ARCHIVED FORUM -- March 2012 to February 2022READ ONLY FORUM
This is the second Archived Forum which was active between 1st March 2012 and 23rd February 2022
New: Beovision Harmony, Beolab 50's, Beolab 28's, Beolab 18's, Beolab 17's, Beosound Stage & LG, Beosound 2, Beoplay M3, Beoplay A1, Beoplay Portal, Beoplay H4 gen 2, Beoplay E8 3.0
Mikipedia on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/Mikipedia
Mikipedi4 on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mikipedi4
Mikipedia on Intagram: https://www.instagram.com/mikipedi4/
Old: Beosound 9000 mk3, Beolab 3's, Beovision Eclipse, Beolab 1's, Beolab 2, Beovision 10-46, Overture 2300, beolab 8000's, Beolab 4000's, Beovision avant 32" etc. etc.
If someone wants ‘analog sound’, he should go to a venue, where music is played without amplification and processing.
If someone wants to listen to vinyl, he should do do so.....if he likes the sound and the handling of vinyl.
I guess listening on a set of the 50’es won’t diminish that experience for anyone.
MM
There is a tv - and there is a BV
BEOVOX141: Mikipidia:The 50’s have one dsp(chip) for both speakers in the master speaker Based on the information in the technical sound guide, I find this very hard to believe. Do you have anything that could support the claim?
Mikipidia:The 50’s have one dsp(chip) for both speakers in the master speaker
Based on the information in the technical sound guide, I find this very hard to believe.
Do you have anything that could support the claim?
Well, one is called master and the other slave.
Dom
2x BeoSystem 3, BeoSystem 5000, BeoSystem 6500, 2x BeoMaster 7000, 2 pair of BeoLab Penta mk2, AV 7000, Beolab 4000, BeoSound 4000, Playmaker, BeoLab 2500, S-45, S-45.2, RL-140, CX-50, C-75, 3x CX-100, 3x MCL2 link rooms, 3x Beolab 2000, M3, P2, Earset, A8 earphones, A3, 2x 4001 relay, H3, H3 ANC, H6, 2014 Audi S5 with B&O sound, and ambio
@ Miki
For starters.... From the white paper:
10.2.3
Digital Signal Processor Model Analog Devices ADSP-21489
Number 2 (my guess: two per speaker one for the room correction and one for the x-overs)
Instruction Rate 400 MHz Sampling rate 192 kHz (fixed)
Notes 32-bit floating point
I dont see anything in the whitepaper supporting you claim, actuality I see a lot contradicting it, but since you own a pair and I dont you could be right.
I would just like to see some hard evidence showing the slave does not have a DSP.
Have you read the whitepaper ?
Millemissen:Well, one is called master and the other slave.
Exactly how does that constitute evidence for the slave being passive and without a DSP?
Sound is a physical phenomena - it is, by it's very nature, anarogue! There is no such thing as a digital speaker, the transducers are mechanical and analogue.
A speaker accepting a digital input should not cloud how good an actual speaker is - it is, in effect, moving the conversion from the CD player to the actual speaker cabinet - not the speaker itself!
If you want speakers with digital inputs then go for it!
Ban boring signatures!
Mikipidia:but never seen a second dsp in the slave.
To clarify the question of listening to re-issues. These are NOT digitised version of the originals releases. In my posts you will see I named all the studios that re-issue from ORIGINAL master tapes and create ANALOGUE vinyls. These releases are considered equal and with the new SRX vinyl material being used to again produce ANALOGUE vinyl from ANALOGUE masters the noise floor is lowered.
https://www.musicmattersjazz.com/the-sound-s/45.htm - Have a read for the doubters out there
http://www.bluenote.com/blue-note-presents-the-tone-poet-audiophile-vinyl-reissue-series/
https://www.mofi.com/default.asp
As much as I would love the originals issues they costs$100's - $1000s and theres no guarantee of the condition of the vinyls.
Vinyl on the 50s won't of course keep the analogue sound but thats fine for now, For a pure analogue sound i'll eventually be buying additional passive bookshelf's and a NAIM atom unit or PS AUDIO sprout 100 phono stage or the newly released NAD M10. All of these are small forms amps with built in phono stages and speaker plugs for passive speakers.
