Impressions on Toolbox 3.0

[touchporter]

I have been using Soundcheck's Toolbox 3.0 for a few weeks thought I should contribute some findings I have discovered.

1. I have an entry-level two channel system:
Bolder Linear PSU -> Bolder digital modded Touch (hardwired) -> Coaxial SPDIF -> Cambridge DACMAGIC -> Onkyo A-9555 Integrated Amp -> Energy RC-70 three-way towers

2. Default TT 3.0 settings and buffer:
The sound is more forward and aggressive compared to stock. The clarity is improved. The vocals are so clean that sometimes feel a bit thin. The details in high frequency is emphasized and sometimes a little too much which can cause some distractions when listening to music. I feel a bit fatiguing after a long listening session.

3. TT 3.0 with Logitech priority settings and a 20000 buffer:
The sound is more laid back. The highs are smoother but felt kind of rolled-off. Sometimes I feel it's too smooth which takes the dynamics and livelihood of the music away and too “analog”. Some people with a bright system may like it more.

4. I changed the FLAC decoder settings to have it decoded by the Touch rather than the suggestion by Soundcheck to have it done on the server side. I found this change gave me more bass response and more dynamics. Plus I have some 24/96KHZ album wouldn't play with the PCM setting.

5. My final settings are TT3.0 with Logitech priority and 10000 buffer, plus FLAC decoded by the Touch. I feel the sound is like a midpoint between 2 and 3 and hit a good balance on my system. It is analytical enough but at the same time musical and non-fatiguing.

I want to thank Soundcheck for his work and overall it is definitely an improvement over the stock Touch. I know some people here say there is no difference at all but for me and my wife (who used to play instrument in a classical band and has much better hearing than myself) the difference is not night and day but also not very subtle either.

[pski]

I have been using Soundcheck's Toolbox 3.0 for a few weeks thought I should contribute some findings I have discovered.

1. I have an entry-level two channel system:
Bolder Linear PSU -> Bolder digital modded Touch (hardwired) -> Coaxial SPDIF -> Cambridge DACMAGIC -> Onkyo A-9555 Integrated Amp -> Energy RC-70 three-way towers

2. Default TT 3.0 settings and buffer:
The sound is more forward and aggressive compared to stock. The clarity is improved. The vocals are so clean that sometimes feel a bit thin. The details in high frequency is emphasized and sometimes a little too much which can cause some distractions when listening to music. I feel a bit fatiguing after a long listening session.

3. TT 3.0 with Logitech priority settings and a 20000 buffer:
The sound is more laid back. The highs are smoother but felt kind of rolled-off. Sometimes I feel it's too smooth which takes the dynamics and livelihood of the music away and too “analog”. Some people with a bright system may like it more.

4. I changed the FLAC decoder settings to have it decoded by the Touch rather than the suggestion by Soundcheck to have it done on the server side. I found this change gave me more bass response and more dynamics. Plus I have some 24/96KHZ album wouldn't play with the PCM setting.

5. My final settings are TT3.0 with Logitech priority and 10000 buffer, plus FLAC decoded by the Touch. I feel the sound is like a midpoint between 2 and 3 and hit a good balance on my system. It is analytical enough but at the same time musical and non-fatiguing.

I want to thank Soundcheck for his work and overall it is definitely an improvement over the stock Touch. I know some people here say there is no difference at all but for me and my wife (who used to play instrument in a classical band and has much better hearing than myself) the difference is not night and day but also not very subtle either.

How nice for you !

Have you considered other software alternatives?

[Bytec]

I have been using Soundcheck's Toolbox 3.0 for a few weeks thought I should contribute some findings I have discovered.

1. I have an entry-level two channel system:
Bolder Linear PSU -> Bolder digital modded Touch (hardwired) -> Coaxial SPDIF -> Cambridge DACMAGIC -> Onkyo A-9555 Integrated Amp -> Energy RC-70 three-way towers

2. Default TT 3.0 settings and buffer:
The sound is more forward and aggressive compared to stock. The clarity is improved. The vocals are so clean that sometimes feel a bit thin. The details in high frequency is emphasized and sometimes a little too much which can cause some distractions when listening to music. I feel a bit fatiguing after a long listening session.

3. TT 3.0 with Logitech priority settings and a 20000 buffer:
The sound is more laid back. The highs are smoother but felt kind of rolled-off. Sometimes I feel it's too smooth which takes the dynamics and livelihood of the music away and too “analog”. Some people with a bright system may like it more.

