The Much Coveted Jump Factor - Friend or Foe

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,391
4,988
978
Switzerland
Interesting that you would call my system a pig having little knowledge of it and what little you do know is based on my words and twisting my words and seemingly mixed or misinterpreted with your own conjecture combined with folklore you’ve committed yourself to.

It's so easy to talk the talk in audio forums, don't you think? Here’s a couple of links to short clips of in-room listening I recently took with my iPhone which certainly has its own limitations. Nevertheless, with just a tad of imagination on the listener’s part I think one with an understanding of live music and the typical playback music’s inherent limitations would be hard-pressed to call my system a pig. But then again, I’ve been wrong before.

Anyway, don't forget to keep your eye out for the jump factor. :)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_RZfT8uxp1IpU93riX_vlfpTELWNYttJ/view

https://drive.google.com/open?id=18ObgkxaEBdfuW2uRyQEIydI1B6AKm_k0

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16enxNw38JSRDDL8JLqbobkTiKXUiUUQd/view

You are the one who says it has to be live levels at your place or you didn't have good dynamics, not me...ergo...
 

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,391
4,988
978
Switzerland
No. It is true and it smacks of being reasonable. Live music volume levels vary and range anywhere from say 45 db to 125db. But you already knew that. What I'm saying is whatever the live music volume level is where the real dynamics live. You wanna' cut down that volume level by 25db or whatever and hear remnants of the dynamics? That's fine. Yes, it can be done. But it's not realistic.

But then, I already knew that.

What it says about a system speaks volumes...sad you don't get this point...
 

the sound of Tao

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2014
3,620
4,839
940
I make no such claims as to know your experience. Except when you imply or claim to have experienced or even have a clue what I’ve experienced when nobody has done at least a few of the things I’ve done.

I understand your being hurt by my comment about your potentially being self-delusional having seen it all and done it all.

I get that. But you probably know as well as anybody, there’s perhaps nothing more absurd than the self-delusional types who pretend to have seen it all and done it all.

Surely, we can agree on that, can’t we?
I usually leave it to my closest of friends to remind me of my self delusions Stehno lol it’s all good, and no I do not believe anyone genuinely knows it all in this complex and layered hobby. But it is important in such a broadly subjective pursuit that we all try to maintain latitude in perspective on differences of opinion and keep a sense of humour and comedy as a fallback so that we do not always take our written selves quite so seriously (easy for any of us to forget in this very fast paced world of post then review)... also in truth we share one great connection... that we are all just flawed works in progress... and that’s what makes us bearably human.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Al M.

stehno

Well-Known Member
Jul 5, 2014
1,588
456
405
Salem, OR
Next time I go to the Tonhalle and listen to an orchestra, I will ask them to play it all again 20db quieter and I can report back to you...HA!

Ummmm, let me guess. Even if they honored your nonsensical request, it would still be a live performance volume level? Scotty, beam me up.

What it says about a system speaks volumes...sad you don't get this point...

Morricab, with your frequent misquotes, insinuations, false implications and other nonsense I’m starting to think one of us is conversing and other isn’t here.

What does live performance volume levels mean to you? Surely you can’t just be playing dumb here since it was you who said most of your listening is done at less than live performance level. Whatever.

You mentioned earlier that you’re some type of scientist. Well, that could explain a lot. Every profession has it's share of hacks and bush-leaguers and also-rans and I'm quite certain the science industry is no exception. I’ve yet to meet a high-end audio “scientist” or science-minded type that’s deserving of anybody’s respect. Not saying I disdain all high-end audio science-minded types but I’ve yet to meet one that deserves any respect.

In fact, I like to think I had as much to do with AmirM being banned from this website a few years ago as anybody. Maybe it’s just wishful thinking on my part, but I did what I reasonably could as he seemingly tried to take everybody down every silly rabbit hole he could muster, like the pseudo-science-minded types appear wont to do. IMO, any contributions by the science-minded types and their pseudo-science-minded brethren are or have been highly questionable at best and at worst highly destructive to high-end audio and forums but that's a whole nuther thread unto itself.

BTW, I noticed that you overlooked my post last night where I mentioned how easy it is to talk-the-talk in forums such as this. I don’t blame you.
 

stehno

Well-Known Member
Jul 5, 2014
1,588
456
405
Salem, OR
I usually leave it to my closest of friends to remind me of my self delusions Stehno lol it’s all good, and no I do not believe anyone genuinely knows it all in this complex and layered hobby. But it is important in such a broadly subjective pursuit that we all try to maintain latitude in perspective on differences of opinion and keep a sense of humour and comedy as a fallback so that we do not always take our written selves quite so seriously (easy for any of us to forget in this very fast paced world of post then review)... also in truth we share one great connection... that we are all just flawed works in progress... and that’s what makes us bearably human.

You mean we're not close? No worries and I appreciate your demeanor and some of your posts too. :)
 

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,391
4,988
978
Switzerland
Ummmm, let me guess. Even if they honored your nonsensical request, it would still be a live performance volume level? Scotty, beam me up.



Morricab, with your frequent misquotes, insinuations, false implications and other nonsense I’m starting to think one of us is conversing and other isn’t here.

