Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2021 14:02:55 GMT -5
I currently have dual 4-10 subwoofers and "large" front mains w/ 4 12" subwoofers in a pair of towers. I tried the MiniDSP DDRC-88A with Bass Management but couldn't get past the 44khz sampling rate. I'd really like to implement room correction to time/phase align all the subwoofers.... here's the requirement - I'd like to add a piece of equipment in my 2.2 channel system but I don't want to use a PC or Laptop for software based room correction to implement filters. Anyone recommend other room correction w/ a stand alone device other than Rew/Dirac Live? I recently purchased a DAC so I'd hate to off it when very happy w/ its' fidelity. Does MiniDSP have the market cornered being the only one to offer room correction w/out a DAC in a stand alone device?
|
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Mar 28, 2021 16:58:01 GMT -5
McIntosh MEN220
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2021 18:23:11 GMT -5
Based on reviews the MEN220 is incredible! |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Mar 28, 2021 18:32:57 GMT -5
I may add one soon....,
More sophisticated than Dirac.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2021 0:21:49 GMT -5
I may add one soon...., More sophisticated than Dirac..... I found myself bordering insanity w/ Dirac.... measuring remeasuring expecting different results.... but instead I received the same bugs/crashes etc w/ each update. I PM'd you Bill .... if the retail price according to a few year old reviews is still good I think the MEN220 will be the next best piece of equipment to drastically improve my system. Depending on price - obtainable or not - I am sold on McIntosh's 24bit/192khz sampling rate! |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Mar 29, 2021 5:44:12 GMT -5
They aren't cheap - but Mac is often hard to beat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2021 8:32:40 GMT -5
They aren't cheap - but Mac is often hard to beat. I already spent nearly half as much on a MiniDSP and all necessary connect/cables etc. I'm tired of depreciation w/ gear and not being happy w/ the product in the end. I'm setting my sights on the Mac or Lyngdorf! |
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Mar 29, 2021 8:43:55 GMT -5
If a microphone is employed, 44.1khz is fine as it is going to be at or below 22khz flat response anyway due to nyquist. Unless I am missing something. Got dibs on the old age there.  |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 9,938
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 29, 2021 9:44:08 GMT -5
The question about whether higher sample rates are audibly better or not still goes on...
I am personally of the opinion that AT LEAST MOST OF THE TIME any difference you hear is due to better mastering and not to the higher sample rate. Many of the high-def albums you find on places like HDtracks have been remastered - and the new versions are often simply mastered better. Likewise MQA, which some people are in love with, is a remastering technology that alters the sound. (So, whether you prefer the sound of an MQA-processed album or not, the idea that it is "closer to the original" is debatable.)
A well mastered CD can sound amazingly good... So, even though many do not, this proves that the limitation is NOT in the technology... (And, sadly, many high-resolution files do not sound especially good.)
It's also worth noting that re-sampling to either a higher or lower sample rate almost always involves some filtering. And, with most conversion software, there are also several settings, each of which sometimes produces subtle differences in sound.
This means that virtually every conversion, in either direction, may well produce a tiny difference in sound... But you shouldn't necessarily take that to mean that the copy at the higher sample rate is specifically better or more accurate.
Assuming you could get a copy of the original studio master, you would avoid one conversion, and so would be "closer to the original"... But you should not assume that every high-resolution file is "a copy of the studio master" or even "closer to it". Remember that, if the store offers a dozen different versions, AT BEST one of them MIGHT be a copy of the master... but probably not.
Incidentally - if you want to try playing around with converting between sample rates... A lot of player programs can do that - like Foobar2000 and jRiver...
But this is a good high quality FREE sample rate converter you can try:
If a microphone is employed, 44.1khz is fine as it is going to be at or below 22khz flat response anyway due to nyquist. Unless I am missing something. Got dibs on the old age there. With the Minidsp I couldn't even play 24bit/192khz albums. I spent half the time searching for music that would play - nothing but a series of clicks pops etc. But why would I care to even play High Resolution if the processors by Dirac are limited well below that? I mean I don't see guys arguing mind as well go w/ Amazon Music rather than Qobuz because anything above 44khz is inaudible? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2021 9:46:30 GMT -5
The question about whether higher sample rates are audibly better or not still goes on...
