Mostrar Mensajes

Esta sección te permite ver todos los posts escritos por este usuario. Ten en cuenta que sólo puedes ver los posts escritos en zonas a las que tienes acceso en este momento.


Temas - elfary

Páginas: [1] 2
1
Auriculares / Cómo funciona la tecnología balanced armature.
« en: Octubre 21, 2016, 17:08:13 »
Os dejo un interesante contenido del (gran) Tyll Hertsens:

http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/how-balanced-armature-receiversdrivers-work

Lo que yo puedo colegir de este artículo es que es una tecnología extremadamente compleja,  cara -entre otras cosas porque para obtener la misma energía que genera un driver dinámico hacen falta varios armatures- y más frágil que un driver dinámico.

A su favor:  que siendo tan pequeños  no necesitan apenas voltaje y los auris que los montan permiten inserción muy profunda y aislan que te cagas. Además,  por ese miniaturizado carácter es factible parir configuraciones de vías separadas que minimizan el masking, lo que unido a la rapidez de esta tecnología permite una claridad impresionante.

Para audio portátil, el que tiene lugar de puerta de casa para afuera, son ideales si es un buen -y aguerrido- diseño, lo que viendo la complejidad del tema debe de requerir mucha pasta en I+D.

En lo concerniente a fragilidad de la tecnología balanced armature, durante años buscando datos sobre los iem que utilizo, he observado que Shure es el único fabricante que, además del ferrofluido, protege externamente los drivers balanced armature con una especie de coraza elástica, lo que, quizás, explica por qué en 10 años jamás un in ear de Shure me ha dejado de sonar (Cosa que no pueden decir ni Sony, ni TDK ni Westone). Se he me han pelado gomas de iems Shure, alguna carcasa ha sufrido dentelladas o trazas de condensación...pero dejar de sonar: nunca, never ever.

Sí, amigos:

Shure es Shure

Y gol es gol. ;)+

Buen fin de semana a todos, hamijos y enemijos.

3
Este fin de semana, de Viernes a Domingo, se celebra en Madrid la feria anual AVME.

http://www.feriaavme.com/

El año pasado estuve, y este año tengo intención de acudir otro rato.

Si alguien del foro tiene previsto acudir, podríamos coordinarnos aquí: bien para acudir juntos o bien para no coincidir (habida cuenta de las legiones de fans que tengo en los foros patrios :)

4
Auriculares / iBasso IT03
« en: Octubre 10, 2016, 15:14:02 »
Estos in ear me interesan bastante por el precio y por quién lo fabrica.

Son los primeros híbridos cuya forma me parece apta para cumplir con mi (superlativo) estándar de aislamiento, su precio es fantástico y de iBasso me fío bastante en calidad construcción (Mi iBasso T3 ha cumplido 6 años y sigue tirando millas).

Aunque sigo atento el hilo de head-fi...

¿Alguien de aquí los tiene y podría contarnos algo sobre aislamiento, fit, firmas sonora, conducibilidad y esas cositas?

El chásis de los Stage Diver, que es el que ha fusilado iBasso, siempre me interesó, no así los precios de los teutones.

Así que, desde mi retiro, seguiré este modelo no sea que tenga que dejar la excedencia...

5
Fuentes / iOS
« en: Septiembre 29, 2016, 14:43:41 »
Creo que no hay ningún hilo acerca de iOS, y quizás procediera tener uno.

En mi década de experiencia (casi) con iOS, y, con gadgets y ordenatas en general, tengo la convicción de que el core o esencia de la experiencia de usuario es el software, no el hardware.

Cuando leo a los apologetas de Android invocando benchmarks (trucados, frecuentemente), resoluciones (inservibles y sobredimensionadas)  y qué sé yo...no puedo evitar pensar en cómo es posible que no hablen del software, que, como digo, es dónde residen el placer y la belleza de la experiencia de uso de una máquina.

Es en este contexto, en el uno no puede dejar pasar por alto el elevadísimo nivel de cohesión, diseño, belleza, fluidez y estabilidad de iOS. Es una auténtica gozada interaccionar con el icacharro, te dan ganas de usarlo, o de sólo mirarlo.

El otro día pasé la tarde con un Galaxy S7 de una amiga, y por muy grande que la tenga (ram, benchmarking, pantalla)...el placer en el uso no era el mismo. El software es mucho más feo, menos fluido y más intestable; de hecho, en cuanto hacía cosas sencillas se calentaba que no veas. Haciendo lo mismo con mi iPhone 6, que la tiene más pequeña (la ram, benchmarking, pantalla) no se calentaba ni un ápice, y la sensación de fluidez, cohesión y belleza era incomparable. Y ello pese a los esfuerzos de Samsung de copiar la cohesión de iOS confiriendo, por fin, igual forma a todos los iconos.

