Relative importance of differences in stereo systems

[The_K-Man]

One important test for me regarding speakers is the simple cabinet knock, on the sides and back especially, where some models run cheap.  If my knuckles rap is followed by a slow decaying tubby thunk - pass!

 

And that's not being an AP, that's just a common sense test for build quality.  You want to hear as little of the speaker cabinet as possible for the dollars you're spending. This is far a more significant and audible assessment than wasting time experimenting with $1per, $100per, or $1,000per foot speaker wire.

[The_K-Man]

35 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

After the speakers* (maybe with some DSP) I think the next thing is the mastering/recording - if one can find better ones.  I can't even find Willis Alan Ramsey's sole album on CD so...

 

Most electronics come after the above, and there is nothing wrong with upgrading ...  I have a new amp on order, tho not clear it will be an upgrade.

 

 

 

* Sound Lab good; Maggies for cheapskates...

 

Actually, album mastering is more important than DSP, unless that DSP is concerning time alignment issues among speakers in larger setups.

[The_K-Man]

36 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I am working a big part of the mastering problem (I mean, for older material) just this second.  My project is being developed with a recording engineer (and help from several others -- including grammy winner involved also.)  A lot of old material is poorly mastered, or even just played out from a tape -- they call that 'mastering'. ('They' isn't the recording engineers, the 'They' are the bean-counters.)

Previously, dealing with the old DolbyA recordings (long since on digital) has been expensive (having to run the material real time through ancient hardware.)  Even if it IS on analog and quickly available (no trips to Iron Mountain are necessary), then dealing with the HW is a pain.   My project is to eliminate that step, and do it better -- less IMD and other kinds of distortion.  (NR systems usually splat IMD all over the place -- only the slow attack systems avoid that, and then they have other troubles.)  My DolbyA decoder does all kinds of tricks with distortion cancellation and moving distortion sidebands into hiding places (kind of.)  Also, it shapes the attack/decay curves ever so slightly to minimize the amplitude of distortion sidebands (IMD.)

MASTERING IS/HAS BEEN A REAL PROBLEM.  The sad thing is that it isn't the frustrated engineers fault -- it is all that 'bean counting' going on.

John

 

 

Just be sure to notice my profile avatar, and remember that just cranking it up and heavily limiting it is not mastering, or remastering for that matter.  Preserve those peaks! Use peak limiting only for the few outlier peaks.

 

Resist demands by the client(the artist, the producer, or label) for LOUDNESSABOVEALL.  If you lose those customers because they went somewhere else to have their mixes intentionally distorted or otherwise over-processed for final release, they weren't worth your time and talent as a post-engineer in the first place.  If you value great sound, you will attract like-minded clientele.

[The_K-Man]

24 minutes ago, sdolezalek said:

 

I find that to be far less true, and even less so when I go to audio stores looking to hear something that will wow me.  I used think it might be that my system was just that good; now I realize it is that I'm just that used to how my system sounds.  

 

Inasmuch as I tried to build an "audiophile 7.1 system" I also used to think that good surround sound recordings on BluRay sounded better than stereo, but that was before I started optimizing my stereo sound in terms of room treatment, DSP to address room modes, upsampling through HQ Player, getting speaker distances and timing exactly right, etc.  Now the sound of my stereo is far far better (clear and with better soundstaging) than my 7.1 system.  But it is theoretically possible that if I did all of those tweaks on all 8 channels that surround might once again sound better -- but I doubt it. 

 

In order of importance & actual audible benefit:

1. Speaker distances - 45%

2. Room treatment - 40%

3. DSP/room modes -10%

4. HQ Player upsampling - 5%

 

For the average melophile/music fan, successful accomplishment of the first two is more than sufficient.  Beyond that, we're in the realm of tick farts.

 

[The_K-Man]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

Room treatment should be 41%

 

Then upsampling should be 4%.

[The_K-Man]

2 minutes ago, STC said:

Today, audiophile refers to lifestyle and branded equipment despite what they claim to be.

 

In other words:  BLING

[The_K-Man]

2 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Oh Lord, I never thought I'd hear an audiophile declare more gear would "wreck his living spaces"  😲

That's more of a WAF commnent than the boss of a man cave. 

 

"WAF" - English please?

[The_K-Man]

50 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Wife Acceptance Factor. 

 

Thank you!  Was that so hard to type out in full?

 

Sorry, but I don't speak or type in code, like many Millennials do.

[The_K-Man]

11 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Millennnial, me?  LOL

Sorry but just about anyone who's been involved in audio over the last 4 decades or so knows what WAF refers to when it comes to room decor. Maybe your just starting out?

 

Nope!  I just tend to speak - and correspond - in full words as much as is practical.  Makes the conversation easier to follow, that's all.

 

But when I see/hear individuals from my age(late forties) and up communicating in alphabet soup, I find it discouraging and depressing.

[The_K-Man]

27 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Don't be sad, maybe by the time you reach my age, near 70, you'll learn too.

 

Nahh.  I'm too conservative when it comes to that stuff.  That acronym sh- is for the under-thirty set.

