We say the same thing very differently...
Save the important acoustic factor...Engineering is not acoustic...
Anyway thanks for all your works...
My best to you...
|
"Real NEUTRALITY is ruthless and it will piss you off too. It doesn’t care about you or your preference. Real neutrality isn’t in the form of coffee with creamer but rather just pure black coffee which some of you can’t stomach because you get heartburn or acid reflux."
Sounds like viber’s cup of tea.
These sentences Sound acoustically meaningless to me ....
Poetry is not acoustic...Only reflect a pure subjective experience which is ok but which cannot become a standard or a meter for us all....
|
I think people’s idea of REAL NEUTRALITY isn’t the same.
You are right...
Saying neutrality exist in an absolute sense has no real meaning save for those who design the gear and speaks about engineering measurements before any real acoustic measurements and experience by the customers...Or for those who think their own ears is the only meter FOR ALL OF US... The problem is no ears listen nor hear in the same way and no room are the same...
For sure people idea of neutrality CANNOT be the same for a simple reason...
Engineering measurements are not acoustic measurements...
Timbre cannot be reduced to spectrum...
Timbre depends primarily upon the frequency spectrum yes, but it also depends upon the sound zones pressure of the room and the temporal dual characteristics of the perceived sound and of the physical sound. Psycho acoustic is NOT physical acoustic....
Then the most important factor cannot be the price of the gear but the acoustic factoring parameters where this gear will be embedded and these environment factors resulted from the coupling of 3 factors: our specific particular hearing history and structure, the room rightly coupled or not with the speakers for our specific ears...
We do not work small room acoustic like great hall acoustic... Reflections and time and timing play differently....
This is only my experience in my small room....
We dont listen to an amplifier: some specific ears listen to a coupled speakers/room acoustically treated-untreated controlled-uncontrolled, not to the amplifier " per se"....
Most audiophiles overestimated the S.Q. value of the costly gear and underestimated acoustical factors...I was thinking so one year ago before my extensive listening experiments...
|
The most important acoustical factor to test when assessing a system S.Q. is the basic essential one:
"Timbre tonal playing perceived surface and volume micro-structure" ... A piano note or a chord or a succession of chords for example appear like an islands archipelago on the sea of silence with his own complete internal and external shape and geography in a fleeting instant in the room...
You can have powerful dynamic, soundstage, imaging in any system relatively in some QUANTITY... With basic simple rule of installation and basic acoustic ...
But you cannot create very QUALITATIVELY good perceived TTPPM (timbre tonal playing perceived micro-structure)
Without using OPTIMALLY all the power of acoustic CONTROL in a dedicated room and vibrations control and method to decrease the electrical noise floor, and all that with the synergetic complementarity of the chosen gear...
But all that is useless if someone dont learn to use NON AMPLIFIED instrument and voice to explore with listening experiments and test controls...We are programmed in our short personal and million year evolutive history to perceive in ALL acoustic conditions the TTPPM of the human natural voice...
High frequencies, bass, mids characterisation are AUDIO general disjointed concepts about sound that are not the TTPPM...
Audio vocabulary cannot describe it....
It is a sound/music unifying perceived quality...
TTPPM is like a perceived human face.... Details here are not and are never only sounds like bordering EXTERNAL details like it is suggested in usual popular audio vocabulary... Details in TTPPM are flowing COLORED AND SHAPED and perceived intertwined internal EXPRESSIVE parts...
They are experience difficult to translate in words...
We learn to listen, nobody KNOW by innate election how to listen and what to listen...
Sound is to the internal perceived music in us what the external perceived body in the room is to the soul....A unity....
Because of what i said the music/sound experience is a JOURNEY different for each one of us... NO EARS ARE THE SAME AND NOT ONE HISTORY IS THE SAME....NOBODY is the master of other human being here, we must learn ALONE....Nothing will replace listening personal experiments....Any guru here is a seller willing it or not.... I respect much the honesty of the OP about that... It is the only reason i listen to him , his honesty, not for the components supposed S.Q. value at all ... I need his honesty in his journey not his components....I am more interested by him than by any piece of gear in fact he speak about....I dont buy gear, mine is enough for me anyway... Audio experience is related to exploring many piece of gear, but OPTIMAL S.Q. experience is related to ONE CHOSEN system by one pair of specific ears in a specific room....
By the way a dedicated OPTIMALLY small room is SHAPABLE FOR A PAIR OF SPECIFIC EARS with reflections control and time and timing control in a way a greater bigger room could not be.... Small room acoustic is not Hall acoustic.... This is very different in acoustic setting possibilities... The only true LUXURY in audio is owning a dedicated room, not the price of amplifiers or speakers...
Installing optimally a system can take months and years....It is not plugging a new device to upgrade, defeating and replacing in this way the necessary complex installation of the gear in the mechanical,electrical, and acoustical working dimensions of the system....
My motto is: embed everything rightfully before upgrading anything...
I know very little myself, what i learned i learned it myself in the last years with THE SAME GEAR in a continuous set of listening experiments....I am only a retired man listening music with a ridiculously low cost but relatively good system for me and my purse in a dedicated room .... This is only my experience and impressions...
I will not say much more....
I apologize for my rant....
Merry Christmast to all, especially to the passionate OP....
|
Reproduction of live musical event is impossible...It is an "illusion"...
I use my history with "timbre voice" perception to control my acoustic settings but i never thought that a recorded piano or voice will sound exactly like a lived piano or voice... Think about the different indefinite possibilities of expression to listen to a voice in different location in a hall...Or in a small room...After that listen to the same voice in a different hall or room...Etc....
This is linked to acoustic recording trade-off choices by the engineer...
Only recreation/translation of the recorded event different in each acoustically different room is possible...
"neutrality" is an audio engineering concept and make sense in this context where standardization of the measuring tools and their results is mandatory....It is not an acoustical concept by definition...
By definition "timbre" perception is a psycho-acoustic subjective event perceptive unique experience... Any voice or instruments express itself in an acoustical environment that cannot be neutral save in an anechoic chamber...And even there our hearing/brain is not "neutral" either....
I again state, that none of our systems truly replicate live, unamplified music ( and those of you who think that your system does, check your hearing, and go to some live music venues like that ).
|
My dac weight is a few ounces...
Minimalistic design with the fewest number of components...
I will not mention the cost i pay for it here even under torture...
😊😊😊😊
|
Play-back music listening will never be a lived event...
But acoustic and psycho-acoustical room control could do some miracles no change of amplifier or dac or even speakers so good they are will REPLACE...
Then i am ok with your post and observation but remember that all audio thread i ever read UNDERESTIMATE completely acoustic and psycho acoustic power...
