There is a smarter way

[Carlos269]

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.

Read “walking through the process” in post #19 in this thread.

 

[sbo6]

Read “walking through the process” in post #19 in this thread.

Thank you, I see what you do. You tailor the sound via processing and EQing to suite your taste. That is a lot of pots, switches and cables inserted in the signal path. Hopefully there is no degradation in sonics.

 

[Carlos269]

Thank you, I see what you do. You tailor the sound via processing and EQing to suite your taste.

Yes.

That is a lot of pots, switches and cables inserted in the signal path. Hopefully there is no degradation in sonics.

I’m dialing in the system to sound exactly like I want it to, therefore by definition there is no degradation in sonics that are not wanted. With my approach, you are the master and any shortcomings are on you and should be dealt with and corrected by you.

 

[sbo6]

Yes.



I’m dialing in the system to sound exactly like I want it to, therefore by definition there is no degradation in sonics that are not wanted. With my approach, you are the master and any shortcomings are on you and should be dealt with and corrected by you.

Let me ask you one last question - you have stated that you are remastering and are in full control and that there is no degradation in sonics. If, for example, the company that makes your preamp, or amps, or DAC came out with a new and improved version, do you believe that without changing any of your many tweaks that it could have better resolution and sound all around better? Or not?

 

[Carlos269]

Let me ask you one last question - you have stated that you are remastering and are in full control and that there is no degradation in sonics. If, for example, the company that makes your preamp, or amps, or DAC came out with a new and improved version, do you believe that without changing any of your many tweaks that it could have better resolution and sound all around better? Or not?

It is easy to answer your question as I use different sources with the system which all have a distinct and different sound signature. The answer is that a component “upgrade” will just sound different, as it should. Here is what you need to understand, the changes brought about by the “Remastering” process are dominant in nature and changes derived from equipment, cables, foundations, grounding, etc. are lower order in terms of impact.

Allow me to explain. If you go back to your college math days and recall the resultant can be expressed as the sum of an infinite polynomials string with increasing negative power factors. The lower value power factors are the dominant ones, while the higher value power factors are the less impactful. Although the sum is infinite, it can be truncated, in order to achieve the degree of accuracy specified; this is called convergence.

Back to Audio. The changes made by the “Remastering” process are dominant, or higher order (lower numerical value) power factor. For instant, once you use the “Remastering” process to adjust the width and depth of the soundstage or the tightness of the bass notes, or the degree of sparkle and air on the upper treble for examples, then those “system” level attributes will prevail in the sound of your system. Sure there will be small variations from recording to recording, as there should be, but with the “Remastering” process you have effectively changed the general sonic signature of your system.

The “Remastering” process is that powerful in changing the sound in a dominant fashion than any “new” component that claims to be “linear” could ever achieve, as a linear component is by definition flat to +/- 0.5 dB across its 20Hz to 20KHz bandwidth.

The “Remastering” process having “Dynamic” elements also increases the rate of convergence.

I hope that makes sense to you and others interested in this Smarter approach.

 

[sbo6]

It is easy to answer your question as I use different sources with the system which all have a distinct and different sound signature. The answer is that a component “upgrade” will just sound different, as it should. Here is what you need to understand, the changes brought about by the “Remastering” process are dominant in nature and changes derived from equipment, cables, foundations, grounding, etc. are lower order in terms of impact.

Allow me to explain. If you go back to your college math days and recall the resultant can be expressed as the sum of an infinite polynomials string with increasing negative power factors. The lower value power factors are the dominant ones, while the higher value power factors are the less impactful. Although the sum is infinite, it can be truncated, in order to achieve the degree of accuracy specified; this is called convergence.

Back to Audio. The changes made by the “Remastering” process are dominant, or higher order (lower numerical value) power factor. For instant, once you use the “Remastering” process to adjust the width and depth of the soundstage or the tightness of the bass notes, or the degree of sparkle and air on the upper treble for examples, then those “system” level attributes will prevail in the sound of your system. Sure there will be small variations from recording to recording, as there should be, but with the “Remastering” process you have effectively changed the general sonic signature of your system.

