Hard facts from a HUG member
- Thread starter Analogous
- Start date
Thanks for this. I can better understand the skepticism you feel in the context of the extensive experience along your HiFi journey.
I was reading the original statements again and I thought the one below is more like his opinion not necessarily a fact.
16/44 Is sufficient…. (for him)
But this one I am not entirely sure as I don’t have the technical knowledge to critique it
There is no spatial 3d information in the signal.
Can anyone shed some light on this ?
I recall a statement I came across some time ago (not sure who said it)
“Everyone is entitled to their own opinions; no one is entitled to their own facts”
The author of the list we are discussing titled it “facts…” I feel not all of them are.
I thought as much, but I am rarely hearing/perceiving the depth, if at all.
But I am not giving up
The science says that 44.1 kHz is sufficient to reconstruct the original 20 to 20000 Hz audio signal in it's entirety. In fact 44100 Hz is designed to sample upto 22050 Hz audio signal. So-called hi-res may contain frequencies higher than the generally accepted human hearing threshold of 20 kHz. For example, a 96 kHz sampling rate can contain information upto 48 kHz. 192 kHz contains upto 96 kHz. Whether those ultrasonic contents, if present, contributes in some way to better music experience is not proven. But the silent marketing copy seems to be "higher res is better."
I think this was part of the rationale back when Sony and Philips were deciding on the universal specs for audio CDs.
But since then enthusiasts of SACDs, and Hi Res formats have not rested. Yeh dil always maange more and more?
I hear some DACs can upsample to 32-bit/768kHz (eg:RME, Chord).
Given that these designers are well informed on the science, and the audiophile (audiophool?) market is small, I wonder:
Where does this race end, if at all?
My humble Topping E50 does 32/768.
What’s the use , at least in the case of streaming when we don’t know how the files have been mastered or whether they were simply upsampled ?
16/44 redbook CDs , whether player from dedicated CDPs (which I do ) or via wav files sound absolutely fine and in no way inferior to 24/192 files from the same master, at least in my setup.
Whatever difference there is , if it’s audible, has to do with different masterings applied and not because of bit depth or sampling rate, IMO.
Last edited:
See if this post helps. https://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/depth/
Thank you for sharing this excellent post and the fascinating discussion that follows.
I will read it a few times to make sense of it all (?all?)
Paul’s suggestions are practical and I will try them out. Thanks again @mbhangui
Like you, I too had this problem with depth (for a very very long time). It only recently I managed to get the depth (by mistake). It happened with I pulled the speakers very close to me. In fact the front plane of the speakers are just 2 feet way from the listening position (though the speakers are 5-6 ft away). I think the culprit is a large 65" tv with pure glass as the front causing bad reflections. Now that I have pulled the speakers away from the wall, the tv is now much behind the speakers.
As far as the height is concerned, dont bother. It is not possible. In 2014 or so I had come across the LEDR test (UPL, UPR and UP Over) and it works so differently for different speaker. It just doesn't work for my cadence speaker where the tweeter and the low frequency drivers are close to each other. But works for my polk RtiA9 where there is a large distance between the tweeter and the other drivers. Or maybe my ears are bad in detecting directionality. But in my experience height is a gimmicky thing and that's why I said if anyone has a CD of a helicopter landing and can they detect it landing in a stereo setup? As far as physics is concerned you can't have height without 4 speakers. If height is such a easy thing then why have atmos at all?
Last edited:
Yee, the sound is best when the speakers are close. I got them pulled out 5 feet from the wall.
Having the speakers so close It’s almost like having a pair of headphones on
If it is possible, try the speakers on a terrace (if your building has one). If it becomes fantastic, blame your room reflections for not getting proper depth.Yee, the sound is best when the speakers are close. I got them pulled out 5 feet from the wall.
Having the speakers so close It’s almost like having a pair of headphones on
Incidentally, most of my experiments were done using Cadence Aristas.
I think the curved design of the panels make it problematic in difficult rooms. The other problem is that I have to replace the panels almost every 3-4 years and everytime around 40k damage. Will discard them one day.
EDIT: The curved electrostatic panels have one big advantage though over other conventional tweeters. They give a very wide sweet spot. It doesn't constrain the best listening position to dead center.
