16 bit files almost unlistenable now...

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Frank, you brought up Linkwitz as someone who shares your ideas. Let’s take a look at a couple of his conclusions:

 

1. A loudspeaker can never do better than to accurately convert electrical signals into acoustic signals. Thus the source material determines ultimately how well an illusion can be created.

 

Agree - if one deliberately sabotaged the source material, to remove the low level detail, then there would be a flat image.

 

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

2. Physics does not allow the accurate reproduction of the original sound field with only two speakers.

 

Both statements I agree with, and both appear to be direct contradictions to your claims. Comments?

 

Agree - accurate reproduction of the original sound field can never be achieved, even with the most sophisticated manipulation of the data, and the adding of any number of channels. Unless you do the sort of experiments that esldude did - essentially use PA techniques to record and playback the sound of individual elements, in the "correct position".

 

What we trying to do is trick the brain - give the listening mind enough clear information so that it sorts out what's going on, "what it all means". It might sound amazing to some that this can happen - I was just as amazed as anyone reading this could be excused for being, when it first occurred for me - yet, it does ... happen. 30 years of playing with this, and it's never failed - provided !!!!!,  the SQ is good enough.

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

Point me to any papers or research by Linkwitz that remotely suggest that proper sound reproduction requires a soldered connection at the speaker binding posts as the highest priority.

 

I don't know whether these papers exist from him or an other. I do know though that a poorly soldered connection acts as a crazy antenna implying noise you don't want to see measured. But since I measure and hunt down any spuriae which doesn't belong, I know.

I have built synthesizers with so many parts in them that one took a year of soldering (not for a day job), so I know how to solder.

Not.

Once I found and saw what my "perfect" soldering did to audio cable connections plus that by then I wasn't the guy who solders everything together of what we (Phasure) provide, I explicitly will never ever touch the iron again when it is about soldering for audio. I take it that one who solders up to 0402 SMD almost blindfolded, will make "perfect" larger joints just the same. And it shows massively (measurement).

 

Maybe someone should write a paper about when soldering more poorly on the outputs of DAC (like the interconnect binding posts or where the internal wires regarding this spring from (PCB)), that this shows as 2nd harmonic distortion.

Could be 1dB only, but whenever I see this, these connections must be resoldered and it always helps. Of course you may like to claim that this is inaudible anyway, but this then is up to you. In the end these matters are about "accuracy" as such, which thus surely can be measured (THD) at this level.

[pkane2001]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Agree - if one deliberately sabotaged the source material, to remove the low level detail, then there would be a flat image.

 

 

Agree - accurate reproduction of the original sound field can never be achieved, even with the most sophisticated manipulation of the data, and the adding of any number of channels. Unless you do the sort of experiments that esldude did - essentially use PA techniques to record and playback the sound of individual elements, in the "correct position".

 

What we trying to do is trick the brain - give the listening mind enough clear information so that it sorts out what's going on, "what it all means". It might sound amazing to some that this can happen - I was just as amazed as anyone reading this could be excused for being, when it first occurred for me - yet, it does ... happen. 30 years of playing with this, and it's never failed - provided !!!!!,  the SQ is good enough.

 

What about your claims that the worst recordings sound good and create  credible illusion, Frank? What about your claim that there is no need to improve anything in the playback chain, that all the systems you tweaked sound like live music? I’m getting confused.

[pkane2001]

14 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I don't know whether these papers exist from him or an other. I do know though that a poorly soldered connection acts as a crazy antenna implying noise you don't want to see measured. But since I measure and hunt down any spuriae which doesn't belong, I know.

I have built synthesizers with so many parts in them that one took a year of soldering (not for a day job), so I know how to solder.

Not.

Once I found and saw what my "perfect" soldering did to audio cable connections plus that by then I wasn't the guy who solders everything together of what we (Phasure) provide, I explicitly will never ever touch the iron again when it is about soldering for audio. I take it that one who solders up to 0402 SMD almost blindfolded, will make "perfect" larger joints just the same.

 

Excellent! So in addition to resoldering my speaker terminals, per Frank, I should also reflow the solder on all the PCBs and components in my system. And this would be the first step you and Frank recommend in fine tuning it? Nice!

