138 posts / 0 new
Last post
john dolan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 20/12/2008 - 15:32
Posts: 268
RE: Active hifi peakers or active studio monitors?

I know im coming over as a negative whiney old git but just to clarify i am a negative whiney old git.:)

richardw42's picture
Online
Last seen: 16 min 6 sec ago
Joined: 02/05/2010 - 18:56
Posts: 2402
RE: Active hifi speakers or active studio monitors?

It it me, or is John arguing with himself. 

 

I think everybody recognise the MDac as a good product, and have only commented on your posts. I may have missed something its getting quite surreal. 

 

When one rabid anti AVI poster leaves the forum, do they nominate a successor ?

davedotco's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 40 min ago
Joined: 24/04/2013 - 10:02
Posts: 6083
RE: Active hifi speakers or active studio monitors?

What fun! 

I wander of for a couple of beers and a bit of supper and it all kicks off, hugely amusing.

In my experience ADMs are an excellent, one box (well two actually) solution for someone with a simple setup who wants a fuss free system, but what that has to do with JDs system passes me by.

What I would be interested in is if anyone else has experimented with the digital volume on the M-dac or knows something about how it works.

The suggestion that it is audible, given that the processor is running at 32 bit resolution, strikes me as odd, very simple calculations show that it can not have an effect on the sound quality by the reduction in bit depth alone, so if the differences are real and can be heard, them something else is going on.

Overdose's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
Joined: 08/02/2008 - 18:23
Posts: 3672
RE: Active hifi speakers or active studio monitors?

davedotco wrote:

What fun! 

I wander of for a couple of beers and a bit of supper and it all kicks off, hugely amusing.

In my experience ADMs are an excellent, one box (well two actually) solution for someone with a simple setup who wants a fuss free system, but what that has to do with JDs system passes me by.

What I would be interested in is if anyone else has experimented with the digital volume on the M-dac or knows something about how it works.

The suggestion that it is audible, given that the processor is running at 32 bit resolution, strikes me as odd, very simple calculations show that it can not have an effect on the sound quality by the reduction in bit depth alone, so if the differences are real and can be heard, them something else is going on.

I'm sure the person that brought them up could explain.

 

altruistic.lemon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
Joined: 25/07/2011 - 09:18
Posts: 1862
RE: Active hifi speakers or active studio monitors?

richardw42 wrote:

It it me, or is John arguing with himself. 

 

I think everybody recognise the MDac as a good product, and have only commented on your posts. I may have missed something its getting quite surreal. 

 

When one rabid anti AVI poster leaves the forum, do they nominate a successor ?

No, they don't attack in orchestrated packs like the pro AVI  brigade!  Seriously, because someone doesn't agree with the AVI propaganda, doesthat make   them rabid, or merely discriminating.,

altruistic.lemon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
Joined: 25/07/2011 - 09:18
Posts: 1862
RE: Active hifi speakers or active studio monitors?

richardw42 wrote:

It it me, or is John arguing with himself. 

 

I think everybody recognise the MDac as a good product, and have only commented on your posts. I may have missed something its getting quite surreal. 

 

When one rabid anti AVI poster leaves the forum, do they nominate a successor ?

No, they don't attack in orchestrated packs like the pro AVI  brigade!  Seriously, because someone doesn't agree with the AVI propaganda, doesthat make   them rabid, or merely discriminating.,

altruistic.lemon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
Joined: 25/07/2011 - 09:18
Posts: 1862
RE: Active hifi speakers or active studio monitors?

richardw42 wrote:

It it me, or is John arguing with himself. 

 

I think everybody recognise the MDac as a good product, and have only commented on your posts. I may have missed something its getting quite surreal. 

 

When one rabid anti AVI poster leaves the forum, do they nominate a successor ?

No, they don't attack in orchestrated packs like the pro AVI  brigade!  Seriously, because someone doesn't agree with the AVI propaganda, doesthat make   them rabid, or merely discriminating.,

byakuya83's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 14/03/2011 - 23:19
Posts: 267
RE: Active hifi peakers or active studio monitors?

John Duncan wrote:

Overdose wrote:

john dolan wrote:

Have you got a M-dac and passion and tried for yourself.

JW the designer of the M-dac understands and agrees with me and is building his new power amp to adjust its sensitivity as the volume on the m-dac is turned up and down so that the M-dac is always running full resolution.

I can hear the difference so can JW.

If you read the M-dac thread over on PFM JW helps and updates M-dacs he also makes or tells them how to make inline attenuators so guys can use higher volume settings on the M-dac because it sounds better that way.

The sound going through my passive only passes through 2 resistors same as using attenuators.

You make it sound like the retail product isn't properly finished.

Unlike the ADM 9.0 9.1 9.1T 9.1RS 9.1RSS, obviously.

It seems this was the post that engineered the unnecessary derailing of this thread.

