Jump to content
IGNORED

Understanding the Audiophiles community.


Recommended Posts

This is not a contest, ST - decent playback can be achieved by many people, using different techniques. What we are mostly all after is not being given obvious clues to the source of the sound -  playing "guess which are which" games gets one nowhere ...

Link to comment
1 hour ago, STC said:

 

This thread is about understanding  audiophiles. Understanding about  their extraordinary claims. It is very much about your ability to turn your players ( Sharp speakers and NAD) to be better than Avant-garde system. You said it. 

 

I say, one can evolve a fairly ordinary system to give the sort of subjective performance that the Avantgarde system demonstrated in the video. Obviously, the Sharp speakers, etc, are not "better" on many levels - but they can provide the subjective 'kick' that makes for very satisfying listening.

 

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

So please teach us the magical power where you frequently post youtube videos and elaborate the SQ. That special talent is so rare. I have not seen anyone who could do that. I have a good pool of incredibly talented musicians and recording engineers who also know one or two stuff about SQ.  Even with my own videos that I recorded, i wouldn’t able to tell. 

 

The 'trick' is to eradicate all especially annoying distortions introduced in the playback chain. And absolutely nothing about EQ.

 

1 hour ago, STC said:

Where else you expect the voice of the listeners to be since they were recorded in the same room? What about those time where you used to tell you could be transported to the orginal event just by listening to the Youtube sound. Do you see your own contradiction?

 

Unless, the audio wasn’t even the sound of that system? :)  

 

Did I say I could be transported to the original event when listening to YouTube clips on my laptop? I would be interested to see where this was posted ...

 

Yes, oftentimes the audio is not of the rig - the video is a blingfest, with background filler sound.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, STC said:

 

This thread is about understanding  audiophiles. Understanding about  their extraordinary claims. It is very much about your ability to turn your players ( Sharp speakers and NAD) to be better than Avant-garde system. You said it. 

 

So please teach us the magical power where you frequently post youtube videos and elaborate the SQ. That special talent is so rare. I have not seen anyone who could do that. I have a good pool of incredibly talented musicians and recording engineers who also know one or two stuff about SQ.  Even with my own videos that I recorded, i wouldn’t able to tell. 

 

Yes, this is about  understanding your gift. Understanding whether you really know the difference or not. BTW, remember you said “ ...the music has the sense of being in the same place as the as the voice of the listeners.”  

 

Where else you expect the voice of the listeners to be since they were recorded in the same room? What about those time where you used to tell you could be transported to the orginal event just by listening to the Youtube sound. Do you see your own contradiction?

 

Unless, the audio wasn’t even the sound of that system? :)  

 

You know, not really arguing- but most audiophiles I know personally do seem to occasionally exhibit a flash of genius, at least about audio reproduction. Or recording, or something along those lines. Not always, and not necessarily often, but occasionally enough to tell me they really love the hobby.

 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 Actually, my rigs will all sound a little laid back to most people.  

 

 Including the one in the 4WD ? :D

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Well, to each their own. My rigs may sound like they "blare" to you, but to me they sound "just right."  Actually, my rigs will all sound a little laid back to most people.  

And they are visually subdued enough that I can enjoy the music, without visual distraction. 

 

Paul, I'm sure your rig is in the Goldilocks zone, for you ... ^_^. What I particularly value is to be able to put on any recording, and for that to sound "just right' - that's not so easy.

 

The visuals are irrelevant to me - whether dull as dishwater, or blindingly Christmas tree; if the rig does the job of being audibly invisible, that's what counts.

 

Subdued? Here's a rig that can pull off the invisible trick, with speakers well over 50 years old ...

 

dsc052233.jpg?w=788

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

You know, not really arguing- but most audiophiles I know personally do seem to occasionally exhibit a flash of genius, at least about audio reproduction. Or recording, or something along those lines. Not always, and not necessarily often, but occasionally enough to tell me they really love the hobby.

 

 

I have no problem with that. I do encourage them. I know a few who could produce great playback even with their modest system. One thing that is common with them is they have a working product to show. Not just words and like some prophets revealing all the mysteries in the world which we all know how well they work. Every single thread, there will be some comments about some magic which being repeated ad infinitum with nothing to show. I even gave him the opportunity by making actual recordings where he alleges that he can sense real sound by listening through windows or something like that. End of the day, we spend more time talking about that than matters related to the OP. 

 

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Paul, I'm sure your rig is in the Goldilocks zone, for you ... ^_^. What I particularly value is to be able to put on any recording, and for that to sound "just right' - that's not so easy.

 

The visuals are irrelevant to me - whether dull as dishwater, or blindingly Christmas tree; if the rig does the job of being audibly invisible, that's what counts.

 

Subdued? Here's a rig that can pull off the invisible trick, with speakers well over 50 years old ...

