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


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-19-2015, 07:35 PM
George Frankly's Avatar
George Frankly George Frankly is online now
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CO
Favorite beer: Sam Smith Oatmeal
Posts: 9,907
Default Any audiophiles in here?

Probably a long shot, but what the hell.

I started doing car audio with my older brother when I was about 14, and got hooked. Throughout HS and college I did a lot of car audio builds, and then near the end of college I started doing home audio. Initially it was a Denon receiver and Klipsch speakers. Then I tried Magnepans and upgraded to an NAD integrated amp and CD player, and then some really nice Avance bookshelf speakers, which I still have. Bought a McIntosh pre-amp and amp at some point.

And then I got into DIY. I built a tower speaker (sort of like the Seas Thor) with a pair of 7" woofers and the matching Seas Millennium tweeter. And all was going pretty well.

But back in around 2010-2011 I started re-thinking high efficiency and, specifically, horns. In doing so, I also started re-thinking bass and the use of multiple subs. And after a lot of thinking, a few months back I started buying gear. So now I'm building a totally new setup.

I started with a pair of Dayton Audio 15" subs driven by a Crown amp, fed by a Behringer Feedback Destroyer that's basically a big EQ. And then a friend offered me an SVS sub for a great price, so I added that. Three subs.

Then I found some JBL 14" woofers (not subwoofers), they are JBL LE14H-1 if that means anything. I *think* I can run two per side, so that's four 14" woofers to handle 70Hz to 750Hz. And then for the treble I have some JBL horns with beryllium drivers (model 435Be, looking for the matching 045Be currently), really nice. All being fed by a signal processor to do all the crossover/EQ work (White Instruments Paramedic 26). And I have a measurement system with which to tune. For now it's all in really crappy cabinetry just to see if it'll work. Still have some dialing in to do, but it sounds great. It's got great dynamics, and it will get loud and sound great at high SPL, and those were the real goals.

Hoping at least a couple others are into audio at some level. Happy to answer any questions about the system, or audio in general. Like why use three subs, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-19-2015, 07:44 PM
Rex Ryan's pet coyote's Avatar
Rex Ryan's pet coyote Rex Ryan's pet coyote is offline
Member
AAA
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,465
Default

Are you listening to 128 kbps mp3s on this system?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-19-2015, 07:53 PM
George Frankly's Avatar
George Frankly George Frankly is online now
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CO
Favorite beer: Sam Smith Oatmeal
Posts: 9,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex Ryan's pet coyote View Post
Are you listening to 128 kbps mp3s on this system?
It depends. I have a decent CD player (brand is NAD) for high-quality sound. I'm not above using mp3s, I rip at 192kbps, a compromise of sound quality and file size. I need to get a decent DAC in the stream though, haven't done so yet. And sure, I'll throw on streaming audio sometimes. So I'm not such a snob that I let the bit rate get in the way of listening to good music.

Also, a lot of the music I listen to wasn't exactly recorded all that well. I like the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, Built to Spill, etc. No matter what format, those bands won't sound all that hifi. I won't listen to an album just because it was recorded well, for me it's music first and recording/playback quality second. Listen to how accurate that distortion sounds on my system.

I did try a record player. Bought a decent Music Hall some years back. Didn't see the allure, sold the record player. I read the redbook specs on how music gets digitized for a CD, and I'm sold that CD quality is really, really good.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-23-2015, 04:32 PM
ActSciMan's Avatar
ActSciMan ActSciMan is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Studying for data science
Posts: 1,859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Frankly View Post
I rip at 192kbps, a compromise of sound quality and file size.
Uhhh, can't you just go buy a 2 TB hard drive? Do you really have so much music that you need to worry about file size? I have like 300 CDs on my computer and they're all the highest quality that Windows Media Player would let me rip them at, plus everything else on my computer including family pictures and videos, and I'm using like 500 GB total.

