Archimago and the TLS DS-1

[fas42]

47 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

 

 

From my experiences with listening to Status Quo on many different systems over the years, the distortion and "loud AM radio" sound was present in the recordings. The more competent and revealing the system, the more clearly you could hear it. Whereas it sounded fine on the old Dansette...  😉

 

Ah, but one can go the level where the sound elements all separate - what you then get are the drums very distinctive in their acoustic, with the quality of the cymbal splashes - which are constantly used through most songs - fully intact, excellent tonality. The driving guitars are doing their thing, and finally the vocals are distinctively set apart from the instruments, in quite an intimate acoustic - with the singing very soft, and almost feminine in its quality ... it becomes a whole different world in the listening.

 

Quote

Same for Blackmore's experience - if you think your system is  right and everyone else's is wrong, you ought to consider that you might just have it backwards. Your system might be emphasizing certain characteristics of the music that higher fidelity systems reproduce accurately, the result being a sound more to your expectations and tastes.

 

 

Yes, the system is emphasizing the music, the recording - not 'highlighting' the rig that's playing it. If there are whole suites of "higher fidelity systems" out there, then each should sound identical to the next, playing a particularly 'poor' recording - if they differ, what's going on?

 

IME, each recording gravitates to its intrinsic self as the playback improves - it ends up "sounding the same", no matter what the source, amp, speakers, room are. Which, luckily, is pretty impressive - it has all the qualities of 'natural' sounds; exactly what one is after.

[Sal1950]

On 2/15/2019 at 12:56 AM, audiobomber said:

don't see why you mentioned "best possible playback". That is clearly not what the site is about. It's about "bits are bits" and debunking audiophile claims of better sound from usb enhancements, linear power supplies, higher quality streamers, etc. 

Yes, it's about finding the paths that will lead to a true improvement in the SOTA of High Fidelity reproduction.  Not chasing a bunch of fantasies that disappear the second your eyes are closed.

13 hours ago, audiobomber said:

I refer to Peter Aczel, Arnie Kruger, and the rest of the Borg collective as anti-audiophiles because they constantly trash audiophiles. On anti-audiophile websites and message boards, the term "audiophile" is a pejorative, intended as an insult. Surely you don't deny this? Just read @Sal1950 's signature for proof. 

Personally and I'm sure for most of the other objective members here, it's folks like yourself that we consider anti-audiophile. You've done next to nothing to truly advance the SOTA and only encourage people to waste their money on products that at best do nothing. Or worse yet,introduce a bunch of distortions that sound pleasing but take the listener further away from transparency.  "Don't worry how it measures, if it sounds good to you it's progress".

[Blackmorec]

6 hours ago, Don Hills said:

Same for Blackmore's experience - if you think your system is  right and everyone else's is wrong, you ought to consider that you might just have it backwards. Your system might be emphasizing certain characteristics of the music that higher fidelity systems reproduce accurately, the result being a sound more to your expectations and tastes.

 

So let me summarise your post. A system that fails to deliver the atmosphere of a recording, its emotional content, its rhythmic and timing content, the inherent imaging of the recording and the sense of excitement the music generates is the more accurate because ALL those qualities are just artefacts produced by distortion?

 

In the way its written, your point is correct......however it bears little relationship to what I wrote. I didn’t write ‘everyone else’s’ system. I specifically wrote that I was listening to a particular system of someone who thought that the majority of measures like dedicated mains, power and interconnect cables, racks and vibration damping footers are all snake oil.

 

In my experience, the qualities I listed above are all present in the musical signal, but are fairly delicate and require careful set-up to achieve.  The system I was listening to had not been carefully set up so the system was unable to reveal these characteristics 

 

In all my experience I have yet to hear a well balanced and carefully set up system sound boring and bland. But all you need to do is visit a hi-fi show and those musical characteristics are the exception rather than the rule. Does that mean that those few systems that do reveal those qualities are all producing just the right distortions and the rest of the systems are simply being accurate? 

