Tim, I think we are both confused, actually. I had forgotten that my OP mentions Al M's system in which we heard the digital recording of "Tom's Diner". Then I briefly mention listening to my system in the rest of the post. If you are interested, you can look up either or both of our systems in the Member Gallery section. Al's and my mini monitors are quite different in design and execution and make for an interesting comparison. They both sound good and have appropriate and excellent amplification. Beyond that, the systems are quite different. Digital vs. Analog, Tube vs. SS, Subwoofer vs. none. Mostly vintage vs. current gear. It shows there there are many paths to good sound.
How real does it sound?
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
Tim, I think we are both confused, actually. I had forgotten that my OP mentions Al M's system in which we heard the digital recording of "Tom's Diner". Then I briefly mention listening to my system in the rest of the post. If you are interested, you can look up either or both of our systems in the Member Gallery section. Al's and my mini monitors are quite different in design and execution and make for an interesting comparison. They both sound good and have appropriate and excellent amplification. Beyond that, the systems are quite different. Digital vs. Analog, Tube vs. SS, Subwoofer vs. none. Mostly vintage vs. current gear. It shows there there are many paths to good sound.
I'm one of that vocal minority, but I think the reason why live performance is an unrealistic reference for reproduction is because it is very rarely recorded to capture what an audience member hears from a seat in the hall (and doesn't do all that well when it is), and because even if you had an excellent example of such a recording, you add a second ambient environment as soon as you play it in your listening room. Proximity, room acoustics, the type, quality and placement of microphones all impact the recording dramatically. The original ambient space is all but lost. The tonality is changed. I think what most of use are actually referencing is a combination of live experiences and other recordings that have given us our impression of what a violin or guitar sounds like. It's all blended together into our perception, and when we listen to a new recording/component/system, that's our reference. But of all those elements blended into our concept of "violin," probably the weakest reference is a live performance in a concert venue; you don't get the detail, and you do get lots of ambient information you won't hear anywhere else. If I want to really hear what a violin sounds like, the first reference would be a live violin in a small room, the second would be an excellent recording of the same, with no post-production processing.
Or at least that's the way I hear it. I had a violin live in this room not long ago. It had a presence that I've not heard in any recording, on any system, in any room.
Oh, and Jimi was right, he played the amp as much as the guitar. Many electric guitars players do. That doesn't put distance between the listener and the instrument, it is the instrument. And it's very easy to distinguish a Telecaster through a Twin Reverb from a Les Paul through a Marshall stack, even on mediocre studio recordings. That, is like night and day.
Tim
I get your point about a blended reference of live and recorded sounds. It is all there somewhere in our experiences of listening to music and recordings. One factor is how accurate our memory and our perception of the sound is. Here is a photo of a performance that Al M. and I attended in a grand room in Boston last Winter with twenty other lucky people. Interestingly, when the cellist hit certain lower notes, we could hear a room node not dissimilar to ones in typical audiophile listening rooms. The energy, presence and tone were incredible. No, I have not heard anything quite the same from a system:
Naturally - we also are influenced by recordings. However IMHO the verisimilitude of some particular aspects of the real instruments in live performances is the anchor of the system.
Also IMHO solo instruments are poor references - the main characteristic of a live performance is the interplay between performers that manages to go through the recording and the different dynamics - micro and macro - of the instruments.
The energy and presence of a very close instrument can be reproduced - but it is not what sound engineers usually aim at. I have listened to an impressive performance of a violinist in corridors of the London underground - Paganini sounded great there - but I do not want to listen to it that way in my listening room.
I think you are on target. Except, that discretely recorded Mch goes a long way to overcoming precisely these problems. When played back in a typical smaller listening room whose own acoustic signature and non linearities have been minimized, the acoustic of the larger venue is more naturally reproduced for us. But, it is not just all about spatial ambience. There is also a tonality component that the hall itself contributes to the sound, as you point out. Notably, that is often a sense of added "warmth".
Personally, I prefer violin, solo or small ensemble sound that also reproduces the ambience we would hear in a live concert setting, so we can better relate to actual concert sound we normally hear. I am just not used to a violin played in a small room, and small rooms usually have more unpleasant acoustic signatures, either for performance or for playback.
Also, there are softer extraneous sounds made by instruments - bow scraping, etc. - that we hear close up but that we do not hear in concert in the hall, as the hall reflections and distance mask or filter them out. If I do not hear those live, I would rather not hear them on the recording. I think these are close in "details" that can be overemphasized on some recordings, but which do not add realism, actually they detract, from a concert perspective. The point is many instruments sound somewhat different for this and other reasons close up vs. in the hall. Give me the in the hall sound.