The piano i listen to in my room is not the piano of the lived event... Trade-off choices by the recortding engineer make this impossible and to this we must add all the limitations related to our specific gear and room...
"Neutrality" concept like i already said here for example is an ENGINEERING concept not an acoustic and psycho-acoustic concept especially in SMALL room.... Our vocabulary is distorted by the way engineer tested their skills and products... Music come from specific gear yes, but more than that comes from specific room designed ONLY for specific speakers and in a small room designed BY AND FOR specific ears...A small room acoustic has nothing to do with a great hall acoustic...
Much is unknown or not well known in small room acoustic because great hall acoustic or amphiteather acoustic is millenias years old, small room acoustic is born only with personal audiophile system demands DECADES ago...Even acoustician debate about this between between themselves.. Why? because the use of optimal reverberation time and the timing of the first frontwaves for our two different ears, and the optimal balance between necessary reflections,diffusion and absorbtion in each location of the room, ask much for tailor-made and CUSTOM made solutions than standardized general ready made one....
In a SMALL room, the material acoustic properties content of the room, his geometry, his topology and the way the room react to the speakers for the specific ears of the owner are very complex phenomenon...It is the crux and key of audio experience, nevermind the cost and quality of the gear itself, acoustic matter at the same level than the choice of the amplifier or dac or speakers for sure....Especially in small room...
Acoustic is the sleeping princess and all the working pieces of gear are the 7 working dwarves... We kiss the princess with our ears to awake her to his true power....
By the way i am not a musician nor an acoustician, only a regular dude thinking how to create my own system at low cost by obligation...All of what i say is only my experience and opinion...Feel free to criticize or resize it more optimally...
As viber will attest to, the violins he is listening to from his best recordings, sound far from live. The body tone of the instruments, have been lost; the dynamics have been lost; the musicians positioning on a stage, have been lost ( all compared to an actual event ). Everything we listen to ( recorded ) is far from live. So I do the best I can to get all of this back, ( we all do ), but I listen for one specific thing more than any other. I listen to the musicians " playing / singing " ; to their " artistry "; to the " connection " between them, and me. This is beyond the tone, the space, the coherence ( whatever ), we are trying to capture. I am not sure many of you know what I am talking about, which if you do not, is very unfortunate. However I feel a handful of you, do. Anyway, I did not want to sound negative.....just realistic. Enjoy ! the holidays and all, be well. Always, MrD.
|
I will say something very important to be understood and not misunderstood if by chance i made some observations here in the future...
The OP of this thread like i said is very honest and present to us Higher hi-fi gear for comparison ... It is a unique thread among all the others...
Then i will NEVER criticized him, because anyway i am not competent to do so, save in some general way...
Second:
Audio experience is related to exploring many piece of gear, but OPTIMAL S.Q. experience is related to ONE CHOSEN system by one pair of specific ears in a specific room....
This means that the goal of the OP is completely different than mine...
To optimise mechanically, electrically and especially acoustically an audio system we must choose one and live with it for at least a year or more in my case...For example a room must be transformed acoustically to accomodate a specific system for specific ears experience...This takes time and many listening experiments , nobody can do it by buying some branded name acoustic surfaces it is more complex than that sorry....
My goal was the least cost gear with the highest possible S.Q.
This goal has nothing to do with the OP goal...Which is a generous honest analysis and comparison of all possible very refined engineering pieces..
Then keep that in mind if i ever dare to make an observation here...
before criticizing someone we must enter his shoes and THINK about his goal....
And by the way acoustic and psycho acoustic has nothing to do with "tastes" or "neutrality" it has to do with the way our specific DIFFERENT ears related to sound and music for each of us from a complete listening particular history... Tastes are for crocodiles not for scientist...I have my tastes but it is always a departure point not my journey....
Merry christmast to the OP and to all of you....
|
I respect Jay takes because no one owned 343 amplifiers.. His video will be useful, and for me interesting to watch...
His advice will be useful for many..
Criticizing him about "clarity" or " neutrality" are meaningless arguing..
Clarity is defined against a backgound not in itself... light is defined by night and vice versa..
In acoustic and psycho-acoustic experience there is no clarity or neutrality FIRST and LAST...But dynamical micro playing tonal timbre surface and volume inside of which there is an interelated play between the acoustical setting background timing onset of waves and frontwaves and reverbarations and the internal acoustic timbre content frequencies spectrum... There is no clarity by itself here or neutrality by itself, these notions are relative to too many factors to use them unilaterally as guide save in engineering where effectively clarity may be excessive from some gear in some pairing and where neutrality in the design is a must... But acoustic and psycho-acoustic experience are more complex and cannot be argued about ONLY with words and motto like "neutrality" or "clarity"....
Szigeti seems to play violin less clearly than Heifetz in Bach violin sonata but we must say instead that the two players choose different paths... Szigeti spoke where Heifetz sing...Than clarity dont play the same in this 2 different use of the violin...Spoken contrasted articulation is not singing glisando... Then clarity and neutrality analysis means not a lot here and fall short of describing phenomenal musical experience...Like they fall short to describe acoustical and psycho-acoustical experience... The vocabulary of audio engineering is not the musical vocabulary and the two are not the acoustical and psycho-acoustical vocabulary either...
And arguing about cables IN ITSELF out of any room, any gear connection make no sense especially with all possible cables choices...
If Jay said that Nnordost cannot be used with HIS GEAR in his room for his ears because they introduce too much clarity in some system/room/ears pairing it simply described his experience... Arguing against someone IRREPRODUCIBLE experience made no sense... On the opposite some very good cable could add too much claity in a perfect already system this is COMMON PLACE FACT...There is no ABSOLUTE in gear choice because it is always gear dependent, room dependent and ears dependent...
Am i wrong?
Perhaps i am only an average audiophile with no experience with many systems. only a great experience about how to implement successfully a chosen one, mechanically, electrically and acoustically...MINE...
But Jays experience is interesting...Honest and passionate...i can say that, even if we are at the complete opposite of the spectrum... He look for a complete audio experiences with all possible highly costly designs at the peak of engineering, WHILE i look for the way to install and embed at low cost ONLY ONE chosen system... it takes me few years of work with a selected one...I am more than happy but being curious, i listen Jays passionnate takes...
It will never cross my mind to criticize his choices out of his shoes about "clarity"...
or "neutrality". these words are there only to convey his impressions not to establish an axiom like: there is never too much clarity...
Timbre experience is a SUBJECTIVE perception where the OBJECTIVE spectrum of frequencies is ONLY one constutuent factor in the definition of timbre... Then arguing about clarity on all frequencies spectrum dont adress the timbre perception itself..
Thanks to Jay for being so dedicated...
|
Very interesting post about violonists viber thanks...My best version is the first Szeryng version for all my life , but i am fascinated by the Szigeti mysterious spoken sound....
