fas42 Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 9 hours ago, Confused said: I does happen. I visited a show a couple of years ago, Cyrus were demonstrating their latest kit, and happened to be using the Blade 2. I did not like this system at all, it was a terrible sound to my ears. It didn't sound like poo though, more mid range and treble than you get with poo. I am not sure what you are referring to by "at that show". Out of interest, where there any speakers you liked there? It was poo in the sense that you would have had to pay me money to get me to listen to them for an extended time, in that state - as a listening experience it was below what I get from a normal car radio. The last proper Sydney audio show, some years ago - I've mentioned this quite a few times. I never separate the components - I either like the system, or not; if it's below par, the only thing that's interesting is understanding what the cause of that is. The highlight was a combo of Bryston and Dynaudio, capable of PA SPLs with complete integrity; this was standing 2 feet away from a drum kit exploding with sound, the transients and punch pummeled your body, "just like the real thing" 😉. Overall, there were about a half dozen setups that delivered pretty decent SQ, that showed great promise. Link to comment
fas42 Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 9 hours ago, ray-dude said: With traditional HiFi rigs, the analogy I use is moving from looking at a photo of a forest to an even better photo of a forest to a full 100" 4k HDR OLED photo of a forest, where you start to get an inkling of what it is like to look through a window at a forest. If you work hard enough, the "through a window" feeling becomes more and more prevalent and the window gets more clear and larger and you start to get the barest hint of being in a forest with no window at all. I compare that to walking through a forest, where even with scratched up sunglasses that cast a yellowish tint, I am unambiguously IN A FOREST, and all my senses have shifted to a completely different of experience and engagement and feeling of being alive. Very nifty analogy, Ray ... I doffs my hat 🙂. Quote That difference is not due to fidelity of the image. It is the amalgam of sensory inputs that cause my brain (which has been trained by Darwin and 53 years of hard knocks) to switch to "this is real, pay attention" mode. It takes precious little to break that sense of reality and go back to trying to get a better and better photo, then a better and better window. The last several years for me have been about starting all over, and trying to get that sense of reality from the ground up. It has been devastaingly humbling, but incredibly rewarding. So much that I put on the first tier "this can never be compromised" I've realized just doesn't matter once my brain kicks into "this is real" mode. Back to my earlier analogy, given a choice between listening to Carly Simon live in a noisy coffee shop with the crappiest acoustics and listening to Moonlight Serenade on a $1M PinnacleFi system, find me in the coffee shop, completely engaged and over the moon delighted for the experience, leaving afterwards inspired and elevated by the artistry. I listen to the mega Wilson and YT setups and I'm blown away by how incredible they are (truly...after decades of tweaking and tuning I know intimately what an incredible achievement and performance level they are delivering), but it is now a intellectual interest rather than a passion. I'll happily give up 90% of what they deliver, to get that sense of reality (the walking in the forest experience) that they struggle to deliver (at least for my brain). You're an illusion maker yourself, Ray 😉 .. very nicely put. Quote All that being said, the reaction of people when they hear my rig is decidedly bimodal: there are those that have a proverbial red pill moment and want more and more of that reality rush, and others that are scratching their heads going "I thought you had a nice stereo system...what's up with this?" The former group has had their brain click in on that sense of reality, the later is focused on what I was willing to give up to get that sense of reality. The sharp divide I've seen in my living room really highlights how differently our brains get triggered, and the different response we all seek in music. This is the really interesting bit ... the people who "get it", and those that don't - the audiophile crowd are definitely the worst of the "not getting it" side of things ... they have a need to tick a long list of checkboxes, and if something is not there, for them, they lose interest, fast. What I am curious about, is what you feel you had to give up, that is lacking, now, compared to conventional audiophile sound ... ? Link to comment
fas42 Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 2 hours ago, gmgraves said: Again. What’s to sort out? You buy decent equipment, you connect it together using the cables of your choice keeping power and signal cables apart, and you play music through the equipment. Short of going into the components themselves and changing the circuit topology, what else is there to “sort”? Which is the thinking of most audio enthusiasts ... consider needing a surgeon, in a hospital; you have the choice of the bright young thing, full of bounce, recently out of medical school, "who knows it all!!" - and the weary veteran, who has had years of dealing with every subtle combination and variation of "what can go wrong"; there are years of instinctive knowledge tucked away there ... who are you going to choose? For that "straightforward medical procedure"? Link to comment
