There is a smarter way

[sbo6]

Care to elaborate? How does it differ? In what way do you think that upgrading components is different?

One explicitly targets tweaking the frequency response, the other targets upgrading for overall better sonics (does not play with frequency manipulation). Is that clear enough?

 

[Carlos269]

One explicitly targets tweaking the frequency response, the other targets upgrading for overall better sonics (does not play with frequency manipulation). Is that clear enough?

Sound is defined by amplitude, frequency and phase. A component substitution will affect the sound by modifying the spectral composition. The only difference is that the changes brought about by component substitutions are static and not deliberate, in a trial and error fashion, while the remastering process is a deliberate modification that is scalable, repeatable, adjustable, and defeatable; but both methods accomplish their resultant yield by modifying the spectral content: amplitude, frequency, or phase of the signal. There is no other way to bring about change to sound.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Sound is defined by amplitude, frequency and phase. A component substitution will affect the sound by modifying the spectral composition. The only difference is that the changes brought about by component substitutions are static and not deliberate, in a trial and error fashion, while the remastering process is a deliberate modification that is scalable, repeatable, adjustable, and defeatable; but both methods accomplish their resultant yield by modifying the spectral content: amplitude, frequency, or phase of the signal. There is no other way to bring about change to sound.

I believe sbo6 is referring, for example, to upgrading an audio component which is more transparent sonically than the component it replaces. No amount of amplitude, frequency or phase fiddling with the prior component will achieve the transparency of the new component.

 

[stehno]

Sound is defined by amplitude, frequency and phase. A component substitution will affect the sound by modifying the spectral composition. The only difference is that the changes brought about by component substitutions are static and not deliberate, in a trial and error fashion, while the remastering process is a deliberate modification that is scalable, repeatable, adjustable, and defeatable; but both methods accomplish their resultant yield by modifying the spectral content: amplitude, frequency, or phase of the signal.

Carlos, I appreciate some of your thoughts and posts but this doesn't seem to be one of them.

Yes, your strategy here may indeed be somewhat on par with the swapping in/out of components merry-go-round and may even be a better use of resources. But in the end your strategy appears no different than prior discussions about the room. Of which my position is that altering the room is dealing with the effects rather than the cause. And every time the cause is altered intentionally or accidentally, the effects will change.

Buying/selling components may have little hit and/or miss impacts and every so often a bigger than little impact but they generally are not dealing with the cause. And IMO, neither is your suggestion.

There is no other way to bring about change to sound.

Sure there is. The greatest sonic impacts are and will always be found when sufficiently addressing the cause(s). Never the effects.

 

[sbo6]

Sound is defined by amplitude, frequency and phase. A component substitution will affect the sound by modifying the spectral composition. The only difference is that the changes brought about by component substitutions are static and not deliberate, in a trial and error fashion, while the remastering process is a deliberate modification that is scalable, repeatable, adjustable, and defeatable; but both methods accomplish their resultant yield by modifying the spectral content: amplitude, frequency, or phase of the signal. There is no other way to bring about change to sound.

You left out several key components - distortion and decay.

Also, while one component versus another may have a slightly different sound signature possibly evident via measurements, that's only a piece of its sound. Distortion and often times related the level of clarity are difficult to see via measurements. Another is a component, say an amplifier's ability to control woofers; I've yet to see that in a frequency response. Another might be a speaker's ability to convey dynamics.

Net - while the sound resulting from our components are understood, what our equipment does working together that yields realism (dynamics, clarity, tonal accuracy, then there's room interaction another topic, etc.) I've yet to see presented in graphs. If you have some, please share.

 

[PeterA]

There is also the matter of resolution.

 

[Carlos269]

I believe sbo6 is referring, for example, to upgrading an audio component which is more transparent sonically than the component it replaces. No amount of amplitude, frequency or phase fiddling with the prior component will achieve the transparency of the new component.

Ron, we have discussed this before. Transparency is also a function of the spectral makeup or composition of sound: a simple cut in the 4KHz to 6KHz presence region of the frequency spectrum is perceived as an increase in transparency. It is not the “layers of veils” as audiophiles describe as there is no such thing. What is being described is technically the emphasis or de-emphasis of presence frequency content in the sounds quality. You need to familiarize yourself with psychoacoustic principles.

 

[Carlos269]

Carlos, I appreciate some of your thoughts and posts but this doesn't seem to be one of them.

Yes, your strategy here may indeed be somewhat on par with the swapping in/out of components merry-go-round and may even be a better use of resources. But in the end your strategy appears no different than prior discussions about the room. Of which my position is that altering the room is dealing with the effects rather than the cause. And every time the cause is altered intentionally or accidentally, the effects will change.

Buying/selling components may have little hit and/or miss impacts and every so often a bigger than little impact but they generally are not dealing with the cause. And IMO, neither is your suggestion.


Sure there is. The greatest sonic impacts are and will always be found when sufficiently addressing the cause(s). Never the effects.

How does sound change without altering its amplitude, frequency, or phase?

 

[Carlos269]

There is also the matter of resolution.

I have already provided several AES white papers on how the judicious addition of specific distortion/saturation/compression is perceived as increased resolution, inner detail and low level detail. If only audiophiles spent some time learning about psychoacoustics and signal processing principles then it would be obvious that just about every audio phenomena can be dialed in.

