Sanity Check

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

I can enjoy music on a terrible radio. I'll probably enjoy it more on a good system. Nevertheless, I'll never experience it the same as being at a live event.

 

It will never be identical to the live event, but if you're after the kick that listening to live instruments can give one, then that is possible. If it sounds like the band is going full bore down the other end of the house, and you walk down, and into the room, and the impact is still fully there, of the real thing - that's the goal. If you go out into the street to listen, it sounds like you have a group "rehearsing" in your home - IOW, all the cues are realised that our hearing system has become attuned to reacting to, and the illusion is not broken.

[fas42]

41 minutes ago, STC said:

 

In a way, we are in the same boat. How do we convince others? The difference between you and I is whether what we do is repeatable?

 

I can always demo what I do with a click of mouse to compare A and B configuration. As you know, I was very keen when you first started to post and roll your videos seriously only to find it showed nothing that an average human being could decipher. 

 

You have to come up with evidence so that others could repeat. 

 

For an example, when I said the reverbs should come from the side I could demo them. Actually, Toole did a more elaborate experiment to prove the point.

 

In my case, it is simply to let the listeners evaluate them. I could play a basic stereo sound and then just turn on the 90 degrees convolution speakers.  Ask them whether they perceive any difference? Is the difference is positive or negative? Then I mute the 90 degrees speakers and turn on the convolution speakers at 45 degrees and I ask for their opinion. 

 

It is is not only what I hear matters but what others could is more valuable.

 

You have to  show something like this so that others could repeat and confirm. Otherwise, all your knowledge is nothing more than....conjecture only you could hear. 

 

All fair enough points, ... there are many ways to "fool the brain", and mine is perhaps the simplest, and also hardest, method. Simple, because it merely requires a conventional audio setup; hard, because that setup has to have all audible weaknesses eliminated - the direct sound can never show any abnormalities, because if they are there the brain seizes upon them, and rejects the illusion. Masking by additional sound sources is not there to save the day, the representation stands or falls by what emerges from the drivers on the two sides.

 

This makes it hard to demonstrate the situation - audio recorded of the playback sounds, or should, just like the recording, over the same method of monitoring - the photocopy matches the original. The difference between the sound being good enough, and not being good enough, may be so subtle over the sound system used to monitor by others, to be meaningless.

 

That said, I might do some more rounds with something more extravagant, like a brass band recording - and record directly in front, and in various locations more distant from the sound - outside the room, outside the house, etc.

 

The repeatability is the the hard thing for others to master - they need to be able to honestly assess where the audible weaknesses of their setups are, and then work toward resolving them; this is the way I got the "good stuff" the first time, and every system will be different - no easy answers.

[fas42]

24 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

Funny, to me the illusion is never completely there to begin with. I've been privy to a lot of really expensive, first rate systems, and none have ever even half convinced me that I'm listening to live music playing in a real space. Oh, don't get me wrong, I have heard many a stereo system that I found satisfying as a listening experience as is my own, but live instruments? Not really. I was listening to Mario Martinez' (PlayClassics.com) recording of Angel Cabrera playing Debussy on a concert grand piano the other evening, and I got glimpses of reality, but that illusion wasn't really very stable and didn't last long. 

 

Well, "really expensive, first rate systems" doesn't guarantee anything - as I've mentioned many times, the slightest weakness in the playback will be enough to disrupt the illusion; and the only certain method that I know of is that someone has gone to a great deal of time and attention to evolve the rig to a high enough standard.

 

No, this is not "glimpses of reality" - this is, "grab you by the short and curlies and drag you along for a powerhouse ride" - this won't happen with a sedate, classical recital, but put on a driving, high energy rock production, say - and the adrenaline rush will be tremendous, . When the latter recordings 'work', then classical albums also fall into place - the dynamics of music are universal, and every style and genre comes to life, if the system gets it right.

[fas42]

27 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

Go to the Albert Hall (London) when they are playing the 1812. If you buy  the cheapest tickets you  will be high up at the  back and the cannons will be right next to you.

 

When they go off you will know the difference. (You have to do it blind of course or the smoke will give the game away.)

 

Most people wouldn't want that intensity of sound, for various reasons ... the most memorable listening experience like that for me was being about 20 feet away from a Chinese New Year "chandelier" of crackers - which lasted for about 5 minutes. My hearing completely closed down - I was deaf for about half an hour after that.

 

Transient intensity is central to live music, but it doesn't have to be OTT to sound right - when it is correct it immediately strikes one as being so.