 

dsc052233.jpg?w=788

 

You heard these old cinema speakers yourself or read the review of another audiophile and regurgitate them here? 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, STC said:

 

You heard these old cinema speakers yourself or read the review of another audiophile and regurgitate them here? 

 

No. Other audio enthusiasts have heard them, and their description of experiencing the sound ticks the boxes of what the characteristics of convincing sound are. For example, there is no "sweet spot"; one can listen anywhere in the room, and the same auditory picture presents itself.

 

This particular rig is the outcome of a long journey for the owner; it didn't fall out of the sky, just because of the speakers.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, shtf said:

 

Actually it's a bit more simplified than that.

 

1.  Perhaps 85% or more of the less than 1% who label themselves as "audiophiles" lack any real ability to discern / interpret what they hear.  IOW, they are convinced they are born with this skill since they were born with 2 ears and passed a hearing test 2 years ago.  This includes engineers, scientists, manufacturers, dealers, distributors, reviewers, editors-in-chief, etc.

 

Some reviewers are doing it because they got no choice but in private they admit. I even know a manufacturer admitted that their cable makes no difference but a man got to eat. Some reviewers will go way out to please the manufacturers but some will try their best to be neutral. I don't blame them. That's business. 

 

Add no 10: Some will even change their musical liking to fit their system because other genres sound horrible in their system.

 

The difference that audiophiles hear in their system due to changes and tweaks was explained much earlier. In fact, Ralph Glasgal handed a paper to John Atkinson in 1995 where he pointed out "....All these factors make high quality stereo systems exquisitely sensitive to any small tweaks that differentially or in some cases absolutely modify the spurious peaks and nulls generated by the traditional stereo triangle. …." 

 

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

No. Other audio enthusiasts have heard them, and their description of experiencing the sound ticks the boxes of what the characteristics of convincing sound are.

 

In Australia?

 

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

 

For example, there is no "sweet spot"; one can listen anywhere in the room, and the same auditory picture presents itself.

 

If there is no sweet spot than it is not stereo. Simple as that. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

This particular rig is the outcome of a long journey for the owner; it didn't fall out of the sky, just because of the speakers. 

 

I know how he got that. That's immaterial. Your opinion is hearsay. 

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, STC said:

 

I have no problem with that. I do encourage them. I know a few who could produce great playback even with their modest system. One thing that is common with them is they have a working product to show. Not just words and like some prophets revealing all the mysteries in the world which we all know how well they work. Every single thread, there will be some comments about some magic which being repeated ad infinitum with nothing to show. I even gave him the opportunity by making actual recordings where he alleges that he can sense real sound by listening through windows or something like that. End of the day, we spend more time talking about that than matters related to the OP. 

 

 

Which shows you don't understand why people do the sort of things I do.  The "magic" is in the recordings - without resorting to fancy tricks or manipulation of the presentation; just the clearest rendering of what was captured delivers a major emotional kick - anything less than that standard is so obviously lacking that one pays it little attention.

 

The "working product" is not easy to consistently produce - if it were, then it would be everywhere, already. The nature of the beast makes it difficult - which is not the same thing as it not being there at all.

 

 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Which is a perfectly valid journey of course. It also has the one of the easier paths. When you happen to like other kinds of music, such as progressive rock or music that is created in the studio, like the Alan Parsons or Pink Floyd stuff, there is no such thing as unaltered or lifelike. It isn't meant to be a recording of a real event. 

 

So other journeys are far more complex and leave a lot of room to the imagination that the simple recordings of concert events just do not allow for. On the other hand, a "purist" view is really fun to take when listening to old albums. (50 years +.)  :)

 

No matter which type of music you like to listen to, the recordings are already "made" with the type of sound the artist like it to have (unaltered, garage, etc). With a system that is made to reproduce the sound as unaltered and lifelike as possible you actually get closest to what the artist wanted it to sound like. That includes everything from bombastic DUB and industrial to classic and everything between.  

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, STC said:

 

In Australia?

 

In Utah.

 

9 minutes ago, STC said:

 

If there is no sweet spot than it is not stereo. Simple as that. 

 

 

Which is the conventional wisdom. I take stereo as meaning just left and right channels are operating; and a setup operating below the necessary standard of SQ will present stereo in the manner you're familiar with - but pass that quality barrier, and an invisible system is in the room. I have had a particular setup slip in and out of the necessary zone many times in a single day, as I make adjustments, reset the gear, etc - if you don't understand my description of the illusion, then you have never experienced it.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Since you are not answering, I take it you just read in some forum and post here. 

 

Ahh, the implication is that all experiences that people describe having, in an Internet forum, must be "fake" - including people on AS reporting on audio shows, etc, :).

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

No matter which type of music you like to listen to, the recordings are already "made" with the type of sound the artist like it to have (unaltered, garage, etc). With a system that is made to reproduce the sound as unaltered and lifelike as possible you actually get closest to what the artist wanted it to sound like. That includes everything from bombastic DUB and industrial to classic and everything between.  

