Great sounding system - $2K all in

[fas42]

26 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

And you think that playing stuff from Youtube through built-in laptop speakers doesn't 'mess it up further', right.? 

 

And a POTS certainly does that, right? But you can still identify what's going on at the other end of the line, because there are plenty of cues getting through!

 

You don't need precision to know something's wrong - but you need precision to know where any remaining shortcomings are ... two very different exercises.

 

26 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

 

Not mine, I'm probably atypical - when recording is bad I usually hear a bad recording..

 

 

I do that all the time, also - I take one of my CDs to play on another person's system ... oh man, that sounds bad!! ... Must be the recording, of course!! 🙃

[fas42]

27 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 More likely it is EXPECTATION Bias .😄

 

Ah, Expectation Bias - the "Get Out Of Jail Free" card ... works almost every time ...

 

Very simple technique I use ... I walk in, thinking "This will be the best audio I've ever heard - it will be undo everything I've learnt up to now, and show me that my understanding of audio so far was wrong" ... and then see how long it takes for that to evaporate. Very effective - you prejudge in the 'wrong' direction; and then wait for actual experience to undo that perspective.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 

 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - The Danish National Symphony Orchestra (Live) as mentioned in another thread .

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/w41d4t6u1gv1ypx/The Good%2C the Bad and the Ugly - The Danish National Symphony Orchestra (Live)-0x0002.aac?dl=0

 

 A conversion to 24/48 LPCM helps it a bit, although in theory it shouldn't be able to do this.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/oq2dlunh9v11jlm/The Good%2C the Bad and the Ugly - The Danish National Symphony Orchestra (Live).wav?dl=0

 

Okay, FR disappears at 16kHz - as would be expected. And the WAV version has an identical spectrum, at the treble end ... no surprises there.

 

The playback quality will vary purely because of the different sampling rates; depending upon hardware, and the software path, I would very much expect them to sound a touch different.

[fas42]

12 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Come on Frank, we all know that is BS.😉

You are never likely in this lifetime to again accept that your understanding of Audio was wrong, as you did fairly recently with the "bits are bits" dogmanure.  🤣

 

 

How about, next lifetime ... ?

 

Just now, sandyk said:

 Why ? .aac is a LOSSY format and you shouldn't , at least in theory, be  able to obtain a little extra info from both ends of the spectrum as Dennis also reported in one of his replies. Why can't the same apply as in my previous reply if the files are regenerated using an optimised PSU etc. ?

 

 Let's not go there again though.😉

  

 

 

On the playback chain side of things, Alex 🙂 ... here, "everything matters" - that's why you have the madness of a thousand and so variations of parameters, to "make it better" ... just ask Peter, 😉.

[fas42]

18 hours ago, Rexp said:

Our friends at Suncoast just uploaded this, sounds great. 

 

 

 

Yes, back OT ... somewhat "boxy"; and the piano is not quite right in the tonality - but otherwise lots of good qualities.

[fas42]

7 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

 

A multi kilo $$$ system should sound better than a youtube clip, does it.?  

 

If it's working impeccably, then it should show no symptoms of anything less than such, on a mere YT video ...

 

Quote

 

 

Wishing everybody a fantastic evening! 

 

 

Ta ... 🙂

[fas42]

A thought that occurred to me, just before - "boxiness" as a characteristic of the subjective presentation has to result from some type of distortion; so, what is the form of that anomaly? And, the possibility that just popped into my head, is that detail below a certain volume level is being lost - human hearing reacts to hearing the echo of any direct sound as representing space around the sound generating mechanism; if that echo is not properly reproduced, the mind interprets that as meaning the sound generator is in a very small space, ie. boxed in ... spacious sound, as it occurs in nature, triggers the hearing processing to say, this is in a big space! But this results from all the echos, at a very low level, being picked up by the ears - the bigger the space, the greater the delay, and correspondingly, the lower the amplitude of the echo.

 

Get those echos wrong, and you get, well, "boxy" sound ...  a complaint about digital is often that the sound gets "chopped off!" - this is causing the blurring of the echo information - and loss of integrity of the reproduction.

[fas42]

14 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

 

Did you listen to both clips, what do you think, eg in which case you can hear more detail.?

 

 

Doesn't work that way ... if the distortion is clear in the YT version, then the extra detail that will be picked up by playing it on a more accurate setup can't compensate for the shortcomings - yes, it will be possible to pick up more; but your brain will have to work hard to filter out the flaws in the sound - you'll get fatigued, and ultimately lose interest in listening. This is why people use the term "effortless" to describe high performing playback - you can be completely relaxed while listening, and just let the sound flow over you, "effortlessly".

[fas42]

18 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

I'm pretty sure the music played on the Kharma system was at least lossless 16bit, possibly hi-res. I'm not asking about any theory, just asking what you hear.

 

 

 

The same things I've heard over and over again - when listening to so-called high end systems ... flaws in tonality, quite clear shortcomings - which is nothing to do with whether the recording is lossless, or 16 bit.

