Great sounding system - $2K all in

[sandyk]

33 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I tried processing the .aac version -- you judge...   It appears that the recording was compressed a little, which causes some troubles in louder passages...

As I previously mentioned , Youtube appears to use additional compression on most material.

The 16kHz limitation of 128kb/s .aac  hasn't helped either, as has Youtube's requirement of no more than 256kb/s .aac source material.

 In fact, the Youtube version of what could have been a very good performance if available on a well MASTERED DVD or BluRay leaves a helluva lot to be desired unless perhaps you are listening to it in a car.  

 

Yes, your decompressed version does sound a little better, but I deliberately avoided using any additional processing other than conversion to LPCM to show that 128kb/s .aac audio can be improved to a small extent.

[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.

[sphinxsix]

1 hour ago, sphinxsix said:

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

 

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

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

 

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

 

[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".

[sandyk]

😉

2 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I tried processing the .aac version -- you judge...   It appears that the recording was compressed a little, which causes some troubles in louder passages...

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cz6dwf33htkjfz4/The Good%2C the Bad and the Ugly - The Danish National Symphony Orchestra (Live)-0x0002.wav?dl=0

 Forget Youtube, which only makes MQA sound good.

 This is how The Danish National Orchestra should have sounded . It's in the original 24/48

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/o5lb3graj95xk9p/17. Who Wants to Live Forever (From ''Highlander'').wav?dl=0

 

[sphinxsix]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

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

 

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.

 

 

[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.

[sphinxsix]

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

 

3 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

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

 

1 hour ago, sphinxsix said:

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

 

I give up.. 

 

 

[Rexp]

2 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

 

 

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

 

 

Wishing everybody a fantastic evening! 

 

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

[Rexp]

3 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.. 

 

 

Maybe if you offer your opinion, Frank will reciprocate. 

[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!!

[sphinxsix]

 

I apologize guys but I've just reminded myself that I left the iron on in my other home which is unfortunately in another country, so I may be away for a while..

 

Please continue your exciting exchange without me. 

 

Maybe a good idea would be to keep 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, 😜.

[sphinxsix]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

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, 😜.

 

Just my last two cents before I leave:

What if the 'signature sound' is enjoyable.? 

 

[kumakuma]

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

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, 😜.

 

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.

 

[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? ... 🤒

[Rexp]

15 minutes ago, fas42 said:

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? ... 🤒

Different source... 

[kumakuma]

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

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.

 

 

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

[sphinxsix]

[sandyk]

19 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

 

I apologize guys but I've just reminded myself that I left the iron on in my other home which is unfortunately in another country, so I may be away for a while..

 

Please continue your exciting exchange without me. 

 

Maybe a good idea would be to keep it enjoyable..(?) 

 

Add to that, the possible 2 weeks time in Quarantine at both ends .😉

[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 ...