Jesse Di Noia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 04/04/2016 - 10:02
Posts: 3
I hate to say it but... Read on please

I hate to say it. The last thing I want to do is insult you all but, none of you are right regarding what gear is better. You've heard it a million times & it's true. "What is best is what sounds best to you with your choice of music". Let me extend this to with what choice of source. How many people can explain to you why? Here goes. I agree with some parts of some comments & I would have to write up an essay with evidence to back it up. This is not the place so I will do my best. The only way to truly understand is engineering experience. I own a pair of HS50 in an untreated room. I have mixed and tracked on Behringers, KRK, Advent, Genelec, Mackie and more. My best mix is always at home. Why, because I know how they translate in this environment. That’s all. A professional mixer can mix on anything if they know how they translate. Yamaha NS-10 worked not because they were pleasurable to listen to but because it was the only phase coherent speaker available at the time and did the job to present an image, especially when stereo was in it's infancy. When you here a Les Paul or a Fender strat in a live room, nothing will replicate it because even the mics are colored. Every piece of equipment is colored. Pre amps, consoles, the lot, and of course the room. Not to mention processing and recording / mixing and mastering technique And yes, your hifi as well. What you all are actually debating is A: your preference of speakers, B: your subjectivity in sound. Period. Audiophiles will never know what the production sounded like from the engineer's ears. Engineers can only make music to please the masses & to interpret the norms of the consumer’s preference brought about by semiotics in culture and society. Hifi gear was never meant to replicate a production. The same principal applies for the manufacturing of so called reproduction equipment. It's usualy bassy because thats what a lot of consumers prefer. There are technical standards but there is no sound standard or a true sound. It's a cultural paradigm. High end manufacturers are ever endeavoring to cater to the tastes of audiophiles, whatever that is? That’s the million-dollar question. It's a business. A good engineer produces music depending on Genre, subculture and tries to please that audience and even lyrics are written with cultural perspectives in mind, whether to target a particular audience, subculture or mainstream and there are asthetics considered. (The Sex Pistols is an exception. That was a fluke & probably the most important contempary music made. Lyricaly they had an agenda but asthetically they did not). That’s why engineers typically check their mixes on different hifi gear, even the average car stereo and even P.A gear and stadiums. I have several hifi gear in my home studio. Some I like and some I dislike but it has to embody certain characteristics depending on genre, my target audience and the gear they generally would use. Even iPhones and ear buds if you are doing pop. I have my preference for leisure, which is vintage.  "Forget valve gear, Justin Bieber fans don't use it. The music will be over compressed and the audiophile will hear it but who cares", get the picture? Sure there are qualities in sound but when you are talking about subtle nuances and the difference between, timbre, harmonics that very high end gear can re-produce, it's all academic and the engineer has done his job if you like it. The genius, "Quincy Jones" knew this well and was able to execute his vision. He has over 40 000 000 sales to prove it and he mixed on Aurotones, Tiny little horrible cube speakers but, he knew that you would like how it was going to sound on your system and how you would like it. Jackson never thanked him publicly.

Peace.

 

Vladimir's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 26/12/2013 - 19:17
Posts: 6933
.

Auratones do not tell you how music sounds on my hi-fi system. Neither do Yamaha NS10. Those grottboxes tell you how it sounds in my 15 year old Corolla with stock no name made in Taiwan speakers, or on an Aiwa mini system in my bedroom. 

Jesse Di Noia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 04/04/2016 - 10:02
Posts: 3
Agreed but

I-m so happy Correct, your ears do. Not the Corolla, the Aurotones or your system. That's the engineers job.

Vladimir's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 26/12/2013 - 19:17
Posts: 6933
Jesse Di Noia wrote:

Jesse Di Noia wrote:

I-m so happy Correct, your ears do. Not the Corolla. Thats what the engineers job is.

To make music sound good in shite environment, and sound shite in good environment? Well, job done

drummerman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 55 min ago
Joined: 18/01/2008 - 21:12
Posts: 7231
Vladimir wrote:

Vladimir wrote:

Auratones do not tell you how music sounds on my hi-fi system. Neither do Yamaha NS10. Those grottboxes tell you how it sounds in my 15 year old Corolla with stock no name made in Taiwan speakers, or on an Aiwa mini system in my bedroom. 

Probably correct but he makes some very good points.

All subjective but measurements do explain why to some extent thats why I like to see them.

Even cables measure differently ... .

BigH's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 57 min ago
Joined: 29/12/2012 - 12:31
Posts: 5249
Jesse Di Noia wrote:

Jesse Di Noia wrote:

I-m so happy Correct, your ears do. Not the Corolla, the Aurotones or your system. That's the engineers job.

What about mastering. It maybe well recorded but thats what ruins many modern records.

Listen to the music, not the hifi.

Jesse Di Noia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 04/04/2016 - 10:02
Posts: 3
Hell yeh

I was told this by a mastering engineer:

"But when I walk around in town wearing my ear buds, I cant hear it loud enough over the traffic. Compress the shit out of it" 

I have written an academic paper on hypercompression. My thesis statement was:

"Hypercompression has contributed to the decline of the music Industry" 

But now I think we might see a shift in this paradigm. The problem is game theory or one upmanship. If my song isn't as loud as anyone else on the radio, the might change they channel. Opposite to what I believe.

It's my belief that hypercompression makes the listner disengage emotionally and cognitively with the music. Fatiguing very quickly. 

It's another discussion for another day.

Pages

Log in or register to post comments