You don't always get what you pay for

[Phelonious Ponk]

I'm trying to pull all of this together in my head- the original topic was whether objective/subjective should be conjoined by an 'or' as opposed to an 'and'; we then started talking about what measurements were tellling of sound quality, and the most recent turn is whether the sound of one component can compensate for another. So here's my question, and i think it takes us back to the original topic without losing the most recent contributions on adding distortions. Doesn't every piece of equipment, no matter how well engineered or designed, have some sonic character? And if that is true, isn't there something to equipment matching that has to go beyond the specifications or measurements? Here, for example, I'm thinking of cable. To one listener, leaving aside strong preferences for a particular coloration, one brand or type of cable will sound better in his system than others. And i think this is due to compensating for other aspects of the system. Call it a filter, perhaps. I know, staying with this example for the moment, the cable I use to connect stuff has been characterized as a little forgiving, sonically (you could read that as not bright or softer sounding i suppose), but it works well in combination with the horns I am using. Now, I suppose you could say the horns aren't accurate, and that's the problem. But i have to believe that every piece of equipment (even those 200k loudspeakers and comparable amps and sources) have sonic attributes that are identifiable. And that's where the ears, and some level of judgment in system/component matching come in.

Is it possible that you could choose a cable or component that would supply the equal but opposite FR coloration of your horns, bringing them into balance? Sure. But what a random turkey shoot. What a difficult, damned near impossible path to follow, mostly by ear, mostly through trial and error. Possible. But maddening. Wouldn't it be much easier to go for a signal chain that's as neutral as you can afford and then attach speakers to the end of it that you like the sound of? Or...heaven forbid...apply a bit of eq?

This is like (automotive analogy coming...) buying a car that pulls to the left, then trying to make it run straight by finding just the right lopsided tire. I suppose if what you want to do is buy/sell/trade lots of different tires looking for the ones (Pirellis on the left Goodyear on the right?) that'll be fun. Personally, I'd get the front end aligned.

Tim

 

[Bill Hart]

Is it possible that you could choose a cable or component that would supply the equal but opposite FR coloration of your horns, bringing them into balance? Sure. But what a random turkey shoot. What a difficult, damned near impossible path to follow, mostly by ear, mostly through trial and error. Possible. But maddening. Wouldn't it be much easier to go for a signal chain that's as neutral as you can afford and then attach speakers to the end of it that you like the sound of? Or...heaven forbid...apply a bit of eq?

This is like (automotive analogy coming...) buying a car that pulls to the left, then trying to make it run straight by finding just the right lopsided tire. I suppose if what you want to do is buy/sell/trade lots of different tires looking for the ones (Pirellis on the left Goodyear on the right?) that'll be fun. Personally, I'd get the front end aligned.

Tim

Fair enough. But my question remains: isn't this true of every component to a degree, complicated by having to combine components into an entire system (since there are very few manufacturers that supply a full system, from source to speaker and everything in between). Then add the room as part of the equation.

 

[Ethan Winer]

Doesn't every piece of equipment, no matter how well engineered or designed, have some sonic character?

No, some gear is truly transparent and cannot be identified when it is inserted into a signal path. One of the high-end converter manufacturers did a test a few years ago where they passed audio through an A/D/A stage and nobody heard the difference. Then they passed it through more stages. As I recall, even after ten passes people couldn't tell.

--Ethan

 

[Bill Hart]

No, some gear is truly transparent and cannot be identified when it is inserted into a signal path. One of the high-end converter manufacturers did a test a few years ago where they passed audio through an A/D/A stage and nobody heard the difference. Then they passed it through more stages. As I recall, even after ten passes people couldn't tell.

--Ethan

OK, I'll accept that, and since I don't use any digital equipment in my main system, I'm not in a position to judge what kind of accuracy can be brought to bear on equipment that also sounds good. My hands-on experience with digital (other than in a few smaller systems scattered throughout the house for non-critical listening) is limited to the dark (or really, 'bright and harsh') days, when the CD was first introduced. I have certainly heard big systems using modern, high end digital source equipment that don't suffer from any of the obvious digital artifacts that I used to associate with 'digital sound.' But, given my substantial collection of vinyl, I'm beyond committed. And have worked with 'retro' style components (vinyl, tubes, horns) to create the sense of 'aliveness' that I experience when I go hear music in a club. Obviously, I'm making trade-offs, and I'm willing to admit that in doing so at home, I'm limiting what I can experience in the process.

 

[Gregadd]

But you'd still be wrong. Nothing is eliminated. Nothing is replaced. Both distortions remain. Maybe if you add enough "warm" distortion it will mask the "cold" distortion. But the harshness doesn't get eliminated or replaced, it just get a louder distortion played over it.

Tim

No Tim you're wrong. Perhaps you should consult with your mentors. Reread post s #94&95

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

OK, I'll accept that, and since I don't use any digital equipment in my main system, I'm not in a position to judge what kind of accuracy can be brought to bear on equipment that also sounds good. My hands-on experience with digital (other than in a few smaller systems scattered throughout the house for non-critical listening) is limited to the dark (or really, 'bright and harsh') days, when the CD was first introduced. I have certainly heard big systems using modern, high end digital source equipment that don't suffer from any of the obvious digital artifacts that I used to associate with 'digital sound.' But, given my substantial collection of vinyl, I'm beyond committed. And have worked with 'retro' style components (vinyl, tubes, horns) to create the sense of 'aliveness' that I experience when I go hear music in a club. Obviously, I'm making trade-offs, and I'm willing to admit that in doing so at home, I'm limiting what I can experience in the process.