What does live performance volume levels mean to you? Surely you can’t just be playing dumb here since it was you who said most of your listening is done at less than live performance level. Whatever.

You mentioned earlier that you’re some type of scientist. Well, that could explain a lot. Every profession has it's share of hacks and bush-leaguers and also-rans and I'm quite certain the science industry is no exception. I’ve yet to meet a high-end audio “scientist” or science-minded type that’s deserving of anybody’s respect. Not saying I disdain all high-end audio science-minded types but I’ve yet to meet one that deserves any respect.

In fact, I like to think I had as much to do with AmirM being banned from this website a few years ago as anybody. Maybe it’s just wishful thinking on my part, but I did what I reasonably could as he seemingly tried to take everybody down every silly rabbit hole he could muster, like the pseudo-science-minded types appear wont to do. IMO, any contributions by the science-minded types and their pseudo-science-minded brethren are or have been highly questionable at best and at worst highly destructive to high-end audio and forums but that's a whole nuther thread unto itself.

BTW, I noticed that you overlooked my post last night where I mentioned how easy it is to talk-the-talk in forums such as this. I don’t blame you.

"Ummmm, let me guess. Even if they honored your nonsensical request, it would still be a live performance volume level? Scotty, beam me up"

Clearly you missed the point of the thought experiment...perhaps I am making things too complicated for you conceptually?

"Morricab, with your frequent misquotes, insinuations, false implications and other nonsense I’m starting to think one of us is conversing and other isn’t here"

"What does live performance volume levels mean to you? Surely you can’t just be playing dumb here since it was you who said most of your listening is done at less than live performance level. Whatever."

Depends on if we are talking about amplified concerts, large scale acoustic concerts, small scale acoustic concerts, in the home concerts, what? Live still sounds live even if it is a simple piano recital in your living room. Playing that at realistic levels might not work so well for your setup...to quiet to sound "real" upon playback I guess...but at 100db WHOA! Sure sounds really real now...LOL!

I always know someone is full of it when they make such accusations and then don't follow it up with concrete facts....like you just did. It is the refuge of someone who no longer has a valid argument.

Well, my science credentials are not related to audio but the same methodological thinking can be applied to all technological discussions. Amir was an engineer, not a scientist...don't worry you are not the first person to confuse the two types of professions (hint: they are quite different). Some scientists are also engineers and some engineers are also scientists but the two professsions are in practice quite different with different goals. Engineering is about making things, science is about understanding things. The fact that you don't understand the differences in engineers and scientists (or at least can't spot who is who) tells me you are also not qualified to judge.

It is probably wishful thinking...Amir was rather unscientific because he clung to dogmas. This made him difficult to have a meaningful debate with. This is a typical engineer mentality because they are deisgning with tools that to their minds are "worked out". Empirical feedback means little to them because they are deisgning to tried and true principles they learned in school and work great for things where human perception is not involved. Not all engineers are this way, but many of the more arrogant ones are.

A true scientist goes where the data leads first to build a hypothesis and then tests that hypothesis...when cracks appear in the narrative, he discards the hypothesis and develops a new one...based on available data. A true scientist takes data not just from the scope but also from the learning on how humans perceive what is impacting their eardrums. They don't offhand dismiss something as "too small" to be important, just because it looks small on the scope.

All of this is beside the point because now you have run out of pseudo-reasonable arguments and have proceeded to the personal attack on my credentials by saying that scientific thinking (or more correctly YOUR faulty understanding of what is scientific thinking) is not to be respected in the area of audio technology and/listening observations.

" IMO, any contributions by the science-minded types and their pseudo-science-minded brethren are or have been highly questionable at best and at worst highly destructive to high-end audio and forums but that's a whole nuther thread unto itself."

Spoken like a guy with little to no technical knowledge because you don't know how to sort out the wheat from the chaff. Just keep blowin' your hair back at those "live" levels.
 

Robh3606

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2010
1,471
463
1,155
Destiny
"I challenge anybody here to point out a single instance where even one participant or observer appears even once to experience anything even close to YOUR OWN definition of the “jump factor”. How about the musicians sitting about 4 feet in front of the cymbals at the 10:00 min mark? Did they even bat an eye when the cymbals clanged directly behind them? "


I guess you have never heard of a rehearsal?? Jump factor is equally about not expecting it and dynamics. If you know it's coming it takes the edge off of it.

Rob
 
  • Like
Reactions: morricab and DaveC

stehno

Well-Known Member
Jul 5, 2014
1,588
456
405
Salem, OR
"Ummmm, let me guess. Even if they honored your nonsensical request, it would still be a live performance volume level? Scotty, beam me up"

Clearly you missed the point of the thought experiment...perhaps I am making things too complicated for you conceptually?

You're right. I can see now the real genius in your nonsensical request. My bad.

"Morricab, with your frequent misquotes, insinuations, false implications and other nonsense I’m starting to think one of us is conversing and other isn’t here"

"What does live performance volume levels mean to you? Surely you can’t just be playing dumb here since it was you who said most of your listening is done at less than live performance level. Whatever."

