Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[Archimago]

On 8/12/2020 at 4:36 PM, fas42 said:

This piece by @Archimago, https://archimago.blogspot.com/2020/07/measurements-pass-amp-camp-amp-aca-11.html, to me points out so strongly the hole that the objectivists have dug for themselves - after trashing the Pass amplifier, by pointing out how badly it measures, he says,

 

 

That is, if the recording sounds better, it must be distortion ... why? Because, a system built of components that measure brilliantly don't make it sound so good - and obviously measurements don't lie 🙄 ; an "accurate system" must be telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 🤣.

 

Therefore, it's a guilty pleasure for objectivists to enjoy the playback of these inferior, subjectively pleasing, components - they can never consider the possibility that they are actually getting closer to the true nature of the recording.

 

As someone who routinely evolves a system from sounding edgy, or dreary and flat, to a situation where there is tonnes of "air", "bloom", and all the other good things - without doing a damn thing to change the inherent working of the parts - I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read pieces like this ... they are so certain they understand what's going on, when in fact they are so far from laying a glove on it.

 

Ah well, there's always next year ... 😉.

 

Hmmm... Frank, I dunno man, I don't see how the measurements/subjective comments as "digging a hole".

 

Remember, from the beginning I've always been "more objective" with recognition that ultimately audiophilia is (should be!) about enjoying the music even though I find it difficult to accept much of the subjective claims of audiophilia. While philosophically, I believe the hardware should simply be about high fidelity reproduction of recordings and an amplifier like the ACA would not be my ideal amp given my speakers, room, etc... I can still enjoy the sound. I was over at @mitchco's place a couple weeks ago and the ACAs function even better in his horn system with much higher sensitivity and thus lower distortion which makes it a better match.

 

"Therefore, it's a guilty pleasure for objectivists to enjoy the playback of these inferior, subjectively pleasing, components - they can never consider the possibility that they are actually getting closer to the true nature of the recording."

 

This is where you're losing me... What is the "true nature of the recording" you're getting at? Is not the "true nature" simply achieved by playback with high-fidelity gear capable of accuracy below human perception? Just because equipment adding distortions might subjectively sound better to some people with some recordings, sometimes doesn't seem all that surprising to me given how everyone has different tastes.

 

As for your evolutionary "magic". I still don't get that! 😉

 

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

Just came across this clip, noting the pluses of a high efficiency, old style speaker,

 

...

 

Did a bit of looking around, and discovered this chap who has a groovy pad,😀, with tweaked versions of them - which he drives with, for Pete's sake,  a Technics SA-GX690 receiver ... costing all of a few hundred dollars, used - disasterville? ... Well, here's a sample,

 

...

 

 

😕 As one who used a Technics SA-GX690 back in the 1990's, who ever said it would not sound fine feeding a high efficiency speaker like this?

[Archimago]

18 hours ago, fas42 said:

Just fired up the Edifiers, after much cursing from the awkwardness of working in the tight space that the internal wiring afforded me, bypassing the mains on/off switch - ahh, good sound ... welcome, dear friend! ... Bit of Brendel recorded in the early 60's - piano, as piano should sound ...

 

Which Edifiers are these for those who might want to also try?

 

[Archimago]

30 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The gory details are all here,

 

Great, thanks. I checked out the Edifier S2000 MkIII a little while back and it wasn't bad for the price and the capabilities were pretty good as well. Yeah, I think they can be optimized and tweaked...

 

[Archimago]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

How about talking about cables, then 🤪..

 

Hmmm, a first search at Archimago's site, for cables, and this was the first hit, https://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/05/measurements-toslink-optical-audio.html ... oh dear,

 

 

and

 

 

and

 

 

Ta da ... 😜

 

Absolutely no problem! And I'll do better for you right here and now 😱:

 

- Digital cables that pass 1's and 0's don't make a difference if bit-perfect. The Dr. Frank's SPDIF cable sounded fine and was worth every penny at a mere $4999.99 at the intro price!

- Smallish amounts of jitter make no audible difference. Not to say anyone should look for high-jitter products of course!

- Sometimes we see time shifts (like between S/PDIF and USB inputs), again, not audible but easily measured when present.

- And yes - BITS ARE BITS generally.