 

Focus on the piano accompaniment on the first selection of music played in that clip - it just doesn't match how a live piano sounds; if a real one was in that demo room, and being played, before or after that bit of a track, it would sound distinctively different.

 

To put it in perspective, I'm right now playing a compilation called "Pop Hits" - yep, an assortment of goodies from the late 70's - on the actives. One track, "Julia", with female vocalist, with a distinctive voice - got no idea which recording it is ... starts with a slow, solo piano intro - now, that sounded like a real piano; the tonality was spot on ... way better than the presentation of the above clip.

[fas42]

9 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

@fas42 I've been trying for the past 3 hours to make you answer a very simple question and I didn't succeed..

 

 

 

I give up.. 

 

 

 

Right, you want me to transfer the audio to a CDR, of that Kharma and Boulder setup - to see what is "sounds like", via that playback? OK, this takes some mucking around, just to satisfy your curiosity ...

 

As @Rexp says,

 

Quote

The thing with digital is stuff can sound initially good but after a few minutes you just want to turn the damn thing off.

 

Exactly. It only takes about 30 secs of listening to a completely unknown rig, to pick the signs - which only gets worse, the longer you listen.

[fas42]

With that first good digital system, over 30 years ago, it was constantly running - from first thing in the morning, all day long, just one CD after another went in - at solid listening levels. Which went through the whole house - it was completely open plan in design.

 

Now, you can't do that if there is an irritating aspect to the SQ - first goal, Make It Enjoyable!!

[fas42]

Another titbit to throw in 🤪 ... lots of audio people are obsessed with "signatures" - the distinctiveness of how a particular rig sounds. Well, as soon as you've identified a system's 'signature' - you've lost. Huhh?? ... well, you're now listening to the system, not the recording - game over!

 

The "perfect" system has zero signature - it's 100% chameleon; not one, tiny trace of any 'personality' - no matter how hard you try and grab onto any minuscule trace of character ... it's never there, 😜.

[fas42]

58 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

Just my last two cents before I leave:

What if the 'signature sound' is enjoyable.? 

 

 

That's fine ... people who use tube gear sometimes evolve their system along those lines - I've heard a couple of those, and can understand why the people listening to it like it ... but it's not my thing - it limits what you can hear, and the 'sameness' would end up being very irritating - for me.

[fas42]

57 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Exactly!

 

And this is why the "perfect" system does nothing to improve the listenability of poorly recorded music. If nothing else, it makes these flaws even more obvious.

 

 

That's what most audiophiles believe ... but it's not true. A remarkable switch goes click in your brain, when the replay chain gets completely, or enough, out of the way; and then that "poorly recorded music" comes up trumps. This is why I have a stack of "really awful" CDs right on hand, which I cycle through as a setup steadily improves - you're looking out for the improvement which allows the next "bad recording" to work its magic ... when you've run out of those, you're pretty damn close to "as good as it gets!" ...

 

One has to experience this happening, to 'know' it ... it's uncommon, and hence poorly understood.

[fas42]

So, what was the likely culprit in the earlier Boulder clip ... well, the amp not being up to the job seems likely. Here again,

 

 

Oh dear! The drum beat - what can one say? ... 🤒

[fas42]

4 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

That may be how your brain operates but I've seen zero evidence that this is true for everyone.

 

True for everyone that I've come across - the ones that have the hardest time grokking it are, ummm, audiophiles ... 🤣.

 

Women who have close to zero interest in this bizarre hobby 🙃 have no trouble getting it - they're in the groove immediately ... they enjoy what they're hearing - and when I ask if they hear problems with the recording, they give me a puzzled look 🙂.

 

It's all part of the human hearing system's ability to adapt, and compensate, for picking up what matters when one is in a difficult, or unusual auditory situation - there will always be people who won't have this switch, but I suggest they would be in the minority.

 

Unfortunately, it's just hard to get an audio rig to the standard of integrity that's necessary for this behaviour to occur - hence, it's rare - and easy to to deny it's possible ... all those people who have come across some playback which was "just magic!!" at least once in their lives have encountered it - but haven't understood what was happening ...

[fas42]

As an example of where the sound should open up, on "ordinary" recordings, consider this,

 

 

Okay, still a bit closed in, especially noticeable on the voice - but the backing is nicely "spaced out" ... lots of, size. If the main vocal was 100% nailed then there would be little to complain about ...

 

[fas42]

Ah, I was waiting for the moment for throwing in the Rogue Wave Deniers story ... looks like it's arrived, 😉.