Popular Post kumakuma Posted July 31, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted July 31, 2020 12 minutes ago, fas42 said: Which is the thinking of most audio enthusiasts ... consider needing a surgeon, in a hospital; you have the choice of the bright young thing, full of bounce, recently out of medical school, "who knows it all!!" - and the weary veteran, who has had years of dealing with every subtle combination and variation of "what can go wrong"; there are years of instinctive knowledge tucked away there ... who are you going to choose? For that "straightforward medical procedure"? Comparing yourself to either is a gross injustice to the medical profession. I consider you to be more like this guy: Fortunately the folks here aren't as gullible as his poor patients... Audiophile Neuroscience and Teresa 2 Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
fas42 Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 2 hours ago, Teresa said: That is why I don't take Frank @fas42 seriously. Unfortunately, Teresa, you can't seem to separate the cost of the equipment, from a dealer; with the capability of the setup to do its job - reproduce what's on the recording ... I left that place 30 years ago - the retail value of the bits of metal and wood in front of me mean close to zero in terms of being subjectively transparent to the content of the recording. If some people want audio to be a hobby where the highest cost wins, every time - that's fine ... but that shouldn't condemn others to suffer inferior SQ, just because it suits the thinking of the former lot. Teresa 1 Link to comment
ray-dude Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 27 minutes ago, fas42 said: What I am curious about, is what you feel you had to give up, that is lacking, now, compared to conventional audiophile sound ... ? Key to my new world order has been the high efficiency single driver speakers, driven directly by my DAC. It has allowed me to eliminate the cross over in the speaker (devastating to my sense of reality) and the amplifier (ditto, but less so with the right amp) My speaker drivers are 104dB sensitivity, so they are remarkably light and fast, and they are point source so I can have perfect phase alignment and no dispersion between drivers. My DAC (Chord DAVE) has remarkably low noise floor and remarkably fast dynamics, with only a couple of elements on out the output (the 2W "amp" is intrinsic to the analog output stage, so the analog signal goes through remarkably few components) It is the speaker that is the biggest compromise for "traditional" high fi for me. I came from B&W 802d3's and adore the B&W sound. These were life time dream speakers. As soon as I heard a modest $1400/pair set of Omega Super Alnico Monitors (single drivers), it was a revelation, and I knew I needed to leave the B&W dream behind. I struggled mightily for a long time to get that sense of reality from the B&Ws, but I just couldn't With the single drivers, the biggest things I give up are tonal balance, and the sense of "power" (not loudness...plenty loud even with 2W). Interestingly, I found that within a couple days my brain fully adjusts to tonal imbalances and doesn't notice them, but it NEVER adjusts to the sense of reality being gone. With the sense of "power", one never gets that with a live singer or piano player or horn player, one instead gets a compelling sense of space from the power of their voice/playing/etc. The single drivers have an amazing sense of space. I am transplanted into the physical space where the recording was made but I have given up the "blow your hair back power cord" feeling, Before this life pivot, tonal balance and physicality were key for me, with a sense of space being a nice occasional bonus. That has completely inverted. I appreciate deeply a MegaFi setup that delivers perfect tonal balance and tangible physicality, but I infinitely prefer to be in the studio with Coltrane. ATT Fiber -> EdgeRouter X SFP -> Taiko Audio Extreme -> Vinnie Rossi L2i-SE w/ Level 2 DAC -> Voxativ 9.87 speakers w/ 4D drivers Link to comment
Popular Post MarkusBarkus Posted August 1, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted August 1, 2020 I've been following this thread for a long time now and it's fascinating. And by fascinating, I mean ridiculously nebulous. I *think* what is actually needed and perhaps being requested in other, sometimes frustrating tones by others, is a sort of white paper or case study--a tangible example of a series of treatments that were made that resulted in your desired effect, Mr. fas42. e.g. I started with system/device X, which was comprised of components a, b, c...n. I made the following modifications and found that: pileated woodpeckers started in on my gutters, the dog left the room, anything tangible you fancy to identify/quantify the change +/-. I think what folks struggle with (what I struggle with) is the vagueness of both your targets and your outcomes. Mr. T. would have said: It's just jibba jabba. And ironically, I think I actually agree with your top-line philosophy that everything needs to be sorted. I drilled a hole in my new eRG and jammed a brass tube into the hole to measure the temp delta (3-5F). I have Herbies' halo devices for tubes on my power cords. I periodically check the tightness on my speaker drivers. Oh man, the room treatments I have! I will get freaky with you, sir. But something tangible would help a lot. Otherwise, Mr. T was right: it's just jibba jabba... Audiophile Neuroscience, Confused and Teresa 2 1 I'm MarkusBarkus and I approve this post. Link to comment
fas42 Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 10 minutes ago, kumakuma said: Comparing yourself to either is a gross injustice to the medical profession. I consider you to be more like this guy: Fortunately the folks here aren't as gullible as his poor patients... It appears you don't understand the concept of an analogy - if I use an analogy where planes are concerned, does that imply I think I'm a Boeing aircraft - or an aeronautical engineer? Link to comment
