The relevance of distortion to achieving realistic sound

[fas42]

Okay, I have been made aware that people are disturbed by my implications that the achieving of high quality and convincing sound should be based on eliminating as much distortion as possible from the reproduced sound. Since I very strongly believe that this is a key element in achieving that goal, I will open a new thread, for those interested in discussing this topic further.

So, Vince, please join in, and anyone else with similar interest ...

To kick off, for me, having invisible speakers and achieving a big sound are excellent markers for one's system having reached a major milestone, through a systematic process of reducing the level of audible distortion. How do other people feel?

Frank

 

[Gregadd]

Unless you are closing your eyes your, speakers are not invisible. I suppose you could have a completely dark room.
I have speakers thathave the ability to cast an image that appears completely independent of thier room position.
If your systems is not an exact replica of real music distortion has occured some where along the line.
A system whose distortions are errors of omission rather than commission, is more likely to experience the realism that you describe.

 

[fas42]

Unless you are closing your eyes your, speakers are not invisible.

Yes, obviously I meant that in the audible sense that when you look at the speakers directly, even though your rational mind is saying that the sound must be coming from the drivers, your instinctive head still doesn't click over to recognising that that is in fact what's happening -- you can "look" at various sound images that fixed in space away from the speakers

I have speakers who have the ability to cast an image that appears completely independent of thier room position.
If your systems is not an accept replica of real music distortion has occured some where along the line.
A system whose distortions are errors of omission rather than commission is more likely to experience the realism that you describe.

Sound good to me (pun intended!). Yes, a system that leaves out some finer detail will get away with creating a good soundscape, you only have to listen to an equivalent situation, which is a very old recording where there is a lot missing in terms of frequencies, etc, on a well sorted out system to appreciate what can be achieved.

Frank

 

[muralman1]

Ok, Frank, but I don't see why we keep getting shut out, locked out, and erased. Since this discussion was started by a fellow outlaw, I will join in.

We must simplify our systems as much as possible. All components are suspect. Speakers that allow drivers to operate without heat build up, and energy loss should be chosen. One should not put their faith into measurements. .00001% THD is not telling you anything. That is because amp match up to speaker is much more crucial a test.

Class D is the most difficult of all amp types to get right. The reason for this can be said ICE class D amps are just a lot faster. They pass on distortion effects like no other type amp. It took me years to find out just how hard it is to find appropriate component matches. Then, getting it, I made huge strides.

Thick expensive cables distort the signal. Boxed cables distort the signal. Running the + and - cables together weakens the signal. Braided cables blur the signal. Solid round wire glorifies the midrange to the loss of both the bass and highs. Thin flat cables, run separate, and with the barest of insulation wins the day.

Oversampling, and upsampling strategies are mathematical certainties that are counter productive. That is because of the contrary nature of electrons and their wave propagation. They do not behave logically. CD cradles cause laser transfer problems. Long circuits, extra chips, and filters all diminish the music.

This all worked great for me.

 

[muralman1]

I never look at my speakers per se when the music is playing. I look between them, because the action is there. The speakers stand there like benign shogi screens. When a big grand piano is playing, I turn it up, and fill the house with the pianists artistry.

 

[fas42]

Vince, nice to see you here

Class D is the most difficult of all amp types to get right. The reason for this can be said ICE class D amps are just a lot faster. They pass on distortion effects like no other type amp. It took me years to find out just how hard it is to find appropriate component matches. Then, getting it, I made huge strides.

These must be interesting beasts to play with. I in fact have never tried using them, and so it is very encouraging that you got the excellent results that you have now. As you say, they are fast, which in my language is that they have very low distortion in the key areas, and therefore won't hide or sweeten distortion elsewhere in the system.

Thin flat cables, run separate, and with the barest of insulation wins the day.

I agree, insulation is a very important aspect of getting things right. When you say separate, how far apart, and how carefully do you maintain that spacing?

Oversampling, and upsampling strategies are mathematical certainties that are counter productive. That is because of the contrary nature of electrons and their wave propagation. They do not behave logically. CD cradles cause laser transfer problems. Long circuits, extra chips, and filters all diminish the music.

This is a difficult area. I wouldn't agree with oversampling being a problem, because my simple setup uses a low cost Crystal DAC as part of its makeup, and provided you condition it thoroughly before serious listening, it does the job. Yes, yet again simplification is a key way of getting there, largely because there is too much cross interference with all the digital circuitry, and the power supplies in close proximity, IMO. I am quite certain a great deal can still be done by the industry here to improve things; companies like Chord and Naim I believe have a good approach.

Frank

 

[fas42]

I never look at my speakers per se when the music is playing. I look between them, because the action is there. The speakers stand there like benign shogi screens. When a big grand piano is playing, I turn it up, and fill the house with the pianists artistry.

Right on !!!

Frank

 

[Robert]

Perhaps against my better judgment, I am going to chime-in here. I think Frank is only partly correct in the low distortion camp. The problem is the other side of the equation.

Here is what we agree upon: Low distortion CAN provide a big, realistic, all-encompassing sound, and this includes invisible speakers and excellent to outstanding sound from all recordings. This is the you-are-there perspective, 30 feet from a stage that is about 60 feet wide and 25 feet deep, in an auditorium that sits about 1200 and has 40 foot ceilings. You can hear an occasional cough to your side, and applause comes from around you. This is a very impressive and overwhelming sound that makes your jaw drop, the hair stand-up on your neck, and leaves one scratching their head. Amazing, realistic, impressive are the adjectives used here.

However, low distortion, does not translate into tonality. Tonality needs a separate approach, and as much as I hate to admit it, sometimes requires adding back some desirable distortions, if that is what you wish to call it. The adjectives are gorgeous, sumptuous, harmonious, and intoxicating.

This is the knife’s edge, trying to get a system that does both. They are practically two sides of a coin. The real trick is adding transparent tonality. By tonality, I mean a wet, deep, rounded sound that conveys vibrating wood, brass, and reeds. It has texture, clarity, and an ethereal nature. Notes float into space and envelope you. Harmony and color come to mind, but this stuff is harder to describe. This is not a slow, syrupy, hazy sound. There should be nothing between you and the musicians - just air. For example, do adagios sound beautiful and hold interest as much as the fast pieces. Yes, the 1812 overture sounds impressive, but does the adagietto from Mahler 5 make your heart skip a beat and melt? Does the music draw you in, or is it the descriptors of the imaging? Can you hear a violin and cello summate in a quartet to make a totally new harmony that decays into space? Can you hear the evolution of the vibration in the cello with each note?

Thus, the best system will seek an optimal middle ground. Having low distortion helps the harmonies as an interaction, but it is not the total answer. For some, this may be the old hifi vs. musical debate. For me, this is different, because it is the quest for hifi and musical. That is my goal.

So, the question is, can you play something soft, subtle, slow, and understated for someone listening to a demo of your stereo, and will they ‘get’ the inner beauty and tension conveyed within the technique? If your system can do both, and closely approximate live music for either situation, then you have something special.

 

[muralman1]

Robert, that was a well thought out and entertaining rejoinder. Are you thinking, "Tube (positive) distortion? If so, I confess guilt. The four tubes in my DAC surely must infuse some of that good old even order harmonics. That is a touch of salt, which makes the dish tastier.

 

[muralman1]

Vince, nice to see you here


These must be interesting beasts to play with. I in fact have never tried using them, and so it is very encouraging that you got the excellent results that you have now. As you say, they are fast, which in my language is that they have very low distortion in the key areas, and therefore won't hide or sweeten distortion elsewhere in the system.

I think you are right. The detail is terrific. It seems as if ICE is great at differentiating between details, or that just may be accurate reading of the CD.

I agree, insulation is a very important aspect of getting things right. When you say separate, how far apart, and how carefully do you maintain that spacing?

The spacing lets some variable air between the short cables. I feel the advantage is less magnetic field disturbance by neighboring cables. I never understood why we want to have the fields of two adjoining cables intermingled. I think it is said that reduces inductance? I am more concerned for the virginity of each cable. Placing my amps backwards behind the speakers allow a lot of cable space tweaking. I found the Speltz ICs will cancel the music when the right and left are entangled.