Vamos, que a 2016, como en 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015... iOS es Martina Klein y Android es Yola Berrocal.

Es apodíctico.

Por eso en 2016, sigo disfrutando cuando uso mi iPhone 3 Gs: la belleza y el arte son intemporales.

Los beneficios de la integración de hardware y software dejan a cualquier fabricante que use Android en franca desventaja frente a Apple.

Por eso el 88% de los beneficios que genera la venta de smartphone se los lleva Apple. La gente paga más por tener mejor software, o sea, por disfrutar más (con iOS que con Android).

iOS es una intersección entre tecnología y arte. Te hace el trabajo como lo haría Martina Klein.

Android es un batiburrillo que te hace el trabajo, como lo haría Yola Berrocal.

6
Auriculares / ¿ Cuánta calidad de sonido es suficiente ?
« en: Septiembre 15, 2016, 09:57:14 »
En el curso de una década de intensivo consumo de audio con intraauriculares, uno los ha usado de todo pelaje, condición y precio.

He pasado del subsuelo, los auris que venían con el Cowon iAudio X5 a unos Shure SE846, mi cronología ha sido :

Cowon -> Sennheiser CX300 ->  Shure SE110 -> Shure SE420 (el salto más brutal de calidad que he experimentado) -> Shure SE215 -> Shure SE530 -> Westone UM3x -> TDK BA200 -> Westone 3 -> Westone W30 -> Shure SE535 -> Westone Um Pro 50 -> Shure SE846

Pues bien, mi valoración sobre la cuestión planteada gravita en torno a dos asuntos:

- Concibo el sonido como el vehículo para establecer una conexión emocional con la música. O sea, el sonido es un medio, el fin es la música.

-A la antedicha premisa yuxtapongo otra: mi propósito no es ser eficaz en la elección de equipo, mi propósito es asegurar el resultado (conexión emocional consistente y constante) incurriendo en el menor coste posible. O sea, mi propósito es ser eficiente, no matar moscas a cañonazos (nunca hubiera pagado por los SE846 lo que valen, ni la mitad).

Tras 10 años en el negocio, y a la luz de las referidas premisas:

- Creo que excedido cierto umbral de calidad meter más dinero en el asunto no mejora mi relación emocional con la música. Cada uno ha de buscar ese umbral de calidad. El mío estaría en unos in ear de dos balanced armature, o sea unos Shure SE425 o unos Westone W20. Así que en este pregrinaje de una década he acabado muy por encima de lo que necesito (Westone W30 y Shure SE846) y cuando se rompan ( o tenga algún capricho para el que necesite hacer caja) volveré a los camaleónicos SE425 que son los auris más camaleónicos que he escuchado: son tal cual es la grabación. Eso en mi libro es un gran elogio.

Escribo estas líneas para contraponer este planteamiento cabal, o con un planteamiento sinsentido en que es fácil caer:

- La música es un vehículo para el sonido. El fin ya no es la música, conectar emocionalmente con ella. Ahora el fin es ¿Sonará este auricular mejor que el otro ? ¿será este ampli más limpio? ¿Existirá Dios y llegaré a Él por medio de unos auris de 3000 Euros?

Es a la luz de esta errónea premisa cuando uno acaba como un perro que se persigue la cola: venga a comprar, venga a vender y siempre insatisfecho porque siempre hay algo nuevo y/o mejor. O eso he leido, y claro, lo dice tanta gente que tendré que comprar esos auris.

Yo he estado en las dos canchas, y tengo claro que descubrir música me renueva y me estimula. Andar descubriendo auriculares me agota, y me vacia la cartera. Por eso llevo ya 1 año sin hacer ningún cambio en la alineación, y cuando haga cambios va ser para dimensionar los auriculares con arreglo a mi umbral mínimo de calidad. Me veo casi como empecé: con unos Shure SE215 para el gym y unos Shure SE425 para escuchas críticas.

'Asínque' lo más importante es saber escuchar la música y determinar el umbral y perfil que asegura la conexión emocional con la música de manera consistente y recurrente.

Personalmente, me congratula haberme retirado del audio portátil el año pasado, justo coincidiendo con mi décimo aniversario en el business porque me retiré en lo más alto de mi carrera: iPhone 6 128 no uropeo + SE846. Nunca tanto y tan bueno cupo en tan poco footprint.

Ahora que ando retirado del fútbol de alto nivel, disfruto oyendo mis discos y rememorando esta década en la que aprendí a oir música y conocí a mucha gente letrada, generosa e interesante (y algunas peluqueras ineptas con conciencia de aptas, que de todo hay en el mundillo éste). Amo a las peluqueras, pero nunca las requeriría para que la prestación de servicios de consultoría de audio.

It was a record decade in countless ways.


7
Auriculares / Nuevo accesorio Westone
« en: Junio 17, 2016, 19:54:46 »


Me juego un buevo y parte del otro a que es un cable lightning; lo que confirma mis sospechas de que con el iPhone 7 se acabó el capamiento UE.

Good times ahead


Success is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm.

8
Auriculares / Cómo escuchar música y comparar hardware
« en: Marzo 30, 2016, 15:05:22 »
Interesante parrafada del creador del Chord Mojo, Rob Watts. Los que sepan inglés lo disfrutarán tanto como yo.

Lo más interesante es su departamentalización sobre los parámetros a los que ha de prestarse atención al comparar equipos y su idea de variabilidad final.

Here we go...

I thought my first blog post should be non technical, and frankly the only non technical audio related subject I could think of that people may find interesting was listening tests - but I guess this is pretty fundamental subject for audio. After all, it's the main thing that separates the extreme objectivists (you don't need to listen it's all nonsense) from the extreme subjectivists (you don't need to measure it's all nonsense) argument. Its at the heart of the major discourse on Head-Fi - a poster says product xyz sounds great,another politely states your talking twaddle - of course they are (hopefully) arguing on the sound quality based upon their own listening tests, biases and preferences. Indeed, I often read a post about a device I know well, and can't relate the posters comments with what I think about the device. Sometimes this is simply different tastes, and I can't and won't argue with that - whatever let's you as an individual enjoy music is perfect for you, and if its different for me then that's fine - vive la différence. But sometimes the poster simply gets it wrong, because they do not have the mental tools to accurately assess sound quality. Over the many years I have developed listening tests that tries to objectively and accurately assess sound quality. These tests are by no means perfect, and I admit that listening tests are very hard and extremely easy to get wrong - that's why it's important to try to get more accurate results, as its very easy to go down the wrong path.

 

Another problem is sensitivity - some people hear massive changes, some can barely discriminate anything at all. Fortunately, I consider myself in the former camp, but I don't know how much is innate or through training (I have done lots of tests in my time...) Certainly, having an objective methodology does help, even if it's only about being able to more accurately describe things.

 

I also would like to talk about how listening tests are actually used in my design methodology, and what it is I am trying to accomplish when designing.

 

Assumptions, Assumptions... 

 

We all make assumptions; otherwise we couldn't get on with life, let alone get anything done. But the key for designing is to test and evaluate one's assumptions, and verify that the assumptions make sense. The key is about thinking where the assumptions lie and then evaluating whether the assumption is valid. For example, I am assuming you are an audiophile or somebody that is interested in audio. Valid? Yes, otherwise why would you be on Head-Fi. I am also assuming you know who Rob Watts is. Valid? Not really, you may be new to Head-Fi or know nothing about Chord. So quick summary - I am an audiophile, a designer of analogue electronics (started designing my own gear in 1980) then in 1989 started designing DAC's. Frustrated by the performance of DAC chips, in 1994 I acquired digital design skills and started designing my own DAC's creating pulse array DAC technology using a new device called FPGA's. These devices allowed one to make your own digital design by programming an FPGA. I then became an independent design consultant, and started working with Chord, and the first product was the DAC 64. This was unique, in that it was the first long tap length FIR filter (the WTA filter). In 2001 I started working with silicon companies, and designed a number of silicon chips for audio. Most of my activity was in creating IP and patenting it, then selling the patents. Today, I only work on high end audio, having stopped working with silicon last year.

 

From my beginnings as an audiophile, I was intrigued about the physiology of hearing and spent a lot of time reading up about how hearing works. In particular, I was intrigued about how hearing as a sensory perception is constructed - we take our hearing for granted, but there is some amazing processing going on.

 

The invention of the WTA filter with the DAC 64 nicely exposes the conventional engineering assumption - that the length of an FIR filter (an FIR filter is used in DAC's to convert the sampled data back into a continuous signal) does not matter, that all we need is a suitable frequency response. But if one looks into the maths of sampling theory, then it is clear that to perfectly recover the bandwidth limited signal in the ADC then an infinite tap length FIR filter is needed. It is also obvious to me that if you had a small tap length filter, then the errors would present themselves as an error in the timing of transients. Now a transient is when the signal suddenly changes, and from my physiology of hearing studies transients are a vital perception cue, being involved in lateral sound-stage positioning, timbre, pitch perception and clearly with the perception of the starting and stopping of notes. So how are we to evaluate the changes in perception with tap length? Only by carefully structured listening tests.