Beovision Eclipse 55 Brass Edition with Oak covers and Brass Orbital stand
Beolab 50s silver & Oak, Beolab 18 Brass with Smoked Oak, Beolab 18 Rose Gold with Maple Covers, Beolab 19 Black.
I think you're worrying about stuff that is irrelevant!
How do these wonderful ANALOG record companies drive the cutting lathes that make the LP master? High probability they are using a digitized cutting master, as that's how it's done these days. But, ignorance is bliss as they say. I can make you a great deal on a CRT based B&W TV set and some buggy whips, totally analog!
Jeff
I'm afraid I'm recovering from the BeoVirus.
Puncher:Sound is a physical phenomena - it is, by it's very nature, anarogue!
Nobody is a arguing against that.
But there is a huge difference in how you can handle a speaker with a digital system vs an analog. Some of differences will manifest itself in audible differences. Miki has very accurately described a few without knowing it. The main difference is the digital systems ability to "know" the future, and thus be able to compensate "ahead" of time, which in part is why you get the tiny 25u or 100us delay in the 50 or the 90. The analog system reacts instantaneously based on laws of physics where as the digital system can create laws of physics on its own!
That is why the sound to you will be somewhat different from what used to hear. The 50 or 90 are without a doubt reproducing the sound information sound more, but if the sound was mixed using non digital speakers, there is a dilemma What is the real thing?
The original request was to experience the analog sound, and I am sorry to say, unless you can disable all the DSP transformations, and ensure the X-overs are implemented as analog filters, the sound will not be that of an analog system.
It might be perceived as being better and it is for sure more true to the electrical input signal, but it will no longer have some of the specific artifacts that makes up the analog sound.
Simply stating some facts and in no way saying what the better sound is!
Speakers are different - analogue or digital is irrelevant.
Jeff:How do these wonderful ANALOG record companies drive the cutting lathes that make the LP master
I dont know how its done today, but they used to be all mechanical supported by basic analog feedback loops in the electronics, just like any piece of CNC equipment is today. They will without a doubt be controlled digitally though...
Use the "ignorance is bliss" gently, it cuts both ways!
Carry on, Im out
BEOVOX141: Jeff:How do these wonderful ANALOG record companies drive the cutting lathes that make the LP masterI dont know how its done today, but they used to be all mechanical supported by basic analog feedback loops in the electronics, just like any piece of CNC equipment is today. They will without a doubt be controlled digitally though... Use the "ignorance is bliss" gently, it cuts both ways!
But still the master was digitalized. So the reissued vinyl has somehow a digitalized origin. So this point/discussion has no meaning what so ever!
Carolpa: BEOVOX141: Jeff:How do these wonderful ANALOG record companies drive the cutting lathes that make the LP masterI dont know how its done today, but they used to be all mechanical supported by basic analog feedback loops in the electronics, just like any piece of CNC equipment is today. They will without a doubt be controlled digitally though... Use the "ignorance is bliss" gently, it cuts both ways! But still the master was digitalized. So the reissued vinyl has somehow a digitalized origin. So this point/discussion has no meaning what so ever!
Words and terms are flying left and right...
This is what i consider the Master! (Jeff : "cutting lathe") How does "digitalized" apply here?
Agree
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvswW6M7bMo&t=2s
BEOVOX141: Carolpa: BEOVOX141: Jeff:How do these wonderful ANALOG record companies drive the cutting lathes that make the LP masterI dont know how its done today, but they used to be all mechanical supported by basic analog feedback loops in the electronics, just like any piece of CNC equipment is today. They will without a doubt be controlled digitally though... Use the "ignorance is bliss" gently, it cuts both ways!But still the master was digitalized. So the reissued vinyl has somehow a digitalized origin. So this point/discussion has no meaning what so ever! Words and terms are flying left and right... This is what i consider the Master! (Jeff : "cutting lathe") How does "digitalized" apply here?
Carolpa: BEOVOX141: Jeff:How do these wonderful ANALOG record companies drive the cutting lathes that make the LP masterI dont know how its done today, but they used to be all mechanical supported by basic analog feedback loops in the electronics, just like any piece of CNC equipment is today. They will without a doubt be controlled digitally though... Use the "ignorance is bliss" gently, it cuts both ways!But still the master was digitalized. So the reissued vinyl has somehow a digitalized origin. So this point/discussion has no meaning what so ever!
