No More Audiophile Hassles

[Jud]

40 minutes ago, jabbr said:

The AKG K712 or Senn HD650 phones are a steal.

 

From time to time there are also headphone deals such as this, for example:

 

https://www.massdrop.com/buy/massdrop-sennheiser-hd6xx

[Jud]

Just now, GUTB said:

 

Does suck, sorry. DIY jobs especially suck because they lack the things commercial amp designers include in an effort to make class D suck less.

 

What we really enjoy in having our light conversation here is someone dogmatically dismissing a whole category of equipment.

 

At least include a few specifics so we might have something to chat about.

[Jud]

Regarding Class D, anyone attracted by the idea of excellent sound for less has the option of believing folks like Bruno Putzeys (one of those audio engineers who other audio engineers tend to talk about as a Really Smart Guy), the NCore designer.  I’ve heard systems with Putzeys’ amps (systems well into the six figure range) and other systems with other NCore amps, and I don’t know what folks who say such amps can’t sound great are talking about.

[Jud]

3 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

Can you cite some specific amps, and can you comment on their ability to render a soundstage?

 

At RMAF 2015 I heard Mola Mola Kalugas driving a pair of Vivid Giya G3 speakers, and a custom NCore amp of @barrows‘ driving a pair of smallish speakers (don’t recall the manufacturer).  In neither case was there any problem with soundstage, and this was under show conditions in hotel rooms.

[Jud]

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

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??

 

Because they have a few hours to make a terrible situation (perfectly rectangular room layouts with thin, hollow, hard walls, loud ventilation systems, often windows, extreme variations in numbers of people and thus reflectivity of the space, little to no furniture, plants, etc., to break up resonances and reflections, people talking continuously, noise coming through from multiple other rooms) sound like something.  And that’s if everything, including the power, any necessary computer networking, and whatever equipment you’re borrowing from co-exhibitors, local dealers, or friends, is hooked up and working correctly.

[Jud]

1 minute 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.  

 

Great minds....

[Jud]

42 minutes ago, davide256 said:

 

hmm, will be attending CAF  in a few weeks, hadn't really thought about room size before but on replay, it does seem to me that the larger rooms did have a better chance of engaging sound. But on the flip side these were usually more exotic ($$$) gear as well. And some brands like Modwright seemed to shine in any size room. So perhaps these small rooms can help you weed out "the weak", not so adaptable components.

 

I’m with @barrows here.  Probably best not to form hard negative opinions based on performance under disadvantageous show conditions.  Really good performance under these conditions can be a sign that further inquiry is worthwhile.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

  If Lukasz Fikus liked it, that's quite a recommendation.

My actives have custom NCores (made for them, not sold commercially). The last thing you'd say about them is that they don't do soundstage well. Other users and reviewers have agreed.

 

Funny, I was going to say something kind of similar: if it replaced Pass equipment, that’s a tremendous recommendation for me.  And of course I heard the amp itself, and thought it was just excellent.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, barrows said:

Zero progress, this is the bold statement I was referring to.

 

I did not try to suggest that you had not heard any SOTA speakers, I asked if you had, and i asked this specifically because I could not believe that anyone who had heard some of the current SOTA speakers could make such a statement.

 

I think @lmitche was using a little hype to express his surprise.  Just good conversation here at the audio pub, no biggie.

[Jud]

17 hours ago, GUTB said:

I listened to a bunch of class D at AXPONA this year — and they all SUCKED.

 

I bought a D-Sonic (latest Pascal + input board) — soundstage fatally flawed, lacked euphonics.

 

I bought a Teac (old ICEPower) — unlistenable garbage. 

 

So, are you guys saying I need to get a NCore like a Nord or Red Dragon? Or must I find some way to fund a $10-15k product like what you guys are mentioning?

 

We are saying get whatever you personally like at whatever price point you feel appropriate.

[Jud]

On 10/24/2017 at 2:42 AM, firedog said:

You're reading way too much into what I wrote. Accurate doesn't automatically go together with "clinical". I don't care about numbers per se. 

But IME, many audiophiles don't want accurate reproduction, they want a certain type of sound. In actuality they want a certain type of color (and being honest, that's a type of distortion) that they like or have been taught that corresponds to "proper" reproduction.  

When they hear reproduction that that actually reflects what is on the recording - they don't like it.

 

Human senses are trained by long experience.  What you hear in certain situations can be a product of the language you speak, your musical culture, or even growing up left handed in a righty-dominated world.  So the fact that what we hear as “right” or “accurate” is affected by what we’ve heard before - our lifelong training - is to be expected.

[Jud]

59 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

So you can't.  

 

Figures.  You are just full of BS and vile bile.

 

Is a vial of bile vile?

[Jud]

47 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

I hit the wrong key on the keyboard, but I kind of liked what I saw...

 

Serendipity is our friend.

[Jud]

5 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

The problem with this stance for me is that the music becomes MORE emotionally engaging the more transparent, the more accurate, and the less noise I hear. It is precisely these times that I stop listening to the gear and start listening to the music, and engaging with it.

 

But then see your +1 to @kumakuma‘s comment.  How to square this circle - the more accurate the sound and the less noise, the more emotional involvement; but such a system can’t make (nearly) all the music you listen to sound better?

 

I have found vanishingly few recordings in my own collection that aren’t improved by more accurate playback.  This certainly includes recordings made a long time ago and/or not under audiophile-grade conditions.  Whatever attracted me to that music in the first place, even if it was a raucous, “dirty” sound, I get to hear more of it through a more accurate system with less noise.

 

I think of early Beatles recordings, or just a little later, The Band’s classic “Chest Fever.”  The latter is not at all well recorded.  But it has an amazing rough energy, the rhythm and vocals lurching along like some great shambling beast.  And a more accurate system with less noise communicates that to the point that it makes the hair stand up on my arms and the back of my neck.

[Jud]

11 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

leaving aside discussions regarding need for depilation - yeh I agree,  a paradox of sorts because a great system can bring out both the best *and* the worst of a recording - it tells you the truth. You are more in touch with the music either way.

 

 I too have been [cliche warning] rediscovering older recordings from the 50's and 60's that I enjoy very much despite arguably sub-optimal recording quality.Your example of the Stones "Stripped" is one example especially "Love in Vain" - thanks by the way.

 

So, my spin, even sub-optimal recordings can be made to sound better on a great system IF there is *something* of merit, in the first place, in the recording for the system to "deliver" - some substrate of quality to work on, even if that is raw raucous sound serving some rock music.

 

OTOH If *all* recordings have great sound quality, or made to sound great, as some would appear to claim - IMO they have "eupthonized" ( I may have invented a new word combining euphonize and euthanize ) their system.  You can use sonic sunglasses to make the qualities of poor recordings warmer or whatever which validly enhances the musical experience. Trouble is you paint everything with the same brush so I would rather use some creative EQ or something on a track by track basis.

 

 

 

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.

[Jud]

7 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

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 ... .

 

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!”).

[Jud]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

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

 

Sorry, I apparently was confused by your previous response.  I originally took "The 'overlay' that a competent system delivers is that irritating artifacts triggered from weaknesses in the playback chain, by 'difficult' recordings, are removed" as overlaying and covering up irritating artifacts.  But apparently you meant the opposite of overlay, transparency through removal of noise and distortion.