The list gets longer ... on a YouTube video, expounding that stereo is incapable of delivering the live illusion, for 'technical' reasons; this was a response from one viewer ...

Quote

actually, i , to be honest, have heard one amazing system (stereo) that did exactly that! i have never heard something like that before or since and it has really wrecked it for me to some extent, once heard and never forgotten. the person was a sound engineer and and audiophile of course and he honed his room and system/s to a jaw dropping effect- i did';t need to close my eyes to see the whole performance but it was so shocking that i chose to close my eyes because the musicians were not there when i looked! i listened to an ecm vinyl of terje rypdal (chaser) that was over 13 years ago and its embedded in my mind ever since- ouch!!

The rarity of coming across this means that it certainly sticks in the mind, when heard, as stated here. Honing a system is a prerequisite, so unless one has the patience to follow through wherever required then it won't happen - thus, very uncommon ...

Noting this post,

The good news is that genuinely better performance, meaning more accurate, always means better sounding. Always. Many audiophiles seem to to have a terrible struggle with this; because it goes against the grain of wanting to believe that more impressive rigs make so many recordings sound 'orrible . IME, so many pricey rigs do sound 'orrible - but this has mighty little to do with accuracy - rather, the signature of the reproduction chain now becomes too intrusive, subjectively ... and does the damage. What people may find difficult to reconcile is that the best system has zero personality. Zero. That is, the more money you spend, the less obvious should be the presence of "money" - you see, it works backwards, .

Another chap who understands what matters ... https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/soundstage-reproduction-and-scale-does-speaker-size-matter.35608/post-829453.

Very similar transformation as occurred for me, those decades ago - but in my case the distortion factor inhibiting competent SQ was noise from interactions of materials, which generated enough electrical noise to disturb the signal chain. Careful tweaking and procedures mitigated these factors long enough to hear what was possible - and the journey began, .

There has always been gear around, that was sufficiently well engineered, that allowed digital tracks to provide good listening. The very best of them could do this without resorting to extra tweaking and sorting - and this is an example I just happened to find, https://www.stereophile.com/content/accuphase-dp-90-cd-transport-dc-91-da-processor-page-2.

Yes, nearly 30 years ago . Recent arrivals like the Wadax units resurrect that level of competence, at vastly greater prices. Unfortunately, the ongoing issue is that the necessary care and attention is still not applied to everyday components, of decent cost - the question is, when will this situation change ... ?

The new, Mk II version of PS Audio's DAC is showing signs that it might have the goods - that is, the engineering has finally been done well enough to deliver competent SQ without requiring lots of babying by the end user. The designer of the unit points out what's going on, in a just posted comment,

Quote

A lot goes into realistic sounds, micro-dynamics, a black background, sound stage stability, flat frequency response, more frequency range giving more harmonics, linear phase to keep the attacks/transients right.
Perhaps it’s simpler than all of that. There are a lot of opportunities to mess up something small that affects of the illusion of realness, liveness, etc. Getting most of them correct detracts less from the whole.

Yes. Dotting the i's and crossing the t's is not exciting stuff - but is essential for conjuring convincing presentations, in the realm of digital playback chains ...

On 11/12/2022 at 9:52 AM, fas42 said:

The new, Mk II version of PS Audio's DAC is showing signs that it might have the goods - that is, the engineering has finally been done well enough to deliver competent SQ without requiring lots of babying by the end user

Well, spoke too soon!! ... There's a thread for users of beta units of these to tell all ... and many are not happy! Problems galore, as in, the unit stops working, no sound getting through; and gets hot - SQ is very promising, but this is lost in the noise of the complaints ...

Okay, why this is interesting is because it tells the story that I have had, over the years ... a system working at the right quality, and having the robustness of the physical parts in good enough order will deliver that specialness in the listening on an ongoing basis. But because "not enough is known" any fragility in the implementation rears its ugly head, oh so easily; and the qualities one is after in the sound quality just vanishes. One compromise is using bullet proof methods for producing audio gear, standard ways that have proved themselves over a long period to always work, give reliability above everything; but the downside is that the SQ most likely will always be in the "needs to try harder" basket ...