Depends on if we are talking about amplified concerts, large scale acoustic concerts, small scale acoustic concerts, in the home concerts, what? Live still sounds live even if it is a simple piano recital in your living room. Playing that at realistic levels might not work so well for your setup...to quiet to sound "real" upon playback I guess...but at 100db WHOA! Sure sounds really real now...LOL!

So you were just playing dumb after all. And here I thought it was such an insightful thought experiment.

I always know someone is full of it when they make such accusations and then don't follow it up with concrete facts....like you just did. It is the refuge of someone who no longer has a valid argument.

Well, my science credentials are not related to audio but the same methodological thinking can be applied to all technological discussions. Amir was an engineer, not a scientist...don't worry you are not the first person to confuse the two types of professions (hint: they are quite different). Some scientists are also engineers and some engineers are also scientists but the two professsions are in practice quite different with different goals. Engineering is about making things, science is about understanding things. The fact that you don't understand the differences in engineers and scientists (or at least can't spot who is who) tells me you are also not qualified to judge.

It is probably wishful thinking...Amir was rather unscientific because he clung to dogmas. This made him difficult to have a meaningful debate with. This is a typical engineer mentality because they are deisgning with tools that to their minds are "worked out". Empirical feedback means little to them because they are deisgning to tried and true principles they learned in school and work great for things where human perception is not involved. Not all engineers are this way, but many of the more arrogant ones are.

You sure do like to leap to conclusions. I never assumed any science background you may have was related to audio. As for Amir, I never said he was a scientist nor an engineer. Remember me using the term pseudo-science-minded-types? Well, that was for you and Amir both actually.

IA true scientist goes where the data leads first to build a hypothesis and then tests that hypothesis...when cracks appear in the narrative, he discards the hypothesis and develops a new one...based on available data. A true scientist takes data not just from the scope but also from the learning on how humans perceive what is impacting their eardrums. They don't offhand dismiss something as "too small" to be important, just because it looks small on the scope.

All of this is beside the point because now you have run out of pseudo-reasonable arguments and have proceeded to the personal attack on my credentials by saying that scientific thinking (or more correctly YOUR faulty understanding of what is scientific thinking) is not to be respected in the area of audio technology and/listening observations.

What the frick are you talking about? What data, what hypothesis? All you've been doing is parroting what the industry has told you is important these past 40 years. Telling me how important the input impedance is or the gain difference of my amps or the sensitivity of my speakers. IME, that's not quite nonsense, but it's pretty close. But it certainly is parroting, which is exactly what the pseudo-science-minded types love to do. Could it be because on paper, it makes guys like you look like a tiger?

And maybe I missed it in your earlier posts. Besides parroting, what do you have to do with true science when it comes to high-end audio and how have you applied whatever science background you have to your playback system? And how has it made your playback system stand out from those without any science background? Are you implying that one must possess a scientific mind to assemble a musical playback system?

" IMO, any contributions by the science-minded types and their pseudo-science-minded brethren are or have been highly questionable at best and at worst highly destructive to high-end audio and forums but that's a whole nuther thread unto itself."

Spoken like a guy with little to no technical knowledge because you don't know how to sort out the wheat from the chaff. Just keep blowin' your hair back at those "live" levels.

You're right. I'm not technical. Thank goodness. Otherwise, I'd probably have a playback system even less musical than yours.

Answer me this, Mr. scientist. In the Mar/Apr 2009 issue of The Absolute Sound, Robert Harley stated, "I believe that something catastrophic occurs at the recording mic's diaphragm so that much of the music never reaches the recording." Paraphrased.

Now I don't put any faith in Harley but was that a true or false statement then as well as today?

If true, how has all your supposed "scientific" knowledge helped elevate your playback system over and above the "catastrophic" level Harley mentions?

If false, then what has all your supposed "scientific" knowledge done for you regarding high-end audio and your playback system if it is not elevated over and above the catastrphic level Harley mentioned?
 

stehno

Well-Known Member
Jul 5, 2014
1,588
456
405
Salem, OR
"I challenge anybody here to point out a single instance where even one participant or observer appears even once to experience anything even close to YOUR OWN definition of the “jump factor”. How about the musicians sitting about 4 feet in front of the cymbals at the 10:00 min mark? Did they even bat an eye when the cymbals clanged directly behind them? "


I guess you have never heard of a rehearsal?? Jump factor is equally about not expecting it and dynamics. If you know it's coming it takes the edge off of it.

Rob

So what you (and some others) are really saying is that this supposedly coveted jump factor is like a one-hit wonder.

IOW, once you've experienced it when listening to a particular music piece you're likely to never experience it again because you're expecting it?
 

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,391
4,988
978
Switzerland
You're right. I can see now the real genius in your nonsensical request. My bad.



So you were just playing dumb after all. And here I thought it was such an insightful thought experiment.



You sure do like to leap to conclusions. I never assumed any science background you may have was related to audio. As for Amir, I never said he was a scientist nor an engineer. Remember me using the term pseudo-science-minded-types? Well, that was for you and Amir both actually.



