Audio Science: Does it explain everything about how something sounds?

[rockitman]

I thought about it but I think I'm going to hold off for the AF-0, but you know how it goes Christian, might change my mind tomorrow.

david

So when is the AF0 supposed to come out ? I would think an integrated active isolation table/stand would be necessity to bring the new table a level beyond the AF1...just adding mass to the platter will not do it, IMHO.

 

[Atmasphere]

Regarding those mic designs , would the naturalness not lay in the fact as to how the airresonance /electricity conversion takes place tube versus SS , i mean a wonderfull tubed neumanmike would probably sound even better if the tube used would have better overall FR response(bass region ?) , i simply mean the 2 can go hand in hand instead of fighting each other

They go plenty deep, FWIW. The electronics really is not the limiting factor, its the diaphragm.

Tubes do not have bandwidth limits as you seem to be implying- any tube can respond right to DC (the output sections of our preamps and amps also have response to DC, just like solid state). The tube used in my U-67s used to be used a lot in the front end of FM tuners, so HF bandwidth is not a problem either.

 

[ddk]

So when is the AF0 supposed to come out ? I would think an integrated active isolation table/stand would be necessity to bring the new table a level beyond the AF1...just adding mass to the platter will not do it, IMHO.

Your guess is as good as mine, but its coming.

david

 

[steve williams]

There are no hard and fast rules Johnny. The best answer I can give is...it all depends. There are now 4 platter materials and one style of mat, which is paper thin poron glued onto a thin sheet of Mylar. I have only two platters...Duralumin and Stainless. Stainless is the heaviest of all the platter materials. The newest platter material on the block is Titanium. I have no idea how it sounds...buying extra platters is not cheap....somewhere in the $3500.00 to $4000 range If my memory serves me right.

I'm keeping both. Are you going to try out titanium ?

The acrylic has been discontinued. There are still 3

 

[NorthStar]

I have read in the past that acrylic is not "scientifically" sounds? ...It looks great though.

 

[Atmasphere]

Yes- Acrylic is too hard and causes the LP to sound bright, due to physical HF reflections.

 

[NorthStar]

Hmmm, how many recordings are done with a natural miking technique which captures the ambience of the venue & the sound of the voices/instruments as we would hear at the venue live? Are we not more inclined to encounter closely spot miked recordings - you know from almost inside a piano body, etc? How many times have you listened to a piano from where these spot mikes are placed?

How many live events are miked & use a PA, anyway - so we are listening to a live feed rather than live instruments. It all gets somewhat confusing when you go down this road, no?

How much is natural & how much is illusion?

I have taken the time to read every single post of this thread, like most of us who post and not, ...and yours, John, captures an essential element of the utmost importance in the overall equation on the topic of this thread...along with the room's acoustics, and the loudspeaker's accurate design in reproducing with the highest level of fidelity the 'naturalism' of the best quality music recordings.

Most (if not all) of the high heeled members here with an ultra hi-end hi-fi stereo system setup; they have some of the best music recordings to go along with it. ...No matter if it is an analog rig, a digital one, or both.
In that regard they are scientists, sort of, in the art of music listening from their ultra high-end stereo systems. Yes because their vast experience dictates it.

And the real audio science is not restricted to one system over another one, or to one room over another one, because we cannot be in all the rooms @ the same time and with all the ultra high-end stereo systems, but to all of them in their own natural environment, ...our own home's element...including our neurological vibrating chords of our brain's emotion section. And even if we can measure our brain stimulus from music, we are not yet @ the level to measure that emotional transfer to our heart.
And it is that trajectory between the brain and the heart, from an emotional music flow, that delivers the final outcome to the soul.

And no reference, no measurement, no science can yet determine the complexity of a man/woman's soul. ...Because after all, music listening do transform, manipulate, increase the soul's vibrating intensity. ...The essence of inner being. And it is that inner activity that cannot be quantify in time and in space of the multidimensional multiverse.

Alright, I admit it; it sounds a little over-the-top. ...But is science itself over-the-top more often than not?

