To continue from the previous, if the music that was recorded is good, then a capable playback will show that, in spades. If the technical issues of the recording overwhelm the "good bits", and make it unpleasant to listen to, then the playback is not, "good enough".

The fact that most people don't grok that is the reason I keep posting as I do - it's perseverance that gets people to the top of Everest, break some speed barrier, etc, etc, etc ...

While the stone throwing builds up to a nice crescendo, on that "other thread" ... could someone just remind me why I'm the one with the problem, who doesn't appreciate how audiophiles in general have an excellent grasp of the fundamentals ... .

"My dear"? ... this is starting to get a bit personal ...

Dramatic? Pray tell ...

The sock story is old ... I have a highly eclectic set  of such, in the vague hope that their partner returns one day, to re-commit ... perhaps, then, to be inspired by juicy cat stories to create a brood of socklets ...

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Dramatic? Pray tell ...

 

The sock story is old ... I have a highly eclectic set  of such, in the vague hope that their partner returns one day, to re-commit ... perhaps, then, to be inspired by juicy cat stories to create a brood of socklets ...

I genuinely grok the allure of your collection of mismatched socks, which carries a certain dramatic flair. It's like holding onto a diverse ensemble of characters, each with its own unique story, and the hope that someday, their long-lost partners might reappear to rekindle their connection. This notion of awaiting a joyful reunion adds an endearing layer of sentimentality to your collection.

Just noted this post,

Yes. The "snapping into focus" experience when enough issues are resolved is evident here - that's the peculiarity of digital chains, that the slightest hint of digital 'nasties' undermines "everything!" - you have to know that one can push through, to reach the 'green pastures' ... .

My system showed some negatives at the end of the day, as mentioned elsewhere ... which is a good lead into considering, "what is good sound?". And this is easily answered - it's the absence of any negatives!! If a recording which at some time absolutely nailed the listening experience, but this time is annoying you a bit, or there is an edginess to what you hear which stops you just going with it - then you haven't got, yes, "Good Sound"!!

No, it is NOT a "mood thing". Or anything else like that. Your brain is signaling, to you, that it is not happy with what's coming into your eardrums ... solutions: turn the thing off; or get sozzled; or fix the problem!! The last might be the hardest to do, but ultimately is the best approach. Because that way, long term, the chances are that you will experience "good sound" more often than not ... .

This is said often,

Yes. Perception is subjective ... but that goes for live music as well! People will hear a real musician in front of them differently, depending on where they're coming from - and if they hear a recording of that musician, it should evoke the same reactions ... I call that, accuracy!

If people are convinced that every rig is going to twist the sound into some special version of what is actually on the recording, then their chances of achieving 'transparent' playback are rather low ... in fact, if they happen to come across some setup that projects a good replica, it is quite possible that they will reject it, because it "lacks personality!" . Well, the best replay chain is a perfect chameleon, taking on the character, completely, of the recording - the equipment then is completely uninteresting, because the special qualities of what's on the particular recording are the only things you're aware of.

50 minutes ago, fas42 said:

This is said often,

 

Yes. Perception is subjective ... but that goes for live music as well! People will hear a real musician in front of them differently, depending on where they're coming from - and if they hear a recording of that musician, it should evoke the same reactions ... I call that, accuracy!

 

If people are convinced that every rig is going to twist the sound into some special version of what is actually on the recording, then their chances of achieving 'transparent' playback are rather low ... in fact, if they happen to come across some setup that projects a good replica, it is quite possible that they will reject it, because it "lacks personality!" . Well, the best replay chain is a perfect chameleon, taking on the character, completely, of the recording - the equipment then is completely uninteresting, because the special qualities of what's on the particular recording are the only things you're aware of.

As the original poster, let me clear up that I was attempting to digress in order to prevent the thread from devolving into drivel and vying. If you read back the person I was discussing with mentions several qualities that he seeks in his system. Is this fine to do? Perfectly fine.

However despite being a new audiophile I am also fairly aware of how real sound is perceived. It is perfect measurable, though you require some trickery in the design. You minimize intermodulation distortion in one way or another, while attempting to reproduce a voltage square wave at high frequencies (at least 40,000hz, per nyquist) in order to minimize temporal distortions in the fundamental and harmonics. This is well known throughout several DIY circles across the world but remains in one way or another dismissed by the Audio Engineering Society.

I like this article from JC Morrison (Former writer for Sound Practices and lifelong Electronic designer) that delves somewhat into this topic:

https://www.labjc.com/?p=4595

Again, I'm placing a target on my back with this. I am not an experienced electrical engineer. Though qualia and critical listening dictates this might a correct approach to understanding how circuits affect analog signals. I have seen some major circles delving deeper into this and some designers from large companies starting to take these distortions into account as well.