 

Of course, none of this has to do with XLR and RCA analog outputs and cables from the other thread, right? 😉

 

[Archimago]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Yes, I thought you would pull out the "But, it's digital transmission!" card 😉 ... okay, I'll let you off lightly - but be warned, I might do a deeper dig for some telling, analogue cable, throwaway lines ... 🤪.

 

Hopefully, Kunchur can get some solid data when only the brand of analogue cable is changed; and then, venture into the very deep, and murky, waters of 'purely' a digital link. We quiver with anticipation ...

 

I suspect optical will always be the least problem ... I've only ventured into this with my current actives, and am just using the out of the box freebie, to connect to the DVD player - nothing indicates, so far, that it's limiting SQ.

 

Thank you for your mercy 😒.

 

"Digital transmission" is a useful "card". Happy to "hear" of any results you might find as you dig deeper...

 

Best regards...

 

[Archimago]

32 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Which says that you have missed the point I was making by miles ...

 

Can't say I've ever driven a Ferrari, but my brother had a Lotus Esprit a few years back and it sucked as a car driving experience for a guy like me who's more interested in comfort and luxury (perhaps echoing what @kumakuma is saying to some extent).

 

Anyhow, using a car analogy, if you are likening your technique with what the car designers and engineers are doing, I don't think they would use the word "magic" to describe the fine tuning of a sports car (the "system" you speak of). Everything is measured with precision whether to the mm, or kg, or millisecond, or rpm, or degree (angle and temperature)... Replacement parts are built to the exact specifications. It's about physics and the ability to replicate and evolve a design to certain clear objectives.

 

What kind of parameters are you fine tuning when achieving this "magic" you speak of? What forms the basis of your objectives (ie. what scientific domain)? Can you express the objectives clearly?

[Archimago]

15 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

The best outcome is, obviously, for a vehicle to "have it all". Some vehicles do a damn good job of this, especially these days - which is what I want the audio version to do ...

 

 

Yes, totally agree.

 

 

The car industry has well accepted parameters - things to measure - which allows them to very precisely evolve a design so that it both measures well, and performs subjectively well. The audio industry doesn't. And that's the problem ...

 

I disagree. The "high fidelity" industry definitely has many parameters which we can measure from frequency response, to dynamic range, to linearity, to jitter, to damping factor, to power ratings... All depends on what kind of device, fidelity and resolution you're looking for. These things can certainly be quantified for your Edifier for example. (About 8 months back, I listened/looked at the Edifier S2000 Mk III - good but with some limitations.)

 

Quote

The kind of parameters are those of distortion. Of the system working, well, as a system. A car will be deemed sub par if it misbehaves in certain situations, if it doesn't respond to driver input in an intuitive way; if it "can't be trusted". These are "distortion artifacts" of the vehicle - and make it, ahem, undriveable 😉. Most audio setups do this, but people are so used to things being this way, they just accept it - and learn to live with it. My objective is to eliminate those factors that cause this "unreliability" - which can be done - and you then have audio replay working in "magic land". Except it's not - all you are doing is getting rid of the objectionable anomalies that cause people to find listening to systems tiring, boring, unpleasant, cardboard cutout like, requiring only the "best" recordings to be put on, only acceptable at a certain volume, etc, etc ... pick any or all of the previous 'issues', 😆.

 

Hmmm... Two things I'm not sure about:

 

1. How do you know what you're saying is actually there? What "misbehaviour" in audio systems? What sense of "unreliability"? What kind of "acceptance" are you thinking that people are "learn(ing) to live with it"? Is this all subjective perception which is idiosyncratic to your world view or ears/brain or is there anything more objective here which you can point to and most audiophiles can perceive?

 

2. Which gets back to my question of what "domain" are we dealing with for your investigations? Is this scientific? If so, are we looking at physics and the laws surrounding sound waves, room resonances? Or perhaps we're talking about something more complex - psychology (psychoacoustic) perhaps which would incorporate one's perceptual abilities, cognitive resources, and the uniqueness of these factors based on each person's experiences and preferences.