 

I think I’ll just get a stiff drink and go on to listen to my imperfect system with all the bad connections that shatter the illusion of a live performance  

 

[Sal1950]

16 hours ago, Jud said:

 

You must be a riot at the local tavern. 

 

"Best bike I've ever owned!"

 

"I'll need the skidpad figures to back that up."

Nope, you still don't get it. Since 1867 the bottom line has been,

"meet me at the racetrack and SHOW ME what you got" 

[fas42]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

 

What about your claims that the worst recordings sound good and create  credible illusion, Frank? What about your claim that there is no need to improve anything in the playback chain, that all the systems you tweaked sound like live music? I’m getting confused.

 

The "worst recordings" haven't been intentionally sabotaged - they're damaged from various factors, but the underlying low level detail still exists, just buried to one's conscious mind - normally. Think how audio tracks can be watermarked these days, so that it's almost impossible to remove that tracer signature - in a good sense that's how recorded cues are still recoverable, for forming an illusion.

 

What I do is remove the weaknesses - this may entail "improving" things in the sense you talk about - I have "improved" power supplies, I have "improved" mains filtering - these steps were necessary for those setups; others, may not need this at all.

 

[Jud]

6 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

Nope, you still don't get it. Since 1867 the bottom line has been,

"meet me at the racetrack and SHOW ME what you got" 

 

Me, I'm not needing to prove anything to anyone, just saying what I thought after what I heard.

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The "worst recordings" haven't been intentionally sabotaged - they're damaged from various factors, but the underlying low level detail still exists, just buried to one's conscious mind - normally. Think how audio tracks can be watermarked these days, so that it's almost impossible to remove that tracer signature - in a good sense that's how recorded cues are still recoverable, for forming an illusion.

 

What I do is remove the weaknesses - this may entail "improving" things in the sense you talk about - I have "improved" power supplies, I have "improved" mains filtering - these steps were necessary for those setups; others, may not need this at all.

 

So it’s a question of ‘intention’? If the editor/producer intentionally made a conscious decision to mess up a recording then it’s not recoverable, but if the mess was created unintentionally, then it still can create a perfect illusion?

 

How do I find out whether the recording was intentionally sabotaged?

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Excellent! So in addition to resoldering my speaker terminals, per Frank, I should also reflow the solder on all the PCBs and components in my system. And this would be the first step you and Frank recommend in fine tuning it? Nice!

 

I think I’ll just get a stiff drink and go on to listen to my imperfect system with all the bad connections that shatter the illusion of a live performance  

 

 

Peter is coming from other angles ... I have said, and fully realise, that I could do so much better if I addressed absolutely everything - but I would go mad trying this !!!  ?  ?

 

If I get "convincing sound" when I push enough levers I'm happy to say, "Enough!" I've got my feedback, and am satisfied with what's been done.

 

If one starts with the 'right' combo then normally not so much has to be done - again, every situation will be unique ...

[PeterSt]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

I should also reflow the solder on all PCBs and all components in my system.

 

I was waiting for that one.

No. It only applies to wire/cable ends. It never ever happend that I could measure distortion, and that it was about some part of PCB trace. Never. This, while 100x++ more components exist on a PCB than wires are in order.

 

We could try to ignorantly join George who seems to know everything better than we all together, but you can also invest some time in obtaining EMI meters of a few (radiation) sorts, and hold them close (no wait, a few ft will do already) to open ended cabling. What you see there is the ultimate of a poor connection. Make that connection, say, half-good, and half of the radiation disappears. Make it close to good and radiation is still there, which btw can be measured super easily anywhere in the chain (but take some audio output like from DAC or from (pre)amp and it will do). It will show noise of/in all frequencies.

 

So this can be measured and btw also heard as hum or noise or both. For the latter, all it takes is something like a 118dB sensitive speaker at full amplifier gain. So you see, I have quite different motives for avoiding noise. If I wouldn't attack these matters, noise would blast audibly through closed doors. And no, I don't like (to use) analogue attenuators.

