The Environmental thread + Conventional (HI-FI) wisdom is almost always invariably wrong

[PeterSt]

13 minutes ago, semente said:

How can a "superbly tuned setup" improve on a bad recording such as what you get from the 17-40?

It just can't.

 

It is infinitely more complicated than that;

If the sharpness is rendered, say, too slow, you will be bothered by distortion and all you don't want to hear. The 17-40 can not present this sharpness in the first place, so you can't be bothered by the "side effects" of that, which happens downstream (say a too slow speaker).

 

This is how audio does NOT perform to its weakest link in the chain; A weakest link can be a pleasant filter (yes, also a stuffed ears filter - again good in now way).

 

Of course it will be theoretically best if all links are at 100%, but the day that this will happen will never occur (in my view).

 

With this line of thinking, I work explicitly on these "links" for over 10 years by now. Solve the lens and meet the sensor. Solve the sensor and meet the noise reduction. Solve the noise reduction and meet the AA filter. Solve the AA filter and meet moiré (which you knew in advance). A process of 10 years and now we're stuck at the moiré thing.

... Which accidentally is total rubbish because in real practice I personally don't run into it at all. Maybe I know what to avoid inherently (could be the BS story of BS).

 

Yes, I was talking about audio, although the process counts for the DCS Pro 14 whatever and today evolves to the A7R III. I assume you know what I am talking about ...

 

I did not read the article. 

[PeterSt]

Of course people know what this is (apart from being a 100% crop, taken in candle light by hand, at 1.4 / ISO 320) ...

 

[PeterSt]

Warning: this post probably won't make much sense.

 

This one is for fun, for @accwai, also taken from the web. 

 

 

100% crop of the one upfront :

 

 

(don't forget to zoom in because this is still more than half of a meter wide at 96DPI or so)

 

I'll stop wasting bandwidth now.

 

Anyway this was about not using an AA filter and not needing any processing - different from what your photos require, as far as I can see  e.g. the one in the mountains. Also :

Once you are used to what sharpening does, you can't avoid the painstaking "too much sparkle" of it.

I am not 100% sure that you did this to your orchids as well, but it seems so. Here's an example which may look similar but where no sharpening was applied at all:

 

So this is just reality and next we may wonder whether we like that reality or not (the basil seems to suffer a little).

 

What we may also get from this, is that a too pinpointed focus gives a too shallow picture of the whole. Think sweetspot. IOW, I am under the impression that these (my) photos hurt more than that they are beautiful. Palpable but wrong to the brain. Still, with more depth of field things may even become more hazy because now I (my brain) will not be able to focus on something automatically.

 

16 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Also, the fact you can see the performance makes a really huge difference. Visual + Auditory perception is never equal to just auditory perception. 

 

So envision that you are in front of a large orchestra and with eyes closed you want to focus on this beautiful woman violinist (violin section counts 7). Would it work ?

Would it NOT work with eyes open ?

IOW, our playback system must help us a little in focusing. This is just one aspect of things we could think about. How to let that work is something else, but in my experiences all aids which broaden the sound stage artificially (like ByBees) only confuse (which is logic in the end). It is nice at first (wow, a REAL church ?!?) but it is tiring as hell.

 

I see I jump from the one to the other. But that happens when there is just so much to think about and improve upon.

 

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

But all “soundstage” is built upon illusion.

 

I don't agree with that much; 

With everything I incur for over here regarding "sound stage", referring to sounds or instruments in the room playing (through two loudspeakers), two persons could be in a very different part of the room (say 20ft apart), them both pointing at the same position where a sound or instrument is heard. Obviously this does not work throughout (say it requires special sounds) but it is the beginning of the untruth in the sound stage being an illusion.

 

Something else is that I don't sense the illusion at  all, when deliberately changing e.g. depth, which really can be too much as well. First, however, you must observe those individual sounds and experience how physical they are. Once that starts to happen, you can also sense/feel/"see" how energy won't get lost and how a super flat sound stage bears way too much energy to be happy about (apart from the flatness). I think I described that in the Lush^2 thread, with that one coincidentally found configuration incurring for this. Super dense and uncomfortable sound.

Now assumed you believe me that this happens, can you try to explain to me how it would be an illusion ? this is just physics. Physics with sound waves which are a bit less visible (unless you smoke a lot), but not difficult to understand.

 

Much more difficult to understand is how Mr Wang or Wong of whatever 's sugar cubes can so enormously widen the sound stage. But once that hurdle has been taken (just don't try to understand it), it is again easy to see how all vaguens (gets vague / confused) instead of being pin pointed. It is the opposite of dense, and also not good.