It's one thing to get a single setup working to deliver accurate sound; and quite another to produce a "snap a few fingers" set of steps, or device(s) which gets it right, every time ... hence, why one uses the words "art", and "journey" to describe what's going on, .

It's a loooong journey, if you try to get the message across to some audiophiles, ...

This was said to me, on another audio forum, by someone who appreciated how encompassing an illusion can be thrown up,

Quote

However, 3D holographic soundstaging & imaging has nothing to do with ‘accuracy’, they are completely different things.
Accuracy is still fairly subjective within the realms of home-audio since everybody hears sound slightly differently.

Right, a convincing view into the world of the recording can't be accurate  .... because, well maybe, because "everyone knows there are bad recordings!" - and if your rig doesn't make them sound bad, then there's gotta be somethin' wrong with it ; ie. it's not accurate ... ah, the Bizarro world of audio enthusiasts keeps on giving ...

On 11/12/2022 at 9:52 AM, fas42 said:

The new, Mk II version of PS Audio's DAC is showing signs that it might have the goods - that is, the engineering has finally been done well enough to deliver competent SQ without requiring lots of babying by the end user.

Plenty of beta units of this model have been in the hands of users for a bit now, and apart from technical issues with both software and last minute hardware changes, the reports are top notch. The language being used by the listeners tells me that most of the usual weaknesses associated with digital chains that haven't been fiddled with obsessively by the owner are absent - which is, of course, a good thing!

From a just posted message by one chap,
 

Quote

 

The sound is amazing - prior to this I used a Stellar GainCell DAC pre amp , then used my DAC JR when I got the BK Pre Amp - for comparison.

The DAC MK II. Is an amazing improvement.

 

The sound of SACD DSD over IS2 through the DAC MKII is the best sound I have ever heard - listening to music since 1960’s.
The sound is crystal clear , alive , expansive dynamic range , with all instruments and voices in a 3 D space with no sense of floor or ceiling or back. Each instrument has a better sense of its own space . From lows to highs - all are better

 

Sound familiar?

Accurate reproduction of digital recordings is not trivial to get right - usually requires quite a bit of debugging to get to a decent standard. The development of equipment that doesn't require plenty of babying is a very important step on the journey to always being able to obtain competent SQ; and I feel that this PS Audio item is a significant marker of the progress so far ...

Just found this article, from a link to it I chanced upon, https://www.stereophile.com/content/stereophiles-products-1995-1995-editors-choice.

Okay, this enumerates, in 1995(!), many of the traits of competent playback; but as is usually the case with audio people, the fact that such occurs is attributed to the specialness of the gear used, that somehow this miraculously transforms an 'ordinary' recording into something beyond itself. Well, gosh ... magic does happen!!

Guess what? No!! ... What is actually happening is that more accurate reproduction is being achieved; but in the strange thinking of audiophiles this can only occur in in a magical place, where extreme amounts of money are thrown at the situation ...

The good news is that it doesn't have to be this way. Period. But the hardest thing is to persuade audio people that such is the case - in fact, there is aggressive pushback to the idea ... .

Some day, ...

Discovered this one,

Yep. Everything he says could have come from my mouth ... my only disagreement is about the need for low bass to be present - yes, getting correct deep bass is nice, but completely unnecessary for the "suspension of disbelief".

There a chap, Theo, who's a regular on the PS Audio site, who understands exactly what it's about - trouble was, it took him 47 years to get there, as he notes in a recent comment! I happened to get lucky very early on, which gave me 40 years to fool around, getting a better handle on what needs to be done ...

