OK got it now. You are correct and everyone else in the world is wrong.
Do I just think on a different level? Surely others out there comprehend what I’m saying.
 
No Carlos you are the only intelligent life in the audio universe. Let us pray!
 
anyone or damn near most need some kind of Guidance
going to shows or live events is helpful
now who knows that’s a list to figure out almost as difficult as knowing what to do to set up audio.

If a person chooses for a simple audio system even this needs some work
to buy and think you got it all done right anyone really is going through hell and back
read just Mike L how long his road is
or a man like Elliot.
Many others on here too. I’m not so sure any one person has it all figured out
 
Do I just think on a different level? Surely others out there comprehend what I’m saying.
Carlos you live to be driven into arguments where there can’t be a right or wrong
just relax read contribute and even if you get no reply
there are plenty lurkers Learning
I mostly get ignored when I am making correct points
let it be arrogance is the twin of ignorance
does this seem right if not do you have twins in your family
 
I just cannot seem to get through to you guys. The composite resultant sound already has the contributions from the room and artifacts factored into it. Changing the room acoustics or adding or removing items from the room would change those contributions but NOT my goal or target for the resultant sound; so the room or the artifacts in the rooms do not matter as my goal remains the same.
i cannot and will not question that you are happy and satisfied. we agree on that.

but shorting acoustical issues will absolutely cost you in ultimate performance. dsp can blunt negative acoustical effects but not eliminate their influence. and there will always be a cost to the processing involved in the dsp accommodation in the solving process. the information that acoustical artifacts covers up cannot be recovered by processing. it's gone.
I don’t have to speculate about how much better or worse some would sound because I just don’t care, the only thing that I care about and focus on is attaining my desire sound from my systems.
enjoy! and i mean that.
 
Last edited:
The beauty of it all is that you don’t need to focus on all these separate elements because the only things that matters is the composite resultant sound. The resultant sound is the only thing any system should be judged by, whether it sounds good or bad. You can always speculate on the contributions from each piece of matter in the universe, or in the room, but I prefer to accept those things as given and instead focus on tuning the sound of my system instead of worrying myself with other things.
Have you removed all the unused speakers to confirm that your sound quality doesn't improve? If not, then you are speculating that your sound is as good as it can be with all the speakers in the room.
 
  • Like
Reactions: adyc and MRJAZZ
I just cannot seem to get through to you guys. The composite resultant sound already has the contributions from the room and artifacts factored into it. Changing the room acoustics or adding or removing items from the room would change those contributions but NOT my goal or target for the resultant sound; so the room or the artifacts in the rooms do not matter as my goal remains the same. I don’t have to speculate about how much better or worse some would sound because I just don’t care, the only thing that I care about and focus on is attaining my desire sound from my systems.

I understand what you are doing, Carlos. Do you apply your mastering device to all your systems?

I understand that the room and every thing in it is the given, and then you tune the system to create your target sound at your listening seat. That is your approach and you have been very clear about describing it for a long time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carlos269
#512 is clearly better. Clearer in the intro guitar plucking and the vibrato of her voice in the intro.

Thank you for responding!

It is interesting that you prefer the sound pick-up from the iPhone internal mic over the dual Sennheiser external microphones.

Could you hear any difference between B and C?
 
Last edited:
1) If you hear any differences, how do you describe the differences you hear?

2) Which do you prefer?

3) Why do you prefer it?

Ron, The videos seem quite similar to me. I have no preference.

What are your answers to these three questions? Are the videos representative of what you hear in the room?
 
Last edited:
As 'useless' as vids are for evaluating actual system performance in the flesh except as sketches (my vids are duller, less vibrant and less imaging through the Galaxy 8), they are excellent argument totems for rousing the audiophile rooster fights.

For that reason alone, people need to keep posting them.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pokey77
I understand what you are doing, Carlos. Do you apply your mastering device to all your systems?

I understand that the room and every thing in it is the given, and then you tune the system to create your target sound at your listening seat. That is your approach and you have been very clear about describing it for a long time.

Amen. You get it. Exactly. Only one of my system has the system remastering process, that is on my WAAR system, but I use the same approach and philosophy with all my other systems, but obviously through different methods and techniques to achieve my sound target.

Peter can you please explain the concept to the rest of the group here in terms that they can understand.
 
Last edited:
Carlos you live to be driven into arguments where there can’t be a right or wrong
just relax read contribute and even if you get no reply
there are plenty lurkers Learning
I mostly get ignored when I am making correct points
let it be arrogance is the twin of ignorance
does this seem right if not do you have twins in your family

I don’t like to argue. I have very clear methodology for achieving the results that I’m after. I think part of the misalignment here is that I strive to achieve a target, while most are aiming for improvement to what they currently have and that is as good as they can expect to get out of any change.
 
No Carlos you are the only intelligent life in the audio universe. Let us pray!
I will put it in terms that will make sense to you. A customer walks into your store and buys a complete system based on the sound that he hears in your demo room. When you deliver and set up the system in the customer’s listening room, that customer wants the same sound that he heard in your demo room. If you have the goal in mind to satisfy your customer and are skilled enough, you will strive to get the same sound in the customer’s listening room that you get in your demo room regardless or despite of the differences in room acoustics and articles in the two different rooms. Other wise your customer will not get the sound that he paid for.
 
Full range dipoles will automatically have greater difficulty in two dimensional recordings, because all of the contributory back waves that have dimensionality will be folded into the two dimensional collapse. The Pendragon has the crossover at 250 to the dipole ribbon, but it also has a large winged baffle, so a bit less of that. I suppose a highly directional microphone pointed at the ribbons would help reduce that.
 
Have you removed all the unused speakers to confirm that your sound quality doesn't improve? If not, then you are speculating that your sound is as good as it can be with all the speakers in the room.

I don’t need to. Even in the empty room, I would dial or optimize my system to sound exactly as it does in the crowded room. I’m only interested in the resultant sound. The empty room would just drive me to making changes in my system, but my goal doesn’t change in whatever room I’m in.

Having a datum or a set goal is essential for achieving success, other wise you are just floating around and meandering, ungrounded.
 
I don’t need to. Even in the empty room, I would dial or optimize my system to sound exactly as it does in the crowded room. I’m only interested in the resultant sound. The empty room would just drive me to making changes in my system, but my goal doesn’t change in whatever room I’m in.

Having a datum or a set goal is essential for achieving success, other wise you are just floating around and meandering, ungrounded.

You are funny!

If the essential goal is sound quality, then in an empty room I would listen with headphones :)
 
You are funny!

If the essential goal is sound quality, then in an empty room I would listen with headphones :)

“Empty” figuratively, not literally.
 
I don’t like to argue. I have very clear methodology for achieving the results that I’m after. I think part of the misalignment here is that I strive to achieve a target, while most are aiming for improvement to what they currently have and that is as good as they can expect to get out of any change.

I get what you are doing precisely because you have a goal, the target sound. I have the same approach. I used to simply want more/better from what I had with no target in sight. I now understand what that means and it helps a lot. Once you know where you want to be, you figure out how to get there. You and I simply have different means of achieving our goals, but the concept is the same, so I can relate very easily.

I also agree with you that system videos give a pretty good idea of the gist of the system sound, but I use videos personally as a tool to evaluate very particular attributes that come across better than others. Some qualities do not really show up, that is fine, but others are pretty good.

Our broad strokes seem similar. The specific methods differ. That is fine too. The important thing is only the resultant experience at the listening seat for that listener. On this we agree.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tima

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing