No More Audiophile Hassles

[fas42]

5 hours ago, wgscott said:

In other words, would we really lose all that much by forgoing all the audiophile expense and angst in favor of carefully-selected quality mainstream consumer-grade alternatives and focused more on enjoying music? Could we actually gain anything just by simplifying the signal path?

 

Yes and no. Consumer grade components have their weaknesses because of cost cutting in crucial areas - the core of the gear is certainly good enough, but unless one is prepared to dive inside and sort out some of the poor implementation aspects then it may never reach a good enough standard.

 

Simplifying is an excellent route to better sound - it's the parts used to allow complexity in the whole which frequently are the key weaknesses; stripping out or bypassing those elements can be exactly the right thing to do.

 

The last 10% mentioned above is where the action is - get that last 10% sorted, and the subjective experience is advanced, aww, 200% or so - sorta makes it worthwhile persevering ...

[fas42]

47 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

One mans steak is another mans hot dog. This is all subjective stuff. IMO any thing that is two channel based is a hot dog, you CAN'T replicate a live event with two speakers, not even a harmonica.
Immersive audio is steak in my book. However this thread is about less of a hassle audiophilia so I stick with my active speaker 2 channel recommendation. 
 

 

Even a very low cost, bare bones 2 channel effort can do "immersive audio". All the fudges which add lots of extra sound, coming from other directions, etc, etc, etc, are just means to an end which can also be thrown up by good ol' stereo. Why the stereo method normally doesn't work is because the playback system isn't good enough, and needs lots of assistance from extra gear - "crutches" ...

[fas42]

15 hours ago, tne said:

Bill,

You pose a very good question that many of us consider from time to time.

What metric do you propose to use for "performance"? As we endlessly discuss here on CA, there are differing thoughts on this, and I would enjoy hearing yours.

 

My metric is to be able to put on the "crappiest" recording, wind up the volume until it's realistic for the type of music being performed, and for the experience to be as involving, "immersive", and "I am there!" as it was for anyone with the actual performers - 99.99999...% of systems are nowhere near this goal, miles away usually ...

[fas42]

10 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

You should try an aftermaster pro at www.aftermasterpro.com

 

Not necessary. And, I note threads like this, https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the-aftermaster-pro-and-why-its-bullsh-t™.806030/

 

The answers lie in lifting the standard of replay to the highest level - this then allows one's own, internal, mental filtering and 'correcting' to action what's necessary. Unless one has done this with a system, and then realised how much damage is done by conventional playback to the recorded sound, making it impossible for this natural process to take place, then it probably will never be understood. Our minds want the sound to make sense, to unscramble what comes in - but typically too much extraneous distortion, noise, anomalies, whatever you want to call it, are added to the mix within the playback chain - and our minds give up ... it sounds like, well, crap ...

[fas42]

8 hours ago, witchdoctor said:

None of this stuff is "necessary". I said TRY it. Just go to www.aftermasterpro.com, they have A/B tracks posted so you can compare. This is a new category of product that remasters the original track.

As far as "lifting the standard of replay to the highest level" why not call Harry Potter? Good luck with that

 

Still not the point. The only reason I have felt the strong desire to "remaster" a track is when the compression has been pushed to an absurd point - this makes the experience of listening very tiring; and my experiments have demonstrated that this type of "effects processing" can be essentially reversed. Luckily, I have little interest in current releases of recordings - older or original versions of albums don't have this issue, and come up beautifully when the system is good enough.

 

No magic in "debugging" a system - which is what "highest level replay" is about. I achieved this some decades ago, an accidental 'discovery' which came about because I'm a naturally fussy person - I kept finding subtle, little problem areas in the rig at the time - sorted each one in turn - and out popped "competent" sound! Nearly all setups don't perform as well as they can, because an accumulation of weaknesses degrade the integrity of the whole below the necessary level to hear the recordings at their best - once one hears a "terrible" recording transform into a magic listening experience, because a system is good enough to do justice to it, you're hooked ... or at least, I am  ...

[fas42]

1 minute ago, witchdoctor said:

So what is your accidental discovery?

 

Something which I have talked about for years on various audio forums: if a fairly standard audio playback system is meticulously worked upon to eliminate all the little failings, flaws in the implementation then an extremely high standard of sound will result. That standard can be 'measured' by the phenomenon that the speaker drivers become completely invisible aurally; it's impossible to "see" the driver working, no matter where you have your ear when listening. This is exactly what happened to me back then, and of course I was amazed by this - this was way, way out of left field ...

 

I've explored this behaviour on and off since then, with a variety of equipment, and it has replicated consistently - if I make enough effort to "fix" the system then I will get that result, every time.

 

The huge downside is that it is highly likely that some of the parts of the gear will need to be hacked; so, one has to be comfortable with modifying, eliminating, bypassing - this is classic soldering iron stuff - and on expensive purchases one may be loath to do those sorts of things.

[fas42]

41 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

 

What you call meticulous I call a PIA. I don't doubt it works for you but I don't know how you could package it for joe sixpack.

 

I couldn't agree more!! Incredibly frustrating at times, and the packaging of a solution, for everyman, is a nightmare ... but, it shows what's possible. And, how much is lost in the typical rig - the industry has quite a distance to go to get its act together ...

[fas42]

40 minutes ago, barrows said:

BTW, this year at RMAF we used Merrill Audio Veritas mono blocks (Ncore, class D) with FocaL Utopia Diablo III speakers, despite the horrific room, we had sound completely detached from the speakers, with an impressively deep soundstage, with palpability, excellent height, and good width.  Best comment was from Lukasz Fikus (the LampiZator) when he said: the room is "swimming in sound" with a huge smile on his face, and then he noted: "and not a tube in sight".  He mentioned that so many rooms had a terrible soundstage with a flat presentation. 

 

Talkin' about the industry needing to pull its finger out ... need I say more ...

[fas42]

18 minutes ago, barrows said:

Huh, not following you at all here...

 

Lukasz Fikus' comment - " He mentioned that so many rooms had a terrible soundstage with a flat presentation " - in 2017, it is still "so hard" for people who do this for a living, etc, to organise half reasonable sound ... why??

[fas42]

7 hours ago, barrows said:

Yes, it is.  Have you ever attended an audio show?  There are a lot of challenges.  Here are just a few:

 

The hotel rooms are not only small, but often of terrible dimensions for sound.  Last year the Marriott which hosts RMAF went through a remodel, which added a new HVAC system, unfortunately this built in a square shaped shaft in the corner of the room (where one speaker would usually go) this made set up those rooms even more difficult than before (despite taming a prevalent ~80 Hz room mode).

 

Usually one is dealing with unfamiliar loaner equipment from other companies (few audio companies make a complete line of electronics, cables and speakers) and getting good synergy can be difficult.  Despite your desire to get "X" speaker on loan for the show, which you know will play very well in the room, and with the amplifier you have, "X" speaker company may not be willing to loan you a pair of speakers, so you take what you can get.

 

The people responsible for set up are often over worked and stressed out from the normal work pressures, the audio show itself is just an added work load.  Despite the belief that many audiophiles seem to have about how rewarding (financially) working in the high end business is, the reality is that most companies are living on the edge, and everybody is working their *** off trying to make ends meet.

 

There is one day for all set up, and even for those who are very well prepared, with gear that actually plays well together, one day is a very short period of time to get a high end audio system singing in tune.  

 

To which I can only reply, "The industry needs to pull its ... " ... . IOW, it shouldn't be a nightmare to assemble a system in a short period of time that can do the job that it's supposed to do - plug 'n' play must be the end goal, if ordinary people are to "get it".

 

When you buy an expensive car, it ... just ... works. That's why people don't hesitate to climb into one and take it for a spin - it one has to make a myriad of excuses for why a very expensive sound system sounds lousy, who are you going to impress ... ?

 

[fas42]

40 minutes ago, barrows said:

I think I would look at your metaphor a little differently:  Here's my take:  The expensive car, off of the dealer's floor is more analogous in my mind to something like the KEF LS-150, buy it and it just it works, and the high end system is more like a race car, if you want to take it to the track and be competitive, you are going to be doing a lot of tweaking.

Remember, even most expensive cars, say BMWs, Porsche's, Mercedes, etc. are produced in numbers far exceeding high end audio products: most high end audio products are nearly hand built custom items.

Of course there are the Lambos, Ferraris, Aston Marton's etc. which you can buy off of a showroom floor, but still require quite a bit more care and maintenance than say a BMW.

To me though, the high end stuff, equates more closely to actual race cars.

 

And of course, a home theater system from Best Buy, is perhaps more in line with my Subaru.

 

The point is, the closer one gets to the top level of performance in either field, the more tweaky things become.

 

Yes, I accept that part of the situation is that volume makes things hard - hand built numbers of components works against it. But the industry overall has lost its way in getting the basics right ... as compared with the car sector: a new model Subaru does a mighty good job of transporting one in comfort, quiet, at legal speeds and relaxed driving style to a destination - an expensive supercar does this in only slightly better fashion; only at the extremes of "pushing it" does the money paid for the latter show up strongly.

