Relative importance of differences in stereo systems

[fas42]

High end speakers don't "swamp any differences in the intervening electronics" - what they do is highlight, exaggerate with a ruthless attitude everything that is wrong in the preceding chain - if I want to know how awful audio playback can sound, how unappetising it is to be in the presence of sound reproduction, I just have to visit any hifi show ... .

 

Typical audiophile systems make one intensely aware of the tiniest anomalies - they are a hair shirt experience of the worst kind ... a good rule of thumb is that the greater the potential of the rig, the more one has to thoroughly 'debug' it - otherwise, they make listening to anything but the "right recordings" quite unpleasant.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

If every track I listen to has its own acoustic, tonal and dynamic character rather than something the speaker or room imposes on the music, I’m good. 

Its worth bearing in mind that what we’re listening to is a recording of the original event, if there even was an original event

 

Amen. You're much closer to listening to the actual recording, than the supa dupa signature of the playback rig - of course, many people's egos are tied up in the latter; recordings are really just a means for enjoying the specialness of the kit in the room - who cares about those bum musicians, anyway, .

[fas42]

There is a circle of confusion - but it's not centred on the speaker ... .

 

Rule of thumb: the more the subjective signature of a rig varies as different loudspeakers are tried, the more the electronics of the chain need to be looked at more closely - the end result of 'correct' optimising is that you hear only the recording, and not the "characteristics of the speaker" - if it is truly a high end, transparent chain, how can it not be that way ... ?

[fas42]

25 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

 

You are implying the futility of total technical perfection -- it is best to have the equipment that makes the owner perfectly happy instead :-).

 

Not at all. IME, if I hear the recording and only the recording then I'm fully satisfied - subjectively, there's enough there to deliver everything to make the experience worthwhile.

 

Quote

The best thing that an ideal speaker can normally do is to be clean enough to detect differences more clearly (and not over-enhance the differences as a freq response peak or distortion might do.)  Even if you DO compensate the freq response of a speaker system there are mathmatical limitations as to how accurate you can make the timing & freq response fixes.  Just because of all of the variables it is difficult to make an audibly perfect accuate transducer -- and speaker systems have even more variables and larger scale problems (e.g. mass, varying environment.)  Equalizers don't fix things as well as freq response might imply -- EQs might help, but even a perfect equalizer cannot fix all of the problems.)  DSP equalization can help -- generally having more degrees of freedom than an analog EQ, but there are practical (and some mathematical) limits.

 

(Here is a simple example of all of the complexity that real engineering has vs even a somewhat knowedgeable tech might not know -- did you know that the components of impedance -- resistance and reactance are not normally mathematically independent?  For normal circuitry, there is a simple (but sometimes difficult to calculate) relationship -- most people don't know it. There are so many subtle facts in engineering & physics that makes the world harder to deal with than it might seem.) 

 

Yes, speakers are 'messy' things - but in my explorations their misdemeanours fall below the radar if the rest of the rig is working properly. How this is 'expressed' is that the speakers become "invisible" - it is then impossible to register that the sound is coming from the drivers - scary stuff the first time it happens, !

 

Quote

 

So, simplify the environment, minimize the depths of the resonances, decrease the mass, etc.  Even the most expensive OR the very best peaker systems are all going to sound different.

 

 

Ummm, they will sound the same - the best system I came across recently, that was not my own, used top notch Dynaudio speakers, the best Bryston amplifiers - a long way from what I use ... and this system nailed the recordings. The sense of the event, the tonality was a big tick - 'natural', effortless; it was all about the music, nothing about the equipment.

[fas42]

Buy a Life in a Vann poster, before they are all sold out,

 

[fas42]

Blame this mob! ... https://www.spreadshirt.com/life+in+a+vann+posters-D5bd17fe120517674e83f6a87?sellable=5

[fas42]

16 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

All I know is that the math, physics/etc along with any normal speaker design isn't going to 'nail' the general reproduction of music.

It can sound 'good', but 'nailing it' is an impossibility.  (Headphones come closer, but still don't nail it.)

 

I don't need to use experience -- just knowing what goes into the design of the equipment.

 

John

 

You are not right, at least for part of the population - there is a standard of SQ which triggers the brain into experiencing a convincing auditory illusion; if you haven't personally come across this, it may be because A) your brain is not wired for allowing it, or B) the standard of playback has never been good enough.

[fas42]

Speakers are the biggest problem in the obvious, physical ways, that are easily measurable.

 

They are relatively unimportant in the subjective registering of the sound, when areas of the remainder of the reproduction chain, which are difficult to measure, are behaving correctly.

 

We're back with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy - or, "I'm only going to look for the causes under the strong street light - because, I can see better there!"

 

[fas42]

So, how do we hear sound?

 

... and a second question: will a fake piano always sound fake? Before you answer, consider listening to this video ...

 

 

[fas42]

16 minutes ago, esldude said:

If you were a student of mine, I'd have you stay after school and write 500 times:

 

I will not misapply the McNamara fallacy.

 

 

Sorry about that ... everyone should know it only applies to wars ...

[fas42]

Everyone knows tyres are the most important thing about cars - because they're the bits that make sure the car actually follows the road; they're so obviously, in your face, necessary! ... all one has to do is use the 'perfect' tyre, and any car will be a dream to drive ...

 

It's a good thing to keep in mind, that the obvious things are also the most important things.

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

All I can tell you -- is that human hearing is subject to brain-processing, and it is amazing how much a person can be fooled into something sounding similar, but it really isn't.  A good example is the perception of spoken language sounds for non-native speakers.

 

John

 

Which is precisely what one is exploiting in the "art of audio conjuring" - you're making the sound get close enough to the "real thing" that the the brain chooses to be fooled - this is not "cheating"; it's making sure that the essential message of the event captured ticks all the boxes - worrying about flaws in the presentation is like someone counting the floorboards on the stage, when Phantom of the Opera is full flight.

[fas42]

Something that might cheer up the day of a few people ... of course, this bears no relevance to any people on AS,

 

https://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/why-some-of-our-best-minds-speak-higher-twaddle

[fas42]

8 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I still don't think that you understand -- you are missing details if you think that SQ works very well.  It works adequately well for some people who haven't learned to discern.  SQ is a fairly cheap replacement for accuracy...  That is okay...  There huge messes in the differnece between SQ/QS and friends vs. the actual signal & human hearing.

If someone's hearing cannot discern -- then the limitation is in their hearing.

 

John

 

Okay. Big misunderstanding - in audio forum land SQ means Sound Quality, not a 4 channel encoding mechanism.

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Nose Reduction

 

(you're in NYC - surely you know that...)

 

If you happen to be Michael Jackson, it certainly is a concern ...

[fas42]

Being of a fan of the group, the local audio friend has multiple releases of the key Yes albums; including the uppity ones. But the original release is miles in front, on every front - complexity, holding one's interest, delighting in the play of sound textures; a 'composition' ... the special remasters are like Reader's Digest condensations - enough of the meat so you can identify the track; but that's about it.