I did get used to Glenn Gould's humming, though. He did not do concerts, but if he had, I doubt his humming would have been audible in much of the hall. So, they were an artifact of his largely studio made, closely miked recordings.
The sound of real instruments in a relatively small space can be very humbling for audiophiles. I'm very fortunate. As a musician who cuts across quite a few genres, I've had the opportunity to hear violins, cellos, stand-up basses, horns, guitars, mandolins, banjos, amplified electric guitars and basses, and full drum kits in a lot of different rooms no larger than the average listening space. It's hard to describe the difference between that and reproduction, but it is very different. Instruments move the air very differently, and with great variety. Every source of sound comes from a different point of origin, and every type of instrument has different dispersion patterns, so the "sound stage" is completely different from stereo. The dynamics, even of strings being bowed or plucked, is nearly impossible to record and reproduce. A drum kit? Forgetaboutit. But the most striking thing, for lack of a better term, is the presence of the sound. Audiophiles should seek out local acoustic ensembles and visit their practice sessions. That would be a reference!
Still, I manage to really enjoy my humble system for what it does, and when the recording is right, it is truly beautiful.
Tim
Well, it is my reference for realism and what I judge a reproduction systems semblance of realism by at some cognitive level. Even when my eyes and ears tell me different.
I guess I was remiss to not link the subjective version of what I linked earlier.
cheers,
AJ
Ok, you disagree with the vocal minority. So, you are off the hook. I ask them in their infinite wisdom: if live acoustic music cannot be used as a reference, what in the hell can be the reference? Maybe the reference to how good something might sound is the size of the goosebumps they get from listening to the recordings?
To suggest anything else than live music as a standard is pure BS, and all the mumbo jumbo about mics not picking up the sound properly is totally beside the point. The goal of high fidelity is to try to recreate a sense of realism. Even if it is not perfect, the entire system from recording to playback has to be judged in terms of how well it does/doesn't achieve its goal.
But my logic is only quasi if I’m incorrect about your potentially well-thought-out (that’s an assumption on my part) PB system sounding relatively similar to other potentially well-thought-out PB systems since you most likely have done nothing extraordinary to yours. Well, except for adding more channels and amps, etc.
Oh, well, that changes everything.
Or could it be that you have a fair awareness of the status quo?
You appear to be doing your darndest to show that I don’t know what I’m talking about. Yet, here you are confirming my previous statement that your potentially fairly well-thought-out PB system isn’t a whole lot different than the 1000+ fairly well-thought-out PB systems I’ve heard in recent years.
I never had a doubt about your thoughts here.
I don’t get it. I’ve never heard your system, yet I attested that your fine system would be similar in sound to other fine systems and you even confirmed this for me. Yet, you want to believe my head is in the sand. Has anybody else even dared to say something of this nature to you, much less be confident and accurate in their saying it?
It would seem obvious that you were not pleased with your system’s level of musicality. It’s not like you swapped one set of IC’s for another or even had all your cables cryo-treated via the superior full-immersion method. No. Instead you went to great lengths to add cables, amplifiers, and speakers to your obviously more simplified previous 2-ch system. Car enthusiasts generally don’t rebuild their engines unless they’re anticipating significant improvements over their stock engines.
I certainly wouldn’t use those words. But then again, I employ unique performance-oriented technologies that I attest make all the difference in the world. Technologies so unique that allow me to accurately predict how your system (which I’ve never heard) compares to the status quo. Again, has anybody else accurately predicted your system’s sound from perhaps several thousand miles away? Has anybody else even tried?
Closed off, narrow minded, anti-technology, egocentric, and naive? But I’ve been where you’ve been. Have you been where I’ve been?
I employ several unique technologies including one that I spent 12 years and $100k+ perfecting that you don’t employ. How is that anti-technology?
I also accurately predicted your dissatisfaction and your fine system’s sound in light of other fine systems and without even hearing it. How is that egocentric or naive?
If I entered this thread claiming to only to be a psychic and having no knowledge of high-end audio, you’d probably be asking for my toll-free number by now. But instead, it almost seems that you’re going to extraordinary lengths to ensure I’m wrong. Why is that?
stehno, could you start another thread explaining to us what this invention is and does? You keep mentioning it, but I have no idea what you are talking about.
