“The vast majority of albums are now recorded digitally and most music is now listened to via digital program sources. It makes no sense to keep going back and forth between digital and analog. In digital you can easily do all the processing without adding any artifact whereas every time you pass the signal through an analog device there is always added artifact. Just a fact of life. However, some people actually like listening to distortion and that is their prerogative.”
This is one of the most hotly contested issues in mastering studios today. The internet is FULL of debate on the merits of passing the signal through a high quality analog circuit to put finishing touches or air on a record. You can call it euphonic distortion. Others call it realism or beauty. Miro says just passing the signal through his Great River (flat) improves the sound. Many studio engineers have said the same online. I know what my ears hear, and I’m AS MUCH excited by what I hear in my system now as I was several years ago when I started with the Charter Oak. The passion says it all. And my previous anecdotes should be instructive as well. Let’s just agree to disagree on this point. Happy Thanksgiving!
|
“I use Electrostatic speakers because their distortion levels are a level of magnitude lower than dynamic speakers if run correctly (no low bass). There are no analog crossovers in my system. RIAA correction is done digitally. I can record vinyl to the hard drive in 192/24 and nobody has been able to tell the difference between the recording and the actual record. Once you are in numbers you can go almost anywhere you want. I use 10th order slopes for the subwoofer crossover, virtually impossible to do in analog. ”
Again, this kind of material stated here tells me you know your stuff, and I’m highly impressed. I think you are on to something as well. I wish I could HEAR your system. I promise to learn more about higher order digital EQ. Right now I’m working through the 1 hour 50 minute video “Understanding the State of the Art of Digital Room Correction” by Accurate Sound on YouTube
|
Charter Oak that I have is a very powerful equalizer. In other words you can boost a treble band up to +19 db with NO audible distortion and the resulting SQ is still hi fi, no significant loss of staging, dynamics or image resolution. While in that scenario of full boost that the treble is obviously too much for most records, it still sound GOOD. Still sweet, clean, undistorted, integrated well with the mids to still sound highly musical. It’s just remarkable. Of course, these are the reasons some sound engineers prefer this as the “final act.” All I can say is I can certainly see why.
|
It’s simply intoxicating. I can listen to my favorite music for hours and never get bored. It’s a beautiful thing.
|
The right amount of air band in such gear opens up the ENTIRE mix, top to bottom, to better SQ. Timbre improvements too as the missing supra auricular harmonics and highest octave textures that are missing are restored.
Again, sorry the million posts. I’m still impassioned, and when good verbiage to express my listening impressions comes to mind, I have to type it.
|
I have been using the Schiit Lokuis for a number of years and find it a valuable item, when needed, and when not - Bypass, Simple.
|
@pooch2 I would have bought the Schiit Loki max if I didn’t hear about the McIntosh Q112. I am very happy with it but it woulda been nice to have a remote.
|
I would like to have a remote for the Schiit lokuis, but I like the simplicity of it the way it is. I am sure I would also like the Max with the remote, I am always torn between convenience and simplicity. 1st world problems.
|
@pooch2 Thats the way I feel about the Mac MQ112. It’s very simple to use and I love the way it fits into my system.
|
Regarding DSP for speaker and room correction:
The following is from Ed to me at Audible Images in Melbourne FL. I have heard the best sounding system of any showroom in FL at Ed’s. I trust his judgment and his ear absolutely implicitly. The following is what he said. It leaves open the question of the newer forthcoming DEQX vs Trinnov. It seems Trinnov is the best he’s heard. Here it is:
“ Tim,
I have tried room EQ with several different products. Audessy, DIRAC , Room Perfect and the Trinnov. In my opinion the room correction is more destructive than corrective. The Trinnov was impressive in its capability to manipulate the sound in every way. However it did not sound very good. We consistently prefer the sound with the room EQ disabled. I can hear the sound quality change for the worse when it is engaged. I typically hear some grain added and slight glare overlaying the sound. I tend to push my customers into letting me place the speakers and subwoofers where they sound best so I usually do not end up with major issues to deal with. I have used the EQ in some subwoofers in certain circumstances with decent results.
Thanks
Ed ”
|
Perhaps back to what I originally said? Get the room right and then tonally EQ to your heart’s desire with a Skyline M3D or other great studio analog tool. This particular approach I’ve been in love with for a decade. There must be SOMETHING right about it!
incidentally, I will still try DEQX as I said I would so I can hear for myself. Also, I just bought a Skyline M3D from Revive Audio folks. CANNOT WAIT to hear how it compares to my Charter Oak. Thanks for the tip, Miro!
|
I have experience only with mechanical room tuning not electronical...
I will use a dsp as a tool for room correction but not and never as the main acoustic corrections ...
