Surely he does not represent them at all. A subjectivist does not ignore measurements, he simply knows of its limitations and accepts that beyond them it is IMHO. And when we are speaking IMHO, credibility means a lot.
What determines "believability of the reproduction illusion"
- Thread starter jkeny
- Start date
Surely he does not represent them at all. A subjectivist does not ignore measurements, he simply knows of its limitations and accepts that beyond them it is IMHO. And when we are speaking IMHO, credibility means a lot.
As regards mp3 "problems" I wish people would appraise themselves more fully of the facts - these compression methods were developed over long periods of time, and refined to the point that in the majority of cases it was impossible for normal listeners to differentiate the original from the mp3, given sufficient bit rate. What does happen is that people confuse the poor quality of the playback chain, with the quality of the source material data - hence mp3 is linked, almost inevitably, with lousy quality. I have laughed on numerous occasions when it has been revealed that some high end system was demonstrated with tracks which were mp3 - and no-one picked it, apart from a particularly perceptive audio journalist.
One thing people keep ignoring is that normal YouTube is AAC, not mp3, a more advanced form of compression - hence capable of better perceived quality for the same bit rate; and I have satisfied myself on many occasions that the quality is adequate by downloading the clip, stripping out the audio and converting it into a standard WAV file - if the quality comes across as poor then that is the fault of whoever uploaded the clip, and/or your playback mechanism.
If an audio system that's recorded on a YouTube video comes across as having poor tonality, then that's the truth of the matter; the system is not accurate and the clip just makes it more obvious that it's so.
No need to over react, Dave - I have listened to far, far more systems than most over the years - at one stage I joined the Sydney audio club, and deliberately went on the regular "visit a member's system in their home" trek, just to get a handle on what most people were chasing, and what they had achieved. I reckon I have a pretty good idea of where most people are at, and how tolerant they are of anomalies that I consider totally unacceptable.
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Frank
Arent you the one who said you don't go to the symphony any more because your system is better
Aren't you the guy who told us your system sounds as good with your ear in the tweeter as it does in the other side of the house or is this ASA at work
Dave wasn't over reacting at all IMO.
Arent you the one who said you don't go to the symphony any more because your system is better
Aren't you the guy who told us your system sounds as good with your ear in the tweeter as it does in the other side of the house or is this ASA at work
Dave wasn't over reacting at all IMO.
Steve, our minds are cleverer than we give them credit for - the ASA research tells us that we constantly compare what we actually hear with what our minds expects to come next; if there is consistent agreement then the illusion is maintained; but if data from our hearing contradicts that internal schema, or model, of what's happening - this is known as MMN, Mismatch Negatives, in terms of electrical stimulus in the brain - then our hearing mechanism discards the mirage. Consciously, we no longer hear a musical event, rather, we hear a stereo system trying to fake it ...
A different system, or the quality of the tweaking of it, by room treatments, etc, is essential to the exercise, by minimising the chance of hearing discordant information - we have no conscious control of how our hearing mechanism reacts, apart from giving it the best possible chance of being "fooled" ...
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Frank
My experiment tonight is to play my system but with the door closed and me downstairs where, with all of my ASA abilities I am going to conjure up how I feel my system is sounding
My experiment tonight is to play my system but with the door closed and me downstairs where, with all of my ASA abilities I am going to conjure up how I feel my system is sounding
Steve, I don't go to events where there is sound reinforcement ... the last time I checked, this is not the case with classical music performances!
Yes, it is ASA at work - the subjective experience is that music making is happening in a particular part of the house, and just like the situation where live musicians are in fact the cause of it all, it sounds "good" everywhere - you don't have to sit or be in a particular place to appreciate the "goodness".
Steve, this is not a bad idea! I would suggest something like piano sonata works, a solo piano playing at realistic levels - are you "fooled", or is there something not quite right, that niggles while listening?
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
So, what was the outcome? Was the sound convincing from well outside a primary listening spot, or not?
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Frank
I aint playing your mind games.
You are in a world of your own
I'm hoping to visit NSW fairly soon. I understand that is you domicile. Would you mind if I contact you to hear your system as I am eager to learn. Could you PM me your contactt info
I aint playing your mind games.
You are in a world of your own
I'm hoping to visit NSW fairly soon. I understand that is you domicile. Would you mind if I contact you to hear your system as I am eager to learn. Could you PM me your contactt info
Steve, with all due respect, I don't think this thread is all that cordial. Frank is taking a lot of criticism. I'm impressed by how he is dealing with it, and appreciate his seeming sense of calm and the respect for others that he demonstrates in his posts. He seems to be the cordial one, in my opinion.
