April 2015 Toole video on sound reproduction
- Thread starter jkeny
- Start date
David and Doug's views are the majority among the "elite" in highend audio. I know this because I used to think the exact same way. I've spent big dollars, even by David's standards, on gear sold by folks who fully agree with people like Doug and David. I've spent so much money, I'd be embarrassed to sit down and add up all the money I've spent. Slowly over time, I learned AND experienced the path that folks like Amir and Nyal advocate. For me, it was a hard fought and gradual de-programming which needed to be done. In the end, it was my admission that I really didn't have a clue what I was doing. I guess I am lucky that I haven't spent many decades nurturing false biases. I got into this hobby after my drumming career ended; I started a family and moved to the suburbs. 
I am saying all of the above because I don't think all of the sarcasm and angst toward folks like Doug and David is really very helpful. I apologize if any of my comments toward them come off as being condescending or sarcastic.
I know for a fact that Nyal participated in an audiophile exorcism in my case and I believe he has done it to others as well. To me, the so called objectivists in this hobby are the most trustworthy and deeply committed to hi end playback.
Michael.
I am saying all of the above because I don't think all of the sarcasm and angst toward folks like Doug and David is really very helpful. I apologize if any of my comments toward them come off as being condescending or sarcastic.
I know for a fact that Nyal participated in an audiophile exorcism in my case and I believe he has done it to others as well. To me, the so called objectivists in this hobby are the most trustworthy and deeply committed to hi end playback.
Michael.
Last edited:
Likewise, I like to thank you for keeping your composure and continuing this back and forth. As you see, it is proving informative to members at large.
Thanks for sharing your personal experience with me. It is the best way to know a person and where they are coming from. We have some things in common there. In 1970s while I was going to college, I repaired hundreds of turntables including the Garrard. And had an audiophile friend who bought the Meridian/Philips CD player and I modified it to give him a remote. He had Bryston amps, and Maggies for speakers. Little about experiencing his system was life changing for me though. What was life changing was what I experienced more than 20 years later, circa year 2000.I agree with you 100% regarding the impact of the room and the sound. I'll even go as far as saying that in a way its probably the most important. Maybe our disagreement is partly communication and some because we don't enough about the other's experience and starting point. In all my 30+ years of high end audio I've come across only two rooms with really good acoustics and the experience was transformative. Visually there was nothing special them, they were just a room in a house. One was a basement den in a modern home, the other was the living room in an old house out in Long Island. System in Missouri was the Trio, some CJ phono, Lamm L2, Lamm ML2 and some tt which I don't recall, the room was more or less dampened with furniture, carpeting and very solid construction, I only spent maybe an hour moving the speakers and fine tuning the table. The Long Island house was completely different, I went there to buy some LPs, I think it was around 2002 - 2003. His system was a Garrard 301 from the 60's in one of those sprung period plinths, a SME 3012 and a mono Ortofon type A or type C and an early McIntosh mono pre. The rest of the system was in the adjacent living room, a pair of solid state Bozak amps from early 70's which I'd never seen before. He had DIY tweeter and midrange array, all Bozak and 12 what I think were 8" inch woofers in piece of plywood stuck in front of his fireplace. Talk about preconceptions, I only wanted to hear a couple of the records that I didn't recognize. Through the archway between the rooms I'm looking at this old gentleman in his late 70's, record in hand, waddle over to his rickety system followed by a loud thump as he dropped the needle and a few seconds later came the MUSIC! I tried to focus on the system to understand what was going on but physically and emotionally I couldn't get past the music. I spent another couple hours there and from time to time he'd stand up in the middle the room, pick up his clarinet and play along with the music. That's when the penny dropped for me and realized what I wanted out of music system. There was nothing in common between the two but the musical experience was exactly the same. Both spaces also had a very natural, smooth and expansive low frequency response where everything else built upon, specially the scale and sense of realism. Most of the time I have to fight the rooms and pick my compromise to achieve the final goal, which is experiencing and connection to the music in a natural way beyond a system which can be very impressive. I'm already familiar with the gear and know its can do but its the room and mainly the low frequency response that poses the challenge to achieving the end goal. A couple of times the rooms where so bad that I had to actively biamp and EQ (not digital
I was reading one of the audio magazines and I run into a review of a product category and company I had not heard about. The company was TacT and the product was the TCS, which was their multichannel processor with auto EQ. The reviewer made one comment that stuck in my mind: "turning on the eq was like having the walls in my listening room go away!" He proceeded to give it 10 out 10 for rating and I think similar score for "value" even though the box cost $10,000. Lots of money but I was intrigued enough that shortly I too had the box in my house. I had a super small home theater the size of a bedroom. It had powered Paradigm speakers and Lexicon processor. I also had a couple of MKB subs.
I pull out the Lexicon and replace it with the TCS. Struggle through the obtuse software that ran on the PC to control the thing and waited for it to compute its filters which seem to take an infinity. Then in an instant, the audio path changed and with it, the course of my audio life. The walls indeed collapsed. The sound was open and relaxed. It was as if you unhitched a 10,000 pound trailer from your car all of a sudden and experienced what she could do accelerating. Imaging was out of this world. I didn't know what imaging was until I heard it right there and then. The subwoofer was 100% blended into the mains now and no longer would I have the urge to turn it up or down based on what I was listening. Or hearing their presence. No system regardless of price had done any of this. All in what could be considered as a mid-priced system in a very modest room.