I am personally of the opinion that AT LEAST MOST OF THE TIME any difference you hear is due to better mastering and not to the higher sample rate. Many of the high-def albums you find on places like HDtracks have been remastered - and the new versions are often simply mastered better. Likewise MQA, which some people are in love with, is a remastering technology that alters the sound. (So, whether you prefer the sound of an MQA-processed album or not, the idea that it is "closer to the original" is debatable.)
A well mastered CD can sound amazingly good... So, even though many do not, this proves that the limitation is NOT in the technology... (And, sadly, many high-resolution files do not sound especially good.)
It's also worth noting that re-sampling to either a higher or lower sample rate almost always involves some filtering. And, with most conversion software, there are also several settings, each of which sometimes produces subtle differences in sound.
This means that virtually every conversion, in either direction, may well produce a tiny difference in sound... But you shouldn't necessarily take that to mean that the copy at the higher sample rate is specifically better or more accurate.
Assuming you could get a copy of the original studio master, you would avoid one conversion, and so would be "closer to the original"... But you should not assume that every high-resolution file is "a copy of the studio master" or even "closer to it". Remember that, if the store offers a dozen different versions, AT BEST one of them MIGHT be a copy of the master... but probably not.
Incidentally - if you want to try playing around with converting between sample rates... A lot of player programs can do that - like Foobar2000 and jRiver...
But this is a good high quality FREE sample rate converter you can try:
With the Minidsp I couldn't even play 24bit/192khz albums. I spent half the time searching for music that would play - nothing but a series of clicks pops etc. But why would I care to even play High Resolution if the processors by Dirac are limited well below that? I mean I don't see guys arguing mind as well go w/ Amazon Music rather than Qobuz because anything above 44khz is inaudible? Thanks Keith! |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,938
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 29, 2021 9:51:40 GMT -5
Incidentally...
Check out the Resources section of this website:
They compare the quality of the sample rate conversion done by lots of different programs. You may be surprised at how many programs do a "perfect" job - and how many do not.
(And notice how, even when the sweep results look perfect, the Impulse responses vary - A LOT.)
The question about whether higher sample rates are audibly better or not still goes on... I am personally of the opinion that AT LEAST MOST OF THE TIME any difference you hear is due to better mastering and not to the higher sample rate. Many of the high-def albums you find on places like HDtracks have been remastered - and the new versions are often simply mastered better. Likewise MQA, which some people are in love with, is a remastering technology that alters the sound. (So, whether you prefer the sound of an MQA-processed album or not, the idea that it is "closer to the original" is debatable.)
A well mastered CD can sound amazingly good... So, even though many do not, this proves that the limitation is NOT in the technology... (And, sadly, many high-resolution files do not sound especially good.)
It's also worth noting that re-sampling to either a higher or lower sample rate almost always involves some filtering. And, with most conversion software, there are also several settings, each of which sometimes produces subtle differences in sound.
This means that virtually every conversion, in either direction, may well produce a tiny difference in sound... But you shouldn't necessarily take that to mean that the copy at the higher sample rate is specifically better or more accurate. Assuming you could get a copy of the original studio master, you would avoid one conversion, and so would be "closer to the original"... But you should not assume that every high-resolution file is "a copy of the studio master" or even "closer to it". Remember that, if the store offers a dozen different versions, AT BEST one of them MIGHT be a copy of the master... but probably not. Incidentally - if you want to try playing around with converting between sample rates... A lot of player programs can do that - like Foobar2000 and jRiver...
But this is a good high quality FREE sample rate converter you can try: With the Minidsp I couldn't even play 24bit/192khz albums. I spent half the time searching for music that would play - nothing but a series of clicks pops etc. But why would I care to even play High Resolution if the processors by Dirac are limited well below that? I mean I don't see guys arguing mind as well go w/ Amazon Music rather than Qobuz because anything above 44khz is inaudible? |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Mar 29, 2021 10:47:18 GMT -5
All, for those not familiar, the McIntosh MEN220 has only analog inputs. Taking the output of a dac or pre, it does an a/d conversion, performs room correction, then returns the signal to analog to pass on to amplification stages. It does the a/d and d/a conversions at 24/96 or 24/192
So, the whole discussion proferred by some here about source resolution is largely irrelevant to this product imo.
