Can you change the numbers to replicate distortion? I’m not sure although I do not see why not. A number can not be distorted, it can only be changed.
@mijostyn Your statement above tells me you have no experience in doing digital signal processing. You’ve admitted it! I have literally 100’s of plugins that do all manners of DSP, many of which are distortion. These are mostly used creatively in audio production and mixing.... In final 2-track mastering, you typically want very transparent EQ (but not always!). The problem with much of today’s music is that heavy compression and limiting ARE used on the final 2-bus, or stereo mix. I think it’s heavily overused.
But I’ve spent literally thousands of hours staring at audio waveforms, editing them, and processing them.... so YES, I very much understand DSP, and what a single sample (a number) represents, and what a stream of samples represents. If I change one number in the stream, the number is not distorted, but the waveform IS now distorted (when compared to the original).
@tlcocks So glad you got the Skyline working! YES it is a balanced PRO level device... not level as in quality, but level as in +4dBu rather than consumer -10dBV. Since I use it in my studio, it’s not such an issue, but right now I am using a +4 balanced to -10 unbalanced cable that I made, with 3 resistors to bring it down, and "unbalance" it. I commented to Vintage Audio years ago that they should make a consumer version of the Skyline and market it to vinyl lovers.
|
@jtcf +1. Very nice. That’s exactly what I love with my McIntosh MQ112.
|
|
@tlcocks Glad to hear the Skyline is working out for you:-)
@veerossi I received my Lokius today. I really had my doubts it was going to do what I wanted,which is to tone down the shrill upper mids in some recordings. The kind that make your ear canals vibrate.Damned if it didn't work! I turned the 6kh down a couple of clicks and cranked up Led Zeppelin III.Robert Plant sounded fantastic.It didn't lower the volume or soften it,it just eliminated it like it never existed.That's all I needed.Tomorrow will be all about shrill violins and such:)
|
“Oh, also the treble and bass bands are better than Loki Max.”
If it’s this part you’ve referred to, it is readily evident that those bands boosted sound better to me subjectively than Loki Max. Sorry. Miro said much the same a while ago.
|
BuT…having more power and less dial change is generally a good thing. Much like proper amplification and having that “power reserve “ leads to better saturation and SQ. @wolf_garcia , you are just hell bent on insulting me because I don’t like your Schiit EQ.
|
Didn’t say they did. Just describing a difference. Not sure how a simple observation without qualifying it as good or bad is nonsense
|
More extreme level adjustments don't necessarily mean "better"...nonsense...again, the Max is designed and built to a specific standard and it functions perfectly as designed. Especially with Chicken Head knobs.
|
Got 30 minutes turning dials. CO bass bands more powerful with more slam. Bass weak records on HEKse can turn sub and 40hz dials almost all the way to get the same slam and tactility as CO with much less dialed in. Oh, also the treble and bass bands are better than Loki Max. Much more tomorrow. Gotta go to dinner with family now.
|
The unit is indeed more transparent, both in bypass and engaged with all dials flat, than the CO. Miro is correct there. More on SQ of filters dialed in later.
|
Ok. The Skyline is functioning BEAUTIFULLY in my HP chain. Initial impressions good. First minutes. Let me listen critically more tomorrow and report back on Skyline CO comparisons then.
|
I CAN report so far that Miro s description of the completely transparent hard bypass switch is correct though. More on how it is in my HP chain later.
|
“Avalon AD2055, Millennia nseq4, and my own Charter Oak all sound unbelievable in home playback “
But this Skyline isn’t working. Have informed Jason at Revive. The problem is half volume and distortion. Funny these cables work for all of the above pieces. Will put the Skyline in my all balanced HP chain and try there. To be continued…
|
Have picked up and am bringing home the Skyline M3D right now. Impressions soon!
|
Indeed comparing the XLR to XLR for my HP chain to the above mentioned custom wired XLR to RCA, sonically there is no difference. Perfect and absolutely lossless way to mate pro XLR only to unbalanced RCA only gear.
|
Did that for my unbalanced Bryston tape loop. Cardas custom wired the pins (pseudo balanced) and works perfectly with no distortion and no need for an additional box. Once had a Aphex converter box in the beginning. The Cardas custom cable without the additional extra box obviously is the correct solution and sounds of course WAY better.
|
Basically you have your custom pin wiring scheme with the XLR to rca that gets you to unity gain
|
For the scenario described above, you need to get the phono signal to line level with a phono stage preamp. Then if you’re still unbalanced, talk to me. I’ll get you to balanced properly without an additional box
|
“
Hi Tim, I just had a conversation with the last purchaser of the M3D. He is having a mismatch issue as he is using Phono level into a +4 device that is causing distortion. He initially assured me he had a converter but in fact does not.
I wanted to give you a heads up that these are a +4 Professional level balanced device. Using Phono level into this will cause a huge impedance mismatch and level difference that will result in distortion so you will need to find something to convert it.
Jason @ Revive Audio LLC”
|
I was shopping a while for a Schiit Loki Max, but ended up trying the Schiit Lokius instead. I only need a tiny touch of EQ and this did the job nicely. I did some a/b with and without the Lokius in the signal path. There is degridation in the sound, but it’s really minimal. If you don’t have a highly resolving system, you probably won’t even notice it. I ended up taking it out since tube rolling ended up getting me where I wanted to be without having to EQ, but will still swap it in once in a while. If you don’t want to pump out the $ for the Max, get the Lokius. I’m using the balanced connection BTW and it's dead quiet.
|
No more bashing either. They both can play a role in augmenting the audiophile listening experience
It is so true that analog/digital coupling is fundamental that one of the greatest genius in A. I. just published a paper about self learning artificial consciousness self learning without human programming and they are analog machine first and foremost ... Digital is a tool not a ground ...