Peter you are not a digital guy but it would be worthwhile for you to read the earlier papers by dCS on how upsampling leads to a perceived increase in resolution for an example of signal processing leading to increased perceived resolution.

 

[Carlos269]

You left out several key components - distortion and decay.

Also, while one component versus another may have a slightly different sound signature possibly evident via measurements, that's only a piece of its sound. Distortion and often times related the level of clarity are difficult to see via measurements. Another is a component, say an amplifier's ability to control woofers; I've yet to see that in a frequency response. Another might be a speaker's ability to convey dynamics.

Net - while the sound resulting from our components are understood, what our equipment does working together that yields realism (dynamics, clarity, tonal accuracy, then there's room interaction another topic, etc.) I've yet to see presented in graphs. If you have some, please share.

Distortion and decay are specified by amplitude, frequency, and phase. Those are the elements of sound; there is nothing else.

You need to take a step back and try to understand the concept of sound before you can understand the details of how to manipulate it.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Transparency . . . is not the “layers of veils” as audiophiles describe as there is no such thing. What is being described is technically the emphasis or de-emphasis of presence frequency content in the sounds quality.

I firmly disagree. Patiently compare OTL amps to output transformer amps, and you will understand "layers of veils."

 

[Carlos269]

I firmly disagree.

Educate yourself and learn something new today. Use Google or ChatGP. Ask a mastering engineer. And then come back and tell me that I am correct.

 

[Carlos269]

you will understand "layers of veils."

“Layers of veils” is not a technical term. “Layers of veils” is a layman’s description for the characteristic that I technically described.

 

[sbo6]

Distortion and decay are specified by amplitude, frequency, and phase. Those are the elements of sound; there is nothing else.

You need to take a step back and try to understand the concept of sound before you can understand the details of how to manipulate it.

Carlos, you are confused, you need to educate yourself on what sound is, how humans characterize sound, and what are the components of sound as we delineate for music in our listening rooms.

Sound is defined as vibrations passing through a medium.

We further break down sound to measure and characterize it via frequencies, amplitude and phase (what we hear). For musical reproduction we know there is distortion and decay that affects the frequency, amplitude and phase.

In terms of resolution / clarity, yes, there is some correlation of frequency ranges that humans "hear' as more clear / resolution, however, your simple answer that '4KHz to 6KHz presence region of the frequency spectrum is perceived as an increase in transparency." doesn't solve the equation. How about, for example low frequency delta in resolution? Is it also localized to 4 - 6KHz region?

I do believe that the differences we hear can be measured, we just can't measure / appropriately spectrum analyze all of them - yet.

 

[sbo6]

Distortion and decay are specified by amplitude, frequency, and phase. Those are the elements of sound; there is nothing else.

You need to take a step back and try to understand the concept of sound before you can understand the details of how to manipulate it.

BTW, master, give me a brief overlay how you are manipulating sound that's already mixed down, compressed, and served in 2 channels. If your secret is playing with phase, freq response, filters via Audience or something similar, then we're done here.

 

[Ron Resnick]

“Layers of veils” is not a technical term. “Layers of veils” is a layman’s description for the characteristic that I technically described.

I agree "layers of veils” is not a technical term. I disagree that it refers merely to presence frequency.

"Layers of veils” is a subjective audiophile-type term that means exactly what it suggests.

 

[Carlos269]

Carlos, you are confused, you need to educate yourself on what sound is, how humans characterize sound, and what are the components of sound as we delineate for music in our listening rooms.

Sound is defined as vibrations passing through a medium.

We further break down sound to measure and characterize it via frequencies, amplitude and phase (what we hear). For musical reproduction we know there is distortion and decay that affects the frequency, amplitude and phase.

In terms of resolution / clarity, yes, there is some correlation of frequency ranges that humans "hear' as more clear / resolution, however, your simple answer that '4KHz to 6KHz presence region of the frequency spectrum is perceived as an increase in transparency." doesn't solve the equation. How about, for example low frequency delta in resolution? Is it also localized to 4 - 6KHz region?

I do believe that the differences we hear can be measured, we just can't measure / appropriately spectrum analyze all of them - yet.

With all due respect, you are wrong. The 4-6KHz was in reference to transparency. Low frequencies are addressed with other regions, but it is actually more complex than that as you are only discussing frequency adjustments, while with my high-end mastering equipment I can make changes to the sound that are dynamic. These are some very powerful sound sculpting tools that require knowledge to use.

 

[Carlos269]

I agree "layers of veils” is not a technical term. I disagree that it refers merely to presence frequency.

"Layers of veils” is a subjective audiophile-type term that means exactly what it suggests.

Come on Ron, at least read a paragraph or two on the makeup of sound quality and how its attributes are described.

 

[Carlos269]

BTW, master, give me a brief overlay how you are manipulating sound that's already mixed down, compressed, and served in 2 channels. If your secret is playing with phase, freq response, filters via Audience or something similar, then we're done here.

I have already done that earlier in this thread. Do a little reading.

 

[sbo6]

I have already done that earlier in this thread. Do a little reading.

You have a lot of posts, not sure which has your secret sauce. If you can point me, I'd be interested to read it.