inch porous absorber panel or tile to make it thicker. Just make sure there is no foil or membrane or anything between the two layers: sound waves should be allowed to travel freely from one layer into the next, and into the air gap if any. To create an air gap, add spacers between the back side of the panel and the wall.
However, bear in mind the fact that careful room acoustic treatment is not about putting up just a handful of panels in a room. The sound difference between a well treated room and a poorly treated one can be worth easily 10 times the amount of cash spent on other things like speakers and amplification, and, if I may be so bold to say so, sir, DACs.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Mar 19, 2016 7:22:40 GMT -5
Yes, you can put thick porous absorber panels on movable stands to help restore room left/right acoustic symmetry where needed. A porous absorber only 2 inches thick is capable to absorb only a very small portion of lower mids and close to no bass frequencies so aim for at least 4 inches thickness, leaving an air gap behind it to increase the total thickness even further if possible. You can stick an additional 2 inch layer of porous absorbing material to the back of a 2 inch porous absorber panel or tile to make it thicker. Just make sure there is no foil or membrane or anything between the two layers: sound waves should be allowed to travel freely from one layer into the next, and into the air gap if any. To create an air gap, add spacers between the back side of the panel and the wall. However, bear in mind the fact that careful room acoustic treatment is not about putting up just a handful of panels in a room. The sound difference between a well treated room and a poorly treated one can be worth easily 10 times the amount of cash spent on other things like speakers and amplification, and, if I may be so bold to say so, sir, DACs. Good advice yves. So questions YOu mentioned doubling up on the 2 inches. Does the woodboard at the back need to be removed to do that? What's the difference in method of a well treated room vs a poorly treated one assuming I have sufficient number of panels to do a well treated room? I'm sure there's very detailed websites regarding this. But if you have just some few basic hihglihgts you want to share regarding information I would like to hear. I already know about first reflection points.
|
|
|
Post by yves on Mar 19, 2016 12:31:28 GMT -5
I don't know if it will be possible to remove the woodboard at the back without destroying the panel. But the idea of doubling up on the 2 inches only makes sense if the two layers of porous absorbing material are not separated from eachother by anything that will reflect sound waves. (Similarly, leaving an air gap between the panel and the wall also only makes sense if the back of the panel is not faced with anything that will reflect sound waves). Rigid sheets of Owens Corning 703 or 705 fiberglass insulation are relatively expensive. Because they are rigid, installing them requires minimal time and effort of course. But there are cheap and simple ways to keep a single, thick, floppy/semi-rigid batt of mineral wool insulation (e.g. Roxul SAFE'n'SOUND) from sagging: A room having little room absorption and a correspondingly long reverberation time is often called a live or hard room. A room that is characterized by short reverberation time is said to be dead or dry. In a small room, treating as many of the 12 corners of the room as possible with very thick broadband absorption is compulsory IMO, as small rooms always have severe nulls and severely long decay times at certain bass frequencies. To prevent the room from sounding too dead as a result of adding so many corner absorbers, and to improve the bass trapping performance, the front of the porous absorbing corner bass traps can be faced with a paper or thin (!) plastic membrane. The membrane will reflect mid and high frequencies back into the room making it sound more live, while bass frequencies will be able to travel through the thin membrane and penetrate into the porous absorbing material where they can then be absorbed. The membrane needs to be bonded to the insulation material by using e.g. 3M Super 77 spray glue, making sure not to soak the insulation. Alternatively, you can add a 1 (or 2) inch layer of Owens Corning "FRK"-type insulation at the front. Never use a membrane at first reflection points. For cosmetics, you can staple a breathable textile such as Guilford of Maine or Burlap treated with fire retardant spray or thin Muslin cotton fabric around the back of a thin wood frame and velcro the frame in front of the corner bass trap, making sure there's a tiny little bit of spacing between the fabric and the membrane along the entire surface area. Muslin fabric is cheapest, but tends to easily tear around the sharp egdes of the frame so be sure to round those off first. Burlap in untreated form is highly flammable. Guilford of Maine is one of the very best IMO, but it's fairly expensive. The corners at the front wall (closest to the speakers) are a good starting point for placing very thick (Supertips SuperChunk) corner bass traps, but I would also focus on treating the entire back wall (behind the listening position) with as much thick broadband absorption as possible. Further, a lot of people tend to forget that the whole ceiling is a terriffic place for thick bass traps so they [these people] only install a thin cloud at the ceiling's first reflection points. Here is a great example of how it can be made to look like instead:
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Mar 19, 2016 12:37:01 GMT -5
Thanks yves. What is it I am looking at again? Are those thick things bass trps I'm seeing up there?