I think you may be the exception, or one of them. In my opinon, a system like yours is very much about tone. I have a friend with big, modded vintage Altecs, tubes, lots of vinyl. He has a CD player, but I don't think I've ever seen him power it up. He isn't even attempting to reproduce the recording faithfully. He's coloring it, he knows it, and that's his bliss. I respect that. Then again, he's not trying to tell me that it is mysteriously and immeasurably more like real music, either, so it's a little easier to respect. He likes it; that's all that matters. So do I, to be honest. His system is a kick to listen to. The dynamics are dramatic. The tonality is sweet. I always have a great time listening at his house, particularly to 70s prog .

But I'm always glad to get home. I enjoy the flavor. I just don't want that sauce on everything. YM, of course, MV.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

No Tim you're wrong. Perhaps you should consult with your mentors. Reread post s #94&95

Greg, ol buddy, you're the one who needs to read posts 94 and 95.

Tim

 

[mep]

No, some gear is truly transparent and cannot be identified when it is inserted into a signal path. One of the high-end converter manufacturers did a test a few years ago where they passed audio through an A/D/A stage and nobody heard the difference. Then they passed it through more stages. As I recall, even after ten passes people couldn't tell.

--Ethan

Was that test conducted in a nursing home or a hearing aid clinic?

 

[Bill Hart]

I think you may be the exception, or one of them. In my opinon, a system like yours is very much about tone. I have a friend with big, modded vintage Altecs, tubes, lots of vinyl. He has a CD player, but I don't think I've ever seen him power it up. He isn't even attempting to reproduce the recording faithfully. He's coloring it, he knows it, and that's his bliss. I respect that. Then again, he's not trying to tell me that it is mysteriously and immeasurably more like real music, either, so it's a little easier to respect. He likes it; that's all that matters. So do I, to be honest. His system is a kick to listen to. The dynamics are dramatic. The tonality is sweet. I always have a great time listening at his house, particularly to 70s prog .

But I'm always glad to get home. I enjoy the flavor. I just don't want that sauce on everything. YM, of course, MV.

Tim

Thanks Tim. I'll take being an exception anytime. The hard part about coloring is staying within the lines.
Regards,

 

[Bill Hart]

Was that test conducted in a nursing home or a hearing aid clinic?

Is there a popcorn icon on this site?
sorry.

 

[mep]

Is there a popcorn icon on this site?
sorry.

Actually Northstar has one. He has animated emoticons for everything.

 

[Ethan Winer]

Is there a popcorn icon on this site?
sorry.

No, please don't be sorry for calling someone out when they post an empty insult that adds zero to the conversation.

--Ethan

 

[Bill Hart]

The funny thing is, I actually do get a lot from these threads, and have no axe to grind- and i enjoy a little good natured sparring, but these days, I just don't have the energy for it. I love music, and I dig the gear, so it's alot of fun for me to merge both interests.
I've always been a bit of a subjectivist, partly because i don't have the engineering training, and partly because, having lived through some of the highly touted improvements of technology in audio, including transistor amps and the early transition to digital, I'm reluctant to leave it all up to measurements.
But, having admitted to my own bias, I also welcome the input of others who know more, or have different perspectives.

 

[mep]

No, please don't be sorry for calling someone out when they post an empty insult that adds zero to the conversation.

--Ethan

I for one find it hard to believe that you could run a signal through three conversions (A/D/A) and hear no difference between the original signal before it was converted. And then they ran it through 10 conversions and still people couldn't hear any difference? It doesn't make any sense. Is there a site to go to that explains how this test was set up and how the gear was configured?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I for one find it hard to believe that you could run a signal through three conversions (A/D/A) and hear no difference between the original signal before it was converted. And then they ran it through 10 conversions and still people couldn't hear any difference? It doesn't make any sense. Is there a site to go to that explains how this test was set up and how the gear was configured?

Do a little research on generational loss in digital recording and you might find it easier to believe.

Tim

 

[Bruce B]

Do a little research on generational loss in digital recording and you might find it easier to believe.
Tim

No Tim... Ethan needs to post the research so we can all read for ourselves. I've done this test with 3 A/D/A converters (AX24, PM2 and ULN8).. blindly.

 

[Ethan Winer]

I for one find it hard to believe that you could run a signal through three conversions (A/D/A) and hear no difference between the original signal before it was converted. And then they ran it through 10 conversions and still people couldn't hear any difference?

I think the converter manufacturer was Apogee, but I'm not certain and Google was no help. I'll ask in the rec.audio.pro newsgroup if anyone remembers the details and has a link. In the mean time, I did this same test with a $25 SoundBlaster, and while the 10th and 20th generations are indeed distinguishable from the original, the first few passes are pretty close. Each file is about 2 MB:

Original
After 1 pass
After 5 passes
After 10 passes
After 20 passes

--Ethan

 

[mep]

I think the converter manufacturer was Apogee, but I'm not certain and Google was no help. I'll ask in the rec.audio.pro newsgroup if anyone remembers the details and has a link. In the mean time, I did this same test with a $25 SoundBlaster, and while the 10th and 20th generations are indeed distinguishable from the original, the first few passes are pretty close. Each file is about 2 MB:

Original
After 1 pass
After 5 passes
After 10 passes
After 20 passes

--Ethan

Please explain exactly how these clips were recorded.

 

[Ethan Winer]

I made a mix of a pop tune, then played it out my SB sound card with a wire from the output back into the input and recorded that. I then replaced the original mix file with the first recording and recorded that as the second pass. This took a long time! But when I was done I had created 20 generations.

--Ethan

 

[mep]

Do a little research on generational loss in digital recording and you might find it easier to believe.

Tim

Yeah, but we aren't talking about listening to generation after generation of bit perfect digital copies here. We are talking about converting analog to digital and then back again to analog and claiming there is no difference, even after 10 passes. I'm not buying it which is why I made the smart-ass comment about the test being conducted in a nursing home or a hearing aid clinic.