 

 

[audiobomber]

7 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

Yes, it's about finding the paths that will lead to a true improvement in the SOTA of High Fidelity reproduction.  Not chasing a bunch of fantasies that disappear the second your eyes are closed.

Personally and I'm sure for most of the other objective members here, it's folks like yourself that we consider anti-audiophile. You've done next to nothing to truly advance the SOTA and only encourage people to waste their money on products that at best do nothing. Or worse yet,introduce a bunch of distortions that sound pleasing but take the listener further away from transparency.  "Don't worry how it measures, if it sounds good to you it's progress".

Contorting my words makes it easier to argue against me, classic strawman stuff. I never said "don't worry how it measures".  As I stated, I look for measurements before I buy, if I can find them. Weird technical stuff generally discourages me from a purchase. OTOH, specs are not always an indicator of SQ. My Beyerdynamic DT 1990 Pro headphones have a pronounced treble region. I find them fantastic, as do undoubtedly the Beyerdynamic engineers. If I were buying strictly by FR measurements I would have chosen something else, maybe the Sennheiser HD 650, which to me sounds muffled.

 

You'll never convince me that an ABX Deaf & Blind Test is the way to judge audio. I encourage people to listen to their music in their system for an extended period. For those of you who don't hear a difference, don't buy, simple as that. But the audiophool stuff cheeses me off. The recent ethernet cable thread is a perfect example. My listening tests did not reveal differences in ethernet cables. I said so in the thread. Nowhere though did I tell others that they couldn't possibly hear what they say they hear.

 

Everyone should craft their systems in their own particular way.  There are audiophiles who go for a particular type of sound, with SET tubes or single-driver speakers or multi-channel, speakers priority or source priority, or dozens of other permutations. I think that's awesome, I'd love to hear them all.

 

Regarding tweaks, I have friends who are music lovers, not audiophiles. They went big a few years ago, with Bryston preamp and CD player, a pair of 3B ST power amps and B&W Nautilus 802 speakers. The dealer set everything up for them. I listened and was very disappointed with the sound. The amps were set up as monoblocks, lot of voltage, compromised current drive. I undid the monoblocking and connected them in vertical bi-amp mode; one channel of the amp connected to the bass drivers, one channel to mid and tweeter. Big improvement. On another visit I changed a cheap interconnect connecting the CDP and preamp for a Cardas cable. They were ecstatic. Later I toed in the speakers for a more solid stereo image. Now their system sounds as great as it should. 

[spotforscott]

1 hour ago, audiobomber said:

But the audiophool stuff cheeses me off.

1

+1

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, audiobomber said:

But the audiophool stuff cheeses me off. The recent ethernet cable thread is a perfect example. My listening tests did not reveal differences in ethernet cables. I said so in the thread. Nowhere though did I tell others that they couldn't possibly hear what they say they hear.

 

While I tend to agree with you regarding ethernet cables, I have noticed that optical connections make a positive difference in the sound in some of my systems. Noticed that years ago, and it has been consistent all this time. And yes, I tend to use higher quality networking and IT gear than was common in the audiophile world until just recently.

 

How to explain that?  Well, I can't - but I posit that there is some kind of electrical noise at the interface. Not sure how that can be exactly, but people like John Swenson almost certainly have a clearer understanding than I do, and seem to have come to similar conclusions. 

 

Does that mean an ethernet cable will make a sonic difference?  Not at all in my experience, unless you actually change the media layer. 1000BaseT vs Wireless vs Optical. They all sound slightly different to me. 10G over copper sounds different too. That one is hard for me to even come up with plausible hypothesis. 

 

So is that being an "audiophool"?  I choose to think not.  :). 

 

By the way, I noticed and find it admirable that you are careful not to tell people they are only imagining what they hear. They hear what they hear, no matter what the reason.