Do the math for fun - I think you can do it. Take 30W (into 2-4 Ohm) for the amplifier.

 

Now on to all the sh*t we can not measure (not me) but which is ultimately audible as lesser quality sound. Whatever that exactly is. Go to Frank for that.

haha

 

 

[fas42]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

So it’s a question of ‘intention’? If the editor/producer intentionally made a conscious decision to mess up a recording then it’s not recoverable, but if the mess was created unintentionally, then it still can create a perfect illusion?

 

How do I find out whether the recording was intentionally sabotaged?

 

Currently, a lot of pop producers do their damnedest - I've mentioned recent Amy Winehouse tracks with bloody awful fake vinyl crap inserted - have these people not got ears?!!

 

A recording may be a 'mess' because it was recorded with primitive gear, the masters were badly damaged, it was bounced around over and over again in the studio - all sorts of reasons.

 

Umm, most producers are trying to make it sound musical, and interesting - if it was their intent to do otherwise then all bets are off ... .

 

[PeterSt]

6 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Do the math for fun - I think you can do it. Take 30W (into 2-4 Ohm) for the amplifier.

 

OK, I think this would be a bit difficult without the gain figure.

20 on to 2.25VRMS DAC output.

 

But never mind because it will end up in what level of noise we will be able to hear in the first place.

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I was waiting for that one.

No. It only applies to wire/cable ends. It never ever happend that I could measure distortion, and that it was about some part of PCB trace. Never. This, while 100x++ more components exist on a PCB than wires are in order.

 

We could try to ignorantly join George who seems to know everything better than we all together, but you can also invest some time in obtaining EMI meters of a few (radiation) sorts, and hold them close (no wait, a few ft will do already) to open ended cabling. What you see there is the ultimate of a poor connection. Make that connection, say, half-good, and half of the radiation disappears. Make it close to good and radiation is still there, which btw can be measured super easily anywhere in the chain (but take some audio output like from DAC or from (pre)amp and it will do). It will show noise of/in all frequencies.

 

So this can be measured and btw also heard as hum or noise or both. For the latter, all it takes is something like a 118dB sensitive speaker at full amplifier gain. So you see, I have quite different motives for avoiding noise. If I wouldn't attack these matters, noise would blast audibly through closed doors. And no, I don't like (to use) analogue attenuators.

Do the math for fun - I think you can do it. Take 30W (into 2-4 Ohm) for the amplifier.

 

Now on to all the sh*t we can not measure (not me) but which is ultimately audible as lesser quality sound. Whatever that exactly is. Go to Frank for that.

haha

 

 

I've fixed (and built) many cables in my life. Some of the more expensive 'audiophile' brands I purchased were the worst offenders in the solder joints quality department. In all cases, the connection was intermittent and obviously bad. There was nothing subtle about it. 

 

 

[PeterSt]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

I've fixed (and built) many cables in my life

 

Paul, that's the problem. I did too.

In my case it apparently didn't do much for my soldering skills, while I soldered so many countless joints already.

Doesn't say a thing about your case, of course. If we could only agree a little that this does really matter (but measure it).

[fas42]

My soldering skills are, ahem, "adequate" - so long as I get a reasonable quality about it, it seems to be sufficient. For something to be sold, etc, a better standard would need to be invoked ... .

[PeterSt]

5 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

If we could only agree a little that this does really matter

 

I can tell you :

The only thing (really the only thing !) I physically make in this Phasure realm, is the Blaxius Interlink. I hate this part of my life as h*ll because it is such precise work and cut something 0.1mm wrongly and the cable is destroyed (while figuring that cut another 2cm to start over of one out of the pair gets noticed by the customer).

So say I am working on a pair for 20 minutes and then the coax cable needs to be soldered to the BNC pin. Such an easy job. But at that stage I hand the cable to the real skilled. When the pins are on, I continue with the cables myself again.

So that serious I am with this. Just because I know how it measures when doing it not the 100%. And btw it is not anything which would be visible (like dirt). It is about temperatures of surface and surface thickness which cools down the iron and length of time and ... well, don't ask me. You should see the row of flux materials we have here ...