 

A Best Buy theatre system is so far from getting 'competent' sound happening ... and at the moment applying high levels of tweakiness is the only method of reaching reasonable capability - hence my gripe.

[fas42]

10 hours ago, firedog said:

Maybe that is the key: you are looking for euphonics. In other words, lack of accurate reproduction, a type of "nice sounding" distortion. That's fine if that's what you like.

But it probably doesn't mean that "All Class D sucks" - it means that it is more accurate, and with less euphonic distortion, that what you like. 

 

I suspect he just wants to listen to the recording ... competent reproduction, which is something very different from what is produced from a system of plugged together components which tick all the boxes as far as a nice set of figures from conventional measurements is concerned, provides both accuracy and a deeply moving emotional experience.

 

"Nice sounding" distortion is boring, because everything sounds the same - 'clinical accuracy' is actually another type of distortion but is more acceptable to many people because they can pull up a set of numbers which vindicates their preference.

 

Class D and other types of amplifier architecture will all have signature styles of distortion, and the better the implementation the more that signature becomes inaudible - if engineered properly, they should all "sound the same"; only the qualities of the recording are heard. And, recordings have enough information on them to fully convey the experience of being with the musicians doing their thing - most of the time, the playback gets in the way of achieving that sense; altering the component types is usually just playing with an effects box, very few combos just deliver the recording, naked.

[fas42]

Sort of curious ... how do people know when they have "neutral sound" ... ?

[fas42]

56 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

They don't...

 

Well, the ones who are confident that they know what "neutral sound" is - what are they hearing, or listening for, that makes them sure about it ...

[fas42]

8 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

They measure the frequency response with Audiotools, REW, Dirac, etc. ...  It really isn't that hard.  You just have to learn not to trust your ears.

 

I've been at a demo of DEQX, where a reasonable system, with typical FR peaks and dips was corrected, to within an inch of its life - ruler flat per microphone feed on the laptop screen. Did it give a Wow! feeling? ... Nope, the signature system distortions were still all there - it sounded reasonable uncorrected, and a variation on that reasonableness with the DEQX in operation.

 

If a system sounds flat, uninteresting, lacking in sparkle and life - that's actually distortion ... resolving the issues creating that type of distortion, noise, call it what you want - brings the sense of specialness, the 'big' quality to the presentation, that makes you want to keep listening, to almost anything you choose to put on.

[fas42]

28 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

 

If food tastes flat and uninterestng without seasoning, it's actually a lack of distortion. You're tasting the food as it really is, not flavour enhanced. Likewise with audio. It's quite clear from the pursuit of "flavour" or "voicing" in audio equipment that the majority prefer it.

 

A lot of people seem to feel that this is the case - that the sound is so damaged by the recording process, and transfer to a playable medium, that its 'real' nature is flat and uninteresting. My experiences are otherwise - that the recording contains all the qualities, as in the actual sound data that was picked up by the microphones, or immediately transferred to the recording devices in the case of direct injection from synthesizers, etc, to deliver a powerful, emotional impact. Classic pro type gear, "spec perfect", is the worst offender in terms of crippling the important qualities of the captured sound field, when used for playback monitoring, etc.

 

The usual sequence of sound "styles" a particular system goes through as it's optimised is: 1) noticeably distorted, clear audible anomalies; 2) flat, dead, lifeless - distortion of low level detail which sucks the interest out of the listening experience; 3) in your face, "bad" recordings are OTT, screechy, silibant, only "good" material is fully enjoyable; 4) last but key step - everything falls into place, and all recordings come to life, present a grand sound field which is immersive and enjoyable as a musical experience.

[fas42]

11 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Not all recording are done well and the purpose of studio monitors is to give you an accurate reproduction of what the recording sounds like. If a recording sounds crippled, it's because it is poorly done.

 

The fact that you can somehow "optimize" your system to make all recording sound wonderful, regardless of how poorly they are recorded, just means that you've tuned it so the coloration is pleasing your ears and that it is simply hiding the flaws of bad recordings. 

 

No, the optimising removes as many layers of "crud" that are added by the playback chain as necessary for the ear/brain to be able to filter out the remaining issues; that then you can "hear past" the deficiencies that are still there. The flaws in the recording are still fully reproduced but they exist in "another space" as far as your hearing is concerned - an analogy is going to a live concert, and a pair of people behind you are talking quietly all during the performance; if you're a person who is deeply disturbed by this "conflict" then you probably will always hear the recording as "bad", no matter what. I can happily keep my focus on the musical event that is core and central to what is going on - and hence get full enjoyment from "poor" captures of music playing; I can "see" the performers doing their thing, and easily ignore irrelevant noise components.

[fas42]

Just now, Mordikai said:

Wha?

