mijostyn,
You mentioned a "bright" system imaging the cymbals "10 feet in front of the snare." Well, there are more egregious imaging manipulations, especially with drums, that are a deliberate artifact of the original mastering. The drums on Tool’s "Fear Inoculum," for instance. The drum set seems HUGE, spanning the entire width of the (reproduced) soundstage and even indulging in moving back and forth across the breath of the stereo image! It has been remarked on this forum before that, in a jazz ensemble, the drums "should" be in the center rear, as they would actually be on stage, and they should STAY there. But that exaggerated effect with Tool is undeniably exciting—and not at all uncommon in rock, where a simulacrum of a live club performance is not what the engineers were going for. Think of the drums (again, just for instance!) on any Rush album. During the instrumental section of "Tom Sawyer," the drums start on the left and move across the "stage." This is NOT "realistic," but it is kind of thrilling.
All I’m saying is that, although I also go for "realistic" audio reproduction, and consider the "real" sound of acoustic instruments a kind of benchmark (given the many remarks in this thread already about the questionable status of "the real"), heavily produced music is obviously not bound by this principle. And that doesn’t make such music somehow a failure.
None of which is meant to suggest that you’re not right to want to restrain the frequency response of your system so that a not-intended effect of foregrounding certain frequencies is defeated as much as possible.
|
In my opinion you are right...
All I’m saying is that, although I also go for "realistic" audio reproduction, and consider the "real" sound of acoustic instruments a kind of benchmark
Add to that all the information lost in stereo system by crosstalk , about spatial aspects of sound... A subject very well studied by Edgar Choueiri...
For me "realistic" dont refer to the gear but to acoustic and psycho-acoustic controls about real acoustic instrument in a real acoustic space... Heavily processed music is not the benchmark with which we can judge a system ... We speak about acoustic here not about taste in music or taste in gear ...😊
|
@snilf
Funny, I was just listening to UnderTow. Sober is my favorite Tool song.
Studio recordings are art, anything is permissible. Jimi Hendrix loved panning back and forth. In my experience, systems that can accurately portray a good live recording are more exciting to listen to when it comes to studio recordings. Take Roxy Music's Avalon or Carina Round's Tigermending, they are sonic paintings. Every little detail is suspended in space.
|
My audio system sounds the closest to the original music. That makes my system the most accurate sound system.
All your speakers behave like a left speaker in below. Only my speaker sounds like a right one. Alex/Wavetouch
Killing me softly - Natural vs. Un-natural sound, PA speaker comparison.
my sound too is now as natural as yours ...I can explain why and how...
What are your explanation ? You never gave one and then you claimed to be the only one with a natural sound in the world ... It is a bit too much claim....Synergy, modifications , and acoustic optimization can be done ... I did them with complete success ...it was not easy to figure it out... Most will not...
=====================
JBL, other big companies, and individuals have invested much money and their life times to figure out the natural sound in 150 years of audio history. If you’ve got it, use it for something good.
I am selling my products to churches, concert halls, and event DJs now. Billions of people are suffering with bad sounds. I probably don’t have the time for the hi-end audio business in my life time. If I have a time after I am satisfied with PA speakers business (in 5 years?), I’ll be in recording equipment business. Making the natural sound mic and recording machine is same thing as making a natural sound audio and speaker. The perfect natural sound recording comes 1st, then the natural sound audio and speakers are next. Alex/Wavetouch
|
It seems the better my gear the more disappointing the recordings.
The inherent problem with the HiFi journey is that it’s build on dissatisfaction.
|
Right. If there is full satisfaction there will be no journey. I wouldn't call it a problem, though, it's the way it is.
|
@inna, @yesiam_a_pirate
I look at it differently. I have a goal. I know exactly what I want to hear and make modifications to achieve that result. I have a great sounding system, but it is not quite at the goal yet. You could say that I was not satisfied with the current system, but that is not how I look at it. I identify problems to solve and am happy to do so. That is what this hobby is really about. If the were no problems this would not be any fun!
|
I would say that audio hobby is a journey beginning with the wished basic gear synergy ending at an acoustic specific destination... it has ended for me... Lessons learned and applied... Music is my hobby as decades ago it was but this time with no frustration at all about sound because i learn minimal basic acoustics and few other things ...
it is called the minimal acoustic threshold of satisfaction or M.A.T.S. when each acoustic factors defining timbre, spatial qualities and immersiveness are there in a MINIMAL synergy state, this M.A.T. S. make us able to create the irresistible desire to never end any album we listen to....M.A.T.S. is the end of a journey...Not perfection which is anyway a result of acoustic knowledge more than the result of an illimited wallet... ...