What the frick are you talking about? What data, what hypothesis? All you've been doing is parroting what the industry has told you is important these past 40 years. Telling me how important the input impedance is or the gain difference of my amps or the sensitivity of my speakers. IME, that's not quite nonsense, but it's pretty close. But it certainly is parroting, which is exactly what the pseudo-science-minded types love to do. Could it be because on paper, it makes guys like you look like a tiger?

And maybe I missed it in your earlier posts. Besides parroting, what do you have to do with true science when it comes to high-end audio and how have you applied whatever science background you have to your playback system? And how has it made your playback system stand out from those without any science background? Are you implying that one must possess a scientific mind to assemble a musical playback system?



You're right. I'm not technical. Thank goodness. Otherwise, I'd probably have a playback system even less musical than yours.

Answer me this, Mr. scientist. In the Mar/Apr 2009 issue of The Absolute Sound, Robert Harley stated, "I believe that something catastrophic occurs at the recording mic's diaphragm so that much of the music never reaches the recording." Paraphrased.

Now I don't put any faith in Harley but was that a true or false statement then as well as today?

If true, how has all your supposed "scientific" knowledge helped elevate your playback system over and above the "catastrophic" level Harley mentions?

If false, then what has all your supposed "scientific" knowledge done for you regarding high-end audio and your playback system if it is not elevated over and above the catastrphic level Harley mentioned?

""You sure do like to leap to conclusions. I never assumed any science background you may have was related to audio. "
No, I didn't leap to any conclusion, I merely stated my scientific credentials are not specifically audio related...you are the one who really seems to want to read between the lines.

There is no psedo-science here given between us, I am the one who is the actual practicing scientist and you are the one who started this thread with a load of single observation, pseudo-scientific claims, despite being a self-described "non-technical" person. What then gives ANY of your findings ANY validity whatsoever...Pseudo-science indeed! LOL! You just keep lobbing your pseudo bombs into the arena...attaboy!

""What data, what hypothesis? All you've been doing is parroting what the industry has told you is important these past 40 years.
 

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,391
4,988
978
Switzerland
""You sure do like to leap to conclusions. I never assumed any science background you may have was related to audio. "
No, I didn't leap to any conclusion, I merely stated my scientific credentials are not specifically audio related...you are the one who really seems to want to read between the lines.

There is no psedo-science here given between us, I am the one who is the actual practicing scientist and you are the one who started this thread with a load of single observation, pseudo-scientific claims, despite being a self-described "non-technical" person. What then gives ANY of your findings ANY validity whatsoever...Pseudo-science indeed! LOL! You just keep lobbing your pseudo bombs into the arena...attaboy!

""What data, what hypothesis? All you've been doing is parroting what the industry has told you is important these past 40 years.

You mean, low sensitivity multi-driver speakers driven by big SS amps? That 40 years?? I have been advocating SET amps for nearly 15 years and started loving horns 28 years ago in college. I switched to SETs because my ears told me so...not the audio press... which has only really changed its tune in the last 5 or 6 years. I studied why this "inferior"technology could sound so good and found that it had everything to do with low level linearity, inherent linearity (i.e. linearity without feedback) and psychoacoustic preference of the harmonic content in good SET amps. I looked at the work from Shorter (BBC engineer who came up with the idea of weighting harmonics to reflect their true impact on sound quality), Crowhurst, Cheever (showed that masking is nearly complete when the self-harmonic pattern of the ear is mimicked by the electronics and it is SPL dependent), Geddes and others. This is not the mainstream industry position by any way shape or means. Once again you strike out trying to attack my character and knowledge.

And how has it made your playback system stand out from those without any science background? Are you implying that one must possess a scientific mind to assemble a musical playback system?""
Just explained in part the first question...the second question is more complicated because someone CAN build a system successfully by ear without any systematic thinking but I have found it is rare because most people don't know why they are hearing what they are hearing and so flail about and bounce from technology to technology hoping to get a magic mix.

I think it is still helpful to have a scientific mind even if one has a good ear to drill down into what needs to be done to get a system to sound right. It takes an analytical mind to understand WHY things sound like they sound, so when something isn't right it is possible to figure out what it is and what to do about it without guessing or reorganizing the whole system, scorched earth style. So, not a must but definitely helplful but there is no substitute for having good ears and strong aural memory.

The fact that you seem to have no technical understanding means that you have relied primarily on your ears...god only know how good those are and how much flailing you go through...

Why don't you just tell me, Mr. Unscientific, Non-technical whether you think Mr. Harley was right or if he is just basing his statement on anecdotal conversations he has had with recording engineers? I have heard Sean Casey from Zu audio claim something similar.

What I can say is this, I have heard demos where music was played live (violin and piano) and then live through a very high end stereo system (something you would suddenly consider a "Parrot" system with SETs...but no horns this time) and from what I heard it was not exactly catastrophic...it was fairly convincing in fact. Plenty of "jump factor" (no not startling but quite lifelike) with home brewed and massive SETs and very large, sensitive open baffle design.

Also, I have extensive experience recording classical instruments as my ex is a professional violinist and I made a lot of chamber concert recordings and practice session recordings. The best of these did a pretty good job capturing the event or practice and sounded like a decent facsimile.