 

Another area where there are assumptions being made is designing using psycho-acoustic thresholds. The rational for this is simple. From studies using sine waves, we know what the human ear can detect in terms of the limits of hearing perception. So if we make any distortion or error smaller than the ear's ability to resolve this (hear it) then it is pointless in making it any better, as the ear can't detect it. On the face of it, this seems perfectly reasonable and sensible, and is the way that most products are designed. Do you see the assumption behind this?

 

The assumption is that the brain is working at the same resolution as our ears - but science has no understanding of how the brain decodes and processes the data from our ears. Hearing is not about how well our ear's work, but is much more about the brain processing the data. What the brain manages to achieve is remarkable and we take it for granted. My son is learning to play the guitar, and every so often the school orchestra gives a concert. He was playing the guitar, along with some violins, piano, and a glockenspiel. We were in a small hall; the piano was 30 feet away, violins and guitar 35 feet, glockenspiel 40 feet. Shut my eyes and you perceive the instruments as separate entities, with extremely accurate placement - I guess the depth resolution is about the order of a foot. How does the brain separate individual sounds out? How does it calculate placement to such levels of accuracy? Psycho-acoustics does not have a depth of image test; it does not have a separation of instruments test; and science has no understanding of how this processing is done. So we are existing with enormous levels of ignorance, thus it is dangerous to assume that the brain merely works at the same resolution as the ears.   

 

I like to think of the resolution problem as the 16 bit 44.1k standard - the ear performance is pretty much the same as CD - 96 dB dynamic range, similar bandwidth. But with CD you can encode information that is much smaller than the 16 bit quantised level. Take a look at this FFT where we have a -144 dB signal encoded with 16 bit:

 

 

So here we have a -144 dB signal with 16 bit data - the signal is 256 times smaller than the 16 bit resolution. So even though each quantised level is only at -96 dB, using an FFT it's possible to see the -144 dB signal. Now the brain probably uses correlation routines to separate sounds out - and the thing about correlation routines is that one can resolve signals that are well below the resolution of the system. So it is possible that small errors - for which the ears can't resolve on its own - become much more important when they interfere with the brains processing of the ear data. This is my explanation for why I have often reliably heard errors that are well below the threshold of hearing but nonetheless become audibly significant - because these errors interfere with the brains processing of ear data - a process of which science is ignorant off.

 

Of course, the idea that immeasurably small things can have a difference to sound quality won't be news to the majority of Head-fiers - you only need to listen to the big changes that interconnect cables can make to realize that. But given that listening tests are needed, that does not mean that objectivists are wrong about the problems of listening tests.

 

Difficulties in listening 

 

Placebo - convince yourself that your system sounds a lot better - and invariably it will. So your frame of mind is very important, so it's essential that when doing listening tests you are a neutral observer, with no expectations. This is not as easy as it sounds, but practice and forcing your mental and emotional state to be neutral helps.

 

Minimize variables. When lots of things change, then it becomes more difficult to make accurate assessments. So when I do a specific listening test I try to make sure only one variable is being changed.

 

Don't listen to your wallet. Many people expect a more expensive product to be naturally better - ignore it - the correlation between price and performance is tenuous.

 

Don't listen to the brand. Just because it is a brand with a cult following means nothing.  Ignore what it looks like too.

 

Do blind listening tests. If you are either unsure about your assessment, or want confirmation then do a single blind listening test where the other listener is told to listen to A or B. Don't leak expectation, or ask for value judgements - just ask them to describe the sound without them knowing what is A or B.

 

Remember your abilities change. Being tired makes a big difference to accuracy and sensitivity - more than 4 hours of structured AB listening tests means I lose the desire to live. Listening in unusual circumstances reduces sensitivity by an order of magnitude - double blind testing, where stress is put on listeners can degrade sensitivity by two orders of magnitude. Be careful about making judgements at shows for example - you may get very different results listening in your own home alone. Having a cold can make surprising differences - and migraines a few days earlier can radically change your perception of sound. 

 

Be aware - evaluating sound quality is not easy, and its easy to fall into a trap of tunnel vision of maximizing performance in one area, and ignoring degradations in other areas. Also, its easy to get confused by distortion - noise floor modulation, can give false impressions of more detail resolution. A bright sound can easily be confused with more details - distortion can add artificial bloom and weight to the sound. Its easy to think you are hearing better sound as it sounds more "impressive" but a sound that actually degrades the ability to enjoy music. Remember - your lizard brain - the part that performs the subconscious processing of sound, the parts that enjoy music emotionally - that can't be fooled by an "impressive" sound quality. Listen to your lizard brain - I will be telling how shortly.