Last edited:
IndianEars
Well-Known Member
I have had the Good fortune of using these Cadence Speakers at home for about a month.
They are Exceptional speakers, particularly the electrostat panels.
However, the electrostat panel beam straight ahead with very little sideway dispersion.
That is why the panels have been made large & curved.... to provide lateral dispersion.
However, a limitation is their VERY Little vertical dispersion. Listeners are required to sit with their ears at the same level / height as the panels. The seat height needs to be chosen accordingly. Do experiment with your seat to achieve the correct vertical level for your ears. This will greatly improve your perception of Image Height.
Yes, sadly these panels need to be re-made every few years... and the interval is even smaller in hot & humid Mumbai. .... Saddest of all are unconfirmed reports that Cadence is no longer servicing / restoring these panels, so the next failure of the panels will be curtains for the speaker.
Image height does not need special effects recordings like a helicopter landing or jets zooming overhead (Pink Floyd has a particularly good Jet overhead ... but that's another story).
Image height come into play even in regular recordings. A regular singer playing a guitar....
...............is the Guitar located below the singer's mouth ?
................ are the Guitar & mouth at realistic heights ?
In an Indian classical recording...., Meeting By The River, (Waterlily label by Kavi Alexander), is the tabla about 12 to 18 inches above the ground (factoring in the approx 4 to 6 inch platform on which the tablas and their players are seated)?
Check out the trouble Kavi Alexander has gone to mount the mics for this superb recording.... I had seen photos on the 'net some years ago
You can even adjust the image height higher & lower, by tilting your entire speaker by an inch or so.
Oh Yes... I never listen to Recording engineers who dont believe in image height .... They just don't have this concept, since they have only a PAN Control on their mixing desk, giving them lateral control. They do not have any vertical control and I suspect that it why some of them are not even aware of the concept of image height....
Last edited:
Bang on! with my cadence arcas i have realized height of our listening chair and distance to sweet spot is super critical. Rather than treating the whole room, just adjusting listening position brings in lot of dynamics (I sometimes sit pretty close to the speaker panels, oh the joy!)
As to soundstage, quite surprised soundstage is a struggle for most. As joshus pointed out, basic error seems to be distance from back/side walls... This is so critical.... I guess I got trained a bit by saadhanas... They need lot of room from back wall, but boy, you are rewarded. Same principal works for cadence. Speaker placement is crucial for height and width of soundstage. Some speakers however do make it easier.
jaiwant_alex
Active Member
Hear, hear !!
IndianEars
Well-Known Member
To each their own, and how they derive their fun....
Can be obtained by Music Lovers even when listening to modest reproduction via an AM Radio
Or Fun and satisfaction can be obtained by some others via Excellence in music reproduction, via your stereo system.... I guess these animals (like me) are referred to as Audiophiles
IndianEars
Well-Known Member
Nearfield listening eliminates room reflections and resonances and often provides startlingly good results.
Many Studio Monitors are designed for Nearfield Listening, since studio sizes are typically small.
For All speakers there is a Minimum Listening Distance. This is the least distance (from the front panel of the speaker) where the sound of all the speaker drivers converge into a homogenous whole. This distance will depend on ... amongst other things .... the size of drivers, driver dispersion patterns, number of drivers and the spacing between the drivers.
Studio monitors are sometimes designed with this as a key parameter.
By listening close to the Cadence electrostat, you are basically listening predominantly to the electrostat tweeter. It works to a point because this is a Very wide range driver and handles all frequencies above 800 Hz (or is it 2 KHz, I'm not sure), so you get to listening to a fairly wide Freq spectrum, from just the electrostat.
My Floor standing Speakers have a minimum Listening Distance of 9 feet and I struggle with this distance and keeping some distance between the back of my head and the rear wall, in my fairly small room.
My room size is pretty small too, ideal postion would be where the panel and woofer blends and breathes well...In a room with 11 feet depth and the speakers pulled in 41 inches from back wall, there are some compromises to make...adjusting the listening postion helps lot
Follow HiFiMART on Instagram for offers, deals and FREE giveaways!
Similar threads
