Thread: Caro Mitis

Posts: 47
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 next

Post by ArTourter September 8, 2015 (31 of 47)
Iain said:

WRT p2, I'll test that functionality when my BDP-S7200 arrives; at this point I'm not sure. I've recently evaluated JRiver Media Centre 20 as a DLNA server. It failed, because my Home Cinema is on a different subnet from MC20 server. MC20 will not traverse subnets.

I plan to test foobar2000 for this functionality when I get the time, as it's now my default media player. MC20 has went away.

DLNA/UPNP will not work across subnets. It uses UDP as transport layer and therefore can only broadcast to within its own subnet. Well that is unless you can reconfigure your router to allow it (disabled by default as it is a very nice way to DDOS). You could also use IP multicast (this would be the proper way to do it) but that is a router configurable option as well.

If you have that level of access to your router, both MC20 and foobar should work, otherwise, changing the dlna server will not make any difference.

Sorry for going off topic, but this is one of the reason I have issues with audio streaming: the technical considerations to make it work nicely are too close to my day job that it goes in the way of me enjoying it.

Post by Kal Rubinson September 8, 2015 (32 of 47)
Euell Neverno said:

10-4 on that, so I assume then your reference to equalization is limited to compensation for listening room issues, although you do slso mention bass conrol. Superfluity does not vitiate, I suppose.

Yes, room correction. I do not use bass management in my main system but, for some, it is essential. Still, getting all channels at the same level and with the same acoustical distances is important for all.

Post by Disbeliever September 8, 2015 (33 of 47)
Kal Rubinson said:

Yes, room correction. I do not use bass management in my main system but, for some, it is essential. Still, getting all channels at the same level and with the same acoustical distances is important for all.

Totally disagree that getting all channels at the same level is important for all. The three front channels definately but I find the rears have to be set considerably lower and consequently rear speakers can be much smaller. manual adjustment is preferable for me.

Post by GROOT GELUID September 9, 2015 (34 of 47)
Disbeliever said:

Totally disagree that getting all channels at the same level is important for all. The three front channels definately but I find the rears have to be set considerably lower and consequently rear speakers can be much smaller. manual adjustment is preferable for me.

To get the best results I also find it important to have equal distance and loudness set up in an audio playback system. Homes are not usually as good as studio's are acoustically, and there a good surround set up can be made using different size speakers (but with the same mid high response, thus usually from the same speaker line). Having smaller rear speakers only results in having slightly less bass extension in their output. Not usually a bad thing as bass response is the most difficult in those circumstances.

The direct indirect sound ratio in a surround sound recording should be derived by a good distribution of those ratios over the front and rear speakers. Changing that ratio in a playback situation changes the results of the intended mix.

That said, I find generally that I could do with a bit more output from the rear speakers than less......

Post by Kal Rubinson September 9, 2015 (35 of 47)
Disbeliever said:

Totally disagree that getting all channels at the same level is important for all. The three front channels definately but I find the rears have to be set considerably lower and consequently rear speakers can be much smaller. manual adjustment is preferable for me.

You just had to put in your two pence on this topic again even though it is not germane to the discussion here. Even if you choose, perversely, to set your rears considerably lower, you still need a device to have that facility.

Post by samayoeruorandajin September 9, 2015 (36 of 47)
Ya, it's sort of like hearing him, again, spout off, again, about rock music and how much he hates it.

Post by Disbeliever September 9, 2015 (37 of 47)
Kal Rubinson said:

You just had to put in your two pence on this topic again even though it is not germane to the discussion here. Even if you choose, perversely, to set your rears considerably lower, you still need a device to have that facility.

Yes that device is my hand and my ears ,not Audyssey gimmicks,

Post by Disbeliever September 10, 2015 (38 of 47)
To Groot Geluid , so you disagree with the remarks in THE PENGUIN GUIDE TO THE 1000 Finest Classical Recordings ,the purpose of rear speakers is only to add a subtle background ambience to the recordings . IMO to INCREASE sound from rear speakers is totally ABSURD , I want to hear music from the front only , not from behind, when the sound for me is totally unlistenable as I have heard from badly setup demonstrations by Ken Ishiwata Marantz & Eric Kingdom of Sony, when I complained about the bad sound they both agreed with me and their excuse is room acoustics, all they had to do was to reduce the volume from the rear speakers that do not need to be as LARGE as the front ones.

Post by GROOT GELUID September 10, 2015 (39 of 47)
Disbeliever said:

To Groot Geluid , so you disagree with the remarks in THE PENGUIN GUIDE TO THE 1000 Finest Classical Recordings ,the purpose of rear speakers is only to add a subtle background ambience to the recordings . IMO to INCREASE sound from rear speakers is totally ABSURD , I want to hear music from the front only , not from behind, when the sound for me is totally unlistenable as I have heard from badly setup demonstrations by Ken Ishiwata Marantz & Eric Kingdom of Sony, when I complained about the bad sound they both agreed with me and their excuse is room acoustics, all they had to do was to reduce the volume from the rear speakers that do not need to be as LARGE as the front ones.

About the Penguin guide's opinion; apparently I do disagree......

To look at rear speakers in a playback system simply as to add something (“subtle background ambience???”) to the front speakers is not doing justice to the potential the combination of 5 (in this case) speakers have to reproduce specifically designed recordings for such a system. You probably (hopefully?) would not regard the left speaker in a 2 channel set up to, only provide some subtle acoustic sounds from sources that are coming from the right loudspeaker? As that is exactly similar to what you are saying about the rears in a surround set up.

You have mentioned the demo you did not like before. I was not there and if that is your only experience to make up your opinion on the potential of 5 channel surround sound I feel you deny yourself some good experiences.

In most of my recordings you will notice that the recorded volume is almost the same over all channels. And that way you achieve more audio quality when played back over 5 ‘equal loud set up’ loudspeakers, compared to a stereo mix or a bad mixed “rear ambience added on stereo (lazy)” surround recording.

If at any time you are in the neighbourhood of Baarn in the Netherlands you are welcome to have a listen in our studio’s (appointment first please)

I could play you various wonderful Caro Mitis recordings that sound so much nicer even in surround

Post by Kal Rubinson September 10, 2015 (40 of 47)
Disbeliever said:

Yes that device is my hand and my ears ,not Audyssey gimmicks,

Can't you read? We were discussing having the ability to make level adjustments such as you do (albeit with different preferences). Why are you so perverse?

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 next

Closed