If it is not for such experience,we became like a dog calling for a solution to some problem and mistaking another problem for the next solution, which upgrading is very often ; or worst, not recognizing the problem at all then staying frustrated and calling that the normal state of THE journey...
My two cents... 😊
Music is the wave and the sound and the gear are only the navigating surfer plank... Learn how to Control your body on the plank and dont mistake the plank for the journey...
|
"This person is not an audiophile. He enjoys music like the rest of us, but that is a different subject."
Normally I would be offended by such an ambiguous statement, but this is a friendly thread and all opinions are welcome.
|
You are a gentleman indeed..
But no need to be offended it seems i am not as yourself an audiophile either.. I thought i was one but it seems no...my research for the optimal ratio soundfield quality/price is a renunciation to be a member of this selected club for the OP it seems ... The most important members must had the biggest wallet it seems.. Perfection had a cost in gear price... 😊
Anyway i listen music without being bother by sound gross defects with my low cost well embedded system ..
And i smile reading some "audiophiles" lost in their "perfection" quest...😁
This hobby for me is about optimization methods and tools in the embedding working dimensions, electrical, mechanical and acoustical for the goal of reaching a minimal acoustic satisfaction threshold at the best price ; not about price tag race and "perfection" dead end in most case ...
Anyway anybody owning a demi million bucks system in a living room is fooling himself if he think he has reach "perfection"... It is not even optimal yet for the system quality he own here ... The costlier component in a really "perfect" system is the acoustic dedicated room for a specific system by far...Then i am afraid that most self title awarded "audiophiles" are simply in delusion when upgrading to very higher cost some of their component... 😁 But there is a price to pay to play in a very selected club indeed.. 😊
If i was knowleadgeable enough i will prefer to be member of the acousticians or musicians club....Alas! i am not even an "audiophile" now it seems...
This person is not an audiophile. He enjoys music like the rest of us, but that is a different subject. Being an audiophile is all about building a high performance audio system. The question is what do we mean by high performance. Is it the accurate reproduction of timbre and space or just a system that sounds good to the owner.
|
@yesiam_a_pirate
The inherent problem with the HiFi journey is that it’s build on dissatisfaction.
Dissatisfaction/satisfaction is a choice -- you needn’t be dragged along on an unending path of unquenchable craving. It’s up to you to decide when your system is "good enough" . This is not only true in audio, BTW.
@mahgister refers to a "MINIMAL acoustic satisfaction threshold". Perhaps think in terms of achieving that, rather than getting caught up in the belief you must constantly upgrade in search of some holy grail that you may or may not ever reach. A system can simply be an enjoyable way to enhance listening for those who, first and foremost, love music -- it doesn’t have to be all-consuming.
|
I throw out everything for 'smoother'. Every major upgrade has made my system smoother.
Better electronics for my ESL's - smoother.
Better electronic components, battery power, continuous power - smoother.
Air tonearm, turntable - smoother.
Koetsu - smoother. Grado Epoch - smoother yet.
Smooth is my lodestone - it gets me ever nearer to the grand piano upstairs.
|
The opposite of smooth is harsh...
Then your choice of word reflect a past audiophile post traumatic stress disorder : wounded by harshness...
But there is way more to upgrading and optimizing than just reaching smoothness...
I throw out everything for ’smoother’. Every major upgrade has made my system smoother.
Better electronics for my ESL’s - smoother.
Better electronic components, battery power, continuous power - smoother.
Air tonearm, turntable - smoother.