 

[rockitman]

I have read in the past that acrylic is not "scientifically" sounds? ...It looks great though.

Durlin material has replaced the once massive acrylic platters on most Clear Audio TT's

 

[NorthStar]

Durlin material has replaced the once massive acrylic platters on most Clear Audio TT's

Thx Christian.

And between Durlin, Aluminum, Stainless Steel and Titanium; which one is the superior material composition for an ultra hi-end TT's platter? ...Or Gold?
...Sound performance wise; scientifically measured and from extensive listening tests by the best set of ears in the audio passion industrial and professional world. :b

 

[stehno]

I've come to the conclusion that flat, smooth FR, low noise and low distortion are on first and dynamic range comes in next, particularly when that drum kit kicks in. You can disagree, of course. Enjoy.

Tim, wouldn’t you agree these attributes or characteristics are all of equal importance? I’m not saying that to be smug. Rather, I’m saying that because when certain universal distortions are properly addressed, every last characteristic that makes up a musical note and its interaction with the acoustic space improve equally, though some aspects of improvement may not be as apparent as others (e.g. improved timbre vs a more general improved high freq. detail) to some listeners.

In other words, there should be no need to discriminate or prioritize one’s sonic characteristic preferences since the greatly raised general noise floor (induced by numerous distortions) doesn’t discriminate. Nor does a much lowered noise floor discriminate when distortions have been minimized.

This would be potentially contrary to say a component, speaker, or cable upgrade where the designer may strategically or intentionally attempt to discriminate for or against specific characteristics and/or areas of the music spectrum whereas indiscriminate universal distortions never do such a thing.

But if what you enjoy is formats and systems that do anything more to achieve "natural" than reproduce the recording as faithfully as possible within their design and financial limitations, disagree is what we'll do.

Very good point, Tim. I wanna’ be careful here so as not to cause a stampede to runneth over me, but for me tubes come to mind as many will claim that tubes inject a warmth into the presentation to make it more “musical”. Yet, many of those and/or others will also claim that tube warmth is a coloration (the effects of a distortion) and not a natural warmth.

I agree with that speculation. To take it one step further, I would attest that there is an abundance of natural warmth already embedded in even some of the most inferior-engineered recordings. But again like all the other characteristics, much of that warmth remains inaudible below a much raised noise floor. However, since the noise floor remains so high in virtually every playback system, the coloration or warmth of tubes has a tendency to suppress or warm up what should normally be a cold, sterile distorted musical presentation that can induce much ear fatigue. So if a general noise floor has not been greatly lowered, ingredients that potentially induce their own distortions i.e. some tubes, can become a necessary Band-aid just to keep the presentation listenable (or as some may say, more musical).

 

[rockitman]

Thx Christian.

And between Durlin, Aluminum, Stainless Steel and Titanium; which one is the superior material composition for an ultra hi-end TT's platter? ...Or Gold?
...Sound performance wise; scientifically measured and from extensive listening tests by the best set of ears in the audio passion industrial and professional world. :b

There is no superior material...it all depends on the design and material implementation of the TT in question. Durlin most closely mirrors the vinyl material records are made out of....does it make it the best ? Who knows...there are more important factors involved in the design of good TT's.

 

[NorthStar]

Your avatar smells oozes of class, I just can't take my eyes of it.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim, wouldn’t you agree these attributes or characteristics are all of equal importance?

I'm not sure I would agree. Decades of testing by Toole and Olive not only show a direct line from measurement to preference, they show a direct line from frequency response accuracy to preference.

I’m saying that because when certain universal distortions are properly addressed, every last characteristic that makes up a musical note and its interaction with the acoustic space improve equally, though some aspects of improvement may not be as apparent as others (e.g. improved timbre vs a more general improved high freq. detail) to some listeners.

What universal distortions are we talking about? And if some aspects of improvement are more apparent than others, are those aspects not obviously "more important?"

I wanna’ be careful here so as not to cause a stampede to runneth over me, but for me tubes come to mind as many will claim that tubes inject a warmth into the presentation to make it more “musical”. Yet, many of those and/or others will also claim that tube warmth is a coloration (the effects of a distortion) and not a natural warmth.