The “Remastering” process is that powerful in changing the sound in a dominant fashion than any “new” component that claims to be “linear” could ever achieve, as a linear component is by definition flat to +/- 0.5 dB across its 20Hz to 20KHz bandwidth.

The “Remastering” process having “Dynamic” elements also increases the rate of convergence.

I hope that makes sense to you and others interested in this Smarter approach.

Thanks Carlos. I think we can agree to disagree with regard to the impact of component upgrades as they clearly can have a significant impact on sound and not only sound "different" especially since different is a generic descriptor akin to the word, "nice". Whether your "remastering" process has as much or more of an effect vs. a component upgrade I can't comment on, as I've never heard it. I also can't comment on the degradation evident via all the wires, pots, etc. injected in your "Remastering" signal path but at the end of the day, as long as you are happy, that's what matters.

 

[Carlos269]

Thanks Carlos. I think we can agree to disagree with regard to the impact of component upgrades as they clearly can have a significant impact on sound and not only sound "different" especially since different is a generic descriptor akin to the word, "nice". Whether your "remastering" process has as much or more of an effect vs. a component upgrade I can't comment on, as I've never heard it. I also can't comment on the degradation evident via all the wires, pots, etc. injected in your "Remastering" signal path but at the end of the day, as long as you are happy, that's what matters.

Let me explain it in simple terms: audio components, if functioning properly, are linear devices with very little deviation from a flat response by design. We wouldn’t want an audio component that deviates too far from a flat response. Mastering sound sculpting tools on the other hand are just the opposite, they modify the signal from a precise subtle (abstruse) degree to “extreme” (utmost) degrees.

There is no comparison here in terms of the overall impact of these two different class of devices on the sound.

Does this more layman explanation make more sense to you?

 

[PeterA]

Let me explain it in simple terms: audio components, if functioning properly, are linear devices with very little deviation from a flat response by design. We wouldn’t want an audio component that deviates too far from a flat response. Mastering sound sculpting tools on the other hand are just the opposite, they modify the signal from a precise subtle (abstruse) degree to “extreme” (utmost) degrees.

There is no comparison here in terms of the overall impact of these two different class of devices on the sound.

Does this more layman explanation make more sense to you?

Carlos, I understand what you are saying here. I am curious though about this: if audio components functioning properly are basically “linear devices with very little deviation from a flat response by design“, how do you explain that so many systems sound so different, especially given my impression that you do not think the room matters much?

 

[Carlos269]

Carlos, I understand what you are saying here. I am curious though about this: if audio components functioning properly are basically “linear devices with very little deviation from a flat response by design“, how do you explain that so many systems sound so different, especially given my impression that you do not think the room matters much?

Peter, this is very easy to explain. The interaction between components’ output impedance, inductance, and capacitance and the input impedance, inductance, and capacitance of the next component down the chain, along with the impedance, Inductance and capacitance of the interconnecting cables, form filters which result in the different sound of systems due to their configuration and components’ electrical characteristics.

 

[PeterA]

Peter, this is very easy to explain. The interaction between components output impedance, inductance, and capacitance and the input impedance, inductance, impedance and capacitance of the next component down the chain, along with the impedance, Inductance and capacitance of the interconnecting cables, form filters which result in the different sound of systems due to their configuration and components’ electrical characteristics.

Ok, so after all of that interaction between all of those devices which react to each other to create a specific sound in a specific context, you then come in with your mixing/mastering devices and alter the sound to something you like. And your device has more impact on the overall sound. Is that correct? Thank you

 

[Carlos269]

Ok, so after all of that interaction between all of those devices which react to each other to create a specific sound in a specific context, you then come in with your mixing/mastering devices and alter the sound to something you like. And your device has more impact on the overall sound. Is that correct? Thank you

Bingo!

 

[sbo6]

Let me explain it in simple terms: audio components, if functioning properly, are linear devices with very little deviation from a flat response by design. We wouldn’t want an audio component that deviates too far from a flat response. Mastering sound sculpting tools on the other hand are just the opposite, they modify the signal from a precise subtle (abstruse) degree to “extreme” (utmost) degrees.

There is no comparison here in terms of the overall impact of these two different class of devices on the sound.

Does this more layman explanation make more sense to you?