Koetsu - smoother. Grado Epoch - smoother yet.
Smooth is my lodestone - it gets me ever nearer to the grand piano upstairs.
|
Smoothness is a word that I use for systems with a very characteristic sound. One of the smoothest sounds I’ve ever heard came from an old VW van that some guy had restored and put a big sound system in. I was just walking by and he had the doors open and the music turned up. Somehow that system took the edge off everything without seeming to lose any detail. Not what I typically hear from real live acoustic instruments indoors, but very pleasant on account of sounding so, so, smooth! It may have had something to do with being outside. I’ve heard that same sweet smoothness from the US Marine band playing on the deck of the USS Nimitz with hundreds of us sailors standing around them. The trumpets were bright and clear, but there wasn’t a significant surface nearby for the sound to reflect off of, not even a reflection off the deck because our bodies were absorbing it all.
|
Certain music should have a bite on edges, if it is too smooth it won't sound right. The flow of any music should be coherently and continuously smooth but that's different meaning of smooth.
As for the concept of "good enough", it's an interesting one. No system is good enough for me because it is still far from real. Problem is not only the system but the recordings, most of them. So I just do one or two significant upgrades every few years and don't think much about it.
I
|
@rcm1203
To the contrary, being an audiophile is an expensive curse. The love of music and audiophilia are two entirely separate issues. You do not even have to love music to be an audiophile! I know an audiophile whose collection is entirely audiophile candy stuff. The music lover side of me will listen to 78's just to hear Enrico Caruso. You have not heard Lewis Armstrong until you have heard him in his younger days. I have a picture of him and I believe the Fast Five blowing their horns into one big horn! I know many musicians who could care less about audio.
|
Yes, certain music need a bite on edges, but it needs to be the right bite on the right edges.
Definitely a lot of recordings were not meant to sound real so there’s no way to get it to happen. Still, they can be quite enjoyable.
As for "good enough," I consider it good enough when the fundamental issues of the recording and playback method are the major constraint, and issues with things like max volume and frequency response are already beyond anything I want happening in a home setting. If I’m just doing 2 channel, 2 speaker stereo without some way of dealing with inter-aural crosstalk, I find that point of "good enough" happens pretty quickly. No point in trying to upgrade components when I’m just going to be heavily distracted by the crosstalk anyway. I know that not everybody is bothered by it. There are many ways for a system to sound good, and some people can filter out or psycho-acoustically hear through issues that I can’t.
I suspect that a lot of music lovers who aren’t audiophiles are exceptionally good at re-constructing what’s missing or distorted in the playback. They don’t even know they’re doing it, so they don’t get what all the audiophile fuss is about.
I can say for certain that I’m not the one you want adjusting photos or color grading video, or mixing and mastering audio for professional production work. I watch videos and read books on what’s supposed to look and sound good and what’s not, and I often can’t see or hear that anything has meaningfully improved. I usually prefer they just leave it all alone unless something is obviously off.
I do wonder about the effort put into mixing and mastering a lot of pop music. Does it really significantly increase sales?
|
The love of music and audiophilia are two entirely separate issues. You do not even have to love music to be an audiophile!
Sadly your claim is not even wrong! 😁
Musical learning and understanding and audiophilia done right are acoustically and psycho-acoustically RELATED... Claiming that an obsessive compulsive disorder for gear upgrade is the center of a hobby instead of acoustic and psycho-acoustics understanding and music learning and understanding is preposterous...
By the way i am a relatively informed audiophile and a music lover...
Gear obsession with no love or understanding for music nor for his acoustics and psycho-acoustic embeddings is a psychological disorder not a hobby ...
And acoustic and music experience are about optimization not about an inexistant "perfection" through gear upgrades purchase...
|
@mijostyn
Expensive curse? I guess the expensive part depends on how well off you are, and how expensive your tastes are. The curse part depends on whether it ultimately makes you unhappy and unwell.
If you're constantly moving heavy speakers and amplifiers in and out of the room, at least you're getting some exercise.
|
@mahgister
Gear obsession with no love or understanding for music nor for his acoustics and psycho-acoustic embeddings is a psychological disorder not a hobby ...
