Step by step surgery

[fas42]

I was looking around ... found this open source software with a nice manual, explaining many aspects of colour manipulation - and then this page, https://www.darktable.org/2012/02/mastering-color-with-lab-tone-curves/.

 

Ummm, this shows where I'm trying to get ... has before and after versions of images - this will obviously depend on how your viewing monitor is set up - but on mine the "before" is the one I want, and the "after" is the poppy, cartoony version that the TV wants to give me, and which I want to eliminate. So, I disagree entirely with what he's doing; he's adding makeup to "enhance" what hits the senses - and that's the wrong move, in my book.

[kumakuma]

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I was looking around ... found this open source software with a nice manual, explaining many aspects of colour manipulation - and then this page, https://www.darktable.org/2012/02/mastering-color-with-lab-tone-curves/.

 

Ummm, this shows where I'm trying to get ... has before and after versions of images - this will obviously depend on how your viewing monitor is set up - but on mine the "before" is the one I want, and the "after" is the poppy, cartoony version that the TV wants to give me, and which I want to eliminate. So, I disagree entirely with what he's doing; he's adding makeup to "enhance" what hits the senses - and that's the wrong move, in my book.

 

Manipulation is not the same as calibration.

[fas42]

24 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Manipulation is not the same as calibration.

 

Agree ... but if the set is not ideal in its behaviour, then some 'manipulation' may be necessary to correct, to bring the image into a best subjective 'calibration' - this set has picture curve manipulation, so I'm investigating the very non-obvious way it works, to see whether that adds some degrees of freedom of movement.

 

Rather impressive - we have a small Aldi set in the bedroom, and found that the same codes get into the factory menu of that unit, and that it has colour LUTs, Look Up Tables - mapping of colour values ... rather nifty for a Chinese cheapy, I thought 🙂

[semente]

5 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Agree ... but if the set is not ideal in its behaviour, then some 'manipulation' may be necessary to correct, to bring the image into a best subjective 'calibration' - this set has picture curve manipulation, so I'm investigating the very non-obvious way it works, to see whether that adds some degrees of freedom of movement.

 

Rather impressive - we have a small Aldi set in the bedroom, and found that the same codes get into the factory menu of that unit, and that it has colour LUTs, Look Up Tables - mapping of colour values ... rather nifty for a Chinese cheapy, I thought 🙂

 

Just use a colorimeter. Else you'll be clutching at straws.

[fas42]

Persistence works ... I had gone off in a wrong direction, so I pulled back - and just did a couple of minor adjustments ... Ah, hah!! Got it! The balance of the RGB has slipped properly into the "right zone", and the giveaway is that sense of the image now always gets a tick - each program familiar from viewing from the previous set is "back" in familiar clothes, except now "bigger and brighter".

 

And nighttime viewing, with a bit of intensity cut thrown in, shows no obvious problems. Just watched this, which happened to be being broadcast tonight,

 

 

Spot on. Draws you in, and makes you appreciate what 65" of HD can do to make you want to keep watching - a feast for the eyes, 🙂.

 

[charlesphoto]

On 1/12/2020 at 4:10 AM, Racerxnet said:

If the device as shown is not calibrated then it is not worth the effort. It looks like a cellphone. i1Pro is cheap enough and calibrated from the factory, will sometimes come with software, and the process can be automated with a laptop. Frank can listen to his tunes and calibrate at the same time. I've seen i1Pros for 150.00 used. I have looked into using the cellphone long ago and determined it did not meet the accuracy required on the Sony 665. 

 

Honestly, Frank does not know what he is doing and just likes to fiddle. It's his Tv and enjoys the time spent. 

 

MAK

 

I have an i1Pro (older version and a newer NEC proprietary version) - that I use for my NEC monitor with Spectraview software, but wondering just how one would use it to calibrate a TV? Or even a MAC laptop for that matter? 

[Racerxnet]

54 minutes ago, charlesphoto said:

 

I have an i1Pro (older version and a newer NEC proprietary version) - that I use for my NEC monitor with Spectraview software, but wondering just how one would use it to calibrate a TV? Or even a MAC laptop for that matter? 

 

 

Charles,

 

I will point you to the information regarding calibration to the MAC or TV. I have done both as I use my HTPC (windows7) output to the Sony 665 or TV. Here are some links. Without a baseline scan we have no idea where the deficiencies are. Set-up is with a tripod and your measuring device. It's no different than the mount to your monitor and reading the patch (coordinates). 

 

http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=41&sid=0ae16f70deeb3a905c777ad815a46914

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/139-display-calibration/

https://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/xyz-rgb.html

 

Thanks,

 

MAK

[charlesphoto]

Thanks MAK. Had a quick look at a few of those links, and there's something to be said for having a monitor with LUT's. I think our TV's are fine and not something I'm really not all that concerned about, just curious. Seems like more work (brain and otherwise) than I care to take on. 