The more shocking was yet to come. I take the processor and put it inline with a set of $20 plastic computer speakers and sub. I am thinking any minute the thing is going to throw up its hands and saying, "I don't fix junk!"
But no, it went about its business and the moment it turned on, I fell of my chair. The same superb imaging appeared between those tiny speakers on my desk. The dixie cup effect was gone. Sound was liquid and relaxed. Distortion was down. Almost all of the above was in listening to music by the way. Movies also improved, especially dialog but I want to make clear given our previous exchange that what is good for home theater, is also good for music.
At the time, I had gotten my first group to manage at Microsoft which developed audio/video compression. And work had just started on Windows Vista. I immediately package the box and cables, take it to work and set up the same experiment with the speakers in a conference room. I invited my team over and had them listen one by one. Everyone heard and was amazed at the fidelity improvement. It was then that we decided to put auto EQ in Windows. The experience was that life changing for me. When you bet your career on a technology, you better have your facts right because the impact would not just be a hobby gone wrong.
As I walk the halls of high-end suites at CES, go to people's homes, or even play our own system without EQ, when people ask me what I think of the sound, I tell them but usually caveat it with, "I suspect the bass is wrong but it sounded..." Because I know the bass is wrong. I knew it then experimentally, and I know it now from deep scientific point of view.
There are many things we do wrong in audio. At some point, we need to do away with them and free the designers in providing a better solution to us. I guarantee you that no matter which speaker brand you use, its designers if given complete freedom would want to put in DSP to correct room response. Likewise, vast majority would want to make their speakers active. They don't do either because the market they sell to thinks these are deadly sins. Yet from every bit of science, experience and listening tests we know these to be the right approaches. The end result is that speaker companies we like such as your Wilson, and my Revel, give us passive speakers with no ability to EQ them in digital domain. Because the market demands being able to swap out amplifiers, not knowing what I experienced in cheap little amplifiers stuck to the back of my Paradigm active speakers.
Fortunately built-in processing and active speakers are the norm in professional sound reproduction and hence the development of JBL M2. I hope you can experience that kind of system alongside of high-end passive systems as you describe. Because I have and the latter is not even in the running in my book. When I started to build my new listening room, the first thing I purchased was the JBL Synthesis SDEC-4500 which is a 14 channel EQ and crossover system. I am frugal guy when it comes to audio but this thing even at my cost was thousands and thousands of dollars. I knew though that I had to bite the bullet and get this as the first foundation of the room. As was getting a speaker that was designed according to the best science we know. The amp? Sure, I put in my beefy and trusty Proceed.
For subs, I knew I had to have more than one so I put in two at mid-points to cancel out good bit of room modes and then used EQ to correct where it got boosted.
Between these three components, speaker, sub and EQ, I had a full toolbox for getting great sound. No way was I going to put in a passive system in there and pray that somehow, by sheer magic, their cost and reputation would overcome the physics of the room. We can believe in a lot of what we can't prove objectively, but this one is not one of them. As I explained before, it is trivial to show the damaging aspects of room response to anyone, high-end audiophile or not. A $1,000 system and a $1,000,000 system will both have the same issues as I proved to myself using the TacT system.
I believe that is what you believe. But I can guarantee you that you have use for it, but you simply don't know it. It is the nature of this hobby and male human beings to be so stubborn. It is exposure to something better when done right that for some people, will make them take a leap forward in their views of this hobby. The review of TacT I read created motivation for me to try it but no way did it prepare me for what I heard. Likewise, I don't have high hopes that this back and forth is enabling you to really know my argument until such time that you flip a switch on and off and hear the difference yourself.Digital tech can do many things but you should believe me when I say that I don't care for and have little use for digital EQ
You have a fork in the road here. The blue or the red pill as the line went in the movie Matrix. You can choose to continue to live in the safe world of high-end, believing that if the bass is wrong, it must be that the cable, the amp or the speaker at fault. Or you can listen to me and mountain of evidence I can put forward that there is a fundamental problem here that cannot be solved in these manners. For now, I just need you to recognize that you have the wrong reproduction in the room. You don't need to accept the digital solution. But rather, the "eventuality" of it if I may talk like they did in Matrix. That there is no high fidelity reproduction in a home listening space when it comes to low frequencies. It is all different shades of wrong. If your audio journey has not included correction of bass response in every system rather than the exception, then I am jealous of you as one day you are hopefully going to experience what I did with that original TacT TCS system! My revelation has come and gone.
Amir, great story.
I do not go back as far as you in making a life changing discovery, actually a whole set of them. For me it was about 8 years ago. Having at that point been an audiophile for about 50 years, I loved my music at home but I always wondered why after all those years and after all the money I had invested plus the time to audition all the latest and greatest stuff, my sound was still not close to live sound in the concert hall. Retro gear like horns, tubes and vinyl was no closer in my opinion, just different. And, I heard many systems along the way costing hundreds of $thousands. Same result.