If tubes "inject" warmth, it is a coloration.

I agree with that speculation. To take it one step further, I would attest that there is an abundance of natural warmth already embedded in even some of the most inferior-engineered recordings. But again like all the other characteristics, much of that warmth remains inaudible below a much raised noise floor. However, since the noise floor remains so high in virtually every playback system, the coloration or warmth of tubes has a tendency to suppress or warm up what should normally be a cold, sterile distorted musical presentation that can induce much ear fatigue. So if a general noise floor has not been greatly lowered, ingredients that potentially induce their own distortions i.e. some tubes, can become a necessary Band-aid just to keep the presentation listenable (or as some may say, more musical).

I'm not aware that the noise floor is very high in virtually every system; I think the ambient noise in most rooms is greater than the noise floor of most quality systems, and by "quality," I mean systems down to those a fraction of the cost of most high-end audiophile systems. I think listening fatigue is typically caused by distortion, not the noise floor, and in this case the distortion I'm referring to is uneven - usually boosted trebles - frequency response. Personally, I respond as negatively to bloated lower mids as I do to boosted highs, but I don't think I'm typical. I think a lot of people actually like bloated lower mids. The problem with the band aid, at least to my ears, is that it is systemic; it cannot be bi-passed. It colors beautiful recordings with the same brush it uses on the harsh ones that may need its treatment.

Tim

 

[853guy]

853guy, I love reading your posts, they are refreshing, informative, and funny and they make a great deal of sense. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Thank you, Peter, that's nice of you to say. Most of my learning curves have been steep, involved a lot of back-tracking and occasionally were public, culminating in swearing and a very embarrased wife. I try not to post that often as I've become convinced the internet could do with less of my attention and my family could do with more of it.

I enjoy sharing what limited experience I've gained and I'm grateful there's many here who do so without agenda.

However, I'm sure there are many others who see a post from me, grit their teeth and say "Pffff, that guy... what a douche."

C'est la vie.

 

[PeterA]

If tubes "inject" warmth, it is a coloration.



I'm not aware that the noise floor is very high in virtually every system; I think the ambient noise in most rooms is greater than the noise floor of most quality systems, and by "quality," I mean systems down to those a fraction of the cost of most high-end audiophile systems. I think listening fatigue is typically caused by distortion, not the noise floor, and in this case the distortion I'm referring to is uneven - usually boosted trebles - frequency response. Personally, I respond as negatively to bloated lower mids as I do to boosted highs, but I don't think I'm typical. I think a lot of people actually like bloated lower mids. The problem with the band aid, at least to my ears, is that it is systemic; it cannot be bi-passed. It colors beautiful recordings with the same brush it uses on the harsh ones that may need its treatment.

Tim

This is my experience too. I really dislike boosted trebles and lower mids, and artificial warmth. It instantly reminds me that I am listening to a system and I lose focus on the music.

 

[jkeny]

My take on this noise floor issue is that it is actually not being revealed by the steady state signals that are used in testing so we have no idea what the real noise floor is. Further to this I believe it's the modulation of the noise floor that's perceptually important & not the absolute noise floor. And I'm of the opinion that noise floor modulations at a very low level affect our perception of music but not in a way that we are aware that it's noise - more like an imprecision in presentation - imprecision in attack, & decay of instruments - the elements that we mostly use to differentiate instruments. This, I'm sure is how things can snap into focus when some of these noise floor elements are improved

Getting back to steady state Vs more music-like test signals & measurement. Look at IMD measurements - they usually are done with two single tone signals (19 & 20KHz at -3 or -6dB)? & the resulting IMD spurs plotted. Fine but extrapolate this to multitones as the test signal & see what IMD spurs are measured. Also do the measurements at various amplitudes & plot. If you extrapolate this sufficiently with many tones at many different amplitudes analogous to a busy passage in music all these side spurs would form a grass at the base of the FFT measurement i.e a noise floor & when IMD spurs are added on top of other spurs, it may not be at a low level. Now change this pattern of tones & what would we see - a different noise floor i.e a modulating noise floor which shifts with changes in tone pattern & amplitude(music). I've seen the notion of masking being used as the reason why side spurs will not be audible but when all the side spurs are added together is this not perceived as a noise floor?