 

Rogue waves? Yep - monster waves that can overwhelm even the biggest sailing vessels; I just came across this phenomenon - a famous incident occurred in WWII:

 

Quote

.....But the worst was still to come. About 700 miles from Scotland, the Queen Mary suddenly fell into an almost bottomless pit. She was then broadsided on her port side by a monstrous wave crest that was at least twice as high as any wave she had encountered. This mountain of water shattered windows on the bridge, 95 feet above the waterline. It tore away all the lifeboats on the port side of the top deck. It broke through portholes, sending water rushing into hundreds of cabins. But most seriously, the weight of this stupendous wave, many thousands of tons of water, slowly rolled the Queen Mary over farther than she had ever rolled over before. The lifeboats on the starboard side swung down with the ship and almost touched the sea. Soldiers on the lower decks of the starboard side looked out of their portholes and saw dark seawater. Many were thrown out of their bunks and broke arms and legs or suffered concussions. In the dining rooms, chairs slid from one side to the other, and dishes and glasses shattered. For the soldiers at antiaircraft positions, a hundred feet above the waterline, the scene they witnessed was especially harrowing. Those on the port side stared in disbelief as a mountain of water appeared to come right at them, and those on the starboard side were one minute a hundred feet high and the next swinging wildly through the air until they almost touched the ocean itself. Soldiers slid out doorways riding torrents of water from broken portholes. Many soldiers threw on life preservers, convinced the ship had been torpedoed. When Mary had listed over on its side farther than any ship’s crew had ever experienced before, and when she seemed to stay there for an eternity, those seamen figured that the ship would never right itself again. In fact, according to later calculations, if the Queen Mary had listed over only three more degrees, she would have capsized. If she had capsized, she would have almost certainly sunk, taking with her 16,000 lives and instantly becoming the largest maritime disaster in history.

 

Okay, we are talking about one of the biggest ocean liners of the time, 80,000 tons - thrown around like a toy.

 

Guess what? The researchers and scientists refused to believe that such large waves could occur, because their mathematics didn't support the possibility of such large waves - until the mid 1990's ... it was a classic, Sagan Standard, pig-headedness on their part...

 

Meaning that a large number of ships were lost, and lives were lost - because the institutions regulating relevant matters did nothing to improve the situation, based on what the "experts" said.

[fas42]

42 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

An interesting story but using it to suggest that the default stance towards extraordinary claims should be belief is a classic example of a logical fallacy as it fails to take into account the hundreds of thousands of long-forgotten extraordinary claims made over the years that proved to be false.

 

So, how are we to sort the wheat from the chaff, eh? Of course, we could go with with that old standby, being open minded until we have satisfied ourselves by looking at everything; as against saying, "That's what the mob believes ... mob rules!!".

 

I take it then, that in your audio lifetime you have never come across a system that took your breath away ... 😉?

 

OK, games on, up the road! N. just rang, we'll do a session tomorrow ... he's been experimenting with coupling caps in his Naim amps - will see what special stuff has been unleashed by these mods, 😀.

[fas42]

17 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Seems a bizarre approach towards extraordinary claims as the vast majority are untrue.

 

Indeed, many are so out there that the limb you have climb out on extends a long, long way ...

 

Why I particularly like the Rogue Wave Deniers, RWD, is that an enormous number of subjective accounts were available, to say that something was happening that needed to be understood - but the intelligentsia refused to take any notice, because it didn't suit them; "it didn't fit" - the "extraordinary thing I'm claiming" is that human hearing is capable of deciphering what's on a recording, when it hasn't been trashed even further by distortion of the playback ... not quite in the flat earth category, I would have thought ... 😉.

 

17 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

 

I've heard numerous yet none that can make shite recordings sound good.

 

Right, we have a Shite Recording Believer here - how does that balance against a RWD? 🙂

[fas42]

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 The best sounding  coupling caps are NO coupling caps.

I.O.W. D.C. coupled 

 

Of course. But that's not how this amp has been engineered. I have heard these units produce "magic sound" at times, with the standard caps as used by Naim; so this will be interesting, to see what has been gained.

[fas42]

15 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Your extraordinary claim, as I see it, is not that "human hearing is capable of deciphering what's on a recording" but that the human mind can somehow reverse the damage that's been done through poor recording, editing, or mastering techniques.

 

Some mastering techniques are difficult - the recent, extreme dynamic compression is an obvious one; and the Amy Winehouse "gotta sound like vinyl!" fiddling is pretty awful. But leaving those aside, if the people creating it had no intrinsic desire to mess up the sound, then IME it comes across extremely well.

 

The human mind latches onto the primary sound event in what it hears - and discards what it knows is not relevant; I do have recordings which have been butchered by people who are technically incompetent - and I was amazed at how well my hearing does this sorting, completely automatically - the first time this happened for a particular example, 🙂.

[fas42]

21 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Thanks for confirming my understanding of your "extraordinary claim". 👺

 

Right, found this,

 

Are we putting these into the Shite Recording category, still? 😉

[fas42]

This one?

 

 

 

[fas42]

Okay, have checked out some YT clips of the 75th remasters - from several artists, on piano ... they've killed the treble! ... Sorta honky tonk tonality, now 🙂

 

Well, it's one way of responding to people complaining, I guess ... but I prefer to hear the full richness of the piano, thank you!