Being aware of misbehaviour of the playback chain

[fas42]

As opus101 asked ... BTW, my Internet line is a disaster at the moment, a technician is coming tomorrow - if I don't respond, it's because I'm being thrown off-line all the time.

[fas42]

For others who may be interested in experimenting in their own way, I first established that my "monster" Perreaux power amp had an issue, because at a certain volume the quality of splash cymbals changed - they lost their sparkle, and "went dead". This was a PS problem, which eventually caused me to do major surgery on the unit.

 

I then used the same test when checking out "high end" gear in the shops, and initially I was staggered at how poorly the usual suspects did - there was a lot of "poor engineering" of gear back then, .

[PeterSt]

People, although it is not my thread I feel compelled to take it over because it could have been mine.

So indeed, I recognize that the means as put forward by Frank are not the same as mine, but with my own idea about my own findings I'd have to say that the outcome of it all is exactly the same as Frank's, throughout. Frank will also remember that a couple of months ago I told (him) that if I could lose a bet on the best sounding system to anyone, it would be Frank.

I also told it scared me a little because I heard myself speaking about certain matters and whatever that was it is almost too weird for another but myself to express about it. And it continues :

 

5 hours ago, fas42 said:

the audio friend down the road is into the band Yes; but I found it hard to understand why - when he first played his copies of their albums they sounded pretty awful, on his rig as it was in those years ago [...] 

Years later, with much greater knowledge at his disposal, the true majesty of these musical creations can be largely heard

 

I don't know how many times I gave Yes (and The Yes Album) as an example, but I still regularly play it to test its merits for again better cymbal. So indeed this is a typical example of an album which is mediocre at first and which would be laid aside forever, but this is not my style. Instead I put it in a "demo" folder so I can revisit it regularly to check whether a latest tweak now "solves" it. It is really how one improves; this does NOT go by playing Tin Pan Ally over and over again, or No Sanctuary here, for that matter.

So what's scary, Frank, is that you not only use similar methods, but also use the same examples. Still I'd say I am not you or the other way around.

 

Btw, my best example is the original Get Back from The Beatles (no Remaster) which I play in front of everybody auditioning over here. I just need to meet the first person who ever thinks that this is The Beatles themselves because each and everyone thinks it is a cover band. There's just nothing left of the original, and it sounds as the very best recording made today (by George - haha).

 

4 hours ago, opus101 said:

...is there a point where the tonal quality of the brass changes, or is it totally consistent throughout the range of volumes?

 

And yet another example (indirectly via Opus now);

I could go search the Phasure forum for the number of times I told about a "synergy" which emerges when the loudness is at realistic levels (with a trumpet as the impossible for a living room because too loud) because our brain suddenly makes something out of it, which it can't without the realistic levels. So what I'm saying is that music reproduction should be judged at the realistic levels or otherwise things go odd to begin with. It just clicks in. But for that everything must be seriously right, because realistic levels are usually too loud to listen to in sustained fashion from near by (digital now suddenly is quite difficult). I suppose people know that a grand piano produces 90dBSPL (measured nicely at the 1m standard distance). But do people also know that a cymbal, once reproduced as should, is to exhibit 110dBSPL ? Maybe we (or I) should be lucky that we're not 100% there, because when the piano is tuned in for realistic levels (that 90dB is really not loud at all) the cymbal will be killing.

I know, because I have all these instruments for the purpose and use them as a means to check the playback of them.

 

 

Anyway, no matter the more difficult story, I'd have to believe Frank to at least a large extent. 

 

[rando]

6 hours ago, gmgraves said:

That's my opinion of worrying over the last soupçon of "Fi" just too play topical "pop" crap. 

 

This was a boorish and unrefined comment in the face of increasingly lengthy technical treatises.  It was also possibly the most intelligent and thought provoking argument levied in this thread to date.  

6 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Bad analogy. Lewis Hamilton does not win F1 races by tweaking the air (pardon me, the nitrogen) in his tires! He has the best car, with the best engine and the best solid engineering in the team behind him (not to take anything away from his talent as a driver, you understand). What wins in motor sport as well as Hi-Fi is good, well designed and well made equipment. Again, Lipstick applied to a pig or a tuxedo on a goat does nothing to alter the fact that they are still a pig and a goat.  

 

Tell LH to stop callling himself the GOAT (Greatest Of All Time).  

 

With some trepidation regarding voicing what could be taken as a sincere acceptance of sport; ignore all the betting, marketing, business practices involved with selling international entertainment.  LH's redeeming quality all the way up through the ranks was his grasp on diagnosing and relating the plethora of information that makes or breaks a car.  Separating misunderstandings bound to arise using one set of terms between highly educated team personnel is a large part of who he is today.  The word stall means greatly different things to a mechanic than an aerodynamicist, for instance.  He has the best car under him because he has the ability to make it so.  

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

People, although it is not my thread I feel compelled to take it over because it could have been mine.

So indeed, I recognize that the means as put forward by Frank are not the same as mine, but with my own idea about my own findings I'd have to say that the outcome of it all is exactly the same as Frank's, throughout. Frank will also remember that a couple of months ago I told (him) that if I could lose a bet on the best sounding system to anyone, it would be Frank.

I also told it scared me a little because I heard myself speaking about certain matters and whatever that was it is almost too weird for another but myself to express about it. And it continues :

 

 

I don't know how many times I gave Yes (and The Yes Album) as an example, but I still regularly play it to test its merits for again better cymbal. So indeed this is a typical example of an album which is mediocre at first and which would be laid aside forever, but this is not my style. Instead I put it in a "demo" folder so I can revisit it regularly to check whether a latest tweak now "solves" it. It is really how one improves; this does NOT go by playing Tin Pan Ally over and over again, or No Sanctuary here, for that matter.

So what's scary, Frank, is that you not only use similar methods, but also use the same examples. Still I'd say I am not you or the other way around.

 

Btw, my best example is the original Get Back from The Beatles (no Remaster) which I play in front of everybody auditioning over here. I just need to meet the first person who ever thinks that this is The Beatles themselves because each and everyone thinks it is a cover band. There's just nothing left of the original, and it sounds as the very best recording made today (by George - haha).

 

 

And yet another example (indirectly via Opus now);

I could go search the Phasure forum for the number of times I told about a "synergy" which emerges when the loudness is at realistic levels (with a trumpet as the impossible for a living room because too loud) because our brain suddenly makes something out of it, which it can't without the realistic levels. So what I'm saying is that music reproduction should be judged at the realistic levels or otherwise things go odd to begin with. It just clicks in. But for that everything must be seriously right, because realistic levels are usually too loud to listen to in sustained fashion from near by (digital now suddenly is quite difficult). I suppose people know that a grand piano produces 90dBSPL (measured nicely at the 1m standard distance). But do people also know that a cymbal, once reproduced as should, is to exhibit 110dBSPL ? Maybe we (or I) should be lucky that we're not 100% there, because when the piano is tuned in for realistic levels (that 90dB is really not loud at all) the cymbal will be killing.

I know, because I have all these instruments for the purpose and use them as a means to check the playback of them.

 

 

Anyway, no matter the more difficult story, I'd have to believe Frank to at least a large extent. 

 

 

Peter, are you sure your hearing is still intact after listening to cymbals at 'realistic' levels of 110dbSPL for 11000 hours?

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

28 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Peter, are you sure your hearing is still intact after listening to cymbals at 'realistic' levels of 110dbSPL for 11000 hours?

 

Haha, as I said, luckily we are not there yet. But this is relative because with my own recording (of the drum kit I showed) nobody can differentiate that real thing from the recording (not audibly and not for feeling it in the stomach and such). But somehow that only counts for my own recording, and although Charly Antolini comes closes these days (no debet for him) is is not as dynamic and colorful as my own recording.