I fully agree with you, a good system should not be a window into the music, it should perfectly reproduce the recorded event to the extent the engineers and musicians allow. My current system can easily resolve the small changes that happen when the mastering engineer turns knobs on their table, the buzzing of tubes and transformers, and the small emotion-driven faltering in tempo in a singer's voice (DakhaBrakha, anybody?). And I think this makes music special.

That thread is yielding more good prose on what happens when a replay rig "nails it",

Quote

Seriously though, the airiness, depth, sweetness, range and transparency on good recordings is breathtaking - even after several days listening. You really get to hear into the fullness of the recordings, so that's where my attention is now, ...

Yes. Once you hear how good recordings really are, you can never go back to living with the compromised quality that most reproduction chains deliver ...

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

That thread is yielding more good prose on what happens when a replay rig "nails it",

 

 

Yes. Once you hear how good recordings really are, you can never go back to living with the compromised quality that most reproduction chains deliver ...

Not surprised that you conveniently skipped over the part of the quote ("good recordings") that doesn't fit your narrative...

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

Not surprised that you conveniently skipped over the part of the quote ("good recordings") that doesn't fit your narrative...

"Good recordings", as you would define them, are simply recordings that don't exaggerate the shortcomings of the specific  rig - as the system improves in integrity, the percentage of recordings that you possess which are now "good" keeps increasing - every setup I have ever played with has had its own, unique set of 'difficult' recordings, at any point in time - so when you approach an unknown setup you take a wide cross section of those recordings - some it will dispatch with a shrug of its shoulders, and with others it will "fall to pieces!", . The latter is "where the action is" - you need to determine what the flawed links are that cause the poor SQ, for those tracks.

Case in point: with current actives, a very ordinary Greatest Hits of Queen CD, that I only play on occasion, is pushing the buttons, right now. The sense of ease that should be there is on a knife edge - every tiny variation in what I do "makes a difference!" ... why? The mastering, the mixes, the times when these were made, all add up to the tracks, in the "everything is on board now!" moments, being borderline "not right" ... is the recording a problem? No, my replay chain, in current state, is not yet robust enough to "shrug off" these tracks ...

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

"Good recordings", as you would define them, are simply recordings that don't exaggerate the shortcomings of the specific  rig - as the system improves in integrity, the percentage of recordings that you possess which are now "good" keeps increasing - every setup I have ever played with has had its own, unique set of 'difficult' recordings, at any point in time - so when you approach an unknown setup you take a wide cross section of those recordings - some it will dispatch with a shrug of its shoulders, and with others it will "fall to pieces!", . The latter is "where the action is" - you need to determine what the flawed links are that cause the poor SQ, for those tracks.

 

Case in point: with current actives, a very ordinary Greatest Hits of Queen CD, that I only play on occasion, is pushing the buttons, right now. The sense of ease that should be there is on a knife edge - every tiny variation in what I do "makes a difference!" ... why? The mastering, the mixes, the times when these were made, all add up to the tracks, in the "everything is on board now!" moments, being borderline "not right" ... is the recording a problem? No, my replay chain, in current state, is not yet robust enough to "shrug off" these tracks ...

I don't fully disagree with you, I've heard plenty of recordings that make expensive systems fall apart.

Conversely, many of them will never sound realistic. A good example of this is King Gizzard and the Wizard Lizard's "Polygondwanaland". It's got pretty bad mixing, awful mastering, but it's fairly catchy. In the end, though, a perfect system will never make it sound realistic. I think this is the difference between a bad and a good recording: How realistic can it sound when played back?

Toto's Africa is pretty damn good when played through a resolving system. I don't think many would disagree that it is a good recording.

32 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

A perfect system IMO can only make it as realistic as the recording, if by perfect you mean revealing whats in the recording. Some bad recordings may sound more 'realistic' through systems that add lots of warmth, easier to connect to emotionally. Unless only listening to old CDs or bad recordings, I am not a fan of coloring the playback.

Exactly my point.

17 hours ago, Khronos said:

 

I don't fully disagree with you, I've heard plenty of recordings that make expensive systems fall apart.

 

Conversely, many of them will never sound realistic. A good example of this is King Gizzard and the Wizard Lizard's "Polygondwanaland". It's got pretty bad mixing, awful mastering, but it's fairly catchy. In the end, though, a perfect system will never make it sound realistic. I think this is the difference between a bad and a good recording: How realistic can it sound when played back?

Don't have that one - the YouTube version shows plenty of qualities that can be used to assess a system.