The only way to truly judge this though is through this kind of live vs. played back comparison or take something completely created on the computer and play it back through a system, record it and then play it back again through the same system...then A/B those two versions.

So, IMO, you definitely lose something, although again this will depend on the quality of the microphone, mic preamp and recording device as well as the type of microphone (dynamic, electrostatic (i.e. condenser) or ribbon). Obviously, even more is lost in a commercial setting because then the whole mastering and production chain probably loses a lot more. I personally (since I have actual experience...not sure about Mr. Harley or you) have found that it can be quite good when you have short chain to either a digital recorder or good R2R (I had both...now only a digital one) and far from catastrophic.

You cannot though regain whatever was lost. Its gone...maybe someday and AI can look at what is destroyed and work backwards based on knowledge of the physics in the each element in the recording chain and reconstruct what was lost but until then all you can do is preserve as best you can what hits the membrane of the microphone.
 

stehno

Well-Known Member
Jul 5, 2014
1,588
456
405
Salem, OR
My revelation on the amplified electronics-induced jump factor came by analyzing and experimenting and using my ears, actually by happenstance, but it turned out to be an experiment. That’s a scientific term.

Moreover, my experiment was satisfied and complete once I analyzed correctly the potential causes and I predicted accurately the remedy where the results turned out to be even far greater than expected. Yeah, it was a bit of crap-shoot but in the end it seems I was 100% correct in my analysis and remedy. That’s what my limited experience tells me anyway.

You on the other hand have yet to conduct a single experiment regarding this jump factor phenomena IOW your complete lack of experience. Yet, you profess to be the scientific expert. Put that in your science pipe and smoke it a while.

I think Tesla may have had guys like you in mind when he said about 100 years ago, “Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure (think hi-fi sounding playback system) which has no relation to reality.”

You think it might be worse today than in Tesla’s day? I’d venture that nowhere is Tesla’s caution better exemplified than today’s high-end audio.

I did not mention earlier but one of the reasons I find most/all of the science-minded and pseudo-science types that I’ve encountered so destructive is that besides all the parroting and nonsensical rabbit holes, I’ve yet to meet one that possesses even basic listening skills. Near as I can tell the majority of science-minded types in high-end audio have long ago abandoned their untrustworthy listening appendages and instead focus on measurements for their supposedly trustworthy eyes. As a result, many have abandoned pursuing live music or the absolute sound as the holy grail and the new holy grail is measurements. In an audio-only industry mind you.

The fact that you don’t even have the hutzpah to take a simple true or false position to my question about Harley’s statement (even with all your vast music and scientific background) tells more than you think. Look, it’s not rocket science. It either smacks one in the face or it doesn’t. Your lack of commitment here leads me to believe you lack even basic listening discernment to sufficiently distinguish the large gulf between live music and playback music.

For example. Around 2008, Jonathan Valin of The Absolute Sound said, “We are lucky if even our very best SOTA systems can capture even 15% of the magic of the live performance.” Paraphrased. I like to substitute believability for Valin’s use of the word “magic”.

When I’ve shared Valin’s quote with those with whom I know to have sufficiently well-trained ears who also know both live music and playback music intimately, I’ve heard more than once the response that even 15% may be exaggerated and they said so without hesitation. They too were accurate as was Jonathan Valin.

BTW, it was not Harley talking to his sound engineering buddies. Rather it was Harley agreeing with Ed Meitner’s conclusion (of EMM Labs) who conducted an experiment (there’s that scientific word again) using a guitar and guitar amp.

Based on my own experimenting over the years and using my ears, I think Harley was 100% on the money with his (Meitner’s) conclusion as was his use of the word catastrophic. However, I can demonstrate that Harley (and Meitner) was way off the mark concluding that the catastrophic cause was somewhere in the recording mic’s diaphragm.

Rather my experiments and ears have led me to conclude that the vast majority of the music info is indeed embedded in a given recording (even recordings deemed inferior) and of that vast amount of the music info embedded in the recording, though all is read and processed, a very high percentage (think catastrophic) remains inaudible below a much raised universal noise floor (think hi-fi sound). It’s a universal performance-limiting governor.

IOW, because of a much raised noise floor caused by an accumulation of distortions but especially 2 universal distortions, perhaps only about half of the music info embedded in a given recording remains audible at the speaker. Again, think catastrophic.

For your edification, I’ll also state that when the universal much raised noise floor (think catastrophic or hi-fi sound) is dramatically lowered, a huge percentage of the music previously inaudible is now audible and all that is audible is also much cleaner and more musical. It’s amazing what a little controlled experimenting can reveal.

So you seemingly lack confidence to audibly discern the gulf that separates live music from playback music yet you’re quick to point out some science background to establish your audio expertise including the supposedly highly coveted but rarely encountered jump factor even though you’ve yet to conduct a single experiment and you rarely listen at live performance volume levels?

Thanks for confirming my suspicions and for seemingly maintaining the status quo.