[fas42]

11 hours ago, semente said:

 

The system I use as reference consists of a bespoke DAC, a highly modified/optimised CD player, bespoke dual-mono amplification and a pair of modified/optimised BnW F801 speakers. I've not listened to it playing rock recordings but it sounds simultaneously soft and bombastic with wide DR orchestral music and very "transparent".

I agree that this is in part the result of optimisation and top electronic design but the fact that the speakers have a 12" woofer in a large sealed bass-bin makes for a lot of that ability.

You can't achieve that with an 8" + tweeter standmount, even if you are using the same electronics...

 

Luckily, "It's not the size, but what you do with it that counts" ...

 

In audio, that's more relevant than ever - I have never had size envy , because it's never mattered. In fact, I have a pair of 12" Peerless woofers here, have had them for years, but never mounted into a cabinet because the urge to do so has never been great enough.

 

The " 8" + tweeter standmount" arrangement is what got me on this road in the first place, and it's a reliable setup, for me. Where the speaker style of the B&W works is that its far greater overall mass gives it a stability that's essential for good sound - I achieve the same, for smaller speakers, using various simple "tie down to heaviness" methods. This is good enough for "bombastic" pipe organ recordings to yield spectacular "bigness" - I have yet to hear another system achieve the "size" of sound that I can get here.

 

Regarding getting more than "mere recognition", this is one of the ways to assess quality aspects. There are old recordings, of strong vocal performances - when playback is below the goal level, the voice has a "reproduction" quality about it - it's obviously, 'fake'. Above that quality, the voice becomes 'real' - our senses register that it's a living, breathing person making the sounds - there's a whole extra dimension in the listening, just from this alone.

[fas42]

4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Aw' Gimme a break, will ya! It's true that you can spend a lot of money and buy components that don't work well together, so yeah, spending a lot of money doesn't guarantee a great sounding system, but, on the other hand,  all great sounding systems cost a good deal of money. Even used, yesterday's top components still command high prices.

 

Okay ,

 

 

I don't agree that "all great sounding systems cost a good deal of money" - most people would be flabbergasted by how impressive ordinary, low cost components can come across if the right amount of attention is given to fixing silly weaknesses - yes, they won't have window rattling bass, nor produce huge SPLs; but in the key areas of presenting a convincing illusion they can do an excellent job.

 

Quote

Believe me, no "driving, high energy rock production" has ever grabbed me by the short and curlies or dragged me along for a powerhouse ride". My reaction to that kind of music is, mostly, "TURN THAT CRAP OFF!" I get no adrenaline rush from such primitive "music", and my reaction is likely to include something like a comment about the decline of Western Civilization and musical entropy.

 

I wonder whether you have ever been directly in the midst of musicians producing this, listening just to the raw sound of the instruments, which means the guitar amps only, etc - no PA nonsense!! I've always enjoyed the "hit" of this - to me, it's equivalent to standing next to a brass band going for it, there's a physicality about the experience which is what makes it special.

[fas42]

17 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I wasn't talking about kitchen spoons.

But I disagree: size limits maximum SPL and low frequency extension.

 

Only for the deep bass ... IME this aspect is almost irrelevant; all rigs which have the "big bass setup!" either still don't get it right, or the bass content is ludicrously exaggerated, sticking out like a sore thumb - the result is something nothing like live acoustic sound ...

[fas42]

18 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Maybe they should fix the bass. 

 

BTW, my comments refer to the playback of classical music.

 

Yes, classical music would be a good reference - I've mentioned once or twice about at one stage using a setup where the separate, and "essential" subwoofer would go offline at odd times - and I didn't realise this from the listening ... this was invariably when I was playing "big" orchestral, operatic recordings - the "bigness" of the experience wasn't lost because that bass content ceased to be there ...

[fas42]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

OK, I'll bite, what are these "silly Weaknesses" of which you speak, and what constitutes "the right amount of attention"? By the way, before we start, let me say that I'm not arguing your point. Unlike GUTB and some others here, I agree that very good sounding systems, systems presenting that "extra soupçon" of realism can be had for fairly modest money, if the buyer knows what he is doing. But, having said that, I must also say that to get true state-of-the-art, will cost the big bux !

 

 

There are at least four areas that always need to be looked at - note, having divisions like this is just a means of sorting the stuff that's relevant, to get a handle on the tasks at hand.

 

First, the connections between the components, and parts within components - the cheaper the gear the worse the quality of the parts being used for plugs and sockets, and how it's mounted - high end gear at least tries to use more "solid" items. I solve this by simplifying the rig, eliminating the connector parts entirely, or treating them with a high conductivity protective substance - the aim is for the whole system to be effectively "hard wired".