Popular Post kumakuma Posted August 1, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted August 1, 2020 11 minutes ago, fas42 said: It appears you don't understand the concept of an analogy - if I use an analogy where planes are concerned, does that imply I think I'm a Boeing aircraft - or an aeronautical engineer? Don't flatter yourself. You're the guy balancing the pressure of the landing gear tires to improve in-flight performance. Teresa, Audiophile Neuroscience and sandyk 1 2 Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
fas42 Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 9 minutes ago, ray-dude said: It is the speaker that is the biggest compromise for "traditional" high fi for me. I came from B&W 802d3's and adore the B&W sound. These were life time dream speakers. As soon as I heard a modest $1400/pair set of Omega Super Alnico Monitors (single drivers), it was a revelation, and I knew I needed to leave the B&W dream behind. I struggled mightily for a long time to get that sense of reality from the B&Ws, but I just couldn't Okay, got it. You don't have to leave the B&W dream behind - it is possible to "have it all" ... the Bryston and Dynaudio setup showed that the stuff is out there to make it happen, right now. 9 minutes ago, ray-dude said: With the single drivers, the biggest things I give up are tonal balance, and the sense of "power" (not loudness...plenty loud even with 2W). Interestingly, I found that within a couple days my brain fully adjusts to tonal imbalances and doesn't notice them, but it NEVER adjusts to the sense of reality being gone. With the sense of "power", one never gets that with a live single or piano player or horn player, one instead gets a compelling sense of space from the power of their voice/playing/etc. The single drivers have an amazing sense of space. I am transplanted into the physical space where the recording was made but I have given up the "blow your hair back power cord" feeling, A good orchestral workout will tell if the potential is there. Start with a plaintive, single instrument in a lonely emptiness, and have it build to a massive onslaught of sound where every instrument unleashes, and it rolls over your being like a many metres high wave of intensity .. effortlessly - this indeed does work. How can it? Because it's just sound, in the end - the real world has no trouble doing this ... why should there be some mysterious bottleneck with audio stopping it happening? 9 minutes ago, ray-dude said: Before this life pivot, tonal balance and physicality were key for me, with a sense of space being a nice occasional bonus. That has completely inverted. I appreciate deeply a MegaFi setup that delivers perfect tonal balance and tangible physicality, but I infinitely prefer to be in the studio with Coltrane. Perfect tonal balance doesn't interest me - bass lines still impart their magic even if the lowest notes are not there in the room. But getting both the sense of being in the space where the recording happened, and experiencing the visceral qualities of the sounds that would have been there, is most certainly possible. Link to comment
fas42 Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 39 minutes ago, MarkusBarkus said: I think what folks struggle with (what I struggle with) is the vagueness of both your targets and your outcomes. The target is a sense of realism, that @ray-dude very poetically portrays; the outcomes are how close I get with various combos of gear. The "how I do it" disturbs many, because I have the mindset that I'm fixing a faulty system; and in turn I know I have indeed fixed it - because it delivers an acceptable level of realism. What's even more disturbing to some is that I use low cost gear- which is mainly because I'm practical; if I happen to wreck it, no great sobbing session ... 🙂. Link to comment
Popular Post kumakuma Posted August 1, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted August 1, 2020 38 minutes ago, fas42 said: Unfortunately, Teresa, you can't seem to separate the cost of the equipment, from a dealer; with the capability of the setup to do its job - reproduce what's on the recording ... I left that place 30 years ago - the retail value of the bits of metal and wood in front of me mean close to zero in terms of being subjectively transparent to the content of the recording. If some people want audio to be a hobby where the highest cost wins, every time - that's fine ... but that shouldn't condemn others to suffer inferior SQ, just because it suits the thinking of the former lot. Audiophile Neuroscience and Teresa 2 Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
Popular Post Allan F Posted August 1, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted August 1, 2020 41 minutes ago, MarkusBarkus said: But something tangible would help a lot. Otherwise, Mr. T was right: it's just jibba jabba.. IMO, the better known and less culturally specific term, "gobbledygook", is more appropriate. Dictionary gob·ble·dy·gook noun: gobbledygook; noun: gobbledegook -language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense. Teresa and Audiophile Neuroscience 1 1 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
fas42 Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 I'm just waiting for someone to post a clip of Trump unleashing a tirade against someone - then I'll know I really do have some problem ... Link to comment
