Home of the Squeezebox™ & Transporter® network music players.
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 59 of 59
  1. #51
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2

    Transporter for sale

    Ciao, Antonio
    Not sure if you've made your purchase. I have a used Transporter(with knob) in black color(silver handles) for sale in Italia at correct price. If you're interested just let me know.

    grazie - david

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    329

    Listening adaptation

    Quote Originally Posted by drmatt View Post
    In truth whatever you choose your ears will adapt to it and unless it's chronically ill suited to your tastes it will be quite enjoyable.


    Transcoded from Matt's brain by Tapatalk
    H Doc!

    We are in agreement about many things, & I endorse your statement that if you sit in the same place in your room your brain will quite quickly resolve the resonances of your room & reject the delayed reflections from the walls of your listening space which arrive at your ears later then the direct sound waves from your loudspeakers.

    I can even introduce an evolutionary conjecture (deliberately so-described because it would be fiendishly difficult to test!) to justify this position.

    Before we were forced to step out onto a savannah (created by global weather effects, but still very recently in evolutionary terms) our more distant ancestors would have lived their lives in a chaotic jungle environment, not unlike my cat who seems to prefer my natural untidiness & complains vociferous at my admittedly sporadic & generally demotivated efforts to reduce my clutter! The point being that survival in such an environment is critically dependent upon one's ability to distinguish direct from reflected sounds, the alternative being becoming some unpleasantly large & ferocious predator's lunch which is obviously a one-way ticket to oblivion...

    So you can acoustically treat your listening space to your heart's content, or use complex DSP software in an attempt to convert it into an anechoic chamber, but the only effect will be to impress occasional visitors who are not used to your room's acoustic. Really the only sensible use of that stuff is in a recording studio so that the recorded end product has no unusual sonic signature when compared to your other programme material. OR to stop your neighbours banging on your walls quite so often if they are getting a lot of low frequency resonance after your room boundary has stopped all the HF & even MF stuff getting through.

    To use a political analogy, as Machiavelli pointed out, it is actually best to choose your Prince at the outset & stick with him!

    Dave

  3. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by Golden Earring View Post
    So you can acoustically treat your listening space to your heart's content, or use complex DSP software in an attempt to convert it into an anechoic chamber, but the only effect will be to impress occasional visitors who are not used to your room's acoustic. Really the only sensible use of that stuff is in a recording studio so that the recorded end product has no unusual sonic signature when compared to your other programme material. OR to stop your neighbours banging on your walls quite so often if they are getting a lot of low frequency resonance after your room boundary has stopped all the HF & even MF stuff getting through.
    I've dipped into this conversation from time to time and thought I would comment on this.

    That characterization of Digital Room Correction (if that is what you were referring to) is extremely misleading. Of course, it won't appeal to everyone but it can make a real and very worthwhile difference.

    The aim has nothing at all to do with anechoic chambers or impressing visitors - but to better represent the music in less than ideal rooms with domestic constraints. But the how the correction filters are generated is absolutely critical to the outcome and can make the difference between something pretty bad and a result that is a great enhancement and a pleasure to listen to. As a very narrow example, if you take Acourate (a well regarded program used to generate correction filters) it aims not to take into account room reflections by (as a default) only using the first 15ms of the scanned sound in its calculations. Some people find benefits in reducing this further to, say, 8ms. No attempt to create an anechoic chamber effect there. The aim is to improve the smoothness of the perceived frequency and phase response in a wholly beneficial way and there are very real benefits, especially in the bass and lower mid areas which can be notoriously and frustratingly "lumpy".

    (I use the InguzDRC plugin with correction filters generated by Acourate.)
    Touch, Meridian G92, Bryston B4 SST2, PMC OB1i speakers, HP Proliant Microserver/Ubuntu, PC/Windows 7, iPad 4, iPeng, Squeezepad.

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by davidovada View Post
    Ciao, Antonio
    Not sure if you've made your purchase. I have a used Transporter(with knob) in black color(silver handles) for sale in Italia at correct price. If you're interested just let me know.

    grazie - david
    Hi David,
    Thanks for the offer, but I'm sorry I already ordered mine.
    Antonio
    LMS 7.9.0
    on Linux Mageia 5 and RPI 3
    1 SB3, 2 radio, 1 touch
    Plugins : Trackstat, Smartmix, MusicIP, ...

  5. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    329

    Room correction

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnB View Post
    I've dipped into this conversation from time to time and thought I would comment on this.

    That characterization of Digital Room Correction (if that is what you were referring to) is extremely misleading. Of course, it won't appeal to everyone but it can make a real and very worthwhile difference.

    The aim has nothing at all to do with anechoic chambers or impressing visitors - but to better represent the music in less than ideal rooms with domestic constraints. But the how the correction filters are generated is absolutely critical to the outcome and can make the difference between something pretty bad and a result that is a great enhancement and a pleasure to listen to. As a very narrow example, if you take Acourate (a well regarded program used to generate correction filters) it aims not to take into account room reflections by (as a default) only using the first 15ms of the scanned sound in its calculations. Some people find benefits in reducing this further to, say, 8ms. No attempt to create an anechoic chamber effect there. The aim is to improve the smoothness of the perceived frequency and phase response in a wholly beneficial way and there are very real benefits, especially in the bass and lower mid areas which can be notoriously and frustratingly "lumpy".

    (I use the InguzDRC plugin with correction filters generated by Acourate.)