Or, did I miss something. Maybe I did. TL;DR.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-24-2015, 12:40 PM
George Frankly's Avatar
George Frankly George Frankly is online now
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CO
Favorite beer: Sam Smith Oatmeal
Posts: 9,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ActSciMan View Post
Uhhh, can't you just go buy a 2 TB hard drive? Do you really have so much music that you need to worry about file size? I have like 300 CDs on my computer and they're all the highest quality that Windows Media Player would let me rip them at, plus everything else on my computer including family pictures and videos, and I'm using like 500 GB total.

Or, did I miss something. Maybe I did. TL;DR.
I keep lots of songs on my phone. I do stream some, but like to have some stored. I think it's about 35GB at the moment. I have an iPhone with 64GB, my next phone will probably be 128.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-24-2015, 12:24 PM
Incredible Hulctuary's Avatar
Incredible Hulctuary Incredible Hulctuary is offline
Member
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 25,007
Default

But if you're a real audiophile and you read further about it, you'd realize how not-so-good CD audio really is.

Although the mathematical principles behind the CD audio format are sound (no pun intended), in practice things don't go so well because the theoretical concepts involved are too computationally expensive to fully implement.

The first shortfall in practice compared to the theory is the brick wall filter that is supposed to remove all frequencies above the Nyquist cutoff of 22.05kHz. Without removing those frequencies, one loses the ability to accurately reconstruct the continuous waveform from the discrete 44,100 samples per second.

But in reality there is no such thing as a true brick wall filter, i.e. completely removing all frequencies above the cutoff while leaving all frequencies below it untouched. A practical filter is going to introduce some distortion below the cutoff while still leaving something above the cutoff. The human hearing limit of 20kHz is not far below the chosen Nyquist frequency of 22.05kHz, so some filter-induced distortion can still leak into the human hearing range.

The second (and bigger) problem is that digital-to-analog converters (DACs) in consumer hardware don't even use the proven math for reconstructing the continuous waveforms, because it's too computationally expensive. Mathematically accurate reconstruction of the waveform would involve sinc functions and Fourier transforms and other math I don't understand, but that's too much for a typical $10 DAC chip to do in real time so they resort to cheap interpolations instead.

The good news is that improvements in technology are enabling the CD format to produce results closer to its theoretical ideal. In the early days of CDs, the brick wall filters were analog, and they introduced lots of distortion into the audible range so CDs back then sounded harsh. But now they're using digital brick wall filters which can perform much closer to the ideal, and they can keep improving those filters by throwing more computational power at them and tweaking the algorithms.

On the playback end of it, some high-end DACs are incorporating field-programmable gate arrays (FPGA) so they can be more true to the math that is involved with reconstructing the analog waveform. And there is software like HQPlayer that utilizes the processing power of multi-core PCs to perform that math to upsample to high rates like 192kHz or 384kHz, thereby leaving the DAC with less work to do with filling each gap between samples (provided your DAC can accept a sample rate that high, of course).
__________________
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
  #7  
Old 10-24-2015, 12:45 PM
George Frankly's Avatar
George Frankly George Frankly is online now
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CO
Favorite beer: Sam Smith Oatmeal
Posts: 9,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Incredible Hulctuary View Post
But if you're a real audiophile and you read further about it, you'd realize how not-so-good CD audio really is.

Although the mathematical principles behind the CD audio format are sound (no pun intended), in practice things don't go so well because the theoretical concepts involved are too computationally expensive to fully implement.

The first shortfall in practice compared to the theory is the brick wall filter that is supposed to remove all frequencies above the Nyquist cutoff of 22.05kHz. Without removing those frequencies, one loses the ability to accurately reconstruct the continuous waveform from the discrete 44,100 samples per second.

But in reality there is no such thing as a true brick wall filter, i.e. completely removing all frequencies above the cutoff while leaving all frequencies below it untouched. A practical filter is going to introduce some distortion below the cutoff while still leaving something above the cutoff. The human hearing limit of 20kHz is not far below the chosen Nyquist frequency of 22.05kHz, so some filter-induced distortion can still leak into the human hearing range.

