The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[AnotherSpin]

7 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

It does actually ... if the right areas are addressed, and in a smart way, then the benefits are long term. Taking shortcuts to get answers is fine, but one should always remember that you haven't finished the job until it's been "properly engineered" - and I'm as guilty of not following through as anyone! ☹️

 

If there comes a moment when you decide - this is it! then the next moment it starts all over again, and so on without end.

[AnotherSpin]

1 hour ago, PYP said:

[...] The commonality is the desire to enjoy music.  So whatever floats your boat has to be respected by everyone with a similar desire, even if they don't agree with how you get there.   

 

In the 70s I liked the sound of all the LPs that were played on a very modest system of a simple turntable, so-so amplifier and ancient speakers. The very idea of something sounding "wrong" was not coming to my mind at all. Everything sounded natural and emotional, and even the poor condition of scratched LPs was hardly a hindrance. How is it that many people find it so difficult now to achieve completely satisfactory sound which will not prevent them from enjoyment of musical experience? The more effort and endless changes, the less satisfying the result and the more often they may want something more to improve and improve again?

[Iving]

3 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

In the 70s I liked the sound of all the LPs that were played on a very modest system of a simple turntable, so-so amplifier and ancient speakers. The very idea of something sounding "wrong" was not coming to my mind at all. Everything sounded natural and emotional, and even the poor condition of scratched LPs was hardly a hindrance. How is it that many people find it so difficult now to achieve completely satisfactory sound which will not prevent them from enjoyment of musical experience? The more effort and endless changes, the less satisfying the result and the more often they may want something more to improve and improve again?

 

Digits!

[fas42]

1 hour ago, PYP said:

Well, I guess we will never agree on this.   I have heard systems that do indeed sound very good with just about everything.  To my taste, they are pleasant, but homogenized.  They aren't true to the recording, but that isn't the objective for those system, which is fine.   That kind of system doesn't fit my own current preferences (it was my goal when reproduction of digital was not very good), because the closer the reproduction is to live, the more I enjoy the musicians and their interaction.  

 

Homogenized? That's the last thing one wants ... the greater the accuracy, the more clearly the signature of the recording comes through. A very simple analogy: you know hundreds of people very well, and their individuality shines through - but they all remain fully human; and can be appreciated in "their own space", for what they are.

 

What an accurate system does convey is the musicianship - technically poor recordings reveal deep treasures in the playing of the instruments, and the interplay between the artists in the event. This is what makes playing of an unknown disk special - it's like trying a completely new ride at the fun fair, 😉.

 

1 hour ago, PYP said:

 

To me it is self-evident that there are poor recordings and that if the system is true to the recording, what you hear isn't a good recording (not all remastering is done just to market the material one more time).   I know you don't agree and that this issue will never be settled no matter how much folks explain their differences.  The commonality is the desire to enjoy music.  So whatever floats your boat has to be respected by everyone with a similar desire, even if they don't agree with how you get there.   

 

All good. But for those who are curious, let it be known that the "bad" recordings you have can be magic experiences, if one is prepared to put the energy into discovering how to "turn things around", 🤪.

 

Cheers ...

[fas42]

6 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

In the 70s I liked the sound of all the LPs that were played on a very modest system of a simple turntable, so-so amplifier and ancient speakers. The very idea of something sounding "wrong" was not coming to my mind at all. Everything sounded natural and emotional, and even the poor condition of scratched LPs was hardly a hindrance. How is it that many people find it so difficult now to achieve completely satisfactory sound which will not prevent them from enjoyment of musical experience? The more effort and endless changes, the less satisfying the result and the more often they may want something more to improve and improve again?

 

Mainly because the sins of digital are much more disturbing - the greatest accolade many audiophiles can bestow on some file based replay is, that it sounds "analogue" ... and that says it all, 😉.

 

"It's almost as good as vinyl!" they cry - reproduction from bits seems like it should be "perfect" ... but at the end of the day, they look at each other, and go, "Naaahh ... " 😜.

 

The effort goes into finally eliminating the need to end on that down note ... it's getting easier to do this, but still requires plenty of focus to make it happen ...

[AnotherSpin]

46 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Mainly because the sins of digital are much more disturbing - the greatest accolade many audiophiles can bestow on some file based replay is, that it sounds "analogue" ... and that says it all, 😉.

 

"It's almost as good as vinyl!" they cry - reproduction from bits seems like it should be "perfect" ... but at the end of the day, they look at each other, and go, "Naaahh ... " 😜.

 

The effort goes into finally eliminating the need to end on that down note ... it's getting easier to do this, but still requires plenty of focus to make it happen ...

 

Yes, it is well-known usual explanation. But there's more to it than that. The complexity of current systems inevitably leads to different parts of systems being difficult to combine with each other, and as a result we see poorly matched complex rigs. And the pursuit of endless upgrades of various individual elements only complicates already chaotic solutions.