In my opinion this is the MASTER, the tape from which te vinyl-negative is cut.
OR the file containing the digitalised (and processed) info of this MASTER tape
For sure Some vinyl produced in the last 20 years have been pressed from digital sources. However A few niche record labels like the ones I posted are re-issuing vinyl sourced from analogue master tapes. These companies pride themselves on pure analogue releases and are marketing their records based on having no digitisation throughout the process.
https://www.musicmattersjazz.com/the-sound-s/45.htm
I just realised the solutions to my problem may potentially lie with older speakers assuming they are not digital speakers.
Would a set of Beolab 3s work as analogue speakers? Ie are these analogue ?
The original master tape is not the thing used to drive the final LP master cut. First it has to be tailored to the LP format, which means introducing RIAA equalization, summing the bass to mono below a certain frequency, etc. Some LP producers started doing that in the digital domain quite a while ago from what I have been told in order to apply the RIAA and other changes more accurately. But I freely admit I am not up on all the current incarnations of this particularly obsolescent technology.
If the OP wants a pure analog system, more power to him, even if I disagree that it will sound as good as a set of 5's or 50's or 90's, and that he may be shocked to find out that his pure analog sound chain has some digitization in it somewhere. It's like a story I read about a person who was convinced AC power was the devil incarnate, and had built a whole system using modified high end car amplifiers and such run off of batteries. He was showing the hifi writer this system and railing against AC, when the writer asked him, how do you charge the batteries. Which the guy had never considered, he was using AC wall power to charge the batteries!
But, as I say, if the OP wants to indulge a particular philosophical approach to audio, I can grok that. I happen to have a setup in my workroom using a single ended 6L6GC based tube amp, a whopping stomping 7.5 w/ch, driving a pair of single full range driver speakers I built using these old but fascinating Sansui drivers. To me it's like technological archeology, it's fun, and I like having at least one tube amp around. Doesn't sound as good as my half rack width Parasound preamp and 40 watt solid state amp driving a pair of Beovox P30s, but it brings a smile to my face nonetheless. And I also have a Karlsson speaker cabinet I'm building a mono tube amp for.
Back to the OP, all the older speakers up to and including the Beolab 9 are pure analog. If you want full range performance I can recommend the 9's, great performance and sound, analog crossovers and only a Class D amp for the bass, the mid and tweeter amps are more conventional. Same for the 3's, analog.
But is Class D analogue or Digital!?
Forget about it all and just buy the best speakers your budget can stand - ultimately you'll be happier than having to explain to all your friends that you could've had better but you sacrificed it all for an all analogue chain to play what you hope are all analogue recordings!
Puncher: But is Class D analogue or Digital!? Forget about it all and just buy the best speakers your budget can stand - ultimately you'll be happier than having to explain to all your friends that you could've had better but you sacrificed it all for an all analogue chain to play what you hope are all analogue recordings!
I agree, the whole threads topic and such is kind of what I think of as anti-B&O, as in traditionally B&O has eschewed obsession over just how the music gets to your ears, it's there to let you kind of ignore the how and enjoy the what, that is good sounding music that's easy to access.
But audio nervosa takes many forms, and considering I have a weird single ended tube/full range single driver speaker setup, albeit a cheap one, just because, leaves me not too much room to talk. But I do anyway.
Thanks to all that inputted into this discussion, its certainly kicked up a debate.
An interesting and highly flammable discussion for sure.
I am slightly disappointed in the fact that no one seems to know for sure exactly how the 50s work, which I entirely attribute to the lack of accurate documentation. Today it seems like all the technical details from B&O are hearsay at best, from someone who listened to someone who listened to the grapevine, etc... and thus very difficult to assess.
Has B&O ever been that forthcoming about what's under the hood? Granted it was simpler in the past, but still, their entire philosophy used to be, don't worry about the tech, listen to the music, ease of use, and style.
