Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Personal Information

  • Location
    Blue Mountains, Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

3954 profile views
  1. The audio equivalent in fact is that the handbrake never releases beyond 50%; or the gear selector says D, but it never come out of 3rd - and the driver is blissfully unaware that these 'stupid' maladjustments are what are holding back the vehicle's performance ...
  2. The ear/brain's a funny beast - it can handle some anomalies, things like FR imperfections with ease, or missing bass fundamentals; but other misdemeanors are too much for it - and the detail within are lost to its understanding. The great satisfaction when you do enough 'right' things which eliminate, or attenuate playback misbehaviour is that "unlistenable" recordings emerge like a jack-in-the-box from the squashed, disheveled messes they normally appear to be. "Pristine" recordings will barely move, because the mind has already worked out everything that's happening in the event space; the great delight is unveiling the musical treasures within the "reject" albums or tracks; their complexity which was formerly indecipherable is now fully formed, and becomes a subjectively satisfying experience.
  3. And of course, there's always,
  4. Did I say "live acoustic recording" - no, I said, "live, acoustic music making" - if you, say, walk into a room where people are playing a couple of instruments, and vocalising; there's a certain quality to that sound ... that's the goal. Did I say, "bad" speakers? ... I'm talking of normal, low cost speakers that used to fill the showrooms of audio dealers - do you call these, bad speakers? Evidence? What evidence is there that components that display brilliant technical specs also deliver jaw-dropping sound - IOW, it's a subjective take, defining "shining through", πŸ™‚. I'm pointing out that there is an alternative, to people who are fed up with spending big bucks, and never reaching "audio nirvana" ... all that it requires is that one starts changing the attitude as regards what's needed to get there ... πŸ˜‰.
  5. The common thread is "play" ... πŸ˜‰ My comments are relevant, because my wife wants the music going ... full bore!! "Can you make it louder, please ... " sort of thing, πŸ˜‰ If the playback has an irritating edge to it, then it can't be enjoyed as 'background' - it annoys, so you ask for it to be turned down, or leave the area. The music will be enjoyed if it doesn't call attention to itself, for the wrong reasons - that's why live music making has been so popular, for thousands of years.
  6. Or, another way of looking at the process πŸ˜‰ ... The equipment, no matter expensive, how superb it is technically, is always an impediment; it's always getting between you and the music that's on the recording ... so what you want to do is to get rid of every last suggestion that you are "listening to your gear" - as soon as there is the slightest whiff of something which is not about the recording, but rather the playback chain, that means it's not "invisible enough". That is, equipment never, ever 'improves' the recording - it can only degrade it - so the goal is to do everything you can think of "to make the rig go away" ... it just turns out that this is close to an endless journey; there is almost always another refinement to make the "cloak of invisibility" more 'perfect', πŸ™‚.
  7. It has a lot to do with the quality of the playback ... very low quality is fine as background; very high quality can be both background, and listened to very acutely - it's the stuff in the middle, in the quality stakes, that's troublesome ... πŸ˜‰. To clarify, let's say you have a very fine grand piano in your home; and somehow you managed to wangle a top tier pianist to play all sorts of music on it.all day - from bump and grind, walking bass blues, to easy listening, to the most spectacular Chopin. You could happily have "this on" while talking to your wife in the next room about the day's shopping trip; or sit in on the instrument, and take it all in ... that's what top notch SQ delivers ...
  8. As an exercise in creating a virtual concert hall around a recording, I think this comes off rather nicely ... πŸ™‚.
  9. Indeed, "very little if at all". Indeed I did. IME, "truly musical, tight, deep, well-defined bass reproduction" happens automatically when the chain is sufficiently sorted - the full-range aspect doesn't seem to matter. A good example of the converse was listening to the rig of someone who had implemented intelligent, rather than silly subwoofers.- who lives in the area. Massively heavy, sealed twin subwoofers, a frequency sweep through the bass showed very, very clean behaviour; not stinking with harmonic distortion as they can often do - this should be good!! Ummm, no ... every track that should have delivered a powerful sense of the bass line wimped out - the rest of the frequencies were not in good enough shape to do the job, properly.
  10. Hmmm, good music πŸ‘ ... a walk in the park for a good rig ... πŸ˜‰
  11. You somewhat misunderstand here - yes, less than optimal playback is not necessary if the music is of a type that strikes one strongly. But that's not what I talking about. What I'm after is the impact that live, acoustic music making delivers - that impact occurs irrespective of how "bad" the room is ... the comment earlier about listening to someone singing live in a 'terrible' performance place is referencing that the situation does zero to kill the sense that you are listening to a real person; which translates to what a competent playback setup will deliver ... And, it does turn out "the speakers matter less when the source component and amplifier are good" 😜 - the sins of the speaker don't kill the liveness impact, but disturbing weaknesses of the electronics most certainly do. What I'm claiming is that normal playback chains are capable of delivering convincing sound - there are many aspects to this behaviour, and I just bring up some of the different details, depending upon the point I'm discussing. Some are aware of how a system can sound like the "real thing" when you're in listening range of the playback, but that this illusion then fails when you actually enter into the direct sound field of the speakers. What I'm on about is, that the level of performance that is achievable is that the "real thing" illusion never evaporates, stays rock solid, no matter where in relation, or how close you are to the speakers.- if one has never experienced it, then the safest thing that many find to do, as evidenced here, is to yell, "BS!!", or ask someone to make the nasty boogie man go away ... πŸ˜›.
  12. This mob, ... while you keep going on about a laptop you're going to get nowhere, πŸ™„ ... you see, I can remember what systems that I've worked with that used reasonable speakers sound like - and that's what I'm referring to.
  13. That's the simplistic take on such matters - the realities are far more complex ... as an example, conventional power supplies in power amplifiers don't work in a nice, neat, "linear" way - depending upon the program material, and volume level selected, and all the characeristics of the speakers being driven, the current waveforms of the mains, and those conductors within the power supply are mighty messy things - if there is any circuitry that is going be impacted by any current related interference noise, then this can considered a good suspect. A DIY gainclone amplifier I did years ago was 95% power supply; this is where I had to get it right - and it delivered. I don't worry about bass. Period. "Bass nodes" seem to be the nightmare that people who are into subwoofers, etc, have constantly, it appears - normal speakers, properly stabilised, deliver subjectively intense bass lines, the parts of the recording that actually matter as far as the musical content is concerned. Tell me, how does the bass of say, a typical Boney M. track come across, to you? There's a quality there which is quite special - do you know what I mean?
  14. Where are you actually getting this figure of 10 usecs from? IOW, how are you measuring something, that ends up producing this number?
  15. I'm sure that the sound would be improved if every factor of the room was carefully controlled. But that is exactly the same situation as bringing, say, a great female singer into a "bad" room, or concert hall, versus a "good" environment - would you walk out in disgust because you couldn't appreciate the qualities in her voice, as a result of the acoustics not being "perfect"? The sound may be technically degraded, but subjectively that's not what happens; this is when one can quite happily pick while blindfolded an album to play - totally random, IOW - and you are sucked in, from the first seconds, and play it through to its conclusion; it's feels almost an insult to the musicians to decide to stop listening any time earlier than that, πŸ™‚
  • Create New...