Jump to content

Bill Brown

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower


  • Member Title

Recent Profile Visitors

2788 profile views
  1. Thank you for this, have been meaning to make the comment for a couple of days. His mother was very black. I also meant to correct @sphinxsix re. his melanoma being a "white person's" disease. He had melanoma of the nail-bed of a toe, this different epidemiologically from the melanoma lesions most think about. He refused (an attempt, it is a bad disease) a chance for surgical cure with amputation. The seizures he suffered in NY were from brain metastases: Subungual melanoma: a deceptive disorder Abstract Subungual melanoma is an uncommon form of acral melanoma that arises within the nail bed. The incidence for acral melanomas is similar worldwide, but the proportion is higher in dark-skinned individuals. The subungual form represents about 2% of cutaneous non-sun induced melanomas in the western world, and up to 75% in Africans, 10% in Japanese, and 25% in the Chinese of Hong Kong. Up to 33% of subungual melanomas are amelanotic. Black pigmentation of the adjacent nail fold, termed Hutchinson's sign, may be a diagnostic clue. Non-specific features and symptoms along with a high incidence of amelanosis often lead to delayed diagnosis, disease progression, and a poor prognosis with challenging treatment options. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19111151/ Bill P.S. my Caribbean friends who like Damian Marley were intrigued when I explained that 3 out of his 4 grandparents were white...
  2. Would you say that it would make sense to apply this to manufacturers as well ? Meaning, you would purchase equipment from manufacturers that have the same "preferences" as you ? To clarify, when I said "preferences," it was in the context of people who are striving for high fidelity, but knowing the imperfect nature of reproduction tend to value and seek certain areas of realism as more important to them (soundstage, timbral accuracy, etc.). This further informs the reader's interpretation of the review. And yes, it is probably reasonable to assume that manufacturers have similar biases and this comes out in their equipment. Hence, certain listeners will gravitate to certain manufacturers as preferred. This doesn't preclude the pursuit of realism as I describe it, it just shows that we aren't there yet (and likely never will be). You could think that if a manufacturer achieved realism that all others would go out of business. Wouldn't be the case, though, as so many listeners aren't pursuing it. Bill
  3. There was a sampler years ago of a large collection of microphones made of a person speaking, the various mic colorations laid bare. For the recordist able to compare the sounds via the mics on his reference system, and knowing the voice in real life, certainly accuracy/realism could begin to be honed in on (in at least some of the aspects of reproduced sound). Then with very long-term listening, listening to additional recordings made by him in known acoustics, other "reference" recordings, opinions could be given on the accuracy of new components introduced to the reference system. That is a subjective reviewer I highly value. There are other subjective reviewers I value as well. Typically, their reference is to recordings made of real instruments in real space. They may love many genres, but this is not their reference. Over time, I believe they too hone in on accuracy/realism/high fidelity (the last using the original definition). The value in these reviewers grows for the reader over time as he begins to understand the reviewers biases, preferences, and has experienced/replicated the reviewer's findings in his own auditions of the equipment. KR is a nice example here. Probably HP to many. Frankly, subjective impressions given on this site don't hold much value to me; I usually skim to the conclusion. That's ok, it isn't the reason I read this forum. Adding to this, I think that I have slowly begun to have a feeling for the subjective impressions derived from some measurement phenomena, so many times I speculate mentally about things that could be measured that would explain something described as "the new greatest" (in detail, soundstage, etc.), so discount the impression in the absence of those. (Note this by no means suggests I am an ASR/measurements only guy). An astute subjective listener that I know with accompanying measurements is where it is at for me. Bill
  4. This is an age-old topic (well, since the beginning of the high fidelity golden era in the 50s) and has been written about extensively for decades. It therefore can be instructive to look back, even though lots of it is from what has been described as the "old guard" on this site. Some of them were very, very astute listeners. JGH at Stereophile and Harry Pearson at TAS really ushered in the era of subjective assessment that is the foundation of subjective assessment of gear used on this site. They were both dissatisfied when their listening impressions didn't correlate with fully objective (measurements) of the day and started their magazines based on this idea. "The idea was of reality being the only valid metric when evaluating sound or systems that produce sound. Specifically, the point of your hi-fi was to recreate, as faithfully as possible, the sound of “the live event." The best hi-fi systems would freely cross the uncanny valley; playback would be indistinguishable from the original. Real instruments, played by real people, in real spaces — that was ever the barometer, the reference, and the aim. That was “the absolute sound.” HP coined the phrase and JGH shared the goal. https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2020/04/08/what-is-the-absolute-sound/ The other approaches, historically, have been "faithfulness/reproduction of what is on the recording" and "sound that I like" (the last a trend that increased over the last 20 years or so and that JGH decried, especially when it got into stereophile, Art Dudley being the main proponent, and apparently the majority belief here). Pursuit of the "absolute sound" was also primarily focused on real instruments and real spaces (hi-fi listeners way back were primarily interested in the reproduction of classical music). Many were also recordists who had the opportunity to compare what they heard at home to the halls. JGH and JA in particular. Or gmgraves, who reviews on this site. Many times these days non-classical music never really exists as sound in a space so can't be judged in the same way. There was a thread here on the topic when HP died. There are some nice thoughts from @gmgraves: "Since HP coined the term, he certainly would have known what it meant. Gordon used it too, and his definition was the same as HP's. At the risk of being seen as repetitive, I don't see how it can be defined in any other way." I'll stick with the absolute sound approach for me as my goal, especially with classical music and other music recorded with "real instruments in a real space." If the other approaches make one happy I am fine with that (and their musical tastes might preclude any consideration of "accuracy"), but there are those who will pursue (though never reach) "accuracy," and I think it is a valid approach. For those interested in the history of our hobby and how this road has been trod before: It's the Real Thing! https://www.stereophile.com/content/its-real-thing The Absolute Sound of What? https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/363/index.html The Acoustical Standard (with follow-up) https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/111 The Last Word on Fidelity https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/589awsi/index.html Bill
