Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > Software & Technology
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

DW Simpson
Actuarial Jobs

Visit our site for the most up to date jobs for actuaries.

Actuarial Salary Surveys
Property & Casualty, Health, Life, Pension and Non-Tradtional Jobs.

Actuarial Meeting Schedule
Browse this year's meetings and which recruiters will attend.

Contact DW Simpson
Have a question?
Let's talk.
You'll be glad you did.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #521  
Old 05-29-2018, 01:50 PM
Egghead's Avatar
Egghead Egghead is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyo View Post
i know nothing about how to implement room correction. i suppose a microphone and software are required, but that's about all i know. is there another device permanently attached to the amp or something? what is the process?
In case you ever get curious about this again...

The AV receivers with Audyssey include a calibrated mike, and a really long wire. The software is built into the receiver. When you're setting up the receiver, the on-screen menu walks you through the process, telling you to put the mic in such-and-such a position, click a button, wait for the tones to stop, then repeat in another location. It even has pictures to clearly indicate how much to move the mic and in which direction each time. Super easy. Took about 10 minutes.

It's better if you have a tripod. If not, they give you a cheap cardboard one, but it doesn't work as well.
Reply With Quote
  #522  
Old 05-29-2018, 01:55 PM
Egghead's Avatar
Egghead Egghead is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Egghead View Post
More and more lately, I end up working late into the night. I really like listening to my big audio setup while I do, but then I have to use my laptop, and that's not the most efficient way to get work done, especially when jumping around in spreadsheets. I have a really nice monitor in an extra bedroom we set up as an "office," but I can't play loud music in there, or I'll bug everyone.

So I went and tried out headphones. I first tried the Sennheiser HD700's. The pair I got was clearly a return (included a couple of non-Sennheiser accessories), so maybe it was messed up, but I didn't like them nearly as well as my HD598s. Nowhere near as clear.

So I moved up to the very popular HD800. I also got a good deal on the Chord Mojo mobile DAC/amp by purchasing from Amazon UK. The two together sound really good, but I'm convinced I can do better. I just missed out on a crazy deal for the Sennheiser HDVA 600 headphone amp (no DAC). Just $439 for an amp that retailed for $1,600. There are other headphone amp deals from time to time, but I was thinking there may be some "synergy" between the Sennheiser amp and headphones.

Man, I've got to stop spending all this money on home A/V stuff...
The HD800 were a significant upgrade from the HD700 or HD598. But I keep hearing things I don't like in the HD800. For that kind of money, I should be very happy.

So I'm returning them. And now I've got the HD800S on the way. Even more money. But again, there's a return policy. And this time, I bought open box. So if I return it, it's not like I caused them to end up with more open box items.

Must stop soon...
Reply With Quote
  #523  
Old 05-29-2018, 03:10 PM
yoyo's Avatar
yoyo yoyo is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 21,785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Egghead View Post
In case you ever get curious about this again...

The AV receivers with Audyssey include a calibrated mike, and a really long wire. The software is built into the receiver. When you're setting up the receiver, the on-screen menu walks you through the process, telling you to put the mic in such-and-such a position, click a button, wait for the tones to stop, then repeat in another location. It even has pictures to clearly indicate how much to move the mic and in which direction each time. Super easy. Took about 10 minutes.

It's better if you have a tripod. If not, they give you a cheap cardboard one, but it doesn't work as well.
TY

sounds like for implementation ease, the receiver needs to have the software on board. i assume i could balance the room (or whatever the lingo is) with other tools and whatnot, but with (significantly?) more effort.
Reply With Quote
  #524  
Old 05-29-2018, 04:12 PM
Egghead's Avatar
Egghead Egghead is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyo View Post
TY

sounds like for implementation ease, the receiver needs to have the software on board. i assume i could balance the room (or whatever the lingo is) with other tools and whatnot, but with (significantly?) more effort.
That's my understanding. George Frankly mentioned one such solution, which is an add-on device. But maybe that's just as easy to implement as Audyssey on my receiver. I don't know.

What I can tell you is that it would be a freaking nightmare to try to EQ all those speakers yourself to achieve similar results. Heck, I tried doing something like that. There is a $20 app that Denon and Marantz offer, to modify the room correction that the Audyssey software came up with. I tweaked like crazy, and I couldn't make the sound better. I started to get a more flat frequency response, but then I lost all sense of soundstage. It was really weird. But that's consistent with the links I sent related to Audyssey XT32. They moved away from trying to achieve a flat frequency response, for the same reason. But it's unclear just what the heck they've done, and of course they're not going to give away their proprietary secrets. I find it works surprisingly well.

I should have friends over to see if they can tell much difference between Direct and the Audyssey results. I've become pretty picky/spoiled. Maybe I shouldn't infect people with my desire to make things better, if it would be only a marginal difference for most.
Reply With Quote
  #525  
Old 06-01-2018, 12:23 PM
Egghead's Avatar
Egghead Egghead is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Egghead View Post
The HD800 were a significant upgrade from the HD700 or HD598. But I keep hearing things I don't like in the HD800. For that kind of money, I should be very happy.

So I'm returning them. And now I've got the HD800S on the way. Even more money. But again, there's a return policy. And this time, I bought open box. So if I return it, it's not like I caused them to end up with more open box items.

Must stop soon...
I decided to hold onto the HD800 until I had a chance to compare them to the HD800S.

Yes, the HD800S sound better right out of the box. But if you EQ both headphones properly, you can get them to sound very similar. In fact, I found software for my Mac called Sonarworks True-Fi. They have over 100 popular headphones that you can choose from, and it instantly changes the EQ to make them sound flat.