[The_K-Man]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

Odd for the user named The_K-man to eschew acronyms.

 

K-Man contains an actual word, so technically it is not a pure acronym.

 

It developed out of the inability of many people to correctly pronounce or spell my name.

[The_K-Man]

15 minutes ago, esldude said:

I thought it was in reference to Dave Katz and his K system because of your avatar.

 

"Dave" Katz?   DAVE Katz?

🤣😂🤣😂🤣

 

You mean BOB Katz, who I have met personally and own some of his books.

 

Figures an audiophile would get the name of a nationally known mastering engineer wrong.

 

[The_K-Man]

23 minutes ago, esldude said:

Is it Bob?

As someone who does a little recording I think of him as Mr. Katz.  But then we have one of those acronyms involved again which will depress you as I'm over 40.  Maybe far enough over my memory falters sometimes.

 

Yes, it's Bob. 

 

Both the K-system of loudness metering and the K- in my handle are the first letters of our last names.  

[The_K-Man]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

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.

 

Equally important to tires: Alignment.  A good alignment will make a refrigerator driveable.  A great alignment will help you read the road and the interaction between your car and it, and will keep you out of trouble.

[The_K-Man]

11 hours ago, STC said:

. In any case, a flat in FR never sounded good to most despite being accurate. 

 

That's why 'God made equalizers!!'  🤣

 

Seriously, you want your recording, production, and playback equipment to be as flat as is possible, over as wide a bandwidth as possible.  I would take 50Hz-16kHz +-2db over 10Hz-22kHz +-6dB any day.  See what I mean?  Then, for playback reproduction, you can EQ to any established standard you want, or to correct a room, or to personal preference.

 

The reason flat does "not sound good" to many folks is because of how we hear.  On a flat tuned system - I would consider 20Hz to 20kHz, maximum +-2dB - our hearing would not be as sensitive at 50 or even 500Hz, or on top at 10 or 15kHz, as it would be between 2-4kHz. It's the way we're made!  And a decent EQ(at least five bands), can help compensate for that, if one knows which frequencies have the most impact when adjusting.

 

As to your previous inquiry regarding FR/distance, yes, the FR can, and usually will, change with distance, or from side to side between, IE two stereo speakers.

[The_K-Man]

16 hours ago, STC said:

 

But we don’t listen for accuracy. We judge SQ based on preference. 

 

Our hearing is hardly consistent nor accurate to be used as a measuring tool. Its Fq response and DR varies through out the day. The only thing that can be consistent is the preference even that IME not consistent as I discovered recently while trying to find the best version of Nutcracker - March rendition.  

 

Proximity to the sound of the original release takes precedence over overall SQ(sound  quality) of an album or single for me.  That's why I seek out and maintain a collection of earlier, original CD releases.

[The_K-Man]

14 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Proximity in time?

 

or proximity in sound qualities?

 

Are you serious?  Context!  

 

Of course:  proximity to sound characteristics of original release.

[The_K-Man]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

the points made in this thread are that earlier, original CD releases lack such fidelity - why someone would use proximity instead is odd 

 

Again, the sound of the early CD releases of things like 'THRILLER' and 'DARK SIDE OF THE MOON', is more faithful, I feel, to the sound of those albums as released on vinyl, and the artistic intent in general.

 

It might not be high fidelity sound, but it is more faithful to the intended sound of the release.  

 

IE: If an early CD release of  a certain early 1970s album happened to contain the same background hiss as the original release on vinyl or 8-track, then I'd still rather have that CD than a 'remaster' that has the hiss removed, and in the same token  much of the original dynamic range squashed out in the name of loudness.

 

Am I clear now?

[The_K-Man]

57 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Or it is simply a case of "first love" like sympthom. Hard to forget the first time you experience it.

 

Then you're ok with adding thirty incongruous stories to the Empire State Building to keep it 'up with the Joneses' of Dubai, Hong Kong, and other cities with taller buildings?

 

Because that's what remastering, in the sense of what I've experienced, has been in terms of what was done to legendary albums by Pink Floyd, Michael Jackson, and others.

 

Enjoy your remaster collection.  I'll even sell you a few remaining ones for a buck each - since that's all they're worth compared to the originals in my cabinet.

[The_K-Man]

9 hours ago, STC said:

 

I don’t buy remasters unlrss the original version is crap. Currently, searching for the best version of Nutcracker just because the cersion I heard in a demo sounded better and higher fidelity than what I have. 

 

Not all remasters are bad. Some are better than the original. 

 

Guys, which version you prefer for the Nutcracker? just the track 3 only. 

 

https://www.classicalmpr.org/story/2014/12/10/best-nutcracker-recordings

 

If a remaster consists just of a flat transfer at a higher resolution in the studio, and no processing beyond minor left to right volume adjustments or speed correction(just for tape wow), I *might* entertain it.

 

But if they're going to through the pains of sourcing 'original master tapes', transfer them at 32/384 for production purposes, then EQ, compress, limit, and slam the sh!t out the final release, as I have evidenced in many major commercial remasters - they can keep it!