The Test System

Before we go on to look at some of the PC software and hardware out there, I'll offer up a quick overview of the test system. Some of the components used really are out on a limb with price tags that are not for the faint of heart. In audiophile currency, I probably have what amounts to a mid-budget system. If your interest is in low budget products, be warned that the rest of this page will probably make your stomach churn. However, you've not been forgotten and we will add a few suggestions here and there should you have champagne tastes on beer budgets - as most of us probably do, especially in this time of credit crunch.

Speakers


Real Hi-Fi owner and Supravox distributor Matthew Jameson was kind enough to provide us with a pair of test speakers based upon Supravox Signature Bicone Drivers known as the Transparence from a company called 3D Sonics. The Bicone Signature driver is a high efficiency (claimed 96dB sensitive) wide bandwidth design featuring a whizzer cone to supplement high frequency reproduction while the main cone takes care of the rest. The parameters of these drivers make them eminently suitable for an open baffle design like the Transparence.

If you keep your ear to the ground in loudspeaker circles, you'll know that open baffle loudspeakers have made a marked resurgence over the last five years or so. One of the chief perpetrators of this revival was a fellow named Throsten Loesch. Thorsten publicized his build of the Supravox Bicone Sig's using the very design that went on to become the 3D Sonics commercial venture. The remarkable simplicity was just what many in the DIY audio community were looking for: an easy to build high performance loudspeaker that could use a variety of drivers according to budget. I had the pleasure of listening to these speakers around five years ago at Thorsten's house; needless to say, it was an experience I never forgot. The absence of a walled cabinet allows the sound to fly out in all directions creating a soundstage that simply makes the loudspeaker drivers disappear.

All good things come with a slap around the cheeks and here's the part that the standard "boom 'n tizz" audio loving public won't like: the price tag is around £2400 UKP for a pair of these beauties. In audiophile markets, a price tag like this is hardly sweat inducing as there are plenty of high-end designs that cost multitudes more. If you are worried about the price, there's no reason to fret as DIY'ing a pair yourself that should get within 95% of the commercial model is not out of the question.


3D Sonics makes an in-house change to the drivers that involves coating them with a few layers of C37 lacquer to humanize the sound.

Stock signature Bicone drivers are available for DIY endeavors from Supravox USA, Supravox France for the EU, and direct from Real Hi-FI for the UK at around a third of the cost of the "ready to go" Transparence. If that's still too much for you, another door is open by using the budget friendly Visaton B200 driver with suitable baffle adjustments to suit its parameters.

The Transparence design is fiendishly simple: a single driver in a 6'x4' acrylic baffle that uses an aluminum L-bracket as a stand and as a means of providing additional rigidity to the baffle. There's no crossover as the driver covers the range of 50 Hz to 15 KHz on its own. That's most of the audible range covered by a single point source. While the top-end extension is enough even for super ears, the low-end obviously needs augmenting with a subwoofer for bass heavy music. For this purpose I use a Linn AV 5150 subwoofer crossed over at around 48 Hz that integrates very well with these speakers, especially when we use DRC to level some of the room response abnormalities.

Whether or not you have the financial clout to buy the fully fledged 3D Sonics Transparence, it's certainly worth investigating the sonic landscape that open baffle designs can create. The availability of drivers for just about every budget leaves the onus of their use squarely in the hands of the DIY'er. Don't pass up the chance to try them out.

Index The Test System, Cont'd
POST A COMMENT

114 Comments

View All Comments

  • phusg - Monday, December 15, 2008 - link

    > It'll please you all to know I have no plans to write another audio article.

    Doesn't please me at all Raja! As I said I'm very grateful for you opening my eyes to the possibilities of DRC. Shame you (or your editor?) don't fancy taking all the criticism and making a kick-arse follow-up article.

    All the best,
    Pete
    Reply
  • Rajinder Gill - Monday, December 15, 2008 - link

    I do have some work at hand that I've held back from posting mainly because it opens up another huge can of worms. The testing involved is arduous and takes up copious hours. I am in a position to make spectral measurements, although I need to confirm a few things before I'd even come close to disclosing all of the results. Initial tests show a marked difference between the 2 DAC's used in the article at equivalent levels of gain (between 1-3db at certain freq points). There's a pattern to some of it. Although, I can attribute much of this to noise generated by the amplifier due to the increased gain required by the TDA1543 (ac related hum). I have a few things I can do to cross-correlate those results though, so it's not a complete dead end.