As for the original poster, I'd say either just hook the table to the speakers and enjoy it as is, it will sound marvelous I'm sure. Or, if you philosophically want a completely analog setup (ignoring the fact that digital may have snuck into the woodpile somewhere along the recording chain), you might seriously consider going truly backwards in tech. A table, hooked to a tube amp/preamp, and simple passive speakers. If you go farther and go with single ended tube amps and full range single driver speakers, it will be as pure a setup as you can get, in a philosophical/ideological sense. Will never sound as good, but they can be magical in their own way and fun to play with and own. As I said I have such a system myself and despite its limitations it always makes me smile. For serious listening though I always revert back to my BL9s and digital sources.
But it is fun to have both!
BEOVOX141: An interesting and highly flammable discussion for sure. I am slightly disappointed in the fact that no one seems to know for sure exactly how the 50s work, which I entirely attribute to the lack of accurate documentation. Today it seems like all the technical details from B&O are hearsay at best, from someone who listened to someone who listened to the grapevine, etc... and thus very difficult to assess.
What more ‘documentation’ do you need than what is in the white paper/BeoLab 50
https://www.bang-olufsen.com/~/mediaV3/home/speakers/BeoLab-50/bang-olufsen-beolab50-whitepaper-v5.pdf
....and why?
Epsilon20: I know this solution defeats part of the purpose of playing pure vinyl but I’d feel better as the analogue to digital converter in the 50s isnt audiophile grade in my opinion and can’t compete with standalone units.
Hi everyone,
There are MANY incorrect assumptions, errors, and mis-understandings throughout this thread. I'll try to address them one at a time, in chronological order...
This is the one that caught my eye first.
The BL50 does not have a DAC. It has many. There is one DAC channel per loudspeaker driver in each loudspeaker - plus two more for calibration. Since each BL50 has 7 drivers (3 woofers, 3 midrange, and 1 tweeter) + 2 calibration DAC channels = 9 DAC channels. The DAC's themselves are 2-channel devices, so this is why 5 of them are used (because 5 x 2 > 9).
Whether or not they are "audiophile grade" raises and argument / discussion about what, exactly, "audiophile grade" means. Since this would involve a discussion of issues such as (but not exclusive to):
However, I will say that, in any system (a loudspeaker, a chain, a bicycle, a car, a spaceship, a chair, a pair of pants... anything) it makes little-to-no sense to have one component that is significantly better or worse than any other component in the system. This is one of the nice things about developing a fully active loudspeaker... We can ensure that no single part is much better (therefore raising the cost without benefit) or much worse (therefore reducing some aspect of the overall quality/performance of the entire system). The DAC's in the BL90 & 50 were carefully chosen with the rest of the system in mind, and also knowing that they would be limited in the demands placed on them by the input signal (with its fixed sampling rate, fixed bit depth, and fixed format).
For example, you cannot compare a diesel engine that is designed to go in a truck to one that goes in a backup generator for a hospital. The demands on the two are very different. The truck engine will be started and stopped every day, it will have to run at different RPM's, with different loads, and will be shaken and jostled. The generator engine is designed to run at 1 speed (the optimal one for the electric generator to which it's connected), it is rarely started and stopped, and it will never move. There's no point in comparing those two engines, even if they're the same brand, same number of cylinders, same amount of horsepower (at some RPM), same amount of torque (at some other RPM), etc...
cheers-geoff
Epsilon20:I agree that CDs, SACDs and certainly uncompressed digital sound is superior to Vinyl. With Vinyl its a lottery of what you will get in terms of sound quality especially when buying older records.
At the risk of appearing to imply that you said something that you didn't... (see the wrap-up in italics below...)
One thing to be careful of here is to not conflate the content with the package it's in. If you're going to compare one distribution format to another (e.g. vinyl to CD to SACD) then you have to make sure that the content is exactly the same. There are very few options to do this, since the mastering done for vinyl is typically different from a digital distribution...
If you DO want to make this comparison, then one option is to try a recording from https://stockfisch-records.de. The last time I checked, they:
So, in these four cases, you have the same master (the metal master made for the vinyl release). You can then, with a reasonable amount of confidence, compare the 4 to find out if you hear a difference.
