/ag/&/am/: audio general & audiophile memes

try Bach's "Air" and tell me if you can hear the violinists breathing

maybe post the room dimensions, the major objects, the speaker type, the amp, and a small diagram

Attached: walrus-220_1124606f.jpg (220x293, 10K)

system specs that made me cringe

Receiver: ONKYO TX-NR929 7.1 AVR 130wpc
Mains: 2x Polk RTA 8TL's
Center: Polk CS245i
Surrounds: 2x Klipsch RS-41ii (because they fit perfectly over the door and window)
Rear Surr: 2x Polk M4a '90
Subwoofer: Speakerlab DAS-SW dual-voice-coil 10" '88 30Hz-150Hz
Subwoofer Amp: ONKYO A-8019 AMP '85 100wpc
Display: Samsung 55" UNC55-8000 3D LED
Console: Xbox360
DVR: custom MythTV rig w/ 3 tuners OTA
Zone2: 2x Polk M5b '87

Debating selling my shit to get Jbl

Anyone using treatment from Acoustic Fields?

Attached: Current Setup.jpg (2372x1581, 2.18M)

>jbl
ew why

hopefully he means vintage

what do you currently have?

i like this austere set up that is spacious and moody

Attached: me25.png (600x450, 419K)

It's Harbeth user and I'm looking at Jbl 4367

Why? Did they really dissatisfy you so much that you decided to switch after a few days?

>literally just got them after a month of waiting
I'd honestly wait a bit

>humongous jbl in a tiny room
>using Pass tech to drive a shitty jbl outdoor P.A. speaker

oh god -- part of your psyche is screaming at you to find a gf

Huh?

i got a record that sounds terrible and skips, could cleaning it improve it a bit

Someone offered me a trade out of the blue. I'm probably not going to do the trade since it seems like a hassle. Plus if need to find a new amp. The Harbeths sound great tho that's why I'm not jumping on this deal fast. Yep Room isn't even that small yo, 10x16. People tuck in jbls into tighter spaces then that. Also part of the trade involves my Pass equipment. Won't really miss it to be honest and it would be a poor match with the Jbl anyway.

It is small room, really. There is nothing wrong with that, but it IS small.

Okay, it's small yeah but you're making it seem like It's smaller than a closet or something lol. It's too small for big speakers but the Jbl are like mega sized bookshelves and from my experience, I didn't have bass problems in my room. Just midrange problems. The differrnt style of horn on the 4367 should in theory be better than the damn smith horns. Swedeanon has a pair and I think his room is quite small. I've heard KEF ls50 and Harbeth 30.2 so I know the midrange can be good if the speaker is used appropriately. Obviously I'd audition anything I get.

I've had girls complementing my speakers
The 4367 has a slow roll-off in the bass and front facing ports making it good for a small room. They are probably targeted at the Japanese market and they tend to lack space.

what do you guys suggest for a dolby atmos home theater solution? only looking for 5.1.2

Attached: 1500776360506.jpg (696x393, 29K)

dj carts typically use more tracking force than hi-fi ones... which could help. What are you using? Clean vinyl is very important, but it's rarely so bad it causes skips. Perhaps it's been played/damaged by a crosley tier shittable?

Attached: 01.jpg (800x600, 64K)

you may want to invest in some headphones.

Attached: ThisIsAnImageBoard.jpg.jpg (1546x692, 304K)

I'll try giving it more tracking force than normal. I'm using an Empire 2000/EIII cartridge. I doubt a crosley user would be interested in the record, the sleeve it came in is blank blue. Came from New York from an old DJ and EDM record store

Giving it just a little more tracking force worked. Just need to clean it, then.

A lot of girls have complemented my speakers too.
They also say I have an artistic personality.

amazon.com/gp/product/B0765ZVM6Y/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1
should i?

yes

no

Thoughts on FiiO FH5?

Attached: thinking_blob_cat.png (128x106, 11K)

$8.

What do I expect? Readin lots of review, watching youtube diy'r working with these devices, these seems to do job for daily driver.

My hope is to replace my $200(or so) amplifier with these mini for daily use. Power would be cut by 1/10th while getting roughly same levels of enjoyable bedroom level sound.

All that excess heat from my current large amp is killing me in the day.

Attached: tpa3116.jpg (1600x1371, 213K)

browsing AK for audio inspos what TEAC deck is this on the right?

Attached: 41185730974_136346d9dc_c.jpg (800x533, 128K)

I bought these for $100 did I fuck up? $100 was my budget.