 

Best, CP

[Archimago]

Continued from the "red or blue pill - Part II" discussions which started here. And last response from Frank being this one.

 

Quote

That's the general thinking in audio - but IME the better the accuracy of the sound in key areas, the more the hearing mind is able to compensate, by "filling the gaps". I was intrigued by this, and then discovered that instrument makers have known for centuries that one can trick the mind, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combination_tone, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_fundamental.

 

Well Frank, thanks for linking to examples of psychoacoustic phenomena where combinations of tones in a series of harmonics and situations where there are missing fundamentals are "filled in" by the brain. I'm not sure why this is that important for you. If you listen to examples of the phenomena you're referring to (like here), you'll note that the effect is decidedly not "high fidelity". I'm not sure why this is important when we can just use better gear in nicer rooms where we don't have to sacrifice frequency response and then tweak to optimize.

 

It still just sounds like you're basically saying that you've found a way to optimize a sound system that works for you and others you've come across but as far as I can tell, have not given any specifics.

 

Quote

Extreme, synthetic bass won't make the cut, but most conventional instrument bass sends out the right messages when the overtones are well reproduced ... I normally find most audiophile bass to be quite unrealistic; lacks 'tightness', is overblown.

 

Right, of course extreme bass could never be "filled in". And I trust neither will clean treble when the high frequency extension is poor. Why compromise? Are these not examples of why frequency response is important? (If not one of the most important for high fidelity playback especially in certain very popular genres?)

 

Quote

Well, we'll try not to get silly about it, perhaps 😉 ...in any sort of reasonable room, where one is comfortable having an extended conversation with someone, then there shouldn't be an issue ..

 

Why's it silly!? This was just a response to your unqualified comment - "Room issues are not important, the brain automatically compensates, I find." So in fact, rooms issues could be important, right?

 

Quote

 

If I had a dollar for every time that sort of thing has been said to me ... 😁

 

The method can be taught, but it takes time! Some years ago, a keen audio enthusiast, living local, turned up for a listening session, and I've remained friends ever since - steadily 'mentored' him for years, and regularly visit his place to check progress. Hardest thing was to shake him out of the normal trains of thought that audiophiles always fall back on - but he's got the bug now ... delights in using bargain basement solutions, and has a collection of "terrible" recordings to check how he's progressing, 😁.

 

 

It takes time and effort, sure. But I fail to see why this cannot be systematically operationalized or be presented in a series of articles on your blog. Speaking as one blog writer to another, it's much easier and leaves a legacy of your work on your blog page if you were to do so. Furthermore, I've seen a number of your posts and many say similar things... Wouldn't it save keystrokes and time to just write this down somewhere once and leave links to refer to it during forum discussions? Wouldn't it be cool to publish example cases over the years to show examples of how this worked out? Wouldn't it help fellow audiophiles to see pictures of setups and examples of what kind of "bargain basement solutions" you're talking about?!

 

In fact, since you don't believe the room plays a big part in the equation, wouldn't it be fantastic to just show pictures of set-ups and the components that were used so audiophiles can see examples of "real sounding" systems? That would leave a useful, searchable legacy on "Frank the Audiophile" and what he was able to accomplish in 2020 than through scattered forum posts without a unified archive of your thoughts, experiments, and suggestions.

 

As for "If I had a dollar..." - well, turn on AdSense and if you refer to products that people might buy on Amazon, do like I do and make a few bucks on the side. In fact if the procedure gathers ongoing interest over the years, you'll continue to make money from the ads delivered every time someone clicks on those links indefinitely.

 

Quote

 

There have been a good handful of people I've found over the Internet, who understand almost exactly what I'm talking about. It's out there, but it's rare - each person who has come across it has a different slant on how to achieve it; what they all understand is that it is far from trivial to make happen ...

 

The system sounds "real" in that the message it sends to your brain is never detected as being a deception - let's say I put on some intense, solo piano music at a realistic volumes - if I listen to it from outside, at a distance, through an open window, it gets a tick; if I listen, inside, at the other end of the house, it gets a tick; if I walk into the room where the speakers are, and am only inches away from one of the speakers ... it still gets a tick. An illusion is created which is never broken - because the SQ is good enough in key areas; enough for the brain to remain convinced, that it knows that it can't be a fake.

 

 

I think my comment above covers this. If indeed the "real" sound can be accomplished by your work with inexpensive gear, then you should be proud to show the world what was done. Well thought out write-ups, detailed descriptions of the procedures, examples of ways to deal with these distortions that break the sense of "reality" can be discussed thoroughly and readers can take all the time they need to develop/practice the art. In fact, this would even help manufacturers analyze their equipment and hopefully offer even better advice on how to get things working.

