Software EQ matching

[Dob]

David,

I listened to your MP3 file...try this EQ.
22-36hz +6db
36-74hz Decrease boost gradually to +4.5db
74-520hz +4.5db
520-2136hz Decrease boost gradually to 0db
2136-3527hz 0db
3527-10khz Increase boost gradually to +2.7db
10-20khz Decrease boost gradually to 0db

The tonalities are still quite a bit apart but the "tinny" sound is much reduced. You may be able to get even closer by tweaking the 520-2136hz area.

Don't get the idea that the frequencies are super precise...I did a quick curve and those are just the numbers that came out.

[krabapple]

Looks like it basically *is* a USB sound card (which Windows supports natively), without any sort of amplifier or inputs. (They sell the USB-based "INport" for analog inputs.) Interesting. In theory, I guess, you wouldn't *need* a sound card with one of these.

Ryan

Yup. AFAICT it's basically an outboard DAC; the Pro version has the option of keeping the stream in the digital domain, letting your receiver do the DA conversion, if you use teh optical or coax connection. In that situation I suppose the device is only doing whatever required to convert the USB signal to something an audio DAC can accept. It also *appears* to be able to decode some compression formats. (though I can't tell if that includes FLAC, dammit).

They sell a 30 ft toslink cable for *$10*. Yowza! I'm impressed. Best Buy sells 6 ft lengths for $15.

*This*, however , is bullshit:

Q. So I have to use cables – why not just use one of those wireless transmitters?

A. Ever bought a piece of stereo equipment that has wireless speakers? Not likely. That's because a wire or optical cable still represents the best possible way to transfer audio flawlessly. Wireless transmissions are too susceptible to interference because almost all transmit on an FM frequency. FM doesn't offer the full response or clarity that's required for high fidelity audio. That's why a CD sounds so much better than the radio. Why go to all the effort of connecting your computer to your stereo if the signal is just going to be degraded through wireless transmission. It's better to use a cable and get the best possibly fidelity so that your stereo can really do your digital music justice. DVD 5.1 channel information is also very intensive as far as bandwidth is concerned. It necessarily requires a cable in order to transfer Dolby Digital or DTS Sourround Sound.

[Dob]

I'd say they exaggerated a bit. It is true that FM doesn't give you the complete 20-20k audio bandwidth. And it is technically true that a wireless transmission is more susceptible to interference than wire transmission. They did push it, though, when they mentioned improved "clarity"...I don't think there's any evidence of that. I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment about their claim that 5.1 is too "bandwidth intensive" for FM.

[Rspaight]

Well, it's bullshit for the most part because they are comparing analog FM transmission to a digital toslink cable. I've got my computer and stereo (on two different floors) connected through a wireless 802.11b connection and an Ethernet-based mp3/wmv/wav decoder on the stereo end, and I can assure you the quality is the same as it would be if it was connected 10BaseT.

The bit about bandwidth is even funnier. Dolby 5.1 and the common form of DTS 5.1 both consume *less* bandwidth than a CD-quality stereo stream, since DD and DTS are lossy-compressed. ("Full-bandwidth" DTS -- 1536Kbps -- is about the same as stereo PCM -- 1378Kbps. In home applications, it was originally designed to live on the stereo digital soundtrack of a laserdisc. More common on DVD is "half-bandwidth" DTS -- 768Kbps.)

All that said, though, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to jump through hoops to make a wireless connection for two devices in the same room (as it would be for this device).

Ryan

Ryan

[krabapple]

I'd say they exaggerated a bit. It is true that FM doesn't give you the complete 20-20k audio bandwidth. And it is technically true that a wireless transmission is more susceptible to interference than wire transmission. They did push it, though, when they mentioned improved "clarity"...I don't think there's any evidence of that. I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment about their claim that 5.1 is too "bandwidth intensive" for FM.

It's bullshit because they're apparently comparing FM OTA radio broadcast standards to wired, whereas they should be comparing wireless home network standard (802.11b or g) to wired. AFAIK home wireless can do 20-20K ( and , for example, it would be pointless for things like the Slimdevices Squeezbox to offer lossless, full-frequency FLAC and WAV transmission otherwise).

[Dob]

OK guys, I now see what you're talking about.

I have the cheap link which sends an analog signal to my receiver, and those product comments would be appropriate for a discussion of analog signal transmission. But, those comments are referring to the digital signal transmission of the pro link...and, as you said, they should have been comparing to digital wireless transmission, not FM.

Are there any hifi consumer wireless products that transmit a digital signal using FM?