I agree, and it's a type of psychological disorder that's not uncommon. The equipment or whatever the object of desire becomes the ultimate end point in our minds when it is supposed to be a means to an end. The question to keep in mind is what do I really, really want? What are all the ways I might be able to get there? Are there ways to get there that are better than others, with fewer drawbacks and side effects?
If I go down the rabbit hole too far I start to see that ultimately I really don't want anything. So I have to back off and settle with the notion that I want to be happy and physically well. I'm not really sure I even want that, but I'm sure I don't want to be unhappy and physically unwell.
|
I agree, and it’s a type of psychological disorder that’s not uncommon. The equipment or whatever the object of desire becomes the ultimate end point in our minds when it is supposed to be a means to an end. The question to keep in mind is what do I really, really want? What are all the ways I might be able to get there? Are there ways to get there that are better than others, with fewer drawbacks and side effects?
If I go down the rabbit hole too far I start to see that ultimately I really don’t want anything. So I have to back off and settle with the notion that I want to be happy and physically well. I’m not really sure I even want that, but I’m sure I don’t want to be unhappy and physically unwell.
You are right!
But i will add that it is not only the mere question about what we really want with the gear we purchase, it is about BASIC ACOUSTICS knowledge , which is missing among obsessed audiophiles who focus on gear ownership instead of learnings.. ...
And being not an english speaker i made the mistake for years speaking about acoustics to write it with no (s) at the end of the world... But acoustic in the singular form is an adjective relating to room physical acoustic not to the more general science called acoustics which include room acoustic and psycho-acoustic...
|
@mahgister @inna "But there is way more to upgrading and optimizing than just reaching smoothness."
I understand where you are coming from. When I first plugged in my cost-no-object DIY phono/pre, I wasn’t sure I liked it - where were the high frequencies? It was all too smooth and too easy to like - then I played some Chopin, and the piano on the system sounded a lot more like the piano upstairs. Vocalists sounded like people that I knew. I realized that I had been listening to more distortion than music.
My pursuit of smoothness is predicated on a certain basic level of equipment, like not a single electrolytic cap anywhere in the signal path. Even so, YMMV.
|
I did not wanted to criticize you with my answer...
Just point out that there is more than "smoothness" for an audio system to be set right...
I wish you the best there is... Thanks for your explanation... I understand better your point...
I understand where you are coming from. When I first plugged in my cost-no-object DIY phono/pre, I wasn’t sure I liked it - where were the high frequencies? It was all too smooth and too easy to like - then I played some Chopin, and the piano on the system sounded a lot more like the piano upstairs. Vocalists sounded like people that I knew. I realized that I had been listening to more distortion than music.
My pursuit of smoothness is predicated on a certain basic level of equipment, like not a single electrolytic cap anywhere in the signal path. Even so, YMMV.
|
"But no need to be offended it seems i am not as yourself an audiophile either.. I thought i was one but it seems no...my research for the optimal ratio soundfield quality/price is a renunciation to be a member of this selected club for the OP it seems ... The most important members must had the biggest wallet it seems.. Perfection had a cost in gear price"... 😊
I’m starting to see that in this thread as well. I too was apparently mistaking myself for an audiophile. How could I have known that 50+ years of spending a small fortune buying, selling and trading HiFi gear in the pursuit of my dream music listening system eventually would count for nothing in the eyes of my peers because I have not been properly listening to it? I’ve even bought gear because I liked the way it looked! Oh, the shame, the shame! I guess I’m also a ’poser’ because the most I’ve ever spent on a single piece of gear was $5k. If I had known way back when that I was eventually going to be outed, I would still be using my RCA fold open record player and have a lot more money in the bank...🤔😉
|
@mahgister
I did not say they are not related. The vast majority of audiophiles love music. The vast majority of music lovers are not audiophiles.
@asctim
That was tongue in cheek. The problem really is that I have to beg, borrow and steal to get the equipment I want, at least until recently.