My remarks are only about the fact that speaking a common place fact like " there is never enough clarity" is itself an unclear maxim...
Lived musical event will never be a registered event, then clarity, in sound, clarity in music, clarity from amplifier, clarity from speakers, clarity from the physical acoustic setting, clarity resulting from the control of psycho-acoustic conditions are all different " clarity"... Clarity is not related only to the frequencies spectrum perception but to other acoustic factors also which are related to timbre subjective perception ... Clarity coming from a cable is a complete different thing...
The same words is used related to many different phenomenon...
Jay conveying his experience with a cable giving too much "clarity" is understood by almost all people because the word is used in a specified context...
Then saying that there is never too much clarity, implying that some cable cannot act negatively on some gear/room/ears impression is wrong...
If we compared lived musical event and some playback experience of the same event in some conditions the playback event could present indeed "too much clarity" or to much details which will float in separated bubble so to speak compared to some listener location on the scene of the original event...
And the structure and history of each one of us hearing cannot converge about the same experience of "clarity"....Some will call clearer conditions in gear, room, cables acoustic, music,that others will feel less clear...
What we will call clear is always related to what aspect our ears/brain will want to perceive or will perceive or not...
is it not evident?
Anyway i apologize if i hurted your feeling .... i respect very much all musician and i am not one...
|
Music is not an equation and i know you now that...
Sound is no more reducible to an equation.... Then clarity or accuracy means something in a context and in a precise perspective, your musical example which is a musical example not an acoustical one is good...
But life is complex, no lived event will be the same at different location on the original scene of the lived event... Because no audio system can reproduce the original event only translate it and recreating it, the trade-off of the recording engineer are choices which impose a perspective on ALL acoustic cues, timbre perception for exanple...
Then all your applications and requirements about clarity and accuracy are legitimate expression BUT they are only that, applications and requirements in a precise context for some perspective...
No audio system and no hall theater , and no recording technique can REDUCE the complex sums of possible perspectives in the perception of timbre microstructure to only one you can call the clearer one on all aspect save the musician himself listening to himself, but even there, the experience will be dependant of some acoustic factors and from a choice of instrument... And each room / system / ears will interpret clarity and accuracy in the context of some acoustical cues or to another one, because timbre perception is so complex that it cannot be defined in SIMPLE terms with one equation, it is also a psycho-acoustic experience and not only an acoustical one...
Then clarity and accuracy, we all wanted that, but what it means? These two concepts and experience CANNOT be an absolute meter for reproduced sound, because we listen to music through sound and we listen sound through music and the two experience coincide perfectly only for ONE listener...They vary with each system/room/ears... And the difference between the lived event and the playback is not reducible to zero... In music this is different...music has his own vocabulary and is not reducible to sound...For this reason your musical example is good and made sense musically ...but music is not acoustic and vice versa...
But speaking about recorded sound, translation of sound for a system/room/ears, these 2 concept lost some their power... This is the reason why Jay speaking after the addition of a cable in his system say that they "add too much clarity"...There is no too much clarity in music but we can have "too much clarity" so to speak in the acoustic experience when listening in some room with some system we introduce a a modification in cable...
By the way clarity and accuracy are not synonymus at all...one concept is mostly subjective, the other mostly an objective one in acoustic...And even musically they are not synonymus...
And too much "clarity" on some count can represent a lost of clarity on some acoustical perceived cues because sound is not a sum of external clear elements but an integrated colored WHOLENESS which is perceived too...
Did i miss something?
I am not a scientist nor a musician but it is my experience...
|
Audio experience is related to exploring many piece of gear, but OPTIMAL S.Q. experience is related to ONE CHOSEN system by one pair of specific ears in a specific room....
Jay bought 343 amplifiers , then his goal is Audio experience, and advise consumers...
He cannot work acoustic and psycho-acoustic for many months with only one audio chosen system...It take me more than a year of everyday listening experiments to learn how to embed avoustically, mechanically and electrically all my gear...
His youtube channel is about audio experience comparisons not about optimization of ONE system....
Like he said he uses sound/music files he knows well like a tool to compare hundred of pieces of gear...
I used music timbre listening experiments to optimize my own system....
I cannot criticized him on the basis of my experience...
This will not be fair and this will be erroneous...The right arguments for sure but on the wrong target...
it is easy to criticize someone... Take his shoes and walk with them before ....
|
«Any dog could be understood but only one can be loved»-Anonymus Smith
|
Thanks for your post...
You post make perfect sense to me...
But all is not so simple than we think...
I had the same goal than you...
But in designing my room acoustic, with my own devices homemade passive treatment and my own designed mechanical room tuner, i encountered the problem of TUNING the speakers/room relation with my ears and for them...
Then this mythical and idealized " transparency" was a goal yes, but a relatively attainable one ...It cannot be an absolute succeess in absolute term...
Some think that their audio system patiently assembled give that to them free of further work , but the room acoustic also play a part, a very important one...
Then i am in absolute approval of each of the words i extracted from your post...
However transparency in playback system cannot be absolute experience, it is always relative.... And any gear "colored" the sound always, and anyway we always listen the recording room of the live event TRANSLATED, never perfectly reproduced, in our own specific room and with our own specific system, for our own specific ears ONLY...
Then transparency is the goal you are right...But when this is said....
And when this is explained clearly like you just did, this concept and what is musicality dont transform your own taste, and experience, and system and room is the EXEMPLARY ONE...
Perhaps there exist perfectly transparent system in perfectly controlled room, but it is exceptions around the world ....
This is the reason audiophiles speak about the prefered "color" of their system...Some call their taste 2clarity" some others called it "warm"... No ears has the same design and history or skills...
Teh even if you are right about their entertained confusion between the original living sound of music and their experience with their gear in their room ...in spite of that they are right also, not only because they are conditioned to do so by the engineering marketing of the gear, but because no gear is perfect , and no room is perfect most of the times... Almost no ears are percfect too..
Then you are right and i think the same like you just wrote, but others who claim differently are right in their own perspective...
Audio life is not a one way road for one person....No one own the meter of musicality or transparency...Not even Karajan or Gould...The truth is we dont even know what sound is or what music is...
For sure "sound" must serve music, by sound i mean the gear and the acoustic, but the "sound/noise" cannot dispear from any playback system and from the room acoustic specificities magically and give us only absolute transparency just because we say so... We must work the gear and the acoustic with our imperfect ears....Even Karajan would do for his playback personal system for a result at the end debatable by an other maestro for his own reason...
Am i wrong ? feel free to correct me....