 

Which bit?

[fas42]

2 hours ago, Mordikai said:

You could start with " another space". It sounds like kinda like your doing the filtering with your own active listening but it sounds like you're kinda doing it with your playback system too.

 

If one listens to 'natural' sounds, in everyday activities, this happens automatically, all the time - let's say you're listening to your audio system, and it starts to rain; and the sound of that is quite distinctive, as it falls on a metal roof nearby. Do you have any trouble hearing that sound in "another space", as you keep listening to the track that was playing when the rain started? IOW, you can switch your focus, with ease, between the music reproduction and the sound of the rain - they are completely separate, distinctive sound events going on at the same time.

 

So, it's not active, it's completely instinctual; and this is also what happens with competent playback - the distortion artifacts "separate" from the music, as hearing "spaces". I have some deeply, deeply defective recordings, which are an abomination - from needle drops, with crudely applied noise reduction; these tracks are completely unbearable on slightly less than optimal replay - the primitive attempt at cleaning up the track screams at one. Yet, a remarkable transformation occurs when the playback gets good enough - I stop hearing the mess made of the transfer, and only tune into the singer and backing; yes, it still is clear that something funny is going on with the sound, if I choose to focus on that, but I need to deliberately change my attention to this aspect; I have to 'actively' listen for the manipulation happening to register it.

[fas42]

On 31/10/2017 at 10:15 PM, Jud said:

 

Yes, there’s a difference between removing barriers to what’s actually on the recording, and adding an overlay to the sound of every recording.  Now whether we can tell the difference between these two situations without using something besides our ears is a nice question.

 

Perhaps at least subconsciously we eventually get bored in the overlay situation (what I sometimes refer to as the “one trick pony”).  It’s tempting to think so.  But I have no idea if that’s actually the case.

 

The "overlay" that a competent system delivers is that irritating artifacts triggered from weaknesses in the playback chain, by "difficult" recordings, are removed - some people may wish to have an "awful" recording made to sound as awful as possible, just so that a pecking order is easy to assign; personally, I prefer to get a buzz from whatever recordings of music I choose to play, or listen to - it's sorta the reason I'm still interested in audio ... .

[fas42]

On 30/10/2017 at 4:46 PM, GUTB said:

So what I’m going to say is going to challenging for some people. Transparency does not make good audio! A certain degree of transparency is benificial, but if all you have is transparency the sound will be trash. You MUST emotionally engage with your music or your system is TRASH. High end audio is an art form around producing illusions and excitement, NOT seeking the ultimate in fidelity. Our brains filter garbage out of the sound we perceive, and that will make us psychologically tired of listening to it.

 

Wrong. 100% transparency is the only goal worth pursuing - and it always works. I've optimised a number of systems, of differing qualities, over time - and getting the ultimate in fidelity in what each could deliver without doing major surgery has always delivered emotional engagement, from all recordings.

 

Our brains do filter out the garbage that's carried along, trapped within the recording - but it only does does this job when absolutely everything is presented to the ear/brain, no exceptions.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

 

Can you comment on soundstage and imaging?

 

Soundstage and imaging are of the highest order, with full transparency. 'Big' sound, huge sound fields are thrown up; this is fully immersive recreation of the musical event - with seemingly no limits to "how good it can get" ... the ultimate intensity of the experience will be limited by how loud the system can go while maintaining its integrity - personally, I haven't found any limits to what recordings can deliver in overwhelming, emotional impact; the equipment has never had sufficient headroom to test it further.

[fas42]

9 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Well, let’s try not to get too confusing here.  The ordinary definition of an overlay is simply something “laid over” something else, not anything removed.

 

What you are describing is indeed an overlay, but while it accomplishes removal of audible nasties from your notice, it does so by laying something over them you like better.

 

This is the goal you want to reach, and that’s fine.  My goal lies in another direction, removal of external noise and distortion, even euphonic distortion.  As I’ve noted, pursuit of it has resulted in very few times that I’ve enjoyed a piece of music less as a result.  My pursuit of the goal has been quite subjective, however, so I cannot claim any objective verification that I’ve achieved it (beyond whatever little objective confirmation there is in non-audiophile friends exclaiming “I’ve never heard anything sound so clear!”).

 

I'm confused here - do you believe I'm distorting what's heard from the recording, in the definition sense of "distortion"?

[fas42]

Correct - that's why the word overlay was in quotes, my feeble attempt at humour about needing to add something to the sound to "make it better".

[fas42]

Often played the original CD release of "Let It Bleed" back in the 80's - and it sounded magnificent, at the time. One of these days I'm going to find me one of these "sub-optimal" recordings - and see what all the fuss is about ...