What I really want is a certain sound and image quality. It is not imaginary even though most of the time I have to imagine it. It is an audiophile process, not a music lover process and I am not on any antipsychotics......yet. I also have a clear path to that goal. I know exactly where I am going and why.
@rcm1203
That last comment was way off base. As a 13 year old I cleared driveways of snow to get the money to buy my first real HiFi gear, Dynakits that I had to build. I usually bought used gear like my first real turnable a TD124 mk2. I have always made my own interconnects and build my own subwoofers. The best equipment is not cheap, it is also not hyper expensive. That Luxury HiFi stuff is the equivalent of a HiFi Rolex and IMHO a waste of money.
|
@rcm1203
That last comment was way off base. As a 13 year old I cleared driveways of snow to get the money to buy my first real HiFi gear, Dynakits that I had to build. I usually bought used gear like my first real turnable a TD124 mk2. I have always made my own interconnects and build my own subwoofers. The best equipment is not cheap, it is also not hyper expensive. That Luxury HiFi stuff is the equivalent of a HiFi Rolex and IMHO a waste of money.
This is still an interesting and friendly thread. I'm not offended and I am not trying to be offending. Our viewpoints simply differ on what constitutes a person's belief that they are in fact an 'audiophile'.
|
That Luxury HiFi stuff is the equivalent of a HiFi Rolex and IMHO a waste of money.
Yes it is but IMO not a waste of $$ if you have the means and makes one happy. I'd love to own/buy Boulder gear but I'm just a poor working soul that has to support a family and know my own priorities. If I win the lottery then I'll first spread some wealth to family and friends and buy some "luxury" hifi gear.
|
|
It is true that you have not claim anything and just give an opinion...😊
Though, i dont consider as you do , that audiophiles are occupied with the gear more than with the music...
Those who purchase without end dont LEARN...Obsessed people are not audiophiles...
Real audiophile like music first but dont accept to listen music on mediocre gear then they buy synergetical gear and once it is done they studied the problem : acoustically, electrically amd mechanically...but one day their audio journey in search of minimal acoustic satisfaction is done they are no more bothered by the sound ... They had learned how to do the optimization and installation once for all and they can do it for any system at any price...
Obsessed compulsive people are lost in a string of upgrades with no end , no satisfaction and no musical learnings...They listen their gear and buy recorded audiophile album to listen through their gear... 😊 I am an audiophile but i love music first and i listen anything i love even badly recorded..
i am done listening my gear because i dont need to at all now, my job is done ... I listened music all my life but sometimes on crappy system or not well embedded one , even with very good gear at the times; i did not know what to do and most people around me did not know what to do too EVEN THE CLAIMED audiophiles who start my first purchase with Tannoy...They were GEAR FOCUSSED , they think buying the costlier gear was enough...They even build their own speakers and put them in a room with no acoustic embeddings... That was it...Vibrations ? electrical noise floor ? optimization of the components ? they never adress this and never taught me this... Because of their example i bought some Tannoy and never learn how to embed them rightfully for 45 years... I sold them few years ago without having benn able to listen to them at all in their optimal level as most people do... I will learned it alone after my 65 years birthday by reading acoustics science articles which inspired me my experiments with among other things Helmholtz resonators and i studied many "tin foil hat" audiophiles too and that gave me too many ideas... I studied vibrations control in headphones and speakers... I designed my own homemade EMI control... etc
True audiophile learn and study and experiment way more than they purchase...
Obsessed people purchase way more that they experiment and studied...They even laugh at those who experiment and call them "tin foil hat" because they are very proud of their gear...Their gear is all they have...Especially costlier one... 😁
i am glad with my music sound and my learnings.. I can replace my actual gear with other gear and i will know what to do....I dont need to brag about my gear choices ...
It is easy to spot those who never learn anything because they are unable to make a low end system sound good, by modifications and optimization and also simple tweaks in the electrical,mechanical and acoustical working dinmensions... They are like sellers and they will say to you : this system is low-fi , you can do nothing for it... This system is hi-fi , buy it...
Those who spoke like that know nothing sorry...