 

I have always found trying to tell people what they believe is false is nothing less than a good way to start a fight. Especially on the internet where people are often willing to say horrendous things that would get them punched in the snoot if they were face to face. 

[Paul R]

18 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

IME, accurate sound is an art and a science ... currently. Note, art comes before science, because there are still no clear cut methods of evaluating and prescribing what is required to achieve optimum - experience is still the most powerful tool here, with ears as the measuring stick.

 

Science comes in when you realise, from experiences to date, that there are generic weaknesses in systems. As an example, most power supplies in power amplifiers are substandard to what is needed - only made good enough to meet easily measured, supposedly impressive specs. The reality that creates, is circuitry that generates inadequate SQ when the "going gets tough" - everyone knows the gear that falls to pieces once a more realistic volume level is called for ...

 

And here insightful engineering provides the answers - one can analyse what is the underlying issue, and design a robust solution.

 

 

 

Hey Fas42 - what kind of system are you running these days? If I remember right, you got some pretty great results from low cost gear.

 

Not sure I totally agree with some of your conclusions, but your thinking is always interesting.

 

-Paul 

 

[Ralf11]

What upgrades would you guys make to Archimago's system?

 

i.e. what upgrades would allow him to hear the same superior SQ you have noted above?

[botrytis]

It is ridiculous that people are not looking at all the testing Archimago does and compare to say, the audio press, which does not do as much or any hawking products (MQA anyone?). I mean, Archimago does put caveats in his testing but I for on appreciates what he does. He is someone who tests because it is about learning and informing.

 

 

[Superdad]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

What upgrades would you guys make to Archimago's system?

 

i.e. what upgrades would allow him to hear the same superior SQ you have noted above?

 

He could start with ditching that op-amp filled Emotiva AV preamp he uses.  

A friend of mine bought one of those (XSP-1) used for $550 and while it works for him the SQ is totally disengaged from what music really feels like.

[fas42]

4 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Hey Fas42 - what kind of system are you running these days? If I remember right, you got some pretty great results from low cost gear.

 

Not sure I totally agree with some of your conclusions, but your thinking is always interesting.

 

-Paul 

 

 

Same as before . Old NAD CDP, NAD integrated, Sharp boombox speakers - the best way to get a handle of what the story was is to check out my essentially dead blogging spot, linked to in my signature, and follow the posts, A More Ambitious Upgrade - Parts 1 to 18. For various reasons this rig was switched off for ages; but now is back in action, and I'm actively working to improve the sound.

 

Has tons of grunt, but haven't pushed this area yet. Aiming to get consistency of SQ at the moment - sounds very approachable immediately on switch on in the morning, but is still far too sensitive to environmental factors - electrical noise, etc. Also, loses SQ after extended playing - something I'm working on right at the moment.

 

It's easy to buy gear these days that checks all the usual measurement boxes, but as people like Blackmorec point out, there are still whole areas of overall system integrity that are completely ignored - leading to the typical mediocre, 'hifi', sound. Only by addressing each of the remaining vulnerabilities can convincing transparency to the recording itself be achieved.

[Paul R]

5 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

What upgrades would you guys make to Archimago's system?

 

i.e. what upgrades would allow him to hear the same superior SQ you have noted above?

 

I would suggest two six packs of Sam Adams. By the time he adds those to his system, the music will sound just right.   

Repeatable too! 

 

-Paul 

 

[fas42]

5 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

What upgrades would you guys make to Archimago's system?

 

i.e. what upgrades would allow him to hear the same superior SQ you have noted above?

 

What he has is:

 

As DACs:

TEAC UD-50,

an Oppo,

ADI-2 Pro FS.

 

pre-amp Emotiva XSP-1

Emotiva XPA-1L monoblocks

Paradigm Signature S8v3 main speakers with SUB1 subwoofer.

 

Correct?

[Melvin]

30 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

I would suggest two six packs of Sam Adams. By the time he adds those to his system, the music will sound just right.   