Then i believe your friend Ed ...
No acoustician work a room with only a DSP correction ...
No DSP can replace room acoustics mechanical controls, only refine it thats all ...
There is a scientific reason for this : the ears/brain work in their own way which workings cannot be replaced by a Fourier set of linear maps ...
This is as i already said why i believe you about analog EQ over purely digital EQ ...
I am not an expert for sure but i know how to tune my room ..
Regarding DSP for speaker and room correction:
The following is from Ed to me at Audible Images in Melbourne FL. I have heard the best sounding system of any showroom in FL at Ed’s. I trust his judgment and his ear absolutely implicitly. The following is what he said. It leaves open the question of the newer forthcoming DEQX vs Trinnov. It seems Trinnov is the best he’s heard. Here it is:
“ Tim,
I have tried room EQ with several different products. Audessy, DIRAC , Room Perfect and the Trinnov. In my opinion the room correction is more destructive than corrective. The Trinnov was impressive in its capability to manipulate the sound in every way. However it did not sound very good. We consistently prefer the sound with the room EQ disabled. I can hear the sound quality change for the worse when it is engaged. I typically hear some grain added and slight glare overlaying the sound. I tend to push my customers into letting me place the speakers and subwoofers where they sound best so I usually do not end up with major issues to deal with. I have used the EQ in some subwoofers in certain circumstances with decent results.
Thanks
Ed ”
|
100% in favor of digital EQ
|
@scottwheel. I feel the same way. I also feel that is DOES NOT degrade my system in any way. Actually I feel it ADDS more to it in every way.
|
|
|
|
@scottwheel was commenting specifically on DIGITAL EQ. your MQ112 (for those catching up) is ANALOG
|
I am seeing a fair amount of discussion on the BACCH SP in this thread. I will chime in with my opinion on it. I think it is arguably the biggest breakthrough in spatial audio playback since the invention of stereo. But the BACCH works best when room interaction with the speakers and listener are minimized. The goal of the BACCH system is to extract the spatial cues on the recording as completely and accurately as possible. To do this the spatial cues of the listening room need to reduced as much as possible for optimal effect. While I am in favor of EQ as the final application of frequency response corrections as much correction as possible should come from the speaker design and room acoustics. EQ is best used for room target curves and flavoring for personal preferences.
|
“ @scottwheel , what digital system do you use? “
I use a few DSP plugins that are modeled after old classic analog equalizers for flavor and I use the internal EQ on my BACCH SP for correction
|
An alternative to having an equaliser in the system is to take the recording into a DAW and remaster it oneself.
@yoyoyaya Yes, I do this on occasion, but it's more of an offline project, rather than simple pleasure listening. One group that I really love is Jamiroquai. They've produced 8 CDs from 1993 to 2017. But... they have a "sound" that is very rolled off in the highs. As much as I love their music, I don't love the dark sound. I imported all the CDs into my DAW, and it was very interesting to notice the increasing loudness as the years went by. The latest two CDs are sadly over-compressed.
So THEN.... I "remastered" my Jamiroquai catalog to a sound that is to my liking, and I goosed the loudness of the early records, just a bit, without sacrifice. For this I used digital plugins, of which I have many. Most likely I used Eiosis AirEQ, and the Sonnox Limiter for increased loudness. The newest album from 2017 is already too loud and bright, and is beyond any repair!! I love the music though.
It makes me sick to my stomach that we've been given this gift of tremendous resolution and dynamic range in CDs and HiRes audio, and yet the music is being distorted and compressed into 6 or 7 dB of dynamic range. But that's a topic for a whole-nuther thread!
|
@mirolab Good to hear your experiences. I totally agree about over-compression. I've pretty much given up buying modern rock and pop releases because of them being over compressed and over eq'd. It's like a cheap wine, a big burst of fruit and then....nothing.
|
Yes. The over compressed loud rock records are also harder to make sound “right” even with the analog studio EQ I use. Back to DAW and true remaster better, but I’ll never do that. Miro forte there. Great discussion!
incidentally, for said rock albums described above, I STILL think they sound better than flat doing post production analog EQ. There’s just less headroom to play with. Potential for distortion with too much boost.
|
So @scottwheel , you have a BACCH preamp? And obviously you like? I may try this before playing with DEQX. we are in the golden age! So much good technology!
|
I will report my impressions on skyline M3D vs my Charter Oak as soon as I can. M3D ships TODAY. I can hardly contain my excitement!
|
“ So @scottwheel , you have a BACCH preamp? And obviously you like? I may try this before playing with DEQX. we are in the golden age! So much good technology! “
I have the BACCH4Mac which runs through an RME Fireface UCX II digital interface and a Mac Mini CPU. Saying I like it does not put the proper perspective on it. Once you have lived with it there is no going back. Conventional stereo and Dolby Atmos simply sound broken in comparison
|
I will report my impressions on skyline M3D vs my Charter Oak as soon as I can. M3D ships TODAY. I can hardly contain my excitement!Looking forward to it!