4. I changed the FLAC decoder settings to have it decoded by the Touch rather than the suggestion by Soundcheck to have it done on the server side. I found this change gave me more bass response and more dynamics. Plus I have some 24/96KHZ album wouldn't play with the PCM setting.

5. My final settings are TT3.0 with Logitech priority and 10000 buffer, plus FLAC decoded by the Touch. I feel the sound is like a midpoint between 2 and 3 and hit a good balance on my system. It is analytical enough but at the same time musical and non-fatiguing.

I want to thank Soundcheck for his work and overall it is definitely an improvement over the stock Touch. I know some people here say there is no difference at all but for me and my wife (who used to play instrument in a classical band and has much better hearing than myself) the difference is not night and day but also not very subtle either.

Yet another placebo victim.

[SBGK]

Yet another placebo victim.

are you saying that TT3.0 doesn't have these effects, have you tried it ?

seems a well thought out post, why would he bother posting unless the effects were as described and also concur with the findings of 100s of other people using TT3.0.

[touchporter]

How nice for you !

Have you considered other software alternatives?

By other software alternatives you mean third-party EQ software? No I have not. I am one of those who never touches tone control no matter what.

[Mnyb]

By other software alternatives you mean third-party EQ software? No I have not. I am one of those who never touches tone control no matter what.

Nowdays you can have you cake and eat it , my speakers have digitally implemented tone controls (and I'm pretty sure most other hi end and home cinema have or will have this ) .

So you can control tone without nasty side-effects in form of added noise from a tone circuit .

I usually don't use them every day or even every week for that matter, but for the really unbalanced recordings I do ,they actually improve if i do so it can't be bad .

And I have a constant tillt of +1,5 db in base -1,5 dB in the treble due to acoustics and speakers placement .

Treble fades away faster in air so any speaker have a distance where you are expected to sit I'm probably closer than expected due to a small room. and the designer have to make some assumption acoustics so if the room are a bit lively just adjust it .

So there is no penalty anymore if you got the rigth stuff
a pity that the old inguz plugin is not properly maintained it offered eq as a side effect of having drc , but it is a bizarre thing to setup, otherwise it would give you eq from the palm of your hand in iPeng for example.

I think the rigid pow of "thy shall not use tone controls" commandment is a left over from the analog days .

And frankly it did not always made sense then either hooray for defeatable tone circuits !!

If you have the choice to suffer or make a mild tone adjustment what to do ?

But again I only do this if it is obvious that the balance is cluelessly done, sometimes the producer and artist have some idea behind the sound and it is that I want to hear .

But then they removed even the defeatable controlls for "purity" this was and is BS no one would be able to hear a contact surface on a relay or selector, but it was also cheaper to build and audiophiles love to pay more for less...

Another example of that thinking take the top of the line CD player , remove the dac and stuff multiply price with 2 or 3 and now we have a transport ! enjoy . But this was overdone hence hanging out with the Squeezebox for a fraction of the cost for such device luckilly a big crowd of audiophiles is not bying that anymoore and we have a lot of streamers and pc stuff to chose from , at computer prices not hi-end hifi prices.

The third choice is ofcourse buy an expensive power cord < or insert any cargo cult item > and try to placebo over it pretending it was suddenly fixed

If you have a resolving neutral hifi and the good music you try to listen is badly mangled you are going to hear it as is straight with no chaser whether you like it not :-/ but having a euphonic hifi that rose tints everything is not an option either , this will make the good stuff suffer instead , giving that sameness thta is the mark of bad hifi .
If the treble or base always sound the same regardless of recording something is wrong .
I can have glass cuting harsh sound (if it is recorded that way ) or silky smooth in the same equipment .

it is a fallacy to believe hifi can make bad recordings sound good it can't


You are in it for the music ? and starting picking music to fit the hifi ? Then I think it's time for the men in white coats to have a visit .
Some music is badly produced or just produced without sq concerns and then we have historical recordings

[darrenyeats]

Nowdays you can have you cake and eat it , my speakers have digitally implemented tone controls (and I'm pretty sure most other hi end and home cinema have or will have this ) .

So you can control tone without nasty side-effects in form of added noise from a tone circuit .

I usually don't use them every day or even every week for that matter, but for the really unbalanced recordings I do ,they actually improve if i do so it can't be bad .

