The problem with subjective impressions

[fas42]

The 'problem' of audio is in fact extremely simple, if you use a certain perspective on it. What one should be after, IMO, is what's on the recording - the equipment, irrespective of how expensive or blingy it is, is always merely a means to an end. Of course, many people don't see it that way - the method of procuring what one is theoretically after is dominated by a deep fascination with the equipment used, and largely subsumes the nominal goal ... the photography person who is obsessed with lenses and camera bodies, the fisherman who agonises on precisely the perfect tackle to use - the fish caught is largely irrelevant.

 

If one can dump a fetish about "the means to the end" then all one has to worry about is whether one is getting closer to the sound event captured on the recording - worrying about differences is like obsessing about which is the 'right' shape of a camera body, to get a better grip of the thing ... I just want to know whether the apparatus falls into place, everywhere, in doing the job of allowing me to take great pictures, 🙂..

 

[fas42]

5 hours ago, Kimo said:

Subjective impressions may be problematic in that they generally will reflect the listener's subjective impression of what a good system should sound like,  which may not align with your own. 

 

For example, I have a strong dislike for almost all metal dome tweeters to the point that I find most systems difficult to listen to when I first sit down with them.  They typically sound harsh and flat to me.  I am aware that the Raal ribbons I prefer probably don't measure as well as some dome tweeters, but they also don't annoy me.  For those who don't share my affliction, the metal dome may be the superior choice, and my subjective view isn't worth squat to them.

 

If you do happen to find someone who shares your impressions in general, I believe that their subjective impressions can be quite valuable.  

 

Here's a good example of allowing the "shape of the camera body" to loom like a large monster, getting in the way of being able to take "good shots" ... a tweeter is merely part of the system delivering the recording; if you can "hear the tweeter" then you are listening to the rig, and not to the musical event - the equipment used is dominating your perspective, such that the capture of the musical event is well down on the totem pole ...

[fas42]

8 hours ago, Rexp said:

All us subjectivists can get a little carried away sometimes, I think its important to have a reference sound to benchmark against. What hi-end systems can do is allow recorded music to trigger an emotional response in the same way a live performance can. So for me its fairly black and white, either a component/system delivers the emotion in the music or it doesn't. Beyond that it's personal preference. 

 

Yes. It's a "reference experience" I'm chasing, not a "reference sound" - if I'm not getting the former, then it's all just junk, subjectively - and I have zero interest in it.

 

What is fascinating, from a technical POV, is that the most unlikely recordings can trigger that emotional response; and that one has to work hard, very hard, on "audible differences" in the 'right way' to make this happen - this is where the subjective and objective approaches do indeed overlap, very strongly.

[fas42]

16 minutes ago, esldude said:

Now back in the early days of the subjective mags (Stereophile and then TAS), those guys got to listen to noteworthy gear you didn't find just anywhere.  When in time I managed to hear some of that gear in person it was notable in some way well beyond the norm.  Which gave them credibility in my eyes.  Turntables, arms, cartridges, speakers, and amps would be at least generally as they described them, and while maybe or maybe not to my preference there were differences. Preamps not so much.  I never did get the fetish over preamps, most didn't make a big difference one way or the other.

 

"Noteworthy" gear is only so because they make it easier to assemble a system which can deliver what's "on the recording" - the "specialness" of the component is only there because the company making it got more things right than normal - meaning people like me don't have to do major surgery to allow the recording to come through, 😜. You see, it's always a game of Subtracting Badness, not Adding Goodness ... 😉.

[fas42]

9 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Dennis

 You really need to get out and hear  more equipment of different types at other friend's houses. I have heard gear way in excess of my ability to afford, in fact, systems costing >$100K, that sounded way better than most people hear especially at a typical Hi Fi show.

 

Hmmm ... usually the failings are so annoying, considering the price of the stuff, that it disturbs me - like buying a brand new car which vibrates badly at some speeds, and bits of the interior fall off when you touch them - umm, I'm not impressed ...

[fas42]

29 minutes ago, STC said:

This is the only part I disagree. A preamp is the most crucial thing for what comes out you Amp. A good preamp should have the input and output adjustment. 

 

I also disagree, but for different reasons ... the preamp is a problem child because it has all the means for adjusting things; switching inputs, varying gain, different paths for the signal to traverse. Every "decision point" is another weakness ... my current NAD integrated was pretty awful to listen to when I first tried it - I had to steadily go through it, and "rip out" all the preamp functionality, for it to evolve into a decent sound path.

[fas42]

46 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Always have two units. One untouched with your tinkering. After a year or two listen to them side by side and you would realize what a big circle you have been walking for decades. 