Popular Post Audiophile Neuroscience Posted August 1, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted August 1, 2020 10 hours ago, ray-dude said: At the risk of being the person intruding in a passionate debate at a dinner party... At RMAF and my local dealer, I have heard amazing systems that are the pinnacle of a sound that I sought for decades, but they hold only intellectual interest for me now (which is remarkable, given how passionately I sought out those heights for so many years). They are truly a world class HiFi experience of listening to music, but only hint at what I've come to think of experiencing and participating in an in person performance. I shared the experience before that even when walking down a street, I can tell whether it is a live performer in a coffee shop or whether it is recorded playback. Needless to say, the distortion through walls and glass with street noise raising the noise floor is atrocious HiFi, but I know it to be real, and one draws me in, and the other does not. With traditional HiFi rigs, the analogy I use is moving from looking at a photo of a forest to an even better photo of a forest to a full 100" 4k HDR OLED photo of a forest, where you start to get an inkling of what it is like to look through a window at a forest. If you work hard enough, the "through a window" feeling becomes more and more prevalent and the window gets more clear and larger and you start to get the barest hint of being in a forest with no window at all. I compare that to walking through a forest, where even with scratched up sunglasses that cast a yellowish tint, I am unambiguously IN A FOREST, and all my senses have shifted to a completely different of experience and engagement and feeling of being alive. That difference is not due to fidelity of the image. It is the amalgam of sensory inputs that cause my brain (which has been trained by Darwin and 53 years of hard knocks) to switch to "this is real, pay attention" mode. It takes precious little to break that sense of reality and go back to trying to get a better and better photo, then a better and better window. The last several years for me have been about starting all over, and trying to get that sense of reality from the ground up. It has been devastaingly humbling, but incredibly rewarding. So much that I put on the first tier "this can never be compromised" I've realized just doesn't matter once my brain kicks into "this is real" mode. Back to my earlier analogy, given a choice between listening to Carly Simon live in a noisy coffee shop with the crappiest acoustics and listening to Moonlight Serenade on a $1M PinnacleFi system, find me in the coffee shop, completely engaged and over the moon delighted for the experience, leaving afterwards inspired and elevated by the artistry. I listen to the mega Wilson and YT setups and I'm blown away by how incredible they are (truly...after decades of tweaking and tuning I know intimately what an incredible achievement and performance level they are delivering), but it is now a intellectual interest rather than a passion. I'll happily give up 90% of what they deliver, to get that sense of reality (the walking in the forest experience) that they struggle to deliver (at least for my brain). All that being said, the reaction of people when they hear my rig is decidedly bimodal: there are those that have a proverbial red pill moment and want more and more of that reality rush, and others that are scratching their heads going "I thought you had a nice stereo system...what's up with this?" The former group has had their brain click in on that sense of reality, the later is focused on what I was willing to give up to get that sense of reality. The sharp divide I've seen in my living room really highlights how differently our brains get triggered, and the different response we all seek in music. I agree with pretty much everything you say. I also think that many audiophiles have gone down a similar path in more recent years i.e. aspiring to get closer to real natural acoustic sound in a real space (if that was the source of the recording). --- Now before I proceed, let me get this out of the way. This goal very much plays into the hands of Frank who waxes lyrically on the topic. Frank does this as a ploy to justify, by association, his non-existent "method". Not needing to spend huge amounts of money is also, for example, a ploy that Frank uses to recruit people to his audio cult. Tweaking gear is another theme which can suck people in to Frank's fantasy web. They are basically deflections and have nothing to do with the fact that Frank uses circular reasoning to support bizarre unsubstantiated claims - his method must be used to get good sound and his method is that which achieves good sound. He can do this with his favourite ghetto blaster. Given that, if memory serves and you are using very expensive and high-end gear such as the extreme server, Frank cannot reconcile his position with yours but he will strongly align himself with aspects of what you are saying and then "correct" you on how to achieve it. ---- Now with Frank's "magic" out of the way ...... The word "hi-fi" has become almost a pejorative, meaning it has an impressive but artificial quality. It opens up other cans of worms with regards to "fidelity" and fidelity to what? Hard-line objectivists may advocate being faithful to the signal, signal in equals signal out. It's a whole other discussion but in essence, in my opinion you have, ironically more accurately, hit the nail on the head with your description of striving for a convincingly real sound. That ability to temporarily suspend disbelief and to be engaged with the music. As many others have put it, that the gear just get out of the road drawing absolutely no attention to itself and disappearing (something that of course a ghetto blaster just can't do no matter how much you tweak it). In my