Jump to content

DVaz

Members
  • Posts

    2,395
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Converted

  • Location
    UK

DVaz's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. Tru oil = gunstock oil = great on unfinished bodies and necks. Nothing stopping you from using it on fretboards. It creates a light varnish that embeds slightly into the wood; it needs about 24 hours to set, wire wool back and repeat and its a pretty durable pseudo-finish that protects the wood from grime and crap without affecting the sound (it doesnt sink in very much and it sets hard). Looks pretty too. And I like the smell, but then I like the smell of WD40 as well, so that might just be me.
  2. I'm not ready to say which clip is which yet. I'll wait for Dave and WRGKMC to chime in. But here's a suggestion for you and everyone else too: After you listen for these sort of details, listen again an hour later to both clips. Sometimes we hear new details just because we missed them on the first playing, not because of a legitimate difference. Human auditory perception is very tricky and very fleeting! A few weeks ago, a guy in one of the hi-fi forums I visit was convinced that demagnetizing his LP records (!) brought out subtle details such as you describe. In his post he described more air from a flute part, and hearing details not present before he applied the demagnetizer. Clearly you can't affect an LP record with magnets, so all that's left is faulty perception. And of course placebo effect. --Ethan So its 2 then!
  3. I'm going with 1. Clearer highs, richer lows. Some more detail in the non-musical things, scraping on strings, strings rattling on frets is in the first one, too. But the difference is {censored}ing miniscule. Listened to on - Laptop and HD25s - Fireface 800 and adam A7s & sub 8 and ultrasone pro750s. Now....I'm wrong arent I
  4. Gotta say, from a purely analytical perspective, Ethan is making FAR more sense that most of those arguing with him here. I'm not going to say anything about the matter of converters or interfaces, because I've only spent any time with 5 or 6 of them and only 2 in the same place with all other variables controlled... But Ethans talking about double-blind tests, eliminating perceptions and psychoacoustics, variable control and unbaised interpretation of what you hear when changing only one thing Everyone else has a story about a bit of kit or a time when _insert anecdote_, and most often of stuff they own or have taken a good impression from. Now, I dont disbelieve any of you and your experience works for you, but personal experience doesnt translate into generalised statements. Thats the antithesis of rational scientific analysis. Do I think theres a difference? Well, the 2 that I've had as part of exactly the same setup were an EMU1616M and a Fireface 800. I can hear differences. Its not night and day, but they are there (tighter, better resolved low end, clearer midrange, smoother treble, more forward in the mids). But my story is just a story, YMMV, and I think in a generalised discussion to advise someone else that has to be taken into account. I try very hard to avoid the pitfall of trying to rationalise big purchases retrospectively by overplaying their practical value. I really dont think many people do - most get something they've lusted after and then in their excitment and need to feel the money was well spent find reasons to like it rather than really pick it apart 100% honestly and dispassionately. See almost all HC reviews for this in action in full force. Now, someone may say something about an isolated incedent, non-variable controlled, or a new bit of kit thats completely true, but we cant know that it is without knowing that everything else involved wasnt taken into account. My amp comes to mind, or rather the cab. Its highly directional - someone might hear it from right infront and 10 feet away and think its awesome (which I do in that position), someone else might hear it from 5 feet away and to a 45 degree angle to it and think its crap (which I do in that position). The first will in all likelyhood just say "DVaz's amp sounds great", the other "DVazs amp sucks!" - absolute and generalised statements when we dont know the precise details of the situation the evaulation was made. Both 'true', but niether 'accurate'. If you want to talk in general terms about any bit of kit you have to have knowledge of it in comparison to something else in the same setup as that other thing, all other variables controlled. I'm not saying that as a guitarist or amature/n00b AE, but in my profesional capacity as a physicist.
  5. Excelent, thank you And thanks to the rest of your for your help, too. I'm off to buy rockwool and some wood
  6. Well, I moved the listening position after using frequency generator to find a flatter part of the room that I could realistically move to, and its improved - I got my 50 through 100Hz back, the 125 hump is still there, but its not as bad, and I lost a fair bit of 40, but you dont need that so much (speakers are only supposed to be rated to 46, anyway). The realtraps site was helpfull in showing me what to put where. I also rather like the fact that they have experimental data that proved my guess about foam tiles lot affecting lows, but being a high mid attenuator . So, that plan plus one of my plans, what do you lot think of this: Get rockwool slabs, mount in frames (likely wood, I dont have much in the way of metalworking tools), wrap in some fabric, put across corners, as shown in the realtraps site? Sorry Ethan, I'd love to try your stuff directly, but I'm in the wrong country, and I cant make permanent changes to mount them to the walls (I rent my place), whereas if I make them from scratch I can just make stands, custom shaped for my corners. Thank you for making such an informative site, though! Sorry I went and used all your information resources that you've kindly shared with the world, but cant use your product I'll just have to build a poor imitation and cross my fingers.
  7. Not so much listening positions. I found that the 125Hz hump (but not the sub 100 dip) was VERY strongly affected just moving the speakers around by an inch or 2 or 6 or 10 or 12, and have it as minimal as I can get it with that method. My listening position shifted a bit I suppose just maintaining an equilateral triangle with the new speaker positions but I havent tried diffferent parts of the room - I'm constrained on that for various reasons. Thanks for the realtraps thing - I'll have a ratch around there.
  8. For those of us that have a studio in a small room (about 10 by 15 in my case), whats the right way to deal with variations in the low you get? I'm seeing reduction between 50 and 100Hz, increase around 40 and 125, pretty linear from then on. Were talking about a 6db variation between the dip in 50-100 and the spike in 125. No doubt theres more going on, but thats what I've been able to discern. in playback bass is notably less defined than in my previous place, while low mids are better. I've done some research, and there are obviously are a lot of different ways around to deal with this, a lot of products, a lot of homemade stuff and a lot of things I've dreamed up and a lot of strong and contradictory opinions kicking round on what works and doesnt. Whats the best way? Or the best combination of ways? Foam tiles? It doesnt strike me that they would affect lows much - not much mass to stop lows and not very thick for long wavelengths, and the ones with the shaping on them (pyramids or angled grooves) it looks more of a mids and high mids thing, but I've never used it so I dont know for sure Panels? I can make a few panels from rockwool and some bits of wood, and it seems to me that these, a suitable distance from the wall (determined by the wavelenths you wish to affect), could set up a region between the wall and aroud the panel of destructive interference and it would absorb more than the foam? Difusers? Dont look like the sizes of the diffusing features on the surface are big enough to affect low end much Partition the room asymmetrically with some dense fabric: try to interfere resonant modes out? Set up some reflective baffles (like, shelf-sized, MDF maybe) at the opposite end of the room from the monitors at an angle to the wall, try to send reflections another way and diffuse them? I already have bass traps, btw. Some help, but not woking miracles. Anything else? What works in your experience? Please try to bear in mind I know quite a lot about sound, physicaly speaking, but not so much about acoustics.
  9. I'm gonna get one. Or anything else worth suggesting. Min 4 xlr inputs. ADAT is a must. I want this to be a good enough interface that it will do me for a few years at least. I'm not gonna be setting up any pro studios any time soon, but think "cornerstone of a project studio" level of quality. Have at it!
×
×
  • Create New...