 

If it is the latter, then we are likely talking about something which will be much more idiosyncratic to each person and what applies to one will not necessarily be significant to another. That would be akin to asking a person what their "favourite music is?" or "does that girl/guy look attractive to you?". Or if we apply it to the science of high fidelity, each listener may have a different preferred frequency response depending on hearing acuity / preference. Some will also like different distortion levels - eg. the sound of increased harmonic distortion in some tube amps can add extra "magic" to their personal enjoyment.

 

Unless one can focus the discussion on what concrete parameter is being discussed, sure, anything goes because we can always find somebody, somewhere who feels a certain tweak had improved their enjoyment level even if for most people, doing so might have made no difference, or could even be detrimental!

[Archimago]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

All good things, but they barely give a sense of what the subjective experience is like, listening to them. And they never measure how a complete system performs. And they completely miss out on key factors like resistance to noise and interference.

 

Hmmm... Disagree. Those technical parameters IMO definitely can be useful and correlate to subjective quality! Frequency response has a huge bearing on how something sounds subjectively for example. And things like damping factor of an amp likewise will apply to the subjective experience if one knows about the speaker impedance that it's being paired to. Nothing is easy but one can appreciate the effects if understood and have experience with these things.

 

I agree that it's not easy if one does not have experience or technical knowledge with this stuff. But that's the joy of learning and trying! Don't just say these parameters "barely give a sense of what the subjective experience is like"... That's what irresponsible audiophile magazines do and then audiophiles start thinking they make no difference! That is simply not true if you spend time with test results and listen closely. Some characteristics will be more audible than others.

 

As for resistance to noise and interference, these things can be tested for as well. For example, this weekend I'll be testing a product and will purposely put it through a noisy system to see if it is able to improve the distortions!

 

Quote

In the car world, no-one purchases a vehicle, unless the car is just a box to go from A to B, without taking it for a test drive. There are a whole range of factors that are never put down in the brochure, that engineers worry about, which make the difference between a car you love driving, versus one that you will detest. These things matter, but if no-one does the work, or does it well enough, to make sure these factors are good enough, then what the consume gets is just a roll of the dice.

 

Who's telling anyone to buy an audio system without taking it for a "test drive"?

 

A test drive will also not tell you what the fuel efficiency is, nor will a city test drive give you an idea of what the top speed or acceleration are. These things are important to measure and tell the prospective buyer. Likewise, distortion characteristics, maximum wattage, a speaker's impedance curve would be nice to know and will determine the limits of the sound system even if a "test drive" will not strain the audio system to these extremes typically.

 

Quote

If you can't detect misbehaviour of an audio system using simple techniques then you're way behind the eight ball ... three things straight off the top: wind up the volume - does the sound fall to pieces, go into a compressed blur, at some point; how far can it be pushed while retaining composure. Then, put on a well known, to you, difficult recording - does it make a compete mess of it, spraying unlistenable distortion throughout the room. And another check: deliberately plug in some nasty mains noise makers in a socket next to that of the rig; is the SQ obviously slugged when this is done?

 

What "misbehavior" do you think myself or anyone else is missing? If I do hear "misbehaviour", I think it's important to run some tests and find out why.

 

I don't disagree that we should increase the volume, use some familiar complex material, and plug in potential sources of distortion to check (within reason of course). Seems like pretty standard suggestions...

 

Quote

We talking about aspects of sound reproduction which are easily detected by the ears, as noted above. As another point, anyone who has experienced higher quality sound is well aware that some systems effectively mask so much detail of what's on the recording that you almost don't recognise the track. Or it goes in the other direction - you become aware of so much more going on that it's like "hearing it for the first time". Do you really think that there is something "non-scientific" about what's going on in these situations?

 

Those who have experienced "higher quality sound" I think will understand that it correlates with technical parameters to a certain point, but measurement equipment is usually able to tell us things we will not hear.

 

Actually, no, I find that the ears/mind is remarkably good for interpolating and extrapolating. As a result, I don't find that I personally experience "hearing it for the first time" when I hear a better quality system. It's the same song, just that more details are revealed whether it be due to wider frequency response, better soundstage (nicer placement of voice and instruments), or just nuances that were obscured.

 

Quote

 

Many people do prefer a certain "sound" - however, there is a reference in all of this: the actual sound of the recording, as captured in its data. If digital, it will be 100% identical for someone listening to that track 100 years from now - if their playback is accurate, and mine is, we would hear the same thing. My experience is that the closer you get to that standard, the more satisfying it is - there will always be a certain percentage of people who will see this differently.

