Jump to content

o0O Bill O0o

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by o0O Bill O0o


    No need for a center channel, just stick with the two pair.




    I dug through some old photos to find one of my many versions of a Klipschorn Home Theater. 


    Starting with..At one point I had a 5.1 Klipschorn left and right, and LaScala for everything else. I used a horn loaded subwoofer as well. Throughout the years I returned to just the Klipschorns. Mostly for the simplicity. 


    I think they were about 18' apart. Anyways, I felt no need for a center. The speaker plain rocks. Music or Movies.


    Today, I have a "latest and greatest" tech type home theater.  I moved, a while back, and I still have all the gear, just sitting in the garage until I get the itch again. This forum topic is feeding that monster. So much so I did do a rendering. 




    Screen Shot 2022-01-13 at 1.27.37 PM.png

    • Like 1
  2. With current tech for 2 ch.  Upsampling, noise reduction, ect. it is really hard to distinguish some ultra high res. files from ones that are not.  There are even algorithms for mp3's encoded in 256 bit that places more weight on certain parts of the file over other parts for a better sound.  Where this is leading is to our collection of music and storage.  I don't like the large files if I can't hear the difference.


    The digital domain is future and even though storage is cheap, it is still a consideration with these large file.  The other things is how often are people listening that critically?  I recently spent several weeks comparing FLAC and high quality mp3's.  It was not a night and day difference. The HD content cost more, less of a selection: it seems most of us will end up with a combination of HD and non-HD files.

    Makes sense to me. Circle back to my first comment in this thread, https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/161854-first-dsd-audio-files/?p=1979176

    Play the version of the song you enjoy the most.

  3. PCM has none of these issues, but doesn't play past 96KHz

    Explain what you mean here... Recording and playback of 24/192 is readily available. You can do multiple channels of 24/192 over a single Cat 5 cable.

    Time was, when any editing of DSD meant converting to PCM, but the tools are becoming more mainstream (if you have deep pockets).


    Hi Bruce, First watch some YouTube videos (linked above) about sampling theory. 192KHz sampling allows you to play up to its Nyquist frequency. In 192KHz it's half the sample rate, which is 96Khz. DSD64 has lots of noise at 100KHz, plus most players low pass these ultrasonic frequencies. I dont know about DSD at higher sample rates, but I'd imagine the upper limit is extended and there is an even more acurate "picture" or sample of the analog waveform. (5.6MHz DSD is ~5,600,000 samples a second!)

    A free DSD editing app is avaible on Tascam's website. PCM editors such as Audacity (free) are MUCH better. Still, if you are Archiving vinyl and just splitting tracks, then these DSD editors are fine.

    Think of DSD as Digital "Tape" - much of the rules for editing apply to both Analog Tape and DSD.

  4. Put enough time in on my DSD Capable DAC since its arrival and finally had some time to download and listen to music in DSD audio format and I have to say I'm pretty impressed so far.  :emotion-29:  :emotion-29:  :emotion-29:


    Some of these files are massive which at this point seems to be the only down side. They're are also rather expensive to purchase but I've just been downloading free sample files so far.  :)

    Check out Blue Coast music http://bluecoastmusic.com for more free samples.

  5. At 24/96 and above I rather doubt many can tell the difference in DSD and PCM. The beauty of DSD is both its very high resolving power as well as being a "universal" format that can be transcoded to any PCM you want without concerns of any artifacts. 2.8mhz effectively divides evenly into any PCM format, and that is a good thing.


    I'd put dollars to donuts that many can't tell the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit-depths of PCM. Did you watch the videos I linked?

    Switching gears to sample rate, 2.8MHz DSD is ~64 times the 44.1KHz sample rate. So yes, 2.8, 5.6, 11.2MHz and beyond DSD sample rates divide evenly into 44KHz, 88KHz, 176KHz and 352KHz. Further the noise shaped DSD, with it's high frequency noise, is low pass filtered upon conversion to PCM. (see JRiver's user guide for more info).