 

IMO illusion starts to happen when all sounds so good that you get drunk on the (sweet)spot because of adrenaline levels and things can't sound wrong any more. Personally I take that into account too and try not to be too excited. Fact is that it is allowed to be excited because the sheer fact that everything sounds so good "today" is because "today" a change was applied and it works out (apparently). Adrenaline level is now a measure in itself.

 

Of course I live in voodoo land. But Paul, in the days you couldn't hear a difference in anything whatsoever ((as you told yourself) I hope that changed by now) and I already did for a couple of years, I proceeded and proceeded on it. The experience grows and grows. And it can only get better of it.

 

Anyway, I really wonder how people see sound perception as illusions, while all what happens is that we process frequencies and phase angles with two ears and a bit of brains capable of that and two sources as radiators also capable of that. And this in sheer 3D when the frequencies are high enough (which they are not for audio - just saying).

 

PS: Maybe how we perceive a violin as a violin is an illusion or make-up. But I don't think the sound stage is an illusion. Mind you, the "stage" as a technical aspect. Who you see on it and how is again something else. For example, if I hear an actually beautiful electric bass playing punk riffs, I envision the (English) guy standing there almost moveless apart from moving his right hand up and down, etc. etc. This can only work if I first perceive the bass and its wood as how it really is/was - the other matters I imagine with it. Of course this is all derived from how Iggy Pop ever back smashed a plant to pieces when you and me were programming PDP11's (OK, a couple of years after that but with a lot of lust for life). So yes, much of it is illusion. But sound stage as such ... I don't think so.

Blahblah

[PeterSt]

The high horse level in this thread starts to be, well, high.

[PeterSt]

18 minutes ago, Paul R said:

and I would be interested in popular explanations from professionals about the subject, including tips and tricks for say, recording church youth choirs to the best effect.

 

Paul, from the perspective of a not-American, you look mighty much like an American. 

[PeterSt]

23 minutes ago, Paul R said:

and I would be interested in popular explanations

 

I wrote a same post something like 8 hours ago, but I did not post it. About elaboration and such.

It is useless for someone who is right in the first place.

 

I hope you see my previous post as positive. I would not be able to make it that ...

 

Btw, playing Atom Heart Mother Suite right now. Man, is this beautiful. I knew this, but it is a year ago I played it. And it gets better and better. Maybe no height, but highs, yes.

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, JanRSmit said:

Ever tried to listen with eyes closed?

 

I don't, as it allows for illegal imagination.

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Dazed and confused? Yep. 🤪

 

No. May would be that.

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, Paul R said:

By the way, to me, it seems to me on that whole album that sounds localized in the center are higher than the sounds on the sides.

 

Coincidentally (not) I observed where the highs reside (btw the best), but nothing is higher or lower etc. than at the (my) listening plane (longitudinal). What I noticed this occasion is the sub low at the beginning of the first (Suite) track. Notice that this is the MFSL (not hight passed for LP if all is right).

 

7 minutes ago, Paul R said:

The motorcycle, for instance, seems to run right over one

 

Somehow I noticed this too and thought of a Harley. I never noticed it before.

As I said, it's getting better and better (as flat as always in your book - haha).

 

Try the Motor Cycle Song from Arlo Guthrie if you don't know it. This was my big fun when I was 12 or so.

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, Allan F said:

What is the basis for your statement regarding speaker placement?

 

[PeterSt]

40 minutes ago, elcorso said:

I was not referring to pop commercial recordings, but to some excellent classical music without catastrophic phase manipulations, where practically the speakers disappear and not everything is in the center of the speakers, where the boundaries of the speakers are exceeded in every way .  In jazz these jewels are also sometimes found.

 

Wait ... In my experience not any single recording / album / etc. appears in the center or let show the position of the speakers. Not any. I am serious. And I play albums at random.

If this happens, something is seriously wrong (and that easily can be a "wrong" USB cable configuration - just saying).

 

I never even thought of a possible variation in "recordings" as such. And I am still serious !

 

The clear exception is: LP playback; All is relative, but that comes across as virtually mono. And btw, I actually never hear vinyl addicts complain about this, while for me it is THE reason not to play vinyl rips.

 

My channel separation is better than 140dB. Maybe that matters (read: suppose you guys have way less channel separation, what actually would you perceive from "worse" recordings ?).

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

(and that easily can be a "wrong" USB cable configuration - just saying).