Sound serve music and a minimally acoustic satisfaction level can be reach with relatively basic good synergetical low cost system in a DEDICATED ACOUSTIC ROOM ... Mine cost me 700 bucks ( 2/3 vintage)...
Give me a 500 thousand bucks system i will do what i learned in the last 10 years and it will sound way better than the same in a plug and play condition in average living room ...
«A bundle of straws of different size well located can change the sound of a system/room»-- Anonymus acoustician
😁😊
@mahgister
I did not say they are not related. The vast majority of audiophiles love music. The vast majority of music lovers are not audiophiles.
@asctim
That was tongue in cheek. The problem really is that I have to beg, borrow and steal to get the equipment I want, at least until recently.
What I really want is a certain sound and image quality. It is not imaginary even though most of the time I have to imagine it. It is an audiophile process, not a music lover process and I am not on any antipsychotics......yet. I also have a clear path to that goal. I know exactly where I am going and why.
|
Throwing accuracy out the window most often produces inferior sound IME.
|
Accuracy is way overrated. Out the door and who needs it? Long live inaccuracy and all its faults.
|
I do know what sounds better to me.
I do not know how true it is to what the artist, the producer, the mixer, and the mastering engineers laid down, as I was not there for any recording sessions so cannot make a comparison.
|
@larsman
I do know what sounds better to me.
I do not know how true it is to what the artist, the producer, the mixer, and the mastering engineers laid down, as I was not there for any recording sessions so cannot make a comparison.
+1
It is an all-too-human trait to try to come up with objective rationales for subjective behaviors, tastes, etc.
|
@inna
As for the concept of "good enough", it’s an interesting one. No system is good enough for me because it is still far from real. Problem is not only the system but the recordings, most of them. So I just do one or two significant upgrades every few years and don’t think much about it.
Right. I wasn’t suggesting "inherent dissatisfaction" is a problem for everyone.
Nor is the issue of whether a system sounds "real". There are far too many variables involved in live sound to identify a single, baseline for "reality". But if you enjoy chasing this chimera, have at it. Enjoyment is what we're all aiming for, right?
|
@knownothing ,
You know more than you think. Flat sounds awful, way too brite and no bass.
@rsf507 ,
I am a bit of a socialist in that regard. The money that gets spent on luxury HiFi should be spent on subsidizing private grade schools. There are many amplifiers that are sonically as good or better than any Boulder Amp. An amplifier does not need a $10,000 CNC machined chassis to sound good. Same goes for speakers.
No, I am not going to tell people what to buy. It is still a free country, at least up until 3:39 today.
@mahgister
That was me with the tongue in cheek comment.
@stuartk
People could easily see me as "inherently dissatisfied." As you suggest this may be true for some, but I look at it as a challenge, making a system sound the way I want, then doing it reliably. The only time I look at it negatively is when something fucks up or blows up.
|
@mijostyn
What I really want is a certain sound and image quality.
Just for philosophical fun I'm going to challenge that statement. Is that what you really want, or is it how you expect that certain sound and image quality will make you feel? What if you could get that feeling without actually achieving that certain sound and image quality.
My own answer to that question is that it's the feeling I'm after, but there's also a feeling I get from pursuing it. There may be other things to pursue and achieve that would give me equally good feelings but I only have one lifespan to work with and I can't get to all of the good stuff, so this is a path I've gone down.
I'm impressed that you know what you are after. I generally know some of the things I'm after in terms of sound and image quality, but sometimes I discover things that I wasn't aware I wanted until I experienced them. And some things don't do for me what I expected when they are achieved. So for me, this hobby is still in an exploratory phase.
|
The feeling with a piece of music is here in me positive, negative, indifferent , and all in between WITH any sound system even very mediocre one...
I was in audio hobby to discover way to improve ANY sound system beginning with the low cost one i owned...
Sound CANNOT change the felt musical impact, only convey it in a more impactful way but cannot change it...You dont like a piece of music you always hate because you listen to it in the best possible system...
