|
|
|
trntbl said:
If you go for center channel, it not only has to be identical to main speakers, but it should also be positioned to acoustically similar place. If you have 1,5 m of empty space around your main speakers, the similar center speaker will not give you same sound when positioned close to tv, for example.
I think we all should be aware of the existence of "near-field" monitors such as the Genelec S-30D which was designed for use in cramped quarter recording situations. Made in Finland, they are three way self powered (3 amps included per spearker) with a ribbon tweeter. I never heard them because here in the US, there is no dealer network - they are sold as systems by people who install AV systems and to recording studios.
I almost bought three of them for an extended in-home trial but decided not to because I already had my Apogees which were a known and well regarded entity. But for someone who lacks space, near-field monitors of any pedigree would be an obvious thing to investigate.
http://www.genelec.com/products/previous-models/s30d/
|
|
|
Post by trntbl January 29, 2008 (62 of 94)
|
|
Genelecs are high quality speakers. They have dynamic sound and produce amazing sound pressure with little or no distortion. Arguably, they might miss some of the finesse of better high-end monitors. In my opinion, they are more suited to home theater enviroment than pure music listening. But I know there is quite a few (non pro) people who love them. I heard nice mch-demo once with five Genelec 8050´s. Genelecs are suited for near field because of the high freq wave guide and comprehensive adjustment possibilities for near-boundary placement.
kristian
|
|
|
|
|
|
trntbl said:
I have no technical knowledge to back this up, but I think bass the management is normally sorted in PCM-domain. It might be possible in analogue domain (maybe some summing op-amps?), but why stuff the signal path with circuits when you can do it digitally?
I don´t know any player/processor/receiver that can process DSD stream. While not very elegant (DSD-PCM conversion), I really don´t lose my sleep because of that. I read somewhere that DSD was designed to be easily converted to PCM.
kristian
Subwoofers take care of bass filtering in the analogue domain (when they are fed line signals or speaker signals). They have a dial that specifies the cut-off and the rest of the signal can be ignored or passed on.
The problem with DSD is that it cannot be processed on-the-fly (e.g. for bass-management, delay management, etc). Therefore, most players do DSD->PCM->Analogue. The PCM stage there because the player is a CD and DVD player combi, so it uses the inherent PCM circuitry, and whilst at it chucks in bass and delay management. However, my understanding is that upper-end players use Sigma-Delta DACs to keep the analogue signal faithful to the DSD original.
Nowadays there are players that pass the DSD stream, ready for suitably equipped receivers, e.g. Onkyo 805, to do the DAC conversion. The advantage of this might be that the DACs in the receiver are superior to the player's DACs.
|
|
|
Post by Orpheus January 29, 2008 (64 of 94)
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
Subwoofers take care of bass filtering in the analogue domain (when they are fed line signals or speaker signals). They have a dial that specifies the cut-off and the rest of the signal can be ignored or passed on.
The problem with DSD is that it cannot be processed on-the-fly (e.g. for bass-management, delay management, etc). Therefore, most players do DSD->PCM->Analogue. The PCM stage there because the player is a CD and DVD player combi, so it uses the inherent PCM circuitry, and whilst at it chucks in bass and delay management. However, my understanding is that upper-end players use Sigma-Delta DACs to keep the analogue signal faithful to the DSD original.
Nowadays there are players that pass the DSD stream, ready for suitably equipped receivers, e.g. Onkyo 805, to do the DAC conversion. The advantage of this might be that the DACs in the receiver are superior to the player's DACs.
DSD->PCM, HDMI, etc has been discussed elsewhere on this forum and can be searched for. Sigma delta DACS are the only DACs which will work above the sampling rate of RBCD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orpheus said:
DSD->PCM, HDMI, etc has been discussed elsewhere on this forum and can be searched for. Sigma delta DACS are the only DACs which will work above the sampling rate of RBCD.
So all SACD players, including the PS3 have sigma delta amps, as do the Onkyo receivers?
Or do I misunderstand what you are telling me?
:-P
|
|
|
Post by Orpheus January 29, 2008 (66 of 94)
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
So all SACD players, including the PS3 have sigma delta amps, as do the Onkyo receivers?
Or do I misunderstand what you are telling me?
:-P
Above the sampling rate of RBCD, sigma delta DACS are the only ones which will work at this sampling rate. The conversion process from analogue to DSD uses a sigma delta type ADC. I don't know of a thing called a "sigma delta amp". I very much doubt that receivers are going to be better at doing the DAC and amplification part than a properly done separate SACD player and multichannel preamp and amp, given all the compromises that are likely to be made in receivers to produce them at a price point and all the digital noise, etc that is going to be in them. Video doesn't interest me and I'd much rather have a properly done multichannel SACD ONLY player and multichannel ONLY preamplifier followed by whatever amplifiers that I choose to use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orpheus said:
I'd much rather have a properly done multichannel SACD ONLY player and multichannel ONLY preamplifier followed by whatever amplifiers that I choose to use.
I wholeheartedly agree. The problem is that these are getting relatively scarce, which is a big sore point with me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orpheus said:
Above the sampling rate of RBCD, sigma delta DACS are the only ones which will work at this sampling rate. The conversion process from analogue to DSD uses a sigma delta type ADC. I don't know of a thing called a "sigma delta amp". I very much doubt that receivers are going to be better at doing the DAC and amplification part than a properly done separate SACD player and multichannel preamp and amp, given all the compromises that are likely to be made in receivers to produce them at a price point and all the digital noise, etc that is going to be in them. Video doesn't interest me and I'd much rather have a properly done multichannel SACD ONLY player and multichannel ONLY preamplifier followed by whatever amplifiers that I choose to use.
Sorry, I meant Sigma Delta DACs and not amps.
Anyway, when machines say that they have 192/24-bit DACs surely they cannot mean that they have Sigma Delta DACs in them? My understanding was that only specialised SACD players had these type of DACs, and most converted the DSD to PCM first, then did the DAC (still at the high resolution).
I certainly am missing somethign here....
|
|
|
Post by Sigfred January 30, 2008 (69 of 94)
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
Sorry, I meant Sigma Delta DACs and not amps.
Anyway, when machines say that they have 192/24-bit DACs surely they cannot mean that they have Sigma Delta DACs in them? My understanding was that only specialised SACD players had these type of DACs, and most converted the DSD to PCM first, then did the DAC (still at the high resolution).
I certainly am missing somethign here....
Me too.
|
|
|
Post by Orpheus January 30, 2008 (70 of 94)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
I wholeheartedly agree. The problem is that these are getting relatively scarce, which is a big sore point with me.
The same here. I know that this hardware is hard to find and I'll have to compromise on the SACD player and get a modified universal player and the multichannel ONLY preamp I'm getting made up by an electronics technician. The multichannel ONLY preamp will have its earthing arranged to fit in with an already existing stereo system ie its earthing will come from an already existing stereo preamp.
|
|