The second (and bigger) problem is that digital-to-analog converters (DACs) in consumer hardware don't even use the proven math for reconstructing the continuous waveforms, because it's too computationally expensive. Mathematically accurate reconstruction of the waveform would involve sinc functions and Fourier transforms and other math I don't understand, but that's too much for a typical $10 DAC chip to do in real time so they resort to cheap interpolations instead.

The good news is that improvements in technology are enabling the CD format to produce results closer to its theoretical ideal. In the early days of CDs, the brick wall filters were analog, and they introduced lots of distortion into the audible range so CDs back then sounded harsh. But now they're using digital brick wall filters which can perform much closer to the ideal, and they can keep improving those filters by throwing more computational power at them and tweaking the algorithms.

On the playback end of it, some high-end DACs are incorporating field-programmable gate arrays (FPGA) so they can be more true to the math that is involved with reconstructing the analog waveform. And there is software like HQPlayer that utilizes the processing power of multi-core PCs to perform that math to upsample to high rates like 192kHz or 384kHz, thereby leaving the DAC with less work to do with filling each gap between samples (provided your DAC can accept a sample rate that high, of course).
I'm not an expert in signal processing, I do agree with some of what you said and can't refute the bits I don't understand! I haven't found analog sources to sound better than CDs, so it's not like I have a better alternative.

I do want a new CD player, mine skips at high SPL. The subs shake it a lot.

I do generally say to put the money in the speakers. Distortion for sources and amps is almost academic, 0.05% or whatever. Speakers have much more. My JBL setup is at about 0.4% THD, subs are often 5% at volume. I generally focus on the drivers, the polar response, and the room. IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-02-2017, 06:36 PM
Freebird's Avatar
Freebird Freebird is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Topeka, Kansas
College: Graduated from Ohio State too many years ago to remember
Favorite beer: Newcastle
Posts: 822
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex Ryan's pet coyote View Post
Are you listening to 128 kbps mp3s on this system?
I always rip V0 (variable bit rate, highest quality). I don't know if it really makes a difference in what I am hearing from my receiver (Denon), but psychologically it makes me feel better that I have a smaller file size at the highest quality I can get.

I have also ripped FLAC first, and then used Foobar (not fubar!) to convert the FLAC to V0. I tried to hear a difference between the lossless and lossy versions, but could not, once again on my system.

Can anyone out there tell a difference between FLAC and MP3, soundwise, through the same high quality receiver?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-02-2017, 07:40 PM
Incredible Hulctuary's Avatar
Incredible Hulctuary Incredible Hulctuary is offline
Member
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 25,007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freebird View Post
I always rip V0 (variable bit rate, highest quality). I don't know if it really makes a difference in what I am hearing from my receiver (Denon), but psychologically it makes me feel better that I have a smaller file size at the highest quality I can get.

I have also ripped FLAC first, and then used Foobar (not fubar!) to convert the FLAC to V0. I tried to hear a difference between the lossless and lossy versions, but could not, once again on my system.

Can anyone out there tell a difference between FLAC and MP3, soundwise, through the same high quality receiver?
At 256kbps or higher MP3, almost nobody can hear the difference between that and lossless in a blind test.

But when ripping from the source, it makes sense to rip to FLAC or another lossless format, then use that as a base for converting to various lossy formats/bitrates as needed, so you don't end up with double-lossy.
__________________
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
  #10  
Old 10-19-2015, 10:57 PM
Ron Weasley's Avatar
Ron Weasley Ron Weasley is offline
Member
CAS AAA
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Studying for naught.
Favorite beer: Butterbeer
Posts: 8,623
Default

Is clipping on CDs still a thing?
__________________
ďFantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!Ē
― J.R.R. Tolkien
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 09:27 PM.


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 1.06671 seconds with 10 queries