timbley

Well, I'm still playing around with the Behringer DEQ, moving the speakers and furniture here and there. I'm really having fun, and making progress. I'm starting to think that it might be a big mistake to use the auto EQ, or even to try to adjust EQ using the RTA, when both speakers are playing simultaneous pink noise in stereo mode. The response through the midrange and treble can look pretty gnarly in stereo mode. Turn the balance knob all the way to just one speaker or the other, and it looks a whole lot better. I've read elsewhere that one of the big problems with stereo is that simultaneous sounds from each speaker interfere with each other. It's even been suggested that there should be a divider down the middle of the room all the way up to near your nose to keep the sound waves from each speaker from interacting with each other. WAF very low. An argument in favor of mono? In any case, I'm thinking it's a bad idea to try to correcct for stereo interferences since they change quite a bit inch to inch, and will do all sorts of unpredictable things when different sounds come from each speaker. So far my ears are telling me the results of adjusting one speaker at a time are good, with more natural and convicing tone. Imaging is better in my room with slightly different EQ applied to each speaker. The RTA verified a slightly louder midrange response when the right speaker played that was giving me the impression of female voices being shifted slightly to the right, with male voices generally more centered. Now it's fixed!

I have an M-Audio computer sound card which has pro and consumer spdif settings. I notice that the pro setting sounds brighter, which I can verify by looking at the RTA on my Behringer DEQ. The consumer setting has a slight roll-off of the highs, while the pro setting looks perfectly flat. Why would there be this difference? I don't understand if EQ is being applied digitally by the card, or if the bits are being interpreted differently? I find it very peculiar. I've read explanations of pro and consumer spdif, but none of them explained a difference in frequency response.

Working on my listening room arrangement, and using a little EQ has pretty much removed all my complaints. ---------------- I should clarify that these things have removed my complaints that I percieved about the speakers. I can see better than ever that my listening room is really the limiting factor for me. It's improved a lot, but going over to other, non-audiophile's homes and hearing how their cheapy speakers sound in a nice big room with high vaulted ceilings makes me feel a little sick some times. To what degree can acoustic treatments transform a small room?

---------------- On 3/6/2005 11:07:16 PM 3dzapper wrote: Time to put your feet up, sit back and enjoy!!!! Rick ---------------- Ah yes. I'd better do some of that. I'm going to need some rest before I tear all the drywall and insulation out of my room and replace it with acoustic treatments.

---------------- On 3/5/2005 2:52:20 AM nicholtl wrote: So what exactly do these legendary DeanG crossovers do? Tighten up the high-end while sweetening the midrange? What if you don't live nearby? Does Dean send you the parts along with a step-by-step manual of installation? ---------------- I'd love to hear Dean's crossovers too, or hear Leo's mod. But I'm leary of getting into the speaker and changing things from stock. They're still under warrenty, and right now they sound wonderful. Working on my listening room arrangement, and using a little EQ has pretty much removed all my complaints.

---------------- On 3/5/2005 5:01:05 PM mikebse2a3 wrote: "I wonder when I'll get tired of this and call it good enough" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim do you find as I have that you understand the strengths and weakness of your system/room better because with the RTA you can visualize what frequencies you are hearing and corelate that with the problems you hear and have you been surprised what frequencies where actually involved? I've discovered a number of times that the Energy was actually in an area of frequencies I hadn't suspected by just listening alone. mike ---------------- Yes, I have been suprised by where the frequencies for some instruments are. Recently I've been disturbed by the sudden squealing of a picolo when it reached the higher notes on Shostakovich Symphony No. 5, Telarc CD. I set the Denon to repeat the problem area, and could see by the peak hold function on the Behringer that the picolo was just barely rising above the rest of the orchestra at somewhere around 4k to 5k. I tried to suppress that area, which made it squeal less loudly, but still it changed tone into a squeal. I figured this same effect was causing me some problems with the violins sounding strange. EQ could make it less noticeable, but not really solve it. Turns out the solution was to take the grills off the RF-7s! I really think the grills cause some problems in the higher frequencies. The picolo sounds smooth, and violins sound smooth and natural to me with the grills off. The RTA doesn't look any different either way as far as I can see. I don't think I would have figured that out without the Behringer. I had no intention of ever taking the grills off. I would have assumed there was some resonant peak in the speaker at that frequency, or that something was peaky about my receiver. The RTA showed me that really wasn't the problem, forcing me to look elsewhere. The RTA has consistently showed a sort of pointy spot around 9k, and also a peak around 650hz, both of which I wouldn't have suspected. OTH, it verifed a slight dropout around the crossover frequency, which I had always suspected.