 

I can agree that accurate reproduction allows us to hear the "source" material embedded in the media whether analogue or digital. However, many recordings are of poor quality and higher resolution audio systems will also show the poor quality of the recording as laid down in order to remain "faithful" to the source.

 

Regardless of quality of the sound system, Cher's vocals on "Believe" will always show that artificial Auto-Tune effect. The better the sound system, it might come across as even more artificial and "distorted".

 

Quote

The parameters are always those connected with distortion, IME. There is no specific, single item, because a lack of integrity will manifest in a myriad of symptoms, and what needs to be tweaked depends upon what is faulty. If you bought a new car which was a classic lemon, put together by people who didn't care, at the moment of assembling it ... what term would you use to describe the "concrete parameter" which landed you with a dud vehicle?

 

Sure broadly, we can use the term "distortion" for a lot of things. For example, is a sound system that has a mid-range dip in frequencies a "distortion" in your definition? This is what I mean by being "concrete". If we know what the technical parameter that is failing, then we can mindfully fix them and explain them to others.

 

Frequency response issues might be fixable by EQ. Clipping due to inadequate power might be an amp issue. Speakers will bring with them potential speaker integration issues from crossovers, etc...

 

When it comes to the dud vehicle, of course one can describe the concrete parameters! A good local mechanic should be able to diagnose the problems specifically - alternator not working, timing belt off, wheel alignment poor, battery weak, etc... These can all be measured and expressed clearly. 

 

It's fine if all you want to do is vaguely express that a sound system is unengaging and sounds flat... But it's so much better when you can show that such and such speaker is poor because of linearity issues above a certain amplitude/frequency, high harmonic distortion below 100Hz and above 90dB SPL causing muffled bass, and an unfortunate roll-off above 10kHz. Specifics like these will at least be helpful for others who own similar equipment to check for themselves and even better, fix if they can.

 

[Archimago]

16 hours ago, opus101 said:

 

Guilt by association? Actually what he's saying is true based on subjective experience - small FR deviations make less subjective impression than additive noise - sibilance for example. Sibilance gives an uncomfortable experience in listening longer term but an HF boost/dip of a dB or two can be borne, subjectively.

 

Harping on about sibilance for a while longer - for me its the first and most obvious sign a system is under-performing subjectively but to date I've not seen any objectivist attempt to make a measurement of it or even talk about it much. Must be a lacuna.

 

Wondering @opus101 if you can give me an example of a musical track that you use to evaluate for sibilance?

 

Good topic and I think it'd be much more useful to have some specifics to test out the assertion that there's any kind of lacuna. Sibilance is something I've generally found to be a function of the recording itself rather than DAC or separate from the frequency response of one's other hardware like speakers...

 

[Archimago]

2 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

 

Try the announcers’ voices on Swiss Radio Classics. Whenever I’m waiting for a new piece of kit to run in, sibilance will make an appearance at one stage or another during the process. A few days after the sibilance appears the treble will make a leap in SQ and the sibilance will disappear. 

 

Interesting. Will have a listen to Swiss Radio Classics. Would still be good to hear about a specific audio track that folks use as some kind of "standard" of what should or should not sound sibilant.

 

[I had a listen to Swiss Radio Classic - yup, female announcer sound harsh. To me it's also the lossy artifacts that I hear causing the issue/distortion.]

 

The other day, I was listening to Toni Braxton's self-titled album (1993) and I found the track "Seven Whole Days" as an example of a song that was sibilant at points with Toni's voice or the background singers through my headphones. To me, this is an example of a track where the sibilance is just "burned in". A bit of "de-essing" in the studio would be useful. Sure, I can EQ the highs on playback to reduce the general harshness of the song but it's the recording itself so there's no point in fooling with the hardware as this would affect fidelity for other material.