opinion, it has only been in the last decade or so that very high-end gear has been able to take a significant step further towards this goal. Indeed I have noted a trend some time back by reviewers being struck by this phenomenon. Instead of the ubiquitous "this gear was excellent, it sounds more analog" ...there started to appear comments like "this gear was excellent, it didn't sound digital or analog, it just sounded real". For many years the moniker "analog" was the pinnacle in achievement, a throwback to vinyl days and an acknowledgement of just how bad digital sound could be. All that has now changed. By the sounds of it like yourself, I have been doing this for many years and when I purchased my current system my goal was not to achieve "hi-fi" sound but rather convincingly real sound which I have described to people as being impressive because it doesn't sound "impressive" as in immediate wow factor. My gear is not cheap but I did hear considerably more expensive components which some audiophiles preferred because it had a wow factor. Indeed the sound was very impressive and I too liked it but it just didn't engage me as music. As said, it's only been in relatively recent years that such a choice has existed and no doubt things will further improve. I find myself these days just listening to the music and not the gear. That is not something I could claim in all truthfulness a decade ago, even though I had very expensive gear. kumakuma and Teresa 2 Sound Minds Mind Sound Link to comment
Popular Post Audiophile Neuroscience Posted August 1, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted August 1, 2020 3 hours ago, Teresa said: Unlike Frank's wishful thinking which will not get me there. It has to sound real period! I wish someone from Australia would visit Frank and reveal him for the fraud I believe he is. Hi Teresa. I have commented on this before and I think you are absolutely correct if I paraphrase by saying that "the Emperor has no clothes". As I have mentioned before this is twofold. If the vast majority of us listen to Franks audio system we would all be scratching our heads wondering how this guy could consider it a convincingly real rendering. He will describe in great detail what convincingly real means but it simply won't match what is on display, except in Frank's mind. Frank will very likely be the only one convinced that it sounds like real instruments in a real coffee shop or whatever. The corollary is that if Frank visits any members home with a high-end system he will only find flaws and scoff at the sound quality as "a typical ambitious rig". This is to be expected because it wouldn't sound like his modified ghetto blaster. So I think the 'reality test' is interesting but in some ways it would serve no purpose other than to tell us what we already know. There was an audio dealer here in this country who had a few high-end products. I and others visited his place a number of times and listened to the gear. His "thing" was to play music extremely loud, almost painfully loud, as a mark of "true audiophile quality". Nobody in the room got it and he came across as something of a crackpot. A good system will of course play lifelike sound intensity levels with consummate ease and at times you may not even be aware that the sound levels can be getting quite loud. But that's a very different proposition to blowing the roof off with every track. In an analogous way Frank is like this guy, with the kernel of some good ideas and part truths but twisted and distorted beyond reality. 3 hours ago, Teresa said: That is why I don't take Frank @fas42 seriously. Who does... Except maybe the "guy up the road" ? I still say the jury is out on that guy and I reckon when he sees Frank coming he is like the opening scenes to "everybody Loves Raymond" where Raymond is scrambling to lock all the doors and pretend he is not home to avoid unwelcome visitors! Teresa and Summit 1 1 Sound Minds Mind Sound Link to comment
fas42 Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 38 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said: Now before I proceed, let me get this out of the way. This goal very much plays into the hands of Frank who waxes lyrically on the topic. Frank does this as a ploy to justify, by association, his non-existent "method". Not needing to spend huge amounts of money is also, for example, a ploy that Frank uses to recruit people to his audio cult. Tweaking gear is another theme which can suck people in to Frank's fantasy web. They are basically deflections and have nothing to do with the fact that Frank uses circular reasoning to support bizarre unsubstantiated claims - his method must be used to get good sound and his method is that which achieves good sound. He can do this with his favourite ghetto blaster. Given that, if memory serves and you are using very expensive and high-end gear such as the extreme server, Frank cannot reconcile his position with yours but he will strongly align himself with aspects of what you are saying and then "correct" you on how to achieve it. Note how it serves the people who wish to disagree with me to serve up a 'perfect' example of a straw man fallacy, i.e., my "favourite ghetto blaster", Quote ... occurs when someone takes another person's argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making Much easier to use this, then to refer to the original setup that delivered what I'm interested in, composed of audiophile approved brands - lazy debating techniques are the tools of the, er, ... 😉. 