    Hi John!

    The problem with our different takes on this issue is the difficulty in experimentally distinguishing between our opposed viewpoints.

    Your room correction will undoubtedly change the soundscape in your room. However you yourself concede that if it is not done correctly, it can make matters worse rather than better. OTOH, you believe that it can make your listening experience more enjoyable when done correctly.

    My retort is the obvious one that whilst you may hear a short-term improvement, over time your brain will simply adjust to its new listening environment (which will measure better using microphones & meters) but will ultimately end up sounding the same through your ears.

    If you can dream up an experimental way of testing between these different conjectures, then all I can say is that you have missed your true vocation as an experimental physicist. Otherwise, we shall have to (politely & respectfully, of course) agree to differ since neither case is provable.

    I do intend to install a couple of bass traps to reduce the massive modal resonance of my square concrete box of a listening room (Concrete floor + beam & concrete ceiling which is the floor for the tenant above) in order to partially eliminate the modal resonance between the floor & ceiling which are less than 8' apart, both for my own benefit & that of my long-suffering fellow inmates.

    I also intend to get my subwoofers up off the floor in an attempt to acoustically decouple them from the floor.

    I'm not opposed to DSP in principle - it is used to great effect in my pair of PV1 subwoofers (which have opposed 8" aluminium mica long-throw drivers in a sealed enclosure driven by a beefy 500W Class D amplifier each, a lot of this power is used to increase the LF extension to splendid effect.

    It's simply that having listened to my system from the same location for 8 years now, I appear to be oblivious to the various minor room resonances. When I listened to a "sweep test" on an audio test CD all I heard was a series of constant pitch tones of progressively decreasing frequency, all at exactly the same amplitude, at least for practical purposes, except for the lowest tone which sounded about twice as loud, corresponding I presume to the dreaded standing wave resonance between my solid floor & ceiling. Which I think illustrates my point: I am sure that my room would not register a flat acoustic if measured with test equipment.

    Dave

  6. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    944
    No, I do think that a well done room correction would always be a good thing. Like human perception of white balance (or rather colour constancy) though you always know what colour things are in a scene the overall white balance is perceived as a mood rather than a colour shift. Fix the white balance and you change the mood without changing the perceived image itself..


    Transcoded from Matt's brain by Tapatalk
    --
    Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP Microserver NAS with Debian+LMS 7.9.0
    Music: ~1300 CDs, as 450 GB of 16/44k FLACs. No less than 3x 24/44k albums..

  7. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    329

    Vision vs hearing

    Quote Originally Posted by drmatt View Post
    No, I do think that a well done room correction would always be a good thing. Like human perception of white balance (or rather colour constancy) though you always know what colour things are in a scene the overall white balance is perceived as a mood rather than a colour shift. Fix the white balance and you change the mood without changing the perceived image itself..


    Transcoded from Matt's brain by Tapatalk
    Hi Doc!

    Yet again, I find myself chewing the fat with you, in a respectful way, of course.

    As a keen amateur photographer, I am well aware of the concept of white balance, which is why I always process the raw images from my Nikon DSLR in Adobe Lightroom before (sometimes!) exporting them as JPEGs to Photoshop for the stuff that Lightroom won't do.

    Nevertheless, still photographic images are intended to make an instant, almost subliminal assault upon your visual faculties, which is a totally different thing to using your music system on a regular basis to listen to continuously & constantly changing music programmes.

    So I stand by my previously stated opinion, whilst accepting that I cannot disprove your position any more than you can disprove mine...

    Dave

  8. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    944
    If I could be bothered I'd try it out.. happy with what I have though. Like calibrating a TV, I can't see it ever being a bad thing, adding the finishing touch. Just wish it was easier to get right in a hifi context. A complete doddle in an AV context of course.


    Transcoded from Matt's brain by Tapatalk
    --
    Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP Microserver NAS with Debian+LMS 7.9.0
    Music: ~1300 CDs, as 450 GB of 16/44k FLACs. No less than 3x 24/44k albums..

  9. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    329

    A/v

    Quote Originally Posted by drmatt View Post
    If I could be bothered I'd try it out.. happy with what I have though. Like calibrating a TV, I can't see it ever being a bad thing, adding the finishing touch. Just wish it was easier to get right in a hifi context. A complete doddle in an AV context of course.


    Transcoded from Matt's brain by Tapatalk
    Roger that! A/V is DSP all down the line, else it wouldn't work at all.

    I've resisted the temptation myself so far, simply because of all the extra amps + speaker cables which are hard to hide in an 11.2 configuration. lol

    And the 3D which both my 46" Bravia .TV & my Panasonic HDD/BD-R dual Freeview HD gizmo support has now gone out of fashion - what do you gain with surround sound when the image (4K or not!) is firmly planted in front of you?

    I CAN see the point with immersive VR video games - but at the same time, I predict an increase in domestic accidents - for God's sake ditch the glass coffee table, it could kill you if you fall through it whilst engrossed in a different universe...

    Dave

    P.S. Before you dismiss me as a total dinosaur I HAVE signed up to the Kickstarter campaign for the Yarra 3D sound-bar (+subwoofer) as championed by Dr Aix himself (aka Dr Mark Walthrop) - I'm down $299 as we speak, it's scheduled to ship in March 2018. If it's a scam they deserve my money for such a convincing effort! Quietly confident that I'll get it - obviously I'll let you all know if it actually works, lol...

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •