Being aware of misbehaviour of the playback chain

[Ralf11]

15 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

... he doesn't know enough about either electronics, physics or acoustics to come up with anything at all as novel as what he asserts. 

 

 

whoa - since WHEN was any knowledge of anything a pre-requisite to being an audiophile??

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, semente said:

For starters one cannot expect a domestic reproduction system of recorded music to reproduce what the recording system was not able to capture, and which is obviously not in the signal.

Live sound is live sound, and many aspects or attributes of live sound cannot be recreated in your home with your reproduction system due to limitations in both the recording and the reproduction processes.

Absolutely!

 

6 hours ago, semente said:

Still, it is my experience and conviction that good recordings of live acoustic unamplified music such as those from PlayClassics are the best for assessing not only "naturalness" or "realism" but also several other attributes of the system's performance. Other kinds of recordings and music genres also have their use in the listening evaluation.

It is also extremely important to know what can be achieved in reproduction, to have solid references to which compare what we are listening, to set standards and expectations. I would tend to believe that will more likely find those references in private systems that at dealers' or shows. In fact I am always surprised by the profusion of praising comments on show demos.

That is certainly true. Mario Martinez' recordings from PlayClassics are an invaluable tool for evaluating the real "Fi" of one' system. If you play one of his piano recordings (especially the "Cabrera Plays Debussy" album) and your system is good enough to evoke your willing suspension of disbelief to the point where you are saying to yourself, "this recording sounds like a real piano right here in this room!" then you have to conclude that you are on the right track and that your system is pretty good. Certainly better speakers might heighten that illusion (or maybe not), but you have the basics down, or those piano recordings couldn't fool you like they do!  

[kumakuma]

13 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Well, short of visiting his listening room, we don't even know that he has a listening room, or, for that matter, a stereo system, or whether that "process" he says that he has used to "tune" his system to perfection (or at all) even exists. 

 

From what I've been able to tell, his "process" appears to involve a tremendous amount of soldering...

[gmgraves]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

whoa - since WHEN was any knowledge of anything a pre-requisite to being an audiophile??

Unfortunately, it's not. Let me rephrase that a certain amount of knowledge is necessary to be a successful audiophile. And keep in mind someone who throws a fist-full of green-backs at some audio consultant to choose and install a system is NOT necessarily an audiophile. And of course people like that generally aren't. They may be music lovers, but mostly they are just Nouveau Riche jerks who want the "best" merely for bragging purposes (and in their garage there is a Porsche that they have no idea how to drive either).

[gmgraves]

5 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

From what I've been able to tell, his "process" appears to involve a tremendous amount of soldering...

And if he knew anything about electronics, he'd know it's wasted effort, too. But he doesn't. 

[Ralf11]

10 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Unfortunately, it's not. Let me rephrase that a certain amount of knowledge is necessary to be a successful audiophile. And keep in mind someone who throws a fist-full of green-backs at some audio consultant to choose and install a system is NOT necessarily an audiophile. And of course people like that generally aren't. They may be music lovers, but mostly they are just Nouveau Riche jerks who want the "best" merely for bragging purposes (and in their garage there is a Porsche that they have no idea how to drive either).

 

I thought the Nouveau Riche jerks always bought Italian cars ??

 

but you know what they say about porcupines and Porscheys...

[kumakuma]

18 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

And if he knew anything about electronics, he'd know it's wasted effort, too. But he doesn't. 

 

I'm guessing that all this busy work provides him with a feeling of satisfaction and forward progress. Seems like a lot of turd polishing to me.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

 

I thought the Nouveau Riche jerks always bought Italian cars ??

 

but you know what they say about porcupines and Porscheys...

A lot of Nouveau Poor buy Italian cars too.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

I'm guessing that all this busy work provides him with a feeling of satisfaction and forward progress. Seems like a lot of turd polishing to me.

Uh Huh.

[fas42]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Then you haven't been around much. I know an 80-some year old who's system consists of two huge cabinets, each containing FOUR 15 inch Altec Lansing woofers. That's EIGHT in all. I've never before heard such realistic bass, neither have I heard a system which loads the room with bass quite like this one does. It's more visceral than loud at the levels he plays it. It's incredible. OTOH the rest of his speaker system is terrible; comprising as it does of a pair of Altec Lansing 500Hz Treble Horns. Probably one of the most colored and least flat (frequency response-wise) transducers ever made. But Oh that bass!   

 

OK, there was a key phrase there, "more visceral than loud" - that's what Peter and I are talking about - at a certain point the playback switches to another level of experience when the quality is good enough - and once you've experienced this, and understand what just happened, you can never go back to the "normal stuff".

 

This is when the "realism" kicks in , and as Peter is indicating, you can keep building and building upon that - it's almost a case of, there are no limits ...

[fas42]

9 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

Frank's (@fas42) approach is deeply subjective, based entirely on his 30 years of hearing experience. Not something that can be repeated by anyone else. I'm glad the process works for him, but it's not useful to me, regardless of how many times he mentions it. I don't (and can't) hear what Frank hears. Short of visiting his listening room and evaluating what he hears, I have no way of applying his process to my own system.

 

Not true. I've already listed the major steps I took on my first good rig, for all to see - all it requires is for someone to do similar, and there's a good chance they will hear something.

 

What I hear is a powerfully convincing illusion - the sound is as "big" as how the recording was put together, and the speakers completely evaporate; I'm not evaluating an audio system playback, I'm in the presence of a musical happening which is far larger than any puny audio rig, .

 

Alternatively, go along to where some musical buskers, or do is, where zero, I repeat, zero PA is "helping" the sound - and sidle up nice and close to the action. And listen. ... That's what you get from a competent audio system.

[fas42]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Well, short of visiting his listening room, we don't even know that he has a listening room, or, for that matter, a stereo system, or whether that "process" he says that he has used to "tune" his system to perfection (or at all) even exists. 

 

Tsk, task, we're seeing the not-so-nice George, - by nature, I'm a perfectionist; I am a programmer who writes code that doesn't have bugs - and by that I mean I can't relax until every last known problem is eradicated, I don't stop until I'm totally confident that nothing is wrong with a system ... my stepson "employed" me to test software and systems he was working on, years ago - "Frank has an uncanny knack of unearthing every little wobbly area in the code, blast it!!", or words to that effect ...

 

That's what got me convincing sound in the first place ... my "listening rooms" are merely where I've plopped the gear while I'm working on it - the current stuff is just sitting on a bed in the work room; this is good enough for telling me how I'm progressing.

[gmgraves]

17 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

OK, there was a key phrase there, "more visceral than loud" - that's what Peter and I are talking about - at a certain point the playback switches to another level of experience when the quality is good enough - and once you've experienced this, and understand what just happened, you can never go back to the "normal stuff".

 

This is when the "realism" kicks in , and as Peter is indicating, you can keep building and building upon that - it's almost a case of, there are no limits ...

I probably should have also mentioned that this kind of bass would be very tiring over the long run. Also, where I live (in a condominium) I couldn't use that kind of bass. The old gent who has those speakers lives in a detached dwelling and having the foundations rattled is no problem for him. If I had those speakers, I'd have the owner's association down on me in a trice. I have a very good pair of subwoofers (but nothing like those) and I have not hooked them up since moving here. My Martin -Logan Vistas are 3 dB down at 41 Hz in my listening room, which means they are useful down to the mid 30's. That's good enough. The bass is there and the speakers are otherwise pretty much flat out to the ultrasonic regions and the ESL panels have instant transient response. Since the ESL panels are push-pull, the distortion is also vanishing low. Every time I hear a speaker that is better than my M-Ls it's a newer, more expensive ESL, usually another Martin-Logan or perhaps a Sound-Lab.