Realism is not the point - accuracy, is. If a recording if full of effects, and has been engineered to be OTT in terms of a presentation, that's what you should hear. Led Zep is chockers of such - and they sound, 'massive'; no band live will sound like that, but that's the appeal of those early albums - they are showpieces, of the highest order. Alternatively, a recording may simply capture what a bunch of musicians being on a stage sounds like - to me, there is no good or bad about either ...

17 hours ago, Khronos said:

Toto's Africa is pretty damn good when played through a resolving system. I don't think many would disagree that it is a good recording.

 

Interestingly, before the Queen CD I played the debut album of Toto; which gave signs that my system wasn't quite firing - hence, went to Queen to get a better idea.

16 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

A perfect system IMO can only make it as realistic as the recording, if by perfect you mean revealing whats in the recording. Some bad recordings may sound more 'realistic' through systems that add lots of warmth, easier to connect to emotionally. Unless only listening to old CDs or bad recordings, I am not a fan of coloring the playback.

Adding "lots of warmth" doesn't mean a thing to me - heard quite few, typically valve setups, being insipid, like viewing through a fogged up piece of glass - these are, for me, truly awful; I would much prefer a kitchen radio,

But not colouring the playback is exactly right ... 'difficult' recordings require an absolutely pristine playback chain - which IME is still a very rare commodity.

33 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Adding "lots of warmth" doesn't mean a thing to me

So, it doesn't mean a thing to you

34 minutes ago, fas42 said:

being insipid, like viewing through a fogged up piece of glass - these are, for me, truly awful

So, it does mean a thing to you

Got it!🤣

27 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

So, it doesn't mean a thing to you

 

If I use the term "lots of warmth", with regard to music, this has nothing to do with "being insipid" - live music can have warm qualities, and also be intense, have transient impact - poor playback places too dominant a filter in front of everything; squashes all that you hear into the "one bottle".

I doubt that I will ever cease to be bemused by the typical 'audiophile's' attitude towards his hobby - rather than use the well worn car analogy, I'll turn to fishing ... folk in that game obsess about exactly the right lure, all the minutiae of the tackle, the precise spot to go to, the right times, endless internal debating about the options - for me, it's dangling a line over the side of whatever, and in a short time a healthy fish turns up, and I get the satisfaction of reeling him in, etc ... and it's been a long, long time since I last went anywhere near this game, .

I learnt in the mid 1980s, exactly what matters - and nothing since has even slightly altered my thinking. That is, the gear used is almost completely irrelevant; it's merely an inconvenience that has to be coaxed or bashed into behaving properly; and that is, to provide a open gateway into the world of what's on the recording - a system either gets in the way of doing that, or it doesn't ... in my world, the latter is the goal.

The recording is the Master in this game. And the playback chain is only a Servant - no matter how incredibly expensive, or 'high tech' it is! With that firmly established, then one can get on with doing it the "right way" - make the audio system respond 'perfectly' to the commands of its, er, master ... .

30 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I'll turn to fishing ... folk in that game obsess about exactly the right lure, all the minutiae of the tackle, the precise spot to go to, the right times, endless internal debating about the options - for me, it's dangling a line over the side of whatever, and in a short time a healthy fish turns up, and I get the satisfaction of reeling him in, etc

How many fish have you caught using this method?

38 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

How many fish have you caught using this method?

I have caught very, very few fish - because, I don't fish, . I'm talking about in what way the experience of fishing would have meaning to me -  if I happened to turn to it, for some reason ... the connection between me and the fish is everything; you know, The Old Man and the Sea type of stuff, .

28 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I have caught very, very few fish - because, I don't fish, . I'm talking about in what way the experience of fishing would have meaning to me -  if I happened to turn to it, for some reason ... the connection between me and the fish is everything; you know, The Old Man and the Sea type of stuff, .

Anglers obsess about the things you mention because they matter... just like the quality of the recording, the quality of the equipment, and the room matter when it comes to audio.

As I have said many times, , I obsess about things that really do matter - the technical quality of the recording is a very minor player, and the room if it's good enough to have a conversation in, is fine. Quality of the equipment, as a working system, is paramount, and this can be 'measured' by the integrity of the chain - a single weak link will undo, "everything".

And to a current example: I now have an answer to my concern about that Queen CD, mentioned above. By trial and error, and after checking the various tweaks, it turned out that electrical noise from the refrigerator is still managing to squeeze past the multiple layers of interference suppression ... amazing! Part of me is pleased, because I determined the issue, and part is highly displeased; I thought I had finally got the isolation "good enough" ... but, No!! Easy to pick what's going on - simply unplug the fridge. Workaround ... connect the fridge to another circuit in the house, via extension cord - as effective as switching off the unit.

Outcome is that the Queen CD can be run at room bustin' volumes; and it stays sweet and clean, everything sits well back in the soundstage, as it should - this is very satisfying to achieve; and is the result of worrying about the "right things", .