38 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said: In my opinion, it has only been in the last decade or so that very high-end gear has been able to take a significant step further towards this goal. Indeed I have noted a trend some time back by reviewers being struck by this phenomenon. Instead of the ubiquitous "this gear was excellent, it sounds more analog" ...there started to appear comments like "this gear was excellent, it didn't sound digital or analog, it just sounded real". For many years the moniker "analog" was the pinnacle in achievement, a throwback to vinyl days and an acknowledgement of just how bad digital sound could be. All that has now changed. Not really. It has been available for decades, but shortcomings in most of the products put out made it much harder to circumvent their issues. A general improvement in understanding of what is important has slowly built up, and now 'extreme' versions of the boxes get enough right in raw form to deliver, ahem, magic. Of course, this costs big bucks ... the less fortunate now have to wait until, at a molasses like rate, it trickles down ... Teresa 1 Link to comment
John Dyson Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 26 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said: Hi Teresa. I have commented on this before and I think you are absolutely correct if I paraphrase by saying that "the Emperor has no clothes". As I have mentioned before this is twofold. If the vast majority of us listen to Franks audio system we would all be scratching our heads wondering how this guy could consider it a convincingly real rendering. He will describe in great detail what convincingly real means but it simply won't match what is on display, except in Frank's mind. Frank will very likely be the only one convinced that it sounds like real instruments in a real coffee shop or whatever. The corollary is that if Frank visits any members home with a high-end system he will only find flaws and scoff at the sound quality as "a typical ambitious rig". This is to be expected because it wouldn't sound like his modified ghetto blaster. So I think the 'reality test' is interesting but in some ways it would serve no purpose other than to tell us what we already know. There was an audio dealer here in this country who had a few high-end products. I and others visited his place a number of times and listened to the gear. His "thing" was to play music extremely loud, almost painfully loud, as a mark of "true audiophile quality". Nobody in the room got it and he came across as something of a crackpot. A good system will of course play lifelike sound intensity levels with consummate ease and at times you may not even be aware that the sound levels can be getting quite loud. But that's a very different proposition to blowing the roof off with every track. In an analogous way Frank is like this guy, with the kernel of some good ideas and part truths but twisted and distorted beyond reality. Who does... Except maybe the "guy up the road" ? I still say the jury is out on that guy and I reckon when he sees Frank coming he is like the opening scenes to "everybody Loves Raymond" where Raymond is scrambling to lock all the doors and pretend he is not home to avoid unwelcome visitors! I do believe that everyone about 'sounding real' are being honest, but the basis & method of the comparison is defective. I mean, I work on audio stuff much of the time, day-in and day-out, and REALLY KNOW and understand how terribly defective most consumer materials are -- including even Telarc disks. However, I KNOW for a fact, that even my sometimes improved results are NOT REAL SOUNDING. I don't care if the material is being played on the best $10k speakers or $2k headphones, those devices CAN NOT do the correction from 20-40dB of compression common on most consumer materials!! What material can possibly sound real with 20,30 and sometimes 40dB of compression in the 3k to 20+k frequency range? Such material is the bulk of consumer available recordings. (Much ABBA has 4 passes of DolbyA compression on it, staggered on multiple 10dB layers.) Much other material has three such layers, some has two. That is an evil amount of very fast compression -- on almost everything. HOW REAL CAN THAT SOUND? Maybe a persons' brain can do the expansion and corrections -- maybe that is what is happening, because the sound field is NOT very accurate at all. The real answer to all of this is a lack of solid basis for comparison and the same wishful thinking that all of us have, but just maybe an overly optimistic case of such 'wishful thinking'. I am kindly sypathetic to the confused misunderstanding, but certainly don't have time to entertain frustrated & reasoned explanation falling on 'deaf ears'. I get screwed up with comparisons all of the time as my accurate aural memory is in the 7-12 second range, maybe some people have longer memory, but certainly not mcuh more than the 30seconds range. After that, then emotional, psychological, and wetware limitations start prevailing. I REALLY wish I could help. The real solution to 'sounding real' is pretty d*mn detailed & complicated, and more than even I am willing to invest in. I am the most persistent person that most of you know about, but even I know when to quit. (I usually got the most difficult/crazy projects at Bell Labs, because they KNEW that if something could be done, I'd be persistent enough to do it.) However, really sounding 'REAL' is a tall order. I am fairly confident that a few people here have done it -- but VERY FEW. John Link to comment