 

Seriously, if I had discovered some kind of special "step-by-step" technique that could truly result in changing the perspective of audiophiles, that's what I'd do.

 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

Well Frank, thanks for linking to examples of psychoacoustic phenomena where combinations of tones in a series of harmonics and situations where there are missing fundamentals are "filled in" by the brain. I'm not sure why this is that important for you. If you listen to examples of the phenomena you're referring to (like here), you'll note that the effect is decidedly not "high fidelity". I'm not sure why this is important when we can just use better gear in nicer rooms where we don't have to sacrifice frequency response and then tweak to optimize.

 

Why it's important is that I knew that my ear/brain was responding in that fashion - that is, the better the SQ, the less the precision of the FR mattered - I was intrigued but didn't understand why this might occur; but then I started seeing this ability of the brain to compensate being talked about in various areas, and this meant I could then say, "Ah-hah ..."

 

An example can be high fidelity - or not ...it's merely demonstrating a behaviour. Of course, better gear in the best room will always be an advantage - my point is that this is not necessary to experience the SQ I'm interested in.

 

Quote

 

It still just sounds like you're basically saying that you've found a way to optimize a sound system that works for you and others you've come across but as far as I can tell, have not given any specifics.

 

The specifics will always depend on the state of the system you're dealing with - it's like going to a doctor rather than a nutritionist/health coach - the latter will recommend a whole suite of procedures for best eating, and nominate the best exercise regime for optimum health - and people always want the latter, in audio. By contrast, my approach is that of the doctor - tell me what's wrong with the sound, or let me listen; this will guide me to do some tests using various tracks, and I might adjust things in a simple way, in order to get more information. Intuition and experience tells me to consider various causes; and I proceed from there. IOW, I diagnose, and prescribe. Like a doctor, I may be well off the mark first time; but I continue trying various 'medicines' until I get some, positive, results.

 

Quote

 

Right, of course extreme bass could never be "filled in". And I trust neither will clean treble when the high frequency extension is poor. Why compromise? Are these not examples of why frequency response is important? (If not one of the most important for high fidelity playback especially in certain very popular genres?)

 

IME deep bass has not mattered - I have pipe organ recordings on CD, and the best I have ever heard them presented is on my own rigs, with nothing special in the bass capabilities - the 'sense' of the bass line is what matters, and on a convincing system this comes over beautifully.

 

I would always take clean treble, over high frequency extension in itself. That this is so important is indicated because one can play historical recordings with quite dreadfully lacking HF content - and these will come over very nicely if the standard of the playback chain is high enough ... all that "extension" is completely unused, for such recordings.

 

Quote

 

 

Why's it silly!? This was just a response to your unqualified comment - "Room issues are not important, the brain automatically compensates, I find." So in fact, rooms issues could be important, right?

 

In an extreme case, yes. But in any room where one would be comfortable listening to a musician idly picking up an instrument, and playing it, there won't be.

 

Quote

 

 

It takes time and effort, sure. But I fail to see why this cannot be systematically operationalized or be presented in a series of articles on your blog. Speaking as one blog writer to another, it's much easier and leaves a legacy of your work on your blog page if you were to do so. Furthermore, I've seen a number of your posts and many say similar things... Wouldn't it save keystrokes and time to just write this down somewhere once and leave links to refer to it during forum discussions? Wouldn't it be cool to publish example cases over the years to show examples of how this worked out? Wouldn't it help fellow audiophiles to see pictures of setups and examples of what kind of "bargain basement solutions" you're talking about?!

 

Much of what you say makes sense ... but I "burned out" many years ago  carrying out my occupation of computer analysis, design and programming; a condition that is steadily getting worse. That is, I very quickly run out of stamina when performing a task, even something that's purely physical.

 

To do something, now, like what you describe would be a nightmare for me - I "do what has to be done; that which is right in front of me, now" is how I currently go about things. Motivation would have to be extremely high to start it, and even then I suspect I would conk out ...

 

Essentially all the material is already there, in all the posts I've made over the years - it just needs to be sorted through, 😜.

 

Quote

 

In fact, since you don't believe the room plays a big part in the equation, wouldn't it be fantastic to just show pictures of set-ups and the components that were used so audiophiles can see examples of "real sounding" systems? That would leave a useful, searchable legacy on "Frank the Audiophile" and what he was able to accomplish in 2020 than through scattered forum posts without a unified archive of your thoughts, experiments, and suggestions.

 

See above ... 😁.

 

Pictures would tell one nothing - it's all about tiny little, essentially invisible modifications, and adjusting how the electrical environment is organised - these are largely concepts, rather than "things".