It was in the course of adding Mch for TV/video to my existing high end stereo that I encountered DSP EQ in the form of Audyssey in my lowly Integra Mch HT controller/prepro together with a beautiful JL Audio subwoofer. Wow! That was something. Before that, I had no idea how clear, articulate, well integrated, calibrated bass could sound with music. So, my original plan to listen to music as I had been through my Levinson line stage went totally out the window. I wanted everything to use Audyssey in the Integra, and I shifted all my listening to hi rez Mch in the process, as I also realized how limiting standard rez or vinyl had been in stereo. For the classical music I listen to, both at home and live, hi Rez Mch is way, way better. Along the way, several classical concert going friends heard my system. They are now all just as hooked as am I on DSP EQ and hi Rez Mch.
I have upgraded much since then, so Dirac Live has replaced my Audyssey Pro Kit. A Music/HT PC with JRiver and an Exasound e28 DAC have replaced my prepro. One of my friends commented about how we now live in a golden age of sound in our homes. We all quite agree that many of the technologies of the past decade or more have absolutely changed our home listening to something beyond our wildest audiophile dreams. DSP EQ is one of the cornerstones of that improvement.
I realize that superlatives and exaggerated descriptions are part and parcel of the high end today, more so than ever. We hear it from reviewers, dealers, manufacturers and web posters all the time. So, we tend to dismiss all of it as not credible. That might make my comments suspect as just more of the same. Unfortunately, if you take that view and if you dismiss the objective evidence painstakingly put together by Amir, you are in your jaded cynicism missing a true game changer.
I do not go back as far as you in making a life changing discovery, actually a whole set of them. For me it was about 8 years ago. Having at that point been an audiophile for about 50 years, I loved my music at home but I always wondered why after all those years and after all the money I had invested plus the time to audition all the latest and greatest stuff, my sound was still not close to live sound in the concert hall. Retro gear like horns, tubes and vinyl was no closer in my opinion, just different. And, I heard many systems along the way costing hundreds of $thousands. Same result.
It was in the course of adding Mch for TV/video to my existing high end stereo that I encountered DSP EQ in the form of Audyssey in my lowly Integra Mch HT controller/prepro together with a beautiful JL Audio subwoofer. Wow! That was something. Before that, I had no idea how clear, articulate, well integrated, calibrated bass could sound with music. So, my original plan to listen to music as I had been through my Levinson line stage went totally out the window. I wanted everything to use Audyssey in the Integra, and I shifted all my listening to hi rez Mch in the process, as I also realized how limiting standard rez or vinyl had been in stereo. For the classical music I listen to, both at home and live, hi Rez Mch is way, way better. Along the way, several classical concert going friends heard my system. They are now all just as hooked as am I on DSP EQ and hi Rez Mch.
I have upgraded much since then, so Dirac Live has replaced my Audyssey Pro Kit. A Music/HT PC with JRiver and an Exasound e28 DAC have replaced my prepro. One of my friends commented about how we now live in a golden age of sound in our homes. We all quite agree that many of the technologies of the past decade or more have absolutely changed our home listening to something beyond our wildest audiophile dreams. DSP EQ is one of the cornerstones of that improvement.
I realize that superlatives and exaggerated descriptions are part and parcel of the high end today, more so than ever. We hear it from reviewers, dealers, manufacturers and web posters all the time. So, we tend to dismiss all of it as not credible. That might make my comments suspect as just more of the same. Unfortunately, if you take that view and if you dismiss the objective evidence painstakingly put together by Amir, you are in your jaded cynicism missing a true game changer.
David and Doug's views are the majority among the "elite" in highend audio. I know this because I used to think the exact same way. I've spent big dollars, even by David's standards, on gear sold by folks who fully agree with people like Doug and David. I've spent so much money, I'd be embarrassed to sit down and add up all the money I've spent. Slowly over time, I learned AND experienced the path that folks like Amir and Nyal advocate. For me, it was a hard fought and gradual de-programming which needed to be done. In the end, it was my admission that I really didn't have a clue what I was doing. I guess I am lucky that I haven't spent many decades nurturing false biases. I got into this hobby after my drumming career ended; I started a family and moved to the suburbs.
I am saying all of the above because I don't think all of the sarcasm and angst toward folks like Doug and David is really very helpful. I apologize if any of my comments toward them come off as being condescending or sarcastic.
I know for a fact that Nyal participated in an audiophile exorcism in my case and I believe he has done it to others as well. To me, the so called objectivists in this hobby are the most trustworthy and deeply committed to hi end playback.
Michael.
Hi Michael,
Thanks for this, snide remarks are only that and worthless. What I read from your post tells me that there's ambiguity and misperception that needs clarification. My bad as one side of the conversation!
There are 3 separate subjects being discussed simultaneously in these posts and maybe they should be separated. My purpose for these exchanges with Amir isn't to win convert or diminish, its only an online conversation with a colleague who happens to share a similar background. Our banter, sarcasm and put downs are mostly cultural humor and not adversarial as it might come across on this board making it seem personal when its not. That's on both of us, unfortunately we can't change nature. There's actually common ground between us on the core subject. The difference of opinion in the periphery is actually what's expanding the conversation, it can be a dead end or opportunity, depends on your pov.