. I finally decided to order a Lokius just to take a tentative first step. If the results show promise then maybe move on to something else with more fine tuning.
|
|
|
I use dedicated audio gear. Not computer savvy and exclusively stream Qobuz. Is the BACCH preamp as good as you approach?
|
“I use dedicated audio gear. Not computer savvy and exclusively stream Qobuz. Is the BACCH preamp as good as you approach?”
sorry I did not get back to this sooner. I’m not computer savvy either. I went the BACCH4Mac route because it is a lot less money and every bit as effective. The dedicated BACCH SP units are plug and play. Definitely simpler. They are a lot more money and are essentially the same thing in one chassis. If I were a billionaire I’d get the dedicated BACCH unit. But I’m not and the money saved was spent elsewhere on the system.
|
Theoretica is the only company, right? Yeah,hardware version sp horribly expensive
|
But thinks about it: it is as said scottwheel very well , an acoustic revolution not a new toy ... Not an illusion of Hi-Fi at high cost either ...
Anyone with already a decent room and a relatively good system can only buy that ...
The only equivalent upgrade will be old wax roll or disc compared to stereo vinyl ...
You know this if you had read Choueiri articles as acoustician scientist not as a marketer ... Scottwheel is right about what he said and own one ...
What will be expansive is buying anything else ...
People budget is limited, audio sellers dont goes bunker with this revolution because it will kill for many the upgrading high end market ...
If you own an already good amplifier, what is better for the S.Q. improvement to buy one 15,000 bucks more costly or buy the BACCH filters and keep your 5,000 bucks amplifier ?
Same reasoning about speakers ...
Any upgrade will be thin compared to this crosstalk compensation set of filters with no degradation but improvement in timbre experience and all the spatial characteristics ... No brainer...
The only thing as best as these filters and necessary, with them or not ,is a dedicated acoustic room ...
Theoretica is the only company, right? Yeah,hardware version sp horribly expensive
|
There is a dealer 3 hours drive from me. Will try to hear it.
|
Have spoken with dealer. I will hear this system in the next few months or less. He said Elon Musk is putting BACCH in Tesla!
|
Must be one helluva sophisticated DSP algorithm
|
Still have concerns about that much digital processing of the original signal. There’s something elegant and simple about keeping signal pure followed by high end dac and augmenting with high end analog EQ. It’s simple and elegant.
|
@tlcocks
The BACCH-SP is a computer program which cancels "crosstalk" by DSP. It is either Apple or Windows specific. It is not a preamp and does not have EQ capability. It is said to make the image more holographic. It also measures the system with microphones. The DEQX Pre 4 and Pre 8 are full function preamps with Speaker management, bass management, Room Control and EQ capability. I have not heard the BACCH-SP so I can not comment.
There is no magic with DSP. The computer has high resolution control over amplitude (volume at specific frequencies) phase and time, the time it takes for the signal to reach your ear. It controls nothing else that I am aware off although it can be used to add effects such as echo. I'll leave the effects to the artist.
Analog is the enemy of signal purity. Again, most music is recorded digitally. Keeping it there until the final conversion to analog at the listeners DAC is the only best way to deal with it. A number can not be distorted. It can only be changed.
|
Actually, the dealer at Theoretica said the BACCH SP WILL have room correction EQ capability come 2024 as well.
|
“Analog is the enemy of signal purity. Again, most music is recorded digitally. Keeping it there until the final conversion to analog at the listeners DAC is the only best way to deal with it. A number can not be distorted. It can only be changed. ”
Again, best analog solutions are NOT any such enemy. Only help to restore rolled off textures and harmonics. Mike, please stop bashing analog EQ when you haven’t tried it in years. It’s come along as well as digital. Look at McIntosh with its new MQ112. Cmon…please stop.
|
To me it’s hard to imagine that complex algorithms imposed upon an already digitized analog hearing world is PERFECT and immune to human psycho acoustic problems in perception. But I’m open minded and will listen to both DEQX and BACCH. @tattooedtrackman , I guess you, I , Miro, and McIntosh are all audiophool idiots.
|
Analog is the enemy of signal purity. Again, most music is recorded digitally. Keeping it there until the final conversion to analog at the listeners DAC is the only best way to deal with it. A number can not be distorted. It can only be changed.
Digital Signal purity is not the ultimate goal in acoustics...