BTW, because among your other many derogatories you’ve also called my system a pig, below is a link to a little in-room listening session recorded via my iphone.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_RZfT8uxp1IpU93riX_vlfpTELWNYttJ/view

The good news for you is one is not required to possess a discerning ear to build a truly musical playback system. After all, there’s always luck of the draw and gulp science to aid you. Surely a worldly science-minded gent like yourself could share a brief in-room recording more musical and more accurate than this. If nothing else than to demonstrate how much all your scientific and musical intellect has benefited your pursuit of playback excellence.
 
Last edited:

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,686
4,474
963
Greater Boston
My revelation on the amplified electronics-induced jump factor came by analyzing and experimenting and using my ears, actually by happenstance, but it turned out to be an experiment. That’s a scientific term.

Moreover, my experiment was satisfied and complete once I analyzed correctly the potential causes and I predicted accurately the remedy where the results turned out to be even far greater than expected. Yeah, it was a bit of crap-shoot but in the end it seems I was 100% correct in my analysis and remedy. That’s what my limited experience tells me anyway.

You on the other hand have yet to conduct a single experiment regarding this jump factor phenomena IOW your complete lack of experience. Yet, you profess to be the scientific expert. Put that in your science pipe and smoke it a while.

I think Tesla may have had guys like you in mind when he said about 100 years ago, “Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure (think hi-fi sounding playback system) which has no relation to reality.”

You can use that quote on the stupid Multiverse, which is in principle unobservable, and thus will always remain a purely mathematical construct that has nothing to do with genuine science.

Same for string theory, which is an embarrassment for real science.
 

stehno

Well-Known Member
Jul 5, 2014
1,588
456
405
Salem, OR
You can use that quote on the stupid Multiverse, which is in principle unobservable, and thus will always remain a purely mathematical construct that has nothing to do with genuine science.

Same for string theory, which is an embarrassment for real science.

But if (and it is so) the quote works soooooo well right here at home for high-end audio why play Animal House with it? :)
 

Number9

Active Member
Oct 15, 2018
131
43
35
Interesting that you would call my system a pig having little knowledge of it and what little you do know is based on my words and twisting my words and seemingly mixed or misinterpreted with your own conjecture combined with folklore you’ve committed yourself to.

It's so easy to talk the talk in audio forums, don't you think? Here’s a couple of links to short clips of in-room listening I recently took with my iPhone which certainly has its own limitations. Nevertheless, with just a tad of imagination on the listener’s part I think one with an understanding of live music and the typical playback music’s inherent limitations would be hard-pressed to call my system a pig. But then again, I’ve been wrong before.

Anyway, don't forget to keep your eye out for the jump factor. :)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_RZfT8uxp1IpU93riX_vlfpTELWNYttJ/view

https://drive.google.com/open?id=18ObgkxaEBdfuW2uRyQEIydI1B6AKm_k0

Interesting that you would call my system a pig having little knowledge of it and what little you do know is based on my words and twisting my words and seemingly mixed or misinterpreted with your own conjecture combined with folklore you’ve committed yourself to.

It's so easy to talk the talk in audio forums, don't you think? Here’s a couple of links to short clips of in-room listening I recently took with my iPhone which certainly has its own limitations. Nevertheless, with just a tad of imagination on the listener’s part I think one with an understanding of live music and the typical playback music’s inherent limitations would be hard-pressed to call my system a pig. But then again, I’ve been wrong before.

Anyway, don't forget to keep your eye out for the jump factor. :)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_RZfT8uxp1IpU93riX_vlfpTELWNYttJ/view

https://drive.google.com/open?id=18ObgkxaEBdfuW2uRyQEIydI1B6AKm_k0

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16enxNw38JSRDDL8JLqbobkTiKXUiUUQd/view


https://drive.google.com/file/d/16enxNw38JSRDDL8JLqbobkTiKXUiUUQd/view
No. It is true and it smacks of being reasonable. Live music volume levels vary and range anywhere from say 45 db to 125db. But you already knew that. What I'm saying is whatever the live music volume level is where the real dynamics live. You wanna' cut down that volume level by 25db or whatever and hear remnants of the dynamics? That's fine. Yes, it can be done. But it's not realistic.

But then, I already knew that.

Where are all those Starsound mechanical grounding devices?
 

stehno

Well-Known Member
Jul 5, 2014
1,588
456
405
Salem, OR
Beats me. I've not used Star Sound products since 2010. Have you looked under your components?
 

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
318
565
BiggestLittleCity
Can you mistake volume level increases for an increase in dynamic range? Yes, preamps mated to a amplifier and the output level has to be constant. So if the system becomes more efficient...less interference with the audio signal, wouldn’t dynamic range increase?

Noise floor is a too nebulous term for me. My goal is to match the dynamic range as was recorded. A increase in total information revealed.

Volume level should really not effect the the level of revealed information. But volume can effect the presentation and how the listener reacts to the recording. In most systems there is a optimum volume level...there is in my system.
 

Robh3606

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2010
1,471
463
1,155
Destiny
"So what you (and some others) are really saying is that this supposedly coveted jump factor is like a one-hit wonder.

IOW, once you've experienced it when listening to a particular music piece you're likely to never experience it again because you're expecting it?"