From my perspective, these are the topics being discussed here;
1- Room acoustics and Dr. Toole, core issue.
2- Digital room EQ and its ease of use.
3- Analog & Digital world.
The first two are quicker to address so I'll there,
1- I acknowledge room interaction and its affects on the sound as does Amir, and Dr. Toole is one of the experts in the field. Somehow it looks as if I'm implying a contradiction to what little I've heard or read from the man. I don't! In fact I employ one of his techniques (didn't know it was his and been around for a while) canceling bass nodes with subs without the need for signal processing. Take a look at my system pictures, they've been up for a while. He's not advocating one gospel and anything else regarding my position vs Dr. Toole is conjecture or misunderstanding on the part of others.
2- Digital EQ is a powerful tool and has its application. My argument with Amir & Nyal is that it doesn't have universal application and its definitely not as simple and easy as they suggest, in fact the opposite. Its a complex science and to get it right at a high level requires lot of skill, expertise and some very specialized tools. My other argument is that there are other effective methods that don't involve signal processing to address this problem. Which I prefer for several reasons including my skill set. YMMV.
3- Preferring one standard over the other isn't "Elitist", "Ignorant" nor "Prejudiced" which implies the former two. Its only a counterpoint to another's opinion. Forcing people to accept a pov by verbally diminishing them is asinine even in matters of life & death and audio is only a luxury.
Why beat around the bush Michael, just come out and call the person a moron! While you're at it you should help de-program others nurturing lifetime false biases like Vladimir Lamm or Hubert of FM Acoustics for not putting out a DAC. Better still exorcise Dave Wilson to make his Alexandrias available with signal processors! Where are these objectivists when you need them
?david
Last edited:
............................................................
Why beat around the bush Michael, just come out and call the person a moron! While you're at it you should help de-program others nurturing lifetime false biases like Vladimir Lamm or Hubert of FM Acoustics for not putting out a DAC. Better still exorcise Dave Wilson to make his Alexandrias available with signal processors! Where are these objectivists when you them
david
Okay, you are a Moron. But you are a moron like Amir, like Dallas Justice and like me. I doubt someone who is a real thru and thru moron gets into heading the projects Amir did at Microsoft. I believe Dallas Justice is an attorney and not too many of them are genuine morons either. I guess you'll have to take my word for it that I am not a moron.
My story is not too different than Amir's including the Tact gear. My system was of higher quality than his when I got a Tact. Same result.
I think to call it de-programming is just about right. I find people have much too little appreciation for how deeply a bias that is fed and nurtured gets into their minds shading everything they think about a given area (in this case reproduction of music). This is especially so about something that one is passionate about and is emotional (good music is always emotional).Sometimes you run into something and it stops you in your tracks and you can unravel the programming. If it lets you back away a bit and look again, things can suddenly look (or in this case sound) very different.
I am guilty at times of deprecating and denigrating those who don't agree too much on these forums. It is a poor attempt to get through to someone who otherwise will just read what is written, shake their head about me not knowing a good analog system and not understanding. Does no good to tell them you have been there, done that, and there is a better way. I have even shown people at times what good DSP can do. Some are so hardened against digital anything, they agree the sound is very different yet cannot let go of assuming being so different means it is wrong. I also have engaged DSP without their knowledge, and gotten real compliments. Funny how knowing something is digitally sullied changes what the same sound is heard to be.
How do you know what they know and believe? I tell you that you don't. As a customer you rarely know the real story here. I mentioned before how vast majority of speaker designers would love the freedom to make active speakers with DSP. I didn't just say that. It comes from talking to top speaker designers, asking them what they have against these technologies and hear that they love them. I ask why they don't produce them and they correctly state that their customers are the likes of you and would not at all want to hear about such approaches. So as any good business, they sell what the customers want.
Reminds of Steve Jobs saying no one has any use for video playback in portable devices. Only to turn around and add that feature a couple of years later. Those of us in the industry who knew him, and knew of Apple's negotiations to get video rights knew he was telling a mistruth but people believed it. They would quote him left on right on why video makes no sense. "Steve jobs said people only want music." Well, Steve jobs didn't. He didn't have a video product with the original iPod so did what was right: put down features he didn't have before.
I also don't know how much experience either has in signal processing. Neither is published anywhere so that we can read their formal/academic writing. All we have is their formal front as founders of companies. Are they experts in signal processing and DAC and decided to not build such products? Or is it that they don't know how to innovate in that area even if they wanted?
Likewise, I like to thank you for keeping your composure and continuing this back and forth. As you see, it is proving informative to members at large.
Thanks for sharing your personal experience with me. It is the best way to know a person and where they are coming from. We have some things in common there. In 1970s while I was going to college, I repaired hundreds of turntables including the Garrard. And had an audiophile friend who bought the Meridian/Philips CD player and I modified it to give him a remote. He had Bryston amps, and Maggies for speakers. Little about experiencing his system was life changing for me though. What was life changing was what I experienced more than 20 years later, circa year 2000.