---------------- On 2/15/2005 11:48:23 PM mikebse2a3 wrote: Hi Tim A couple of thoughts about your questions on the readings on the RTA and what your hearing. (1)We are using the MIC and RTA to try to analyze and visualize what we are hearing but we need to keep in mind what we measure with a MIC and RTA "doesn't always corelate" with how our ear/brain would analyze and interpret the same sound. (2)The above fact is why I believe the ear has to be the final judge when it comes to adjusting the EQ. The RTA and Auto-EQ helps us to see where potential problem areas might be but the ear needs to judge if thats what we really perceive. So if after listening for a while your ears are telling you that the bass is say a little lean then you should feel free to correct for that observation. mike ---------------- Thanks for the pointers Mike. I've been working quite a bit with this thing over the last couple weeks. Re-arranging my room in an asymmetrical manner has largely eliminated the bass boom at 40 hz, while also improving the stereo imaging. Hanging heavy curtains in strategic places, and moving furniture and acoustic panels around has helped with the midrange and treble, which looks smoother on the RTA. The RTA and microphone are keeping me busy! I wonder when I'll get tired of this and call it good enough. Looking at the RTA's got me thinking. I've been contemplating replacing the drywall in my room with something like BAD panels and replacing the insulation behind it with rigid fiberglass, thereby making all the walls into bass panels/diffusors. Maybe the ceiling too. And maybe I could drill hundreds of holes in the floor, cover it with carpet, and apply a 2 foot layer of rigid fiberglass under the house? I won't be doing any of that soon, but I'll bet it'd work wonders!

Fascinating, but definitely too early to tell. I can't believe we're still running internal combustion in the vast majority of our vehicles. But the replacements so far just haven't cut it in the real world.

---------------- On 3/3/2005 7:18:30 AM leok wrote: timbley, Very interesting measurements. I'm impressed with the flatness of the speaker's crossover region and high end as well as the overall response of your room. The low end bumps and dips are almost certainly room effects. The bass traps are 18" long triangular foam, about 1' on two equal sides. The face has big ripples. My RF-7 system is in an office and I can leave the traps where they are. They are light and easily moved. I'll get the source and name for you, but I can's seem to find it right now. Again, interesting and nicely none measurements, They're better than I expected. Leo ---------------- Thanks Leo, I too was impressed with how flat the RTA looked through the upper midrange and treble. The bass bumps and dips have been reduced significantly since I set my room up asymmetrically. Before, I was applying a sharp notch filter around 40hz to counter a very pronounced boom. That isn't neccessary any more. The bass sounds as good as the EQ can make it with just a -3db parameter at about 42.5 hz. Trying to smooth out the bass with more extreme EQ settings gives me bass that sounds disjointed from the music, almost turbulent and rough, if you can imagine rough bass. I was thinking about buying a second carpet and stacking it on top of my current one for better absorption of first reflections from the floor. Tonight I moved a bookshelf away from the sweet spot, and layered another heavy, Goodwill issue curtain in front of the wall and part of the sliding glass door behind the sweet spot. It's looking, and sounding even better. Still it appears that there is a general depression centered around 1600 to 1800 hz. Or you could call it a lump in the bass, and a slight peak around 9K before the treble starts to roll off, however you want to look at it.

---------------- On 3/2/2005 7:17:47 AM leok wrote: Since submitting that note I've done a couple of things to improve the situation for my listening.2) I place a couple of bass traps on the floor between the listening position and the speakers to block floor reflections. Leo What do these floor mounted bass traps look like? Do you have to move them when you're not listening?