 

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

Sibilance is THE easy test for playback distortion ... I don't have a single CD with sibilance "issues", 😁. Why? Because if the playback has any irritating distortion, then the sibilance sound in the human voice immediately strikes one as being incorrect, when heard over speakers. It is easy to hear that a certain recording has been made in manner such that the ess sound is more prominent, than on others - just as one can go close to a person speaking loudly, live, and be very aware of the strength of that part of his speech, or singing. But it sounds completely normal - because, well, that's how the human voice box is made ... if it's irritating to hear, on a recording, that's because it's serving as an obvious marker for playback distortion.

 

Plenty of other sounds also sound wrong with faulty replay - annoying sibilance just makes it really, really obvious ...

 

Hang on a second Frank...

 

I don't know what kind of music you listen to, but if a music lover has an eclectic collection of albums including vocals, rock, pop, it would be rather unusual to not come across some tracks here and there where sibilance sounds a bit excessive I think.

 

Obviously if a system sounds sibilant frequently with known good recordings, then we have a problem! But a good system would be able to reproduce a sibilant track as recorded and this would have nothing to do with whatever "irritating distortion" you're talking about.

 

This is why I think talking in vague generalities like not having a "single CD with sibilance issues" suggests to me that this is more of a selection bias than any kind of tweak I would like to fool around with! More useful to have specific examples of music to listen for sibilance and judge if there is a problem or not.

 

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

Where those of an objectivist stance do everyone else a deep disservice, is by poo-pooing all the various methods people use as workarounds for the lack of integrity of playback chains - I'm thinking here of the thread about the junilabs player. Because the workaround seems silly, is not easily measurable, it therefore is nonsense, has absolutely zero merit - is the objectivist's POV. But those who try them often find they are effective, at least to some degree - therefore, there is, "something going on". And zero progress in understanding is achieved, by the dumping of ridicule on those people's findings, by others who just don't like those sort of results.

Oh yeah... This is good 😉.

 

What we're talking about here is neither "subjectivist" nor "objectivist". The poo-pooing of the Junilabs Player - ie. bit-perfect "optimization" and exact copies sounding different - is a fallacy of logic and goes against the body of knowledge we know as computer science. Especially these days with energy-efficient computers and SSDs without moving parts.

 

Just because some person or company claims that their "player" makes a difference doesn't mean it does, does it?

 

Arguing about these things is akin to arguing with a Flat-Earther. Whether one has a more scientific worldview, or one is more religious, I trust both camps could still recognize that the model of "truth" conveyed by a Flat-Earther is false, perhaps even delusional. So too I believe both "more objective" and "more subjective" folks can look at that Junilabs Player, read some of the others' experiences, and recognize that the balance of evidence goes against their claims and it would simply be wise to ask questions and expect good answers before being "committed" that there's anything there. This is not ridicule, it's being assertive with knowledge and experience that one has accumulated over time. If the OP of that post is truly certain that there's something, then he should have stuck around and provided the evidence including listening tests for example. That his "hard drive failed" is simply suspicious - even with HD failure, there's no reason not to come back at a later date and continue an honest discussion with evidence.

 

As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts here, if there is "something going on", it's more likely in the domain of psychology than computing, or engineering, or physics.

 

Anyhow, it's been fun! Best of luck with the magic. I don't think I have anything more to add.

 

[Archimago]

21 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

Generally sibilance issues are an artifact of the playback system, IME. But I do have one or two recordings that exhibit a sibilant flavour and one (that I have no idea of the whereabouts right now) that does demonstrate it on female voice, not just subjectively but in Audacity FFT too. I will look out these examples.

 

Cool, yeah, would love to have a listen to those examples!

 

[Archimago]

28 minutes ago, opus101 said:

Here you go, I chopped the track to under 30s hoping its within 'fair use'. This is the female voice example which I managed to dig out off an old SDcard.

 

Listening to this on my current system its not objectionable in the way a sub-optimal replay system generates sibilance, just easily noticeable.

ALS-Rebecca Pidgeon_sample.flac 2.29 MB · 0 downloads

 

Awesome, thanks man! Yeah, that segment definitely sounds sibilant (not horrible) and could have used a little de-ess'ing.

 

We can easily see the "heat" in the spectral frequency display between 5-14kHz or so during the most obvious of these portions (typically sibilance frequencies live in the 5-10kHz range). Would certainly be exacerbated if speakers or headphones have accentuation in those frequencies.

 

 

Will keep a copy of this segment to try out with various devices!