I fully comprehend your analogy and explanations, however (and to be frank) your education and experience seems to cloud your judgement asserting that, "audio components, if functioning properly, are linear devices with very little deviation from a flat response by design" = there is little to gain from different components. Yes, we all know components' design specs that 99% mfr.s adhere to, however, the differences in sonic character amongst components is significant. That, is a majority consensus that you don't seem to grasp the enormity of.

Also, what you omit is - you'll never have as much control over what you describe as "re-mastering" compared to the actual mastering process as you are ultimately limited by 2 channels and whatever has been done to the tracks beforehand. And then there's the degradation via decades old equipment injected in the signal chain that you gloss over as, having full control and any change is self - applied.

Here's an analogy I hope you understand - you're essentially adding ketchup and mustard to filet mignon.

Again, I'm happy that you're happy but it's important for you to be honest with yourself.

 

[sbo6]

Peter, this is very easy to explain. The interaction between components’ output impedance, inductance, and capacitance and the input impedance, inductance, and capacitance of the next component down the chain, along with the impedance, Inductance and capacitance of the interconnecting cables, form filters which result in the different sound of systems due to their configuration and components’ electrical characteristics.

No mention of distortion? Dynamic headroom?

Also, if that's the case, then why do you have high $$ components, just purchase what meets 20 - 20KHz, measure and ensure L, C, R meets your expectations and tweak the rest with your in - line "re-mastering" tweaks?

 

[Carlos269]

I fully comprehend your analogy and explanations, however (and to be frank) your education and experience seems to cloud your judgement asserting that, "audio components, if functioning properly, are linear devices with very little deviation from a flat response by design" = there is little to gain from different components. Yes, we all know components' design specs that 99% mfr.s adhere to, however, the differences in sonic character amongst components is significant. That, is a majority consensus that you don't seem to grasp the enormity of.

Read Peter’s post, #88, and my response, post #89.

Also, what you omit is - you'll never have as much control over what you describe as "re-mastering" compared to the actual mastering process as you are ultimately limited by 2 channels and whatever has been done to the tracks beforehand. And then there's the degradation via decades old equipment injected in the signal chain that you gloss over as, having full control and any change is self - applied.

FYI, mastering engineers in the studio don’t go back to the raw tracks as that is the job of the mixing engineer. Mastering engineers typically operate in the 2-buss system, like the “Remastering” process.

Here's an analogy I hope you understand - you're essentially adding ketchup and mustard to filet mignon.

Laughing my ass off, what I’m doing is a much smarter way of accomplishing what audiophiles set out to do with the endless component upgrades and substitutions, without shooting in the dark in a trial and error process.

Again, I'm happy that you're happy but it's important for you to be honest with yourself.

Hey listen, you are not coming across as very bright here. Please just except the fact that you don’t understand the concept and therefore none of the details make sense to you. Instead of reading this thread save up for your next component.

 

[Carlos269]

No mention of distortion? Dynamic headroom?

Also, if that's the case, then why do you have high $$ components, just purchase what meets 20 - 20KHz, measure and ensure L, C, R meets your expectations and tweak the rest with your in - line "re-mastering" tweaks?

My room would look a lot different if I had the knowledge that I have today 35 years ago. That I can assure you. I started off like every other audiophile, following the purist component substitution trial and error approach. Then I said to myself, “there has to be a smarter way” than this shooting in the dark and hoping for the best. My background in Physics and Electrical Engineering would not allow me to swallow the ignorance any longer so I noticed that the biggest impact in sound was the recordings’ mastering and then I took a seven year deep dive into the world of high-end studio mastering. I walked away from that experience with the tools and Knowledge that I needed to assemble my own mastering systems, and even more importantly knowing how to use them. These sound sculpting mastering tools are very powerful and in the hands of someone not knowing what they do and how to apply them will certainly lead to complete disaster and equipment damage. This isn’t for everyone and based on your lack of comprehension of the concept this is most definitely not for you!