[Jeff_N]

You guys let the Frank bot out of the Fas42's Stereo Magic cage and now you can't corral him.

[AnotherSpin]

1 hour ago, Jeff_N said:

You guys let the Frank bot out of the Fas42's Stereo Magic cage and now you can't corral him.

 

What's wrong with more than one opinion?

[Racerxnet]

2 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

What's wrong with more than one opinion?

Nothing,  but we have read the same reply from Frank without any credible evidence page after page. Are his Edifiers any better than others assembled system? As a closed system, you get what the manufacturer provides. I highly doubt the stacked newpapers gave a boost in performance without any measurements to verify. Just because someone says its better, does not make it so. 

[PYP]

9 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

Yes, it is well-known usual explanation. But there's more to it than that. The complexity of current systems inevitably leads to different parts of systems being difficult to combine with each other, and as a result we see poorly matched complex rigs. And the pursuit of endless upgrades of various individual elements only complicates already chaotic solutions.

I used to feel that way, but DACs have advanced significantly in the last few years (especially, it seems, the last two years).  Now you can get great sound that is much better than what you got from basic gear listening to vinyl way back when.  You can re-live the difference if you want.  Find a redbook version of your favorite music that also has a higher resolution remaster.  The first is what you heard many years ago, the new one is what was on the tape when recorded.  The pop/rock vinyl (with few exceptions) was never meant to be the quality that folks collect now.  The sound was bad, not as recorded but on the vinyl and played over the radio from albums. 

 

That said, if you want to stream music, extra effort is needed to get rid of all the noise.  Whether the effort is worth it is a personal equation.  For me, using Qobuz via Roon is how I discover new music.  LOTS of new music.  And most of it sounds very, very good.  Lately, Qobuz has many 96 kHz versions (much for lately released music but also for some legacy stuff).  These sound like live, except you have control of the volume.  Great stuff.   

[AnotherSpin]

1 hour ago, Racerxnet said:

Nothing,  but we have read the same reply from Frank without any credible evidence page after page. Are his Edifiers any better than others assembled system? As a closed system, you get what the manufacturer provides. I highly doubt the stacked newpapers gave a boost in performance without any measurements to verify. Just because someone says its better, does not make it so. 

 

If someone says it's better for him/her/them, why can't it be that way? You can say what you want exactly the same way. That's how forums are set up, people say what they entitle to say.

[fas42]

6 hours ago, Racerxnet said:

Nothing,  but we have read the same reply from Frank without any credible evidence page after page. Are his Edifiers any better than others assembled system? As a closed system, you get what the manufacturer provides. I highly doubt the stacked newpapers gave a boost in performance without any measurements to verify. Just because someone says its better, does not make it so. 

 

What one gets is the removal of the replay chain - I don't hear Edifiers; rather, I hear the recording ... that's the goal.

 

Any real world rig just plunked into place is full of bugs. Just like software bugs. But audible bugs. They are what give the system 'character' - and that might turn some people on - but not me.

 

These active speakers are a means to an end - to hear the capture of a musical event. The more the replay chain intrudes into the scene, the poorer a job they're doing - in my book.

 

Almost 15 years ago I aimed to build my own "set of Edifiers" - even bought lots of the bits to make it happen; still have that around. But hey! The world now has a manufacturing monster that can pump out these things, really, really cheaply ... which is why I bought them on impulse - they sounded like they did enough right to make my job a lot easier. And in fact that turned out to be the case ... a very pleasing result.

 

The speakers need to be given very high effective mass, hence the weighting on top - you can pay huge money to get the same result, by buying Wilsons, say. And the other big failing is sensitivity to electrical noise - which equipment no matter how expensive still hasn't got right ... people pay for the cost of the gear all over again, just in buying stuff to try and fix this.

 

What I'm getting at the moment is most of what I did 35 years ago - the recordings are very close, and in some ways better than what I was hearing then. That's the point of the exercise - to do the job of letting me hear what was recorded.

[fas42]

A system is "better", when it becomes extremely hard to hear it distorting - that's the bare, naked truth of the situation - but many people can't, or don't want to think of things in those terms. But it's a highly effective approach - you never listen for "how good the rig is!"; rather, you are sensitive to every time it sets a foot wrong - and then do something about it, to get rid of that problem ...

[AnotherSpin]

7 hours ago, fas42 said:

A system is "better", when it becomes extremely hard to hear it distorting - that's the bare, naked truth of the situation - but many people can't, or don't want to think of things in those terms. But it's a highly effective approach - you never listen for "how good the rig is!"; rather, you are sensitive to every time it sets a foot wrong - and then do something about it, to get rid of that problem ...

All the sounds are in your head and nowhere else. That's where you have to make an effort, inside.  Or stop making an effort, it as ok already and always been.