Music is not sound... But through good sound and in spite of bad sound ... music is supra sensible meanings coupled to sensible information ...Sound is a physical medium...If you tap a fruit with your finger through sound vibrating modes you perceive a suprasensible meaning through a sensible vibration interpreted qualitatively by your ears/body : the fruit is ripe or not...
|
I figure it out only after reading you a second time...😊
My english mastery is shitty and i am familiar only with technical abstract vocabulary with no dialogue with no humor or subtleties or slang ...
But there is plenty of people who despise so much audiophiles as "tin foil hat" or people who listen to the sound not to music, i reacted to give an opposite view... I consider myself a satisfied audiophile who listen all type of classical music in jazz, european classical, or Indian and Persian and near east classical or fado and some other traditionals... ...
if i read your posts you are one too...
@mahgister
That was me with the tongue in cheek comment.
|
Did you consider that maybe your friend can't hear higher frequencies as well as you do and over-compensating because of it.
|
@asctim
You hit on exactly the issues at play. First of all "feeling" is very much a part of the way a system sounds. You not only hear music, but you also feel it. Second of all is experience. You do not know what you are missing, what is possible, until you experience it. I was lucky in that I worked my way through graduate school working in the high end HiFi business. Of all the systems I have heard over the years only three could fool me into thinking a voice was in the room with me, that eyes close I could be at a live performance, three systems out of hundreds. Most people have never heard a system do this magic act. That is not to say they have never heard an impressive system, a system that impresses immediately is more likely to be hopelessly colored.
How does having a system that performs at this level "feel"? No different. I built my first system from Dynakits when I was 13 and an evolving process has taken place since then. I did not experience reference system #1 until I was 23. I have been doing touch up for the last 20 years or so, conquering minor errors or weaknesses. I have three more changes/additions to make and I will be 99.9% at target. Anything I do after that will be frill unless there is some major new technology
One more thing I would like to point out is Audiophiles can be hopelessly traditional.They tend to avoid new technologies that can make significant improvements in system performance like digital signal processing. Most excellent systems will never achieve greatness without it. I was at a friends house last weekend. I came with my laptop and microphone to measure his system. The character of the sound accepting the bass was excellent. The bass and imaging sucked and this was a $125,000 system. The subwoofers were not set up correctly (easy to fix), but more importantly the right speaker was down 10 dB at 300 Hz. This is due to the room not the speaker and this is what is screwing up the image. You can mess around with acoustic treatments until the cows come home and you are not going to get these speakers within 1 dB of each other without turning the room into an anechoic chamber. Digital EQ is the only way you are going to conquer this. Next time I go over I am going to bring a digital preamp to show him what happens when you make these adjustments. I find it interesting that very few "audiophiles" have ever measured their system. They want to do it by ear. Right.
|
No EQ can replace ears tuning+ physical acoustics... EQ is a tool not the main tool...
someone who know among others say this :
«The problem with digital room correction is that it only addresses the frequency domain. Depending on the room, it may do a rather good job.
However, if your room is causing a 30 dB cut at 100 Hz, these digital systems won’t be able to fix this. Most of them can only boost the signal by something like 6 dB, which isn’t enough to cover the 30 dB lost by your room acoustics.
As far as the time domain goes, I think it’s obvious to note that no amount of EQ will fix this problem.
I’ve used both acoustic treatment and the IK Multimedia ARC system. My findings? I heard an immediate difference as soon as I put up some acoustic foam to the left and right of my loudspeakers. The sound was instantly tighter and more defined. With ARC, there was a difference, but it wasn’t as dramatic.
The goal of this article is not to sway you from digital correction products. They can be a valuable tool in helping create an accurate mixing environment. I love the JBL LSR monitors. They sound amazing, even without any room correction.
Digital room correction, when added to acoustic treatment, can be very effective. However, nothing…I repeat nothing…can replace the need for acoustic treatment.»
https://www.prosoundweb.com/in-the-studio-acoustic-treatment-vs-digital-room-correction/
I tuned my last room a dedicated one with a distributed array of 100 Helmholtz resonators mechanically tuned... I used many other devices ... All homemade ...