THEN: if you DO hear a difference, it may not be because of "digital" vs. "analogue." It might be due to the specific specifications of, say, the DAC on your CD player, or the sampling rate converter in your streaming device... Or it might just be because one of them was played 1 dB louder than the others... You have to be very careful when making such comparisons, (1) to be fair, and (2) to not jump to conclusions about the source of the difference...
Note that I know that you didn't say that "vinyl is better/worse than digital" - you and I are making the same point - that the recording is the determining factor in "how things sound"... unless something else in the chain is much worse (whatever "worse" means).
Cheers-geoff
AdamS: I have a turntable plugged into my Beolab 90s via a phono preamp and preamplifier (not a cheap one, either!). I also worried that it was pointless due to the digitisation of the signal. I needn't have worried - it sounds stunning and blows all the other sources into the weeds!
I have a turntable plugged into my Beolab 90s via a phono preamp and preamplifier (not a cheap one, either!). I also worried that it was pointless due to the digitisation of the signal.
I needn't have worried - it sounds stunning and blows all the other sources into the weeds!
Hi,
As someone else pointed out - if BL90's and 50's weren't digitising the signal, they wouldn't work...
But glad to hear that your worries were unfounded... or at least dispelled. :-)
BEOVOX141: @ DMacri DMacri:and there would be no influence from another signal to contend with - no cross-talk from the alternate signal channel 120dB is considered threshold of pain for sound.....
@ DMacri
DMacri:and there would be no influence from another signal to contend with - no cross-talk from the alternate signal channel
120dB is considered threshold of pain for sound.....
120 dB SPL is the typical number listed as the threshold of pain.
but that SPL is important. 120 dB SPL means 120 decibels louder than the quietest sound you can hear when the signal is a sine wave at 1 kHz which is another way of saying 1,000,000 times louder than the quietest sound you can hear when the signal is a sine wave at 1 kHz
120 dB means 1,000,000 times louder than...
-120 dB means 0.000,001 times louder than (which is the same as saying 1,000,000 time quieter than...)
The specification shown in the plot above tells us that if you feed an analogue signal into one input channel of the PCM4220 at one frequency (therefore, it's a sine wave) and feed nothing into the other input channel, and you measure the difference in level between the two channels of its digital output, that difference will be a factor of 1,000,000 at 70 kHz, when the ADC is running at a sampling rate of 192 kHz. (in other words, the left channel's input signal will "bleed" out of the right channel output, 1,000,000 times quieter than the output of the left channel.)
This says nothing about the actual level - just about the difference in level.
If we want to make and example that converts this to the implications in the real world:
Note that, for the above example, I'm assuming that the crosstalk of the ADC is about -140 dB at 1 kHz - which is a guess, since it's hard to read on that plot...
The reason I want through all this is mostly not because of what you wrote, but because one of my "hobby horses" is when people say something like "80 dB" when they mean "80 dB SPL".
"dB" is a relative unit (actually a factor) whereas "dB SPL" (and "dB FS" and "dBV" and "dBu" and others) are absolute units (because the "SPL", "FS", "V", and "u" indicate an absolute value to which the written value is relative).
Note as well that the typical crosstalk of a good phono stylus is about -30 to -40 dB. So, if you have something on the vinyl record that is ONLY in the left channel (assuming that this is possible) and you play it with a very good cartridge (I looked at the spec's for this one as an example) then there will be a "copycat" signal on the right output of your stylus that is 0.0316 times the level of the left channel (= -30 dB). In this case, one could certainly argue that a 140 dB channel separation on an ADC that's downstream is overkill... :-)
Mikipidia:The 50’s have one dsp(chip) for both speakers in the master speaker. So the master does all the computation, processing and room comp and then sends the finished signal of to the slave speaker. The 90’s have a dsp chip in both speakers and each one does it’s own calculation and dsp stuff. I meant to say that it’s passive in a computational sense, not in the old fashioned sense.
The 90’s have a dsp chip in both speakers and each one does it’s own calculation and dsp stuff.
I meant to say that it’s passive in a computational sense, not in the old fashioned sense.
This is not correct.
In a normal operating mode (meaning, that the speaker is not running its room compensation measurements, for example... You're just sitting and listening to music...):
From there, each loudspeaker's DSP does its own signal processing, which includes (but is not exclusive to) (and in no particular order):
Each DSP then outputs one audio channel per driver (7 for the BL50, 18 for the BL90).