Also I don't really tune in for the piano for real - only when e.g. Abdullah Ibrahim plays on his own.

 

For fun : Yesterday I have been playing Status Quo for several hours in a row. Only because that appears to be sounding very well "today" (was not so a year ago) with the notion that the normally worst part for them is the cymbals. So they made this music sound nasty above some sound level, while today this is suddenly the key thing in it. Very snappy and just "white" enough to give it a necessary not-so-ugly. But foremost : listenable which I regard important for quite many hits back in the days.

Saw them 10 years ago on stage and found them the worst performers (no contact with the audience) which even came across more miserable them being on stage after Uriah Heep which were the very best performers.

[Allan F]

7 hours ago, PeterSt said:

I know, because I have all these instruments for the purpose and use them as a means to check the playback of them.

 

At what volume level do you need to listen to the washer and dryer in order to hear their tonality accurately?

[gmgraves]

14 hours ago, opus101 said:

 

...is there a point where the tonal quality of the brass changes, or is it totally consistent throughout the range of volumes?

Of course the tonal quality doesn't change. Why would it? Of course, if you come close to clipping the amplifier by overdriving it, or run the speakers out of their linear range, so that they distort, THEN the tonal quality will change, but I'm guessing that wasn't what Frank meant. There is no way, with current technology, to accurately capture the sound of many brass instruments, trumpets and coronets being chief among these, but french horns, while a more "polite" instrument can be difficult as well. The reason? The explosive and very complex transient attacks and harmonic structure in a trumpet (or other brass instrument) blast are faster than the diaphragm of any microphone can follow, would be my educated guess. Anyway, whatever the reason, no recorded trumpet(s) has ever fooled anyone, no matter how good their playback system, into mistaking it for a real trumpet in the room.

[gmgraves]

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

I then used the same test when checking out "high end" gear in the shops, and initially I was staggered at how poorly the usual suspects did - there was a lot of "poor engineering" of gear back then, .

That's sort of like saying that a Stutz Bearcat was poorly engineered back in 1920 because it couldn't go 250 Mph like a modern Bugatti Veyron. Let's just say that the engineers who designed the "Usual Suspects" didn't know as much about designing with solid-state as they do today. 

[semente]

12 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Maybe we (or I) should be lucky that we're not 100% there, because when the piano is tuned in for realistic levels (that 90dB is really not loud at all) the cymbal will be killing.

 

The first time I listened to the system I use as reference I only realised how loud it was playing when I started chatting to it's owner in the middle of an orchestral ƒƒƒƒ, and despite the volume we could understand each other. It's now one of the (subjective) characteristics that to me defines "transparency" and a "good" sound.

Others are "resolution" at low volumes (which comes from the absence of noise and distortions) - when the volume is lowered the level and "liveness" of detail remains relatively stable (despite the inevitable but slight change in tone) -, and an absence of "hardness", a "smooth" but "crisp" and dynamic sound. And the inevitable "flat" response.

 

Some of the people who've listened to this system jokingly refer to their experience as "seeing the light", and indeed it sounds as if someone removed thick blankets from the front of the speakers.

[semente]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

Of course the tonal quality doesn't change. Why would it?

 

Dynamic compression?

[fas42]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

Of course the tonal quality doesn't change. Why would it? Of course, if you come close to clipping the amplifier by overdriving it, or run the speakers out of their linear range, so that they distort, THEN the tonal quality will change, but I'm guessing that wasn't what Frank meant. There is no way, with current technology, to accurately capture the sound of many brass instruments, trumpets and coronets being chief among these, but french horns, while a more "polite" instrument can be difficult as well. The reason? The explosive and very complex transient attacks and harmonic structure in a trumpet (or other brass instrument) blast are faster than the diaphragm of any microphone can follow, would be my educated guess. Anyway, whatever the reason, no recorded trumpet(s) has ever fooled anyone, no matter how good their playback system, into mistaking it for a real trumpet in the room.

