Being aware of misbehaviour of the playback chain

[fas42]

12 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

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. 

 

You're talking of "recordings that don't contain any of the stereo clues necessary for proper reproduction"; I'm saying, those very rarely exist. They may not be stereo in the classic sense of the use, but they contain acoustic information sufficient for the rebrain to reconstruct the spaces of the musical event, or creation. People accept that extreme, obvious manipulation works - the Pink Floyd sort of stuff - are adamant that the human hearing system is very crude, falls to bits when an enormous number of crutches are not in place to help it totter down the hallway .. but my experiences are otherwise; the ear/brain can work out what's going on if the clues are not horribly confused by too much distortion being present.

 

So, if one's system is not up to scratch, you never hear the illusory aspect; my system is usually not in this space, because I have to carefully condition it beforehand - and I'm not motivated enough to go to the effort, at the time. But that doesn't stop me being aware of the information in the recording that will trigger the experience - I can 'hear' the potential.

[fas42]

16 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

To be honest, I would have thought that almost every audiophile actively engaged with the hobby is looking to isolate problems with their systems and improve its shortcomings to achieve a more realistic sound.  Read any review of hi-fi equipment and what you get is a list of 'more' and 'less'. More, such as dynamics, frequency range, detail, spacial information etc. address system 'shortcoming and limitations' whereas 'less', such as distortion, noise etc. address system 'failings'.

I would have thought that audiophiles' constant upgrading is a measure of the effort they are putting into chasing down the system shortcomings they perceive.

In my opinion, where most systems fail is in room matching and system set up. Too large speakers in a small room, speakers too close together or with large pieces of furniture between, difficult-to-position ported speakers in small rooms, turntable and electronics sitting on resonant structures, cables sub-optimally routed, use of domestic mains rings,  TTs and electronics that 'wobble on 3 of their 4 feet or that are placed in corners with maximum acoustic energy.

 

Thanks for the thoughtful response, which actually addressed the OP - the checklist you have there is exactly what I'm getting at, except that I don't worry about the room aspects.

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

... I don't worry about the room aspects.

 

Why? Because they are important?

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

You're talking of "recordings that don't contain any of the stereo clues necessary for proper reproduction"; I'm saying, those very rarely exist. They may not be stereo in the classic sense of the use, but they contain acoustic information sufficient for the rebrain to reconstruct the spaces of the musical event, or creation. People accept that extreme, obvious manipulation works - the Pink Floyd sort of stuff - are adamant that the human hearing system is very crude, falls to bits when an enormous number of crutches are not in place to help it totter down the hallway .. but my experiences are otherwise; the ear/brain can work out what's going on if the clues are not horribly confused by too much distortion being present.

No they don't. They are at best a mish-mash of monaural tracks all thrown together in a a very gimmickry way! People accept it because 1) they aren' audiophiles, and 2) people buy the music they like in whatever form it's available in and they don't question it.

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

So, if one's system is not up to scratch, you never hear the illusory aspect; my system is usually not in this space, because I have to carefully condition it beforehand - and I'm not motivated enough to go to the effort, at the time. But that doesn't stop me being aware of the information in the recording that will trigger the experience - I can 'hear' the potential.

Oh give that broken record a rest, will you?!!!

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Why? Because they are important?

 

If you're using the characteristics of the room to enhance the listening experience then it will matter - for me, I've found that getting the sound coming out of the speakers 'right' is the most important thing, because then my mind adjusts for everything else. You no more need to get the room "perfect" than you would if you had a group of live musicians walk into your home, and perform for you.

[fas42]

18 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

No they don't. They are at best a mish-mash of monaural tracks all thrown together in a a very gimmickry way! People accept it because 1) they aren' audiophiles, and 2) people buy the music they like in whatever form it's available in and they don't question it.

Oh give that broken record a rest, will you?!!!

 

I think there is more than one "broken record" here ... .

[gmgraves]

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I think there is more than one "broken record" here ... .

 

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I think there is more than one "broken record" here ... .