    Blind testing has shown that human can discern down to .75db of gain. I'm not sure on the consistency of all of that as some of the blind testing involved in the research did show an element of placebo in places. Once I’ve eliminated some of the variables and more importantly tested an internal soundcard output in comparison, I might be in a position to post something worthy of reading.

    I'll probably blind test a few of the solutions I have at hand before I add anything else here though. It's very difficult to keep all camps happy, and to keep it interesting enough for me to want to commit more time to it all...lol

    later
    Raja
    Reply
  • DorkMan - Sunday, December 14, 2008 - link

    Raja, sorry if I had the Sarcasm dialed up to "11" when I made my previous post. It takes a lot of work to create an article like yours, and you did a great job. My beef was not with the quality of your work but with some of the "religion" that seems to surround this hobby. Whether it's tubes, coaxial speaker wire, or whizzer cone transducers, there seems to exist a group of people with a religious zeal for these things and for whom specs and double-blind tests are irrelevant. Whatever.

    But I commend you for your article. It was well-written, and I have no issue with your conclusions. I, too, calibrate my video-editing workstation position for response flatness.

    If you're not too turned off by all the sniping, why not do a series on audio myths? Double-blind testing of tubes and solid-state, and speaker wires?

    Anyway, hope you have a great Christmas season.
    Reply
  • audionewbieyao - Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - link

    If you're a true PC audiophile, I'll say do you best to stay away from gaming sound cards, 'cause they're just not made for audiophiles.

    I suggest try out Asus Xonar, Auzentech, Onkyo, and if possible, the new Xonar Essence STX would be the best.
    Reply
  • thietavu - Tuesday, December 09, 2008 - link

    I have myself tried to solve this "problem" for years: to create a good quality audio system around my computer. Since all my CDs and even a few of my vinyls are now digitized into almost 100 GB of data on the hard disk, the challenge was to get some good sound out.

    I kind of made a mistake by buying "too high-end" (or too good anyway) headphones (Grado SR-325) and a headphone amplifier (Musical Fidelity X-Can v3). After trying two high quality studio sound cards (M-Audio AP2496 and later AP192), I realized that the sound just wasn't what it should have been. There was always a slight "harshness" in what I heard, making the system sound a bit unpleasantly cold and mechanical.

    After a long consideration I then bought Musical Fidelity's X-DAC v3 D/A converter, plugging it to AP192's SP/DIF digital output. That made the change. The slight but disturbing harshness disappeared and some originally cold-sounding albums (like Poco's Inamorata) suddenly became both listenable and even enjoyable. And excellent recordings now sound excellent.

    Where did the difference come from? Judging by normal measurements, there should be no audible difference at all, since M-Audio card's analog output is of high quality. To me, it appears like the "magic" happens in digital->analog conversion somehow. In cheaper devices like most sound cards, that conversion seems to be somehow "rough", a bit like using a digital camera with too few real megapixels available (imagine a 10 Mpix camera with bad optics etc, and the result becoming maybe equal to a real resolution of only 3 Mpix or so).

    I admit that the differences aren't that big, and only very good quality headphones or loudspeakers etc. can reveal them. But after it is revealed, music simply sounds more like "music" in one system compared with another. After that, it's unpleasant to go back to more "mechanical" sound. But as said, everything is relative. I can enjoy an old, noisy C-cassette in an old car stereo as well, as long as the music is good! That's what it is all about: creating feelings. :)
    Reply
  • DorkMan - Monday, December 08, 2008 - link

    Sorry guys, I know many of you are really into this nitpicky level of Audio Purity. I've been into audio since the late 1960's, when I, too, was fanatical about specsmanship. Now I see the error of my ways.

    Bipolar loudspeakers have been around since, say, the 1950's. They're a decent solution as long as you can deal with room resonances, as this article does.

    But a whizzer cone speaker? When did we fall off the truck? Please tell me that the whizzer is driven by a separate coil subsystem. If not, you'll get decoupling resonances as various frequencies and these effects can change as the transducer ages.

    I went to the manufacturer website. Not embarrassed about selling speaker "ribbon" cable for $1,000? Tells me something about the company--long of PR and a bit short on electrical engineering.

    Okay, on to the amps. Tubes! The retro look! I have familiarity with tube amplifier designs and think it's great if you want odd harmonics near clipping, a bulky box that actually glows and a chance to heat a cold room at the same time. Hey, it's okay; odd harmonics sound nice--but they're not an accurate reproduction of the input signal.