This is a difficult area. I wouldn't agree with oversampling being a problem, because my simple setup uses a low cost Crystal DAC as part of its makeup, and provided you condition it thoroughly before serious listening, it does the job. Yes, yet again simplification is a key way of getting there, largely because there is too much cross interference with all the digital circuitry, and the power supplies in close proximity, IMO. I am quite certain a great deal can still be done by the industry here to improve things; companies like Chord and Naim I believe have a good approach.
Frank

Frank, I confess I don't fully understand the difference I hear; only that the difference is really night and day. All oversampling DACs restrict the stage, shorten decay, and soften dynamics. The higher number of the sampling creates the worst divergence. Amir argue this point quite well. An old Marantz did better than a much newer Sony SACD. Even a heavily modified DAC by Modwrite was trounced. Given oversampler's poor performance, I am forced to deduce the trouble is in the extra chips. It is well known oversampling creates time lags and spurious distortions. That is why they are always followed by two more chips, a filter and a clock. I think this is the primary void between our beliefs.

 

[fas42]

Low distortion CAN provide a big, realistic, all-encompassing sound, and this includes invisible speakers and excellent to outstanding sound from all recordings. , and this includes invisible speakers and excellent to outstanding sound from all recordings. This is the you-are-there perspective, 30 feet from a stage that is about 60 feet wide and 25 feet deep, in an auditorium that sits about 1200 and has 40 foot ceilings. You can hear an occasional cough to your side, and applause comes from around you. This is a very impressive and overwhelming sound that makes your jaw drop, the hair stand-up on your neck, and leaves one scratching their head. Amazing, realistic, impressive are the adjectives used here.

Robert, thank you for that excellent and, as Vince said, well thought out post. I am certain I have never read a more clearly spelt out description of the substance of this split or tear between these apparent two camps of thinking about audio playback!

I will say immediately I am in the first camp, as undoubtedly is Vince. I can only imagine the vast majority of of musical lovers being enthralled by your account of a system working as decribed in my quote from your post. In fact, that sounds exactly like listening to a live performance of music!

So, now I am perplexed. You decribe a system working at a quality most people are frantically striving for, yet you are unsatisfied by those qualities.

Tonality needs a separate approach, and as much as I hate to admit it, sometimes requires adding back some desirable distortions, if that is what you wish to call it. The adjectives are gorgeous, sumptuous, harmonious, and intoxicating.

So here's the answer. You are perceiving your system to be a musical instrument in its own right, a very sophisticated version of what every guitar hero has as stock in trade, an effects unit. Depending on what the guitarist wishes to achieve in a piece, he will select a pedal for distortion or tube sweetening, etc. Now, I have absolutely no problem or argument with you're doing that, you have done the research, paid your money and are thoroughly enjoying, by all accounts, the end results of your endeavours. You have had a certain goal and have achieved it. You are very happy with your system in the same way Vince is with his.

Yet there must be something more, otherwise you would not asked about those tips for tweaking a system, I would suspect.

do adagios sound beautiful and hold interest as much as the fast pieces

can you play something soft, subtle, slow, and understated for someone listening to a demo of your stereo, and will they ‘get’ the inner beauty and tension conveyed within the technique?

This seems to be the nub of it. Even though you speak of a system being impressive, in what most people would consider a realistic way, you seem to be saying that they will still fail on this test, that of reproducing almost nothing but silence with brief interludes of tone, of notes. Am I correct here?

If I am correct, and for the moment I will assume that I am, then, unfortunately I will still have to say that the demon, distortion, is still part of the mix. You may feel that distortion WAS virtually eradicated in your first scenario, but I would say otherwise, because then your other statements would not have been made ..

Having low distortion helps the harmonies as an interaction, but it is not the total answer.

That I cannot understand. If that is what the musician was producing, and was picked by the microphone and recording mechanism, then it is the playback's job to accurately reproduce that. If it doesn't, then it has distorted the message. The only other alternative is that the microphones and recorder have themselves distorted the musical content to the point where it can't be recovered sufficiently for the ear/brain to accept it. Many here have argued this, stating that the very process of recording and playback itself guarantees that the outcome will be forever intrinsically too greatly flawed. If that is indeed the case, then your solution is one of the ideal paths to follow. Tim's path, as he states, is one of the other paths in this regard, others may be possible.

Here both I and Vince diverge in our viewpoints from seemingly everyone else. As a result of our personal experiences, and not because of what people have stated or demonstrated to us, we have realised it is possible to achieve a greater level of pleasure from listening to recorded sound. Why this is so is open to debate, and that is what this thread is about ...

