Hi Micro,
I've been listening to classical and jazz since I was little. My uncle was a jazz pianist and we use to go and hear live jazz and big band concerts as a kid. I really love 60's and 70's jazz and have much of the blue note catalogue as hi-res but also like contemporary jazz right up to today's jazz.
Classically very diverse, am thinking of getting a tattoo that says Bach, Beethoven and Brahms forever. But like early music music right through to minimalism and more contemporary composers.
That said spent way to much time at raves back in the 80's and 90's and am a big fan of tidal now and love much that is contemporary so R and B, electronica, my phone has maybe 400+ albums at red book downloaded offline from tidal with music from Skudge, Burial, Robert Glasper Project, Anderson.Paak, Gogo Penguin, and plenty of others. I am musically a bit unfaithful. As long as its great.
Indeed. Noise floor levels mean pert near everything to the performance of a given playback system and component selection takes a big back seat (though still significant).
The raised noise floor is the catastrophic performance-limiting governor that infects every last pb system roughly the same regardless of anything else and prevents our systems from sounding anything like the live performance / the absolute sound. And until the majority realize that and then take appropriate actions to correct, they will continue to have no idea the volumes of music info seemingly missing from a given recording because it remains forever inaudible below the much raised noise floor.
Hi Micro,
I've been listening to classical and jazz since I was little. My uncle was a jazz pianist and we use to go and hear live jazz and big band concerts as a kid. I really love 60's and 70's jazz and have much of the blue note catalogue as hi-res but also like contemporary jazz right up to today's jazz.
Classically very diverse, am thinking of getting a tattoo that says Bach, Beethoven and Brahms forever. But like early music music right through to minimalism and more contemporary composers.
That said spent way to much time at raves back in the 80's and 90's and am a big fan of tidal now and love much that is contemporary so R and B, electronica, my phone has maybe 400+ albums at red book downloaded offline from tidal with music from Skudge, Burial, Robert Glasper Project, Anderson.Paak, Gogo Penguin, and plenty of others. I am musically a bit unfaithful. As long as its great.
We seem to think alike musically, being 'a bit unfaithful', as long as it's great. I also love contemporary jazz and electronica. By the way, while I love and admire Brahms' music, my tattoo would read Bach, Beethoven and Stockhausen forever.
Indeed. Noise floor levels mean pert near everything to the performance of a given playback system and component selection takes a big back seat (though still significant).
The raised noise floor is the catastrophic performance-limiting governor that infects every last pb system roughly the same regardless of anything else and prevents our systems from sounding anything like the live performance / the absolute sound. And until the majority realize that and then take appropriate actions to correct, they will continue to have no idea the volumes of music info seemingly missing from a given recording because it remains forever inaudible below the much raised noise floor.
We seem to think alike musically, being 'a bit unfaithful', as long as it's great. By the way, while I love and admire Brahms' music, my tattoo would read Bach, Beethoven and Stockhausen forever.
Nice Al... I could definitely go Stockhausen as well.
My desert island classical list could be brought to you by composers starting with the letters S or B (in mini homage to Sesame Street) including Scarlatti, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Schubert, Schumann, Sibelius, Stockhausen, Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Bartok and Barber... who wrote 2 of the great concertos of all time (his piano and his cello concerto). These are all masters for sure. I'm sure I've missed more than I've covered tho and would be a tattoo too big given how little space I actually have left for any more ink.
Yes, but I would prefer mechanical noise to acoustic noise as that way air-borne and internally-generated vibrations e.g. motors, power supplies, wires, etc are all included.
And to make a small change to RogerD's most recent post where he said,
"Lowering the noise floor is the onlyreasonable / sane strategy to employ when attempting to achieve any and ALL of Ron's stated objectives. And attempting any strategy other than lowering the noise floor is to address the effects rather than the cause and is a cheap band-aid at best that can only produce extremely limited and very subjective results."
That's pretty much guaranteed. And this way component upgrades remain a contributing factor since truly superior sounding components can only truly sound superior if they generate a lower noise floor than the units being replaced.
If the industry could just agree that lowering a playback system's noise floor always leads to:
1) A more accurate reproduction of an original musical event,
2) A more accurate reproduction of what's embedded on the master tape,
3) An objectively more musically pleasing sound.
then, setting aside for the moment the various ways how one might go about lowering a system's noise floor, that agreement alone would greatly streamline, clarify, and simplify our pursuits by first more clearly identifying the biggest universal problem, and secondly by putting a single target on the wall for everybody to shoot at.