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
I will bow out and give him center stage Peter. Members are challenging his thoughts but my mods will keep an eye on things if they get out of control
Indeed Frank is very cordial IMO
Indeed Frank is very cordial IMO
Every one of us have our hobby horses .. some swear by grounding , others swear by room acoustics .. some say electronic is all that counts
Franks postulation are pretty much left field to most of us here.. but his approach seems to work for HIM.
doesn't work for me at all .. but maybe I'm too inflexible?
At any rate , it's interesting to read about all the different approaches to get the same thing..the elusive multiple eargasm.
Franks postulation are pretty much left field to most of us here.. but his approach seems to work for HIM.
doesn't work for me at all .. but maybe I'm too inflexible?
At any rate , it's interesting to read about all the different approaches to get the same thing..the elusive multiple eargasm.
Grounding could be part of the answer - it all depends on the make up of the system. I wouldn't use the word "inflexible" for yourself - because of my engineering background I'm prepared to do things to the equipment that many wouldn't be comfortable with, I understand the possible real benefits of what I do, most of the time!
"Eargasms" are good, mighty good!! That's what keeps me motivated, I get a burst of top notch sound happening and the excitement kicks in - can I make it still better ...??!!
THat is a good point Dave. when I had electrostats and ribbons, as long as I kept them 1 to 1.5 meters from the back wall they worked great in my about 20 square meter listening room even though the speakers were quite close to the side walls. That figure 8 radiation pattern minimizes the first reflection and the line source behavior minimized ceiling and floor bounce.
I had some heavily modded Acoustat 1+1s and a pair of Silvaweld OTL reference monoblocks, which were simply amazing when they worked correctly (about 20% of the time) and a friend came over with his ballerina girlfriend. She had been complaining to him that he wasted his money on hifi and couldn't understand why he cared so much about the sound because it didn't sound close to live.
We plopped her down in front of that system (Voyd/Helius Cylene/Lyra Skala fed into Silvaweld phonostage to Silvaweld preamp to Silvaweld OTLs) and put on some piano trio music (I know that that particular system cannot do big orchestra convincingly...dynamics are too great for the excursion of the speakers) and her jaw hit the floor. She looked at him and asked "Why doesn't your system sound like this????!!!!". When we put other electronics on this speaker the magic largely disappeared...at least until I got KR Audio gear and then it was back...albeit somewhat different in presentation.
The room, BTW. , was completely untreated and it was completely unnecessary to do so. I never had to treat that room as it already had fast decay. I treated on bass mode that was intrusive with a Behringer DEQ2496, which when used digital in and digital out, is invisible other than what you have it do. In this case I cut a bump at 62Hz by about 10db with the parametric EQ function. Imaging and soundstaging were spot on and not blurred...a common problem in a room with too long sound decay. Intelligibility with speaking was pretty good as well. Perhaps in Europe with the concrete walls it is better conditions overall, roomwise?
Conventional speakers with wide dispersion are really playing into the room and it will impact the sound more strongly. Now I have horns and they are quite directive so I have a strong toe-in with them this again minimizes the room and I get great sound without any treatment other than my record shelves, which act a bit like a diffuser.
I am not convinced this is true. I have heard the Wilson X1 Grand Slamm (mkI) just plopped down in a room and it sounded glorious once chained to a good SET amp. Hook back up the Jeff Rowland gear the owner had and the magic was gone. Nothing to do with the room whatsoever.
Sure a room can create annoying reflections and modes that COULD impact the sound critically...for example no one would want to have a room that was a glass cube...but barring the extremes I have found that normal rooms can allow the expression of most of what a system can deliver and if it is not delivering it is likely somewhere in the electronics chain...assuming the speaker is well designed.
Not in a typical room. My line sources only dropped by about 1 db in my room. Didn't have a point source there in so long that I didn't measure that but for sure less than 6db. You are talking about the drop in free space with now reflections/modes.
In that case I don't want anyone to tell me that mp3 is not High Resolution. If a telephone can convey such subtle nuances then there is no need for our massively expensive systems ..
The Millenia had it right: All you need is a smartphone with any earbuds
No one is trying to tell you that a telephone can convey such subtle nuances BUT it conveys enough that along with the brain's (well at least some people's brains) ability to process you can pull out relevant information to identify important differences...same goes for the youtube videos (even more so because they are usually higher quality than the phone line).
Your knee-jerk reaction to this is a bit startling given that no one (not even Frank) is suggesting that we replace our high quality systems with a laptop, youtube and earphones. Please tell me that you can hear the intrinsic quality of a system through a good youtube video?? If you can't, then I have to question your ability to analyze what you are hearing. I can do it, seems Frank and some other's here can too and we don't think he is crazy or trolling.
Your comment about all we need is smartphone and earbuds is actually correct. It is all that is needed to listen to music and for many who are less critical it is sufficient. I can enjoy music this way just fine while at work and it even doesn't sound so bad. However, when I have the chance I will always listen to the best, most realistic system I can...or go to a live concert.