Aha! The plot thickens. We would all dearly like to know what this wondrous technology is, as peter_a has indicated.
Quite amazing really, that it can predict so many things from afar, including the sound of my system without hearing it, and presumably anyone else's. Don't be so mysterious, lest we all think you are a wacko quack and a fool. Possibly we have all seriously underestimated you, given your powerful mystery technology.
I do think you make much to much about my motives, or anyone's, for wishing to experiment with the technology of Mch audio or any other technologies or specific products. And, you are quite off target in your glib speculations. I think any audiophile who is complacently satisfied with his sound, excellent though it might be, is a rare bird indeed. This forum is loaded to the gills with audiophiles seeking to further perfect what may already be excellent sound. It is part of being an audiophile, though one you, apparently, no longer find necessary, given your secret weapon.
Even if we accept your standard, which is the meaningless "musicality", how can one ever have enough of it short of the live performance itself? Perhaps, there is more of it to be gained in an upgrade to this or that new thingie. Inquistiveness is not dissatisfaction, as you wish to assert. The boundaries of what performance levels audio can achieve are ever changing, and possibly improving, whatever your metric.
But, you have a breakthrough which you are being very coy about, teasing us, yet revealing nothing about it, other than its cost, development time, remarkable predictive powers and apparent sonic improvements that place it, in your view, above all other systems.
It is time, past time actually, to open the kimono. I think you now have an overwhelming obligation to reveal your secret to us all, or, I would hate to think, face the inevitable mockery and permanent damage to your credibility. There can be no better place for that than What's Best Forum. We are all dying to know much more.
Peter, to the contrary I like to think I've gone to great lengths to avoid mentioning my technology and especially my design as much as reasonably possible, maybe more so. In fact, only when really pressed, such as when somebody alleges anti-technology, closed / narrow minded, uninquisitive, naïve, egocentric, arrogant, or I’ve not a clue what I speaketh, might I mention something about my technology. Having been charged all those things before but never before in a single post or especially a single sentence, I felt a bit compelled to allude to my technology, but only to hopefully somewhat substantiate my position.
For various reasons, at this juncture I have no intention of opening a new thread to discuss, including others potentially charging me with shilling, even though I’m not currently in business. I really like the WBF website and would hate to see them ban me for being a potential shill. I’ve only been accused of shilling once. That was several years ago by John Curl in his response to my repeated claims of the fabulous performance of the Foundation Research line conditioners I employ. It was a bit of egg on Curl’s face when I informed him Foundation Research was already defunct. Nevertheless, there’s always that potential.
FWIW, it’s no secret as I've already taken my product to market in 2010 / 2011, website, audio shows, etc. but then shut things down at my wife’s request lest we file bankruptcy. Maybe one day, I’ll give it another go once I shore up my finances, especially since more recent R&D my design’s performance more than doubled. But I’ve yet to fully recover financially from my previous attempt.
In my defense, among various feedbacks, one of my favorites remains a very upscale Asian distributor who has my product in both of their $500k showroom systems. Now buried deep within their website they claim my product as their greatest find in recent years and they represent some of the best most expensive product the industry has to offer with enthusiasts visiting from around the world. Yet, the version of product they own is maybe 35% the performance potential of my current version I’m not marketing.
IOW, I’ve been fairly transparent about my technology in time past but I hope you can appreciate when I say I don’t want to be so open as to just give away something I’ve invested so heavily into. Moreover, it's not so much what my technology might do for the tiny high-end audio industry, but rather what it might do for every other potential industry where precision and accuracy and performance are absolutely paramount.
Besides all that, if I did open things up for discussion, no doubt I’d have the internet hounds of hell coming down on me attempting to disprove everything, including perhaps my very existence, and that’s not a very good strategy for maintaining one’s sanity.
But I have no problem whatsoever demonstrating its performance for visitors because in the end that’s all that really matters anyway.
Maybe I should start racing for pink slips. Perhaps that’s one way I could rebuild my financial war chest. Hey, Fitzcaraldo215? I have no idea what type of system you own but I’ll bet it’s a mighty fine one. You got any spice left in those chicken wings?
Last edited:
Don't waste your time. Just look here.
Cable lifters and Cryo'ed everything, including fuses for goodness sakes. You can't make that s**t up.
Stenho had me going for a second, but he's obviously quite the prankster. Got us good.
cheers,
AJ
Don't waste your time. Just look here.