    Again, put even more dollars to donuts that many cannot tell the difference between any flavor of DSD and 24/96KHz PCM.

    I recommend transcoding DSD64 (2.8MHz) to 24 bit / 88KHz PCM and use a 6dB/octive Lowpass filter at 40Khz.

  6. I could be wrong, but doesn't all DSD have to be converted to PCM or PWM for playback? I haven't seen any direct digital amplifiers that can accept a DSD signal directly and keep everything in the DSD digital domain until final analog output. The DAC is converting the DSD to PCM and then to analog, yes?

    J River Media Center supports DSD file playback, but it's still converted to PCM. My main music source is now a laptop. I use HDMI out to HDMI in on a NAD C390DD which is a direct digital amplifier (so is NAD M2, but no HDMI).

    IMO the main advantage of DSD is for archiving since 1 bit divides evenly into any whole (sample rate) number. Also, as technology progresses, and higher sample rates are achievable DSD allows upsampling to the higher sample rate without any interpolation (source of errors).

    Do we need higher res files? In the digital recording editing and mastering process where various DSP might be applied, yes. You can easily see the difference in distortion of the waveform in the digital editor, DAW or mastering software. At that level it is audible. By the time it gets down sampled to CD quality (or worse yet, some MP3 or Apple version) for the consumer I doubt anyone can hear the difference. Any bets? :rolleyes:

    In the end it's the recording engineer that's king. If it's not done right in the first place..................................

    No conversion necessary. DSD can be played back through a DSD capable DAC (Hometheater AVRs to USB DACs). Simply convert DSD to analog and into your favorite analog inputs. There are lots of very affordable products out there that support DSD.

    Re: Archiving. You are mixing bit depth and sample rate. DSD has an 1 bit depth and can only tell you 1 or 0, thus only about 6 dB of signal to noise. Very noisey. However because the analog waveform is being sampled at 2.8MHz there is enough data to describe the waveform, or at least the direction the waveform is going. i.e. basically, 1 is the top of the wave, 0 is the bottom and the density of 1,0's can describe the waveform. 1111111101011011100000000011101101010111111. Then through noise shaping, all that in band noise we can hear is pushed just beyond 20KHz and rises all way up to 100KHz. Google Image search DSD for a plot, you'll see the climbing noise. PCM has none of these issues, but doesn't play past 96KHz - but that is a whole other topic on, "Do humans perceive ultra sonic frequencies." DSD is great for archiving Vinyl or recording your own music, but everything else was probably made in PCM. So, I am suggesting that you save your cash on DSD Downloads, save for a few where that's the only way to get the best version or master. If the recording is made in DSD all the way from microphone to DSD file, then that should be the purist view of DSD.

    All music lovers should be interesting in the future of music technology, including digital.

    I don't think there is a good "resolution" definition in audio like there is for video. Simply one uses the signal to noise ratio to describe the maximum dynamic range. example: in your listening room, it's probably 35 decibels of ambient noise. That means you have to raise the noise floor of a Digital signal, say CD, to above ambient noise floor. Otherwise anything that's 35dB or less on the recording is lost in your environmental noise. interestingly CD's music signals are recorded in the last 90-96dB of the CD's 96dB of signal to noise. This is for good reason, it keeps the noise way, way down - hence the CD's clean sound. But 90dB on to 35dB gets, you 125dB!! Dangerously loud signals. Even LPs with 70dB SNR provide a good medium for music playback, but at loud volumes you'll here either the tape noise or mechanical noise from LP system itself. DSD has a SNR, for inband or what you can hear, of 150dB!

    Watch these videos:

  7. 24-bit 352.8kHz format is 685MB when unzipped


    Problem with that.  DSD is 1-bit with a 2.8224 MHz sampling rate.  Above is PCM, not DSD.



    Dave is DSD better than PCM,  I am not sure which is better


    DSD - 1-bit with a 2822.4 KHz sampling rate. (I converted Mhz to Khz so we are looking at same units)

    PCM - 24-bit with a 352.8 Khz sampling rate.