I was reading one of the audio magazines and I run into a review of a product category and company I had not heard about. The company was TacT and the product was the TCS, which was their multichannel processor with auto EQ. The reviewer made one comment that stuck in my mind: "turning on the eq was like having the walls in my listening room go away!" He proceeded to give it 10 out 10 for rating and I think similar score for "value" even though the box cost $10,000. Lots of money but I was intrigued enough that shortly I too had the box in my house. I had a super small home theater the size of a bedroom. It had powered Paradigm speakers and Lexicon processor. I also had a couple of MKB subs.
I pull out the Lexicon and replace it with the TCS. Struggle through the obtuse software that ran on the PC to control the thing and waited for it to compute its filters which seem to take an infinity. Then in an instant, the audio path changed and with it, the course of my audio life. The walls indeed collapsed. The sound was open and relaxed. It was as if you unhitched a 10,000 pound trailer from your car all of a sudden and experienced what she could do accelerating. Imaging was out of this world. I didn't know what imaging was until I heard it right there and then. The subwoofer was 100% blended into the mains now and no longer would I have the urge to turn it up or down based on what I was listening. Or hearing their presence. No system regardless of price had done any of this. All in what could be considered as a mid-priced system in a very modest room.
The more shocking was yet to come. I take the processor and put it inline with a set of $20 plastic computer speakers and sub. I am thinking any minute the thing is going to throw up its hands and saying, "I don't fix junk!"
Almost all of the above was in listening to music by the way. Movies also improved, especially dialog but I want to make clear given our previous exchange that what is good for home theater, is also good for music.
At the time, I had gotten my first group to manage at Microsoft which developed audio/video compression. And work had just started on Windows Vista. I immediately package the box and cables, take it to work and set up the same experiment with the speakers in a conference room. I invited my team over and had them listen one by one. Everyone heard and was amazed at the fidelity improvement. It was then that we decided to put auto EQ in Windows. The experience was that life changing for me. When you bet your career on a technology, you better have your facts right because the impact would not just be a hobby gone wrong.
As I walk the halls of high-end suites at CES, go to people's homes, or even play our own system without EQ, when people ask me what I think of the sound, I tell them but usually caveat it with, "I suspect the bass is wrong but it sounded..." Because I know the bass is wrong. I knew it then experimentally, and I know it now from deep scientific point of view.
There are many things we do wrong in audio. At some point, we need to do away with them and free the designers in providing a better solution to us. I guarantee you that no matter which speaker brand you use, its designers if given complete freedom would want to put in DSP to correct room response. Likewise, vast majority would want to make their speakers active. They don't do either because the market they sell to thinks these are deadly sins. Yet from every bit of science, experience and listening tests we know these to be the right approaches. The end result is that speaker companies we like such as your Wilson, and my Revel, give us passive speakers with no ability to EQ them in digital domain. Because the market demands being able to swap out amplifiers, not knowing what I experienced in cheap little amplifiers stuck to the back of my Paradigm active speakers.
Fortunately built-in processing and active speakers are the norm in professional sound reproduction and hence the development of JBL M2. I hope you can experience that kind of system alongside of high-end passive systems as you describe. Because I have and the latter is not even in the running in my book. When I started to build my new listening room, the first thing I purchased was the JBL Synthesis SDEC-4500 which is a 14 channel EQ and crossover system. I am frugal guy when it comes to audio but this thing even at my cost was thousands and thousands of dollars. I knew though that I had to bite the bullet and get this as the first foundation of the room. As was getting a speaker that was designed according to the best science we know. The amp? Sure, I put in my beefy and trusty Proceed.
For subs, I knew I had to have more than one so I put in two at mid-points to cancel out good bit of room modes and then used EQ to correct where it got boosted.
Between these three components, speaker, sub and EQ, I had a full toolbox for getting great sound. No way was I going to put in a passive system in there and pray that somehow, by sheer magic, their cost and reputation would overcome the physics of the room. We can believe in a lot of what we can't prove objectively, but this one is not one of them. As I explained before, it is trivial to show the damaging aspects of room response to anyone, high-end audiophile or not. A $1,000 system and a $1,000,000 system will both have the same issues as I proved to myself using the TacT system.
I believe that is what you believe. But I can guarantee you that you have use for it, but you simply don't know it. It is the nature of this hobby and male human beings to be so stubborn. It is exposure to something better when done right that for some people, will make them take a leap forward in their views of this hobby. The review of TacT I read created motivation for me to try it but no way did it prepare me for what I heard. Likewise, I don't have high hopes that this back and forth is enabling you to really know my argument until such time that you flip a switch on and off and hear the difference yourself.
You have a fork in the road here. The blue or the red pill as the line went in the movie Matrix. You can choose to continue to live in the safe world of high-end, believing that if the bass is wrong, it must be that the cable, the amp or the speaker at fault. Or you can listen to me and mountain of evidence I can put forward that there is a fundamental problem here that cannot be solved in these manners. For now, I just need you to recognize that you have the wrong reproduction in the room. You don't need to accept the digital solution. But rather, the "eventuality" of it if I may talk like they did in Matrix. That there is no high fidelity reproduction in a home listening space when it comes to low frequencies. It is all different shades of wrong. If your audio journey has not included correction of bass response in every system rather than the exception, then I am jealous of you as one day you are hopefully going to experience what I did with that original TacT TCS system! My revelation has come and gone.