 

@elcorso, I wasn't referring to your (possible) wrong configuration. I was only trying to take distance of certain USB cables as this is not the subject. Still it is a proven fact that such a configuration can easily be the "cause" of such an exhibit. Like the ultra flat and super condensed very annoying sound can be implies by the USB cable configuration (not sure whether you tried that particular one). Btw, this was so condensed and ultra flat *plus* the extraordinary channel separation with it, that it really was (is) the most strange playback situation I ever ran in to. And I could show it to you in a few seconds (of USB cable change).

[PeterSt]

Here:

 

On 1/16/2019 at 11:26 AM, PeterSt said:

This config bears all kinds of oddities

 

Please try to read that whole post. A few excerpts from it:

 

- Super wide sound stage.

- For a first time ever I could detect a most clear adding up of volume when walking through the middle (say sweet spot) from left to right and back. Something like "hey, in the sweet spot this is 6dB louder".

- Depth is very shallow. All plays at the level of the speakers themselves.

Especially this latter one intrigues me largely, already because I never experienced that.

 

What adds to this is the wide sound stage (well beyond the speakers, never mind all those who claim this can't exist). So it is the whole presentation which is new to me.

 

The way I think about these matters is that the relatively flat layer of depth now contains all the music, while otherwise it is spread over the many feet towards you and nothing doing so much individually. Now, all being stored in a compact container, it seems to fight for freedom and pushes against each other. Think buzz and you get the idea (hopefully).

 

... So I have been making this up all for the special occasion of today, right ?

So read how I am super puzzled about how a so shallow depth can exist. IOW, this is not normal at all for my situation. And / BUT, a stupid same USB cable can do it.

 

What do we actually think we are comparing with a bunch of forum posts, eh ? can we ever ?

Maybe not.

 

 

[PeterSt]

16 minutes ago, STC said:

Or are we creating a mental image based on the relative level of other instruments and knowledge of prior memory of such performance?

 

There is no single brain cell in me (and I have at least 3 of them) that ever thought about such idiocy. And mind you please, I am working continuously on these matters (read: I really try to think about this all and I really try to improve day in day out, without exception).

 

I am afraid that your ambio setup does not allow you to judge straight any more. And especially if you are doing this for say 10 years by now, you are 10 years behind. Not kidding. The whole circles you reside in could be - or should be. This is not bad thinking or blaming or whatever. It *is* about you just not being able to judge because your setup does not allow for that.

 

17 minutes ago, Paul R said:

I assume you are not quoting from 60 years old pamphlets?

 

I thought exactly the same. Hence this post (though Paul was first at posting his). Really.

[PeterSt]

4 minutes ago, sandyk said:

The BEST

 

Off topic. 

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, STC said:

Why is that it so difficult to keep on topic and rebut what I said?

 

IMO you have no topic. Yes, yours. But it is incomparable. So now I can;t judge your situation because I'm only a poor stereo gay.

 

Speaking about ...

 

3 minutes ago, STC said:

I am talking to someone who never grasped stereo principles correctly in the first place.

 

Any particular reason to claim this ?

[PeterSt]

 

 

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Any particular reason to claim this ?

 

Ah, I already know.

 

What adds to this is the wide sound stage (well beyond the speakers, never mind all those who claim this can't exist)

 

That.

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, STC said:

Yes. as you admitted - you are a poor stereo gay.  

 

Oh, it is about the gay. Hmm.

280.

[PeterSt]

@STC, let's cut this out. The thread was doing fine (IMO). Now it goes off track.

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Happy and Gay was correctly used until the LGBT community corrupted it's meaning.

 

XX

[PeterSt]

Are you the real Tarzan then ? 

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, Paul R said:

So? Growing up in Florida, you have snakes [...]

 

Come on now Paul, you have no jungle there. Only small swamps. Well, just don't go in there (or try the real ones which are a bit more towards the Mississippi. )

 

[PeterSt]

5 minutes ago, Paul R said:

She was near on 12ft.

 

Maybe better just eat them then (lovely meat).

 

I had the Atchafalaya Basin (LA) in mind. The one which enters from the north by means of a 30 mile or so long bridge. Bayou area I'd say. Maybe the swamp you refer to is bigger. Maybe I am wrong all over. And no, I don't think we ever made it to the Everglades. By the time we had to turn South for that, we headed for Nascar county / north instead.

 

[PeterSt]

22 minutes ago, STC said:

It is always bigger and better over there.

 

I am sure Paul was making fun a little as everybody knows a jungle is different somewhat from a swamp. At least I think I know. In my view this is similar to living in the jungle vs not living in a swamp (never mind what Paul just said about the Bayou area is true just the same).

 

In the end I can't know a thing. I live close to Amsterdam. The most dangerous thing we can do over here is speeding.  if we go 1000 Km to the east we may run into a wild bear or two. That's about it.