FURIOUS!

[pkane2001]

38 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

The same ignorant trolls who don't understand the high performance audio industry and make ridiculous speculations about the products, likely, hate pets as much as they do enhancing their listening experience.

 

This thread desperately needs some cute kitten photos.

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure that's a $6 USB cable, not a $6K one... But I heard all USB cables taste the same, even in a blind test.

 

[pkane2001]

7 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

but the kitten's eyes are open

 

This kitten is obviously a subjectivist.

[pkane2001]

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

what matters is whether the underlying flaw is being addressed to a decent level, accidentally or otherwise.

No, what matters is if there is an underlying flaw to be fixed in the first place.

[pkane2001]

21 minutes ago, Nordkapp said:

Well, at least the cable survives. Too bad for the $130K DAC though. 

 

Where can I find the same $6K cable? I was ready to buy one, but could only find the $650/1.5m version, which is obviously way below audiophile grade. And the name is misleading, so I'm a bit concerned about the honesty of the manufacturer. It's silver conductor and yet it's called Diamond? Or are there diamonds in the $6K version? I need to know, so I can convince my wife that it's a really good buy.

[pkane2001]

7 hours ago, fas42 said:

If the SQ is not "mind-blowing" then there is at least one underlying flaw - which a cable change may alleviate to some degree. If it's achieved by a $2 item then you're a winner!

 

So your recommendation is if you don't like the way your system sounds, start swapping random parts and components until you hit the one that makes it sound better? I'm still struggling to understand the actual method behind your ma....err....approach

[pkane2001]

33 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

It's the ignorant speculators who have no knowledge & experience

 

"usual pathetic reply resorting to name calling, you do troll a lot don't you when someone says something you disagree with."

SameSame for the trolls who resort to name calling on the designer/manufacturers who unreasonably attack them only on the basis of a retail price: (which no one pays anyway). 

So called "cable scammers" would never stay in business.

 

Anti-audiophiles sure don't like the same "name-calling" that they spit at maufacturers; when it gets turned back on them.

 

 

Wow... While the title of this thread may engender certain types of feelings, it really was all fun and games until your posts. Why so angry?

[pkane2001]

15 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

I'm not quite sure why - let's try yet another approach, shall we ... I'm a software guy, I love the power of programming to achieve anything you wish to accomplish, if one is prepared to spend the time in refining the code to be exaaactly right - I get great pleasure in having the program always do exactly what's asked for, no more, no less. And that's how I approach sorting out audio rigs ...

 

To me, most high end rigs, ambitious systems are like some contract programming work done by an anonymous Asian crew, on the cheap - the end result is barely usable, plain wrongness in aspects of the functionality and bogged down by endless bugs. One solution is to throw it all in the bin, and start afresh; another is to steadily work through the code, and locate all the flaws, one by one, until it works "perfectly" - I like the latter method.

 

How do you find bugs ... err, something doesn't work right!! Like, an audio rig sounding 'wrong' ... how do you fix it? There are endless ways - use the easiest, most convenient, cheapest - but reliable! - alternative. If a cable fixes it, you're done.

 

Experience obviously plays a key part - if you've come across a certain symptom many times, you will automatically know what a good approach to try is.

 

Frank,  as a "software guy" can you please re-read what you've posted here and elsewhere, and tell me where there is anything approaching a recipe that anyone else but you could follow in anything you've posted? You keep talking in generalities but not a single repeatable recipe in anything you've posted. It's very depressing to keep hearing how much magic you can derive from a pile of junk audio system, and yet not have a shred of direction on how to achieve it.

 

[pkane2001]

20 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Answer: it's an https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system, not a recipe, that you need. A recipe is easy to note down - a software expert is, ahem, not trivial to assemble ...

 

Part of such is having a huge array of If ... Then ... rules. And relating that to audio, the "If" means doing things to test the behaviour of the setup - like, putting on a recording that is objectionable to listen to, and carefully noting what the symptoms are. I've mentioned doing this numerous times, and always get a big fat zero response - you need to be aware of what the rig is not getting right, to have a chance of moving forward.