What is curious for me, is the level of negativity that I've encountered over the years, when talking the very same way Paul does ... there is no magic bullet in getting there, as Paul implies; however, people want there to be an easy shortcut, but the frustration when being told that there ain't no such animal then gets in the way of further fruitful discussion.

Another tidbit from Paul's site - he started posting daily, about odds and ends, back in 2011- and this one, from the earliest page, caught my eye, https://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/my-first-time/.

Yes. The 'magic' that emerges when a system is in the zone is infectious - and this occurred, for him, in (gasp!) 1973 ... but, look how far we've come !!! ... Ummm, no .

50 years later, the struggle is still on, to make our ears stand on end ... why is it so hard, hmm ??

Strange world, this audio land - a deeply embedded set of mis-beliefs dog how most in the game think, and which gets in the way achieving of competent playback. But the latter is always out there, ready to be tapped into - the fortunate few who emerge into brighter daylight reap the rewards of more accurate recording reproduction ... we'll look, again, to that good chap, Time, to hopefully expand the number who stumble onto what is possible ... .

And another "bit of wisdom", from that site,
 

Quote

 

Many of the best designers and reviewers continually go to live music events to refresh their worldview of what actual instruments sound like so they can get closer to that version in their heads. This is fine and necessary but if your goal is to color your designs to sound like live music, instead of what’s really on the recording, then you might have a conflict.

 

The truth is we listen to sound systems that playback only recorded music and everything we hear is filtered through microphones and personal biases of recording and mixing engineers. It is folly to believe you are getting closer to the “real” event when all you can get closer to is what has been recorded.

 

Exactly. First step, get accurate reproduction of what's on the recording ... then, and only then, colour or season what you hear, to taste. In the latter step, you can go wild, do whatever takes your fancy; twist and mold the SQ every which way, so that it gives you greatest pleasure ...

The pit many seem to fall into is thinking that that somehow they don't have to worry about having the highest precision and integrity in the playback chain; that modulating the overall distortion of what they hear, of a sub-standard setup, is enough to get the job done. Well, that may be perfectly satisfactory for the individual, to experience for themselves - but some then "jump the shark", and proclaim that they are that much closer to 'reality' than someone else ...

The new PS Audio DAC, a Mk II version of their DirectStream item, looks very promising - the designer of it, Ted Smith, has excellent grasp of all the normal electronics side of things, and, and this is a very big AND, understands totally that attention to detail is of the highest importance. Obsessing about things that the normal audio company product builder would never pay attention to, he is also keenly aware of what tweakers do, and why it makes a difference - IOW, he gets it .

Still too pricey, but hopefully a significant step on the road to value for money competent SQ.

Now, the interesting thing is that buyers of this, just out of beta, unit still have the mindset of, "make it better!!". By doing reasonable things, all the way through to the wackiest ideas, in full blown snake oil territory. Why is there this need, or belief, that one has to keep fiddling with the damn thing - in the same territory as foolin' around with the hot machine in the garage, to get better numbers for acceleration times, ? Of course, the answer is in the question - it's a challenge to extract, "more grunt!". But in audio, what is, "more grunt" ??

It's not loudness, or bass walloping ... it's trivial, and cheap, to get some gear, of the pro variety, that will permanently deafen everyone in range, in mere seconds; or generate enough low frequency throbbing to bring the ceiling crashing down in no time ... no, if questioned, they will usually use words that hint at, wanting more 'accuracy'.

And what is, accuracy? Well, strangely enough, I take this to mean hearing what's on the recording. With no audible 'contamination' of any aspect of that. IME, getting near that standard is highly satisfying, with no downsides . But, when you read the words used by many people to describe what they're after, they are, to me, clearly floundering - they have no precise way of defining the goal; it's hand waving, all the way ... .

Okay, what then is accuracy ... really? Well, an excellent starting point is the "absence of defects" - and many rigs scream "defective!!" at you: they become obnoxious as soon as the volume is too high; there is a carefully considered volume for every album, lower and it's boring to listen to, higher and it starts being unpleasant; many albums are boring or tedious to listen to, at any volume; 'difficult' recordings are downright unlistenable, unpleasant in a dozen ways ... and the list goes on and on.