 

Guess we may have to disagree there, but it is all good.  I do not really think a system designed to reproduce a symphony will sound all that good with a singer songwriter where the vocal carries the magic. Or any of a dozen different types of music. Near field listening with a superb monitor come close,  but not all that close. :)

 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
9 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

It's extremely simple for me - when enough has been done to eradicate disturbing anomalies in the sound, giveaways to the brain that the playback is "fake", then the presentation switches to a dramatically higher level of realism - the illusion of a live performance is rock solid.

 

99.999% of rigs, irrespective of cost, are miles from this zone - the 'fun' is coaxing the setup to achieve this level ... it's a win-win, all the way ... ^_^.

 

To get an unaltered and lifelike sound is not easy and no system can fool me to believe that it is a live event I listen to. Some can get much closer than others, but never 100%. It is of course not only because of the audio system. The recordings studios, mics etc imposes its own sound as well.

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

In Utah.

 

Yes. What you are doing is repeating where you took the picture from

 

https://audiocirc.com/2017/10/10/red-rocks/

 

 

 

 

37 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

 

Which is the conventional wisdom. I take stereo as meaning just left and right channels are operating; and a setup operating below the necessary standard of SQ will present stereo in the manner you're familiar with - but pass that quality barrier, and an invisible system is in the room. I have had a particular setup slip in and out of the necessary zone many times in a single day, as I make adjustments, reset the gear, etc - if you don't understand my description of the illusion, then you have never experienced it.

 

Sorry, I live in a real world. If stereo do not produce sweet spot then it is out of phase. 

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Guess we may have to disagree there, but it is all good.  I do not really think a system designed to reproduce a symphony will sound all that good with a singer songwriter where the vocal carries the magic. Or any of a dozen different types of music. Near field listening with a superb monitor come close,  but not all that close. :)

 

 

Do you have any system in your mind that was designed to reproduce  a symphony?

 

 

30 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

To get an unaltered and lifelike sound is not easy and no system can fool me to believe that it is a live event I listen to. Some can get much closer than others, but never 100%. It is of course not only because of the audio system. The recordings studios, mics etc imposes its own sound as well.

 

 

No stereo system can fool you to believe it is a live performance. That's why when you use normal microphones to capture the sound of speakers playback they will sound blurred and fake. See post #151. Try the same trick by recording a vocal in mono and replay them with a single speaker. the recording will be real even in reproduction.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Which shows you don't understand why people do the sort of things I do.  The "magic" is in the recordings - without resorting to fancy tricks or manipulation of the presentation; just the clearest rendering of what was captured delivers a major emotional kick - anything less than that standard is so obviously lacking that one pays it little attention.

 

The "working product" is not easy to consistently produce - if it were, then it would be everywhere, already. The nature of the beast makes it difficult - which is not the same thing as it not being there at all.

 

 

 

Mmm... I am bothered a bit by the generalizations. There is simply no way that, in direct comparison, a set of $49 speakers will produce the same or as good a result as say, a $600 pair of Maggie’s. Or as a pair of $2400 Harbeth P3ESRs. It makes zero sense.

 

Now, is it possible a $100 amp can sound a whole lot like a $5000 amp? Yes, because the absolute value of the difference of output between amps is much smaller than that between speakers. Likely? No. 

 

Also, the “sweet spot” - it is Possible, with beam formed transmission arrays, to have the sweet spot follow a person’s location around much of a normal room. It is not possible to do that with two $49 speakers. 

 

It is possible to put an enjoyable system together with $49 speakers. But you are getting a little loosey goosey about what is possible, and short on details of exactly how to accomplish this magic.

 

Can we back off a little please? Maybe drop the intensity from 11 back to 2 or 3? 

 

 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
4 hours ago, STC said:

 

Do you have any system in your mind that was designed to reproduce  a symphony?

 

 

I do, but it isn’t mine. Five big Maggie’s, custom built room, audio components littered with evil glowing tubes. Sounds like being at the concert. Lovely, but not my style.

 

There is also that orchestra that uses small Maggie’s in the string section to boost the section. It was a story in Stereophile a while back. Amazing stuff.

 

Obviously, I am a Magnepan fan. ;) 

 

Quote

 

 

No stereo system can fool you to believe it is a live performance. That's why when you use normal microphones to capture the sound of speakers playback they will sound blurred and fake. See post #151. Try the same trick by recording a vocal in mono and replay them with a single speaker. the recording will be real even in reproduction.

 

(*sigh*) This is an old saw that everyone knows, but everyone has also heard an exception to. And those exceptions grow more and more common. 

 

All of us have been fooled, at least for a short time, occasionally.  A system can be built that will fool you, at least for a short while, and on some specific material. Yeah - modern systems are that good. Even a very average TV today will fool you with doorbells or phones. Much less a high end system with multi channel sound. 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...