Simplicity wins. Cannot be overstated - complexity introduces so many more variables; all the extra goodies you think you may get by adding even more thingamajigs to the setup may occur, but also a lot of the 'life' may be sucked out of what is possible - something to always keep in mind.

As an example, from another forum,

Quote

I’m getting such amazing impact, bandwidth, power and deep bass by going direct from my MKII to BHK300, my system has never had such authority. Even at very low playback levels, the lower registers are fuller with more grunt, more explosive and have a firmer grip than ever before.

This is a clear marker of achieving greater accuracy, what one should work towards ...

Have said these many times, but bears repeating: an excellent audio system doesn't make recordings sound fabulous because it's editorialising what's on the source; rather, it's getting even closer to the raw sound of what was captured, with none of the equipment of the reproduction chain getting in the way - the word here is, accuracy. With that in mind, consider this just posted,

There is no reason that, say, a speaker based setup can't replicate delivering that sort of subjective impact; all you have to do is make the rig work well enough. IME, it's just a matter of evolving what you have to the necessary level of competence - which then allows one to subjectively access the true contents of the recordings you have available to listen to ...

Good sound has been around for a loooong time ... the unfortunate thing is that people have constantly made the mistake of thinking that the 'magic' is the result of "special equipment!" - no, It's the Recording, Silly! The specialness is in the source waveform, always; it just needs a playback system to work well enough to 'release' that quality, that is always on tap - if the replay is good enough ...

I was prompted by a posted experience of an "ancient" piece of gear, part of which was,

Quote

What I heard was the huge Klipsch Corner Horn known as just the KHorn today. You know that feeling of hearing live music around the corner and you know it is a live band even though you can’t see them… yep, it was that kind of moment! The door opened, the other customer left and I sat down in the chair. The sound was immediate, lacked any sense of horn honk, was laid back and seemingly erased all distortion and did it all (80dB) effortlessly, presenting a huge (too huge in this silly demo room) soundstage

Yes. That is what's on the recording! ... So, why doesn't it (that type of experience) occur all the time? Well, It's the Playback Chain, Silly! Most gear just simply has far too many compromises, and weaknesses, and limits what's possible, to experience - there's no mystery about how to get real world accuracy: you just have to accept that a below par setup will always fail to deliver; and that the only solution is to do what it takes to get there: either acquire gear that's capable, out of the box, or evolve what you own currently to the necessary standard ...

Rather nifty paragraph from a post on another forum, where the discussion was about, in part, the meaning of "imaging". The member wrote that his concern was,

Quote

It is not at all about the imaging of the instruments, but about a certain tonal correctness and delicate eagerness of the reproduction chain responding to a good recording. I can almost feel it when I walk into a new room, with a new system, when that is likely to happen. Some people refer to the needle drop, I tend to hear the system just cruising but with controlled confidence, the kind of stuff you feel from someone who knows they have so much quality headroom hid under the hood that he can blow your mind and still not show effort while going at it.

Yes. A good system doesn't sound, "good!!". That means, that a low key recording is not spectacular, doesn't grab you by the short and curlies ... it just sounds like, what it was. At the time of the recording. Conversely, a recording where all the stops are pulled out overwhelms with its intensity, is a roller coaster of auditory sensations, has oodles of impact - without any unpleasantness or discomfort in the listening.

My active speakers when in a good state do this easily. Right now. Yes, the "blowing your mind" type of quality ... is it the speakers - no, It's The Recording, Silly! Accuracy to the source gets you this result, every time - why? Because that's what's embedded in the waveform - anything else is a distortion ... always ...

This post speaks for itself, with no input from me,

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/audiophile-sonic-terms-redux.36485/post-861536

Yes. This is why I'm motivated to get a better standard out there - because the 'pros' haven't got a clue. Not a single one. I have heard too much of this sort of nonsense, as described in the post, over the years ... no wonder so much modern music is so awful, when young people are only exposed to this level of SQ, from birth ...

