Forgive me Computeraudiophiles, for I have sinned

[fas42]

8 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Never liked marshmallow suspensions. I prefer to feel the road and know what the car is doing at any given time. But that's exactly what your method of making a bad recording sound good will do: it'll cover up the bumps. My expectation is that you should feel the bumps and hear the distortions in a bad recording, rather than try to adjust it out. You've been suggesting the opposite. 

 

 

The bumps are still there - but the impact of what the recording is about, a capture of a worthwhile musical event, now dominates what registers in your conscious attention. This is indeed a manipulation of the ear/brain system - you are deliberately exploiting the ability of the mind to discard what it knows is not relevant!

 

I have a number of recordings which are in a technically shocking state - transfers from the poorest quality media, say. Which sound absolutely awful, on a rig in a normal state ... yet when a setup is at the right level, the miracle happens, every time; my mind ignores all the defects, and just hears glorious, or worthwhile music.

 

There will be people that this can't happen for, I'm sure of that. But I suspect that the majority will experience this - all those around me have had the same reaction as myself, in terms of appreciating what they hearing.

[pkane2001]

11 minutes ago, fas42 said:

This is indeed a manipulation of the ear/brain system - you are deliberately exploiting the ability of the mind to discard what it knows is not relevant!

 

And you are absolutely sure that's what's going on and not simply you covering up the 'bumps'? 

 

[Teresa]

On ‎9‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 3:23 PM, fas42 said:

...Unlistenable CDs? Ain't any such animal ... what "those" CDs were doing was to provoke the playback chain into highlighting every tiny lacking in the integrity of the rig - if your car falls to bits over a rough track, don't blame the road makers!

 

So you can listen to any CD no matter how poorly it was engineered, good for you. I can't, in fact I'm not fond of CDs or 16/44.1kHz PCM, even if well recorded. I prefer well engineered recordings from audiophile and boutique recording companies who take great pains to make the most natural sounding recordings possible. And I prefer them in DSD or high resolution PCM.

 

A well designed car can handle rough poorly kept roads better than a bad car with poor suspension. However, a well designed car is also very quiet with very smooth handling on roads in good condition. Good roads offer a superior ride just as good recordings offer a superior listening experience.

 

A well designed audio system can play poorly engineered recordings bringing out what little audio quality they offer along with all their warts. However, when playing a well engineered recording made in a great sounding acoustic space with properly placed microphones, etc. a well designed audio system will reveal the natural realistic sound such recordings offer.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

And you are absolutely sure that's what's going on and not simply you covering up the 'bumps'? 

 

 

Very much so. I've had the setup at the time not be at optimum for 'trivial' reasons, and those CDs then sound very off. I resolve what was the particular issue at that moment, which may be as simple as having something electrical running in the house which is creating too much interference - and the perceived SQ is then restored to a good level.

 

I've been doing this sort of thing for years, exploring all sorts of linkages - and the message keeps coming through loud and clear: get the playback chain to operate to a crucial degree of absence of disturbing audible anomalies, and the SQ of even "the worst" is lifted to a dramatically superior level, subjectively.

[pkane2001]

28 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Very much so. I've had the setup at the time not be at optimum for 'trivial' reasons, and those CDs then sound very off. I resolve what was the particular issue at that moment, which may be as simple as having something electrical running in the house which is creating too much interference - and the perceived SQ is then restored to a good level.

 

I've been doing this sort of thing for years, exploring all sorts of linkages - and the message keeps coming through loud and clear: get the playback chain to operate to a crucial degree of absence of disturbing audible anomalies, and the SQ of even "the worst" is lifted to a dramatically superior level, subjectively.

 

Frank, doing this for years is no proof of anything. Since your experience seems to be diametrically opposed to that of most others here, and since you insist on describing your experience so frequently in every thread, you owe us just a bit more than "I know so because I've been doing this for years". Please provide real evidence and not car analogies.

 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Teresa said:

A well designed car can handle rough poorly kept roads better than a bad car with poor suspension. However, a well designed car is also very quiet with very smooth handling on roads in good condition. Good roads offer a superior ride just as good recordings offer a superior listening experience.

 

A well designed audio system can play poorly engineered recordings bringing out what little audio quality they offer along with all their warts. However, when playing a well engineered recording made in a great sounding acoustic space with properly placed microphones, etc. a well designed audio system will reveal the natural realistic sound such recordings offer.

 

What I call a competent system goes beyond that. The "natural" qualities of the sound making elements in those "poor" recordings are now what is most prominent - not the fact that they have all sorts of technical deficiencies. To take one extreme example, Nellie Melba operatic recordings from the 1910's: these normally sound somewhat absurd, a bizarre caricature of what someone singing in that vocal style sounds like. Yet, even those come good; I've had them playing at maximum volume, to the point that the amplifier shut down from thermal overload - and I'm listening to a real person, with the accompanying piano clearly defined in a space at a certain distance behind her. Yes, it's noisy, but I'm no longer hearing a quaint historical artifact; this is clearly someone with a tremendous voice, whose talent I can fully appreciate.