 

There are plenty of "My system's fabulous! And I want to know how to make it even more fabulous!!" comments flying around ... that's not how it works; you have to switch off the ego, and be witheringly critical of what you're hearing - if you can't do this, then you will have no hope of assessing whether you are making genuine improvements or not.

 

I’m very familiar with expert systems, but I suspect that your approach has much more in common with genetic algorithms

 

[pkane2001]

Just now, fas42 said:

 

Yes, you could say that - it's an "optimisation problem", and uses "iterative processes"; a "satisfactory fitness" correlates with invisible speakers, etc. "Selection" is at the heart of it, and must be working well for effective progess.

 

You forgot 'random'

 

[pkane2001]

42 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The randomness is in the initial state of the system - every combo will have a different set of "unfitness" properties, and so needs a unique set of "mutations".

 

Yes, when I first started it was largely random - no Internet, just hifi mags and a few hints from other sources. You get 'better' as you do it more - and these days the amount of material readily at hand to research is massive; someone has already done everything I have ever tried - and am ever likely to try in the future.

 

If you have a few billion years to evolve a great audio system by random mutations maybe this might work. OK, since audio is much simpler than a living organism, it might take only a few thousand years.

 

[pkane2001]

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Ahhh, you are a pessimist ... these days, gear is pretty damn good in many areas; it may not take that much to push it to a higher level. Again, the main obstacle would likely be the belief that it "can't happen" - it might take doing it a number of times, with different gear, to convince someone of the behaviour being always possible.

 

To repeat myself for the millionth time, the core thing is to be able to hear the rig misbehaving - if you can't pick the sound reproduction being faulty, then it will likely take those few thousand years.

 

Still waiting for something concrete, a recipe, an expert system rule, a test I can repeat, a thing I can try to improve. You are not offering any specifics. 

[pkane2001]

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

OK, I will repeat - apologies to AN - a test that I would do as one of the first things if I were to listen to your system ... pick a recording you had high hopes for when you purchased it, but that comes across badly on your rig; carefully listen to it, now - and list what it's getting 'wrong'.

 

I proceed by the process of troubleshooting - first step, nail a symptom that you can describe precisely; that if it's there, or not there, that you can clearly distinguish, and then ...

 

I do not abitrarily Add Goodness - that thing which everyone does - it's a waste of time, and resources.

 

Ok,  making progress! So, on a bad recording, how do you distinguish between a truly bad recording and a fault in the playback system?

 

Please give some examples of symptoms that you listen to, things that I might recognize in my system.

 

[pkane2001]

13 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Ummm, you must have missed when I mentioned that I have a motto, "There's no such thing as a bad recording!" - this idea evolved for me over the early years, as I got deeper and deeper into optimising - all the "duds" I had steadily revealed their inner delights, and some became my favourite showpieces.

 

I can certainly produce a very distorted recording that will sound nothing like original event. I would call it a "bad recording". Especially if it destroys information needed to reproduce the original sound.

 

And once information is destroyed, how do you know what part of the poor quality playback is due to this bad recording, and what part due to the system? 

 

15 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Symptoms? Irritating, unconvincing treble when certain instruments or sound elements are in action is a good starter - unrealistic sibilance with female vocalists, cymbals that have none of the shimmer of the real thing are some obvious examples.

 

These are symptoms that nearly everyone in this hobby knows well and has fought (and many have defeated).  So, what would you try next with a system that exhibits this bad treble response?

[pkane2001]

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

Information can be reassembled by the brain, if it "knows what's coming" - this is apparently what is going on. If the clues are enough, are not too damaged, then our minds "fill the gaps" - at times I marvel at how adept my brain is at riding over the rough stuff, and presenting to me a far more pleasant version of what is actually on the recording - I'm getting the good stuff, and the badness is being discarded, unconsciously.

 

That's where we differ, Frank. First and foremost, I'm interested in a faithful reproduction of audio. My mind conjuring things up from that damaged audio signal, filling in gaps, or otherwise making s**t up is secondary. While the brain is an amazing device, I still believe that audio can be properly reproduced without resorting to imagination.

 

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

Turns out that without imagination there would be no audio (sound being a percept) at all, merely vibration.

 

And as it turns out, these vibrations can be measured without using imagination.