Appreciate your sharing too Amir!
Funny you mention TACT, it was THE products that put me off digital EQ "for my" high end needs. I read that same review and got me all excited too and ordered one for in house trial. At the time I was dealing with 2 two systems with bass problems. From what you wrote the difference in the experience has to do a lot with both the context and intent. Lofts in Tribeca, NY look amazing but can confront one with incredible acoustic challenges. According to the I had an intrusive peak around 55hz and small dip at 93hz in my room and my client had a very sharp drop off starting around 86hz and to -17db by 65hz. Basically there wasn't any bass in the room. Tried subs and brought in a well known manufacturer of acoustic panels to address the issue too. Nothing worked, so we looked at TACt. My own experiments yielded nothing but negative results. Even with a digital source, tone, timbre and texture were severely impacted. At the time they were a hot commodity so I the failure down to my own inexperience. Contacted the manufacturer and visited them at CES but I heard the same problem in their room, even the acoustics were wrong to which they admitted to and put it down to time pressures not allowing them to optimize the sound. I'm aware of same challenges at shows so we agreed for them to send a tech to my place, which they did after the show. He spent two days running tests in my room which yielded fine measurements but always at an unacceptable price, even for him, to the sound quality. He only spent an hour with my friend before packing up and leaving. Later I was invited to a gentleman's home in upstate NY, who happened to be an living off his various parents. He had a large purpose built room with about 10 channels of Tact with Soundlabs. He'd sit you in the middle of the room, put a cutout acoustic panel in front of your face and partially over your head. Then told not to move the head and enjoy the experience! He might have have achieved the surround but for classical music the sound quality was pathetic, same reaction from the other person who brought me there. Otherwise over the years majority of my exposure to digital EQ is limited to HT, where I'd either recommend someone to the client or push the button and let the processor do its thing. I have no commercial or personal in it. I've had the same conversations with an acquaintance, who's a digital sound technician in Vegas for a while now. His job and expertise is EQing multi-million dollar projects with absurd no. of drivers in large hotel ballrooms. Every driver, sometimes over a couple thousand get's individually EQ'd and balanced. According to him his biggest challenge is alway with time delay in the context of a live performance and that's his nightmare, the rest is routine. He's one of the guys watching and making on the fly adjustments during the performance. Last year curiosity brought him over to my place. He's younger and never had any interest in analog. For him analog is already dead and high end audi is a joke. He brought the company software and a Weiss A to D. To cut the story short 30 hours later we did reach a final resolution. What we agreed on was,
a- commercial pop recordings from the artist he's currently working for in Vegas were EQ'd successfully without any appreciable difference, i.e. the EQ didn't make it better or worse, just changed the presentation and improved frequency response.
b- Digital Jazz, bass notes were better delineated but there was a certain amount weight loss and solidity suffered to an extent. Acceptable exchange for better frequency response.
c- Digital Classical, specially with large complex pieces. He smoothed out the strings, brought some sweetness where needed and sorted out the sound stage. Problem arose when music was supposed to be raukus and the same EQ took off the edge for the piece.
d- Vinyl source, digital recording, minor difference in quality from the CD version, better frequency response?
e- Analog source, Jazz and Classical recordings. This is were we got nowhere. The transformation in the A to D and D to A process was already huge, better than the 24bit CDs of those same recordings I had on hand but still no where near the analog signal. He agreed and we didn't go any further with with more signal processing. I still happily live with the bass bump in my room and he's content with digital and continue to ridicule audiophiles!
I spent some time in a couple of studios surround sound mastering for hollywood block busters while hocking some pro digital gear. If that's what the M2 was designed for, I'm afraid the gulf between them and large SET driven 60's theater horn, will never be crossed! Its much easier for us to visit Washington & Utah, looking forward to that.
david
What makes you so sure? Aside from our business relationship I'm very close friends with Vladimir and his family for 20 years now. In this case, I know him and you don't! I've met Manuel at shows and talked about the subject in the past, I suggest you do the same
!I'm hoping to at least keep our exchanges above this level if possible...
david
Often but there are many digital recordings that aren't available any other way, so I listen to a lot of that too.
david
I
I honestly do not see how Lamm or FM Acoustics fit in here. Quality issues aside, they are both analog-centric electronics companies, and neither does speakers AFAIK. Why bring them up? They clearly have no expertise in digital signal processing, and acquiring that expertise would be quite costly.
I also have no idea why you brought up Wilson earlier. His firm also has no DSP expertise.
FWIW, Andy Quint recently reviewed Wilson Duette IIs plus a Wilson sub for TAS. Andy and I are good friends. I heard this system, as well as his previous Wilson Sasha-based system many times. Andy is also a recording reviewer for TAS and Fanfare. He would not think of listening to music seriously without DSP EQ, Anthem ARC being his current choice. I introduced him to it and to Room EQ more generally, which he, also as a frequent concert goer, considers absolutely essential to best sound. The difference is an obvious no brainer on listening to his system. Incidentally, he also reviews LPs on occasion.
