/g/ - Technology

install openbsd

[Make a Post]
[X]





Loudspeakers and audio general Nanonymous No.4069 [D][U][F][S][L][A][C] >>4073
File: ec4f639235fbb18c27da608c8ad209426433d2323b0cc8650a91eb610c93da5c.jpg (dl) (866.98 KiB)

Hey, let's talk about loudspeakers and audio reproduction in general (and save our comrades from audiofoolery). Headphone fags not allowed.

Obligatory links to get up to speed:
* https://numeralnine.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/a-brief-guide-to-audio-for-the-skeptical-consumer/
* http://sound.whsites.net/articles.htm

The tl;dr is:
* Active speakers have been the future for decades already; don't bother with passive stuff.
* Forget non professional (studio) stuff unless you're a faggot.
* Generally, the more measurements the brand produces, the more trusty it is: Neumann and Genelec are the top dogs here. You can also look at ATC's SCM50ASL or PMC's IB2S-AII when you feel like your bank account has way too many digits.
* Start with Yamaha's HS5/HS7 or Presonus's Eris E5/E8. The Behringer B2030A is also quite interesting (a Genelec monitor clone).
* Forget subwoofers, they're almost always inferior to 3 ways (room correction nightmare, 2 ways' woofers aren't proper midrange drivers, trip to THDland unless you spend quite a lot).

Question: has anyone here actually heard the priciest stuff like the aforementioned ATC, PMC or pic related (Genelec 8260A)?

Nanonymous No.4073 [D][U][F] >>4077
File: 406255f6fd94c76edc2734261b479eaf91f9678ab203f36871ebf4cb7b3036bc.jpg (dl) (153.04 KiB)

>>4069
>buying outlandishly expensive monitors
I would rather buy a decent mid-grade, reasonably neutral active monitor (eg, Adam A7X) and invest the rest of my budget into a set of isolation stands (eg, IsoAcoustics) and properly soundproofing my listening space. I've seen far too many people plow money into very high end equipment and achieve inferior performance just because they were more concerned about gear than acoustics.

Nanonymous No.4077 [D] >>4081

>>4073
You're right to say that I forgot to mention that room treatment is very important once you start spending real money. Making some simple bass traps with rock wool and using large rugs and/or tapestries (for the HF reflections) is a good and cheap way to solve the question.
But it doesn't replace getting good monitors (especially good 3 ways going low enough).
>Adam
Always found them bright and overpriced. Another manufacturer not bothering to even provide a FR graph or at least ripple values.

Nanonymous No.4079 [D][U][F] >>4081
File: ce4c30fb63a0f08b2714dedfc11e0fb4f0e6c2d2fb5f94f63f2a5d013c504de3.jpg (dl) (75.00 KiB)

stop memeing and buy good headphones trololol

Nanonymous No.4081 [D] >>4082

>>4077
>Adam
I actually don't like their products apart from the A7 series, and I actually prefer the A7 over the A7X because the latter are indeed a bit brighter than I'd prefer. But they are both a good match with my Benchmark Media DAC, however, so I've nothing really bad to say about these monitors apart from cheap quality power switches.
>>4079
Quality cans have their place, but so do quality monitors. Ideally, you have both.

Nanonymous No.4082 [D] >>4125

>>4081
>Benchmark Media DAC
Why would you waste so much money on something like this when some <$75 DACs are already transparents with balanced XLR output?

Nanonymous No.4125 [D] >>4132 >>4161

>>4082
I've heard some decent $100-$800 DACs, but none as good as the Benchmark. You are correct that it would be a wasteful purchase if you don't match it with good cans or monitors.

Nanonymous No.4132 [D]

>>4125
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. 8/10 if bait.

Nanonymous No.4161 [D] >>4179

>>4125
If you really can't discern a difference between "<$75" DACs and a (non-snake oil) higher end DAC and are convinced that the former is "already transparent", then either your ears or headphones are to blame. I think I envy you, anon — I would much rather be completely satisfied with an inexpensive DAC. And since you are, I'm not going to try to change your mind.

Nanonymous No.4179 [D] >>4180 >>4181

>>4161
Your placebo isn't backed by experimental data (ABX) nor by theoretical arguments.
On the other hand, you can buy some cheap Behringer stuff that's provably transparent:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/budget-dac-review-behringer-umc204hd.1658/

So, how are your $1000/meter cables doing?

Nanonymous No.4180 [D]

>>4179
To add a bit, I wouldn't recommend Behringer, because they're quite jewish in nature (fake balanced outputs in their interfaces, pretty bad QC, known for outright ripping from other companies), but it proves that you don't need to spend forturnes to get a good DAC (remember that this is a whole audio interface with mic preamps and all that stuff, too).
I suggest the Swissonic UA2X2 for 49€. Get the Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 (130€) if you don't want to worry about "upgrading".

Nanonymous No.4181 [D] >>4197

>>4179
>ignoring your ears and letting "specs" guide your purchases
Now I just feel sorry for you.
>theoretical arguments
There's no such thing as a perfectly "transparent" ADC or DAC, although you can decide it is sufficiently transparent for your purposes. I believe you are correct that the market for high end products will fall out in the near future as the difference in performance will practically disappear. But that certainly wasn't the case some years ago when I bought my DAC, nor is it today. Let's leave it at that.
>$1000/meter cables
I use basic but quality cables costing ~$10/meter. Don't assume I'm some audiophile meme just because I don't agree with your appraisal of low-cost DACs.

Nanonymous No.4197 [D] >>4208

Here are some 1st gen scarlett measurements: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/focusrite-18i20-dac-measurements.2128/
>>4181
>>ignoring your ears and letting "specs" guide your purchases
Conveniently ignoring my mention of ABX, which you obviously never tried to get your ridiculous conviction that a <-100dB noise floor or <0.01% THD is audible.
>Don't assume I'm some audiophile meme just because I don't have the full package retardation
Get help, retard. Your argument that "only ears matter" is exactly what cable peddlers use.

Nanonymous No.4208 [D]

>>4197
You're putting words in my mouth. I never once said anything about noise floor or THD, and mostly disregard these specs since many excellent audio systems over the years were hardly the quietest but still sound absolutely brilliant.
>Get help, retard
I didn't say only ears matter, only that they should be your primary tool for assessing audio quality. I ignored mention of ABX because you're just wasting my time, and not worth further replies. If you're happy with your equipment, fine. I'm not here to persuade you to stop using equipment if it meets your needs.

Nanonymous No.4209 [D]

quality of the music is most important. 128kbps audio that has been excessively transcoded, played back through 3 € earbuds, outperforms audiophile gear that is playing mediocre music, or music that is not to one's personal taste. that said I do appreciate better sound systems. i feel transducers attached to fruits like melon bowls hooked up to digital T-amps using thick gauge silver wires and higher-bitrate audio is one of many audio designs that will 'upturn the tea table' in the audio world. also musically healing a neodynium magnet helps. my iPod placed speaker-to-rubber sounds remarkably nuanced because I have sent so much great music and sound through it. crystals can effect the sound in interesting ways also and i personally enjoy sending music through a crystal orb i have. am not sure if it is amethyst or something else but i recommend trying crystals that one is personall drawn to

Nanonymous No.4210 [D]

or wood or glass or stone or flowers
anything that resonates with you