 

Quote

As for "If I had a dollar..." - well, turn on AdSense and if you refer to products that people might buy on Amazon, do like I do and make a few bucks on the side. In fact if the procedure gathers ongoing interest over the years, you'll continue to make money from the ads delivered every time someone clicks on those links indefinitely.

 

Again, a good concept - but my brain says, right now, "I don't want to know about doing these things!"

 

Quote

 

I think my comment above covers this. If indeed the "real" sound can be accomplished by your work with inexpensive gear, then you should be proud to show the world what was done. Well thought out write-ups, detailed descriptions of the procedures, examples of ways to deal with these distortions that break the sense of "reality" can be discussed thoroughly and readers can take all the time they need to develop/practice the art. In fact, this would even help manufacturers analyze their equipment and hopefully offer even better advice on how to get things working.

 

Seriously, if I had discovered some kind of special "step-by-step" technique that could truly result in changing the perspective of audiophiles, that's what I'd do.

 

 

Timing ... 10 years ago, I would have been in like a shot - I started that blog, and it's 'collapsed' in the same way as what happens in other areas - the energy to keep it going evaporates, and I move to "something else", to refresh my brain ... forums are good, because you have plenty of immediate feedback when you post some minor thought; the interaction keeps my mind "stirred up" ... 😀.

[Archimago]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

Why it's important is that I knew that my ear/brain was responding in that fashion - that is, the better the SQ, the less the precision of the FR mattered - I was intrigued but didn't understand why this might occur; but then I started seeing this ability of the brain to compensate being talked about in various areas, and this meant I could then say, "Ah-hah ..."

 

Well, I guess I just don't experience it like that at all. If I'm interested in high fidelity reproduction of what's on my record/CD/file, I literally do want to hear all the recording has to offer. And since this is sound, frequencies seem rather important. 😁

 

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

An example can be high fidelity - or not ...it's merely demonstrating a behaviour. Of course, better gear in the best room will always be an advantage - my point is that this is not necessary to experience the SQ I'm interested in.

 

Surely, if you're interested in sounds being perceived as "real", you would want less of the brain to be using it's compensation mechanisms (eg. because the fundamental frequency might be missing!!!). If this is the case, one might as well seek out lossy encoded music - after all, the brain's psychoacoustic mechanisms can "fill in" the missing frequencies and it still sounds great. But don't we already have higher quality lossless?

 

As for this "SQ I'm interested in", I fear there's no way to ascertain what it is you're actually interested in since you're not describing this in detail nor showing by example what you're talking about.

 

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

The specifics will always depend on the state of the system you're dealing with - it's like going to a doctor rather than a nutritionist/health coach - the latter will recommend a whole suite of procedures for best eating, and nominate the best exercise regime for optimum health - and people always want the latter, in audio. By contrast, my approach is that of the doctor - tell me what's wrong with the sound, or let me listen; this will guide me to do some tests using various tracks, and I might adjust things in a simple way, in order to get more information. Intuition and experience tells me to consider various causes; and I proceed from there. IOW, I diagnose, and prescribe. Like a doctor, I may be well off the mark first time; but I continue trying various 'medicines' until I get some, positive, results.

 

Frank, if I may suggest... I see that you are not a physician and you literally have it backwards. From our discussion so far, it appears to me that you have not been able to describe the issues you "diagnose". This is literally more like the homeopath who believes that certain diagnoses exist and that numerous "special" preparations (which are difficult to describe) and successive tinctures of apparently highly diluted prescriptions result in remarkable outcomes ("sounds real!").

 

We can talk more of this if you really believe in your analogy... But notice that your local doctor is not afraid to use instruments, tests, and various other objective measures; even a simple stethoscope or blood pressure cuff, not to mention complex autoimmune panels, genome sequencing or MRI - to verify the diagnostic impressions, often before prescribing anything.

 

So what are you using to verify your impressions (diagnoses)? Do any of your techniques incorporate placebo controlled trials to confirm the intended outcome? Have you conducted "multicentre" tests to achieve consensus with others?

 

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

IME deep bass has not mattered - I have pipe organ recordings on CD, and the best I have ever heard them presented is on my own rigs, with nothing special in the bass capabilities - the 'sense' of the bass line is what matters, and on a convincing system this comes over beautifully.

 

I would always take clean treble, over high frequency extension in itself. That this is so important is indicated because one can play historical recordings with quite dreadfully lacking HF content - and these will come over very nicely if the standard of the playback chain is high enough ... all that "extension" is completely unused, for such recordings.

 

Again isn't this all self-referential and may have nothing to do with the reality of others or even of the real world?

 

What "'sense' of the bass" are you talking about? "Clean" and "extension" are different dimensions and whether you have a preference towards a "clean" (distortionless) treble of course doesn't mean someone else might not prefer "extension" - as an audiophile, I prefer both and don't see why one would care to pick one over the other. 😱

 

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

In an extreme case, yes. But in any room where one would be comfortable listening to a musician idly picking up an instrument, and playing it, there won't be.