 

Don't be afraid of hearing no reliable difference at all. Indeed, my listening tests are at their best when I can hear no change when adjusting a variable - it means I have hit the bottom of the barrel in terms of perception of a particular distortion or error, and this is actually what I want to accomplish.

 

Don't listen with gross errors. This is perhaps only appropriate for a design process - but it is pointless doing listening tests when there are measurable problems. My rule of thumb is if I can measure it, and it is signal dependent error, then its audible. You must get the design functioning correctly and fully tested before doing listening tests.

 

Although I have emphasised the down side to listening, I find it remarkably easy to hear big changes from very small things - the ear brain is amazingly sensitive system. I once had an issue with a company accepting that these things made a difference, so I conducted a listening test with two "perfect" noise shapers - one at 180 dB performance, one at 200 dB performance. An non audiophile engineer was in the listening test, and afterwards he said that what really surprised him was not that he could hear a difference between two "perfect" noise shapers - but how easy it was to hear the differences. 

 

AB listening tests

 

Now to the meat of this blog, the actual listening tests. Here you listen for a set piece of music, and listen for 20 to 30 seconds, then go back and forth until you can assess the actual performance. The factors to observe or measure are:

 

1. Instrument separation and focus.

 

With instrument separation you are observing how separate the instruments sound. When this is poor, you get a loudest instrument phenomena: the loudest instrument constantly attracts your attention away from quieter instruments. When instrument separation gets better, then you can easily follow very quiet instruments in the presence of a number of much louder instruments. When instrument separation gets to be first rate then you start to notice individual instruments sounding much more powerful, tangible and real. Very few recordings and systems actually have a natural sense of instrument power - only very rarely do you get the illusion of a powerful instrument completely separate from the rest of the recording, in the way that un-amplified music can do. Poor instrument separation is often caused by inter-modulation distortion, particularly low frequency. 

 

2. Detail resolution.

 

Detail resolution is fairly obvious - you hear small details that you have not heard before- such as tiny background sounds or the ambient decay - and this is one measure of transparency. But its asymmetric - by this I mean you make an improvement, hear details you have not heard before, then go back, and yes you can just about make it out - once heard its easy to spot again with poorer detail resolution. Additionally, its possible to get the impression of more detail resolution through noise floor modulation - a brighter, etched sound quality can falsely give the appearance of more detail; indeed, it is a question of balance too; details should be naturally there, not suppressed or enhanced. This illustrates how difficult it is to get right. Small signal non-linearity is normally the culprit for poor detail resolution.   

 

3. Inner detail.

 

Inner detail is the detail you get that is closely associated with an instrument - its the sound of the bow itself on a violin for example, or the subtle details that go into how a key on a piano is played. Technically, its caused by small signal non linearity and poor time domain performance - improving the accuracy of transient timing improves inner detail.

 

4. Sound-stage depth.

 

A favorite of mine, as I am a depth freak. Last autumn we were on holiday in Northern Spain and we visited Montserrat monastery. At 1pm the Choir sing in the basilica, and we were fortunate enough to hear them. Sitting about 150 feet away, shutting ones eyes, and the impression of depth is amazing - and vastly better than any audio system. Why is the impression of depth so poor? Technically, small signal non-linearity upsets the impression of depth - but the amazing thing is that ridiculously small errors can destroy the brains ability to perceive depth. Indeed, I am of the opinion that any small signal inaccuracy, no matter how small, degrades the impression of depth.   

 

5. Sound-stage placement focus.

 

Fairly obvious - the more sharply focused the image the better. But - when sound-stage placement gets more accurately focused, the perception of width will shrink, as a blurred image creates an artificial impression of more width. Small signal non-linearity, transient timing and phase linearity contribute to this.   

 

6. Timbre.

 

This is where bright instruments simultaneously sound bright together with rich and dark instruments - the rich and smooth tones of a sax should be present with the bright and sharp sound of a trumpet. Normally, variation in timbre is suppressed, so everything tends to sound the same. Noise floor modulation is a factor - adding hardness, grain or brightness, and the accuracy of timing of transients makes a big difference. 