---------------- On 3/2/2005 7:17:47 AM leok wrote: timbley, Also, did you try different amplitudes? It has been theorized (not by me, but it sounds reasonable) that the horn would have greater dynamic capability than the cones. In this case, cones might be emphasized at lower amplitudes and the horn emphasized a higher amplitudes. I think the Chorus-II has the edge here because it is horn from 600Hz up, but of course, I've never measured. ---------------- I tried different amplitudes tonight, varying 18 db, I saw no difference in the relative shape of the curve within that volume range. My actual seating distance is about 9 feet, which is a little less than the 3 meters I said earlier. With the mic. at a distance of 3 feet the dropout is actually closer to 1600 Hz , and is more pronounced. I was going to post pictures of a bunch of RTA results taken from different distances and heights, but I'm too tired to do it all tonight. The midrange drop out I referred to is less prominent and more spread out at 9 feet than at 3 feet. I suppose a distance of 12 feet might be better still, but I don't have that much room. Here is the RTA result of the RF-7s from my listening position with both speakers playing: And here with some EQ that I think sounds better. You can see peaks and dips in the bass that look pretty dramatic, but don't really sound like much. They vary in different positions around the room, so I find it better not to get carried away trying to correct them with the EQ. Here's a distance of 3ft and microphone same height as tweeter, no EQ. I don't know that the dip seen here neccessarily means anything important when measured from this distance. I took this measurement because another post suggested using the microphone and RTA at about 1 meter. For me, trying to use the RTA and the microphone has been pretty tough. The room is very reactive. Moving the microphone a little bit can produce some significant changes. It's hard to know what to ignore and what to pay attention to. The RTA has gotten me into moving my room around as much as trying to EQ the speakers.

---------------- On 3/2/2005 7:17:47 AM leok wrote: Although it's a little low (1850Hz instead of 2200Hz) I wonder if the dip is associated with the crossover. Is the measurement different in line with the upper cone, midway between the cones, in line with the tweeter? In any case, I would guess that a speaker company might opt for a slight dip in that region rather than a peak which would make the system sound shouty. Completely smooth over the crossover region was probably not cost effective. Also, did you try different amplitudes? It has been theorized (not by me, but it sounds reasonable) that the horn would have greater dynamic capability than the cones. In this case, cones might be emphasized at lower amplitudes and the horn emphasized a higher amplitudes. I think the Chorus-II has the edge here because it is horn from 600Hz up, but of course, I've never measured. ---------------- Hi Leo, It's good to know you're continuing to refine your RF-7 system. I'm assuming the dip has something to do with the crossover. Perhaps the mid-woofers start tapering off earlier than the stated 2200Hz. I did these measurements at a single amplitude using pink noise. It was loud enough to become irritating over time without earplugs on, but not super loud. I had the microphone pointing straight up and a little higher than the upper mid/woofer center. At a distance of 3 meters, I had the mic. about level with the tweeter, which is where my head pretty much is in the listening position. I'll try doing measurements at different amplitudes and heights tonight.

---------------- On 3/2/2005 3:02:58 AM DrWho wrote: Your room is very similar to the layout that colterphoto has implemented with his cornwall HT. There's pics posted down in the general questions section. The thing that surprised me about his setup, which I'm sure you're experiencing too, is that the assymetrical layout was not at all distracting. I suppose I could argue that it wasn't perfect, but the center of the mix was right down the middle and was large as life. Btw, where are the surround speakers in your setup or do they not exist? ---------------- Thanks, I'm glad to know that it's working for someone else too. I can't find the post with Colterphoto's pictures though. You can see the right surround speaker sitting on the computer desk on the top shelf. The left surround is on a book case like the one next to the TV that is just out of view to the right. The surrounds aren't evenly spaced from the central listening position. I haven't figured that one out yet. It's much less important to me than the front speaker imaging.

This is an old post I'm responding to. ---------------- On 9/14/2003 8:54:40 AM leok wrote: Missing lower midrange power (good esp for piano, cello, probably voice too) was my main reason for obtaining the Chorus-II (classic 3-way approach). I find with the RF-7, if I sit, 3' to 6' from them, with the speakers directly facing me and my ears in line with the upper cone, I get maximum mid presence. I think the cones really can't keep up with the dynamics of the horn, but there is a sweet spot, within 8' from the speakers, where the cones do pretty well. Most people don't notice the crossover problem that I complain about with 3-way systems. What I like about the RF-7s is there is a single driver from 2KHz up. With some music, that clean top end is worth the loss in lower mid punch. If I want room filling, dynamically balanced sound I use the Chorus-II. leok ---------------- I've been playing around with my new DEQ2496 and it's calibrated microphone. What it's showing me on the real time analyzer is that the RF-7s seem to dip down a bit around 1850Hz. I've measured as close as 1 meter to a speaker, and as far as 3 meters away, with the speakers in various different room placements. This dip seems to be a consistent thing, at least with my SA-XR50 receiver powering the RF-7s. A 3/2 octave +5db paramater at 1845 hz flattens it out on the RTA with the microphone at 1 meter. I wonder if these speakers, being designed with home theater in mind, were intended to let the center channel carry the vocals?