Ya know, you're right!

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Why? Because they are important?

 

Frank doesn't need for there to be a good sounding room. His brain conjurs up a perfect sounding performance every time!

 

[Blackmorec]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Thanks for the thoughtful response, which actually addressed the OP - the checklist you have there is exactly what I'm getting at, except that I don't worry about the room aspects.

I really don't understand how you can do one without the other. The room will directly affect the frequency response you hear (reverb time, room nodes, early reflections etc). We know that speaker positioning is critical to the listening experience, but all that's doing is getting the speaker to room relationship correct. Voice a speaker or any component in a poor room and no doubt you can make it sound OK, in that room, but it will sound crap in a more forgiving, optimally configured room, because the corrections you made for one room are sub-optimal in another.  I would submit that rather than modifying gear to fit a bad room, its far more productive to modify the bad room to try and make it good. The difference is that any new gear coming into a bad room will need to be adjusted, whereas that same gear coming into an adjusted room, won't.

The clinching argument is symphony venues. Some sound wonderful....airy, natural, romantic and others don't, indicating that the room in which music is played has an overwhelming effects on our level of enjoyment.

 

On a slightly different errr note, the vast majority of hi-fi systems I've heard, including some of my own efforts, get nowhere near resolving all the information on an average CD. Whether a CD sounds good or bad depends mainly on the skill of the recording engineer and his/her brushstrokes should be clear to hear....from his recording techniques, to the positioning and amount of acoustic space he gives each instrument. Whether or not he manages to capture timbre and decay, the amount of reverb he adds, the naturalness of the recording, ambience and warmth and the amount of listener involvement his recording evokes. A system should reveal all these brushstokes without sounding analytical. Like a great painting, a listener should be able to study individual touches or simply sit back and enjoy the overall effect.  In great cooking, the tastes and flavours of the individual ingredients are preserved but its the overall harmony and combinations of flavours that make for great cooking.  Serve the greatest food in the World in a restaurant that's hot, stuffy, noisy and overcrowded and I guarantee that most diners will fail to appreciate the greatness of what's on their plate.

[rando]

10 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

I really don't understand how you can do one without the other. The room will directly affect the frequency response you hear (reverb time, room nodes, early reflections etc).

 

Not that he needs any help, but it occurs to me that after umpteen years experience he might have the room pretty well settled for his purposes.  That he moved on to more directly engaging the two largest problems in audiophilia; Listening to his equipment and never listening to the same equipment for very long before getting something new to play with.

 

[gmgraves]

12 hours ago, rando said:

 

Not that he needs any help, but it occurs to me that after umpteen years experience he might have the room pretty well settled for his purposes.  That he moved on to more directly engaging the two largest problems in audiophilia; Listening to his equipment and never listening to the same equipment for very long before getting something new to play with.

 

The biggest problem with most audiophiles (in my estimation) is that they spend too much time listening to the equipment, and not enough listening to the music. It's an easy trap to fall into, I know. I've done it myself. You tell yourself that you're going to sit down and listen to some music, and find yourself concentrating on the sound itself. While no one will argue that a good sounding recording on a fine system will make the music more enjoyable, the bottom line is that the music is what it's all about. In fact, one of my finest musical moments was listening to Resphigi's The Pines of Rome on a portable radio while sailing on San Francisco Bay. I got so lost in the music that my sailboat almost collided with an aircraft carrier! At that moment it didn't matter that I was listening to an AM classical radio station on a 4-inch speaker driven by a one-quarter Watt amplifier outdoors with salt water spray splashing into the cockpit, the music totally captivated me. Later, after avoiding the gray wall that was the side of the carrier, they were playing an aria from some Italian opera and right in the middle of a high-C from the soprano, a salt spray inundated the radio and the soprano stopped singing in mid-note! Needless to say, that even after washing the radio's circuit board in distilled water, it never played again! 