And I have a constant tillt of +1,5 db in base -1,5 dB in the treble due to acoustics and speakers placement .

Treble fades away faster in air so any speaker have a distance where you are expected to sit I'm probably closer than expected due to a small room. and the designer have to make some assumption acoustics so if the room are a bit lively just adjust it .

So there is no penalty anymore if you got the rigth stuff
a pity that the old inguz plugin is not properly maintained it offered eq as a side effect of having drc , but it is a bizarre thing to setup, otherwise it would give you eq from the palm of your hand in iPeng for example.

I think the rigid pow of "thy shall not use tone controls" commandment is a left over from the analog days .

And frankly it did not always made sense then either hooray for defeatable tone circuits !!

If you have the choice to suffer or make a mild tone adjustment what to do ?

But again I only do this if it is obvious that the balance is cluelessly done, sometimes the producer and artist have some idea behind the sound and it is that I want to hear .

But then they removed even the defeatable controlls for "purity" this was and is BS no one would be able to hear a contact surface on a relay or selector, but it was also cheaper to build and audiophiles love to pay more for less...

Another example of that thinking take the top of the line CD player , remove the dac and stuff multiply price with 2 or 3 and now we have a transport ! enjoy . But this was overdone hence hanging out with the Squeezebox for a fraction of the cost for such device luckilly a big crowd of audiophiles is not bying that anymoore and we have a lot of streamers and pc stuff to chose from , at computer prices not hi-end hifi prices.

The third choice is ofcourse buy an expensive power cord < or insert any cargo cult item > and try to placebo over it pretending it was suddenly fixed

I agree with a lot of this but there a few counter arguments:
1. EQ can't fix cancellations due to room modes.
2. EQ tends to reduce effective dynamic range.
3. EQ affects phase response.

Depending on the source of the distortions, point 3 may not be a bad thing. For example, I've read that poor loudspeaker frequency response can sometimes go hand in hand with poor phase response and therefore EQ may improve both! But if your speaker has a good FR and phase response, and you apply EQ because of room acoustics this won't be good for phase response.

EQ and DRC are fine but room acoustics should be the first line of attack. Unfortunately, few of us can have a purpose built room - goodness knows mine isn't! - but applying a few physical treatments is practical enough for most people.

It may come across that I am DSP bashing but that isn't true. If you want to use DSP then I won't argue. But I would add (and I am sure you agree Mynb) one should try to fix the physical space - the cause of most problems - as much as possible first.
Darren

[darrenyeats]

you are in it for the music ? And starting picking music to fit the hifi ? Then i think it's time for the men in white coats to have a visit .

+1

[Mnyb]

I agree with a lot of this but there a few counter arguments:
1. EQ can't fix cancellations due to room modes.
2. EQ tends to reduce effective dynamic range.
3. EQ affects phase response.

Depending on the source of the distortions, point 3 may not be a bad thing. For example, I've read that poor loudspeaker frequency response can sometimes go hand in hand with poor phase response and therefore EQ may improve both! But if your speaker has a good FR and phase response, and you apply EQ because of room acoustics this won't be good for phase response.

EQ and DRC are fine but room acoustics should be the first line of attack. Unfortunately, few of us can have a purpose built room - goodness knows mine isn't! - but applying a few physical treatments is practical enough for most people.

It may come across that I am DSP bashing but that isn't true. If you want to use DSP then I won't argue. But I would add (and I am sure you agree Mynb) one should try to fix the physical space - the cause of most problems - as much as possible first.
Darren

Yep I basically agree ? sorry for my contradictory and partly confused posting style I have modest treatment and DRC in the bass, I think phase in speakers is red herring it has lead to speakers with 1st order xover with far worse problems than it cures .

But that does not counter the need to sometimes tweak the tone for some records .

Btw Meridian speakers are aware of the time domain the balance also adds delay as you are of-center if need balance and there also is a height correction depending how you are seated regarding the speakers height .

Actually I don't know if the tilt control does something timew domain but I never had problems with it.

[touchporter]

If I knew I had a frequency response issue in my system, I would rather spend $500 on gear/cable upgrade or room treatment even I know a simple and free tonal control or other type of EQ software would solve the problem.

My wife told me that I suffer from an obsessive compulsive disorder called "Audiophile". And I have a feeling I am not alone here.