Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[fas42]

My attention was drawn to this, https://www.pmamedia.org/en/home/the-show-2021-part-3,

 

Quote

 

This is it, folks! The big winner! What can I say? When my wife and I heard the first few bars of Brubeck’s Take Five, we just looked at each other. Not a word needed to be spoken between us to convey what was going through our minds. Even without a subwoofer, the bass in this room was the deepest I’d ever heard in any room, ever, which doesn’t mean the system’s balance was leaning to dark. Quite the opposite. It was… illuminated. The Heavenly Soundworks system also struck me as providing the most faithful and realistic reproductions of the music on my three very familiar test tracks of any system I’d heard at the show.

Even as I’m writing this, I’m still trying to come to terms with how huge yet detailed the sound was. This dichotomy between bigness and refinement was the musical equivalent of watching a sumo wrestler knitting the daintiest lace-embroidered tablecloth.

 

 

Okay, the hallmarks of competent sound are in place:

 

* A sense of intense, deep bass, without a subwoofer

* Huge yet detailed sound - bigness and refinement

* Faithful and realistic reproduction of the music is a given

 

You know it when you hear it, 🙃 ... this is the true sound of the recording, without the mulching normally done by most audio playback rigs. So, is this a, "magic system "? No, it's merely one where the engineering has been well sorted - allowing the  recording to be presented correctly ... it immediately makes it clear that everything else is second rate ... 😆.

 

[fas42]

And, another account of how the "flip" in the SQ can occur, courtesy of Peter 🙂,

 

Some pointers ...

 

Quote

I have been accustomed to a somewhat linear progression of sound quality until this humble Lush^3 came along!  Not to take anything away from the Lush^3, but my hunch is that my audio system was at a threshold or tipping point that could only be realized by your Lush^3.

 

"Threshold or tipping point" ... a bottleneck weakness existed in the system, which would have remained 'forever' in the way of achieving "magic sound" - in this case, it was the connection between the source and DAC, which this cable served to overcome. If there was no USB link anywhere in the system, idly tossing a Lush item on top of the DAC would have done zero to improve the sound, 😄 - this is of course obvious; but people seem to have enormous difficulty comprehending that in audio Subtracting Badness is the name of the game - in so many areas of life, Adding Goodness is what "makes things better" - but this is a very torturous method if used, as it usually is, in recording playback situations ...

 

Quote

Better.  At first listen, I thought something in the high frequencies was missing because they(high frequencies) always carried something (by degree) uncomfortable like the glare from a trumpet.  Glare is present in live music as well.  I still know where glare comes from and sure enough, some recordings are trying to be nasty while never driving me away on that aspect alone.  What’s new is the presence of “the source of the sound” ie., a reed, a chamber, the column of air passing over vocal cords!  Such nuance is deceptively there for the discovery.  It draws no attention to itself.  It behaves naturally much the same way multiple melody lines can be followed or ignored into a meld.  Conclusion is that information is greater at higher frequencies.  (There’s some physics that support this).  Yet, all the cues normally associated with high frequencies are gone.

 

Some people never experience this. Many absolutely refuse to believe that this can happen, because "I can't see it on the scope !!"😉 ... But it's always there to be discovered, if you go to enough lengths.

 

Why does it happen? Because, the brain no longer has to 'fight' the sound, working hard to discard the distortion and anomalies which get in the way of appreciating the actual music - it now becomes a completely unconscious exercise; the word "effortless" is the one to use.

 

The information is always in the recording to make this transition in the listening experience possible. Always. And I repeat again, always. But it requires evolving a rig to that critical tipping point; where the ear/brain is finally freed of the effort, where it's a conscious activity, of trying to digest what it's hearing.

 

This, people, is how the magic occurs ... 🤪.

[fas42]

If people could appreciate that an audio system is very much like a high performance vehicle in key ways than they could get so much further ... note I said, "SYSTEM"! - not a combo of various expensive bits and pieces casually hooked up !!

 

What makes a Ferrari special? Is it the prancing horse logo, and the shiny, sexy looking, red bodywork? Or is it the enormous number of manhours by Ferrari engineers and technicians, refining, refining, refining a new design until it behaves as well as it possibly can, in every driving situation. Or are they wasting their time? ... Maybe they should just go out and buy an expensive engine from somewhere, some fancy bodywork elsewhere, some suspension they got on the advice of a good friend, etc, etc  - and bolt it all together, give it the red paint treatment, and finally wack on the pony badge - it will still be a special Ferrari, won't it now? 🤪 😁

[kumakuma]

31 minutes ago, fas42 said:

If people could appreciate that an audio system is very much like a high performance vehicle in key ways than they could get so much further ... note I said, "SYSTEM"! - not a combo of various expensive bits and pieces casually hooked up !!

 

What makes a Ferrari special? Is it the prancing horse logo, and the shiny, sexy looking, red bodywork? Or is it the enormous number of manhours by Ferrari engineers and technicians, refining, refining, refining a new design until it behaves as well as it possibly can, in every driving situation. Or are they wasting their time? ... Maybe they should just go out and buy an expensive engine from somewhere, some fancy bodywork elsewhere, some suspension they got on the advice of a good friend, etc, etc  - and bolt it all together, give it the red paint treatment, and finally wack on the pony badge - it will still be a special Ferrari, won't it now? 🤪 😁

 

Have you ever driven a Ferrari?