[rando]

19 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Alternatively, go along to where some musical buskers, or do is, where zero, I repeat, zero PA is "helping" the sound - and sidle up nice and close to the action. And listen. ... That's what you get from a competent audio system.

 

What currency and brand of hat should we aim for?  

[fas42]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

whoa - since WHEN was any knowledge of anything a pre-requisite to being an audiophile??

 

When I started getting good sound 30 years ago I only knew as much as the next audiophile, at that time. Before that I had done the usual rounds of building systems from kits, own speakers, etc - and was getting the usual results ... absolutely nothing to get excited about there ... .

 

Perseverance and luck got me over the line - which then got me really revved up, steadily, over the years - how do I make sure that I can always "pull this off" ...

[gmgraves]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Tsk, task, we're seeing the not-so-nice George, - by nature, I'm a perfectionist; I am a programmer who writes code that doesn't have bugs - and by that I mean I can't relax until every last known problem is eradicated, I don't stop until I'm totally confident that nothing is wrong with a system ... my stepson "employed" me to test software and systems he was working on, years ago - "Frank has an uncanny knack of unearthing every little wobbly area in the code, blast it!!", or words to that effect ...

 

That's what got me convincing sound in the first place ... my "listening rooms" are merely where I've plopped the gear while I'm working on it - the current stuff is just sitting on a bed in the work room; this is good enough for telling me how I'm progressing.

I'm not trying to be "not-so-nice". But even you should be able to admit that we have no way of knowing what you're doing, how effective it is, or even whether what you consider "perfect sound" would even be anything that the rest of us would want to listen to. We don't even know whether or not you're just blowing smoke.

 

I've known audiophiles since I was 10 years old and I've heard some of them tout systems that to me sound about as bad as a 1960 6-transistor Sony portable radio! People are liable to latch on to about anything in sound reproduction and concentrate on that to the exclusion of everything else. I knew a guy in college who's only Hi-Fi goal was to make Roy Orbison records sound good. They did, but orchestral music sounded like pure excrement and he didn't care.

[gmgraves]

3 minutes ago, rando said:

 

What currency and brand of hat should we aim for?  

The tinfoil variety.

[fas42]

4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

That is certainly true. Mario Martinez' recordings from PlayClassics are an invaluable tool for evaluating the real "Fi" of one' system. If you play one of his piano recordings (especially the "Cabrera Plays Debussy" album) and your system is good enough to evoke your willing suspension of disbelief to the point where you are saying to yourself, "this recording sounds like a real piano right here in this room!" then you have to conclude that you are on the right track and that your system is pretty good. Certainly better speakers might heighten that illusion (or maybe not), but you have the basics down, or those piano recordings couldn't fool you like they do!  

 

You're getting a huge clue, right there - and you can't see it ...

 

Mario's recording is feeding your brain a perfect meal of acoustic cues - because he went to so much effort in the setting up process - and the illusion pops out. His spotlighting of the musical event was so deft, that any anomalies of playback weren't getting in the way of "seeing" the piano.

 

All you have to do is consider improving the process of creating the sound waves in your room, as replicas of what is on "lesser" recordings - and the same thing happens for them, in the listening. This is what I realised is going on, as the system improves - the brain is getting enough info to recreate "realism", even on the dumpy recordings.

[pkane2001]

46 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Not true. I've already listed the major steps I took on my first good rig, for all to see - all it requires is for someone to do similar, and there's a good chance they will hear something.

 

What I hear is a powerfully convincing illusion - the sound is as "big" as how the recording was put together, and the speakers completely evaporate; I'm not evaluating an audio system playback, I'm in the presence of a musical happening which is far larger than any puny audio rig, .

 

Alternatively, go along to where some musical buskers, or do is, where zero, I repeat, zero PA is "helping" the sound - and sidle up nice and close to the action. And listen. ... That's what you get from a competent audio system.