 

The tonal quality alters, because the system enters a region where it starts to misbehave very obviously; somewhere, whether engineering or an actual flaw in the parts, the necessary integrity of the rig has been degraded too much - this is why it's easy to pick assess the competence of the setup, because it's no longer capable of sounding "effortless".

 

I've mentioned the Perreaux amp, already - this has "fabulous" specs, all detailed in the user manual - capable of peak power of 700W into 8 ohms - but it was distorting at relatively mild volumes, the cymbals I mentioned earlier - if it was outputing 10W at the time I would have been surprised! What's going on?? Well, the clues are also in the specs - poor current drive; this is a voltage monster! And the design of the PS was poor - the voltage rails modulated too much, and the clear evidence was that the simple circuitry couldn't reject this 'interference' - the solution was to greatly "stiffen" those rails ... and the problem went away ...

[semente]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

capable of sounding "effortless"

 

I used the words "liveness", "smooth" and "crisp" but "effortless" sums it up quite well. Really.

[fas42]

9 hours ago, PeterSt said:

For fun : Yesterday I have been playing Status Quo for several hours in a row. Only because that appears to be sounding very well "today" (was not so a year ago) with the notion that the normally worst part for them is the cymbals. So they made this music sound nasty above some sound level, while today this is suddenly the key thing in it. Very snappy and just "white" enough to give it a necessary not-so-ugly. But foremost : listenable which I regard important for quite many hits back in the days.

Saw them 10 years ago on stage and found them the worst performers (no contact with the audience) which even came across more miserable them being on stage after Uriah Heep which were the very best performers.

 

Yes, you're me! Status Quo was what I used to deeply offend purveyors of "exclusive merchandise" - where is the nose rubbing on the ceiling emoji when you need it?

 

Trust me: those cymbals are 100% correct on the recording - as good as you will hear on the finest carefully miked, audiophile capture track. Not the slightest hint of "white noise", they are the real deal, completely - I could use a Quo CD to fully debug a rig, no other music needed.

[fas42]

16 minutes ago, semente said:

 

The first time I listened to the system I used as reference I only realised how loud it was playing when I started chatting to it's owner in the middle of an orchestral ƒƒƒƒ, and despite the volume we could understand each other. It's now one of the (subjective) characteristics that to me defines "transparency" and a "good" sound.

Others are "resolution" at low volumes (which comes from the absence of noise and distortions) - when the volume is lowered the level and "liveness" of detail remains relatively stable (despite the inevitable but slight change in tone) -, and an absence of "hardness", a "smooth" but "crisp" and dynamic sound. And the inevitable "flat" response.

 

Some of the people who've listened to this system jokingly refer to their experience as "seeing the light", and indeed it sounds as if someone remove thick blankets from the front of the speakers.

 

Every one of these subjective takeaways are markers of competent sound - "seeing the light" this way is what also happened to me, 3 decades ago - and I've been chasing it ever since!

[gmgraves]

53 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Dynamic compression?

Again, there would only be dynamic compression if the amp compressed dynamics up near its power limit, or if the speakers compressed as the music got louder (I once had a pair Acoustat electrostatic speakers that did that because the transformer driving the ESL panel wasn't big enough and saturated at higher volumes). As long as you operated the playback equipment within it's limits, there should be no compression, certainly if the recording has some compression it would be compressed irrespective of the playback volume. 

 

This is getting somewhat silly!

[gmgraves]

53 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The tonal quality alters, because the system enters a region where it starts to misbehave very obviously; somewhere, whether engineering or an actual flaw in the parts, the necessary integrity of the rig has been degraded too much - this is why it's easy to pick assess the competence of the setup, because it's no longer capable of sounding "effortless".

Did I not just say that? Tonal quality will not change with volume as long as you A) don't run out of power, B) don't operate your speakers in their non-linear area. I don't do that because it's not necessary. If your system does that then I suggest that either your amplifier is insufficient for your system or your speakers are. 