fas42 Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 44 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said: Hi Teresa. I have commented on this before and I think you are absolutely correct if I paraphrase by saying that "the Emperor has no clothes". As I have mentioned before this is twofold. If the vast majority of us listen to Franks audio system we would all be scratching our heads wondering how this guy could consider it a convincingly real rendering. He will describe in great detail what convincingly real means but it simply won't match what is on display, except in Frank's mind. Frank will very likely be the only one convinced that it sounds like real instruments in a real coffee shop or whatever. The corollary is that if Frank visits any members home with a high-end system he will only find flaws and scoff at the sound quality as "a typical ambitious rig". This is to be expected because it wouldn't sound like his modified ghetto blaster. Dear me, I'm mortally wounded ... Quote So I think the 'reality test' is interesting but in some ways it would serve no purpose other than to tell us what we already know. There was an audio dealer here in this country who had a few high-end products. I and others visited his place a number of times and listened to the gear. His "thing" was to play music extremely loud, almost painfully loud, as a mark of "true audiophile quality". Nobody in the room got it and he came across as something of a crackpot. A good system will of course play lifelike sound intensity levels with consummate ease and at times you may not even be aware that the sound levels can be getting quite loud. But that's a very different proposition to blowing the roof off with every track. In an analogous way Frank is like this guy, with the kernel of some good ideas and part truths but twisted and distorted beyond reality. Yes, the bolded bit is exactly how it works ... very rare to come across a rig that can do such with essentially any recording you throw at it - I would suggest people take notes when it happens to them ... for later reference, 🙃. Quote Who does... Except maybe the "guy up the road" ? I still say the jury is out on that guy and I reckon when he sees Frank coming he is like the opening scenes to "everybody Loves Raymond" where Raymond is scrambling to lock all the doors and pretend he is not home to avoid unwelcome visitors! Trouble is, he rings me, and says "How about coming across this afternoon for a listen ... I've got some new things happening, I want your verdict!!" ... and I try and put him off, but he entices by saying "I'm cooking a 3 course meal to have when you're here; I went down especially to the shops to get some goodies - plenty of beer in the fridge ... how about it??" 🤪 Link to comment
MarkusBarkus Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 The statement below is true. ----------------------------------- The statement above is false. Audiophile Neuroscience 1 I'm MarkusBarkus and I approve this post. Link to comment
Audiophile Neuroscience Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 7 minutes ago, John Dyson said: I do believe that everyone about 'sounding real' are being honest, but the basis & method of the comparison is defective. I mean, I work on audio stuff much of the time, day-in and day-out, and REALLY KNOW and understand how terribly defective most consumer materials are -- including even Telarc disks. However, I KNOW for a fact, that even my sometimes improved results are NOT REAL SOUNDING. I don't care if the material is being played on the best $10k speakers or $2k headphones, those devices CAN NOT do the correction from 20-40dB of compression common on most consumer materials!! What material can possibly sound real with 20,30 and sometimes 40dB of compression in the 3k to 20+k frequency range? Such material is the bulk of consumer available recordings. (Much ABBA has 4 passes of DolbyA compression on it, staggered on multiple 10dB layers.) Much other material has three such layers, some has two. That is an evil amount of very fast compression -- on almost everything. HOW REAL CAN THAT SOUND? Maybe a persons' brain can do the expansion and corrections -- maybe that is what is happening, because the sound field is NOT very accurate at all. The real answer to all of this is a lack of solid basis for comparison and the same wishful thinking that all of us have, but just maybe an overly optimistic case of such 'wishful thinking'. I am kindly sypathetic to the confused misunderstanding, but certainly don't have time to entertain frustrated & reasoned explanation falling on 'deaf ears'. I get screwed up with comparisons all of the time as my accurate aural memory is in the 7-12 second range, maybe some people have longer memory, but certainly not mcuh more than the 30seconds range. After that, then emotional, psychological, and wetware limitations start prevailing. I REALLY wish I could help. The real solution to 'sounding real' is pretty d*mn detailed & complicated, and more than even I am willing to invest in. I am the most persistent person that most of you know about, but even I know when to quit. (I usually got the most difficult/crazy projects at Bell Labs, because they KNEW that if something could be done, I'd be persistent enough to do it.) However, really sounding 'REAL' is a tall order. I am fairly confident that a few people here have done it -- but VERY FEW. John Hi John, I agree that bad recordings cannot and will not sound convincingly real. Only Frank talks that kind of jibba jabba.I don't listen to ABBA . There are decent recordings however and even some studio produced somewhat compressed material can be very enjoyable. Life is too short to only listen to perfect recordings, if one could find them. My point was simply that in my opinion over the last decade or so, high-end gear is getting closer to that goal of sounding convincingly real when fed decent material. Teresa 1 Sound Minds Mind Sound Link to comment