So, in my world, "more grunt" means "less defects". "Making it better!!" means identifying weaknesses or bottlenecks in the playback chain, and doing something about them. Going about this, yes, step by step, achieves more accuracy, slowly and surely, over time ... and at some point the accuracy moves into the zone where an illusion forms, and the greater the accuracy the more rock solid this piece of conjuring is ...

But the bizarro world of audio doesn't want to know about this. In general. The fantasy is building something akin to a top fuel dragster ... which is fine in its own right. But it has nothing to do with making SQ better, in the sense of achieving higher accuracy.

I used to be a bit active on the PS Audio site about 8 years ago - on the Paul's Posts area, where Paul would throw up an idea, giving people a chance to respond. Revisiting some of those, nothing has changed - of course !!!

A good one, https://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/the-beast/ ...

Paul talks of the fact that the SQ usually becomes a mess, when volume goes beyond a certain point. But, as is also usual, the room is then blamed for what goes on; when, it has nothing to do with it - rather, the capabilities of the playback chain are pushed beyond what they are comfortable doing, and what you hear becomes too full of distortion anomalies to put up with ...

That the recording is not guilty is easily "proven" by the fact that he heard the Infinity IRS speakers doing the job, casually "taking over the room" - my current Edifiers also do this, at a ridiculous fraction of the cost of what he was listening to ... no, ummm, squish . Why should this be? Because, in both cases the playback chain is doing what it's meant to do, just be accurate to what's on the recording, to a sufficient standard - I also "hear musicians breathing in the quieter passages", and sense the players moving in their chairs, heaving their bodies as they work their instruments. How can that be so??!! Well, it's in the recording ... duhhh!!

So, why is so difficult to get right, in the way Paul then tried his own way to achieve? Because, human hearing is remarkably sensitive, and the higher the sound levels, the easier it is to pick when "something's not quite right ...". There is no way of getting around this - and the obvious solution is, get rid of all the things that are not quite right !! Until enough have been trodden on, to make good listening happen, .

Okay? It's that simple, and, also, that difficult ...

My attention was just drawn to this video ... yes, by the same chap!

The bit that matters is at 10:30 - to sum up, he says 10% of recordings will be brilliant; the bulk will be OK, and some will be crap. This, of course, I severely disagree with - what one should aim for is to push the goal posts so that then the bulk will be brilliant, and only some will be just OK. Zero crap. Without changing your music collection, . This is what the "purpose" of audio playback is, in my world.

People have said my thinking is a bad thing, putting people off hifi. Well, I suggest that this piece by Steve is far worse - disappointing people about what can be accomplished, if they choose to 'indulge' in this, umm, hobby ...

On 12/24/2022 at 10:12 AM, fas42 said:

The new PS Audio DAC, a Mk II version of their DirectStream item, looks very promising - the designer of it, Ted Smith, has excellent grasp of all the normal electronics side of things, and, and this is a very big AND, understands totally that attention to detail is of the highest importance. Obsessing about things that the normal audio company product builder would never pay attention to, he is also keenly aware of what tweakers do, and why it makes a difference - IOW, he gets it .

 

It's all about the language used to describe the listening experience ... just posted,

Quote

For me, it’s almost impossible to grasp how terrific the dac 2 is. The dac 1 sounded impressively good and I could have been satisfied with that. The 2 is simply in another league. Better, much better than sounding great, it’s as if somehow Ted has found an entry into another reality and truth of sound. Wow to the wowth!

Yes. This is nothing to do with promoting products by PS Audio, it's an illustration of how when a playback chain achieves a certain standard that the experience moves to a very different level, subjectively. Any combo of audio components, by any manufacturers, could tip things into this zone - and audio people tend to toss the word "synergy" around at this point ... but it has nothing to do any 'magic' contributed by the components themselves ...