Attached: Screenshot_20180903-105234-01.jpg (1080x1244, 182K)

Found it, TEAC V-1RX

Still me, I'm a retard for posting here and not headphone general.
Sorry.

Attached: huh.jpg (550x421, 16K)

Good for 100 muricoins

What are some decent cheap speaker cables? Thinking of buying few meters of QED original (7$ per meter).

I'm looking to drive this set of Fisher STV-752 speakers. Can anyone recommend any amps? I'm looking for something as economic as possible but $200 is my upper limit.

(Sorry about garbage camera)

Attached: 20180907_041617 - Copy.jpg (1920x1080, 781K)

Sure, but sometimes it's from a huge radial groove cut into the vinyl.

Oh god.

Attached: index.jpg (300x300, 11K)

very glad that's not the case on mine, turns out I was being a brainlet and didn't set my tracking force properly. it still needs a cleaning, though

Attached: 1510908526498.jpg (1024x681, 210K)

or any other similar player
sony has odd interfaces sometimes

gud, agreed

>Fisher STV-752
a relatively high wattage (100-150) regular receiver by sony or pioneer off craigslist for 20 to 50 bucks

Question for you audio fags. With respect to high resolution PCM files. (DSD is not relevant.)

What is all the "empty" space that is above the actual encoded audio? Pic related. This particular track doesn't have any data past ~25khz. So what is all the empty stuff all the way up to 176khz. I can't see it serving any kind of purpose other than being unneeded "empty" data. If you went and cut it off at say 50khz, would there be any kind of change in the audio or is it just the file size being reduced?

I doubt the higher frequencies and bit rates have any noticeable variation. Yes, there is a obvious discernible difference between 16/24, and then maybe some possible differences between 24/96 and 24/192 if your recording is perfect and you have bionic hearing. But past 24/192 what is the point?

Attached: Mozart - Violin concerto in D major - Allegro 24'352.8.flac.png (2560x1317, 2.44M)

I mean past ~20khz it's all just resonances anyway. What does all those extra frequencies/bits actually do?

Attached: Capture2.jpg (2558x1396, 618K)

The music was sampled at 352.8kHz for some fucking retarded reason, makes no practical difference other than taking up space

Seperate unrelated question. How much does "unity gain" matter when driving powered monitors?

I have a Grace m9xx DAC/AMP feeding 2x JBL LSR305's RCA -> XLR. The m9xx has volume level steps from 0-99 with half db steps. The m9xx powers my variety of headphones at comfortable to loud levels from ~70 - 85 dbs and I sometimes listen to both headphones and monitors simultaneously so I have the speakers volumes set to a comfortable level at 75db. However Grace states that their unity gain is at 90 db so that it outputs a steady 2V to the unbalanced RCA line outs.

So how important is having your monitors at unity gain? Do I lose any signal and/or quality running them at the lower 75db?

Attached: 1484815525976.webm (800x450, 2.94M)

Hello guys.
I can get the old amp from my mom, which is pretty fucking good. But I have no passive speakers.
What's the best i could get for around 150 bucks? They should fit on my desk or be small to fit right next to it with a small stand.
Or which would be the cheapest which are (((great)))?

With analog gain staging there's only two things to consider:
don't clip the input of the sink
don't overly amplify an unnecessarily weak signal
Anything in between that works, withe the usual snr we have in modern stuff you won't run into any problems. so just set your speakers to a level that puts you in a comfortable ballpark on the dac's pot, sounds like something in between 70 and 80 would be a good choice for normal lower listening levels, but if you want to be really exact with a device like the grace that gives you the benefit of actual stepped output the you can use (rent) a calibrated SPL meter, output a 1khz sine showing f.e. 85 on the grace and adjusting your speakers till you read 85dB at your listening spot, so the scale on the grace will be absolute from there.
Guess that's why they chose to put their reference level at 90 in the first place, so you can easily calibrate it that way as you would in a pro environment.