    Finally, I'm all for balancing out a room--as long as the listener sits in the same spot. In a living room, every guest is going to get a different response curve, with some probably getting socked by boost when there should have been cut for that location.

    Finally, trust your microphone. If it says the room is flat, you're done. By putting in a slight bass boost, you're making the music sound good to "your" tastes, but be honest--the room then isn't flat. Might as well use tubes as amps.
    Reply
  • ackcheng - Monday, December 08, 2008 - link

    Not sure if this is mentioned before, other than Audiolense, there are a few other programs we can consider for room correction

    They are DRC which is free http://drc-fir.sourceforge.net/
    and Acourate http://www.acourate.com/">http://www.acourate.com/

    I myself use Acourate and found it a very good tool for DRC!

    But I do not think the so called DRC in Windows Vista a real DRC software!
    Reply
  • RagingDragon - Saturday, December 06, 2008 - link

    Certainly not what I expected at AT, but I enjoyed the article, and I'm OK with AT expanding it's range of covered topics (i.e. audio, digital photography, and home theatre).

    The DRC software is certainly interesting, though not really relevant to my setup (headphones). Based on manufacturer specs the TDA1543 isn't very impressive; however, the Wolfson WM8741 looks much more promising. The article's conclusions suggest the WM8741 has a wider dynamic range, flatter frequency response, and is more accurate/precise. Which is exactly what I would expect from the DAC spec sheets. I'd like to see these external DAC's compared to some high quality PC sound cards - like the Asus Xonar series, or even the M-audio revolution/stereophile cards (though if I recall correctly the DAC's in these and equivent cards from Terratec are inferior to the Xonar DAC's).

    I was looking at prebuilt external DAC's a couple months ago, and was extremely disappointed in what I found. Despite high prices most of them used cheap DAC chips which would have a hard time beating integrated audio, let alone a discreet sound card with high quality DAC's. The author's Twisted Pear Opus kit has a better DAC (WM8741) than *any* of the prebuilt external DAC's I looked at, and units equalling the Doede Douma kit (TDA1543) were ludicrously expensive.

    I'm not conviced that external DAC's and amps sound better than high quality PCI cards - and even if they do, I still don't want the extra clutter.

    Since I'm living in an appartment I use headphones rather than speakers to avoid annoying the neighbours, so the upcoming Asus Xonar Essence seems perfectly suited to my needs: stereo only (I'm using stereo headphones so surround sound is irrelevant), an extremely high quality DAC (Burr-Brown 1792A), built in head phone amplifier, swappable opamps, and "professional audio capacitors" (probably snake oil, but they won't make the sound worse).
    Reply
  • prd00 - Friday, December 05, 2008 - link

    I'd pick Onkyo USB sound card up anytime compared to those stupid creative cards. I've tried all sound cards, but right now, I've ended with onkyo. Reply
  • htgts350monaro - Wednesday, December 03, 2008 - link

    Thank you Rajinder for this, and what looks like will be, a great series of articles.

    Please be aware that despite all those who profess this to be an inappropriate article for this site that I, and I think many others, feel they are incorrect.

    Being an amateur audiophile and computer enthusiast myself this is a great mix of both my interests. I have been wondering for a while whether it would be possible to combine these interests and simplify my current combination of source components for my home theater system which I also use for critical 2 channel listening. (not ideal I know but limited space and budget regretfully denies a separate 2 channel system for me unfortunately)

    It looks like you may be on the path to solving my problem - please keep going with this. One thing I have gained from this article at least is a new interest in DRC software...

    For all thos who say that all audiophile claims are 'snake oil' I ask this - have you actually gone into a high end hifi store and LISTENED to any of the products available and done your own comparisons? Have you ever compared different DAC's/OP-AMP's in the same circuit and system with components of a high enough quality/resolution to expose those differences YOURSELF? I have and the differences can be VERY obvious, to the point that double blind listening is not needed - you would not need to double blind test two LCD's if one had half the contrast range of the other - you would be able to detect it quite easily and this can be true of audio components no matter how many tests say that the components measure the same frequency response/ dynamic range/ s/n ratio etc.

    But please go out and try it for yourself BEFORE you claim it is all bogus. (and no - not being able to hear a difference between components on your $300 minisystem or $50 PC speakers does not count!)
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now