[fas42]

12 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

I really don't understand how you can do one without the other. The room will directly affect the frequency response you hear (reverb time, room nodes, early reflections etc). We know that speaker positioning is critical to the listening experience, but all that's doing is getting the speaker to room relationship correct. Voice a speaker or any component in a poor room and no doubt you can make it sound OK, in that room, but it will sound crap in a more forgiving, optimally configured room, because the corrections you made for one room are sub-optimal in another.  I would submit that rather than modifying gear to fit a bad room, its far more productive to modify the bad room to try and make it good. The difference is that any new gear coming into a bad room will need to be adjusted, whereas that same gear coming into an adjusted room, won't.

The clinching argument is symphony venues. Some sound wonderful....airy, natural, romantic and others don't, indicating that the room in which music is played has an overwhelming effects on our level of enjoyment.

 

On a slightly different errr note, the vast majority of hi-fi systems I've heard, including some of my own efforts, get nowhere near resolving all the information on an average CD. Whether a CD sounds good or bad depends mainly on the skill of the recording engineer and his/her brushstrokes should be clear to hear....from his recording techniques, to the positioning and amount of acoustic space he gives each instrument. Whether or not he manages to capture timbre and decay, the amount of reverb he adds, the naturalness of the recording, ambience and warmth and the amount of listener involvement his recording evokes. A system should reveal all these brushstokes without sounding analytical. Like a great painting, a listener should be able to study individual touches or simply sit back and enjoy the overall effect.  In great cooking, the tastes and flavours of the individual ingredients are preserved but its the overall harmony and combinations of flavours that make for great cooking.  Serve the greatest food in the World in a restaurant that's hot, stuffy, noisy and overcrowded and I guarantee that most diners will fail to appreciate the greatness of what's on their plate.

 

Another good post! ... Unlike the contributions of some others, .

 

I'll try again ... think about the experience when someone "skilled at the art" with an acoustic guitar walks into your space, wherever it is - sits down, and starts playing ... if you immediately think, oh dear, the acoustics are not right for this, I'd better encourage him to go down to my man cave, to be to hear what he's doing properly ... well, I couldn't grok that headspace ...

 

I'm looking for playback of recordings to transport me to a place where musicians are totally in a world where they are making magic, for themselves - and they couldn't give a damn about me - I'm an incidental bystander, just lapping up the energy they're producing.

 

The "get nowhere near resolving all the information on an average CD" is a major component of what's 'wrong' with most rigs; and the other side is that those that get the first part happening still inject too much disturbing distortion into the mix - what allows a full blown illusion to manifest is to also sort out the second half of the requirements ... note that PeterSt is making great progress in addressing the latter, and he's reaping the benefits of having that mindset.

 

 

[fas42]

9 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

At that moment it didn't matter that I was listening to an AM classical radio station on a 4-inch speaker driven by a one-quarter Watt amplifier outdoors with salt water spray splashing into the cockpit, the music totally captivated me. Later, after avoiding the gray wall that was the side of the carrier, they were playing an aria from some Italian opera and right in the middle of a high-C from the soprano, a salt spray inundated the radio and the soprano stopped singing in mid-note! Needless to say, that even after washing the radio's circuit board in distilled water, it never played again! 

 

Bad move ... WD40 is the answer - a friend's radio back at Uni suffered a fate of complete immersion in water ... I let it soak in that magic fluid for many, many hours - pulled it out, shook it vigorously, and let it dry out completely - then, switch on ... and away she went ...

[fas42]

12 hours ago, rando said:

 

Not that he needs any help, but it occurs to me that after umpteen years experience he might have the room pretty well settled for his purposes.  That he moved on to more directly engaging the two largest problems in audiophilia; Listening to his equipment and never listening to the same equipment for very long before getting something new to play with.

 

 

The equipment is always the means to the end of satisfying sound - and most setups have run for years; circumstances have largely dictated when a different path is ventured upon ... e.g. the Phillips HT rig was starting to play up, and finally one channel died - I wasn't in the mood to do the necessary fiddling to restore it.

