Article: Guest Editorial: Why did audio stop being about audio?

[fas42]

30 minutes ago, emcdade said:

That’s an ad hominem.  The most frustrating of the replies.

 

There isn’t a measurement I know of that gets to the mechanics of speaker design and whether you prefer the box less (and balls-less imo) sound of an ESL vs. a sometimes boxy but more dynamic sound of drivers moving air.  I’m not talking spinorama stuff or the poor off axis response ESL’s are known for.

 

The mechanics of a speaker dictate the weaknesses - the suspension system of dynamic drivers is an extremely crude arrangement, irrespective of the cost of the unit - and stiction kills the quality of the sound when cold. ESLs don't have this, and can fly from turn-on ...QED

 

ESLs have that huge blast of treble in the centre, which disappears when you move sideways - a peculiar characteristic which has had various arrangements to compensate to some degree - but I have never been convinced of their virtues.

 

The boxiness of dynamic drivers can be eliminated by driving them hard, from cold - a workaround that I have used for decades, this conditions the suspensions, a necessary 'evil' each time - you know when you have done enough, because a satisfying 'bloom' emerges in the SQ.

 

But who measures this? The process of extracting best sound is complex, so many variables in play - fighting about what matters is downright silliness ... will "audio rage" be the next biggy, after, "road rage" ... 😲

 

 

[fas42]

The proof that "everything matters", or however you wish to phrase this approach, is that careful focusing in that manner delivers 'magic' sound - that is, you can put on a recording that sounds like sh!te on 99% of 'audiophile' rigs - and you are presented with a powerful, emotionally involving musical event that transports you; it delivers all that music is cracked up to be, 😀.

 

Of course, if you're not interested in that ... well, have a happy day, 😉.

[fas42]

A nice little, 'subjective', method of picking "Good Sound" - anyone vocalising, on any sort of recording, from opera to the crappiest rock thrash - sounds like a real person. That means, it doesn't sound like a PA interpretation, or a caricature of the human voice - you get a very powerful sense of it being a human being creating those sounds - it's a "direct link" to that person.

 

Which means that if it goes through some effects box that removes too much detail, the humanness switches off - older pop recordings can show this up quite dramatically; it's almost a shock when the effect "destroys" the person.

[fas42]

35 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

Archie Mago maybe?

 

Naahhh ... Archie Leach ....

[fas42]

6 hours ago, thyname said:

 

For some reason, whenever I start typing in my iPad, the auto-correct inserts that quote mark upfront. Only in my iPad. Too laze at times to go back and delete it, and it's annoying, as it does it again, even after I delete it, so I have to try a few times. I just gave up dealing with it. Hopefully this satisfies your curiosity

 

Thanks for reminding me why dealing with computer software has given me immense pleasure over the years - ahh, the joys of a program doing some really, really stupid thing; and then spending a staggering amount of time and effort trying to track it down ... but never finally squashing it ... hmmm, did someone mention, printer queues ... ?

[fas42]

7 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

 

I have found objectivism more limiting.  Let me provide an example and say that I am open to you changing my mind.

 

 

Of course it is - the classic type as found in forums most certainly is; they rely on a subset of all possible measurements that are relevant, because the other stuff is "too hard!" - and they never measure a complete system, in operation.

 

Until this is sorted, people will have to rely on their ears; no other way around it - and what subjectivists object to is objectivists being aggressively "sarcastic and dismissive", hurling stones from their ivory towers - when the flaws in how the objectivists think are patently obvious, to the other crowd ...

[fas42]

34 minutes ago, Wilderness said:

 

I'm listening to Sondra Sun-Odeon right now, and she is carrying me away.  That can't be measured (or can it?).  I think it would be cool if someone would invent a device that could measure how we are affected by music and the equipment we use to listen to it.

 

Yes, it can be measured ... what you are reacting to is lack of disturbing distortion and/or modulated noise, which the majority of audio systems always add to the sound field. What the precise nature of those anomalies are is currently difficult to separate out, and these flaws are a result of complex, dynamic behaviours of various parts of the rig - it's the qualities that instantly makes any audio system identifiable as "just another hifi ..." even before you have sighted any part of it.

 

A device to measure it? If you're moved by live music, and have no trouble sensing when a setup fails to deliver - then your brain is plenty good enough to pick it. Rather than try to measure it, vastly more useful, I would say, is knowing what to do to a system to shift it over into the right 'zone' ...

[fas42]

18 hours ago, esldude said:

Frequency response, often from an amplifier interacting with the speaker impedance would be a reason they sound different.  I think the old saying is still correct..............85% of hifi is frequency response.

 

Nope. I've heard too many examples of fiddling with FR, by myself, and it being done in the "best possible way" with a DEQX box, which creates a ruler flat graph, to see anything there. A rig with problems still has the same problems - the dreaded 'signature' is still there in all its glory; I'm still listening to the same hifi boxes ...

[fas42]

Empirical? Did I hear the word, empirical ... gosh, we might have a bit of this around here, makes me feel warm and cosy ... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/aug/09/why-one-nation-senator-malcolm-roberts-demand-for-empirical-evidence-on-climate-change-is-misleading-bunk

[fas42]

The recording is a test of the system playing it. Not the other way round. "Halfway there", expensive gear does the job well enough to make you aware of every tiny flaw, in everything. But not well enough to allow one to discard the irritating shortcomings, and let the music alone come through ...