What makes you so sure? Aside from our business relationship I'm very close friends with Vladimir and his family for 20 years now. In this case, I know him and you don't! I've met Manuel at shows and talked about the subject in the past, I suggest you do the same
I'm hoping to at least keep our exchanges above this level if possible...
david
I honestly do not see how Lamm or FM Acoustics fit in here. Quality issues aside, they are both analog-centric electronics companies, and neither does speakers AFAIK. Why bring them up? They clearly have no expertise in digital signal processing, and acquiring that expertise would be quite costly.
I also have no idea why you brought up Wilson earlier. His firm also has no DSP expertise.
FWIW, Andy Quint recently reviewed Wilson Duette IIs plus a Wilson sub for TAS. Andy and I are good friends. I heard this system, as well as his previous Wilson Sasha-based system many times. Andy is also a recording reviewer for TAS and Fanfare. He would not think of listening to music seriously without DSP EQ, Anthem ARC being his current choice. I introduced him to it and to Room EQ more generally, which he, also as a frequent concert goer, considers absolutely essential to best sound. The difference is an obvious no brainer on listening to his system. Incidentally, he also reviews LPs on occasion.
I'm not dismissing anything Fitz. The graphs aren't lying and show a chain of events, but there's information and vital facts missing from these objective truths and they were done to prove a point. To arrive at the same "SUBJECTIVE" conclusion and canonize these graphs as the gospel certain standards and constants should be set and accepted. Objectively, there's nothing to them besides a representation of a process that Amir conducted to prove a point, do you know anything beyond that point that makes them the irrefutable proof against my argument? I hoped for some clarification and agreement of the procedures before being judged as a jaded cynic and moron that needs to be exorcised, but alas this is the internet and everybody has an opinion!
Let's discuss my so called jadedness and cynicism once you've clarified the following and how it applies to my argument beyond a change in graphics with application sound processed EQ.
1- What's the source of the generated signal
a- Digital signal generator.
b- Frequency sweep from a CD or DVD.
c- Was there any music involved. What was it if any.
2- What was the associated system used in this test.
3- What speakers and how many.
a- Where were they placed.
b- Was their placement optimal and verified as such.
4- Construction and dimensions of the room.
a- How's the room finished.
b- Is there gradation to the floor, if yes how much and how its made.
5- Where and how many mikes were placed to build this model. What were they.
6- The A/B listening tests that might could be a little subjective or tainted in this objective test.
a- How bad was the sound to begin with and why.
b- How much and where was the signal processing applied.
c- The tracks played, how many and for how long.
d- Analog sources (point of contention!) used if any.
e- If yes was how was it A/B'd? Digital copy vs EQ'd digital or vs the original analog signal.
7- How many panelist were tested.
a- Who were they and their individual responses.
b- Were they instructed in any way what to listen for or hear.
c- What did they actually and individually prefer in each case.
Not to undermine your Gospel and the Prophet but for objectivism's sake, at the very least do you even know what software/hardware Amir used to generate these graphs? If yes, are you familiar enough with it to understand its complexity and/or its faults? Please come back after you've verified the above and we can discuss my cynicism in depth!
david
At the continual request (VERY continual ) of Bonzo75, I'm more open to the idea of dsp than I ever have been. I had always been anti due to me having a 75% lp based collection, and it seemed anathema to do an AD/DA conversion to my beloved analogue. But the gist I'm getting is that excellently done AD/DA is fully transparent, and I'll prob not even perceive any alteration. And of course the end result will well justify the journey. Also, the tonal characteristics of my current sound will remain unaltered. Hopefully this is all true.
My main issue revolves around the sheer dearth of available places to hear well implemented dsp in the UK (let alone any tt based systems that use dsp here). I know an eminent member here based in the US has as a spectacularly positive sounding dsp 2+2 system that Bonzo says I must experience, but this still leaves me w/the rare dsp dealerships in the UK being more pro audio/home cinema orientated, and prob none of them will have any experience w/a tt in the chain.
Can I ask a TOTALLY dumb question? If a node/peak/call it what you will, is analysed and needs to be smoothed out or eliminated, just what happens to the musical information in that area of frequency spectrum? Is it eliminated for good, or is it still fully present, just audible differently? I would hate to think there is frequency spectrum censorship as a result of this process.
) of Bonzo75, I'm more open to the idea of dsp than I ever have been. I had always been anti due to me having a 75% lp based collection, and it seemed anathema to do an AD/DA conversion to my beloved analogue. But the gist I'm getting is that excellently done AD/DA is fully transparent, and I'll prob not even perceive any alteration. And of course the end result will well justify the journey. Also, the tonal characteristics of my current sound will remain unaltered. Hopefully this is all true.My main issue revolves around the sheer dearth of available places to hear well implemented dsp in the UK (let alone any tt based systems that use dsp here). I know an eminent member here based in the US has as a spectacularly positive sounding dsp 2+2 system that Bonzo says I must experience, but this still leaves me w/the rare dsp dealerships in the UK being more pro audio/home cinema orientated, and prob none of them will have any experience w/a tt in the chain.