---------------- On 3/1/2005 5:07:42 PM SHUFF wrote: Just an informal poll intended for fun not flames. If you could own any amplifier (integrateds, monoblocks, seperates, even receivers etc. are all eligible) you wished, what would it be? ---------------- I'm really intrigued with digital amps and digital signal processing right now. I'd like a TACT system with all the room correction bells and whistles, and digital crossovers designed specifically for my RF-7s.

I feel like showing you all a picture of my listening room since it's working so well for me now. Here's my assymetrical room setup. Anybody else have their system set up assymetrical to the room? This arrangement, after some fussing with the toe in on the speakers, has given me what I thought could never be acheived in my small room: really good stereo imaging, with center voices focused solidly in the center for both male and female voices, and a real sense of depth and space across the sound field. Occasionally, I even get imaging outside the left or right speaker. No more do I have a sensation that my right ear is in a live sound field while my left is in an anachoic chamber. Before, I had the system aligned against the left wall, with the sofa up against a sliding glass door that you can't quite see to the right. Besides blocking off the sliding door, this arrangement caused the soundstage to drift to the right on account of the closer, closed wall on that side. No amount of moving the speakers around in any symmetrical manner could fix it. I tried setting up against the far wall too. The sliding glass door caused assymetrical imaging effects that were even worse. Plus it was a lousy rooom arrangement. It never occured to me until recently that I should try to semi-angle the system, not at a 45 to the corner,(which would never work because the room's too small,) but maybe at 20 to 30 degrees. I'm so glad I tried it! My girlfriend actually likes this arrangement too. Another imaging improvement came from taking the speaker grills off, as seen in the pictures. This really makes an improvement. I just figured that out tonight. All this time I've been listening to the RF-7s with the grills on. Crimeny! You can see my acoustic panels stacked in each of the corners. There's another set you can't see in the corner behind the stuffed cat. The one behind the left speaker is placed there because my girlfriend liked it there better than on the glass door behind the sofa. I bought some heavy curtains from St. Vinnie's and bunched them up in the area behind my head instead. I bought my panels from modularacoustics.com. They look nice, and help clear up the bass. Really, they're broad band absorbers, not just bass panels as advertised. CDs in the windows - an attempt at diffusion. I think they help. AOL sends them to me free in the mail, and they're not a fire hazard like paper. Another advantage of this set up is that the bass response is smoothed out because the speakers are not equal distance from the room corners. Any comments, suggestions are very welcome.

---------------- On 1/1/2005 4:46:38 PM Jim E wrote: 4) A subject of debate. What is the correct setting or “curve” for equalization? Of course being able to reproduce 20 Hz to 20 kHz is a goal however, listening to a system set “flat” usually sounds too bright. It has been my experience that using the THX curve (which was derived from the SMPTE ISO 2969 specification) works best for me. Simply stated, response should be flat from 50 Hz to 2kHz rolling off at 3 dB per octave above 2 kHz (plus or minus 2 dB). One a 1/3- octave display this would relate to -1 dB per step. This is the standard used in motion picture theatres and dubbing stages by Dolby, THX, Sony and DTS to name a few. In smaller listening areas the roll-off may be extended out to as high as 4 kHz. ---------------- Thanks for this post Jim! I went ahead and tried the 3db/octave roll-off you suggested. YES! I liked it. I didn't think a big improvement could be so simple. I've experimented a little and have come up with a full spectrum slope that is very shallow maybe 1/2db/octave, with a steeper, 2db/octave slope starting at 2kHz added as well. The music has popped to life with these settings. I'm finding the broad range slopes are getting me the results I want much more than trying to apply localized bumps or dips based on the mic. measurements and the RTA. Localized effects can make the RTA look flat, but they sound odd to me. The only localized effects I'm applying are the notch at 42hz for the primary room boom, and a slight 2/3 octave dip around 5k, which seems to make violins sound more natural in the higher notes.