  5. I completely agree with your thinking, @AudioDoctor :). Re. the legal part, it differs in that in TX, if they are shot in your house (even if you walk in to do it), you won't be prosecuted. Again, though, that wouldn't be my idea of a good plan if we were all outside and safe. No one is dying over "stuff" if me or my family would be the ones doing the shooting. Bill
  6. Phew, glad I live in TX, at least in this regard (though we did enjoy living in MN for 3 years for post-graduate training). I was going to reply to the question "dog and firearms," but that sounded too cavalier. I would never do anyone harm over material things. Never. They can have it. Unfortunately, I don't want people on meth (or others uninvited with ill intent) in my house when my family is home. Too unpredictable, too dangerous. I have too many crazy stories from the ER. The police would not respond in time in the country where I live. The intruders would be at grave risk, I'm afraid. We are not required to retreat.
  7. Yes @LarryMagoo! I was getting to that point! And everything is right now as I watch the Euros out of the corner of my eye while listening :) Very much recommend trying it out. Bill
  8. Forgot a question. EQ after the plugin. I use it for headphone EQ (HD650s). Minimum phase. I also do minimum phase upsampling. My suspicion, especially after working with the configurator, is that phase is an important part of what you are doing(?). Best to leave it out? LP in the high-end only? I suspect that if the ringing effects of LP EQ is problematic, it is more at LFs. MP at low frequency and LP at high frequencies? Bill
  9. Making progress :) Realized that AUs were working In Audirvana 3.5 on my main system last night. Deleted 3.5 on my laptop and re-installed this morning. AUs, including real-time control working again. Great. Was feeling stupid about the "load" button in the Soundstage Shaper. Wished I had taken a screen shot, but believe me, it wasn't there! Deleted and re-downloaded the plugin, installed, now it is there: Now I am cooking. First impressions are great, primarily re. body and tone. The crossfeed effect is very subtle. I think this will be ok. It has mainly been something I have pursued previously for older, hard pan-potted recordings (early Beatles for example). I think Meier's description of a close-in "pressure sensation" in the ear is apt. This sensation is relieved in a subtle way with the plugin. I have always abandoned crossfeed before as I didn't like the shifts in tonality/frequency response, especially with more natural recordings. I am happy to report that seems completely absent with Thierry's plugin. I only want to perceive the room acoustics of well-recorded classical and jazz, no attempts at providing additional room acoustics effects. Thank you for your work, Thierry. Bill
  10. Thank you for responding. If the configuration tool produces a specific format, how is the calibration put into the AU plugin in an AU host? I am not sure why plugins aren't working in Audirvana. It has been off and on historically, based on looking at their forum. Strangely, I never had difficulty until lately. I can load them, but if attempt to control in real-time the track begins to load then stops. If real-time control is disabled the tracks load and play, but the AUs have no effect (Apple's, anybody's). I have been reluctant to bother the developer (I don't use plugins with my main rig) as he has his hands full with the release of Studio. I have been tempted to try Studio, but don't stream, so not sure I will. Thank you for offering to help. I will reach out to you. I need to begin using your products :). Bill
  11. Ugh. I hate to confess to being a computer simpleton, but I must. I am trying to get going with Soundstage Shaper. I have a long history using an EQ Audio Unit plugin with Audirvana for headphone listening, but I am very frustrated that I can't get any plugin to run in the latest (non-studio) Audirvana. I am working through the calibration. Interesting. I think I got the standalone version going at one point, and it was promising! Saving the calibration results in a ".dat" file. All of my other AU presets are ".aupreset" and ".dat" is not recognized? I own and tried AudioHijack, but it doesn't access presets like DAWs, they are all local to the program? Is it possible to get the calibration "into" these programs? I downloaded Soundsource and it seems even more limited with preset functionality. Still wanting to hear it, I went the standalone app route, hoping to try Swinsian to app. Using your Roon page and lots of other pages on multioutput/aggregate devices as a guide I tried BlackHole, Loopback. I can't figure out what I am doing. Maybe had it going at one point? Not sure. Sample rates seemed a problem? Something else caused a crash? Sorry to be a pain. I sure do wish I hadn't lost plugin capability with Audirvana, that would be my preferred route. Bill
  12. I have had periods in my "audiophile" life where my only system was headphone-based. Lots and lots of hours of listening. I have come to believe that EQ is a necessity (for me at least). I flirted with many models, but always come back to the HD650s. One option for the OP would be to experiment in this regard. It could be tried inexpensively. My first step was to generate filters based on a consensus of the broad variety of reliable measurements available (this is where you see in my graph the correction in the mid- and low bass). My next step is narrower notches for diaphragm resonances. You will get a clue to their locations via FR measurements, but I like to find them. With a signal generator scanning through they will stick out massively, and once heard can't be ignored. I create a notch, then listen to pink noise, turning the filter on and off while adjusting the depth until I can't hear it (again, the resonances will stick out like a sore thumb). Pink noise should sound like a waterfall, very natural (at least how I think of it). Here is my HD650 curve: The two inactivated filters are bands that I perceive on scanning, but not on pink noise. Just food for thought :) Bill
  13. Thank you for the great report @Panomaniac. I, too, have tried many, many solutions, Can Opener being my favorite, but after fiddling and fiddling, thinking I have it right, I eventually go back to plain listening. I will have to give this a try! Bill
  14. If I didn't want to upsample in software or use AU plugins (the reasons I use Audirvana), I would use Swinsian. Bill
  • Create New...