 

53 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I've mentioned the Perreaux amp, already - this has "fabulous" specs, all detailed in the user manual - capable of peak power of 700W into 8 ohms - but it was distorting at relatively mild volumes, the cymbals I mentioned earlier - if it was outputing 10W at the time I would have been surprised! What's going on?? Well, the clues are also in the specs - poor current drive; this is a voltage monster! And the design of the PS was poor - the voltage rails modulated too much, and the clear evidence was that the simple circuitry couldn't reject this 'interference' - the solution was to greatly "stiffen" those rails ... and the problem went away ...

That's too bad. If I'd had an amp like that, I'd have dumped it for something better. 

[fas42]

6 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Did I not just say that? Tonal quality will not change with volume as long as you A) don't run out of power, B) operate your speakers in their non-linear area. I don't do that because it's not necessary. If you system does that then I suggest that either your amplifier is insufficient for your system or your speakers are. 

 

That's too bad. If I'd had an amp like that, I'd have dumped it for something better. 

 

Well, at the moment I "trying to get to the bottom" of why your brass doesn't sound, umm, brassy - some setup issues are volume dependent, some are not - the term to bring into one's thinking is ... "troubleshooting".

 

At the time I bought the Perreaux it sounded excellent for what I was expecting a quality amp to do, and this was well before my "epiphany" ... I listened to other monsters like Krell, and Mark Levinson at the time  - and they sounded like, well, shit ... my decision was easy ...

 

Back then, all amps were inferior - there was no point in going backwards.
 

[fas42]

18 hours ago, fas42 said:

As opus101 asked ... BTW, my Internet line is a disaster at the moment, a technician is coming tomorrow - if I don't respond, it's because I'm being thrown off-line all the time.

 

Well, this is somewhat appropriate to the points I make here ... .

 

He's come and gone - spent about 3/4 hour on the pole outside ... for some, unknown reason an extra junction box had been added to the pole, feeding a couple of the houses here, including mine. The insides of this were a complete mess, a mass of corrosion, etc. And the cable which fed me was completely broken, fatigue and corrosion had done its job over a long period - just the tiniest part of the metal on one side was resting on that of the other side.

 

This would have been like this for months, years perhaps - yet, the phone was pretty good until some weeks ago, when it started getting noisy - and then over a few days now the internet got very flaky ... but before this,
"it was working" ... ummm, integrity of the communications chain to my house was on a knife edge, for ages -  but, I didn't have a clue.

 

Audio, anyone ...

[pkane2001]

46 minutes ago, fas42 said:

the phone was pretty good until some weeks ago, when it started getting noisy

 

But Frank, I thought the source quality isn’t important as long as your equipment can create the illusion of a perfect sound?

 

[fas42]

As it pertains to audio, there was an extremely "weak link" in the phone chain to my house, which still allowed normal operation - this corresponds to competent sound - and finally that link had deteriorated too much, phone line and net linkage were almost unusable - corresponding to less than competent sound. There was a dramatic switch in competence of communications to our home - all dependent on precisely what the chaotic status of that weakness was. Resolution was tracking it down, and fixing the problem.

 

The company's junction box was part of the "equipment" for getting the signal through - whether I could fiddle with it or not is not relevant - one way or another that flaw had to be resolved, for the illusion of good communications to form ...

[anwaypasible]

a laser microphone works by simply using chorus down the beam to rotate back a difference that ultimately depends on the sensitivity of the input sensor.

it's like having a sword & anything that touches it (including the air) is going to cause the chain-linked web to deviate from default & that deviation is audio.

 

..somebody said something about mics being the weak point.

[fas42]

Just noted on another forum, about some equipment held in very high regard, this comment,

 

"... the dynamics of it shocked me, I could tell from the first bar of the first song. It is weird, as even when played fairly low in volume you can still hear the drive behind the music." Not achieving this is a sign of misbehaviour - the power of the music should ring through, and true, even at whisper level SPLs.

[Ralf11]

 

[christopher3393]

great film, even on youtube.