Nice Al... I could definitely go Stockhausen as well.
My desert island classical list could be brought to you by composers starting with the letters S or B (in mini homage to Sesame Street) including Scarlatti, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Schubert, Schumann, Sibelius, Stockhausen, Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Bartok and Barber... who wrote 2 of the great concertos of all time (his piano and his cello concerto). These are all masters for sure. I'm sure I've missed more than I've covered tho and would be a tattoo too big given how little space I actually have left for any more ink.
Mine would go from the letters A to Z, so I would need some space on the island. If there wasn't, I' d settle for yours but would bring some Handel, Schnittke, Berio and Prokofiev as well.
Yes, but I would prefer mechanical noise to acoustic noise as that way air-borne and internally-generated vibrations e.g. motors, power supplies, wires, etc are all included.
And to make a small change to RogerD's most recent post where he said,
I would change that to:
"Lowering the noise floor is the onlyreasonable / sane strategy to employ when attempting to achieve any and ALL of Ron's stated objectives. And attempting any strategy other than lowering the noise floor is to address the effects rather than the cause and is a cheap band-aid at best that can only produce extremely limited and very subjective results."
That's pretty much guaranteed. And this way component upgrades remain a contributing factor since truly superior sounding components can only truly sound superior if they generate a lower noise floor than the units being replaced.
If the industry could just agree that lowering a playback system's noise floor always leads to:
1) A more accurate reproduction of an original musical event,
2) A more accurate reproduction of what's embedded on the master tape,
3) An objectively more musically pleasing sound.
then, setting aside for the moment the various ways how one might go about lowering a system's noise floor, that agreement alone would greatly streamline, clarify, and simplify our pursuits by first more clearly identifying the biggest universal problem, and secondly by putting a single target on the wall for everybody to shoot at.
I agree that minimising noise is a valid objective, and it may be a reasonable objective, but it is an objective which does not make sense to me personally.
Lowering the noise floor as the sole imperative with no regard for resulting sound quality -- with no regard to whether it better recreates the sound of an original musical event or makes the sound coming from the stereo seem more real -- just does not make sense to me.
For example, the objective of minimising the noise floor would likely eliminate most if not all tube electronics. Tube electronics I find help me achieve my high-end audio objectives, regardless of their higher noise levels than solid-state electronics.
The objective of a lower noise floor which is agnostic, if not nihilistic, about whether or not the lower noise floor actually improves the realism of the resulting sound reproduction does not make sense to me. A lower noise floor which takes my system further away from what I consider to be realistic reproduction of music does not make any sense to me.
I agree that minimising noise is a valid objectice, and it may be a reasonable objective, but it is an objective which does not make sense to me personally.
Lowering the noise floor as the sole imperative with no regard for resulting sound quality -- with no regard to whether it better recreates the sound of an original musical event or makes the sound coming from the stereo seem more real -- just does not make sense to me.
For example, the objective of minimising the noise floor would likely eliminate most if not all tube electronics. Tube electronics I find help me achieve my high-end audio objectives, regardless of their higher noise levels than solid-state electronics.
The objective of a lower noise floor which is agnostic, if not nihilistic, about whether or not the lower noise floor actually improves the realism of the resulting sound reproduction does not make sense to me. A lower noise floor which takes my system further away from what I consider to be realistic reproduction of music does not make any sense to me.
Your goal is to assemble the best sound reproduction money can buy. I would assume that system would have a low noise floor and would use power/grounding components to achieve a low noise floor. I beg to differ about tube equipment as there are some with excellent grounding schemes. Also your Master Built cables are engineered to produce a very low noise floor. I would think to do otherwise is not getting value for your monetary outlay. You already have decided on the importance of a low noise floor,you might not realise that.
In fact a very low noise floor enhances musicality....period.
And I might add I use a Monarchy NM24 tube DAC with different coupling caps....but I have yet find the bottom noise floor of that piece of gear.
Your goal is to assemble the best sound reproduction money can buy. I would assume that system would have a low noise floor and would use power/grounding components to achieve a low noise floor. I beg to differ about tube equipment as there are some with excellent grounding schemes. Also your Master Built cables are engineered to produce a very low noise floor. I would think to do otherwise is not getting value for your monetary outlay. You already have decided on the importance of a low noise floor,you might not realise that.
In fact a very low noise floor enhances musicality....period.
And I might add I use a Monarchy NM24 tube DAC with different coupling caps....but I have yet find the bottom noise floor of that piece of gear.