 

7. Starting and stopping of notes.

 

This is the ability to hear the starting of a note and its about the accuracy of transient timing. Any uncertainty in timing will soften edges, making it difficult to perceive the initial crack from a woodblock, or all the keys being played on a piano. Unfortunately, its possible to get confused by this, as a non linear timing error manifests itself as a softness to transients - because the brain can't make sense of the transient so hence does not perceive it - but in hard sounding systems, a softness to transients makes it sound overall more balanced, even though one is preferring a distortion. Of course, one has to make progress by solving the hardness problem and solve the timing problem so that one ends up with both a smooth sound but with sharp and fast transients - when the music needs it.     

 

8. Pitch and rhythm.

 

Being able to follow the tune and easily follow the rhythm - in particular, listen to the bass, say a double bass. How easy is it to follow the tune? On rhythms its about how easy it is to hear it - but again, be careful, as it is possible to "enhance" rhythms - slew rate related noise modulation can do this.  In that case, things sound fast and tight all the time, even when they are supposed to be soft and slow. 

 

9. Refinement.

 

Clearly this links in with timbre, but here we are talking about overall refinement - things sounding smooth and natural, or hard and bright? Clearly, frequency response plays a major role with transducers, not so with electronics. Also, the addition of low frequency (LF) 2nd harmonic will give a false impression of a soft warm bass. Often I see designers balancing a fundamentally hard sound with the addition of LF second harmonic in an attempt to reduce the impact of the innate hardness - but this is the wrong approach, as then everything always sounds soft, even when its supposed to sound fast and sharp. In electronics, assuming THD is low, then noise floor modulation is a key driver into making things sound harder - negligible levels of noise floor modulation will brighten up the sound. Another very important aspect is dynamics and refinement - does the sound change as it gets louder - some very well regarded HP actually harden up as the volume increases - and harden up IMO in a totally unacceptable way.

 

"You know nothing Jon Snow" 

 

My favourite quote from Game of Thrones - but it illustrates the uncertainty we have with listening tests, particularly if done in isolation without solid measurements.

 

We are listening with recordings for which we do not know the original performance, the recording acoustic environment, nor do we know the equipment it was recorded with, the mastering chain, nor the source, DAC, amplifier, HP or loudspeaker performance in isolation. We are listening to a final result through lots of unknown unknowns. I can remember once hearing an original Beatles master tape played on the actual tape machine it was recorded with, using the actual headphones they used. It sounded absolutely awful. But then I was also lucky enough to hear Doug Sax mastering at the mastering labs - the equipment looked awful - corroding veroboard tracks on hand made gear - but it sounded stunning. So we are dealing with considerable uncertainty when doing listening tests. Its even more of a problem when designing products - how do you know that you are not merely optimizing to suit the sound of the rest of your system rather than making fundamental improvements to transparency? How can you be certain that a perceived softness in bass for example, is due to reduction in aberrations (more transparent) or increase in aberrations (less transparent).

 

Fortunately its possible to clarify or to be more sure with using two methods. First one is variation - all of the AB listening tests are really about variation - and the more variation we have, the more transparent the system is. So going back to the soft bass - if bass always sounds soft, then we are hearing a degradation. If it sounds softer, and more natural, but when the occasion allows sounds fast and tight too - then we have actually made an improvement in transparency. Again, its a question of being careful, and actually asking the question, is the system more variable. If it is more variable, its more transparent. So why bother with transparency and just make a nice sound? The reason I care so much about making progress to transparency is simply by listening to an un-amplified orchestra in a good acoustic makes one realize how bad reproduced audio is. Now I think I have made some big progress over the past few years - but there is still a way to go - particularly with depth, timbre variations and instrument power. This is why my focus is with the pro ADC project, as I will then be able to go from microphone to headphone/loudspeaker directly - my goal is being able to actually hear realistic depth perception exactly like real life.     

 

The second method of doing a sanity check on listening tests is with musicality...

 

Musicality

 

I ought to define what musicality actually is first, as people have different definitions. Some people think of it as things sounding pleasant or nice. That's not my idea of it - to me its about how emotional or involving the reproduced sound actually is. To me, this is the goal of audio systems - to enjoy music on. And plenty of people go on ad nauseam about this, so I am sorry to add to this. Merely talking about musicality does not mean you can actually deliver it - and it is something very personal. 

 

But it is important, and to test for musicality you observe how emotional and engaging the music actually is. The benefits of this approach is that your lizard brain that decodes and processes audio, and releases endorphins and makes your spine tingle, doesn't actually care whether you think it actually sounds better or not. And since enjoying music is what this hobby is about, then it is important to measure this. To do this, you can't do an AB test, you have to live with it, and record how emotionally engaging it actually is. That said, although its good as a test to check you are going in the right direction, its not effective for small changes, and it can only be based over many days or weeks with different music.