>This particular track doesn't have any data past ~25khz
most instruments don't produce a lot of ultrasonic content, except for transients and some super harsh thirdsounding stops and mixtures of renaissance and baroque organs and such.
also most microphones won't put out anything beyond 40kHz (80ish on some special snowflakes if you're really lucky), so all the noise you see up there is just because of dsd/dxd workflows and the inherent ultrasonic noisiness of dsd
>But past 24/192 what is the point?
only dsd/dxd spec compatibility

>every decent Pioneer CD player or transport that isn't black plastic crap is $200+

Attached: 1491542951615.gif (200x113, 914K)

Bump

you have 13 seconds to give me the best entry level speakers (want to hook em up to my lappy) for no more than $270

GO

good morning everyone, concept 20 arrived

Attached: 20180907_132304.jpg (1815x2420, 900K)

>most microphones won't put out anything beyond 40kHz
Right, so in a high resolution recording there is no "data" above ~40khz ya? Everything above that is just empty space right? It's not white noise or ultrasonic frequencies, it's just empty space that still gets encoded at full lossless size because of the extreme bit depth correct?

>With respect to high resolution PCM files. (DSD is not relevant.)
This is not a DSD track. It is 24/352 PCM FLAC. I specifically did not want to bring DSD into the conversation because that's an entirely different discussion, and I honestly don't understand very well on how that PDM 1-bit stuff works. My above questions are regarding high resolution PCM audio only.

7x PMC IB2
1x PMC XB2
Marantz AV8805

from the back.

the sound signature is astounding, they are way more compact than i imagined.

plays nicely down to 62hz and have this sense of dissappearing because you hear no resonance from the cabinet.

Attached: 20180907_132317.jpg (1815x2420, 744K)

>Right, so in a high resolution recording there is no "data" above ~40khz ya?
correct
>This is not a DSD track
it most likely was at some point, otherwise it would't be that noisy. makes no difference though, dsd and 3xxkHz dxd pcm go hand in hand and are used almost completely interchangeably in that kind of hi-res production workflows just so shit can be converted back and forth for whatever release and distribution channels

pic related is frequency response in my room,

really solid transparency, probably the best transparency i've heard this date and i'm not talking bout lsr305 transparency because they simply sound clinical and you can hear the cabinet.
I'm talking about musical transparency and these just overflow.
only thing that's a bit lackluster is authority, would love to hear this in a bigger cabinet like s20 or qx-2

they are about the size of a dali zensor 1

Attached: concept 20.jpg (2220x1080, 945K)

polk s20 frequency comparison screenshot in my room.

test song for both was

youtube.com/watch?v=M899kqdR--U

Attached: polk s20.jpg (2220x1080, 950K)

forgot to mention, ignore the yellow line as it is for actual response, just look at the red which means max amplitude

Attached: 20180808_125614.jpg (1512x2016, 829K)

shanling m0 or sony nw a45 or any other dap suggestions under $250?
i use ath m50x meme headphones

Let me clarify one of my original questions then. Even though there is no discernible audio data/information in A, does it still have a substantial file size due to it's extreme sample rate encoding or is it just very small file size? Is all of the data just stored in B where all the information is, or is the data spread out through A as well?

So if this file was 100 megabytes, and I edited/cut it off at 88khz, would the file size be reduced to 50 megabytes or just a few kilobytes as there is no "data" being stored in A?
I guess this is more of a question on how FLAC encoding works.

>it most likely was at some point, otherwise it would't be that noisy.
Actually you're totally right, I had actually re-encoded this from DSD to FLAC at one point and completely forgot that I did.

Attached: 123.png (2560x1317, 2.94M)

No, GIK is well regarded if you need some panels. Those on that wall are just meme-foam and probably not very functional.

no idea how flac works, but an 'empty' 28khz 24bit wav is still the same size as one that contains music, always 48000x24x2 bits per second.
I'm sure flac shaves off some file size with not storing information that's not even there as long as it decodes back to the same thing, but I have no idea if it really has to be -infinite dB to go through as 'digitally zero' or how any of it's compression works. But I'm sure it can't tell if something is just noise stacking up near the upper limit or actual musical information, so as long as there's something it will be encoded

How do I explain someone that playing two different pairs of speakers simultaneously so they "supplement" each other's qualities is a bad idea?

Explain interference and comb filtering
Explain basic crossovers

just arrived by the minute. excellent sound! no noise floor!

Attached: WhatsApp Image 2018-09-07 at 15.56.09.jpg (900x1600, 150K)

what kino you got on?

Alright, so in the case of a raw 24/192 PCM WAV file, no DSD or FLAC involved, my earlier question still stands; what do you get out of the extended sampling rates? If there is no discernible difference between 24/192 and 24/352 then what is the point of recording them as such?

I can understand the reasoning for increasing the bit depth, (16-->24-->32) but increasing the sampling rate, while theoretically gives you more bits and data to work with, provides no tangible benefit even for mastering or archival purposes. It seems to me that extreme sample rates are just increasing file sizes with no real benefit.