This gets into the different meanings of "musical." Ultimately, it is related to whether one thinks of the audio system as the music, or whether the audio system should be an accurate conduit of the real music in the recording. My goal is the latter, so I think it is absurd to talk about the "musicality" of the system. Most people here design their system to color the music the way they like, which they call "musical." In effect, this is making the (real) music more "musical" for the audio system, kind of absurd to me. I want the system to do as little as possible, and just transparently transmit the music on the recording. I strive for no audio "musicality," just transparency. Let the real music define what "musical" means.
|
I forgot to say the "timbre tonal micro structure" perception is an acoustic phenomenon that cannot be qualified by the main frequency spectrum only but by acoustic and psycho-acoustic conditions of the room/ears...The relation between the relative size of the sound source and the listener envelopment cannot be described by "clarity" "warmness" "coldness" or transparency concepts...
Then speaking about "transparency" in an absolute way, speaking about playback system, is something that come from the marketing engineering conditioning of the customers.... Which is always oblivious of the importance of the acoustic control of the room...
|
Thanks for your kind word...
We are on the same page about music meaning, save i take like a personal challenge project to understand and take control by my own of my small room acoustic...It is finished now...Zero cost... 😁😊
I dont read "score" sheet, but i can explain in details with a metaphorical " novel" all details of the fifth symphony of Bruckner for example and what is the meaning for me and why...It is enough for me...All music are like a film for me... Reading the scores will be boring at the highest degree, mathematician dont use abacus they use concepts, abstract operations and numbers lanscapes... The score is there for the musician to play his tune....The resulting music body is not in the score at all, the skeleton is...
I consider the Bruckner 5th for some reeasons one of the deepest work ever written...With the art of the fugue, the well tempered Klavier, and the stupendous underestimated Liszt Christus and the last Scriabin which is near the border between atonal and tonal , which i collected ALL versions if possible...I listen Persian and sufi music, Indian classical and some jazz...
My system cost is 500 bucks but very well embedded mechanically, electrically and acoustically at no cost with my own homemade devices...Then i listen music and bother no more with gear... I am interested by Jay thread and video because of his honesty and passion more than with the gear he tested .... 😁😊
Speaking about the Music/sound experience the ratio between S.Q./price ratio is not where people think it is...Because they dont know how to embed their gear mechanically, electrically and especially acoustically... The greatest luxury in audio is not a costly amplifier it is a dedicated acoustically controlled room...Then the point of diminishing return is not so dar away... When i listen Vladimir Feltsman piano filling my room with Bach i dont listen the sound anymore....
Now because my audio system is relatively optimally implemented i only listen music without bothering more about anything else...
My best wishes to you....
I am not in this audio hobby as a scientific project, but rather as a means of getting the maximum information and understanding of the music I love.
|
People criticize without knowing and confusing TWO DIFFERENT GOALS...
Audiophile experience with the greatest possible pieces of gear ask for completely different attitude and work than audiophile experience with one chosen system...
It takes me few years to figure out HOW to embed my system mechanically, electrically annd acoustically...
I know by experience and experiment that most people dont know how, save giving their money for ready made products and solution that are ALWAYS partial solution ...
Then criticizing someone who have a complete different goal than living with a system ONCE AND FOR ALL is meaningless...
Just the acoustical treatment and acoustical controls takes months of work every day to figure out...
Or you must throw 100,000 bucks to a competent acoustician...
Then Jay is Jay, you cannot ask the same thing from him than the things you must ask for yourself to do and figure out with a CHOSEN SYSTEM.... He compare and analyse with his own history and limitations... it is IMPOSSIBLE to review all pieces of gear and creating a chosen system at the same time...
|
To be more precise:
The more classical and "romantic" and shubertian one is the 3-4 for me...
He never corrected the 6 which is the more romantic piece about nature...
The 5 is the deepest for his mastering of the parts uniting in a complete final culmination in one ultimate chord...It is for me the best representation of the parts and events in one human life integrated in a karmic thema revealed by the integrating finale, the best i ever listen to, a fugue which would have impressed Bach...This work for me describe a human life on a spiritual pespective...
The 7 are the more beautiful for me...So seductive in his spell that anyone must love it for sure...
The 8 come after the 5 for the perfection of the parts interaction and so harmonious that it rival the 5...But its finale is less impressive than the 5...
The nine is the deepest moving one and the more spectacular, convey emotion to a deeper level than the others if possible .....
It is only my impressions....
My last surprize is the influence of Liszt Christus on the young Bruckner because the Liszt work is so perfect that only Bach even managed an oratio on this scale of perfection, and at the risk to be blasphemous for my idol, Liszt even reach the Bach mastery not by changing the syntax language but by uniting the meaning of the orchestral part with the voices in a work of three hours so perfect and economical , even the Bruckner third mass, by itself a master summum, dont exceed it...
LIszt being a pianist is a composer underestimated... the Christus is the proof....It is easily for me the greatest oratorio ever written....The last himalayan peak of the Romantic movement with Bruckner for me...
For sure these impressions comes to me and i am not a musician... Feel free to disagree or correct me...
mahgister,
Thanks for your recommendation of Bruckner’s Fifth Symphony. The most popular are 7, 8, 9. I don’t know the 5th. I’ll message you this weekend. You have eclectic musical knowledge, much to learn from you. THANKS
|
Yes i listen non stop to only Bruckner for few months when i discovered him 35 years ago...
The quintet is the work to listen to.... It is very beautiful....But nothing surpass Bruckner Symphonis, save his mastery of choral and orchestral integration like in his masses and his Te Deum..
I am pretty sure you dont need my "education" being a musician, i only speak to a friend... 😊
Thanks for your interest...
mahgister,
Thanks for your education on Liszt and Bruckner. I'll begin my listening to see if I can appreciate what you say. Much less known are the Bruckner string quartet and quintet. I've had these recordings for many years and still haven't gotten to them. Do you know them?
|
When i answer someone post i dont like be ORDERED by someone who had NO RIGHT TO DO SO here ....
Especially when it is only 2 POSTS out of the thread matter...
IS IT CLEAR?
ask for a moderator job...
And learn to respect people here.... Some are musicians and some who like this thread like also CLASSICAL MUSIC....
There are lots of wonderful music threads on Audiogon. This is not one of them. Maybe it would be best if a few of us started PM’ing each other or contribute to one of the following threads. Just a thought.
Whats on your turntable tonight?
Whats playing on your system today?
Classical Music for Aficionados
|
I quit to....
enjoy your closed mind unfriendly set ....
|
"what your mind see, your eyes believe"
😁
The 2 files on youtube are so horrible and unnatural artificial sound for S.Q. i downloaded the cd to verify ...
And in my system (500 bucks all in all )well embed mechanically, electrically and acoustically tough, there is not even a comparison between the horrible S.Q. of the youtube files of the Ray Lamontagne cd and the natural timbre of the voice and natural timbre of instrument in my audio system.... And the imaging is no more congested like on youtube files...