 

Sorry, I think you're very wrong about this. Could it be that you're personally not sensitive to the effects that a room makes?

 

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

Much of what you say makes sense ... but I "burned out" many years ago  carrying out my occupation of computer analysis, design and programming; a condition that is steadily getting worse. That is, I very quickly run out of stamina when performing a task, even something that's purely physical.

 

To do something, now, like what you describe would be a nightmare for me - I "do what has to be done; that which is right in front of me, now" is how I currently go about things. Motivation would have to be extremely high to start it, and even then I suspect I would conk out ...

 

Essentially all the material is already there, in all the posts I've made over the years - it just needs to be sorted through, 😜.

 

Frank, obviously you have a great amount of endurance writing these responses and over the months and years I've seen you post here. I see you've posted >6000 times on this forum. Surely, if you even used 10% of that energy to focus on a handful of succinct articles, you would save yourself a huge amount of energy and material you can easily point audiophiles to for years to come instead of repeatedly typing similar claims and comments!

 

As you said "essentially all the material is already there" so you've expended energy and written it all but now it's all over the place and highly unlikely anyone is going to bother with picking through to piece this together. Surely you can muster a few hours over a few weeks to gather thoughts, diagrams, pictures on the blog... You mentioned another person you check in on once awhile that you helped - maybe you can begin there and publish a Case Report (medical, right?) on what was diagnosed, what treatments were prescribed, and outcome. I'm sure your friend would be able to fill in some details if you work together. Remember, make sure to include pictures - saves >1000 words!

 

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

See above ... 😁.

 

Pictures would tell one nothing - it's all about tiny little, essentially invisible modifications, and adjusting how the electrical environment is organised - these are largely concepts, rather than "things".

 

I highly doubt a picture would be useless! The way the system is laid out, maybe a close-up of where time was spent to arrange something to create dramatic differences along with written description would act synergistically I think. Living in the material world, concrete demonstrations IMO are way more powerful than intellectual ruminations. There's nothing like showing something that works and having the person experience it for themselves...

 

To be able to teach others techniques to optimize sound quality in their set-up is important, and sorely missing in much of the audiophile press because they would have us buy stuff. If you have something to offer, then I for one would love to see it laid out in a clear fashion.

 

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

Again, a good concept - but my brain says, right now, "I don't want to know about doing these things!"

 

It's not hard to get AdSense up and running. I bet you can get it done in an hour if you want especially if you're in the States. I recall having to jump through a few hoops here in Canada due to international financial transactions.

 

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

Timing ... 10 years ago, I would have been in like a shot - I started that blog, and it's 'collapsed' in the same way as what happens in other areas - the energy to keep it going evaporates, and I move to "something else", to refresh my brain ... forums are good, because you have plenty of immediate feedback when you post some minor thought; the interaction keeps my mind "stirred up" ... 😀.

 

Like my point about "clean" and "extension" above. You can have both. The blog is a place you go to express DEPTH and your own meditations on various topics. The forums are great for INTERACTION, but like you say these are often "minor thoughts". Thoughts you really want others to know and potentially build upon should go in the blog. Have it act as your landmarks for reference. If you have something unique to say, put it there because that's likely as much of a legacy as anyone can hope for in the digital world.

 

[Racerxnet]

Nice reply above. I think we are all beating a dead horse. Are we going to expect it to get up and walk??? Not going to happen.

 

My .02

 

MAK

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, Racerxnet said:

Nice reply above. I think we are all beating a dead horse. Are we going to expect it to get up and walk??? Not going to happen.

 

My .02

 

MAK

 

Fair point @Racerxnet.

 

I find it interesting that throughout the internet, we run into situations with people (not just audiophiles of course) with viewpoints like this which are very different with very different ways of ascertaining how that inner "knowledge" was derived.

 

From my interaction with Frank, I really get the impression that he is a nice person, believes what he says, and I can appreciate that he appears to be well meaning; not a troll who's looking out for a fight. Perhaps there will be no change but it is an interesting opportunity to talk honestly and see where this leads. If there is the opportunity to engage and learn from each other, then that would be very cool.

 

That is the great part about the Internet... Tools are out there to create and project one's message to the masses in ways impossible a generation or two ago. The question is whether we have the insight to express our thoughts well and insight to know when we've personally gone too far and lost the audience!

 

[Racerxnet]

On 1/12/2020 at 6:52 AM, fas42 said:

one thing I am quite confident of - calibrating by the book would almost certainly not have been of any use here.