My earlier idea using the ToneGen to adjust by ear can give some intersting results, with certain things sounding more live, or vivid. But the overall effect of something being out of whack is noticeable after coming back the next day and listening with fresh ears. So after reading earlier posts over again, I went to Guitar Center and picked up one of the Behringer microphones to use with the EQ. For starts, I tried using it from the listening position with the RTA on average, moving the mic. around slowly. This showed me the general dips and bumps in my listening area without confusing me with the sharper peaks and dips that vary every couple of inches. I noticed that the RTA showed a need for some boost right around the crossover frequency, (which I had figured out earlier), and that bass was too strong in a pretty wide swath peaking at around 40 hz and falling off rapidly below 40, but still being too strong up to 80 hz. Lee mentioned that the RTA reads too strong below 100hz due to the alogrithms used, but that there were work arounds. I'd be curious to know what those work arounds are. Another thing that interested me was that the response looked extremely flat through most of the RF-7's tweeter range no matter where the microphone was. For now, I went ahead and reduced the bass and tried to make the RTA look flat over the entire band, excluding the extreme highs and lows, which taper off. A couple of days of listening to this setting suggests that it's a real overall improvement, with vocals and strings sounding more natural. The bass is certainly lean now, but still present. The directions say that in average mode, RTA noise correction is applied. I don't know exactly what that means. Could that mean that it corrects for the overly high readings below 100hz? If I set the RTA to look at the white noise generated by the Behringer, it shows a nice flat response across the entire range with the RTA set to average. I don't understand why flat response tends to sound too bright at the listening position. Does it have to do with the direction that the sound is hitting our outer ear? Thanks, Tim

---------------- On 2/8/2005 10:29:27 PM mikebse2a3 wrote: Hey timbley Good Post!! This ToneGen you mention is this a computer generated signals? Maybe when you get a chance you can tell us more about it. mike ---------------- ToneGen is a software application that lets you generate up to sixteen individual tones simultaneously, with control over the volume and frequency of each. You can download it here: http://www.nch.com.au/tonegen/ Unfortunately, it doesn't have infinite frequency variation. You have to select tones in pre-set jumps, which are reasonably close together. It'll do sine, square, triangle, and impulse, as well as sweeps. I have the Behringer hooked up to the output of my computer's sound card now. With the DVD player's digital out going into the soundcard, I can listen to everything through the card, and hence through the Behringer. Although, for DTS and Dolby surround, I have to bipass the Behringer

Hi Colin, edit: I meant Hi Mike, since he replied to my last post. But hey, hi everybody! I came up with an idea for dialing in the treble. Using an application called ToneGen, I created a drone effect using two lower midrange tones, and then added a third high frequency tone which I could vary. I set the high tone so I could barely hear it. Then I set it to different frequencies listening for frequencies that disappeared into the drone, or for ones that popped out above it, seeming particularly loud. I tried different drone frequencies to make sure there wasn't a particular masking effect associated with the drone. What I found was that there were indeed certain frequency ranges which dropped below audible, despite the drone frequency, or my position in the room. So I made a newer, more complex curve (see photo) to try to make everything sound equal by this technique. I started with the graphic EQ, and ended adding the paremetric when I realized the graphic couldn't get me the accuracy I needed by itself. I was a little concerned about elevating some of the frequencies as much as the technique suggested, but the result is compelling so far. My initial impression is a much more live, realistic sound. On my first curve, I just tried to suppress what I perceived as excess treble. Now it appears that what was really needed was a little boost in the range right below the frequencies I suppressed earlier, with just a few notches taken out in the higher range. My girlfriend has it cranked way up right now listening to Electric Birds. She just became aware of the Behringer and asked me what it was.

I just got one of these EQs. I'm using it's optical in and out between my Denon 2200 and a Panasonic SA-XR50. So far, I've only played with the parametric EQ function, with one band set to suppress a bass spike around 42 hz, and a couple more to subjectively adjust the treble to my liking, I've attached a picture of the simple curve as seen on the unit's display. I'm impressed with the engineering. This thing's a real marvel of technology, loaded with functions. I don't detect any degredation in the sound from the digital processing. Compensation for the 40 hz boom in my room makes this unit worth the money by itself in my opinion.

