Understanding the Audiophiles community.

[STC]

7 hours ago, Summit said:

 

Well not much music I listen to is actually recorded in 5.1. Stereo, mono and multi-channel system all have their pros and cons. My experience is that many people have big troubles to properly set up a stereo system in their homes. Many sits to close to the back wall, has a lots of hard surfaces, speakers placed too close to corners and side wall, no bass traps, use inappropriate acoustic treatment for their room etc. A correctly setup mid-fi stereo system in a properly furnished room often beats a high end system that isn’t correctly setup IMO, no matter if it’s a stereo or 5.1. 

 

That is pretty common. Most of do not have a dedicated room or proper treatment as good sound is not only from the speakers but also from the room. Unfortunately, it is hard to have one rule for all. If you take Harbeth speakers into this discussion, it was designed to be played in a typical room without any treatment. Also, Alan Shaw believes in the treble and bass knobs for the amplifier as there were part and parcel of the equation to produce good sound. 

 

However, when you talk about other high end speakers they usually will sound better with room treatment. Then again some speaker designer make their speakers to sound good without treatment as they were meant to be part of the décor of the space they occupy. 

 

It s hard to say some are doing it wrong without knowing the overall room acoustics. For some their system will sound better when they sit close to the rear wall for other rooms it may not work even with the same type of speakers.

[STC]

5 hours ago, Albrecht said:

Very few, or anyone, applies/uses $5000 speaker cable to $500 stand mount speakers. 

 

Oh dear! I am guilty of that.

[STC]

Just realized that I overlooked one big element in understanding the audiophiles.

 

For some it looks like the definition of live performance is live performance of concert sound of Pink Floyd - One of these days. In that case, it is perfectly understood why many audiophiles could achieve believable realism with their setup.

 

The only problem with this type of live performance is they contradicts everything about the need for perfection in their equipment. Firstly, such live performance are the reproduced sound from speakers. Which means they go through the processor and then gets amplified. The last I heard none of the so called synthesizers, electric guitar or even the digital keyboard had any of the audiophile approved fuse, cable, circuit board, outputs or even the speakers. The are actually in a way a reproduction of an artificial sound. Then it will go through the sound enforcement which usually made of amplifiers and speakers from pro audio equipment such Crown, JBL. Behringer, Presonus…..  And not to forget the role of sound engineer who controls the sound in real time to pan them for the special effect since the sound of the enforcement system is always in mono.

 

This is not the live performance I was referring.

[fas42]

29 minutes ago, STC said:

Just realized that I overlooked one big element in understanding the audiophiles.

 

For some it looks like the definition of live performance is live performance of concert sound of Pink Floyd - One of these days. In that case, it is perfectly understood why many audiophiles could achieve believable realism with their setup.

 

The only problem with this type of live performance is they contradicts everything about the need for perfection in their equipment. Firstly, such live performance are the reproduced sound from speakers. Which means they go through the processor and then gets amplified. The last I heard none of the so called synthesizers, electric guitar or even the digital keyboard had any of the audiophile approved fuse, cable, circuit board, outputs or even the speakers. The are actually in a way a reproduction of an artificial sound. Then it will go through the sound enforcement which usually made of amplifiers and speakers from pro audio equipment such Crown, JBL. Behringer, Presonus…..  And not to forget the role of sound engineer who controls the sound in real time to pan them for the special effect since the sound of the enforcement system is always in mono.

 

This is not the live performance I was referring.

 

For some people, perhaps. I despise "concert sound" - on rare occasions they get it right, brilliantly; mostly, it's a total disaster.

 

Synthesizers are a good test for a rig; the complexity of the generated waveforms, and the fact that they are not "organically" created means that the mind has less to grab onto; it's harder for the brain to latch onto what it's "supposed to sound like". Meaning, that if a setup is in the zone, then pure synthesizer compositions are amazing sound constructs; endlessly interesting places to explore, and highly satisfying.

[The Computer Audiophile]

The OP @STC has requested moderator access to this topic and it has been granted. 

[STC]

57 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Synthesizers are a good test for a rig; the complexity of the generated waveforms, and the fact that they are not "organically" created means that the mind has less to grab onto;

 

Have you tried resoldering the parts in the synth? I don’t believe they can be good unless they have gone through the magical process of yours. 

 

Btw, if you can one share one just one tweak with any system where you can show the difference I would like to try. I can even have soldered using ultrasonic and if you want I can even use gold ir silver mixed solder. Just show one evidence like this. 

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/55878-deltawave-null-testing-audio-comparator-beta/?do=findComment&comment=952181

 

I do have access to almost all kind of soldering equip. 

[STC]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The OP @STC has requested moderator access to this topic and it has been granted. 

 

This doesn’t work retrospectively? 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, STC said:

 

This doesn’t work retrospectively? 

Huh?

[STC]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Huh?

 

Initially, the feature was only available from your  post onwards. Now it is working for all posts. Thanks. 

 

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, STC said:

 

Oh dear! I am guilty of that.

 

 Let's hope that George doesn't read that.

[STC]

Just now, sandyk said:

 

 Let's hope that George doesn't read that.

Who is George?

[fas42]

23 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Have you tried resoldering the parts in the synth? I don’t believe they can be good unless they have gone through the magical process of yours. 

 

I was referring to recorded albums which are nothing but synth - they would take the signal from digital, best idea, or auxiliary out, so minimum 'pollution'.

 

23 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Btw, if you can one share one just one tweak with any system where you can show the difference I would like to try. I can even have soldered using ultrasonic and if you want I can even use gold ir silver mixed solder. Just show one evidence like this. 

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/55878-deltawave-null-testing-audio-comparator-beta/?do=findComment&comment=952181

 

I do have access to almost all kind of soldering equip. 