 

So listen to your lizard brain! I hope you got something useful from this.

 

Rob

9
Fuentes / iPhone 6
« en: Marzo 22, 2016, 11:02:34 »
Datos objetivos sin carga y conduciendo auriculares Sennheiser Mx400 de 32 ohmios (Las mediciones ideales son con auris, sin carga no valen para nada, y con resistencias puras describen con menos precisión la performance con auriculares de verdad debido a la complejidad de la impedancia real de unos auriculares).

https://www.seeko.co.kr/zboard4/zboard.php?id=m_device&page=2&sn1=&divpage=1&sn=off&ss=on&sc=off&select_arrange=headnum&desc=asc&no=9

E impresiones subjetivas de un veterano reviewer llamado Nathan / Shigzeo:

In other words, the iPhone 6 performs well. I put as much trust in its audio playback capabilities as I do any high-end player and any price.

The numbers also bear out in theoretical performance not far south of high-end DAPs, and when volume matched a volume I consider ‘too loud’ or ‘on the Chase’, equivalent to Chord's Mojo, the highest performing portable devices you can get your hands on.

A título personal, esencialmente, esto es lo que siempre he percibido yo comparando un iPhone 5s/6 con ladrillos chinos como el Fiio X3 I, Fiio X3 II, Fiio X5 I e iBasso DX100: con iems la diferencia es absurdamente irrisoria, y no siempre favorable al ladrillo. Concretamente, en términos de hiss (ausencia de) el iPhone 6 es el aparato más negro que he oido en mi vida. Y sin problemas de shielding como el iPhone 6s.

Las diferencias en interfaz y batería sí que son muy grandes, y a favor del iPhone. Mucho más decisivas en la experiencia de usuario, que el audio, que es equivalente en términos de calidad.

Si no hay problemas de volumen, no veo razón alguna para usar un reproductor dedicado, ni un dac o ampli externos: es objetivamente absurdo, más cuestión de manías, placebos y/o fobias a iTunes, a Apple, al capitalismo o el intimismo épico en una subrepticia manifestación clínica.

Exisitendo iPhones sin capar, nunca podré usar un AK240 o un AK380 con iems  porque me sentiría utterly embarrassing.

Cuando use orejeros Dios dirá, pero mientras use solo iems, como diría Leo Benhakker: este es clarísimo.

10
Fuentes / iPhone SE - Grata sorpresa
« en: Marzo 22, 2016, 10:01:05 »
No tenía mucho interés en el iPhone SE, pero tras ver las características estoy gratamente sorprendido.

Con el SE han revertido la tendencia del 5C y el primer iPad Mini: acompañar al tamaño reducido de unas reducidas prestaciones con un precio poco reducido.

En el SE las prestaciones son de primera: procesador A9, Apple Pay, 2 gigas de RAM, cámara de 12Mpx. Lo cual indica que, ahora mismo, es el hardware que mejor moverá iOS.

Unido a esto el exquisito diseño industrial, la salida de auriculares, que será un portento en su versión no europea, y un precio menos caro del que Apple se suele gastar, parece un producto a seguir.

En EEUU son 499$ el modelo 64Gb. En Uropa se va el asunto a 589 Euros, pero ¿quién quiere comprar en España un iPhone capado? Yo norrrrrrrrrr.

Un Walkman-smartphone muy interesante, en mi libro al menos.

11
Fuentes / LG V10
« en: Marzo 04, 2016, 13:23:56 »
Como creyente en el smartphone como centro de mi audio portátil, este teléfono de LG me interesa desde que salió (en otoño en el primer mundo, y hace un mes en Espain).

Aún no he podido personarme en un MediaMarkt para peritarlo debidamente con mis archivos, pero he encontrado una interesante comparación con el iPhone 6s, que sí he oido varias veces (en su versión falsa-uropea).

I actually moved from my LG V10 to the 6S Plus. Why is that?

1. The amp on the LG V10 has variable output power based on headphone impedance. There's no way to control it directly, but you can trick it into "Aux" (full power) output by plugging in your headphone cable into the phone first. (This is after you install the DAC FIX app from the Google Play Store so that the internal DAC & amp will work with other players).

 

2. Even once you have the amp set to the power level appropriate for your headphone, then you have to pray to Lakshmi that it plays well with your Android music player of choice. Google Play Music and the stock music player both do fine, but stuff like the volume slider on Neutron's control panel fights for control and doesn't always display the current volume properly until the next time it's adjusted. You can guess what can happen with that.