The territory cannot be mapped nor the map cannot became the territory save in an organism able to go from one to the other levels at will without being prisoner of one level ...
Analog and digital are both fundamental in their own way ...We need a tool as we need a ground ( our body is the two at the same time ) ..
These complementarity is even at the basis of mathematics with Grothendieck teachings as it is with meanings and semiotics with Peirce teachings and at the basis of all symbolic forms with Cassirer teachings ...
|
And you obviously do not understand digital signal processing. A number has meaning, distortion does not. That number represents amplitude, nothing else. When you change that number you change amplitude in a specific way. Distortion in meaningless. DSP changes the numbers in specified patterns to achieve a specific result. Can you change the numbers to replicate distortion? I’m not sure although I do not see why not. A number can not be distorted, it can only be changed.
Mirolab is right ...
As usual mijostyn conflate the Fourier map and the territory of hearing ...
Signal processing is grounded in psycho-acoustics research not the reverse ...The ears /brain science rule the technology modalities not the reverse ...
"DistortionS" in the analog flow is at the plural , not at the singular, some are welcome others not so much ... And the linear design of a non distorting optimal electronical component is not the same as the design of our non linear ears/brain workings ... it is why psycho-acoutics exist to study and to bridge the gap ...
We cannot decipher timbre with only numbers by the way we need ears/brain ... Even Choueri DSP filters so revolutionary they are are grounded in psycho-acoustics measurements of the non digital non linear brain -ears/head..
The brain work at complex simultaneous levels between analog and digital flows of translation and filterings in the two directions at the same time and this at way lower levels than the neurons , only mijostyn brain work perfectly in a singular digital linear way as a chip it seems .. I apologize for my bad joke ... It was too tempting ...😉
|
No more bashing either. They both can play a role in augmenting the audiophile listening experience
|
Again, both analog and digital advancements have come along since 1981. Referencing your past experiences years ago with analog is irrelevant
|
@mirolab
And you obviously do not understand digital signal processing. A number has meaning, distortion does not. That number represents amplitude, nothing else. When you change that number you change amplitude in a specific way. Distortion in meaningless. DSP changes the numbers in specified patterns to achieve a specific result. Can you change the numbers to replicate distortion? I'm not sure although I do not see why not. A number can not be distorted, it can only be changed.
Analog? It is essential only because that is what our ears understand. The only components that should operate in analog are speakers and perhaps amplifiers. Everything else is way better off operating in digital. Good examples are broadcast radio and the cell phone. Compare Sirius radio to standard radio, old analog cell vs what we have now. People who think analog signal processing is better are stuck at about 1981. As you yourself have just described, you can go almost anywhere with DSP and not necessarily in good ways. That is up to the programmer.
|
A number can not be distorted. It can only be changed.
@mijostyn Yikes! THAT’s your defense of DSP superiority?? Then clearly you misunderstand what a digital stream is representing. The numbers are describing the analog waveform, and if you CHANGE the numbers, you are by definition, DISTORTING the resulting waveform. The numbers ARE the waveform! You can change the numbers in a perfectly linear fashion, as in simply changing the amplitude of the entire signal (gain, volume) --OR-- the stream of numbers can be fed through very complex equations that perform filtering operations on the signal (EQ). These equations can work really well, or really poorly. I’ve heard good ones, and certainly bad ones. There’s many many types of filtering algorithms, with new ones being devised all the time. Some are intentionally colored and vintage sounding, and some are clean and transparent.
|
“Yes, I understand that @mahgister but when we hear envelopment or surround dispersal of the 3 D soundstage but it’s coming from 2 front speakers it’s still the brain being tricked.”
everything we hear ultimately is two channels. Our right and left ears. Our brain deciphers cues based the difference between what the right and left ears hear. There are three main factors. Arrival time, amplitude and the head transfer function. Stereo cross talk messes up those cues by leaking those cues to the opposing ears. BACCH SP corrects that. So it actually is the only playback system that *isnt* a trick. And you can demonstrate the extraordinary accuracy of the system by using the in ear microphones to record someone at various positions in the room and then playing back that recording. It’s nuts. 100% accurate.
|
You will see that scottwheel is right on this and he own it ...😊
Me i was only able to read the Choueiri science paper ... it is convincing when we know what Choueiri talk about... I made some simple mechanical experiment with crosstalk already and so imperfect and with no comparison at all with designed filters it is it was amazing ...
Me i will buy it when i could even without hearing it with no doubt ...be happy and feel lucky to be able to hear it...
Anyway for this software to do what it’s supposed to do but still meet the toughest audiophile standards for SQ is a tough challenge! Can’t wait to hear.
|
Yes, I understand that @mahgister but when we hear envelopment or surround dispersal of the 3 D soundstage but it’s coming from 2 front speakers it’s still the brain being tricked. Simply because you don’t have all these performers surrounding you in the room. You have two front left and right speakers. but I get what you’re saying. Anyway for this software to do what it’s supposed to do but still meet the toughest audiophile standards for SQ is a tough challenge! Can’t wait to hear.
|
I miss the EQs from the '80s. I had a Denon DE-70 which I regret selling. Wish they were still around.
|
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.
|
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.
|
One more thing. Head tracking is essential. Don’t skimp on the head tracking
|
“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.
|
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.
|
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!
|
Conversation above is conversion, obviously
|
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!
|
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 ...
|
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. ”
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.
|
Actually, the dealer at Theoretica said the BACCH SP WILL have room correction EQ capability come 2024 as well.
|
@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.
|
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.
|
Must be one helluva sophisticated DSP algorithm
|
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!
|
There is a dealer 3 hours drive from me. Will try to hear it.
|
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
|
Theoretica is the only company, right? Yeah,hardware version sp horribly expensive
|
“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.
|