And yes, I can go from the first scenario to the second scenario, WHEN my system is working correctly, effortlessly. I could put on Led Zeppelin I at maximum volume, and be enveloped by a massive soundstage, feel my body shivering from the energy of it, then immediately follow that, at the correct volume, with John Williams on classical guitar, or a long, beautifully played violin solo, and be completely transfixed by the beauty of intonation, etc. These things are possible ...

Once again, a hearty thanks for a superb post ...

Frank

 

[fas42]

I never understood why we want to have the fields of two adjoining cables intermingled. I think it is said that reduces inductance? I am more concerned for the virginity of each cable.

Yes, you reduce inductance by reducing the separation of the forward and return conductors. The only thing is, you have to go to great lengths to reduce the inductance by any significant amount if using the technique of keeping the conductors close. Then, of course, up goes the capacitance -- it's a can of worms!

From my experience, the cables' capacitance and inductance have almost nothing to do with it, the reducing of distortion. It is much, much more about secondary effects and non-linearities.

I found the Speltz ICs will cancel the music when the right and left are entangled.

This is where it gets all very messy! My friend's analogue focussed system uses Speltz SC's, and things improved markedly when we tried twisting them tightly! The whole problem is, everything is critical, and there are no easy answers, no matter how much people may wish it so ...

Given oversampler's poor performance, I am forced to deduce the trouble is in the extra chips. It is well known oversampling creates time lags and spurious distortions. That is why they are always followed by two more chips, a filter and a clock. I think this is the primary void between our beliefs.

Yes, I will very strongly emphasise that there is NOT one way. I have got acoustic results similar to Vince using totally, totally different techniques. Yes, the trouble CAN be the extra chips, they add complexity, meaning that there is more digital rubbish, that is, interference, being sprayed around the system, and giving the power supplies a harder time. Your way avoids having to deal with that issue, weaknesses are eliminated in one go; Audio Note's way is perfectly valid. Of course, with ambitious CD players, a lot of focus is on getting on the digital stuff doing its thing correctly; the making sure the analogue side of it is fully sorted out is a secondary issue. Hence a lot of them sound very iffy ...

Frank

 

[fas42]

Vince, you'll find this amusing ...

Because I have (obviously!) been doing a fair bit of interacting with the forum over the last week or so, I let my system lapse. At the moment it still needs a lot of fiddling and TLC to get it humming reasonably, and I find it intolerable when it's a bit off colour, so it's just switched off.

This morning my wife begged me to get it going again, she was starved of listening to good sound! Quite a compliment, I would have thought!!

Sorry, people, a bit off topic ...

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

You can hear an occasional cough to your side, and applause comes from around you.

You can hear someone cough next to you, hear applause around you? On a 2-channel system? Dude! That's awesome!

This is a very impressive and overwhelming sound that makes your jaw drop, the hair stand-up on your neck, and leaves one scratching their head.

I should think so.

Tim

 

[fas42]

Tim, not quite sure if you're talking to me or Robert ...

But just triggered an interesting recollection. From my profile, you can see I'm playing with a pretty mediocre starting point, which has been butchered every which way, but it still has a pseudo surround capability, Dolby Pro Logic, something like that, working on it, all the plastic speakers still connected, and in the right places. Every time you start a disk, you have to switch from this to true stereo, but sometimes this doesn't trigger for some reason. Many times I have left the surround on and not realised that it's happened; friends came and no-one picked anything different until the end of CD!

So, a system working properly does a pretty good job of creating a semblence of a surround sound experience. Just an aside ...

Frank

 

[muralman1]

I am often annoyed at the loud clapping on a recording. It really does seem the microphone must be back some ways from the stage. I am going to hold my tongue some now, because I promised to send my new source to my amp builder for a listen. After he hears it, I know we will be reserving a room for some audio show in the future.

 

[fas42]

I am often annoyed at the loud clapping on a recording.

Yes, I know what you mean: it almost has a deafening quality about it. Don't worry, that's what's on the recording, tells me and you that your treble is doing well, you should feel pleased that your system is presenting it correctly to you. I would say the sound engineers, because their equipment is not presenting the sound correctly to them, turn up the volume of the clapping to give a good balance on their monitors, which means it will be too loud, or have too much impact, on our systems.