---------------- On 1/26/2005 8:04:17 AM minn_male42 wrote: ---------------- IMHO - a moderately priced receiver with the auto eq / room correction feature (Pioneer, Pioneer Elite, Yamaha) combined with a carver pro ZR amplifier will give you more flexibility and a better sound for only a few dollars more than you have invested in your panasonic multiple units ---------------- Thanks. I agree, one Carver amp would be a much more elegant solution. And I agree that EQ functions to correct room anomolies could be very beneficial. I think overall I've just been confused. I'm a fool, a very enthusiastic one at that. I didn't realize what was happening. One of the amps had somehow been set to +4 bass in the tone controls. Hence the "amazing" bass impact and full sound. It's hard for me to admit to this foolishness. Once I got all the settings matched on my two SA-XR50s, it became obvious that there was no difference in sound between running just one amp or two! Nothing! The RF-7s are getting plenty of juice from a single SA-XR50. Man, the stuff I put myself through. Everytime I think I've found something wonderful, it almost invariabley turns out to be something changing the EQ response of my system. Passively bi-amping the RF-7s really doesn't add anything either. It changes the sound, but doesn't neccessarily improve it. I don't think the speakers were meant to be run this way. After trying it and listening for a number of months, I'd have to say I don't recommend passively bi-amping the RF-7s. It's not worth the trouble and expense. The double binding posts are made for bi-wiring I believe. I'm not sure if biwiring is worth anything either, but it surely doesn't hurt. And, I've got plenty of speaker cable lying around. Active crossovers, now that may be worth trying. But I'd want to make sure I did it right, and I think it might be best to start from scratch with a speaker design optimized for that configuration. NHT's new system with the DEQX circuitry looks like the right idea. I'll let people who know what they're doing put something like that together for me. So now I'm back to just running one single SA-XR50 for my entire system. It sounds great. I can play with the tone controls and get different responses if I want. I can run everything through my sound card on my computer if I want a softer, smoother sound. I've got a Panasonic SA-XR50 and an SA-XR25 available. All you need is one for great sound! Anybody interested?

Wow! Things just keep getting better. I'm now using 3 Panasonic receivers on my RF-7s. Two SA-XR50s are running in parallel to power the 10" mid woofers, while my old SA-XR25 (which I had planned on selling) is running the horn tweeters. This is really awesome, an unbeleivable improvement over having one SA-XR50 run the woofers and a second run the horn tweeters. The two 50s in parallel seem to give the RF-7's 10" woofers the juice they really want. Wow! I can't believe it! It's that good! Drum hits on the NEU! CD now have incredible impact. They make me flinch and blink they hit so hard. I jumped when I first heard it. It's nuts! All the clarity and detail I've always loved about these Panasonic amps is still there. The mids and highs seem sweeter and airer than ever. Vocals seem prominent and full as they should. Hooking everything up is kind of a pain. I haven't yet figured out how to get the sound from the Xbox and theVCR to all three amps. I may have to buy splitters. Right now I'm listening to "The New Dreamers" on KLCC FM, and it is cosmic. I tried running just the two SA-XR50s in parallel, with the RF-7s speaker wire bindings bridged. This also exhibited the improved dynamics and bass, but vocals were weak, and the treble seemed a bit too rolled off. Throwing the SA-XR25 into the mix to power the horns makes a huge difference for the better. Man, I've had all this equipment for months now without realizing it's full potential. I've made vast improvements over the last couple weeks without buying a thing. Amazing.

---------------- On 1/22/2005 4:14:44 AM timbley wrote: 2. A real 96kHz/24bit digital signal(not upsampled lower bitrates) sounds really, really good on the Panny's. I mean way nicer than 44.1kHz digital input. There may be more reasons for this than just the higher data rate, or maybe not. 3. LPs sound awesome digitized at 96/24, even when using the phono stage of an old Sony Audio/Video control center! ---------------- I'm responding to my own post to update my findings on the two above points. I've found that some of the changes I'm hearing in sound quality have to do with a change in tone response caused by the different settings on the sound card. It may not be that the higher bitrate is actually necessary to acheive the improved sound I'm perceiving. The soundcard sounds mellower on the 96/24 input. It also sounds mellower on "consumer" setting compared to "pro" setting. I reconfigured my amplifiers to run my speakers full range in parallel. This softened the sound of the RF-7s considerably. After doing this, CDs sounded a whole lot better in a number of ways. The record player through the sound card at 96/24 now sounded way off balance, with a definite lack of treble. Changing the setting to 44.1kHz actually improved the sound So there's more at play here than just improvements due to increased sample rate.

---------------- On 1/23/2005 10:23:29 AM tonygeno wrote: I'm not sure I understand this. The hi-rez inputs of the Panny are digitized at 96/24 in 6 channel mode and 192/24 in 2 channel mode. So aren't you utilizing an additional digital conversion with the Panny's internal DAC's? ---------------- I'm not using the hi-rez/analog inputs of the panny. I'm using an external ADC to convert my phono preamp to digital, which is then sent to the Pannys via the optical or coaxial digital input, at 96/24.