I guess i may sleep well with my audio system.... Sorry to seems rude.....
Dont upgrade before embedding everything...
|
But why these youtubes files are so bad compared to the real cd?
That is the question to ask.... Why nobody asked this in the first place?
Am i the only one with this cd ?
The difference between the youtube files and the real cd are so great that it is difficult to believe, is someone has ever listened to the real cd on his system like me?
If yes i will not be the only one to say that the real cd is totally beyond the youtube horrible files....
The main point in audiophile listening is naturalness of the timbre for voices or instruments first imaging second.... If it is not there nothing is there... no? |
But why none of the representation of youtube bear no resemblance at all with the original cd? They are by comparison horrible....
I was astounded by this fact....Why?
Is someone else like me dare to listen to the original? |
Thanks for your kind answer...
First and very important.... My system is absolutely NOT comparable to your system on any count whatsoever...
Second the fact that there is a so great difference between the youtube files and the original cd in the direction of increased harshness indicate to me that the best way to upgrade your astounding system is the acoustic settings of your room....
It is my point....
It is not a criticism of your system.... It is one of the best there is probably.... It is only a remark about the importance of the acoustical setting of room...
You can dismiss what i say by pointing to the photos of my system....I will not replicate any defense or attack....My system is average Joe Smith....😊
My only discovery in audio is that upgrading is less powerful when your system is already relatively good than the improving way that you could control the mechanical, electrical and acoustical embeddings...
You worked passionnately with a great deal of time and money to help others....
Any free negative critics of what you do is not admissible...
But i wrote my observation amazed myself by the fact i communicated to you.... Thats all i wanted to say....
My best to you and i will listen to your observations about audio gear with interest....
Thanks and my deepest respect....
P.S.
Our goals are very different, mine is the best system for the least money invested.... Your goal is what is the best at any cost.... Our goal are different but they are interesting "per se".... |
Presentation 1 was more detailed....I prefered 2...
What i dont understand is that compared to the original cd the presentations 1 and 2 sounded completely artificial...
Is it your microphone? your room?
Through youtube we lost information for sure but the harshness and unnaturalness i feeled is not related to youtube i think....
What i listened to in my system was more musical on all counts, timbre and imaging...
I am even afraid and ashamed to describe my modest audio system here....But i worked 2 years to install it the best i can in my audio room...
My own experience is that ANY system must be embedded mechanically, electrically and acoustically... I made all my devices homemade myself....
I apologize if my post seems rude....It is not my intention....
You are yourself invested totally and your comparison can help many and already had with their choices ...
But my experience is the embeddings controls are more important than the electronic specific design of most gear piece... |
mechanical embeddings of the system:
vibrations of all piece of gear coming from inside or outside
resonance of different kind coming from the design of the speakers...
Electrical embeddings of the system:
any system is immersed in the electrical grid of the house and room... The noise floor of this grid impact negatively the system...
Acoustical embedding of the system:
This embedding is very powerful.... so much that most people cannot even fathom it....
No speakers can beat the room where they are located.... It is a simple acoustic fact easy to verify with any acoustician.... I experimented with my room and the results were amazing... There is no comparison between any system before or after embeddings controls...
i dont buy "tweaks".... I tried to create the devices myself adapted to my specific system and situation....A method of listening and experiments is not a "tweak"...
Controlling the acoustic in a room is not easy task but the results exceed many possible upgrades... I dont affirm here that a pair of speakers like mine can beat the Wilson...I accept if someone say that i am "nut" but i am not an idiot.... I only say that the acoustical settings is more important than the choice of speakers for the final S.Q. results....
For me audio experience is about embeddings controls.... I had no other choice anyway, i dont have the money to do anything else.... But i succeed....
I used myself different devices of my own....I sell nothing and anyway it would be easy for you to laugh at the first sight of some of my devices... The important fact is that WITH this controllling devices we can transform for the better ANY system at any price...Create your own or buy some acoustical materials or acoustical devices....
My point is to sell creativity not products.... I bought nothing that cost more than peanuts price....
This thread here is amazing and very useful to many....
I would feel very bad if someone took my observation for negative criticism.....
The person investing his time with tremendous passion to compare all these gear dont deserve that....
I will mute myself now my point being made....
My best to you all..... |
It seems to never occur to someone that no speakers sound the same in varied room, and that each speakers ask for a specific room treatment especially to work at his peak against another speakers ?
Then any reviewing have his limits.... Any criticism also have his limit...Especially if someone has never listen to the speakers anywhere in a concrete room to begins with...
Just my 2 cents experience...
Anyway criticizing someone who give himself so much trouble and passion to did this for all of us is shameful in my book...W.C. is passionate and want to help...Simple...
But in another way no speakers can be judged definitively on the basis of one single acoustic settings ...Then bashing them WITHOUT direct experience is at least indelicate...Some here must refrain themselves to do so... Only W.C. has this right....He experience them, not us. at his own risk....
Generally we judge speakers on the basis of OUR room, and we improve them with our set of acoustic controls... At the end our judgement is our OWN only tough... It is our own experience...
The interest of this thread is the unique way W.C. could compare any gear, in great numbers, in his room for himself.... This also implied a limiting factor... This is his room his ears and the way he install all that in his working dimensions...This is a limiting factor with with to balance his impressions...
But the great positive contribution of this thread is unique because for many products comparison, the limitations of the room and subjective experience of W. C. plays way less than the huge difference between the gear.... Then the impressions of W.C. are even more powerfully on the core and spot on, in spite of his choice of room and even in spite of his own preferences....This could help many futur buyer a lot to make right choices...
No thread like this exist anywhere on the net.... Someone interested to upgrade his gear has interest to "decode" W.C. impressions and tastes, to factor his installation and room, and have the chance to buy some new gear with a more enlightened view and more alternatives at the end....
i read his thread with interest myself... And his videos are interesting to say the least... We enjoy....And we say thanks...
My best to all..... |
A dedicated room is not a room where someone put an audio system...
I think this statement is very wrong. I think it is more imperative, that a listener ( reviewer ) be " familiar " with his / her room, than to have it " dedicated ".
A dedicated room is a room ACOUSTICALLY dedicated and acoustically tuned for a specific system and for some ears...
Then it is impossible to be familiar with a room in the acoustical meaning of the word "familiar" if you dont have tuned this room and explored all his transformative possibilities and impediments by acoustic experiments...
My only discovery in audiophile experience, is not the gear...buying and plugging is easy if we can afford it ...But tuning a room for the system is the way how to learn the room and the system relation ...Acoustic optimization is mandatory... And a dedicated room is the only absolute luxury necessity in audio....