 

The type of thing I would do is to try and capture the sensitivity of the rig to interference effects. Personally, I have no trouble hearing the impact of "nasty stuff" on the mains, which means it would exist as a detectable difference - record the setup say at the speaker connections, with and without deliberate mains noise, and see if DW can pick something happening.

[sandyk]

Just now, STC said:

Who is George?

 

George Graves is an E.E who mainly posts in the General Forum area, and frequently admonishes members who report hearing differences between any type  (Coax, Interconnects, mains cables, speaker cables) of well constructed cables whether generic or uber expensive. Yes, he does have a lot of experience in the UHF and Microwave cable areas.

 

[STC]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

George Graves is an E.E who mainly posts in the General Forum area, and frequently admonishes members who report hearing differences between any type  (Coax, Interconnects, mains cables, speaker cables) of well constructed cables whether generic or uber expensive. Yes, he does have a lot of experience in the UHF and Microwave cable areas.

 

 

I know since late 90s in newsgroup days. Though he doesn’t recall them. Guess I was insignificant then. Those were the days where I believed green ink marker made a difference. 

[STC]

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I was referring to recorded albums which are nothing but synth - they would take the signal from digital, best idea, or auxiliary out, so minimum 'pollution'.

 

 

And how different is the sound from the synth which originates from  MIDI database going through almost similar process like a CD player or a computer is different?  How do even know that sound is correct since the manufacturing quality can vary from one brand to another. I have seen inside few of them. 

 

Quote

 

 

The type of thing I would do is to try and capture the sensitivity of the rig to interference effects. Personally, I have no trouble hearing the impact of "nasty stuff" on the mains, which means it would exist as a detectable difference - record the setup say at the speaker connections, with and without deliberate mains noise, and see if DW can pick something happening.

 

Dont tell me what to do. Just tell me one definite tweak in your 30 years that can be repeated. That’s not so difficult right?

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, STC said:

 

I know since late 90s in newsgroup days. Though he doesn’t recall them. Guess I was insignificant then. Those were the days where I believed green ink marker made a difference. 

 

 Green ink DID make a difference. However, later research showed that it increased Jitter, which many people seem to like a small amount of with systems that need a little added HF detail, even though it is artificial.

[STC]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 

 Green ink DID make a difference. However, later research showed that it increased Jitter, which many people seem to like a small amount of with systems that need a little added HF detail, even though it is artificial.

 

I thought so but Arny refused to believe. Anyway, such small difference even if existed no longer matters to me now since I want real tangible difference that doesn’t need extraordinary effort to hear micro details. 

[fas42]

5 minutes ago, STC said:

 

And how different is the sound from the synth which originates from  MIDI database going through almost similar process like a CD player or a computer is different?  How do even know that sound is correct since the manufacturing quality can vary from one brand to another. I have seen inside few of them. 

 

MIDI is something else again; that's merely the electrical equivalent to an old style piano roll; put the roll in different pianos, and you get different sound coming out. The digital output is the recording track for the instrument; it may have to be resampled to synch, but otherwise is 'pure'.

 

5 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Dont tell me what to do. Just tell me one definite tweak in your 30 years that can be repeated. That’s not so difficult right?

 

The obvious one is to hardwire all the connection between the gear - been mentioned many times; which was the first thing I did to the current NAD system. A reversible alternative is to carefully clean the mating surfaces, and very carefully apply silver contact paste - the local audio friend has used this on the areas where he's not willing to go the last step.

[STC]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

MIDI is something else again; that's merely the electrical equivalent to an old style piano roll; put the roll in different pianos, and you get different sound coming out. The digital output is the recording track for the instrument; it may have to be resampled to synch, but otherwise is 'pure'.

 

?????  Maybe we all should use Midi format then. 

 

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The obvious one is to hardwire all the connection between the gear - been mentioned many times; which was the first thing I did to the current NAD system. A reversible alternative is to carefully clean the mating surfaces, and very carefully apply silver contact paste - the local audio friend has used this on the areas where he's not willing to go the last step.

 Exact NAD model and the part where the changes done. Solder type, temperature and a picture. What changes to expect after the changes. 

[STC]

Sorry Frank. I have to remove your two posts. Just stick to the thread. Not hitting around the bush. Answer the question before asking new questions. 

[STC]

Audiophiles can benefit from experiment such as this. 

 

http://secure.campaigner.com/csb/Public/show/566i-11m9tb--kkc9f-2g9ppid0

 

 

[sandyk]

Incidentally,  you can listen to excerpts from various albums on the SoundKeeper Formats Comparison page and compare 24/192 against RBCD

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/format.htm

[STC]

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Incidentally,  you can listen to excerpts from various albums on the SoundKeeper Formats Comparison page and compare 24/192 against RBCD

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/format.htm

 

Thanks. Unfortunately, i can’t play them as I up or downsample all format to 24/96. Will forward the link to Mark and see if he will analyze them. 

[sandyk]

20 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Thanks. Unfortunately, i can’t play them as I up or downsample all format to 24/96. Will forward the link to Mark and see if he will analyze them.  

 

 That's a copout !

 All my PC stuff is upsampled to 24/192 by my old highly modified Musical Fidelity X-DAC V3 but I can still hear clear differences between files originally in 16./44.1 and 24/192 or 24/96

[STC]

32 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Incidentally,  you can listen to excerpts from various albums on the SoundKeeper Formats Comparison page and compare 24/192 against RBCD

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/format.htm

 

Just did a quick listening with Audacity and my laptop set to 192/24. Cheap earphones.I also included one more track which I downsampled the 192 version to 16/44.1.

 

Is there anyway in tracks that you could tell me the difference which is audible to you?

 

I only downloaded Minis Azaka. So let's confine to this. Just short excerpt where you could tell the diff.