But that's not all! If you enter your age and gender, it will boost the bass and treble to compensate for the average amount of hearing loss you're likely to have suffered. You can then tweak it from there, but I was shocked how very good it sounded just with the defaults when entering my age. I added a couple of dB of bass boost, just because I like it. Some songs, I dial it back.

Using this software, the HD800 and HD800S are nearly identical. Each does certain things slightly better than the other, with one exception: The HD800S, which normally have better bass than the HD800, were actually worse at producing notes at the very bottom of the frequency spectrum. Some super low notes just disappeared, which was not cool. So now the HD800S are getting returned, and I may keep the cheaper (though not cheap) HD800.

I'm going to try the HD700 one more time. The first set I got were clearly a return, and I suspect they were screwed up. But they're less than half the cost of the HD800, and they look cooler. They're not quite as comfortable, but they're awfully close. So if I can get a good pair, and use the Sonarworks software to sound essentially the same as the HD800, then I could save a lot of money.

Here's a link to an article on the software, in case others are curious. It's expensive at $80, but if I can make $500 headphones sound like $1100 headphones, it's well worth it!

https://www.soundandvision.com/conte...ary-headphones

Last edited by Egghead; 06-01-2018 at 12:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #526  
Old 06-03-2018, 08:56 AM
Egghead's Avatar
Egghead Egghead is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,047
Default

The HD700 arrived Saturday. I went back and forth between them and the HD800. The HD700 sound incredibly bad straight out of the box. And yet, the Sonarworks True-Fi software made it and the HD800 sound remarkably alike.

There were still differences, though. The HD800 has a larger transducer, which is angled slightly, to produce a sense of a larger soundstage. On some songs, I preferred the HD800, and on others the HD700.

After hours of listening, I found I slightly preferred the HD700. Which is fantastic, because it's hundreds of dollars less!

No, I don't work for Sonarworks. But between their software for my headphones, and Audyssey's MultEQ XT32 on my receiver, I'm finding that EQ compensation is the game-changer I've been looking for. I'm honestly surprised more people online aren't raving about both. If the goal of the audiophile is a flat frequency response curve, why in the world aren't they jumping all over solutions that are objectively proven to produce it?

Last edited by Egghead; 06-03-2018 at 08:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #527  
Old 06-03-2018, 03:10 PM
Incredible Hulctuary's Avatar
Incredible Hulctuary Incredible Hulctuary is offline
Member
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 24,658
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Egghead View Post
No, I don't work for Sonarworks. But between their software for my headphones, and Audyssey's MultEQ XT32 on my receiver, I'm finding that EQ compensation is the game-changer I've been looking for. I'm honestly surprised more people online aren't raving about both. If the goal of the audiophile is a flat frequency response curve, why in the world aren't they jumping all over solutions that are objectively proven to produce it?
Common audiophile philosophy disdains the use of any deliberate interventions that alter the sound coming from the source. So EQ and AV-receiver effects like "concert hall" are forbidden fruit. Of course, the room will alter the sound... but that's an unavoidable circumstance, not a deliberate intervention.
__________________
The forest was shrinking, but the trees kept voting for the axe because its handle was made from wood, and they thought it was one of them.
Reply With Quote
  #528  
Old 06-03-2018, 05:26 PM
Egghead's Avatar
Egghead Egghead is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Incredible Hulctuary View Post
Common audiophile philosophy disdains the use of any deliberate interventions that alter the sound coming from the source. So EQ and AV-receiver effects like "concert hall" are forbidden fruit. Of course, the room will alter the sound... but that's an unavoidable circumstance, not a deliberate intervention.
Yeah, I get that they wouldn't want anything artificial like a "concert hall" setting. But I'm asking why they wouldn't want to use software that negates those things that are already "polluting" the sound. Room correction software is typically used to EQ each speaker to a flat response curve. So it not only corrects for the speaker's innate inability to produce a flat curve, but also counteracts the impact of the room, since rooms have their own distorting impacts on sound from speakers. Some folks are starting to see the light, and were instrumental in me trying a receiver that had the latest version of Audyssey:

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread...onvert.279602/

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-rec...them-both.html

But where I see the most ridiculous levels of this is with headphone buyers. No headphones are truly flat. So these audiophiles spend insane amounts of money trying to find the perfect combination of headphone and amp that together produce a flat response. Many owners of the Sennheiser HD800 headphones will buy all kinds of tube amps, because tubes "warm" the sound and help offset the bright leaning of the 800s. Why bother, when software is out there that can perfectly accomplish what they're imperfectly trying to do with amps? I asked exactly this question on a forum, and the response I got was "I wouldn't want to be tied to the True-Fi software." I thought that was crazy. How is that any different than being tied to a particular amp and tube combination? I'll tell you how it's different: my solution is cheaper and objectively better.

Oh well. To each their own. But I think some of these guys are kidding themselves that seeking out a "colored" amp is somehow a more "pure" way to offset a "colored" headphone.
Reply With Quote
  #529  
Old 06-05-2018, 12:00 PM
Egghead's Avatar
Egghead Egghead is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,047
Default

I figured out that Sonarworks True-Fi was not EQing the HD700 and HD800 to the same frequency response. At least, not for my headphones. It left my HD700 much brighter. With the HD800, I needed a lot more age-compensation.

But now that I know I can dial back the age compensation on the HD700, there is virtually no difference in sound at all. And again, for the massive savings versus the HD800, I'll happily pay $80 for the software.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.60608 seconds with 10 queries