I am going to hold my tongue some now,

Hopefully not too much, I'm enjoying the chat!

One thing, on the previous thread I think I queried you as follows:

The 2 chaps using SET's who heard your current setup weren't totally enthusiastic about your sound, or so it seemed from your words. Is that correct, and if they picked faults so to speak, what would those have been? Very curious ...

Frank

 

[muralman1]

Yes, I know what you mean: it almost has a deafening quality about it. Don't worry, that's what's on the recording, tells me and you that your treble is doing well, you should feel pleased that your system is presenting it correctly to you. I would say the sound engineers, because their equipment is not presenting the sound correctly to them, turn up the volume of the clapping to give a good balance on their monitors, which means it will be too loud, or have too much impact, on our systems.


Hopefully not too much, I'm enjoying the chat!

One thing, on the previous thread I think I queried you as follows:

The 2 chaps using SET's who heard your current setup weren't totally enthusiastic about your sound, or so it seemed from your words. Is that correct, and if they picked faults so to speak, what would those have been? Very curious ...

Frank

No, they were blown away. You could tell buy their big grins as they followed a string of instruments on a Gershwin disc. The thing is, of course, when you have guys over, one who has dropped $150k on his SET system, there is more than the music that they love. $800 unobtanium driving tubes are the equivalent of idols. You can literally hear the owner salivate when talking about them.

What time is it down under just now?

When you have the clapping wrong in a large audience it will sound like fingernails on chalkboard. My system puts it out like you are there. Oh, hearing someone cough helps delineate the building. I don't know about you, but I find it quite rare to find a disc that doesn't have some redeeming quality. Poor discs don't get worse as you sharpen your audio pencil, they get better, as the better ones get great.

MAC SCAN just opened up - no tracking cookies. Good.

 

[fas42]

What time is it down under just now?

When you have the clapping wrong in a large audience it will sound like fingernails on chalkboard. My system puts it out like you are there. Oh, hearing someone cough helps delineate the building. I don't know about you, but I find it quite rare to find a disc that doesn't have some redeeming quality. Poor discs don't get worse as you sharpen your audio pencil, they get better, as the better ones get great.

7:54pm, mate !!

Yes, clapping actually has a very intense, high frequency component; it has a very percussive quality. At the end of a sweet, languorous solo in concert, suddenly there is this explosive, in your face noise, like rain hammering very hard on a tin roof, it's almost like a physical shock.

Also agree about poor recordings, my philosophy is that there is NO bad recording, when one sounds not quite right to me it indicates that there is still a weakness causing enough audible distortion to be a problem. Then it's time to to get under the hood, get some grease on the hands!

So, would you have a single recording that is still a problem in some way? If so, how? My current disks for testing are early 30's big band swing, a collection of Glen Miller's hits -- the original recordings, a very low level Odetta in concert, difficult string quartets, etc.

Cheers,
Frank

 

[Robert]

Frank,

I understand what you are saying about everything being on the recording. The theory is rational and makes sense. I’ve chased it for several years. My opinion now is that you can reduce distortion down to Planck’s constant, and you will get an impressive sound that is Hi-Fi. The reasons are not certain to me.

The problem with music is that, by definition, it is effectively indescribable. Our left-brain terminology is woefully inadequate for this entirely different ‘language’ that plugs directly into our emotions. Hifi is what we can describe, musical is what we cannot describe.

I know you are steadfast in eliminating distortion and getting the ‘true’ sound. But I am looking for the sound that could none other be described as ‘right’. At times, there is a ‘correctness’ to what I hear. A perfect melding, the planets aligning. It sounds effortless and simple, and all the Hifi terminology falls by the waist side. The illusion is solid and sustained. Can I get all the fidelity and detail, and yet, pay no mind to it?

I believe my stereo can demonstrate this to anyone, even those who say cables make no difference. My perpetual ‘dissatisfaction’ is that I want both fidelity and music at the same time, all the time. My stereo brings much joy to my life, but I keep pushing along on this never-ending journey to reach something that probably does not exist. I just want to know how close I can come.

One problem with these forums is that we are grounded by descriptors. In terms of the journey, I don’t know who is farthest along at this point.