 

I agree that Frank is a nice guy and means well. We provide documentation as a means to achieve the end result, and it gets dismissed as though the scientific community doesn't know what its talking about. See above response.. The same occurs with the audio hobby and Frank. Room response, speaker response, etc get dismissed as though none of it matters. And we all have said that if the laptop cannot reproduce the file accurately, then that person is not hearing the complete sonic results encoded. If so, how can I judge what the material is suppose to sound like when the system is deficient to begin with?

 

If Frank would actually engage with another and be honest during an exchange, then maybe we could move further towards our goals. Deflection of scientific concepts proven to be true don't bolster his position or his blog, and I would surmise that is part of the reason the blog has dwindled. 

 

Like you said above "talk honestly" is a key to learning. Blowing off everyone and their system as not good enough makes for a poor start.

 

MAK

[Archimago]

3 hours ago, Racerxnet said:

 

I agree that Frank is a nice guy and means well. We provide documentation as a means to achieve the end result, and it gets dismissed as though the scientific community doesn't know what its talking about. See above response.. The same occurs with the audio hobby and Frank. Room response, speaker response, etc get dismissed as though none of it matters. And we all have said that if the laptop cannot reproduce the file accurately, then that person is not hearing the complete sonic results encoded. If so, how can I judge what the material is suppose to sound like when the system is deficient to begin with?

 

If Frank would actually engage with another and be honest during an exchange, then maybe we could move further towards our goals. Deflection of scientific concepts proven to be true don't bolster his position or his blog, and I would surmise that is part of the reason the blog has dwindled. 

 

Like you said above "talk honestly" is a key to learning. Blowing off everyone and their system as not good enough makes for a poor start.

 

MAK

 

Right. While I'm sure this is yet another rounds of discussions with countless others before already... Maybe Frank can take to heart the comments here and now.

 

As much as intellectual discussions can be interesting, there comes a point where unless our beliefs / theories / faiths translates to the real world and in the realm of the internet, produces actual results by means of meaningful (and honest) sharing, it will certainly "collapse".

 

The marketplace of ideas consists of a dust bin with countless "good ideas", beliefs, testimonies throughout the history of human existence left forgotten and devalued. That is of course as it should be.

[fas42]

16 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

Frank, obviously you have a great amount of endurance writing these responses and over the months and years I've seen you post here. I see you've posted >6000 times on this forum. Surely, if you even used 10% of that energy to focus on a handful of succinct articles, you would save yourself a huge amount of energy and material you can easily point audiophiles to for years to come instead of repeatedly typing similar claims and comments!

 

You see, I cooked my brain just dealing with this exchange - I got a quarter of the way through responding to this post, properly  ... and conked out ... that was the end of doing anything meaningful for the day, around the house. Sometimes, it takes a bit more effort to understand a situation, than what is "obvious" on the surface.

 

I do things, short and sweet - that's how I get things done ... this reply will have to do in the meantime.

 

 

[fas42]

4 hours ago, Racerxnet said:

 

I agree that Frank is a nice guy and means well. We provide documentation as a means to achieve the end result, and it gets dismissed as though the scientific community doesn't know what its talking about. See above response..

 

 

And a perfect example of trying to win a point by quoting something out of context ...when people want to fight against taking on some new way of thinking, they will use whatever can be used as weaponry that's on hand - including bits of broken rocks lying in the gutter.

 

BTW, the TV is mighty close now; did a touch more fine adjusting yesterday - skin tones are always ringing true. Plus, this new set with better technology allows much higher contrast than the old one - in the evening, blacks are true blacks, but full white is literally "too much" of a good thing; doesn't suit evening viewing - so, dialing it back a bit, but still a bit overpowering when a "bright" scene is shown. Why on earth they need sets with HDR, and black area enhancing is somewhat puzzling ...

 

4 hours ago, Racerxnet said:

The same occurs with the audio hobby and Frank. Room response, speaker response, etc get dismissed as though none of it matters. And we all have said that if the laptop cannot reproduce the file accurately, then that person is not hearing the complete sonic results encoded. If so, how can I judge what the material is suppose to sound like when the system is deficient to begin with?

 

If Frank would actually engage with another and be honest during an exchange, then maybe we could move further towards our goals. Deflection of scientific concepts proven to be true don't bolster his position or his blog, and I would surmise that is part of the reason the blog has dwindled.

 

You do talk twaddle, mate ...

[fas42]

49 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

As much as intellectual discussions can be interesting, there comes a point where unless our beliefs / theories / faiths translates to the real world and in the realm of the internet, produces actual results by means of meaningful (and honest) sharing, it will certainly "collapse".

 

The marketplace of ideas consists of a dust bin with countless "good ideas", beliefs, testimonies throughout the history of human existence left forgotten and devalued. That is of course as it should be.

 

People will continue to bump into this acoustic behaviour, until eventually it will be taken more seriously - might take 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, etc ... it's rare now because it requires attention to detail that the vast majority of people aren't interested in, or can't relate to - only the "fussy ones" will make it happen, and they may not have the 'talents' to translate what they have achieved into the wider world.

