Warming up for best performance.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Racerxnet said:

 

Did someone hit you in the head with a rock and you are now seeing stars. You say the most moronic and stupid things which are meaningless to the discussion. Your stars are out of alignment. Good grief.

 

Assuming some people are treating this thread as a place to put forward their experiences with warming up, rather than continue with the joke of the OP ... I mention mine. And describe what are some of the complicating factors.

 

I appreciate most are enthralled with the concept of using more and more impressive bits of kit - but IME this doesn't work. Unless you understand the basics. And one of them is that the integrity of every part of the playback chain has to be "good enough" - warming up is one, easy and effective, method of pushing at least some parts of the chain closer to that goal.

 

If you're after simple answers, that fit in with standard mindsets, that's fine. But I don't hear good sound from nearly all rigs built that way. If you're not interested in investigating alternative approaches, that's OK too - but there's no need to be unpleasant about it.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, STC said:

Understand this, as we progress with this hobby, the sound should get better. It should be repeatable. It shouldn’t  be guess work and open up your system to others. 
 

 

ST, it's always been repeatable ... but it's fragile. There's a huge difference in those two words - as anyone who ventures into this area discovers, achieving and then maintaining the necessary standard is not easy. People like Blackmorec and Pano. And the reason for this being the situation is that the fundamental engineering of the components, and methods to connect those components, is not to a high enough standard.

 

It's not guesswork. It's experience; learning to listen, very, very carefully to the clues your system gives you when things are altered; and being prepared to do 'major surgery'.

 

1 hour ago, STC said:

I have mentioned to you before that you remind me of a late audiophile with budget equipment. He did weird stuff liking stacking the speakers and adding about 8 cheap subwoofer. His secret was one clock which was designed by his Japanese friend. At least that’s what he believed and refused to share to anyone. He died about 8 years ago bringing his secret with him. 
 

 

There's never a single secret. Ever. What's required is compensating for the issues in the particular system, to the point where those anomalies are largely inaudible. And for any one system, there could be multiple ways to address the issues ... even, 8 cheap subwoofers 😉.

 

1 hour ago, STC said:

He was although very active in the forum, no big time audiophiles ever visited him. Even when he invited me, I only went out of respect as I am not expecting a hi Fidelity sound from the JVC player.  But to my surprise, it sounded reasonable well at moderate level. Definitely better than another expensive system who was one the high end audiophile ever visited him and who actually discouraged me from visiting him. 
 

I never got a chance to look at the clock but his room was well treated and the use of the 8 sub worked well to keep them below audible distortion.
 

 

 

Yes, the 8 subs meant that the hardware was not pushed into areas it was obviously having problems. The clock may just have been enough of a quality increase which addressed an underlying weakness - and that's how all of this type of optimising works ... you see, "cheap stuff" will do the job if you understand and respect the limitations.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, STC said:

Try adjusting the output offset bias in a large monstrous amplifier. 
 

You can use the same sentence with slight modifications in any field saying what looks like very important but totally useless. 

 

Bias was completely irrelevant to my sample of a "monstrous amp" ... it had power supply issues; which I spent months and years working on - learning as I went. And so it ended up behaving itself, 😉.

 

You determine what the weaknesses are for your setup - doing it any other way is pointless, a waste of time, money and energy ... do you want your car mechanic to 'fix' the things he likes fixing - or, sort out the problem you went to him about, 😜.

[fas42]

20 minutes ago, STC said:

Repeatable means repeatable. Not a flash or two in 35 years. You do not have it now because it cannot be repeated. 

 

Of course it can be repeated ... it's merely allowing what is on the recording to be presented accurately enough, so that a convincing illusion is formed. The recordings will retain their data 'forever' - and it just requires someone to go to the necessary effort.

 

You see, if your great dream is to, say, drive a car at 160 mph - once you've got there, the itch to make it happen subsides - you don't have to go out and do it every week ... "just to prove it can be done ... for the 1,000th time ..." 😊.

 

Quote

 

The rest of the replies are irrelevant and speculative without even knowing what and how my friend used the sub and clock. This is what irritates us do to your nature to comment on things you have not a slightest idea. 

 

My interest is understanding why someone has achieved a better standard of SQ - when you've done this awhile, you start recognising the steps, as done by others, 😉.

[fas42]

51 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

IMHO, your approach to this hobby doesn't seem like a lot of fun.

 

I'd rather spend my time listening to music than endless hours of futzing around with my equipment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm happy to sit in the the 95 - 99% range ...

 

If I listen to playback, it either has to be so "downmarket" that all the limitations are irrelevant - say, the car radio - or ambitious enough, and sorted, so that whatever I listen to doesn't irritate me, because of the replay shortcomings ... the current NAD rig is good enough for the latter, much of the time.

 

My "fun" is taking on the challenge of getting the most out of whatever - I have a whole host of non-audio things about the house, which have to be fixed, or brought up to speed - I don't 'do', purchased solutions ...

[fas42]

22 minutes ago, STC said:

But you couldn’t. If you have heard a good sound system you would not be still harping with the old laptop and the speakers. If you are going to tell that your laptop speakers sound more realistically than my system, I would want to say BS but your friend will angry. You don’t have anything to show. You are still working on it. WE GET IT. You have repeated the same. Now put some evidence or stop. 

 

What, you too, harping on about the laptop ??! ... try and get this straight, OK - the small Toshiba I'm typing on right now has "miserable" SQ ... okay? ... ... Happy now ??

 

[fas42]

7 minutes ago, STC said:

Ask yourself from where for got that from. You cannot talk about competent system when you are without a reasonably competent system to compare. If your reference been a minicompo than it is impossible to talk about a proper high fidelity sound. That is making objective comparisons. Having said that it is always possibly to enjoy music even with such simplistic system by conditioning our mind. That’s what enjoy music and let our imagining is about. Know that difference. Reproducing sound and enjoying music are different aspect of this hobby. 

 

How many times can I say, "Oh dear, ..." 🤨 ...

 

I don't know what good sound is, if I don't have something around that reminds me what good sound is, eh?? Something like, if I was stranded on a desert island and didn't hear a real piano for that whole time - that I would have no idea what a piano sounded like - and would have to retrain myself to appreciate the sound of that instrument, once rescued ..perhaps?

 

Luckily, I seem to be the odd man out here - I can go for years without listening to a typical audiophile's rig, and when I do I instantly hear what's wrong when it tries to imitate a piano - guess it's just natural talent, eh? 🤩

[fas42]

To what ...?