I've meant to write this down several times, but never got around it. Until now.

I've mentioned the interesting behaviour with pure mono source many times, when replayed on a competent rig: the stage "follows you" as you move left and right, you are never aware of the sound coming from a speaker, no matter where you are ... so, why does this happen?

Consider this situation: you have a wall of speaker drivers in front of you, from left to right; a horizontal line of treble drivers, similar for midrange, and then woofers. All fed the same signal, separated for the different frequency ranges - if you walk from one side of the room to the other, the sound will always appear to come from in front of you; the slight phase shifts from those drivers not directly in line with where you are will confirm to the listening brain that the source of the sound is directly in front of you.

Now, start breaking that down: replace the uniform array of drivers, say on a very large panel, with individual speaker cabinets, conventional units, literally jammed together, side by side. And you listen, to that single channel and audio. Should get the same sensation as above, the sound pattern is virtually the same. And now you remove every second speaker - there are gaps between adjacent ones. And listen. And repeat, removing every other speaker, again ... you can see where I'm going with this ... . Yes, you finally end up with just two speakers in the room, fed the same audio. And walking from side to side, the "sound follows you" - your brain interprets what you're hearing as a soundscape always directly in front.

So, why doesn't this work for any rig? Simply put, the lack of 'transparency' of the reproduction chain means that it's too easy for the brain to localise that sound is just coming from that speaker - yes, you! - over there, . The brain refuses to be fooled, in spite of the phase shifts trying vainly to say otherwise ...

Which is why this "mono trick" is a very good way of judging playback quality ... it means that for all intents and purposes the two speakers are the equivalent of a uniform line of speakers butted up to each other, across the room ... giving you this illusion.

A video clip,

but what is relevant is what's said starting at the 21 minute point - about soundstage. Also, every time he says "amplifier", replace it with the phrase, "playback chain" - to get the message .

So, plenty of people understand what is critical - unfortunately, many audio enthusiasts, including some unfortunates on this forum , don't wish to deal with the fact that attention to detail, and understanding all the negatives that can intrude, is the key ... maybe this is just too hard, .

Naughty me ... I pinched the contents of this post from a YouTube comments thread,

Quote

Cds are worlds better than people think. They are probably even better than what I think. As I further mod my cd playback equipment, the improvements keep coming. They came in leaps and bounds earlier this month and have settled to a trickle, but still a trickle, as my ideas have trickled out for now. I have been asked "Where do you get your ideas?" I say "if I knew where I get my ideas, I'd be there right now, getting more." They come when they come. Before I embarked on this latest project, I picked out 2 cds, which I had owned both the Audiophile lp pressing and cd of, and I have a perfect tape copy of each, which I made when the lps were only played once or twice. I picked out 2 cds whose sound quality really paled in comparison to their lp pressings. They are the self titled first Boston album by the rock group of the same name, and Aqualung by Jethro Tull. On even very good cd playback equip. the cds of these albums sound like crap. A major disappointment compared to the lps. A month later and many mods later, the cds now sound better than the lps. With the Boston cd, it now almost sounds like you could be listening to the master tape, and what a master tape that must be.

 

Wow! Of course the most interesting of the two is the Boston album, with its incredible amount of detail, layering and dynamics. The cd was just so brash and harsh before. All gone! Get your distortion down enough and things can sound very pleasant. The sound is now big and open; a huge canopy that has opened up and unravels countless details and textures. The electric guitars are so pure sounding. When the lead singers voice goes way up in pitch and loud in dynamics, it still thins out just a little bit, no harshness at all. Glare and spatial limitations really hid a lot of detail on this. No more. What sounded like a distinctly under par cd pressing is now like you're listening to a master tape. Believe me, it's possible on this one. Both cds are now amazingly transparent. Before the mods, these were 2 cds which had great music, but were almost unlistenable before. Now you can't stop listening.

Yes. Welcome to my world ...