IMHO we have to be careful when using the words noise and noise floor in such a free way - for example how can we be sure that MB cables are engineered to produce a very low noise floor? Ron has a point when he says that tubes are noisier than solid state.
Your goal is to assemble the best sound reproduction money can buy. I would assume that system would have a low noise floor and would use power/grounding components to achieve a low noise floor. I beg to differ about tube equipment as there are some with excellent grounding schemes. Also your Master Built cables are engineered to produce a very low noise floor. I would think to do otherwise is not getting value for your monetary outlay. You already have decided on the importance of a low noise floor,you might not realise that.
In fact a very low noise floor enhances musicality....period.
I agree that minimising noise is a valid objectice, and it may be a reasonable objective, but it is an objective which does not make sense to me personally.
Lowering the noise floor as the sole imperative with no regard for resulting sound quality -- with no regard to whether it better recreates the sound of an original musical event or makes the sound coming from the stereo seem more real -- just does not make sense to me.
For example, the objective of minimising the noise floor would likely eliminate most if not all tube electronics. Tube electronics I find help me achieve my high-end audio objectives, regardless of their higher noise levels than solid-state electronics.
The objective of a lower noise floor which is agnostic, if not nihilistic, about whether or not the lower noise floor actually improves the realism of the resulting sound reproduction does not make sense to me. A lower noise floor which takes my system further away from what I consider to be realistic reproduction of music does not make any sense to me.
Ron, the ambient noise from my listening position was just measured at 36 dbz average. With my entire system powered on and at normal listening volume ( Kondo on phono, Atma MA2 MK !!! monos, AVM 8.2. monos and 4 bridged M2.2 monos ) I measured 44dbz average. The best I could do so far and I am gloriously happy for that. As for the rest of your statement I must admit that I cannot follow you. Swings from pppp to ffff occur more often than not in classical music and having some of the p,s drowned is just as horrible as having the the last of the fs distorted and I have always tried to have it all within the medium of what audiophilia and my possibilities can offer. So respectfully but also forcefully as a classical music lover I have to disagree. But I do know what you mean and I think that my example proves, that you can have the best of both worlds. I would never give up tubes for central parts of my system. By the way, I went through a myriad of tubes to get my Kondo quiet, whereas the Lamm frontend incl. phono stage was exemplary.
IMHO we have to be careful when using the words noise and noise floor in such a free way - for example how can we be sure that MB cables are engineered to produce a very low noise floor? Ron has a point when he says that tubes are noisier than solid state.
I'm talking about "current noise" as Steve Williams proclaimed that he did not think his "noise floor" could not get any lower with his MB cables. If you read the MB tech sheet the first 2 paragraphs explain the main goal which is to separate EMI or current interference from the audio signal. They also use a teflon coating as a interference mitigation compound.
I would say that major recording studios have incredibly low noise floors and they are engineered that way. Also digital audio depending on 16,20,or 24 bit architecture has increasingly lower noise floors. That why it's is imperative to design a system with a low noise floor.
Also there are no standards for grounding schemes in audio electronics. There are though some tube equipment manufacturers that do use very well engineered star ground methods. There are ways to decrease system level noise,and various grounding devices can do this a long with cutting edge cables. Setting up a single point grounding scheme is probably the most effective method though.
I agree that minimising noise is a valid objectice, and it may be a reasonable objective, but it is an objective which does not make sense to me personally.
Lowering the noise floor as the sole imperative with no regard for resulting sound quality -- with no regard to whether it better recreates the sound of an original musical event or makes the sound coming from the stereo seem more real -- just does not make sense to me.
For example, the objective of minimising the noise floor would likely eliminate most if not all tube electronics. Tube electronics I find help me achieve my high-end audio objectives, regardless of their higher noise levels than solid-state electronics.
The objective of a lower noise floor which is agnostic, if not nihilistic, about whether or not the lower noise floor actually improves the realism of the resulting sound reproduction does not make sense to me. A lower noise floor which takes my system further away from what I consider to be realistic reproduction of music does not make any sense to me.
Let me try to explain. Wikipedia defines noise floor as:
"In signal theory, the noise floor is the measure of the signal created from the sum of all the noise sources and unwanted signals within a measurement system, where noise is defined as any signal other than the one being monitored."
IOW, the noise floor is a threshold. Anything above it remains audible. Anything below it remains inaudible.
I'm not into photography, but they too have a visual threshold. Any info above it remains visible and any info below it remain invisible.