I dont say it is impossible to create a great system in a living room , i say that it is more difficult...
Jay is right and OCD mike is here...
By the way there is NO RELATION in S.Q. between the same gear put in a living room without acoustic optimization and the same gear put in a room specifically tuned for it... NONE.... It is a complete transformation like starting from a caterpillar to a buttterfly...
Guess why most people dont know that?
They put their gear in a non acoustically non dedicated room most of the times and the higher it cost the more they call it an audiophile experience...
In truth the more costly device in audio most of the times must be the room......
Sound is first an acoustic experience and lived event which is used and treated in some perspective by the recording engineer with his own choices and trade-off and this recording event must be conveyed to you and TRANSLATED acoustically in your room...Not reproduced which is impossible but translated...
You dont listen to an amplifier, you listen to the amplifier/speakers/ROOM tuned chain... And the last link is the most important one because it is a link specifically tuned to optimize all the piece of gear ideally for your own specific ears...
Guess why my 500 bucks system dont sound like a 500 bucks one?
You can laugh but i laugh last....
|
By the way i am not stupid and i dont pretend that a low cost system become a high end system by acoustic miracles..
But i pretend that ANY system is acoustically miraculously transformed from a caterpillar to a butterfly accordingly to his own design electronic qualities potential...
Acoustic means more than price tag at the end though ....it is the reason why comparing gear in a room which is not dedicated not only to music but to the specific system is meaningless..
Any reviewer must compared two system IDEALLY in their own tuned room...
Which is an impossible task when you want to compared many amplifiers....
This is the reason why i read about acoustic not about the gear publicity ....It is way more easy to buy a relatively good amplifier at all cost than installing it in his rightful embedding working dimension which acoustic is the main important one...
Acoustic is the sleeping princess and all the pieces of gear are the seven working dwarves, nothing more...
😁😊
my best to all and i apologize for my unwanted rant here...
I go back to my low cost hole....Room....
|
Yes my Sansui is recapped and cleaned...I own the AU 7700 and one of the alpha series also...I also cleaned my house electrical grid and control vibrations/resonance with my own devices with great results....
And almost everyone can distinguish differences between any piece of gear in any non dedicated room...Almost everyone with ears...
This trivial common place fact dont contradict the ESSENTIAL fact that the peak working potential of any audio system cannot be experienced in bad acoustic conditions AT ALL... And any ordinary non acoustically treated and especially non mechanically controlled room is very bad acoustic condition, sorry... And this is not a trivial common place fact like saying that 2 amplifiers sound different in any place...For sure gear sound different in any place... 😁😊 but an optimal potential working is not a mere difference only...
Reviewers sells...Nothing else...They are biased to sell somthing...
Some like Jay try to be honest and succeed... The proof is right here ... Who is the rare reviewer to admit that acoustic superseed his own costly system right now and admit he was wrong underestimating acoustic ?
Jay did this.... It is the reason why he is the only reviewer i read or listen to ... Honesty and humbleness...
Read acoustic not reviewer it will help like ithelp me to enjoy music at the end with no frustration at all about costly high end system ...
By the way Jay is not so much a reviewer fir me , he is an audiophile describing his own journey and not only comparing piece of gear to sell them...
This is the reason i read him....Honesty.. I am interested by him not by the gear he speak about ... I cannot afford it and I dont need to upgrade anyway even if i could i will not do it guess why?.... 😁😊
ou can easily hear differences between components in a room that is not a dedicated one, which is MY point, and to say it is impossible and degrade reviewers because of them not having dedicated listening rooms, is ridiculous. Always, my best to you ! MrD.
Report this
|
My last post here was precisely about that..... 😊
Interesting thread...
Thanks |
Very important fact and interesting post for me...
I predicted that in my first post here but apparently for some members here i was distracting the thread away from the "tasting" sessions discussions...I dont speak about Jay here...
Acoustic is the way and key, not price tag.... Unamplified "timbre" is the only ruler to evaluate a system, the others acoustic cues comes after, like imaging, listener envelopment and dynamic...
Dont be afraid i will vanish...
ou seemed to have had a bit of an “ah hah!” moment in PR when experiencing the profound effect the room can have on a system. You looked somewhat surprised. I was a professional musician for many years and I learned that the (theoretically) best acoustic guitar in a sh*t room didn’t sound as good as a $1000 guitar in a great acoustic space. So from a listener’s standpoint, which guitar was better? Makes you reevaluate your opinions sometimes.
|
Great videos..... I think room treatment helped a lot....The constellation seems one of the best to me...
I admired your dedication.... |
My iMac and PC couldn't assess Agon yesterday, probably because the site wasn't secure. Did anyone else have this problem? I watched Jay's video directly on YT.
i Had the same exact problem... |
People dont realize the complexity of acoustics...
For sure some living room system with no acoustic treatment and no acoustic controls could sound acceptable even good...
That is not my point... At all...
My point is optimization of any audio system to transform it from a beautiful caterpillar to a wonderful butterfly NEED and ask for embeddings controls of the mechanical, electrical and ESPECIALLY acoustical dimensions...
There is no exceptions so good your system is in a living room with or without embeddings controls...
Acoustic AND HIS RELATION TO PSYCHO-ACOUSTIC is too complex for most people to figure out anyway without studying basic, they think that putting panels somewhere is enough....
The goal is not neutralizing the SMALL room but adapting the room to your audio system and specific speakers and to your specific ears...A small room is not an amphiteater...In an amphiteater the time and timing dont play the same role at all than in a 13 feet room where only one person and two listen music likemine... And there is all other rooms between this 2 extreme size...Acoustic devices and controls will differ...
In acoustic there is small room and big room and there is a huge difference between the two when it comes to treatment and control....
But in the two cases the acoustic is mandatory and more easy and sometimes possible only in a dedicated room...
But we can enjoy music in some living room without acoustic for sure.... But dont think that your beautiful caterpillar never mind the cost has metamorphosed in a butterfly because you think so or claim so...
Dont ask me....
Ask someone owning a high end system and a highly acoustically designed and controlled room what is the more important the brand name of his gear or the dedicated room ?
Ask him..... 😁😊
Ask him why he paid more for the room than for the speakers or more than ever the audio system cost itself ?
Acoustician cost big money ...
i experimented myself for 2 years it is the reason why i know the little i know...
|
Another sophism...
There is a difference in DEGREE yes between all systems acoustically treated or not...
But with your sophism you negate the difference between a particular system submitted to the acoustic optimization process before and after , you cannot negate the difference between BEFORE and AFTER it...You cannot claim that some system exist WHICH WILL NEVER need acoustic optimization process because they seems to sound good for your taste in an uncontrolled room.... Acoustic is science and experiments not a taste... Acoustic is personal and collective history...