Can I ask a TOTALLY dumb question? If a node/peak/call it what you will, is analysed and needs to be smoothed out or eliminated, just what happens to the musical information in that area of frequency spectrum? Is it eliminated for good, or is it still fully present, just audible differently? I would hate to think there is frequency spectrum censorship as a result of this process.
I am sure for the simple reason that to get someone to tell you something that goes against the very nature of the products they design and sell, requires a special relationship. You need to be a respected technical person in his field so that he knows a marketing story will not work on you. And that the next question will be deep and technical and he better have that on his side as he argues with someone who has his research on his side. Being a dealer would put you at the least favorable position to hear such a story.
But tell me this: how is LAMM relevant to your story? Plenty of people listen to digital systems though his amplifiers, our own Steve included. If he produced a DAC, that somehow damages his standing as an amplifier manufacturer? And how is that at all related to topic at hand?
Not sure what this name dropping is about. Who is Manuel and what are you saying his position is in this regard? But sure, I am happy to chat with anyone and have them present to me scientifically how they think the physics of room acoustics ceases to exist with their product.In this case, I know him and you don't! I've met Manuel at shows and talked about the subject in the past, I suggest you do the same
Yes, would be good to not use name dropping as proof of anything. It is fine and good for context but saying I know so and so for X number of years amounts to nothing.
If you mean I should not question your understanding of these designers, then I can't do that. You brought up the topic of these two companies not building certain products as meaning something. You can't tell me that somehow your knowledge of who these designers are is absolute and cannot be questioned.
At the continual request (VERY continual
My main issue revolves around the sheer dearth of available places to hear well implemented dsp in the UK (let alone any tt based systems that use dsp here). I know an eminent member here based in the US has as a spectacularly positive sounding dsp 2+2 system that Bonzo says I must experience, but this still leaves me w/the rare dsp dealerships in the UK being more pro audio/home cinema orientated, and prob none of them will have any experience w/a tt in the chain.
Can I ask a TOTALLY dumb question? If a node/peak/call it what you will, is analysed and needs to be smoothed out or eliminated, just what happens to the musical information in that area of frequency spectrum? Is it eliminated for good, or is it still fully present, just audible differently? I would hate to think there is frequency spectrum censorship as a result of this process.
My experience is that like everything else properly executing this technology and at a high level requires expertise and specialized tools beyond most user's pay grade. What happens to the musical information and its integrity depends on who's the operator and the quality of their tools. My recommendation is to figure out your budget, get someone to covert a few lps for you to digital on a similarly priced box. Listen to the initial conversion and decide if you want to go further. I haven't made it past this hurdle.
david
It was? Really? Why wait until now to mention all of these specifics? I asked a number of times for such detail but good that we have them now and we can work with it.Appreciate your sharing too Amir!
Funny you mention TACT, it was THE products that put me off digital EQ "for my" high end needs.
Wow. That is incredible memory to remember 15 years later such detail. -17 dB and not -15?
How had you measured such without the TacT? How broad were the modes?
Can you explain that for us? What speaker did you use that could not muster more bass below 86 Hz? We are talking bookshelf speaker performance here.
Note that DSP cannot be use outside of a very limited scope to fix this problem. If you have no bass, you have no bass. DSP's use in taming your peaks actually lowers the bass output. And except in select cases, cannot be used to fill the gaps. Sure, you can try to boost the response you don't have but you risk severe damage to your amplifier and in the case of nulls, your speakers.
You put subs in the room and you still had no bass? What happened to your frequency response? Still had the same modes and steep drop off?
Before talking about tone and texture, what happened to the bass, i.e. the problems you mentioned above? Tone and timbre going away can 100% be a placebo effect or real. The frequency response is not and hence my question about that.
DSP in general and TacT in the specific, are not a solution to every acoustic problem. I have been very careful to talk about one and only one specific use in this thread: pulling down massive peaks in response. I didn't say if you have no bass with 17 db drop off starting from 86 Hz, putting a DSP fixes that problem. You had a fundamental problem with that system. Maybe it had a high-pass filter some place in that system. Without some diagnostic data that that you could have used TacT for, we can't do anything with this situation.
What problem? No bass below 86 Hz? Or was the bass great and the problem was "tone and texture?"
I have to keep bringing you back to the problem you stated at the outset: did it fix the bass? What was the perceptual difference in bass? I am not interested, at this moment at least, in your observations of tone and timbre.
I don't know what any of this means. What do you mean by "EQ?" We are not discussing the topic of equalizations in general. There are huge sins committed with general use of EQ. We are talking about measuring a room, seeing a 10 dB peak in bass response and pulling that down. Is that what he did with the outcome as you say? I am being specific here for a reason.
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
I forgot to mention that one of the greatest systems I've heard is my buddy "Marty" here at WBF who is deeply involved with DSP and is highly knowledgeable in the approach. Many members here including Bonzo have taken my advice and visited Marty in New Jersy to hear his system. I tell people to bring their Depens" when they go
Marty uses a heavily modded TacT
Marty uses a heavily modded TacT
Similar threads