 

Frank, that's the thing.  Your 'illusion' is really nothing special. Most audiophiles willing to experiment and to learn will reach the level of sound quality where this 'illusion' is just there, and it doesn't require 30 years, it requires a little understanding, a consistent, measured approach. 

 

Unless you can tell me some specific steps on how to find and diagnose the "misbehaviour of the playback chain" in my own system, your description of what you hear in yours is just not very useful.

[fas42]

3 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

I'm guessing that all this busy work provides him with a feeling of satisfaction and forward progress. Seems like a lot of turd polishing to me.

 

Not many of you would be good scientists, it seems to me ... a little lesson in how to understand how the world works: if something unexpected happens, you investigate it; and you keep varying parameters to see what is most important, and where the "edges are" - if someone says, "Well, first of all, you have to pour lots of money into it!!", a perceptive individual mght say, "Really?? Why? ... hmmm, could be interesting to work out an optimum Value for Money equation, etc, etc ..."

[fas42]

5 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Frank, that's the thing.  Your 'illusion' is really nothing special. Most audiophiles willing to experiment and to learn will reach the level of sound quality where this 'illusion' is just there, and it doesn't require 30 years, it requires a little understanding, a consistent, measured approach. 

 

Unless you can tell me some specific steps on how to find and diagnose the "misbehaviour of the playback chain" in my own system, your description of what you hear in yours is just not very useful.

 

You: "Your 'illusion' is really nothing special" ... George: " I'm mocking your unsubstantiated, unsupported, and altogether impossible claims"

 

... so, which is it to be ... ?

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

You: "Your 'illusion' is really nothing special" ... George: " I'm mocking your unsubstantiated, unsupported, and altogether impossible claims"

 

... so, which is it to be ... ?

 

Both, of course  Your claims are unverifiable and so are unsubstantiated and subjective, and so are mine. Which part is impossible is something George will have to explain.

 

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Both, of course  Your claims are unverifiable and so are unsubstantiated and subjective, and so are mine. Which part is impossible is something George will have to explain.

 

 

My claim is unverifiable, because it's something that happens in my head - but, everything indicates that it happens for others as well - and I've pointed out a number of times where they have corroborated this behaviour - from George's POV they're as mad as I am .. .

 

At the very least, a much higher level of SQ is attainable with reasonable cost components - I'm also pointing out that implementation shortcuts, cost cutting is a major killer of the potential of this gear; and an astute DIYer can "fix" so much here.

[fas42]

32 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Unless you can tell me some specific steps on how to find and diagnose the "misbehaviour of the playback chain" in my own system, your description of what you hear in yours is just not very useful.

 

Ummm, from the OP,

 

Quote

I had the thought, while attempting to digest christopher3393's D&Ms in another thread, that very few seem to have the inclination or interest when listening to a system, to actively note what the setup is getting wrong - picking up where the sound is noticeably flawed, as a guide to then attempting to improve the integrity of the whole. I couldn't possibly do the type of modifying or optimising I carry out, without having this "ability" to monitor progress made - something I've built up over the years, as I try to keep pushing forward.

 

Have we got this under control, as step 1?

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

You're getting a huge clue, right there - and you can't see it ...

 

Mario's recording is feeding your brain a perfect meal of acoustic cues - because he went to so much effort in the setting up process - and the illusion pops out. His spotlighting of the musical event was so deft, that any anomalies of playback weren't getting in the way of "seeing" the piano.

 

All you have to do is consider improving the process of creating the sound waves in your room, as replicas of what is on "lesser" recordings - and the same thing happens for them, in the listening. This is what I realised is going on, as the system improves - the brain is getting enough info to recreate "realism", even on the dumpy recordings.

You are still spouting nonsense. How does one "improve the process of creating the sound waves in one's room"? You are still suggesting that recordings that don't contain any of the stereo clues necessary for proper reproduction, can be made to exhibit those qualities simply by doing "something" nebulous to the playback chain. Of course that's impossible but you keep asserting that it is possible.