Repeatable too! 

 

-Paul 

 

 

The Cold Snap is particularly good this year!

[fas42]

This post shows a fair bit where he's coming from, https://archimago.blogspot.com/2016/12/measurements-what-does-us500watt-stereo.html

 

Particularly telling is

 

Quote

My impression was that there was indeed a "smooth" quality to the (Vitus) sound which IMO is not necessarily a "good" thing... I guess I appreciate a more "clinical" sound which in my mind speaks to the ability for a sound system to resolve details present in the recording (the HiFi+ review admitted that this amp wasn't the highest resolution amp reviewed - I agree). Listening to Leonard Cohen's You Want It Darker (2016, DR13!) demonstrated very good channel balance with Cohen's voice presented solidly "front and center" with nice layering of the instrumentation and separation from the background singers. On a synth-driven album like the new Yello Toy (2016, DR11!), the "surround" effects were presented nicely with an impression of 360-degree envelopment sitting in the sweetspot (eg. have a listen to the track "Limbo"

 

So, he doesn't like "smooth" sound ... unfortunately , live music is "smooth", and that is what emerges when a system is highly optimised - revealing what is on the recording, unprejudiced by the playback chain.

 

His rig may lie in the audio uncanny valley to some degree - "clinical" sound is a giveaway to this being a characteristic in what he's used to hearing.

[fas42]

I was hunting around for some clues as to where his overall digital sound was, and this is pretty indicative,

 

Quote

However, just because technically it (digital) is superior does not mean that the encoded music takes advantage of this fact about digital. I readily admit that I have many albums especially from the 1980's where the LP version sounds much more "full bodied" rather than the "thin" sounding CD, likely due to limitations of the early digital mastering techniques. Likewise, over the years there are many LPs with audibly more dynamic range than their digital counterparts - ironically perhaps because of the inherent limitations of vinyl and the need to avoid excessive signal amplitude. Remember that it's a bit of "give and take" because even with a dynamic master, limitations in temporal stability, surface noise, material imperfections can still distract from the enjoyment of an LP. Of course, I do not discount the idea that some folks actually like the "euphonic" distortions (which for me is the mark of the "euphonophile" rather than the audiophile :-).

 

The 80's pop material is especially 'demanding' on digital, because of the effects and production styles used during this period - however, this material on CD can be the most overwhelming and satisfying to listen to of all one's recording; because of the richness of the mix. The difference lies in the ability of the playback chain to be faithful to what was encoded, and truly these albums "separate the men from the boys".

 

Not quite in that period, but with the qualities that deliver the "blow you away with the energy" oomph is this local effort - note especially the ending. I'm not so cruel to try this, at a hefty volume, on most rigs - would be a total disaster! 

 

 

[Sal1950]

17 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

I would suggest two six packs of Sam Adams. By the time he adds those to his system, the music will sound just right.   

Repeatable too! 

 

-Paul 

 

Ah, that will just leave him with a headache in the morning.

Better he roll a fatty and down it with a glass of root beer.

 

[Ralf11]

19 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

I would suggest two six packs of Sam Adams. By the time he adds those to his system, the music will sound just right.   

Repeatable too! 

 

-Paul 

 

 

wouldn't real beer - or real  micro-brewed beer - be better??

[psjug]

12 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

wouldn't real beer - or real  micro-brewed beer - be better??

Sam Adams is not microbrew but they make some good beers.  I have a soft spot for them  because they've helped smaller breweries during hops shortages

https://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/hub/chi-inc-samuel-adams-jim-koch-bsi-hub-ngux-story.html

[Superdad]

25 minutes ago, psjug said:

Sam Adams is not microbrew but they make some good beers.  I have a soft spot for them  because they've helped smaller breweries during hops shortages

https://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/hub/chi-inc-samuel-adams-jim-koch-bsi-hub-ngux-story.html

 

Wow, now there is a worthwhile point to this thread!