Not necessarily but knowing it's coming definitely removes a bit of the startle effect. None of this diminishes the fact that the system was able to literally make you jump. It still does the system performance has not change you just know it's coming. If it made you jump once it will again. And that's the whole point you want a system that can do that if the program material calls for it.

Rob;)
 

stehno

Well-Known Member
Jul 5, 2014
1,588
456
405
Salem, OR
Not necessarily but knowing it's coming definitely removes a bit of the startle effect. None of this diminishes the fact that the system was able to literally make you jump. It still does the system performance has not change you just know it's coming. If it made you jump once it will again. And that's the whole point you want a system that can do that if the program material calls for it.

Rob;)


I like the fact that you said, "the system was able to literally make you jump" because that's been my premise all along in this thread. Implying to me that it's not the music but rather it's the system and what it has done to pervert the music to cause this jump factor.

There are those who've frequented live performances more than me but in my experience no matter what the artist, genre, or venue when seated in the audience with the soundstage at least 20 or 30 feet or more away, I do not recall ever once encountering a jump factor. And yes, I've even been to a Ted Nugent concert where I'd swear the volume was in the 125db range. In my limited search of youtube videos of live performances I've yet to see any reaction from performers or audiences that indicates there's any truth to this jump factor.

It seems of those here who claim to have experienced a jump factor at a live performance seem to agree that it is quite or exremely rare. So I'm suspecting they are talking maybe once or three times over the course of their lifetime. Hardly much evidence of the jump factor being a natural occurence in a live performance.

This begs the question, if the jump factor is a legitmate bi-product of live music but extremely rare, why bother discussing it and certainly why bother hoping to achieve it in our playback systems?

On the other hand, if anybody is experiencing this jump factor more frequently from their playback systems than from live performances, that begs the question, What is wrong with this picture?

As I mentioned in my opening post, I performed an upgrade that induced the jump factor on turbos which because of the new distortions induced led me to believe this coveted jump factor was nothing more than amplified electronics-induced distortions. And once I analyzed and corrected the matter, dynamics and the overall music presentation became more realistic than ever before but at a distance upon the soundstage with my ears planted firmly in the audience. And the jump factor was completely gone and it's been nearly 5 years now.

How about you? Do you have any experience with this jump factor at live performances? How about with your playback system?

BTW, as you and others implied, the element of surprise regardless of source can always lead to a jump factor of sorts. But also proximity. As I mentioned earlier, a .45 caliber pistol shot 5 or 10 ft from my ear will cause a jump factor. But that same .45 caliber pistol shot from 50 or 70 feet away most likely will not cause a jump factor. And there is perhaps no music instrument as dynamic as a .45 caliber pistol.
 
Last edited:

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,391
4,988
978
Switzerland
For someone who is a self-proclaimed non-technical person, you sure are trying very hard to convince me that your twisted thoughts on "jump factor" were arrived at through a scientific process...LOL.

"My revelation on the amplified electronics-induced jump factor came by analyzing and experimenting and using my ears, actually by happenstance, but it turned out to be an experiment. That’s a scientific term."
Complete and utter random dinking around now masquerading as actual experiments...:rolleyes: What is a scientific word? Experiment? Geez did it hurt to use it for the first time?? It was happenstance, no wait it was an *Experiment*... Please tell us clearly which it was and how did it get elevated from a happenstance to experiment. What did you then do with your single observation? You sure spun quite a yarn around it. Did you control for other factors? Did you try the same electronics you thought were the source of the "jump" with other speakers, other sources? Did you try various amp topologies (PP tube, SET, OTL, SE transistor) to see if any others did it? It is nice you have some fantasties that are spun out of that non-technical unscientific mind of yours but what understanding do you actually have to make such a judgement?

"You on the other hand have yet to conduct a single experiment regarding this jump factor phenomena IOW your complete lack of experience. Yet, you profess to be the scientific expert. Put that in your science pipe and smoke it a while."

Where is this coming from? What do you know about the experiments I have and have not conducted? You have a spy camera in my home now? What makes you think I have a complete lack of experience? Experience along with critical thinking skills and analytical training are the things i have in spades...who are you to judge? In addition to hundreds of live, unamplified concerts and practice sessions, I have done multiple recordings, been a reviewer for a magazine and designed and built speakers and electronics. i know what live dynamics are and when a system can approximate them or not.

"I’ve yet to meet one that possesses even basic listening skills. Near as I can tell the majority of science-minded types in high-end audio have long ago abandoned their untrustworthy listening appendages and instead focus on measurements for their supposedly trustworthy eyes. As a result, many have abandoned pursuing live music or the absolute sound as the holy grail and the new holy grail is measurements. In an audio-only industry mind you."

What a load of BS. Good scientists never throw away their observations and only look at the measurments...you are again conflating scientists with engineers...typical for non-technical types. Good scientists look at the measurments and then what they hear and try to understand what makes one result in the other. There are several hypotheses that can be derived from such a simple connection...all of which are testable...and some have been done but doing studies with humans as a detector is always tricky.