This is your sophism...
to be clear and for your sake:
My system is a very low cost one and my room is completely controlled acoustically...
There is a HUGE an astounding difference with the same gear i own between BEFORE and AFTER acoustic control...
Is this acoustic successful control of mine is able to transform my audio system and put it on the same potential level than Jay costly high end one even if the system of Jay is in a non acoustically controlled room ?
The answer is no... Acoustic dont transform magically low cost design in high end design...
then dont confuse your relative experience with some systems in different state and rooms with the power of an optimization process linked in all case to the potential of very different systems...
Optimization always beat by huge margin non optimization for ANY system...
Comparing an optimized room/speakers like mine to Jays system few months ago EVEN in a non optimized acoustical condition WILL NOT PUT MY SYSTEM ON THE SAME LEVEL than his system ...
Is it clear? 😁😊
Then we disagree .... I recognized that between different systems there MAY be a difference of degree ONLY...But for a specific system acoustic control induce a complete transformation and make this system able to reach his optimal working potential... It is not a degree difference here, it is a transformation...
But so big the transformation is , this will not transform a vintage Sansui amplifier or my modest Mission Cyrus speakers into the same ball game than High end amplifier and speakers FOR SURE...
Acoustic do miracles for a system, but dont transform pig into a beatiful girl....But magnificent pig exist so to speak.... 😁😊
Ha! Funny stuff. Yes, we just disagree on degree of importance room to room. That’s all. I have logically and tirelessly compared “treatments” over the years and stand behind my comments.
|
Sorry but the fact that some system sound "good" in a living room without even acoustic method being used is one thing, which i dont negate at all, BUT
An acoustical OPTIMIZATION process of the system is ANOTHER thing, a completely different fact...
Confusing the two with a relativization conclusion to suit our "taste" is a sophism negating the OBJECTIVE power of acoustic ...By the way there exist no "taste" in acoustic but only the history and specific ability and structure of each pair of ears/brain....Our ears are the last judge but our ears must be if not musically trained at least acoustically trained....
Three thousand years of acoustic history beginning with the Egyptian and after them the Greek using acoustic to change the properties of room or amphiteather is a fact, an optimization of the acoustic space which has notrhing to do with the satisfaction of some people in a non acoustically treated and uncontrolled room...
Be logical....
|
Stay i quit....Answering someone is my right though...But now i quit...
Be happy in your personal kingdom..
😁😊
|
Sound and music are all about taste.
Sound and music are about taste AT THE END of a process not only from the beginning...
Taste EVOLUTE...Tasting and learning to taste is a process...At the end it is an objective experience because it become a collective knowledgelike in acoustic and wines...
It is called learning...Man is not a crocodile with innate taste...Man can work on himself...Or not.... Listening the same music all his life for example...Or be satisfied with a limited sound experience because he listen music never mind the sound and thats correct for sure...
Sometimes a room will measure better after optimization, but not sound as good to the listener. I have experienced this reality first hand. Acoustic control WILL NOT ALWAYS yield better subjective sound in every room. Not just a matter of math or science. Much more at play here.
This last remark reveal that you dont know the difference between acoustic and psycho-acoustic... Sorry...
I never say that numbers and objective measures ONLY and MAINLY is the optimization process... i say that listenings experiments are... Why?
Because in psycho-acoustic the EARS /BRAIN are judge, not because of our taste but because they directed and guide us in the EXPERIMENTS INCREMENTAL PROCESS in our own room...
|
Anybody who look at your effort and honesty can only wish you the best....
|
What a great post! thanks ricevs
By the way i like The OP honesty...
It is the only reason i read his thread and bother with him...
He is a more interesting soul than any of the products he spoke about could ever be anyway...
Anyway i dont need any of them... 😊 Even if i could afford them...
But we all need a great soul....
It is a great thread....
|
I admire your discipline and honesty....
This is the ONLY reason i listen to you...
Congratulations!
|
Yes Source are important...
But degradation comes ALSO from non treated and acoustically uncontrolled room acoustic..
In high end system these 2 degradations SEEMS on par at best and the acoustic factor SEEMS to be less determinant than the source factor...
In lower cost system the acoustic factor APPEAR way more important than the choice between turntable or 2 different dacs for example... Why?
The source or speakers, these two pieces of gear can only "speak" through a room acoustic....
The acoustic factor is forgotten most of the times by reviewers or considered a secondary addition...
Then saying that a lost of signal cannot be recovered is a common place fact that will not replace this less common fact : what we hear come from the interaction of the system with the room to an extent which is not fully understood by most people...
Comparing different pieces of gear in the same room is not the same thing that comparing the same piece of gear in two different rooms... Especially if one room is nude and the other treated and mechanically controlled... Try that and you will discover that acoustic is the most important factor GENERALLY not the choice between two good dacs at 2 different price ...
There is more to timbre perception than what is encoded by a dac or a turntable, the speakers /room relation will determine your perception more powerfully than a change between dac and turntable so great it is...
Then your claim is not wrong it is an half truth, but this half truth is everywhere in audio magazine... Guess why? 😁😊
For all of you that may interpret this as a slam on digital, it is not. I am saying that once a signal is degraded, it can never be recovered so the better the source, the better the rest of the system has the opportunity to perform.
|
Why i am happy with my low cost system? And not envious at all of superior component... And they are superior no doubt in my mind...
All my component are well under the quality component of this site and even if it is the case, my soundscape in my 2 listening position is so good, that i dont give a damn about any products presented here... I like Jay personnality yes... It is the reason i listen...He is not only honest but know how to keep our interest...
But i dont need his 100,000 bucks dac..
Why?
Because we can be happy with a ratio S.Q. /price which is over the roof...
Why over the roof?
Because the real and only MULTIPLIER of the basic design quality of all piece of gear at any price is acoustic and psycho-acoustic method...Acoustic is not a mere addition it is a huge multiplier...
I dont mind anymore about my sound... He is good and my system cost is ridiculous...
my 8 headphones are not good enough for my room... 😁😊
But my actual room is unesthetical, and seems a mess with 100 Helmholtz resonators and diffusers... No one will do that save a nut... 😁 Each one must be tuned...But it cost me nothing save many many months of tuning....A pro acoustician will have charged a fortune...
But an optimal classical room treatment with this very high designed component here will help much for sure...At not too high cost...
But we must all remember that the goal of the OP is CHANGING each part of his system to explore new offer in a very high end niche...
And acoustic optimization CANNOT be done the same for different system ... Acoustic is not only a change for a specific room but also for all specfic components...
Then all the acoustic Jay need is minimal and classical room treatment.... An optimal better balance between reflection/absorption/diffusion...It can be applied to all system...