[gmgraves]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Bad move ... WD40 is the answer - a friend's radio back at Uni suffered a fate of complete immersion in water ... I let it soak in that magic fluid for many, many hours - pulled it out, shook it vigorously, and let it dry out completely - then, switch on ... and away she went ...

Was it immersed in SALT WATER? Because that's what killed the radio in question here. One has to get rid of the salt before a printed circuit card like that will ever work again!

[fas42]

14 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Was it immersed in SALT WATER? Because that's what killed the radio in question here. One has to get rid of the salt before a printed circuit card like that will ever work again!

 

No, so in that case I would immediately rinse it in several cycles of pure water - sort of a washing machine procedure - and finish with the WD40 .

[mansr]

18 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Was it immersed in SALT WATER? Because that's what killed the radio in question here. One has to get rid of the salt before a printed circuit card like that will ever work again!

When I was doing repairs at Profoto, we got in a unit that was malfunctioning in the most unusual way. Most of the time it was easy to identify the capacitor or diode that had died and replace it. Not this time. Turned out the low-voltage board was partially covered in salt residue, probably from sea spray (we also found some sand). A rinse and dry later it was as good as new.

[rando]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

The equipment is always the means to the end of satisfying sound - and most setups have run for years; circumstances have largely dictated when a different path is ventured upon

 

To all appearances @gmgraves took up the left unsaid portion of my post.  His radio was made for sitting out on a deck.  Noise cancelling headphones are designed for air travel.  The equipment you mention is made for sitting in one's home.  The deflection of improper acoustics had merit.  

 

In case it didn't ring clear, I was noting your thoughtful approach to avoiding the larger problems as a means to get this back on topic.  The little poke at your systems ability to highly resolve sitting on a buskers lap shaking his hat being more important than the accurate portrayal of that moment missed the mark.  A sympathetic treatment of harsh inner city noises that would melt away in person is what you can reclaim from a poorer recording.  

[fas42]

2 hours ago, rando said:

 

 

In case it didn't ring clear, I was noting your thoughtful approach to avoiding the larger problems as a means to get this back on topic.  The little poke at your systems ability to highly resolve sitting on a buskers lap shaking his hat being more important than the accurate portrayal of that moment missed the mark.  A sympathetic treatment of harsh inner city noises that would melt away in person is what you can reclaim from a poorer recording.  

 

A "sympathetic" treatment is not necessary - just be faithful to everything that's on the recording. Most "highly resolving" rigs are in fact distorting the presentation well beyond what the balance was in the recording space - an anology would be a large digital TV, with the colour, contrast, and sharpness pushed waaay up ... Man, that's so impressive!! ... Yes, and also unliveable with - and very little to do with the intrinsic broadcast  ...
 

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

No, so in that case I would immediately rinse it in several cycles of pure water - sort of a washing machine procedure - and finish with the WD40 .

Like I said, I washed the board in distilled water - no joy!

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

When I was doing repairs at Profoto, we got in a unit that was malfunctioning in the most unusual way. Most of the time it was easy to identify the capacitor or diode that had died and replace it. Not this time. Turned out the low-voltage board was partially covered in salt residue, probably from sea spray (we also found some sand). A rinse and dry later it was as good as new.

That's usually the outcome, yes. But for some reason, not this time. It wasn't worth spending a lot of time on trying to fix. So, I just bought a new one.

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, rando said:

 

To all appearances @gmgraves took up the left unsaid portion of my post.  His radio was made for sitting out on a deck.  Noise cancelling headphones are designed for air travel.  The equipment you mention is made for sitting in one's home.  The deflection of improper acoustics had merit.  

 

In case it didn't ring clear, I was noting your thoughtful approach to avoiding the larger problems as a means to get this back on topic.  The little poke at your systems ability to highly resolve sitting on a buskers lap shaking his hat being more important than the accurate portrayal of that moment missed the mark.  A sympathetic treatment of harsh inner city noises that would melt away in person is what you can reclaim from a poorer recording.  