 

[sbo6]

My room would look a lot different if I had the knowledge that I have today 35 years ago. That I can assure you. I started off like every other audiophile, following the purist component substitution trial and error approach. Then I said to myself, “there has to be a smarter way” than this shooting in the dark and hoping for the best. My background in Physics and Electrical Engineering would not allow me to swallow the ignorance any longer so I noticed that the biggest impact in sound was the recordings’ mastering and then I took a seven year deep dive into the world of high-end studio mastering. I walked away from that experience with the tools and Knowledge that I needed to assemble my own mastering systems, and even more importantly knowing how to use them. These sound sculpting mastering tools are very powerful and in the hands of someone not knowing what they do and how to apply them will certainly lead to complete disaster and equipment damage. This isn’t for everyone and based on your lack of comprehension of the concept this is most definitely not for you!

I can see why you have few friends on this forum.

Edit after reading your diatribe of nonsense above:
Carlos, one thing I've learned being on this rock for more than half a century is - you can't change stupid. What you don't get is - I get it, others get it, it's not that complicated, and many of us have Engineering degrees. Net is - you are so high on your proverbial horse that you don't get that everyone gets it, my friend. Your statements articulated with 110% confidence are full of contradictions; you could be a case study for the Dunning–Kruger effect. And after repeated insults, you then have the audacity to say, "nothing personal." I honestly feel for your wife.

Go ahead, you get the last word, and happy listening Carlos!

 

[Carlos269]

I can see why you have few friends on this forum.

Carlos, one thing I've learned being on this rock for more than half a century is - you can't change stupid. Your statements articulated with 110% confidence are full of contradictions; you could be a case study for the Dunning–Kruger effect.

Go ahead, you get the last word, and happy listening Carlos!

I have answered all your questions and you still don’t get it. What more can I do? I have been nothing but responsive to you but we came to a point where it is obvious that you don’t get it. Please ask some of your friends on the forum and see if one of them gets it and perhaps they can explain it to you in a better way than I did. No hard feelings, this is just not sinking in for you and you know what, that’s okay with me and I’m alright with that.

 

[Republicoftexas69]

I can see why you have few friends on this forum.

Carlos, one thing I've learned being on this rock for more than half a century is - you can't change stupid. Your statements articulated with 110% confidence are full of contradictions; you could be a case study for the Dunning–Kruger effect.

Go ahead, you get the last word, and happy listening Carlos!

I have answered all your questions and you still don’t get it. What more can I do? I have been nothing but responsive to you but we came to a point where it is obvious that you don’t get it. Please ask some of your friends on the forum and see if one of them gets it and perhaps they can explain it to you in a better way than I did. No hard feelings, this is just not sinking in for you and you know what, that’s okay with me and I’m alright with that.

The one thing I am grateful for after reading this thread is that, I am a simple man of modest means and I am truly happy in life and with my audio system. I am not burdened with these complexities, I subscribe to the KISS system. I value having friends and family and enjoying music with them.

Carlos I found that I actually found the unfettered, unmanipulated recordings you posted better. Now I am listening through my laptop and I know you said you manipulated (remastered) these recording to your taste. Keep doing what you are doing. Enjoy the music.

 

[Carlos269]

The one thing I am grateful for after reading this thread is that, I am a simple man of modest means and I am truly happy in life and with my audio system. I am not burdened with these complexities, I subscribe to the KISS system. I value having friends and family and enjoying music with them.

Carlos I found that I actually found the unfettered, unmanipulated recordings you posted better. Now I am listening through my laptop and I know you said you manipulated (remastered) these recording to your taste. Keep doing what you are doing. Enjoy the music.

That’s the beauty of this approach, that is that you can dial in the system to suit your personal preferences and taste. Again, this is not about remastering any one recording in particular, but instead to tailor the system’s presentation to meet your ideal; same goal as that of equipment and component upgrades. I hope that that is clear to you as it is a very important distinction.

 

[sbo6]

The one thing I am grateful for after reading this thread is that, I am a simple man of modest means and I am truly happy in life and with my audio system. I am not burdened with these complexities, I subscribe to the KISS system. I value having friends and family and enjoying music with them.

Carlos I found that I actually found the unfettered, unmanipulated recordings you posted better. Now I am listening through my laptop and I know you said you manipulated (remastered) these recording to your taste. Keep doing what you are doing. Enjoy the music.

Agreed, sometimes there's no rabbit in the hole. Do less fruitless searching and more listening.