Everything essentially contributes to the level of that noise floor threshold. Including many distortions that we cannot hear.
It's universal meaning everybody's got one.
In this example the noise floor is vertical rather than horizontal to provide 2 illustrations.
But the bottom line is, whenever the lower the noise floor is lowered it's guaranteed more music info becomes audible. Which implies your playback system becomes more musical and that much closer to the 100% of music info embedded in the recording medium. IOW, higher fidelity.
Ron, the ambient noise from my listening position was just measured at 35 dbz average. With my entire system powered on and at normal listening volume ( Kondo on phono, Atma MA2 MK !!! monos, VTL 8.2. monos and 4 bridged M2.2 monos ) measured 44dbz average. The best I could do so far and I am gloriously happy for that. As for the rest of your statement I must admit that I cannot follow you. Swings from pppp to ffff occur more often than not in classical music and having some of the p,s drowned is just as horrible as having the the last f distorted and I have always tried to have it all within the medium of what audiophilia and my possibilities can offer. So respectfully but also forcefully as a classical music lover have to disagree.
I think we are talking past each other, rather than disagreeing.
Obviously, if reducing the noise floor brings you closer to a realistic musical experience then I am all for it!
All I said was that focusing on noise to the detriment of the realism of the musical experience does not make sense to me: "A lower noise floor which takes my system further away from what I consider to be realistic reproduction of music does not make any sense to me."
I knew just by looking at your new choices that you understand the benefits. I think when you get everything set up and listen you might have a better appreciation of where I'm coming from. I only speak from my experience and others will have different ones. But having a low noise floor is important. The best recording studios spend large amounts to having literally dead quiet systems and use proven methods of grounding schemes to achieve this. It is not unusual to hear tape noise on my Analog digital recordings or individual players breathing in a orchestra or wind ensemble. When the noise floor is that low it can and does make a profound difference in musicality.
Let me try to explain. Wikipedia defines noise floor as:
"In signal theory, the noise floor is the measure of the signal created from the sum of all the noise sources and unwanted signals within a measurement system, where noise is defined as any signal other than the one being monitored."
IOW, the noise floor is a threshold. Anything above it remains audible. Anything below it remains inaudible.
I'm not into photography, but they too have a visual threshold. Any info above it remains visible and any info below it remain invisible.
Everything essentially contributes to the level of that noise floor threshold. Including many distortions that we cannot hear.
It's universal meaning everybody's got one.
View attachment 31206
In this example the noise floor is vertical rather than horizontal to provide 2 illustrations.
But the bottom line is, whenever the lower the noise floor is lowered it's guaranteed more music info becomes audible. Which implies your playback system becomes more musical and that much closer to the 100% of music info embedded in the recording medium. IOW, higher fidelity.
Thanks, RogerD. Maybe we all finally have something in common to put our arms around.
Upon viewing this wikipedia graph once more I noticed the caption at the bottom "Signals below the noise floor cannot be measured."
Reading this immediately reminded me of a rather heated discussion I engaged in 4 years ago with Mark Levinson and primarily John Curl.
There, they both expressed their concerns that their professional-grade and professionally calibrated sensitive measuring instruments routinely failed them, yet their ears and their colleagues' ears could easily discern.
More importantly, was John Curl's eventual admission that every last one of his designs (and everybody else's designs) included at least one serious but unknown flaw for which their measuring instruments could not discern.
When describing this unknown flaw from a different perspective, Robert Harley used the term "catastrophic" whereas John Curl used the term "serious".
Let me try to explain. Wikipedia defines noise floor as:
"In signal theory, the noise floor is the measure of the signal created from the sum of all the noise sources and unwanted signals within a measurement system, where noise is defined as any signal other than the one being monitored."
IOW, the noise floor is a threshold. Anything above it remains audible. Anything below it remains inaudible.
Your photography example is all wrong I am afraid. The first one is showing what happens when your shutter speed is too slow for the subject movement. And the second the effect of depth of field. Neither has anything to do with noise.
Indeed, noise is sometimes added to overly soft photographs as to give them the illusion of higher sharpness. Here is a crude attempt at that where I used the out of focus shot you posted (on left) and added some noise to it (right):
Notice how much sharper the right image now looks and has more "3-D pop."
The reason for that is that noise has high-frequency spectrum and that is what is missing in a soft picture. By adding it in, even though it is wrong and artificial, it changes that perception visually.
Not telling you to go and add noise to your system but be careful about using analogies that are not correct.