"The fact that you don’t even have the hutzpah to take a simple true or false position to my question about Harley’s statement (even with all your vast music and scientific background) tells more than you think. Look, it’s not rocket science. It either smacks one in the face or it doesn’t. Your lack of commitment here leads me to believe you lack even basic listening discernment to sufficiently distinguish the large gulf between live music and playback music."

Didn't realize this was a pissing contest, Stenho. What does Chutzpah have to do with anything? Harley's statement is extreme and I stated that I have experience that partially contradicts it. I have no doubt information is lost at all stages...but a catastrophy?? I also notice that rather than answer it for yourself you have decided you will "test the scientist" to see if I come up with the "right" answer...where is your balls to answer the question? You are right it's not rocket science it's audio science (not that you would know the difference). And I would say it is not as clear cut as either you or Mr. Harley seem to think it is. Have you ever recorded your own voice on a direct cut record? I have and I can tell you it was a spooky experience hearing your voice played back more real than you have ever heard it before. What I mean is that it went microphone, cutting amp, lacquer...and that's it. Much less lost there I can tell you... you know it immediately (smacks you in the face to use your crude language). I doubt Mr. Harley has ever done that...not many born in the second half of the 20th century have. Now, I can believe the whole recording chain as practiced commercially is likely highly detrimental and one can easily hear the effects on many many many poor recordings...but I am not convinced that most of the loss is at the microphone also because of my own experiences with very short, simple recording chains that when played back sounded quite convincing...particularly compared to the usual commercial outing.

"For example. Around 2008, Jonathan Valin of The Absolute Sound said, “We are lucky if even our very best SOTA systems can capture even 15% of the magic of the live performance.” Paraphrased. I like to substitute believability for Valin’s use of the word “magic”."

Now Valin?? OMG! You have picked two of the biggest audio charlatans out there to use as examples. What does he know??? He was a fiction writer who went on to write audio fiction. He is not called "Sterile" Jonathan Valin for nothing... For large orchestral works, he is probably even overestimating...I have been on record on this forum saying I don't think a system exists that can truly do this big music justice (Although a couple large horn systems did better than most). I would say that he is underestimating what can be done with simple arrangements and smaller ensembles. Such a number he throws out comes right out of his ç%&.

"Based on my own experimenting over the years and using my ears, " Which experimenting? You have been making recordings? You haven't mentioned it until now if you have been. Have you tried the wide array of microphones available out there? What did you actually do to conclude this?

"Rather my experiments and ears have led me to conclude that the vast majority of the music info is indeed embedded in a given recording (even recordings deemed inferior) and of that vast amount of the music info embedded in the recording, though all is read and processed, a very high percentage (think catastrophic) remains inaudible below a much raised universal noise floor (think hi-fi sound). It’s a universal performance-limiting governor."

LOL! This actually contradicts what you just said about the microphone being catastrophic! The funny thing is you don't eve SEE the contradiction! If there is a vast amount of info embedded in the recording then It was obviously CAPTURED by the microphone, no? Rather, what you are talking about is the processing that comes after the signal travels onward from the microphone. You don't see do you? You contradict yourself...and agree with me (that it is downstream losses that are likely more the problem). MY experiments of putting sound directly onto the recording medium has shown me that much less is lost than one might realize. If the information is there, how can it be the microphones fault? Noise floor is mostly an electrical problem (think preamp, mixer, recorder , mastering, etc. etc.).

"IOW, because of a much raised noise floor caused by an accumulation of distortions but especially 2 universal distortions, perhaps only about half of the music info embedded in a given recording remains audible at the speaker. Again, think catastrophic."

Yes, perhaps but NOT from the microphone...Harley's comments were about catastrophic loss at the microphone and you are blathering on about the rest of the chain!

"So you seemingly lack confidence to audibly discern the gulf that separates live music from playback music "

Nothing I said can lead to this manufactured conclusion.

"For your edification, I’ll also state that when the universal much raised noise floor (think catastrophic or hi-fi sound) is dramatically lowered, a huge percentage of the music previously inaudible is now audible and all that is audible is also much cleaner and more musical. It’s amazing what a little controlled experimenting can reveal."

No doubt but what does it have to do with a catastorphic loss at the microphone? Nothing but prove that far less is lost than catastrophic and what comes after is probably the real culprit...so much for your attempts at science...stick to whatever it is you do...maybe you are just a bush-leaguer there or a charlatan.

"jump factor even though you’ve yet to conduct a single experiment and you rarely listen at live performance volume levels?"

Again, where do you get this stuff from??

"BTW, because among your other many derogatories you’ve also called my system a pig, below is a link to a little in-room listening session recorded via my iphone."

I said that if you have to listen at live levels to get an lifelike sound then your system must be a pig. Note the conditionals in the statement.

"The good news for you is one is not required to possess a discerning ear to build a truly musical playback system. After all, there’s always luck of the draw and gulp science to aid you."

If you are successful (questionable) then I guess the luck thing worked out for you because science surely didn't. If you say you have a discerning ear, well let's hope so but I have no proof of that one way or the other. Your little video does not assuage my concerns...
 

About us

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

Quick Navigation

User Menu

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