 

I'm willing to bet that if you ever got behind the wheel of one, you would immediately complain about the experience and start moaning about what's wrong with the automobile industry.

[fas42]

Just now, kumakuma said:

 

Have you ever driven a Ferrari?

 

I'm willing to bet that if you ever got behind the wheel of one, you would immediately complain about the experience and start moaning about what's wrong with the automobile industry.

 

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

[kumakuma]

11 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

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

 

How I could possibly miss a point that you've made close to 10,000 times already on this forum?

 

My comment was more about your pathological need for attention. Is spamming this board really all you have in your life?

[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?

[fas42]

33 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

How I could possibly miss a point that you've made close to 10,000 times already on this forum?

 

My comment was more about your pathological need for attention. Is spamming this board really all you have in your life?

 

What I need, is for people to take evolving the general status of audio playback to a higher level a bit more seriously ... as said many times, I gave up on going to live shows many years ago, because the sound reinforcement systems were so awful - I'm not paying good money, to have my ears assaulted for a couple of hours. When the industry gives quality, rather than ear shredding volumes, or mousey playback, more consideration than I'll have much less need to push my POV ...

[kumakuma]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

What I need, is for people to take evolving the general status of audio playback to a higher level a bit more seriously ... as said many times, I gave up on going to live shows many years ago, because the sound reinforcement systems were so awful - I'm not paying good money, to have my ears assaulted for a couple of hours. When the industry gives quality, rather than ear shredding volumes, or mousey playback, more consideration than I'll have much less need to push my POV ...

 

How does spamming this forum accomplish this goal?

 

Almost no one reading your posts is in the industry.

 

[fas42]

39 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

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).

 

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 ...

 

Quote

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.

 

Yes, totally agree.

 

Quote

 

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?

 

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 ...

 

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', 😆.

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

How does spamming this forum accomplish this goal?

 

Almost no one reading your posts is in the industry.

 

 

If people in general demand a higher standard, then that need will be filled .

[kumakuma]

Just now, fas42 said:

 

If people in general demand a higher standard, then that need will be filled .

 

More useless generalities.

 

What specific actions do you want people here to take to support your goal?

[fas42]

21 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

More useless generalities.

 

What specific actions do you want people here to take to support your goal?

 

Support companies that produce well engineered products, that are not hideously expensive, that perform ... see

 

Ask shops that sell "other stuff" for something that is as capable as say the above item, at something less than silly prices - walk out when he starts making excuses.

 

Just a couple of things off the top of my head ... 🙂.

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Support companies that produce well engineered products, that are not hideously expensive, that perform ... see

 

Ask shops that sell "other stuff" for something that is as capable as say the above item, at something less than silly prices - walk out when he starts making excuses.

 

Just a couple of things off the top of my head ... 🙂.

 

I would be great if you could provide a list of well-priced, well-engineered products that you've listened to personally over an extended period of time.

 

I think almost everyone here is always looking for products that punch above their weight.

 

Your second idea seems just as inefficient as your current method for creating change in the audio industry. 

 

[fas42]

45 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I would be great if you could provide a list of well-priced, well-engineered products that you've listened to personally over an extended period of time.

 

I think almost everyone here is always looking for products that punch above their weight.

 

Your second idea seems just as inefficient as your current method for creating change in the audio industry. 

 

 

These days, I don't hear many ... I look at the comments made about how they perform; they are the giveaway. And even with those speakers I pointed to, there's only a single video of them in action, on YT that I've found, which is not that convincing ... so, it's highly likely their performance is subject to how they are set up, and how long they have been running, etc. I never said it was easy - just that the goal is achievable, 🙂.

 

The obvious way to create quick change is to bring out a killer product, at a killer price ... then everyone buys one, pinches the ideas inside - and away you go, 😁. Not young enough, or motivated enough, to go on this wild ride - that can be left to someone else with the right energy; an Elon Musk of audio ... I'm just a marker on that journey, 🙂.

[kumakuma]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

The obvious way to create quick change is to bring out a killer product, at a killer price ... then everyone buys one, pinches the ideas inside - and away you go, 😁. Not young enough, or motivated enough, to go on this wild ride - that can be left to someone else with the right energy; an Elon Musk of audio ... I'm just a marker on that journey, 🙂.

 

Actually, I think you're more the guy standing beside the guy painting the marker, telling him what a crappy job he's doing with his painting...

[Confused]

On 6/25/2021 at 12:10 AM, fas42 said:

My attention was drawn to this, https://www.pmamedia.org/en/home/the-show-2021-part-3,

 

 

Okay, the hallmarks of competent sound are in place:

 

* A sense of intense, deep bass, without a subwoofer

* Huge yet detailed sound - bigness and refinement

* Faithful and realistic reproduction of the music is a given

 

You know it when you hear it, 🙃 ... this is the true sound of the recording, without the mulching normally done by most audio playback rigs. So, is this a, "magic system "? No, it's merely one where the engineering has been well sorted - allowing the  recording to be presented correctly ... it immediately makes it clear that everything else is second rate ... 😆.