Cable lifters and Cryo'ed everything, including fuses for goodness sakes. You can't make that s**t up.
Stenho had me going for a second, but he's obviously quite the prankster. Got us good.
cheers,
AJ
Thanks. It is good to know. Delusions of grandeur. His credibility is permanently shot around here. He should have listened to his wife a long time ago. They know these things.
Don't waste your time. Just look here.
Cable lifters and Cryo'ed everything, including fuses for goodness sakes. You can't make that s**t up.
Stenho had me going for a second, but he's obviously quite the prankster. Got us good.
cheers,
AJ
AJ, is this a joke? Jeepers, I first realized the benefits of having cables cryo’ed in 2004 and some mfg’ers have been cryo’ing their products for decades prior to that. If you’re poo-pooing me because of cable lifters and cryo’ed cables and fuses, there’s a significant host of other respectful types you’re also poo-pooing.
I’ve no idea who you are but you apparently know how to destroy somebody’s character via the internet with few words and by the mere mention of cable lifters and cryo-treated products. IOW, products / methods that offer me little benefit in the grander scheme of things and have nothing to do with my primary technology. Good for you. But I’m curious. How does one develop such a destructive gift?
Obviously you are ignorant about the sonic benefits cryogenics. Actually, you probably are not ignorant since some-to-many cable mfg’ers cryo-treat their products but don’t advertise it. If they didn’t many of them couldn’t compete performance-wise. IOW, you may have such cables in your system right now without realizing it.
Regardless, those who are very cognizant of cryo’ed cables’ benefits would most likely take a $300 cryo’ed IC over a $3000 non-cryo’ed IC any day. Same with speaker cables and power cables. And that’s just if they’ve been cryo’ed using the more popular but inferior vapor method. The full-immersion cryo method is a significant bump over that.
And though such things as cable lifters and cryo’ed parts have nothing to do with and whose sonic benefits are miniscule when compared to my technology, because of what they do I wouldn’t want to be without them and are just two of the numerous ingredients of what I consider a well-thought-out system.
No, you can’t make this sh!t up. And you sir, should do some research before making nonsensical statements in your attempts to destroy one’s credibility.
But to further demonstrate you’re cluelessness, here’s a link of Audio Exotics of Hong Kong on their first day of installing my product.
http://audioexotics.hk/forum/#/discussion/8800/what-the-freak-am-i-doing-again
There you can see AE sending a note off to the president of Zanden in Japan saying,
“Dear Yamada, It is very very important to let you know. If you want to listen to the maximum performance of your Zanden system. Please come. No Doubt, it will be a new experience even for you--the inventor of Zanden. This orange thing is monster!! I am sure!”
Can you guess what color my product is? You know what’s funny? My product’s magic doesn’t even start to kick in until about day 5 or 6 and takes months before the components reach their full potential. How AE was so astonished by its performance on the very first day is beyond me. And those versions are only maybe 35% of my current version.
Below is a picture of my products in AE’s two $500k showroom systems.
I don’t generally receive apologies from your type, but considering your unbridled talent you really should consider providing one.
View attachment 21887View attachment 21888
I like you Stehno, you're the real deal. Ok, I'll play along.
Now if I understand this correct, that widget thingy is going to make scarily real sound out of 2ch 10% soundfields and leave MCH in the dust? Do I have the prank right?
Cash green? Fools gold? It looks almost orange in that pic.
Well, yeah, that's sometimes how magic works. Takes a while. Hopefully a tad longer longer than the money back return policy expiration! I do have a sense of humor and know what's funny...and I must admit that's pretty damn funny.
Now if I understand this correct, that widget thingy is going to make scarily real sound out of 2ch 10% soundfields and leave MCH in the dust? Do I have the prank right?
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
I like you Stehno, you're the real deal. Ok, I'll play along.
Cash green? Fools gold? It looks almost orange in that pic.
Well, yeah, that's sometimes how magic works. Takes a while. Hopefully a tad longer longer than the money back return policy expiration! I do have a sense of humor and know what's funny...and I must admit that's pretty damn funny.
Now if I understand this correct, that widget thingy is going to make scarily real sound out of 2ch 10% soundfields and leave MCH in the dust? Do I have the prank right?
Soundfield, I suggest you tone down the character of your posts and follow our TOS. Pretty easy if you want to play in the sand box otherwise before you know a whole lot of people might be calling your speakers into question. Just a suggestion
Similar threads