What I find somewhat amusing is that over the years I have said this sort of thing many, many times - and have been soundly lambasted, from all sides ... people don't want to hear what they don't want to hear, is of course the answer, .

Okay, so now we know that CDs are OK ... so, what are you gunna do 'bout it, punk!!

No real need to point to this post,

Except, this is something that a major portion of the audio crowd, stubbornly, resolutely, refuse to acknowledge or contemplate - that the better parts of the system became, the better everything in the chain needs to be - if the setup has greater 'resolving power', well, all the misbehaviour of less than optimal integration and implementation elsewhere will be that much more obvious. This is a rule that all fields outside of the bizarro world of audio enthusiasts are pretty much aware of - yet, audiophiles are often very intent on "missing the point" ... far more exciting to play with magic new technologies that will make "all the bad stuff go away!" and "open the doors to nirvana!" ... .

To point out how people can come from different angles, I just looked at those clips of the concert Chris posted about,

For me, that sort of experience is a big zero ... echoey, PA, stadium sound doesn't do a thing for me - live to me means that the band is 20 or 30 feet in front of me, and I'm hearing the actual output of the band's amps, etc. I was at this distance when I saw this mob, and this clip gives a pretty good sense of the impact of the presentation, visually and soundwise

Was just nudged into reiterating what I consider to be the prime goal, of an audio system, any audio system ... which is to be able to put on a recording, any recording, no matter how old, how technically lousy, how 'unprofessional' - and to be immediately drawn into the world of the music making that was captured, with no excuses needed. If I listen to a rig and the first thing I notice is some downsides to the SQ, then the system is a fail - or requires work to be lifted to a higher standard.

A good example was a live recording, post WWII, of the Magic Flute, that I posted about somewhere - this is a mess, the level of extraneous noises is OTT - but the beauty of the singing and orchestra is magic; it just works as a place to be ... if a setup keeps reminding me of the limitations of how it was recorded, then the playback chain hasn't been sufficiently optimised to make listening the pleasure that it can, should be ...

Over the years I have been accused, many times, of being off the charts as regards my ideas ... umm, no . Regularly come across somebody is on the same wavelength, and can give them a thumbs up, as regards what they say. And just came across an example, https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/why-synergy-horns.36560/post-910985

Quote

To cut a long story short, a lot of what we do in the hi-fi hobby is just expensive ways to adjust eq profiles and adding some sort of distortion.

Yes.

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

Over the years I have been accused, many times, of being off the charts as regards my ideas

I can see that. 
 

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

umm, no

You sure?

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

Regularly come across somebody is on the same wavelength

Regularly?

Well, I don't expect every 2nd, or even 10th individual to be so inclined - if I were to search diligently, and, umm, regularly, I'm pretty confident I could unearth these 'peculiar' people more often. Usually they keep a pretty low profile - they say their bit, and quickly retreat into the background; they have little taste for attracting a lynchin' mob ...

Side note: kicked off the rig just before on some classical, left there from last play. Not bad, up the volume a bit more - oh dear, have hit max setting, "I'm giving it all she's got, Captain!" - nice when a setup just does its job, with no fuss. Which is why you always need more capable gear, so that any limits just get further away ...

This thread,

 inspired me to mention again why it is so important to achieve the highest level of, yes, accuracy, clarity, transparency - all the really good, audiophile, phrases - in an audio chain.

The great myth is, that the more you do this, the worse recordings like this sound - umm, no. What does happen is that the remaining anomalies in a 'high resolution' rig intermodulate with the technical shortcomings of these sort of tracks. And they become, often, "unlistenable" ...

I have plenty of these tracks. And they do sound very unpleasant when my system is off kilter. Which is how I know it's, er, off kilter, .

The solution? No, don't try and 'fix' the recording - fix your system!! This always works, always has worked, always will work - this is a core tenet of my audio goings on. And the great benefit is that I can then listen to CDs, etc, of this type of music at any sane volume, and fully enjoy the experience .