 

[AnotherSpin]

repeat

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

All the sounds are in your head and nowhere else. That's where you have to make an effort, inside.  Or stop making an effort, it as ok already and always been.

 

 

No ... it never works like that - let's say you've bought yourself a very expensive car, and soon afterwards it develops an irritating rattle behind the dash ... is your advice that the irritation is "all in your head" and therefore you should make an effort, to learn to ignore that sound ... ?

[Summit]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

No ... it never works like that - let's say you've bought yourself a very expensive car, and soon afterwards it develops an irritating rattle behind the dash ... is your advice that the irritation is "all in your head" and therefore you should make an effort, to learn to ignore that sound ... ?

 

I would never buy a very expensive car, but if I did and it develop an irritating rattle behind the dash I would not stack newspapers to fix it 😉.

[Summit]

On 5/14/2021 at 2:03 AM, March Audio said:

Good question.  It's certainly not defined by just listening in isolation to replay, you have to have a known reference.

 

In the hifi show it's just the stuff you personally like.  Other people will like other things.  None of this indicates accuracy.

 

You are just reinforcing my point.  Your emotional responses are your own, no one else's.  Your emotional response does not indicate replay accuracy.

 

Sorry wrong post.

 

[Summit]

On 5/13/2021 at 4:58 PM, March Audio said:

Sorry but I don't follow you.

 

Unless you were at the recording you simply don't know what it was meant to sound like. You have no reference.

 

Therefore you have no idea if what is being replayed is accurate.

 

10 different systems will have 10 different sounds. NONE of them will be perfect.

 

You are just guessing and picking one you think is the best.  

 

There are, in fact, two kinds of audiophiles. Those who believe that you can measure what sounds most like IRL and those who believe that it is by listening. Those who believe in listening to many different records and comparing them with all the references that have been built after have heard how voices and music sounds like depending on the type of room, mix layouts, microphones, instruments, etc.

 

It is about a reproduction, so the reproduction can sound more or less accurate/lifelike, but it's still an reproduction and how convincing the illusion is. Without having been involved in that particular recording I can hear and judge if it sounds convincing and that folks is what is meant by sounding accurate. 

[March Audio]

19 minutes ago, Summit said:

Without having been involved in that particular recording I can hear and judge if it sounds convincing and that folks is what is meant by sounding accurate. 

I will post a link to 2 versions of a recording and let you tell me which is most accurate.

[March Audio]

Which is more accurate,

 

This

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgRLwGMmGkepGjqf1

 

Or

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgRNbYMA3jco3WOPf

 

[Iving]

6 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Which is more accurate,

 

This

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgRLwGMmGkepGjqf1

 

Or

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgRNbYMA3jco3WOPf

 

 

Oh go on then.

 

To me it sounds like someone's fiddled with the first one. Almost a loudness kind of thing.

 

But I am listening on my ripping PC with Yamaha desktop speakers.

 

Think I prefer #2 anyway.

[AnotherSpin]

5 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

No ... it never works like that - let's say you've bought yourself a very expensive car, and soon afterwards it develops an irritating rattle behind the dash ... is your advice that the irritation is "all in your head" and therefore you should make an effort, to learn to ignore that sound ... ?

 

I don't have a car anymore, sold the last one because lack of use. Nevertheless, if I would still own the car and realized there is a repetitive noise, I would go to the service, there is no reason to leave it unattended and to be irritated at all. It is enough to know you remain the same before, during, and after such or any other experience.

[The Computer Audiophile]

58 minutes ago, Summit said:

Without having been involved in that particular recording I can hear and judge if it sounds convincing and that folks is what is meant by sounding accurate. 

Can you help me understand this a bit? I’ve never thought the terms convincing and accurate were equivalent. Convincing is subjective while accurate is objective. There can be many forms of “convincing” but only one “accurate.”

[Iving]

33 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Can you help me understand this a bit? I’ve never thought the terms convincing and accurate were equivalent. Convincing is subjective while accurate is objective. There can be many forms of “convincing” but only one “accurate.”

 

It's true that "convincing" and "accurate" aren't synonymous. Unless you're someone who tends to prefer authenticity and wants to make a point about it. I've always maintained that less "accurate" women with permed hair (or blue rinses, whatever) look less convincing. But other people may hold quite the opposite view. All of us can be right in that respect. But yes - there is only one "accurate". Au naturel!

 

(I'm going to get egg on my face when March tells me I picked the "wrong" sample.)

 

Edit: Thinking about what I wrote within editing time, isn't it true that you can have a preference through grainy photographs - or off of CCTV stills - for women who look like they haven't fiddled with their hair? I mean you're probably going to be "right" a lot of the time. And then you can repeat with another image - and another - triangulating your outcomes. In other words, you don't have an absolute reference - but you can hunt accuracy (through an iterative process). A bit like signal detection theory maybe. I think I've seen a formal version of this somewhere. If it comes back to me I'll post.