Signal purity is an abstraction...Not the acoustic territory ... The ears brain is not a mere digital computer ...
The analog measures Choueiri takes are not secondary , they are the core of the thing for using his filters for specific ears/brain ...
About analog, and the superiority of analog computing in the next decade read that( i underline my point ) :
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2634-4386/ad0fec/pdf
«Deep learning computers are revolutionizing human
civilization optimizing user-conceived solution paths
accurately, figuring out the shortest path by extensive training
to reach the expected solution [1]. Hallmarks are switches and
circuits. Demands are increasing speed and resources by
compromising nature with enormous toxic waste. The next
revolution would bring computers that synthesize new deep
networks, invent learning protocols in a single shot or without
training. Hallmarks would be new data structure, software
free, circuit free, fully analog, reusable hardware adaptive to
changing environment [2]. Demands would be fixing the
computing speed and resources irrespective of complexity
while compromising the user’s control. Realizing all, we
present organic nested deep learning network, ON2.»
This Indian genius is the first to prove the quantum properties conservation and transmission in microtubules.. He work in japan laboratory and is the main co worker with Hameroff the microtubules specialist and co-worker with Penrose Nobel physics prize and the creator of the ORCH model of consciousness ,,
He wrote a book astonishing one in 2020 , one of the deepest and more revolutionary i ever read..."nanobrain" ...
Then it is not amateurish speculation ... Go see his site and youtube channels and twitter ... Geniuses are not a crowd ...
|
So Mike , consider the following:
instrument played in studio (psychoacoustics “right”, SQ perfect > recorded with conversation to digital code, an approximation/ representation of real world sine waves heard > complex human construct digital algorithms applied to radically change the code representation of the signal > digital to analog conversion back to real world waveform > amp to ears =… psychoacoustics and SQ “right” again?
logically, does this make any sense? Sounds like quite a trick to pull off!
|
Conversation above is conversion, obviously
|
It seems absurd to argue that digital EQ as close to perfection as it gets while analog is “Stone Age,” way flawed, when we’re still arguing about whether digital playback has caught up to vinyl playback in SQ. The base digital file has ALWAYS been flawed compared to analog reel to reel or vinyl. It’s therefore preposterous to argue that altering that code with post production digital EQ is so obviously superior to post production analog EQ.
Furthermore every other aspect of our revered chains is ANALOG. Amp, interconnects, speaker wire, speakers.
the best system is ALL ANALOG. by the way, I have indeed done this with a quality tt and some 80’s records and my Bryston charter oak combo. It’s f@cking unbelievable!! I don’t routinely leave the tt in that system though because 1. It lives upstairs and 2. It would freaking RUIN me forever streaming digital!
|
Having said all this it’s entirely possible the best digital systems are indeed as good as Mike says they are. I hope so! Any advancements in our fold are welcome! More good choices. I am entirely open minded to this and can’t wait to hear! Both DEQX and BACCH.
|
“Still have concerns about that much digital processing of the original signal. There’s something elegant and simple about keeping signal pure followed by high end dac and augmenting with high end analog EQ. It’s simple and elegant.”
I get that. But since you are going to audition it you will hear first hand what it does. One thing I want to point out is that despite some claims to the effect, it is not a gimmick that wows in the short term only to grow old. It will wow you. But it will wow you so much that it will also send up a red flag. Will it stand up in the long run or is it just about the wow factor? It only wows us because it corrects such a severe problem with stereo. In the long run it becomes clear that it is an essential part of state of the art audio. There is no going back.
|
One more thing. Head tracking is essential. Don’t skimp on the head tracking
|
We are all perfectionists, or we wouldn’t be here. It is amazing to me that the digital algorithms have advanced so far that we can “trick” our brains, OUR brains, not the average casual listener brain, that well. One would expect we would hear SOME form of err or seeming misrepresentation, be it timbre related, or phase temporal blur, image specificity or what have you. Just the slightest SOMETHING. That we’ve come that far creating this enveloping 3-D with 2 channels is amazing.
|
It is the stereo system that trick our brain because they are all flawed ...
The BACCH filters DSP dont trick the brain , it help the brain to recover spatial musical information which is already there in the room and in the recording in particular but is lost by the crosstalk effect ... Then this DSP help the brain to do his natural working... Because as said Choueri when we listen a bird in nature singing , there is one bird ,not two as in stereo ...
It is amazing to me that the digital algorithms have advanced so far that we can “trick” our brains, OUR brains, not the average casual listener brain, that well. One would expect we would hear SOME form of err or seeming misrepresentation, be it timbre related, or phase temporal blur, image specificity or what have you. Just the slightest SOMETHING. That we’ve come that far creating this enveloping 3-D with 2 channels is amazing.
|