 

No. It doesn't work that way ... at least for me - get two cars, full of squeaks and rattles, and unpleasant, non-motoring noises. Leave one alone, and excise all the irrelevant noises from the other - and listen again. Now, you may not like the remaining wind, road and engine noises of the 'fixed' car - but it doesn't take any effort to realise how far you've 'travelled', if you listen again to the untouched vehicle.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, STC said:

because you got an objective measurement to know which is better!  That is known as NVH unlike the imaginative sound quality which you are unable to prove or demonstrate. 

 

Yes, Noise, Vibration, Harshness occurs in audio systems ... also. Usually called 'signature', but I tend to be more vicious - I call it.distortion ... the bit that the setup 'adds' to the sound. Now, try to imagine the recording that you're listening to not being tainted by the qualities of the rig that it's being heard on - do you need a a formal proof that such a thing can possibly exist? 😉

[fas42]

8 hours ago, semente said:

Most of us are limited in the scope of "interventions" by our inability to modify/improve equipment. All commercial equipment can be improved (by how much varies depending on several factors).

Most of us unfortunately can only replace a piece of equipment with a different unit.

 

Replacing one unit with another is largely swapping one set of problems with another - which will be different, and while the 'excitement' of learning the new set of idiosyncrasies lasts, you can be somewhat happy ... 😜.

 

Not quite true to say that one is limited in the ability to intervene - a huge range of the factors can be addressed without ever touching a hot soldering iron, 😉.

 

First of all, simplify. Reduce the complexity of the rig to the absolute minimum that will still make sound - adding "extra bits" just multiplies the areas where degrading factors can rear their ugly heads; this is a losing battle. A one box, two box, three box solution - as in, source, amplifier, speakers. The latter is what triggered convincing SQ, for me - if I had had the typical hifi setup, I would never have tripped over getting it.

 

Make each component as simple as possible - every extra switch, or option, is working against getting sufficient integrity to make the chain good enough.

 

Assume each component is as fragile as hell, and coddle them in cotton wool - that is, vibration, electrical noise and interference are "the enemy", and do everything to protect the "precious darlings" from the unpleasant real world that you can think of.

 

Treat every connecting cable in the same way, that is, as fragile as hell - fuss over every aspect of how they are arranged, stabilised. I solder them to the components, which immediately eliminates a whole suite of problems; the alternative is to very carefully apply the best contact stabilising method, which is silver paste for me. If you do this, be meticulous - sloppiness, lack of attention to detail is the enemy here....

[fas42]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

The affordable microphones that most members are likely to use are NOT capable of accurately measuring the frequency response of speakers, especially in the area above 15KHZ, and this should be left to the experts . Hobbyist measurements are normally a guide ONLY.  These microphone  limitations are clearly revealed in many recordings on CD where we know that many instruments have harmonics to well past 20kHz, yet there is often very little information shown in spectrograms above 19kHz, which is way short of CD's limitations .

 

Getting the highest frequencies happening is not the most important area, subjectively - a competent rig can deliver a highly satisfying rendering of some ancient recording, which is guaranteed to have nothing over 10k, if that.

 

A very casual experiment I did some years ago was to brickwall, discard all frequencies above certain frequencies of a modern recording - and compare different cutoff points versions with the original - around 12k was where real losses in what I was hearing becoming apparent.

 

With treble, it's not how far the FR goes, it's how 'clean' it is - the slightest audible distortion in the treble severely undermines the listening experience.

[fas42]

34 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 So can a reasonable quality AM Radio .

Perhaps you are living in the past too much and are unable to appreciate the very high quality of many modern recordings ?

 

The AM radio is merely overlaying the recording with its own set of distortions - one has to pass through the bell curve of unpleasantness that many hifi rigs add to the sound, to realise the potential of old recordings ...

 

I buy recordings if I find the music interesting - the recording quality doesn't come into it ...

[fas42]

41 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

But it still sounds better than a typical laptop with miniscule speakers !

 

Nope ... the laptop can do treble, which I find really important - most rigs show their weaknesses in this area ... put on a recording with a bit of cymbals work; usually a giveaway for system problems ...

[fas42]

14 hours ago, esldude said:

Let's get back on topic for @Summit.

 

The best way I've managed to use subjective listening is when I have a commonality of experience.  As in my friends and I sit and listen to the same system and mutually share what we are hearing as different.  In this way when a friend is describing sound I can pin it easily to a real experience we've had when he is describing something he has heard I haven't.  Now this would be limiting for internet communication purposes. 

 

What you do is learn how "audiophiles listen" 😉 - this was brought into stark relief when I listened to two separate ensembles, while standing next to a chap who does reviews for one of the online audio sites; one sounded like yer typical pair of box speakers squawking away, sound firmly attached to the drivers; the other threw up a nice sound field, with real sense of space, and presence of music making - I of course preferred the latter, but guess which the other person preferred? 🙃 ... I guess some people need to have hifi, sound like a hifi ...