Audio people typically keep circling what "they're after", but also, typically, are almost afraid to clarify what accuracy in recording reproduction delivers; in case it 'offends' other enthusiasts. I find this behaviour somewhat bizarre ... once you know what the goal is, just do whatever it takes to make it happen ... .

Was prompted by this post, and preceding ones,

Accuracy, automatically, delivers transients, depth, air, separation, natural, incisive, holographic, and yes, immersive  - the list of words can go on and on ... it can't be any other way, 'cause that's what's on the recording ...

People have this strange belief that somehow you have to 'manufacture' this experience ... ummm, no - you just have to get the playback correct to a certain degree; do that well enough, and all the good stuff pops out ... every time, .

16 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Accuracy, automatically, delivers transients, depth, air, separation, natural, incisive, holographic, and yes, immersive  - the list of words can go on and on ... it can't be any other way, 'cause that's what's on the recording ...

Yes, improved accuracy will deliver all of the above.

However, the discussion you linked to needs to be looked at from the context of when one is trying to do a A/B comparison. Not all of the attributes jump out to an equal extent. Parts of it can be the recording parts of it can be the playback chain. For example, depth may be harder to notice on a headphone, or on recordings that are close miked in a dead room. Then it also depends on one's listening preferences and habits. For example, I have seen reviews that focus only on tonal qualities without regard to other aspects. While accuracy should deliver all the other qualities including tonality, the opposite may not be true. 

A/B comparisons can be deceptive. As in, altering some aspect of the playback chain, or the format of the source material being fed to that chain, as your software does, will often change the 'balance' of what is heard; so that, say, depth is now subjectively emphasized. On some recording. So, accuracy may have been overall improved, or, rather merely the mix of distortion artifacts has been "rearranged", to bring some aspect forward at the expense of others. To counter that loss of perspective, a range of recording styles should be on hand, to be run against the latest system update - is everything "now better"; or are some tracks further down on the ledger, while others have gained some ground? IME, the latter situation is not a win ...

What I look for is a sense of 'rightness' - so much playback I've heard over the years suffers from too much 'wrongness' in the overall sound ... and what is the latter? A very telling guide is having someone who has zero interest in the audiophile universe listen for a bit - if they start making excuses about having to do something else or it's clear they are losing interest, getting fidgety, then you have the answer.

I mentioned in another thread how some audio enthusiasts listen for the 'wrong things' when experiencing live music. And stirred up a slight ruckus, .

So, just came across a perfect example of the sort of writing that prompted that observation, ,

Quote

I can tell you, what’s even worse on a normal seat back in the 10th row or so, is still much worse there. The sound still was similar to an underamped Maggie (which I adore in the right environment) in a room full of carpets and wall curtains. No attack/decay as you’re used to from recordings, no fine dynamics of this kind, rolled off top and low end of the frequency spectrum…palpable, enveloping, focused, holographic sound of instruments or singers doesn’t exist live. A big dynamic range is definitely there, but no comparable dynamically perceived orchestral playing within that range (singing yes).

'Nuff said ...

Just happened to chance on this, https://www.stereophile.com/content/if-either-these-amplifiers-right

... in which it says,

Quote

Our reviewers praised both the Cary's and the Cambridge's sound qualities, but when it comes to these amplifiers' measured performances, things could not be more different.

and

Quote

These models represent polar opposites in amplifier design, but they can't both be right. Only one can be telling the truth—the other must be lying.

No. They are both 'right', if they allow the listener to connect to the music - "massive" differences in measured performance mean nothing if they both lack other, not measured anomalies which disturb the ability to "hear the music". An audio chain is a tool to access the archive of recorded music with the best possible subjective accuracy - the measured technical prowess, its cost, its bling, count for very little if it can't do this key thing right.

Many people want to believe that the magic is in the machinery used to transform the source into moving air in your room ... well, no. The magic is always in the contents of the recording, and never in the means used to extract that which is in the track. Which is why highly tweaked, low cost gear can deliver magic , and also excellent value for money, simple, highly integrated rigs.