 

Then, flimsy mounting of parts, and haphazard routing of cables - stability, stability, stability is the mantra ... people spend silly money on supporting stands and shelves - I dive inside, and stabilise everything I think relevant - things being able to wobble at the slightest touch is a quality killer.

 

Also, poor power supplies - some "straight from the textbook" setup which is the absolute minimum that allows the kit to work, and specs to be met. Upping the engineering of these circuits can easily produce huge gains, in the the important areas.

 

Finally, lousy resistance to interference effects - from wherever. This requires a lot of trial and error, to get the best value for effort return - this is the hardest to fully conquer.

 

Highest integrity of every part of the combo, without changing any more of the 'true' electrical parts than necessary - is the process. Just doing this can take a "cheap nothing" from "unlistenable mediocre" to "Gosh! I just want to keep listening to every recording I have!"

 

Quote

To answer your question, NO, emphatically, I have not! That's like asking me if I have ever stood in the middle of the production floor at a boiler factory with no ear protection! To me cacophony is cacophony, whether from a bunch of long haired, dope-crazed rockers or a steel mill, it's all the same to me. But, taste is different for different people. I literally hate the sound of solid-body electric guitars like a Fender StratoCaster and the like and will run to get away from it! I'm also not very fond of rock-drum kits either (but I'd like to have Nick Mason's car collection ) and I also can't stand the screaming that seems to pass for vocals in much rock music either! On the other hand, you seem to like it. That's fine, listen to it in good health and enjoy it, I say!

 

Well, I'm also talking about the "older stuff" - the Foo Fighters and similar style does nothing, or very little, for me, either. A good compromise would be Status Quo material - the vocals are quite "sweet" on the ear; the drumming is straightforward; the recordings are in good order - but the driving, boogie guitar content is a solid test of playback competence.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

 ... That's why in a sports bar, you can still converse with your buddies even though there might be a score of other very loud conversations going on in the same room at the same time! A microphone cannot do that. You put a microphone in a room with twenty or so conversations going at once and record those conversations, when you play them back, you won't be able to understand ANY of them! The reason should be apparent to even the most casual reader, here. The difference is that humans have brains that can discriminate between sounds in a noisy environment, but they have to actually be IN that environment to do so! Those same humans can't do that to a recording of that environment unless the person doing the recording has thought about how he can separate those conversations. That's what I mean when I say that the difference between a microphone setup and a pair of human ears is that that one's ears are connected directly to one's intelligence, and microphone is just a dumb, brainless transducer. The diaphragm merely picks-up sounds that hits it, it doesn't HEAR anything! In a room full of people talking, there is not way to unscramble those many conversations, but a recording engineer, using real stereo miking techniques, and present a symphony orchestra or other musical ensemble in such a way that the listener, sitting in front of his or her speakers can actually point to the individual instruments in the ensemble and name them in their place! "There's the oboe behind the first viola, and there's the first trumpet on a riser in the back row." etc. 
 

 

The 'argument' is about whether the ear/brain can discriminate individual elements in a group of sound elements, when the latter is on a recording. You're saying "humans can't do that to a recording of that environment unless the person doing the recording has thought about how he can separate those" sounds; I'm saying that the recording has captured the information that allows a listener to just hear  "your buddies even though there might be a score of other very loud conversations going on in the same room at the same time", in a simple recording of the sound in that room. But this won't be possible unless the playback is of a high enough standard! How do you know if the playback is good enough? Well, by the fact that you can easily distinguish your buddies' voices, in that recording ...

[fas42]

15 hours ago, buonassi said:

I think the major takeaway is that we audiophiles are all, in fact, insane by "normal people" standards.  Think about it.... how many times have you tried to enthusiastically explain your hobby to someone only to find them looking at you like you're certifiable?  

 

You then try and rationalize your insanity by responding "Well, you watch TV for what... 2-3 hours on NFL sunday, a movie here and there, some news, and you dropped like 2K on it didn't you?  And your wife wanted that 2K bose set to accompany her decor because you guys place aesthetics high on the priority list!  It's the same thing, right?"

 

Faced with your misunderstood logic, they just continue to stare, then struggle to either change the topic or look for an exit.  It's not "the same".  We ARE insane.  And we have a large online community where we essentially encourage one another to become even more crazy.  

 

Much of the craziness is because most people haven't got clear insight as to what the goal is, and how to go about it - so, energies get diverted into "nonsense" areas where bling is a huge part of the 'fix', and the amount of money spent becomes meaningless, because applying more money doesn't automatically make it better - this is very unlike most areas of human endeavour.

 

Strangely, many people in this audio game think I'm not sane - because I don't worry about the silly things they do; the pack mentality is very big in audiophile circles, because it's essentially an exclusively blokey thing ...