[fas42]

13 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

Yes, we know Dennis, if people like yourself are unable to measure any differences, then there can't possibly be any.

 The last paragraph would have to be among the most arrogant posts addressed to Subjective members that you have yet posted in this forum, and I am surprised to see such a post after a previous post where I gave quite a few technical reasons why this sometimes may be the case, and you did not rebut what I posted. 

 

Perhaps you need to listen to some of the systems from other members in your general area.

 

Some people assemble systems which are highly resistant to showing changes - but in the 'wrong way'. If a setup discards a lot of fine detail as a part of its inherent operating, than "fiddling at the edges" will hardly change anything, subjectively. I've come across systems like this, which simply lop off large chunks of what was recorded - the plus is that it's 'stable', the minus is that much of the music goes missing ...

[fas42]

8 hours ago, 4est said:

 Call me hardcore, stupid or a Luddite but I prefer well done two channel. There just wasn't enough draw for the extra complexity of multi channel. Obviously you feel different.

 

Well done two channel does everything that's necessary to create a powerful, intense, immersive listening experience. Provided the system is capable of distortion free SPLs from the two speakers that match live music, then adding extra channels adds nothing to what one experiences. Of course, there are very few rigs that can run cleanly to the higher volumes without introducing excess, disturbing anomalies, so extra channels are an easy workaround, "sharing the load" - each channel has to work less hard, so distortions are significantly lower ... job done!  😉

 

The downside is, that the spatial information now presented to the user is much more complex. so much of the ambience encoded in the recording may no longer make sense - swings and roundabouts, 🙂.

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, Kimo said:

 

If these are your ultimate objectives, you will be slightly limited in your quest.  Wide baffle pro style speakers with active crossovers and amplification.  Best bets would be ATC, Grimm, PMC, Westlake, etc.  

 

You will also need to listen in the near field in general, and have plenty of room treatment and maybe some DSP.  You ain't getting there with tubes, horns, and wide dispersion speakers.  Nothing wrong with the active route, but I would say most of those pro audio focused manufacturers aren't aiming for a subjective approach.

 

Those methods are shortcuts using currently available  equipment - my goal is to hear the recording, and only the recording. at any volume level I choose - the gear is purely a means to that end. It turns out that nearly all hifi systems are too severely handicapped when set up without thought; so lots of DIY and/or tweaking is needed to get them to the right status.

 

If the accuracy of the sound coming from the drivers is good enough, then the ear/brain does all the sorting out to balance the sound in the room - it always "sounds right", whether listening from within a few inches from the speakers, or from another room, or heard through the windows from outside.

[fas42]

33 minutes ago, Kimo said:

 

They are not shortcuts.  They are state of the art equipment designed for maximum accuracy to be used by mastering professionals in rooms designed for minimum interaction.  If you really want to hear the differences in how recordings sound, this is the way to do it with speakers, and yes, you need volume to get all the way there.  I can't imagine too many engineers master at a low volume, even when using a horn based model like an M2.

 

They're shortcuts in the sense that if someone wants wants to hear what's on the recording, rather than an 'interpretation' by their system, then using that "pro" equipment is a "shortcut" to achieving that end result, as compared to trying with conventional audio setups - far less, hopefully, needs to be done to provide an optimised working, in order to realise an accurate rendition of the source ... the Dutch & Dutch 8C appears to be close to the best of that bunch, at the moment

 

Quote

All your set up magic and tweaking isn't going to overcome a high noise floor, or a a phasey crossover, though it might improve on what is already there.   The mastering studio is pinnacle of set up, no?

 

A high noise floor of what? I run my systems at live, or close to it, levels, meaning a solo piano recording plays at a volume that matches the "real thing". I find that the brain deals very easily with technical "problems" like non-perfect phase, say - what counts, I find, is that what I pointed to here, happens ...

 

 

[fas42]

2 hours ago, Kimo said:

 

I can give you very specific examples of what is lost with 16 bits with Doors and CCR recordings, per the guy who mastered them.  If your system (not likely), room (a little more likely), or ears (more likely) aren't up to it, you won't notice the difference and it won't matter how loud you play the system  It needs to be loud and revealing.  As I understand it, most of the engineers basically damage the hearing over time, due to this practice.

 

What "specific examples" are lost, with Doors and CCR recordings?

 

Quote

 

That being said, maybe you can get the best for you, without going to extremes, if you are older and suffering from the inevitable decline in hearing that goes with advancing years, a system with an SNR of 120 may mean little to you.  I would like to think that it is not inevitable, but I understand the exceptions will be few.