The goal of Jay are at the opposite of the goal of most people... He dont want to live with one system but to explore many new offering each year...
Then we must be conscious of that...
This is the reason why my criticism is useless for him here...But useful for many...
For sure the truth to reach hi fi at an optimal S.Q./price ratio will not change , it is acoustic method... But this truth is useful for an audio system which does not change each month...
But who present so much interesting hifi ultrra high end products with experience and honesty?
Dont look anywhere else...
it is here....
|
Acoustic is not simple matter and a bunch of recipes... Nope...
For example my screen computer is BETWEEN my speakers on my desk creating a situation ressembling Jay’s situation...The ratio between our two rooms, speakers, and the screen is near one another probably ... 😁😊
Yes it can be bad... But acoustic is NEVER only a recipe...
The way some front reflection RATIO to back and side reflections can work for the worst or for the better is related to a ratio which is properly determined by the timing of these waves and the listener position... This precise ratio will determine greatly imaging...Front reflection are not bad in itself only the ratio could be...
Then no one room is similar and no recipe is universal...
Only listenings experiments and tuning time works universally...
Timing event point reflections in psycho acoustic are in fraction of one hundred milliseconds...
I am not an acoustician by the way i only learned how to play with my room...And i succeeded...
This is why i can say that for most people who already own relatively good gear to live by they must adress acoustic...
It makes no sense to upgradse a 25,000 bucks dac to a 100,000 bucks one BEFORE adressing acoustic for most people especially those for whose money is counted...
My best to all...
|
There is a minimal threshold of acoustic satisfaction for a chosen audio system/room .... Passsed this threshold there is more improvement...But this threshold when we know how to reach it with mechanical,electrical and acoustical control give to any system/room owner a great satisfaction...Upgrading lost his appeal even when it is possible...
Then we must define our goal:
The question what is the best existing piece of gear has nothing do do with what is the best way to create an audiophile experience with a given system...
I will not reveal the price of my audio system to not create useless and meaningless debate here... 😁😊 People judge on appearence....
I only pretend that i am satisfied with the system i succeeded to optimize ( it takes me few years of learning)...This system is not comparable in quality to any piece reviewed here by a great margin...But i am glad with no desire to upgrade.... Acoustic tailored made for a specific room/system is not a secondary element in comparison with the electronic design of the pieces of gear, it is on par with it in importance...It is simply my own experience...
Acoustic and psycho-acoustic control is not less important than electronic engineering of a high end piece of gear, it is in the opposite, unbeknownst to most, at least as important....One cannot replace one with the other never....But marketing in audio and progress in electronic design did not help to understand this reality and fact...People trust publicity and price tag more than basic acoustic power to transform sound experience.... Most think about their uncontrolled room that their room is good.... I beg to think the opposite, no small room is at his potential acoustic peak without acoustic transformation not only by passive treatment but also by more active one...
I am not a musician nor an engineer, but i tried to learn some bits by my own acoustic and psycho-acoustic elementary experiments...I succeeded to my satisfaction....
i listen this channel here only because of Jay’s character passion and honesty, i like his personality, i am not interested really by high end anymore to upgrade ... Upgrade are often dream for people who never try to transform what they already own...
😊
|
Sometimes slight misunderstanding over time create wars...
It is on the news...
I think the OP dont claim anything about the battery structure and materials here, he comment about his hearing appreciation with some changes...
By the way if you change your provocative "alias" meaning " all audiophiles are deluded ", you will be less dogmatical in your attitude because name matter...
There exist all kind of audiophiles and putting all them in a despising manner in the same bag is not a glorious enterprise, especially when confusing "measures" with the content of a listening experience....They must be correlated in experiments not one reduced to the other....
For me by the way cables are secondary, acoustic psycho-acoustic matter most... But i am not dogmatic and i know what difference cables can made...
Knowing how to make a battery has nothing to do with listening an audio system nor with acoustic/psycho-acoustic...
I design batteries for a living, at the structural level. I mean how many people can make that claim? The claim is beyond ludicrous.
|
I had no reason to believe that not to doubt it if someone experience it...I dont have an opinion...
I "rushed" to my keyboard because you rushed in this thread...
And if making a simple experiment , strapping rocks in my AC house conduit, make you believe someone is a "fool", you are a bit swift on judging others...
Change your "alias" which is a bit provocative and express a misleading judgement about all very different people all put in the same despising bag..
I can be arrogant too...
But i prefer to stay friendly...
😁😊
Mahgister, instead of rushing to your keyboard in a need to be heard, how about taking a step back and reading the exact claim made. That the cable used for charging, made a sound difference in the playback when running on batteries only .... then again I see you have rocks strapped to your AC house feed conduit, so I am not sure you are the best person to discuss this with. I don’t think we have a common language to discuss this. I will leave it at that.
|
In audio experience, the gear, tape,turntable,or dac are less important and impactful than their embedding in the three working dimensions, which like the three musketeers are four really : electrical, mechanical, acoustical, and psycho-neuro-acoustical...
And neuro-acoustic /acoustic is a peculiar field describing and trying to understand sound experience and music experience, there truth is neither objective nor subjective, it is more an ONGOING CORRELATION experimental process that goes deeper and deeper in the mysteries of music experience and perception...
This is the reason why, comparing analog or digital complementary mathematical tools and opposing them is superficial, compared to the righfully embeddings methods...Is a tape and a dac and a turntable sound different? yes they may sound different for multiple reasons for sure...BUT....
All these discussion about gear are born more from engineering marketing and consumerism more than from neuro-acoustic and acoustic science or from concrete experience...
An audio system, become when playing an individualized unique system because of the complex characteristics of his multidimensional four embeddings...It is no more only a blueprint electronical designed abstract and standard ideal device... it play in some concrete conditions for someone...
No turntable, or dac, or tape, is experienced in the same way ever, by so different conditions and different owners...
The acoustic laws stay the same for sure, but no small acoustic room is the same, add to that all others embeddings specificities and then discussing about advantages of dac, turntables, and tapes, in the absolute or from our own limited experience or with only their measures characteristics is illusory to a great extent...
We hear and interpret acoustic phenomena that are TRANSLATED by the acoustic of our own room and the neuro-acoustic properties of our own head, way more than what come from a tape, a dac, and a turntable, so different they can be...Their differences is dwarved by the 4 embeddings working dimensions ...
People are used to buy gear, not used to experiment with the 4 embeddings dimensions... Thats is the reason behind all these useless discussion about analog or digital differences... Minute one compared to any single one of the 4 embeddings impactful dimensions...Imagine now the impact of the 4 embeddings together compared to a change from a tape to a dac?
It is my experience...
If someone is not wrong, arguing about a dac, or a tape, or a turntable this does not means he is right at the end...
😁😊
|