It's about how two different materails (can) blend. Chemistry.

 

[Allan F]

7 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Nor am I going to argue that their style of vocalizing didn't or doesn't fit the kind of "music" that they are performing. But whatever it was/is, it's not "singing" in the strict definition of the word.

 

It may not be singing according to your defined preference, but to state that pop/rock vocals are not "'singing' in the strict definition of the word" is complete nonsense.

[PeterSt]

And how do we like the voice of Adele ?

Edit : in 16 bits of course.

[PeterSt]

8 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

1. A loudspeaker can never do better than to accurately convert electrical signals into acoustic signals. Thus the source material determines ultimately how well an illusion can be created.

 

Just in case people start listening to Frank, I can make it worse for you :

 

When one adheres the theory of the lower the THD(+N) the better it will be (as some absolute statement which can't be subjective to anything except for thinking that less distortion is better than more), all comes down to bringing down THD + Noise, until I can't measure it any more, but still can expect what will help the THD still. On a side note : less jitter is the other phenomenon but way less easy to measure (for me).

 

Now, what it makes it worse for you (up to insanity) is that I claim by empirical evidence (my own) that it hardly matters where you take out the distortion. I actually can stop right here, because *if* indeed the THD is the means to get anything right, then what's there further to explain. Distortion is everywhere, and taking it out of one place helps. Taking it out of another place, again helps (the aid adds up). Putting back the first will exhibit about the same quality as when both are switched around (and it doesn't matter really what aspect of quality we talk about, but with the notice that THAT is subjective - and it is already in relation to your system which is unique).

 

Some times I put forward the example of Jan Garbarek's crazy sax (with Adele's voice equally difficult) and how some visitor of a friend's system (also audio manufacturer) brought his opera singer wife who couldn't stand the sax and so it was tweaked by the owner of the system until the opera singer approved it (mind you, this is almost Frank's story). It took 2 hours or so throughput. I could clearly hear myself that the pain staking sax turned into something more likable. 

This is how the first "dial" in XXHighEnd came about and really one day later I could do exactly the same by software tweak. Since that time (which was even pre-officialXXHighEnd, say officium, haha) I can play that sax (ok ok, through speakers).

Today the same sax (yes in that same church) is spell bound. Mystique.

 

 

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Now, what it makes it worse for you (up to insanity) is that I claim by empirical evidence (my own) that it hardly matters where you take out the distortion. I actually can stop right here, because *if* indeed the THD is the means to get anything right, then what's there further to explain.

 

Let me help you with another quote from Linkwitz that I agree with:

 

There is a level of non-linear distortion that is "good enough" relative to other flaws in the loudspeaker. Further reduction of this distortion brings no audible improvement. 

 

THD+N or RMS jitter or any other single number isn’t going to properly characterize a complex nonlinear system. That’s easy to understand and accept. Your claim that every single distortion is critical and must be taken out is patently false. A human ear has very severe limitations and no matter what you think you can hear outside some measurable audible range, you really can’t.

[PeterSt]

4 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Your claim that every single distortion is critical and must be taken out is patently false.

 

So we let it all be, especially for you. Or am I overdoing it now with the "all" ? 

Patently false eh ? wow.

 

Do you like or love or require distortion for some reason I can't guess ?

[PeterSt]

6 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

THD+N or RMS jitter or any other single number isn’t going to properly characterize a complex nonlinear system.

 

I would agree with that. But it brings us nothing.

Or does it ?

[pkane2001]

11 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Patently false eh ? wow.

 

 

Yes. Do you claim you can hear below -120dB level in a normal recording? Do you claim you can hear above 24KHz? Do you claim you can hear jitter at femto second level? If so, please provide proof, as that is simply extraordinary, and so exceptional as to be well outside all known norms.

[PeterSt]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

Yes.

 

Do you claim that all with a THD+N below -120dB sounds the same ?

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Do you claim that all with a THD+N below -120dB sounds the same ?

 

As I said, THD+N is a single number and does not describe fully a complex system. If all distortion is below -120dB it will sound the same when playing a regular recording as you reduce distortion+noise level to -130dB, -150dB or -200dB.