 

3. At the end of the day, the V10 had far more output power...but a little more harshness in the general sound sig. I was hoping that the 9018C2M in the V10 would sound like the 9018AQ2M chip found in the Geek Out V2/V2+/Infinity models. It doesn't - it's closer to a traditional 9018 sound.

 

4. Whoever decided that putting the volume buttons - which are clacky, somewhat loose plastic - right below the camera lens should be actually forced to use them. They're crap. The location itself isn't inherently bad, but their volume keys are just...awful.

 

The combination of usability issues and slightly harsh tone caused me to jump ship. PM-3 + iPhone 6S Plus sounds great and works pretty damn well.


Infiero que en modo full throttle el amplificador dedicado debe de irse a cerca de dos voltios (porque el fistro es de Texas, donde uropa no tiene jurisdicción para imponer su fascista y desinformada limitación del corriente). Esto es una gran noticia para usuarios de orejeros. Junto con el Meizu Pro 5, el V10 parece confirmar que el umbral de los 2 voltios en smartphones deja de ser una fantasía.

Malas noticias:

- la ganancia la elige automáticamente el V10, salvo tuneo, en función de la impedancia que detecta.

- dice este buen señor que el sonido le parece más áspero que el del iPhone 6s.

Seguiremos informando, que en el tiempo de tarjetas de 200Gb, hay que indagar...

Por cierto, el S7, que tiene pinta de ser el smartphone más completo que el dinero puede comprar, parece seguir navegando por las ramplonas aguas del medio voltio. Al menos en una de sus dos versiones (Hay Exynos y hay Qualcomm).

12
Otros / Día mundial de la audición
« en: Marzo 04, 2016, 05:42:23 »
Interesante entrada en el blog se Shure.

http://blog.shure.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-hearing-conservation-behind-the-scenes-with-sensaphonics/


If the tonality it's not right, then nothing else really matters.

13
Corto y pego (como Sánchez) una reciente intervención de Dios (Bob Katz) tratando sobre cómo mover ciertos orejeros en 2016:

Anyway, in my upcoming review I've found that the combination of the iPhone, HA-2 DAC/amp, and the PM-3 cans is really synergistic! It's a killer combination. You get a 32-bit fixed point connection to the HA-2 DAC, which drives the Oppo cans incredibly well, and high resolution playback from the iPhone of the same quality (or maybe better?) than what the A&K player offers you. At maybe 1/8 the price of the A&K player alone and you get cell phone service, driving directions and more.

So I respectfully feel that what you're suggesting, even if it can be implemented, is total redundancy and kind of silly. If you already own an A&K player, enjoy it... it will drive the PM-3's just fine and sound terrific. If you don't own one, then I suggest not getting one, saving a lot of money and kicking ass with the combination of iPhone (my recommendation over the Android)/HA-2/PM-3/HF Player. The ergonomics of this lashup are VERY VERY easy... it is comfortable and not the least bit cumbersome.


Entiende más recomendable usar la salida digital de un smartphone (iPhone, en su caso) que comprarse un ladrillo A&K.

Cuando veo la proliferación de ladrillos chinos, me suelo preguntar por qué no le ponen teléfono a esos repros...

Y si es para mover iems u orejeros fáciles, la futilidad de un reproductor dedicado (con sus cutres interfaces) es directamente apodíctica.

14
Fuentes / iPhone 7: Apple potencia el shielding electromagnético
« en: Febrero 18, 2016, 12:19:13 »
Quizás, alertados por los ruidos espúreos que se cuelan en la salida de auriculares de los iPhone 6s y 6s Plus Apple ha cambiado de tercio para el iPhone 7.

La alusión al 3D touch concuerda con que los iPhone con 3D Touch son los únicos de la historia de Apple con problemas de EMI.

http://9to5mac.com/2016/02/16/emi-shielding-iphone-7/

Si volvemos a la infinita negrura del iPhone 6, servidor estará dispuesto a lanzarse a por el iPhone 7. Es una gozada conectar los SE846 al iPhone 6 y tener un noise floor inaudible. Cosa que no pueden decir ni muchos ladrillos chinos ni amplis ni dacs externos. La negrura del iPhone 6 se sale de tablas.

15
Fuentes / Cómo de bien reproduce los medios tu hardware
« en: Febrero 16, 2016, 15:25:36 »
Interesante experimento propuesto por Steve Hoffman, afamado ingeniero de sonido:

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/test-the-midrange-purity-of-your-system-and-or-your-computer-speakers-using-bing-crosby.496472/

Se trata de oir algo en torno al segundo 27, relacionado con el reverb...

Por cierto, cuando empieza diciendo the magic of the music is in the midrange uno no puede evitar pensar en Shure...

Páginas: [1] 2