 

Quite often "poor" recordings are far more interesting than audiophile efforts - how many times have I started looking around, wondering how much longer the track is, for something another person is playing - to be told at the end, "Well, that is a well known audiophile recording ..." ... hmmm ...

 

IME, the realism of the event that recordings captured can come through, every time. This is something I learnt steadily, over the years - an excellent road is ideal, but the best engineering allows all to be dealt with, with no misgivings.

[Ralf11]

orr at least include a photo of a boat-tail Alfa in any car analogies

[fas42]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

 

Frank, doing this for years is no proof of anything. Since your experience seems to be diametrically opposed to that of most others here, and since you insist on describing your experience so frequently in every thread, you owe us just a bit more than "I know so because I've been doing this for years". Please provide real evidence and not car analogies.

 

 

 

The phrase is, "most others". Right now you have a thread running on the Lush^2 cable, which when configured to best suit the particular rig, is providing a number of users with "breakthrough" SQ experiences - phrases like "I can't believe it", "Impossible!" are being posted - you have those members getting a burst of what I chase.

 

So, it's rare ... so what? I just happened to get this experience over 30 years ago, and have spent many years "playing with it". Others can achieve it if they decide to pursue it - I'm here to prod people not to go down "wrong roads" ... .

[pkane2001]

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

 

The phrase is, "most others". Right now you have a thread running on the Lush^2 cable, which when configured to best suit the particular rig, is providing a number of users with "breakthrough" SQ experiences - phrases like "I can't believe it", "Impossible!" are being posted - you have those members getting a burst of what I chase.

 

So, it's rare ... so what? I just happened to get this experience over 30 years ago, and have spent many years "playing with it". Others can achieve it if they decide to pursue it - I'm here to prod people not to go down "wrong roads" ... .

 

Sorry Frank, but the 'I can't believe it' and 'veils lifted' and 'increased microdynamics' and 'toe tapping good' and 'wider soundstage' and 'performers breathing on me' ... are exactly what audiophiles chase. All of them. All the time. You don't need to keep repeating this in every thread; everyone already got it, or else they wouldn't be here!

 

What's different is how you seem to approach it. That's not just rare, but mostly non-existent. Your method lacks any evidence, scientific foundation, corroboration from others, or even a credible explanation. And you keep failing to provide any. So why keep bringing it up?

[Ralf11]

Besides, the LAST anybody wants is  'performers breathing on me' - think of their infection rates and lifestyles.  One bunch of them even refused to go in and perform by the side door!  

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Besides, the LAST anybody wants is  'performers breathing on me' - think of their infection rates and lifestyles.  One bunch of them even refused to go in and perform by the side door!  

 

Infection is not a problem except with the most highly resolving systems, the kind Frank builds. You never know what kind of nasties might be hiding in a hi-res recording...

[fas42]

18 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Sorry Frank, but the 'I can't believe it' and 'veils lifted' and 'increased microdynamics' and 'toe tapping good' and 'wider soundstage' and 'performers breathing on me' ... are exactly what audiophiles chase. All of them. All the time. You don't need to keep repeating this in every thread; everyone already got it, or else they wouldn't be here!

 

What's different is how you seem to approach it. That's not just rare, but mostly non-existent. Your method lacks any evidence, scientific foundation, corroboration from others, or even a credible explanation. And you keep failing to provide any. So why keep bringing it up?

 

If everyone gets it, why are audio shows filled with terrible sounding systems? - the problem, as I see it, is that higher standards of replay are very fragile, disappear like the morning mist. And I have experienced the very same behaviour in my systems.

 

So what I'm interested in is in understanding how to properly control the situation. Which because of how I tick is tackled using a troubleshooting hat; I see the lack of a required standard of SQ being due to fixable shortcomings of a particular setup. And all my experience up to the present time has reinforced that viewpoint.

 

Of course I want to buy a system, off the shelf, at a reasonable price, that delivers the 'right' SQ! But there ain't any such animal ... as yet. I can always hear the flaws in the sound, which means the engineering is not good enough. Full stop.

 

If you buy a brand new car, and it's full of rattles and creaks you would immediately return it, and demand a refund - it's a lemon! To my ears, that's what nearly all systems are - so, I would roll my eyes and patiently work through the issues until "it's good enough". If that sort of approach requires an explanation, well, I can only scratch my head ... .

[fas42]

Going back to that Lush^ 2 thread - blind Freddy can tell that USB transmission of music data to a rig is a headache, the infinite number of posts recounting myriads of ways of fiddling with it is a sure giveaway that this mechanism is way down on the 'robustness' scale. And the Lush^2 tweaking being so effective in altering what people hear just confirms how fragile that part of the chain is - we have a problem, Houston!

 

The answer is, sort out that transmission path, once and for all! There is an engineering weakness here, which will continue to bedevil high quality audio - until a comprehensive understanding of what needs to be accounted for is realised.

[elcorso]

38 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Sorry Frank, but the 'I can't believe it' and 'veils lifted' and 'increased microdynamics' and 'toe tapping good' and 'wider soundstage' and 'performers breathing on me' ... are exactly what audiophiles chase. All of them. All the time. You don't need to keep repeating this in every thread; everyone already got it, or else they wouldn't be here!