In the bizarro world of some audiophiles, only 'extreme' machinery can do this. Which is a nonsense ... all a chain has to do is not get in the way of being accurate enough, in key areas. The interesting thing is, that people who don't think that these various bizarro attitudes towards hifi are the full story, are often derided, given a hard time, ignored, etc ... but isn't that the way that mankind has always operated ... .

Don't wish to raise the temperature unnecessarily, so will just say, here, that Atmos certainly makes life more interesting - the biggest problem, for many like me, is that only gimmicky and OTT versions of playback of this are available to check out ... until this changes, say by Dolby in Australia setting up a listening room where 'quality' replay is the aim of the game, then the format will struggle to be accepted by those willing to pay beyond the average consumer for 'best sound' - the say so by others is not going to be good enough. Considering the cost will likely be well over twice that for stereo, for comparable quality of gear, this exacerbates the situation even more.

Unfortunately, the enthusiasm for a "new way" causes many to disparage the "old way" - since nearly all examples of what was used up to now are below par, this is easy to do. But unnecessary. Those who are happy to keep with the tried and true 'ways' can rest assured that a top notch version of such pushes all the buttons for listening satisfaction - the fact that it's hard to achieve, even now, is merely a milepost on the road to accurate recording reproduction. And that's why I will keep repeating myself, ... if 'Truth' is staring you in the face, but you refuse to consider it, then, unfortunately, others will be inclined to keep nudging you towards 'confronting' it ... .

Just noticed this,

What's relevant? ... This bit,

Quote

“Engineer Frans de Rond has captured the entire setting in a way that allows you to experience the superb interplay of these seasoned musicians. This is so well recorded that turning up the volume knob significantly only seems make the music even more intense not louder”

Ummm, that's my message ... except, it goes like this,

This is so well played back that turning up the volume knob significantly only seems make the music even more intense, not louder.

That's how it works ... so, how do you know when a rig is really working well? Well, the above "rule" always kicks in, on any music you care to put on, .

On 11/7/2023 at 11:36 PM, fas42 said:

The magic is always in the contents of the recording, and never in the means used to extract that which is in the track.

You nailed fas42.

Elba's not that bad, really, ... the pack doesn't like it when not everyone is running in sync with them, so, just leave them be ... .

Chris made an observation, here,

being,

Quote

For example, in the demos I've heard, a two channel saxophone recording from the 1950s was played. The sound appeared to come from all over the room. It was REALLY COOL!

Guess what? That's what 'convincing' replay also does! Of course, it's not actually "all over the room"; but because the instrument is not 'stuck' in a speaker it projects throughout the space just like a real instrument, and with decent volume it "pressurises" the room; the echo makes sure the whole volume you're in is alive with sound - which, yes, is a very magic experience!

Cross cancellation appears to be Yet Another Method to make it easier for the ear/brain to accept an illusion - it has a place just like all the other techniques that have been, are being, developed.

What the producers intended, to me is pretty irrelevant - they used the technology they were comfortable, familiar with, to capture some musical event - if someone is keen to get precisely that take on it, I have no problem with that; but personally the buzz is the emotional roller coaster ride that being in the envelope of sound gives one. A system reproduction mechanism which is all about certain sounds coming from exactly that speaker, or precisely a certain point between two speakers, is too 'mechanical' for me to appreciate; the gestalt of the experience is what I'm after - and unfortunately if what is producing the sounds is too obvious, then the gestalt never materialises ...

A good example of "slipping into the zone" ...

What's happening ... ? By a combination of effort and luck, the level of annoying distortion artifacts has been reduced below a critical level - and the ear/brain can 'relax'. And just go with the music ...

How do you make this fall into place? That, boys and girls, is the $64,000 question ... and there ain't any "snap your fingers!!" answers. Yet. Perseverance is the most important requirement ... first of all, you can safely assume that such a presentation is possible, and then, keep trying things until "the door opens".