Popular Post Teresa Posted August 1, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted August 1, 2020 2 hours ago, fas42 said: Unfortunately, Teresa, you can't seem to separate the cost of the equipment, from a dealer; with the capability of the setup to do its job - reproduce what's on the recording ... I left that place 30 years ago - the retail value of the bits of metal and wood in front of me mean close to zero in terms of being subjectively transparent to the content of the recording. If some people want audio to be a hobby where the highest cost wins, every time - that's fine ... but that shouldn't condemn others to suffer inferior SQ, just because it suits the thinking of the former lot. You are dead wrong again. While a higher retail price does allow for superior component parts and build quality, inexpensive components can offer very realistic sound quality if care is taken in topology and synergy of chosen affordable parts. I, like nearly all audiophiles want to reproduce what is on the recording (both the good and bad) and an audio system which gets out of the way, reproduces what the microphones actually captured, nothing more, nothing less. But there is a limit on how cheaply something can be made and still sound realistic. And no matter what you do to boom box speakers, or the tiny speakers in a laptop computer, both of which you praised after you sorted them, you will never get sonic realism out of them. I own a Yamaha Blu-ray / SACD player with sounds very realistic in my audio system and it had only a retail price of $330. I paid less. I would never delude myself in believing that it sounds as realistic as a $17,000 Playback Designs SACD player. I know I've heard one. Also I would never delude myself into believing that my floor standing Infinity Kappa 7 speakers sound more realistic than a $40,000 speaker system. I have heard many great sounding high-end systems and your trashing them I find highly offensive. Finally, if a component, speakers or headphones doesn't accurately reproduce what's on the recording it goes back for a refund. kumakuma, Audiophile Neuroscience, Summit and 1 other 4 I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums. I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past. I still love music. Teresa Link to comment
Audiophile Neuroscience Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 5 minutes ago, Teresa said: And no matter what you do to boom box speakers, or the tiny speakers in a lap top computer, both of which you praised after you sorted them, you will never get sonic realism out of them. Yes boombox "The wide use of boomboxes in urban communities led to the boombox being coined a "ghetto blaster", so no "strawman fallacy" here, just Frank's backpedalling jibba jabba. 5 minutes ago, Teresa said: I own a Yamaha Blu-ray / SACD player with sounds very realistic in my audio system and it had only a retail price of $330. I paid less. I would never delude myself in believing that it sounds as realistic as a $17,000 Playback Designs SACD player. I know I've heard one. Also I would never delude myself into believing that my floor standing Infinity Kappa 7 speakers sound more realistic than a $40,000 speaker system. I have heard many great sounding high-end systems and your trashing them I find highly offensive. 1+ Teresa 1 Sound Minds Mind Sound Link to comment
fas42 Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 20 minutes ago, Teresa said: I, like nearly all audiophiles want to reproduce what is on the recording (both the good and bad) and an audio system which gets out of the way, reproduces what the microphones actually captured, nothing more, nothing less. But there is a limit on how cheaply something can be made and still sound realistic. And no matter what you do to boom box speakers, or the tiny speakers in a lap top computer, both of which you praised after you sorted them, you will never get sonic realism out of them. You're doing the straw man dance too, Teresa - where have I said I can get "sonic realism" out of "tiny speakers in a lap top computer"? Yes, there's a limit to how cheaply "something can be made and still sound realistic", but once one reaches the limit of what a part is inherently capable of, you don't try and push it further. I'm also fascinated by the need of people to portray NAD gear as being of boom box quality, and as for the speakers, if I held up both the original B&W mid/bass drivers, and the Sharp equivalent, the number of people who would guess wrong which was which, would be interesting ... 😉. Quote I own a Yamaha Blu-ray / SACD player with sounds very realistic in my audio system and it had only a retail price of $330. I paid less. I would never delude myself in believing that it sounds as realistic as a $17,000 Playback Designs SACD player. I know I've heard one. Also I would never delude myself into believing that my floor standing Infinity Kappa 7 speakers sound more realistic than a $40,000 speaker system. I have heard many great sounding high-end systems and your trashing them I find highly offensive. What I find offensive are high-end systems which are way less than great sounding - for the money ... I don't trash them - I note that they produce defective sound, and wonder how the owner, etc, managed to get them to such a parlous state 🙂. Teresa 1 Link to comment
Audiophile Neuroscience Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 52 minutes ago, fas42 said: the original setup that delivered what I'm interested in, composed of audiophile approved brands Another example of backpedalling jibber Jabber. If you used audiophile approved brands you would get good results as expected whether you "sorted them" or not. Now you are trying to disassociate yourself from your claims of sorting your favorite modified ghetto blaster boomboxes. Perhaps the Emperor is feeling a little cold, wearing no clothes🤣 Teresa 1 Sound Minds Mind Sound Link to comment
Recommended Posts