So, what's going on? Simply, the accuracy elements which are critical are getting good enough for the ear/brain to be able to "pull the veil aside" with relatively little effort - you are finally starting to hear, properly, what is actually captured, encoded in the track; without the excess grunge and low level blurring that is normally part of the picture with most hifi rigs.

It is not the ambitious audio ensemble that maketh memorable listening; rather, it is that which was captured at the time of the recording, the original musical event ... one's set of audio kit is merely a means for accessing that, and really has no value outside of that function. If one thinks like this, then there is a high chance that better moves will be made on the road to getting the best results.

Distortion, distortion, distortion, distortion, ...

This is a word that audio enthusiasts don't like using; but it's at the heart of everything that makes or breaks a playback chain, in terms of whether it provides long term satisfying listening. And to avoid using this word, everything but everything else is first blamed, when the listening ain't good.

Why the mini rant? Just read a discussion at PS Audio, where their new DAC was disliked by some, because it was, "too bright!"

And then someone posted,

Quote

Along these lines, it is intriguing how often DACs, preamps, amps are described as “bright,” “recessed,” “dark,” etc. when they all measure within a fraction of absolutely flat. Something other than frequency response is at issue. For example, the component judged bright does not have an elevated high frequency response

Well, duhhh!!! Guess what?? It's called, distortion! Does it mean the DAC itself is distorting? Probably not, more that some link in the chain has quite significant issues - which needs to be resolved. Will the typical audiophile do anything that gets to the heart of the problem? Nope!! Will probably fiddle around with a hundred other things, until he lucks upon something which tames what he hears - and he's happy again ... I just roll my eyes, and wonder how many more decades will pass, for a few more people to wake up to what's going on?

Okay, rant over ... .

Well done pro audio sound systems are another route to competent reproduction of recordings - of course, the vast majority of PA setups were/are pretty abysmal; designed to punch out Big SPLs, with little consideration of the terrible levels of distortion that come along for the ride; personally, I abhor these monstrosities - equivalent to trying to use a specialist drag racing car as an everyday commute vehicle.

But there is no inherent reason they can't be made to work well; I came across an "anonymous" one at an Expo in the 1980s, which had splendid SQ. Danley is a company that produces stuff that is of a very high standard. And I have, from threads here, now become aware of L-Acoustics.

The latter company's Syva speakers, driven by their pro amps, are at the heart of the surround sound setups they do. And I have come across a video of them in action, which demonstrates that they get the SQ right.

Which they should! Capable of 137dB at 1 metre, when driven, as designed, by amps outputting 1000 watts using class D modules, with switched mode PS, a single unit would permanently deafen you in seconds, if used at all with serious intent.

So, they use technology that would have most audiophiles running away in droves if they knew what was in the guts of the machinery - why does it, "work"? Quite simple ... the amps and speakers are barely even in first gear, with a six speed plus gearbox to play with; the components are being babied, even when used at what would be considered "powerhouse!" sound levels. This means that quality in the sound is quite easy to achieve, because there is close to zero stress being placed on the reproduction chain - as said in another thread, "effortlessness" gets you almost everything ... .

So, why isn't this done more often, in audiophile rigs? Well, inertia is a powerful factor - "this is the way we do things here - and it's gonna continue like that, forever!!" It takes time to rejig how one thinks - but being exposed to a setup that gets SQ right, using ways you wouldn't normally contemplate, is helpful to the process ... .

The biggest failure of most hifi rigs I come across is that they don't "shut the stable door" before "the horse bolts" - that is, the sound coming from the speaker drivers is too dirty, and so all sorts of attempts are made after the fact to try and hide this - hence, the room treatments as in playing with curtains, listening position fiddling, and minute adjustments of speaker placing.