 

S/N is actually highly irrelevant  - a rig may blast you with theoretically low noise sound, but if it's contaminated with disturbing distortion anomalies, then your hearing will give it a big thumbs down.

 

The best I've heard from a living room type system used Bryston monoblocks, and close to the best Dynaudio speakers - this had clarity, and all the nuances that matter - I've heard plenty of lower grade pro monitors, and they're basically pure shite; so many things wrong with the SQ they're laughable. The Bryston combo showed how it should be done - could do standing a couple of feet away from a drum kit being given a full workout, with ease - you know, your head is almost exploding from the intensity of the sound type of thing, 😊.

 

I don't do this loud, but the quality is at that level.

[fas42]

Again, there is an obvious reference to use ... a recording. Listen to it on the very best, most 'magical' setup you can find - if you want do this really properly listen to the same recording on about half a dozen of the best performing rigs you can access. If at least some of them are half decent it should start to be obvious that there is a signature, a character to the recording, which comes out each time, to varying degrees. That's what you've got, to compare different situations with - how much does a particular system bring out that 'personality' of the recording; how much does changing some component bring out more of that 'signature' - or make it more elusive?

 

Of course, if you are only interested in varying the depth and shading of applied makeup, this is irrelevant - whatever is most pleasing to you is all that matters, 😊.

[fas42]

7 hours ago, Kimo said:

1. CCR: The drums at the beginning of Fortunate Son on the AP SACD.  On the the high resolution area, the reverb and decay is obvious.  On the CD layer it is truncated, changing the presentation significantly.  Hoffman has offered this as an example of how 16 bit alters the sound of the original recording, due to the loss of low level information.  It is a striking example.

 

 

Just had a listen to a few versions of this on YouTube - some have lots of reverb on the drums, others don't. So, there are obviously different masterings of this track out there ... since the quality of data compression of YouTube clips is not going to do the SQ any favours, as heard over tiny laptop speakers, 😉 I can't see how 16 bit vs.high res comes into the equation ,,, 🙂.

[fas42]

52 minutes ago, sandyk said:

That was the main reason that I originally purchased Graham Wilkinson's See DeClip Duo Pro S/W,  However,  as more ingenious (Evil?) compressors became available it became less effective with most modern releases.

 

Yes, but try telling that to most of your fellow suitably qualified members .

 

Yes, the compressors can be very skillfully used; which means that if one wishes to reverse that processing it requires far more than trivial analysis. It certainly can be done, and I'm sure a product will come at some stage which will be sophisticated enough to "undo the damage". John's algorithm, whether you agree or not with what he's doing in remastering the track, is showing how careful treatment can make a recording more palatable - an variation of it that directly addresses the uber compression syndrome would be mighty welcome, I'm sure ... 🙂

[fas42]

12 hours ago, Kimo said:

 

2. The Doors: The beginning of Moonlight Drive is marked by some rolling light piano in the right channel.  On the DCC CD, the 16 bit standard, the decay is once again altered, as compared with all other high resolution versions, both download and disc.  This results in a thicker, less delicate presentation, which is not so true to the recording.  Another example of how the sound is changed by the loss of low level information.

 

 

That's nifty! I have the CD, a German 1985 release - the YouTube versions were too downgrade - I tried playing from the CD-ROM drive, still not good enough, ripped to the hard drive - niice!!

 

Which piano, again? There are 2 acoustics, with separate pianos, on the left and the right ... nice cymbal work in the middle of the track, good vocals - I wouldn't call it a "thick" presentation ....

[fas42]

37 minutes ago, Kimo said:

 

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/steve-i-conducted-your-creedence-ccr-fortunate-son-cd-vs-sacd-test.170124/

 

 

Which deals quite a bit with the quality, and setup, of the ADC used ... a post,

 

Quote

My point was that (apparently) a 16/44 dub of the SACD layer sounded more like the SACD layer than the original 16/44 mastering. Hence the issue.

 

This, to me, is another "everything matters!" - extrapolating from a situation where a whole variety of factors may have impacted, to then say this "proves" that something is true is going waaaay out on a limb...

[fas42]

23 minutes ago, Kimo said:

 

The opening piano riffs in the right channel, you know da dum, dum, dum...

 

Do you have a high rez sourece to compare with?  I wonder what the original vinyl sounds like.  I have never seen a clean copy of Strange Days on original vinyl.

 

Getting confusing ... it's a call and response pattern - the left piano calls, "da dum", the right one responds "dum, dum" - subjectively it's two tracks, in the mix ...

[fas42]

What's with people swapping left and right channels, on uploaded YouTube?? 😨 ... Found a few dodgy versions, but this one, gets pretty close to what I'm hearing,

 

 

Is this good enough to say that the right piano isn't up to it? Or is the decay OK?