This is just one example of a measurement that isn't done - correct me if I'm wrong. If it was we may a have a very different picture of our audio devices. This, to me, represents the great unmeasured measurable!! It may turn out that it is not a low level noise floor fluctuation, at all - when added together the IMDs from multitone test signals may be very measurable & way above audibility, I don't know, at the moment.

It could be a significant factor in the tubes Vs SS & TT Vs digital debates/disagreements?

I remember reading Scott Wurcer on DIYaudio a year or so ago posting that he used some multitone test patterns on some manufacturer's DAC evaluation boards & it really separated out the performance/implementation of the DACs. Haven't heard him refer to it since -maybe it wasn't very flattering to his own company's design efforts?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

My take on this noise floor issue is that it is actually not being revealed by the steady state signals that are used in testing so we have no idea what the real noise floor is. Further to this I believe it's the modulation of the noise floor that's perceptually important & not the absolute noise floor. And I'm of the opinion that noise floor modulations at a very low level affect our perception of music but not in a way that we are aware that it's noise - more like an imprecision in presentation - imprecision in attack, & decay of instruments - the elements that we mostly use to differentiate instruments. This, I'm sure is how things can snap into focus when some of these noise floor elements are improved

Sounds reasonable. Do you think the noise floor modulates up and down with the volume of the signal? The complexity of the signal? I imagine the answer is probably "Yes."

Getting back to steady state Vs more music-like test signals & measurement. Look at IMD measurements - they usually are done with two single tone signals 19 & 20KHz at -3 or -6dB & the resulting IMD spurs plotted. Fine but extrapolate this to multitones as the test signal & see what IMD spurs are measured. Also do the measurements at various amplitudes & plot. If you extrapolate this sufficiently with many tones at many different amplitudes analogous to a busy passage in music all these side spurs would form a grass at the base of the FFT measurement i.e a noise floor & when IMD spurs are added on top of other spurs, it may not be at a low level. Now change this pattern of tones & what would we see - a different noise floor i.e a modulating noise floor which shifts with changes in tone pattern & amplitude(music). I've seen the notion of masking being used as the reason why side spurs will not be audible but when all the side spurs are added together is this not perceived as a noise floor? This is just one example of a measurement that isn't done - correct me if I'm wrong. If it was we may a have a very different picture of our audio devices./QUOTE]

Why not? If your theory of the modulating noise floor is correct, these measurement would, I'd think, be critical to quality product development.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

This is my experience too. I really dislike boosted trebles and lower mids, and artificial warmth. It instantly reminds me that I am listening to a system and I lose focus on the music.

I guess I'm easy, Peter. My car radio can't seem to distract me from good music, but I get your point and I don't want any bloat or glare in my home system that can be avoided.

Tim

 

[PeterA]

I recently heard member Al M.'s system. This talk about noise floor is quite interesting. There is also the noise floor of the room. Al just installed some new ASC window plugs and had the outside walls of his house, which correspond to two walls of his listening room, insulated and re-sided. The result is a MUCH quieter room. I noticed this immediately upon entering it. We did not take any quick measurements before or after, which is a shame. However, his system now sounds completely different. The huge drop in room noise has resulted in much more perceived resolution from his system. People talk about black backgrounds, well, now solo voices on the stage sounded incredibly realistic to me in his system. The window plugs are also probably reducing the vibrations coming off of the glass which may also be a big reason for the improvement.

Anyway, I think a discussion could be had about these two different kinds of noise floor - the room's and the system's.

 

[PeterA]

I guess I'm easy, Peter. My car radio can't seem to distract me from good music, but I get your point and I don't want any bloat or glare in my home system that can be avoided.

Tim

Yes, I like Led Zep or early Black Sabbath in the car, but most classical music simply can't be heard over the road noise, so I basically switch between talk radio and rock while driving my truck.