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Mar 19, 2016 12:43:00 GMT -5
YES - Yves has some AWESOME bass absorbers that not only dampen the corners, but also the entire wall / ceiling boundary. They are not only unobtrusive, but also actually attractive. That's one of the BEST absorber concepts I've seen! Bravo yves!!!
|
|
novisnick
EmoPhile
CEO Secret Monoblock Society
Posts: 27,230
|
Post by novisnick on Mar 19, 2016 13:28:05 GMT -5
Yevs, thats the sweetest job of effective construction ive seen! Thatns so much for sharing!
|
|
|
Post by yves on Mar 19, 2016 13:46:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by yves on Mar 19, 2016 14:15:29 GMT -5
|
|
novisnick
EmoPhile
CEO Secret Monoblock Society
Posts: 27,230
|
Post by novisnick on Mar 19, 2016 22:59:32 GMT -5
Hey gar, I made my two large absorbers from 1 x 3 x 3/4 pine. Made boxes from them and stuffed with 3 1/2" of roxal and covers with breathable material. Put in place 3" from the wall so that the sound that passes through it bounces of the wall and back through it again, acting as a double absorber. Or twice as thick in theory.
Works very well.
Note to self, when the Mrs isnt looking I need to purchase a chair with a lower headrest,,,,,,,,im too short for my chair and it partially blocks the sound from the back speakers when watching movies.
|
|
|
Post by yves on Mar 20, 2016 0:53:12 GMT -5
Hey gar, I made my two large absorbers from 1 x 3 x 3/4 pine. Made boxes from them and stuffed with 3 1/2" of roxal and covers with breathable material. Put in place 3" from the wall so that the sound that passes through it bounces of the wall and back through it again, acting as a double absorber. Or twice as thick in theory. Works very well. Note to self, when the Mrs isnt looking I need to purchase a chair with a lower headrest,,,,,,,,im too short for my chair and it partially blocks the sound from the back speakers when watching movies. Back speakers or not, headrests that block sound waves coming from behind your ears are to be avoided because sounds coming from the front speakers can reflect off of the rear wall contributing to a sense of envelopment or adding more lifelike "spaciousness" to the sound, provided that you have taken a few basic topics into account. arqen.com/acoustics-101/room-setup-speaker-placement
|
|
novisnick
EmoPhile
CEO Secret Monoblock Society
Posts: 27,230
|
Post by novisnick on Mar 20, 2016 1:06:34 GMT -5
Yes, I know this. That was the whole reason for my post about my chair. Thanks for your concern, input and link though. Never hurts to brush up on information.
|
|
|
Post by yves on Mar 20, 2016 4:33:13 GMT -5
Yes, I know this. That was the whole reason for my post about my chair. Thanks for your concern, input and link though. Never hurts to brush up on information.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Apr 21, 2016 12:57:45 GMT -5
Boomzilla Thankful for my friends: part I've lost count by now!. Once again my good friend (I wonder who?! ) came through and found me some wonderful recording equipment. The neat thing is that these are stereo microphones which I have never used before but will go perfectly with my recording upgprade journey. My recording upgrade journey! Axis (I think will be familiar with this). So basically (thanks to my friend) I purchased a Rhodes phantom power stereo microphone. For my birthday I plan to get a second MXL V67g . With that I shall have two pairs of matched microphones. One a stereo Rhodes unit. And the other dual MXL V67Gs. I plan to over this summer save up enough to purchase a TASCAM standalone four channel phantom power recorder. with an SD card for storage. This allows me to get TWO stereo tracks down. For instance one can record a voice and a guitar at the same time. And the other can record a piano. Both in stereo preserving room ambience and all that. Endless possibilities! This should allow for a standalone setup with minimal audio tweaks needed. Basically PLUG in and GO! No power even required due to the onboard battery. This will cut down setup time from a bit less than an hour to say ten minutes (hopefully). This setup time has prevented us from recording a whole lot. And I believe this time it should be seamless if everything goes according to plan. Even though I am complete amateur at this stuff I think that recording video and pictures are very important for memory purposes. So I can't tell you how excited I am about this! Thanks again to my good friend!
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Apr 21, 2016 14:30:33 GMT -5
MY OH MY - If only I could have video recordings of some of my memories...
|
|