Forget trying to rationalize this subject with Frank. He truly seems to believe that even bad recordings can be made to sound state-of-the-art with "correctly"* set-up playback gear.

 

*In this case "correctly" seems to mean connected together using Frank's tweaks, which apparently, if done correctly, result in not the tertiary effects that most tweaks seem to invoke, but result in primary effects on the order of replacing a pair of ancient AR3ax speakers with a brand new pair of Magnepan MG-30.7s, or an old Pioneer receiver from 1970 with a brand new preamp and amp from Nelson Pass or Audio Research.  Go figure.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Forget trying to rationalize this subject with Frank. He truly seems to believe that even bad recordings can be made to sound state-of-the-art with "correctly"* set-up playback gear.

 

*In this case "correctly" seems to mean connected together using Frank's tweaks, which apparently, if done correctly, result in not the tertiary effects that most tweaks seem to invoke, but result in primary effects on the order of replacing a pair of ancient AR3ax speakers with a brand new pair of Magnepan MG-30.7s, or an old Pioneer receiver from 1970 with a brand new preamp and amp from Nelson Pass or Audio Research.  Go figure.

 

No, state-of-the-art recordings are those that sound very pleasant, or impressive even on mediocre midfi gear - every last ounce of experise has been used to make the recordings as easy to navigate as a billiard board smooth, super straight highway is for a car of very mediocre capabilities. Competent reproduction of any recording means that the inadequacies of the source material can be dealt with by the ear/brain, and the musical message comes through loud and clear - what you want to hear on the recording is what registers very satisfyingly - there is not a single CD that I'm not interested in listening to ... except, the "audiophile" ones ... .

 

The tweaking effects go way beyond replacing Pioneer with Audio Research - I've heard plenty of instances of the latter - and sometimes good, and sometimes pretty mediocre to awful; the latter means the rig is in bad shape.

 

In my world, the recording is primary - it's up to the rig, irrespective of much street cred is bestowed upon the nameplates by some, to deliver - if it don't, then the recording doesn't get a kicking ... the rig's faulty, simple as that.

[gmgraves]

45 minutes ago, fas42 said:

No, state-of-the-art recordings are those that sound very pleasant, or impressive even on mediocre midfi gear

Wrong. State-of-the-art recordings are recordings that sound like real music. The kind that bring the real musical performance into one's listening room (or takes you to the venue where the original performance took place). Only real, minimalist recordings can do that. 

[PeterSt]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

*In this case "correctly" seems to mean connected together using Frank's tweaks, which apparently, if done correctly, result in not the tertiary effects that most tweaks seem to invoke, but result in primary effects on the order of replacing a pair of ancient AR3ax speakers with a brand new pair of Magnepan MG-30.7s, or an old Pioneer receiver from 1970 with a brand new preamp and amp from Nelson Pass or Audio Research.  Go figure.

 

Well George, still this is so. Maybe Frank is making it all up, but I sure don't. 

If we would be able to search for it, I could show you 2 or 3 times my own reporting in the Phasure forum about a change which implies 10K amplifiers to 50K. I mean the money, not the number of them. And this is only with software "upgrade".

 

I often explicitly say : how in the world can people be discussing any device when the Operating System alone is 100% crucial to the SQ performance. So I mean Do or Die, such a difference.

But first take that hurdle of annoyances / distortions because else all is moot. And this is 99,99% of people, thus also You. Just statistics.

I think I read somewhere that you use JRiver. So no wonder that no message can be put across. Haha.

Haha, but the most serious ... and not at all pointing in the direction of my own software, but surely tho those which can be counted on one hand that aim for the best SQ. Not that you would be interested ...

And no, I am not even talking about HQPlayer which most will recognize. That is a digital means to technically produce the best reproduction of the digital recording. That's filters. I do talk about how the whole noisy environment should be attacked and which is more crucial than any amp or DAC. And then take that filtering with it. So this is one or two dimensions many people think they can do without.

Each his own of course, but ...