Ok, that makes sense. Even though there's only a few bits/kilobytes of noise up there in the higher frequencies, the increased sampling and lossless encoding ends up creating the much larger files. It's not so much just the actual audio data down in the lower frequencies but the useless noise in the upper ranges that's getting encoded as well.
So why don't the audio codecs just allow you to keep the increased sampling rates and then you could just choose to cut off everything above a specific frequency? Why waste all the space encoding useless noise?

I'm pretty sure you just described a home theater.

Attached: A_Trace_Of_Grace_24-192.wav.png (2560x1317, 3.01M)

I can understand the reasoning for increasing the bit depth, (16-->24-->32) but increasing the sampling rate, while theoretically gives you more bits and data to work with, provides no tangible benefit *(After a certain point. yes it helps going from 44 to 96, but 96 to 192, not so much. It's very much a case of diminishing returns, and then no returns at all)* even for mastering or archival purposes.

no kino. just a youtube video

Attached: WhatsApp Image 2018-08-24 at 14.41.29.jpg (900x1600, 206K)

So why don't the audio codecs just allow you to keep the increased sampling rates and then you could just choose to cut off everything above a specific frequency?
Because the sample rate only defines the highest reproducible frequency, that's the role it plays in digital audio. So if you want to only use half the spectrum you want to filter and then downsample. If you only filter and keep the samplerate you'll keep the bitrate the same through encoding a ton of nothing

>If there is no discernible difference between 24/192 and 24/352 then what is the point of recording them as such?
Really only versatility for different distribution formats.

Thanks
>I'm pretty sure you just described a home theater.
I'm not talking about surround sound. Basically my friend wants to get a pair of Zensor 3s and he also wants to get another pair of bookshelves, a completely different model from a different company, place them near the Dalis, and use both pairs at the same time so that the second pair of speakers add the qualities that the Zensors are missing to the overall sound.

Why you don't use your Polks?

Do you still need/want your Missions?

Got pic related, Monitor Audio MR 1, sounds pretty good for 150 merkeldinars. Running them on a shitty 1996 chinkwood receiver as desktop "monitors", ample bass for such smol cute speakers. However I couldn't find any tests or graphs for these

Attached: mr1-oak.jpg (1000x681, 94K)

i used them yesterday. today is q acoustics day
the concept 20 sounds 1 league over the 3020i i had prior. they sound better with a much smaller cabinet. and have the same amount of authority despite the different sizes

well i try to give them back to the seller but i'm 1 month late to the table i guess. let's see what they email me.

I'd be interested in buying them from you if you can't return them and wouldn't mind selling them to some random guy on Jow Forums. I'm also in Germany so you wouldn't have to pay a lot for shipping.

really. wanna add me on discord? Cuerex#8467

Attached: bst818.jpg (2016x3021, 1.83M)

Audio converters are usually built around the principle of noise-shaping of quantization error into high frequencies to increase useful resolution in the passband, which also underlies DSD.
The HF noise suggests insufficient LP filtering at the input to reject the ultrasonic junk, whether induced by intermediate conversion or at the ADC.

>So why don't the audio codecs just allow you to keep the increased sampling rates and then you could just choose to cut off everything above a specific frequency? Why waste all the space encoding useless noise?
I do not follow the intent of the question. Rejecting everything above a given frequency by a stopband filter leaves wasted samples; you have overpredicted the waveform. Inserting the stopband filter is the step normally taken in lowering the sample rate.

Foam panels are not the best value normally if you are not looking for a particular aesthetic. You can purchase fiberglass or mineral wool from a hardware store and wrap in sheets for more useful effect.

That .webm is always a laugh. No matter their interest, some people really are that separated from reality.

how to fix

Attached: IMG_20180907_183649.jpg (4160x3120, 2.12M)

bass reflex ports should be illegal, they deliver fake bass that we audiophiles don't appreciate.

My tda7297sa is dropping out on me driving the tiniest Kefs. Ok, they're 4 Ohm, but still.

Attached: Mors_ultima_linea_rerum.jpg (500x781, 149K)

Nice focal speaker

Attached: craberooni.png (666x666, 20K)

toilet paper tube and SUCK!

Attached: large_1h6ozh8wsu501.jpg (2000x1500, 499K)

oh and maybe use some distilled water first to soften things up. maybe

You can try to suck it out or use some painters tape, the blue stuff. Really any tape can work, but, painters tape leaves no residue.