    1 bit but has almost 10x the sampling rate vs high bit (24) with lower sampling rate.

    There is no real consensus to what is better. What listeners should be concerned about:

    1. Was my music originally recorded in DSD?

    2. What master or final version of my music do I like best?

    DSD is an excellent format, but do not use it as qualifier for good sound, i.e. all recordings on Vinyl sound the best?

  8. Hey All, it was and upgrade summer for me!:music: $1500 for all. will not ship, unless you know a smart way. Will deliver as far as Phoenix or Santa Fe, located in El Paso, Texas. Klipschorns - I believe they were walnut but have been re-done in Zebrawood. c~1978. OEM and aftermarket (ALK ENG) crossovers. B+ Condition. Lascala- Single, Walnut, OEM crossover, c~1980. C Condition. Used as shown in pictures. I purchased a pair Walnut Red McIntosh XR100 and single LCR80 as replacements. While I was at it a C2500.:D:D:D 07E52A72-C951-4748-8F62-69BE25AD4987.JPGhttps://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-8ukn3QVHcZE/Tn-iUrncCrI/AAAAAAAAAKg/TMEOgVNAjzc/w640-h355-no/11%2B-%2B1 photo%2B1.JPGMC275.JPG

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    • Like 1
  9. And by locked you mean they'd be too heavy or time consuming to adjust. Right?

    That's a win for the lightweight design you went with.

    Perhaps some casters/wheels to start, with a Wooden false corner, then lock in place and put in some 'feet.'

    But you may not want large casters, wheels, or feet to create a cavity under the Khorns or under the artificial corners.. I don't know how much of a cavity it takes to degrade bass response, but "No cavities" was one of PWK's cardinal rules. He warned that a cavity (what size??) deteriorated bass response in the bottom octave, and had some negative effect two octaves above. The advent of speakers on stands, legs, etc. annoyed him.

    I got a chuckle out your post. I know there is some reason for not having casters or cavities but I couldn't scientifically explain it here. There is a wealth of knowledge on spikes and stands for various components out on the internet and found books.

    Someone would have to do a hypothesis test (testing the null that there is no difference between stand mounted tower speakers and non stand mounted tower speakers) I am sure it would address the 2PI and "quasi free air' as a variable that contributes to the differences.

  10. Dean, I understand your method and that you like the outcome. I'm also not pointing to a right answer, just standard described by Klipsch.

    Earlier on in this thread, there was a comment about concrete. If one were to interpret the 48" length in the above manual prescription one could have a decent cinder block false corner, and cheap too.

  11. For me, the sound quaility is most influenced by the recording quaility, not whether it is 16 or 24 bit, or 44 or 96 Khz. The lower resolution can sound better if the original recording is a "good one" vs. a bad one with high res.

    Truth spoken there^

    I've a got a bunch. At this point my 'download or not download discriminator' is when a recording is DDD* or DAD* I download, because I can find an AAA*, AAD*, Or ADD* versions of my music in physical format and rip, or record at whatever resolution/format, to add to my digital library.

    I also find that Mastered for iTunes to be great recordings given the limitations of file size.**. Play the CD, HD and Mastered for iTunes version of the same song on your computer. Make a playlist that has 2-3 copies of each format. Hit shuffle and then see if you and your friends and family can tell the difference, or even format. Then view your playlist by last played and see what everyone picked.

    At any rate I am having fun and hope to see more.

    *(See SPARS CODE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_code)

    ** (http://www.apple.com/itunes/mastered-for-itunes/)

  12. Well, now you are down to budget and what you like in sound.

    If you want the 'best value' get the Heresy III in black across the front. They are a shallow depth design, work with ANY receiver and will play LOUD.

    Note: Recommend stands. You must use a high pass crossover or set the receiver's bass management for the LCR to "Small"

    It only gets better from there.^

  • Create New...