 

So be it ...

[Racerxnet]

22 minutes ago, fas42 said:

BTW, the TV is mighty close now; did a touch more fine adjusting yesterday

 

Closer to what? What reference is used for calibration? Does it match a screen cap? 

26 minutes ago, fas42 said:

And a perfect example of trying to win a point by quoting something out of context ...when people want to fight against taking on some new way of thinking, they will use whatever can be used as weaponry that's on hand - including bits of broken rocks lying in the gutter.

 

Sorry Frank, without any data for the RGB, gamma, and gamut tracking, you have nothing that verifies the content will be seen as intended. It is what it is. Your picture shown of a whale or whatever it is means nothing. That's not fighting, but telling the truth.

 

MAK

[fas42]

1 minute ago, Racerxnet said:

 

Closer to what? What reference is used for calibration? Does it match a screen cap? 

 

Closer to creating an image that "rings true", no matter what is being shown. Many TVs have a caricature colour cast over them, and I find that irritating - if a news crew clips shows the reactions of people in a bush fire zone, I want everything in the frame to match how I know the colouring should be; every successive clip that flicks on, one after the other, will have a different colour cast, depending upon what the smoke haze, or fire glare was at that moment - but they all "feel right".

 

1 minute ago, Racerxnet said:

 

Sorry Frank, without any data for the RGB, gamma, and gamut tracking, you have nothing that verifies the content will be seen as intended. It is what it is. Your picture shown of a whale or whatever it is means nothing. That's not fighting, but telling the truth.

 

MAK

 

If shots of everyday scenery, that I can compare with what I see out the window, by turning my head, get a tick - then any numbers obtained add nothing to the story

[Racerxnet]

You are correct Frank,

 

None of the broadcast companies, film producers, or others use calibration. Just shoot from the hip.

 

MAK

[fas42]

20 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

You are correct Frank,

 

None of the broadcast companies, film producers, or others use calibration. Just shoot from the hip.

 

MAK

 

Of course the people shooting the material should be using calibrated gear - then they can choose to develop a style for their production, colour cast, blurred or sharp, strong colour or muted, high or low contrast, etc. The point is, I don't my TV imposing a version that some software thinks is correct, if I then find that some broadcasting is irritating me - I got the previous set in that state, where all broadcasting worked well, and I want the current one to do the same.

 

IOW, the TV is transparent to the material ... hmmm, sounds like that might be a good idea for audio ... will have to think about it. 😀.

[Racerxnet]

47 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Of course the people shooting the material should be using calibrated gear - then they can choose to develop a style for their production, colour cast, blurred or sharp, strong colour or muted, high or low contrast, etc. The point is, I don't my TV imposing a version that some software thinks is correct, if I then find that some broadcasting is irritating me - I got the previous set in that state, where all broadcasting worked well, and I want the current one to do the same.

 

IOW, the TV is transparent to the material ... hmmm, sounds like that might be a good idea for audio ... will have to think about it. 😀.

 

 The purpose of the calibration is so that the variances between display devices are accounted for when viewing content. In other words, 6 monitors will display content consistently to a person in a film house, enthusiast, broadcast house, Whatever. It has nothing to do with color cast, contrast, etc.other than to see what was intended. I gave several links to learn more. 

 

Your application could not reliably provide the results if given 6 displays for content viewing. ie, REC 709, D65, 2.2 gamma, 16 - 235.

 

MAK

[Racerxnet]

Contrast would be a related aspect of calibration. 

 

MAK

[fas42]

Okay, I'm going to give responding to this another go ... 😁

 

On 1/14/2020 at 4:37 PM, Archimago said:

 

Well, I guess I just don't experience it like that at all. If I'm interested in high fidelity reproduction of what's on my record/CD/file, I literally do want to hear all the recording has to offer. And since this is sound, frequencies seem rather important. 😁

 

First noted this about 15 years ago - was using an amp with the usual treble and bass controls; when the amp was not firing, the effect of the tone controls was obvious; when I temporarily lifted its performance to a decent level, I found it almost impossible to detect that swinging of the pots from one end to the other was doing anything significant to what I was hearing.

 

Quote

 

Surely, if you're interested in sounds being perceived as "real", you would want less of the brain to be using it's compensation mechanisms (eg. because the fundamental frequency might be missing!!!). If this is the case, one might as well seek out lossy encoded music - after all, the brain's psychoacoustic mechanisms can "fill in" the missing frequencies and it still sounds great. But don't we already have higher quality lossless?

 

A technically poor recording is harder to replay at a good enough standard - so, yes, the better the recording the easier it is for the brain.