I think these rates for these conversions is a good thing..
|
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Mar 29, 2021 10:48:53 GMT -5
The implementation of said format will far outweigh whether one is better than the other on the whole. To prove my point, I recorded some high quality .mp3 files and played them back at my high end store and everyone loved the quality. I even duped more so called golden ear listeners with my Otari MX-5050b mk.2 Reel to Reel running at 15ips 2 track recording more .mp3 quality recordings and it did so well, people wanted a copy of my tape. It is always how it is used more than what is used many times. I am not totally sold on so called "Remasters" either. There are many out there that have no dynamics like they leaned on Auto level or something and sounds like A$$. So I am not easily jaded by the Hi-Res koolaid by any stretch by itself. The core quality values have to be there first.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2021 10:53:59 GMT -5
All, for those not familiar, the McIntosh MEN220 has only analog inputs. Taking the output of a dac or pre, it does an a/d conversion, performs room correction, then returns the signal to analog to pass on to amplification stages. It does the a/d and d/a conversions at 24/96. So, the whole discussion proferred by some here about source resolution is largely irrelevant to this product imo. I think these rates for these conversions is s good thing.. As long as 24/192 tracks can play I'd be happy. The minidsp I had according to AudioScienceReview down sampled at around 44khz wi/ Dirac Live and couldn't play 24/192 tracks. The only thing I wish any room correction besides Rew would do is show actual measurements after filters are applied. I mean have you seen Dirac's "ideal, imaginary, projected" room correction curves being soooo soooo smoooooth w/out verification?  And Bill, I went onto BestBuy's Magnolia site and they use the image of the MAC's Room Perfect in their banner: www.bestbuy.com/site/magnolia-brands/mcintosh/pcmcat1529512604947.c?id=pcmcat1529512604947There's a Magnolia Best Buy near me only a few minutes away. Next time I'm in the vicinity I'm going to inquire on pricing and availability.  |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Mar 29, 2021 10:55:47 GMT -5
FWIW... I've a friend who has experimented extensively with various bit-rates and bit-rate conversions. His conclusions agree with Keith's. Mastering makes more difference than bitrate. I've heard him play high bitrate material on his system, switching back and forth between 44.1 CD quality. Half the time I guessed wrong on what was CD and what was high-res. But both sounded absolutely spectacular!
He has some studio-quality $6,000 mastering program and does his own remasters. He's good at it too. I recently took him a phonograph record and had him rip it to both CD and to high-bitrate. I couldn't tell any difference. You guys want, I'll post it (I only have a copy of the 44.1 version) online & you can hear for yourself. The music isn't available commercially, so there shouldn't be any copyright issues?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2021 12:14:06 GMT -5
All, for those not familiar, the McIntosh MEN220 has only analog inputs. Taking the output of a dac or pre, it does an a/d conversion, performs room correction, then returns the signal to analog to pass on to amplification stages. It does the a/d and d/a conversions at 24/96 or 24/192 So, the whole discussion proferred by some here about source resolution is largely irrelevant to this product imo. I think these rates for these conversions is a good thing.. You're right! I'm totally lost as to why an analog signal derived from a streamer/dac's HR 24/192khz album wouldn't pass through my Minidsp w/ dirac live when in the audio chain. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2021 12:51:37 GMT -5
All, for those not familiar, the McIntosh MEN220 has only analog inputs. Taking the output of a dac or pre, it does an a/d conversion, performs room correction, then returns the signal to analog to pass on to amplification stages. It does the a/d and d/a conversions at 24/96 or 24/192 So, the whole discussion proferred by some here about source resolution is largely irrelevant to this product imo. I think these rates for these conversions is a good thing.. You're right! I'm totally lost as to why an analog signal derived from a streamer/dac's HR 24/192khz album wouldn't pass through my Minidsp w/ dirac live when in the audio chain. I misdiagnosed my then system blaming the MiniDSP for the Onkyo PR-RZ5100. At the time I had the Node 2i connected to the Onkyo through Toslink. The signal from HR albums obviously was obstructed by the Preamp and not the MiniDSP. Grrrrr |
|