 

If we are talking about the FIVE17 with it's intense, deep bass without a subwoofer, I wonder what these will be like?

 

 

[fas42]

22 minutes ago, Confused said:

If we are talking about the FIVE17 with it's intense, deep bass without a subwoofer, I wonder what these will be like?

 

 

 

 

Just to give it that extra edge, in a higher accuracy of the bass notes - less spurious harmonics, which shouldn't be there. One of the pleasures of getting competent playback is the clarity of the bass line - it exists in its own space; it's not just an accompanying rumble in the background, acting as a body filler. The current Edifiers do it better than anything I've had before - a mediation(!!) CD has a subterranean heaving which is almost scary, 😄.

[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!

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

Is this all subjective perception which is idiosyncratic to your world view or ears/brain

👍

 

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

or is there anything more objective here which you can point to and most audiophiles can perceive?

❌

[fas42]

7 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

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.)

 

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.

 

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.

 

Quote

 

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?

 

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?

 

Quote

 

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.

 

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?

 

Quote

 

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.

 

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.

 

Quote

 

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!

 

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?

[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.

 

[opus101]

31 minutes ago, Archimago said:

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.

 

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.

[fas42]

3 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

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.

 

As Richard, opus101, implies there is an inverse relation between the significance of FR and the subjective SQ, IME. I had this quite brilliantly illuminated over 15 years ago - we had an ordinary amplifier, a Sony, of decent quality in use - the Perreaux had lost one channel, and it filled the gap until I replaced a dud resistor in the latter. I was curious how extremely simple tweaking could help the poor Sony's performance, and it turned that the cheap and nasty switches, and pots in the Sony were a major problem. So, I would refresh the contacts on everything, by switching or spinning the dials - ah, pretty good sound. But this didn't last - contact noise would rapidly build up; and it would degrade back to normal, mediocre sound. But while it was doing well, moving the tone controls on the unit was virtually impossible to pick; but once the normal midfi returned it was obvious what those controls were doing - I could repeat this exercise over and over again, with the same result each time

.

Quote

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.

 

It depends upon what you listen for - I'm sure I could "train myself" to pick FR changes in a lacklustre setup ... but that sounds like one of the least interesting things I could spend time on ... 🙂.

 

Quote

 

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!

 

Can be, but are never reported upon, in any testing one comes across.

 

Quote

 

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.

 

The way one does a test drive with an audio system can tell a lot - the number of sales people, etc, I've disturbed by putting on "Terrible!" recordings, at high volume ... "Don't you know you have to drive very sedately down a smooth highway, which is dead straight, to appreciate how good this car is?!!" 🙃

 

Quote

 

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.

 

The why is interesting, but the first port of call is to fix it - if it can be done with low effort and cost ... you're not buying a hifi system in order to pass an exam.

 

Quote

 

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.

 

And where does the "better soundstage" come from, and why were "nuances less obscured"?

 

Quote

 

 

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".

 

Yes, something like the Auto-Tune effect will be even more distinctive; because it is a deliberate distortion - I have a Kath and Kim track that shows this up beautifully.

 

The poor technical quality of the track, for whatever reasons, can never be removed - by normal means. But they don't get in the way of appreciating the music - only someone has repeatedly discovered that high standards of replay allow one to "hear past" these misdemeanours can probably appreciate this - this is, the power of the mind to extrapolate, 😀.

 

My current test for this is the Diamond Dogs CD, David Bowie. Bought recently for $1, it was hideously scratched - even after extensive polishing the DVD player has a terrible time getting through some tracks. Bev said, when I first played it, "This is truly awful - music and sound !!" ... But, we're making good headway on it ... 😉

 

Quote

 

 

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.

 

FR is not a problem - to simplify, linear distortions are never an issue, IME.

 

Quote

 

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...

 

My monster Perreaux amp had a power supply design weakness ... it did not clip, but the treble began to distort at a certain volume, because the supply rails weren't stable enough. Was resolved by major reworking of the smoothing caps setup.

 

Quote

 

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.

 

 

Yes, this is where the car industry is well ahead - the means have evolved to diagnose, and fix issues. But not so in the audio arena ...

 

Quote

 

 

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.

 

 

I started this journey with speakers that were decent, but which certainly wouldn't impress anyone, even when they were new - secondhand B&W DM10s. They were the most downmarket part of of the rig - a stopgap which would be plugged, down the track. What they did was teach me that raw speakers were of low importance - they always lifted their game, every time I improved the electronics areas. So, the "stopgap" never got sorted - they died, eventually, when a magnet came adrift ...

[pkane2001]

9 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.

 

While sibilance can be an audible and annoying issue, so can the frequency response, plus both can be related. Which one sounds worse is obviously personal and subjective. HF boost/dip by a few dB isn't going to be very audible simply because our hearing isn't as sensitive at HF. Try a few dB boost or a dip around 3-4kHz to see if it's audible or objectionable.