 

What's different is how you seem to approach it. That's not just rare, but mostly non-existent. Your method lacks any evidence, scientific foundation, corroboration from others, or even a credible explanation. And you keep failing to provide any. So why keep bringing it up?

 

Frank's them:

 

 

Continue Listening.

 

Roch

[pkane2001]

20 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

If everyone gets it, why are audio shows filled with terrible sounding systems? - the problem, as I see it, is that higher standards of replay are very fragile, disappear like the morning mist. And I have experienced the very same behaviour in my systems.

 

So what I'm interested in is in understanding how to properly control the situation. Which because of how I tick is tackled using a troubleshooting hat; I see the lack of a required standard of SQ being due to fixable shortcomings of a particular setup. And all my experience up to the present time has reinforced that viewpoint.

 

Of course I want to buy a system, off the shelf, at a reasonable price, that delivers the 'right' SQ! But there ain't any such animal ... as yet. I can always hear the flaws in the sound, which means the engineering is not good enough. Full stop.

 

If you buy a brand new car, and it's full of rattles and creaks you would immediately return it, and demand a refund - it's a lemon! To my ears, that's what nearly all systems are - so, I would roll my eyes and patiently work through the issues until "it's good enough". If that sort of approach requires an explanation, well, I can only scratch my head ... .

 

Where's the evidence, Frank? Not stories or generalizations, real evidence? 

 

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

And the Lush^2 tweaking being so effective in altering what people hear just confirms how fragile that part of the chain is - we have a problem, Houston!

 

Yes, there's definitely a problem. But not where you think it is. Different part of the chain.

 

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Yes, there's definitely a problem. But not where you think it is. Different part of the chain.

 

 

I agree. We're looking at problems in the wetware, not the hardware.

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, Teresa said:

A well designed car can handle rough poorly kept roads better than a bad car with poor suspension. However, a well designed car is also very quiet with very smooth handling on roads in good condition. Good roads offer a superior ride just as good recordings offer a superior listening experience.

 

Even among well designed suspension systems in cars, there are trade-offs between comfort and handling -- some lean towards comfort, while others lean toward handling.  Cannot the same be said of audio systems?

[fas42]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Where's the evidence, Frank? Not stories or generalizations, real evidence? 

 

 

Evidence of what?

 

That capable systems can produce convincing sound?

That one can troubleshoot a system so that it becomes capable?

That "poor" recordings on a capable system are eminently listenable to?

 

etc ...

[fas42]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Yes, there's definitely a problem. But not where you think it is. Different part of the chain.

 

 

Different parts of a chain can be a "weak link". I've never used USB, so don't have to account for such. But once can finds a "sensitive spot", wherever it is, doing almost anything in that area affects what one hears. Of course, one can 'dumb down' the sound, so that it nominally "always sounds the same" - but that's not the path to hearing the qualities which are possible ...

[pkane2001]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Evidence of what?

 

That capable systems can produce convincing sound?

That one can troubleshoot a system so that it becomes capable?

That "poor" recordings on a capable system are eminently listenable to?

 

etc ...

 

That your method of troubleshooting can produce what you claim.

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Different parts of a chain can be a "weak link". I've never used USB, so don't have to account for such. But once can finds a "sensitive spot", wherever it is, doing almost anything in that area affects what one hears. Of course, one can 'dumb down' the sound, so that it nominally "always sounds the same" - but that's not the path to hearing the qualities which are possible ...

You’re missing the point.

[fas42]

21 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

That your method of troubleshooting can produce what you claim.

 

So you accept that a capable system, however you may perceive such, can produce convincing sound?

[bachish]

5 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

So you can listen to any CD no matter how poorly it was engineered, good for you. I can't, in fact I'm not fond of CDs or 16/44.1kHz PCM, even if well recorded.

 

A 4416 recording, properly downsampled and dithered, should be indistinguishable from the high res version, especially on a high end system.

 

Here are possible reasons you hear a difference,

 

1) A problem with your DAC

2) A poorly executed  downsample (possible on older CDs)

3) Your head wasn't in exactly the same place for each version.

4)  You heard something new in the music when listening to the high res version and attributed it to the high res

5) Expectation bias (a proven phenomenon)

 

Have you tried a blind test?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[vl]

5 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

So you can listen to any CD no matter how poorly it was engineered, good for you. I can't, in fact I'm not fond of CDs or 16/44.1kHz PCM, even if well recorded. I prefer well engineered recordings from audiophile and boutique recording companies who take great pains to make the most natural sounding recordings possible. And I prefer them in DSD or high resolution PCM.

 

 

 

Not all CDs are created equal in SQ.  That is why given a digital playback system, some CDs sound good and some less good.  A good playback system will demonstrate a noticeable SQ difference among CDs.  An exceptionally good playback system will show much less difference among CDs.  

 

One of the key factors in good SQ is the upsampler.  A good upsampler has to have a good algorithm and ample computation power.  If the upsampler is not good enough, the system can still sound very good when playing back hires tracks, because the upsampler is not needed to do a hard job in playing hires tracks.