This "helicopter view" description is true of the BeoLab 90's and of the BeoLab 50's. There is no difference between the two loudspeaker models within the limitations of what I've described here.
One important thing to note here is the difference between WiSA/WPL and the other inputs. The ARC (Adaptive Room Compensation) algorithm in the BL50/90's uses both audio channels to create a single output channel for each loudspeaker's room compensation signal. In other words, the left loudspeaker is compensating for both the left and the right loudspeakers' interaction with the room. (Ditto for the right loudspeaker.) However, this is only possible if each loudspeaker gets both audio channels at its input - which is true for analogue and wired digital connections, but not for WiSA/WPL (see point #3 above). If you are using a WiSA/WPL connection, then a portion of the room compensation is not working, since each loudspeaker only receives one audio input channel.
So, for example, I have seen some "reviews" or comparisons done by people online where the 50's or 90's are connected to an audio source via the wireless connection. This means that the ARC algorithm is not doing everything it can - and so the comparison may not be completely fair (assuming that the intention is to do a best-case-to-best-case A/B comparison). Whether or not this will affect the conclusions of the comparison is impossible to predict, since a 1 or 2 dB difference in listening level, or a change in loudspeaker and/or relative listening position will also influence the perceived sound.
Geoff Martin:Note as well that the typical crosstalk of a good phono stylus is about -30 to -40 dB. So, if you have something on the vinyl record that is ONLY in the left channel (assuming that this is possible) and you play it with a very good cartridge (I looked at the spec's for this one as an example) then there will be a "copycat" signal on the right output of your stylus that is 0.0316 times the level of the left channel (= -30 dB). In this case, one could certainly argue that a 140 dB channel separation on an ADC that's downstream is overkill... :-)
Yes but this is authentic analogue crosstalk!
BEOVOX141: But there is a huge difference in how you can handle a speaker with a digital system vs an analog. Some of differences will manifest itself in audible differences. Miki has very accurately described a few without knowing it. The main difference is the digital systems ability to "know" the future, and thus be able to compensate "ahead" of time, which in part is why you get the tiny 25u or 100us delay in the 50 or the 90. The analog system reacts instantaneously based on laws of physics where as the digital system can create laws of physics on its own!
Now I'm getting pedantic... however, here goes...
The latency (delay) of both the BL50 and the 90 will either be 25 ms or 100 ms, depending on the settings in the menus. (Note that this is milliseonds, not microseconds.)
The reason for this is not for the loudspeakers to know the future. (although that statement is only mostly true.... ) The (main) reason is that the directivity control is done using FIR filters that require a significant amount of time in order to alter the phase of low-frequency signals sent to the woofers. The lower the frequency you want to control the phase of, the longer the FIR filter has to be. This is also why the 25 ms latency mode does not have the same ability to maintain a narrow beam width at lower frequencies...
(Note that the FIR filters are not "linear phase" filters - just before anyone jumps to conclusions. A linear phase filter is an FIR filter, but an FIR filter is not necessarily linear phase.)
Hi Geoff,
Thanks for dropping some knowledge on us, I stand corrected in my assumption.
May I ask though, why does the product page on the website list lab 50's as having 1 dsp and the lab 90's as having two of them? And what's the difference there?
Also in both whitepapers the dsp' are listed as the same in both speakers at the same frequency but when you look up the part nr the ones in the 90's run at 450Mhz vs 400Mhz in the 50's, is this a copy paste thing or are they the same?
Thank you in advance!
Michael/Mikipedia
(Iam not sure if my last comment went to moderation or not)
Thank you for dropping some knowledge on us, I stand corrected
A question I have though is, why on the product page are the 50's listed as having one dsp and the 90's listed as having two? And if there is something to that, what's the difference there? Also if you look at both white papers they both list speakers as having the same dsp's at the same frequency, but if you look up the part numbers the 90's should run at 450Mhz and the 50's at 400Mhz. Is that a copy paste thing or is this accurate? Just wondering how they technically differ and why and such.
One last thing...
To answer the question posed in the topic of this thread:
yes.