 

Quote

 

As for this "SQ I'm interested in", I fear there's no way to ascertain what it is you're actually interested in since you're not describing this in detail nor showing by example what you're talking about.

 

Ummm, this is only the SQ that I have described in 100's of posts, in terms of its characteristics - if what it's about is not clear by now, I give up ... 😉.

 

Quote

 

 

Frank, if I may suggest... I see that you are not a physician and you literally have it backwards. From our discussion so far, it appears to me that you have not been able to describe the issues you "diagnose". This is literally more like the homeopath who believes that certain diagnoses exist and that numerous "special" preparations (which are difficult to describe) and successive tinctures of apparently highly diluted prescriptions result in remarkable outcomes ("sounds real!").

 

Sigh ... put on a recording that you find particularly objectionable to listen to - you will say, "It's a bad recording!" ... I will come in, and say, "Right, I can hear all sorts of distortion being excited, in the playback chain, by the nature of that recording". They're the symptoms of an 'unhealthy' playback system - I now have specific aches and pains to work on ...

 

Quote

We can talk more of this if you really believe in your analogy... But notice that your local doctor is not afraid to use instruments, tests, and various other objective measures; even a simple stethoscope or blood pressure cuff, not to mention complex autoimmune panels, genome sequencing or MRI - to verify the diagnostic impressions, often before prescribing anything.

 

So what are you using to verify your impressions (diagnoses)? Do any of your techniques incorporate placebo controlled trials to confirm the intended outcome? Have you conducted "multicentre" tests to achieve consensus with others?

 

Strangely enough, I do use a multimeter - Oh, horror!! 😜 ... but the vast majority of symptoms don't need any measurin' - if something is audible that shouldn't be there, then you have a problem.

 

A specific example, which I have mentioned several times in posts - my original Big Mutha amplifier, 35 years ago, showed distortion appearing in the treble above a certain volume. Carefully working through it, it turned out that the unit's power supply was not good enough; this was resolved after various attempts at simple tweaking, by completely restructuring the smoothing capacitor area ... problem solved.

 

Everything I do is based on the same principles that, say, makes you decide that a radio needs a better aerial  - not good enough aerial, audio is too distorted; better aerial, the distortion goes away.

 

Quote

 

Again isn't this all self-referential and may have nothing to do with the reality of others or even of the real world?

 

Some people like, for example, grotesque "bass" - I could call it, the "home theatre car door slam" effect - in the shot, all the people get out of the vehicle, one by one - and firmly close the door. And each time, a wrecking ball gives the walls of the room a solid whack ...well, last time I got out of a car I didn't hear anything like that happening ... 😉.

 

Quote

 

What "'sense' of the bass" are you talking about? "Clean" and "extension" are different dimensions and whether you have a preference towards a "clean" (distortionless) treble of course doesn't mean someone else might not prefer "extension" - as an audiophile, I prefer both and don't see why one would care to pick one over the other. 😱

 

Lack of distortion always comes before extension, for me. Well done deep bass is expensive, so I don't worry about it.

 

Quote

 

Sorry, I think you're very wrong about this. Could it be that you're personally not sensitive to the effects that a room makes?

 

So, you would trouble listening to live music if the room wasn't "right"?

 

Quote

 

I highly doubt a picture would be useless! The way the system is laid out, maybe a close-up of where time was spent to arrange something to create dramatic differences along with written description would act synergistically I think. Living in the material world, concrete demonstrations IMO are way more powerful than intellectual ruminations. There's nothing like showing something that works and having the person experience it for themselves...

 

The most effective add-on would be sounds ... examples of SQ in the right zone; examples in the wrong zone - I have done that on occasion, but the comments thereafter demonstrate a desire to disregard the aspect that matters, and not be intelligent about the point I'm trying to make.

 

Quote

 

To be able to teach others techniques to optimize sound quality in their set-up is important, and sorely missing in much of the audiophile press because they would have us buy stuff. If you have something to offer, then I for one would love to see it laid out in a clear fashion.

 

Agree.

 

Quote

 

It's not hard to get AdSense up and running. I bet you can get it done in an hour if you want especially if you're in the States. I recall having to jump through a few hoops here in Canada due to international financial transactions.

 

I will check it out ...

 

Quote

 

Like my point about "clean" and "extension" above. You can have both. The blog is a place you go to express DEPTH and your own meditations on various topics. The forums are great for INTERACTION, but like you say these are often "minor thoughts". Thoughts you really want others to know and potentially build upon should go in the blog. Have it act as your landmarks for reference. If you have something unique to say, put it there because that's likely as much of a legacy as anyone can hope for in the digital world.

 

 

Theory's good ... but it's always been a struggle to go back to activities where the 'novelty' has worn off - I used to be a voracious reader, until one day I stopped reading halfway through a volume, and to this day have no interest in reading, unless it's to find out information ...