Get the sound at the moment it leaves the diaphragms clean enough, and all these madly running around trying to get the horse to settle down after it "has left the building" efforts will be unnecessary ...

This bears commenting on,

That is, the idea that listening to music should be more than part of the background noise of life ... unfortunately, much of the evolving of the recording playback mechanisms up to this point has sucked the life and spark out the listening; there is an insipid, partially annoying quality to nearly all current playback setups - personally, I switch off pretty fast to most audio systems; they are just irritating to listen to, for me.

But it doesn't have to be this way ... current test CD is a cheap compilation of Bing Crosby tracks; starting with

Now, the name of the game is to not have this sound quaint and as if listening to it via a tin can on a string - as is implied by this YouTube video - but for it to have guts, and a sense of something worthwhile listening to. This is achievable ... and guess what then happens? The rest of the tracks, which go right up Bing's prime recording efforts then are at absolutely top form, and are as magic as the sort of experience described by Steven in the video above ...

Noted this album mentioned elsewhere,

As Jud implied, when the mixing makes the layers of sound elements obvious, then it doesn't require some type of surround setup to present the spatial wonderland - it all occurs on the stage behind the stereo speakers; somewhat equivalent to being inside a listening room with a functioning surround system, then walking to a very large door in the middle of the 'front' wall, opening it, turning around just past the doorway, and listening. Now you're not "swamped" by what's going on; it's a performance you can observe as if in the audience, without yourself being part of the show - personally, I find this far more appealing, .

The good thing is that essentially all recordings can perform this same trick, the "just past the doorway" impression - the amount of playing with layers and space will vary with the recording - older, "creative" pop recordings do an excellent job here; a 'straight' capture of some acoustic ensemble will deliver exactly that, a single space. The downside is that trying to achieve this puts "quite a load" on the ability of the stereo playback to do it accurately - something which most, unfortunately, fail at ....

Hmmm, I'm subversive, am I? Well, I guess I have a couple of disturbing flaws: first, I believe that the point of audio playback is to put as clear a sheet of perfectly ordinary glass between me and the recording as possible, to the point of being completely unaware of that glass - rather than, inserting a stained glass masterpiece there, which I allow the "best!" recordings to illuminate to the most exciting level; and secondly, that "a sheet of perfectly ordinary glass" doesn't have to be expensive, it just has to be made perfectly clean and free of defects as possible, and not have lights shine on it in a way which exaggerates every tiny remaining flaw of its surface.

All this -- glass, the recording and you are inside your knowing. Your knowing is essntial you, no-thing which knows all and every thing, i.e. all and every object. Is nothing enough to be an illumination itself? 🙃

I think most people have experienced a moment when they are totally unaware of a piece of real glass between themselves and whatever is on the other side - in my country, we put patterns on house glass so that someone in this 'mood' doesn't smash their nose because they try to walk through it, . Is the glass, and your mutilated nostril, something or nothing, in this case?

Just moving the 'trick' to the hearing sense, is the name of the game ...

I suspect a very high proportion of audiophiles will never, ever get it, ... a mindset has been 'installed' which dictates that the point of the exercise is to 'mold' what you hear so that it's most satisfactory to you - no matter where I read thinking by enthusiasts about their hobby, even when they are using the most capable gear available, it's always about how the flavouring is less or more appealing, to them. Almost never that the system is so devoid of character that the only thing left is that of the recording. No, if the rig hits a high note, then it's because some very, very special new bit has "added" extra goodness to what they hear - the seasoning is now "just right", turning a formerly uninteresting track into a magical journey ... it can't possibly be that the track always was special, ever since you acquired the recording, can it now? ...

That the purpose is to just reveal what's on the recording, rather than dress it up so it's most appealing, least offensive, has the most "Wowness!" ... doesn't resonate. Which is why it's taken decades for the SQ to ever so slowly evolve to a slightly higher standard - it's more by luck, and fortunate moves that things are getting better; and not by focused intent to make it happen ... .