I call this a mechanical equalizer because i worked with some large band frequencies not precise frequencies... I use a compensation and balance effect by the numbers of resonators, their location and distribution and tuning ...
Saying that we cannot trust our ears say a lot about the people saying it more than about acoustics ... I disagree... My room was not PERFECT, but optimal for my ears structure and filters and ASTOUNDING with immersiveness at no cost because homemade ( not esthetical for sure) 😊...
I had not the wallet for paying 100,000 bucks which is the minimal cost of a tuned acoustic room ...
Thinking that some electronic EQ will replace acoustic and psycho-acoustics knowledge is preposterous for me..
Now guess why all acousticians use their ears?
This is due to the room not the speaker and this is what is screwing up the image. You can mess around with acoustic treatments until the cows come home and you are not going to get these speakers within 1 dB of each other without turning the room into an anechoic chamber. Digital EQ is the only way you are going to conquer this. Next time I go over I am going to bring a digital preamp to show him what happens when you make these adjustments. I find it interesting that very few "audiophiles" have ever measured their system. They want to do it by ear. Right.
|
I don’t go to many live performances so I don’t compare, so I’m in the camp “as you like it”. I’m fairly new to the hobby so am trying out a variety of sounds on 2 systems: a neutral linear revealing system and a flea watt system for tubes. Carts from highly detailed to musical, and a variety of SPUs. 300b amps and my 100db speaker designer just confirmed that his speaker will run a 2w 45 tube amp (some claim this is the best sounding SET tube, plan to find out).
|
Wow, @mahgister who the heck said room control only addresses the frequency domain. That is BS of the highest order perpetrated by people who have no idea what they are talking about. Equalizers can only address the frequency domain. Only a digital system can affect time by delaying groups that are ahead. Phase can also be corrected. New systems with 64 bit floating point processors and systems can easily correct 30 dB, but to tell you the truth I have seen some pretty bad rooms and I have never seen one cause a 30 dB deficit and I have been measuring for quite a while.
There is no such thing as a tuned acoustic room. The best you can do is Boston Symphony Hall and I doubt you are going to stick one of those in your house.
My brother is a MIT Ph.D. acoustician and he never uses his ears for anything!
The problem is not the ear or ears. It is the brain connected to them.
@kennyc
I think you need to go to some live performances. You will quickly realize that a 300B amp is not going to get you very far even with very efficient loudspeakers. I'm not tube adverse, I run 220 watt mono tubes amps. If you like the mystique of glowing 300Bs CS Port has the amp for you, the 212 PAM2 mono tube amp, on sale for one day only at $194,000 a pair. You even get 40 watts a channel, enough to drive your grandmother's table radio.
The job of a phonograph cartridge is to translate or transduce what is on the record leaving it unscathed. It is to sound like nothing. It is to add or subtract nothing. It is not musical or detailed. It can not read you bedtime stories. It simply turns a mechanical vibration into an electrical signal. Only with loudspeakers do we settle for imperfection because there is no choice. Getting the electrical signal back into what the band sounded like during the recording process is a fool's errand. Given what some people are spending on HiFi they might as well hire a band. May I suggest Primus, I hear it is magister's favorite.
|
If to be an “audiophile” means that one has to completely dismiss the idea that there are aspects of the experience of listening to music (any art) that cannot be completely described via numbers/measurements (of any kind), then count me out. To believe otherwise is to miss the point of what, TO ME, being an audiophile really should be about: the quest for good sound that is in the service of the music. Not the other way around,
Music is expressed via sound. Music affects listeners in very personal ways. It is impossible to honestly discuss the sound of music in a way that is completely separated from the art. Art is a very personal experience. Our perceptions of the sound of music are always impacted, to some degree, by how the art in the sound is impacting us. It may seem like a quaint (at best) notion to some, but the science should always take a back seat to the art.
This is a long winded way of saying that I completely agree with mahgister’s basic premise that, ultimately, we have to let our ears decide.
|
frogman, you are a musician, so you got almost everything wrong. Music is first of all mathematics not art in a usual sense.
There is no music without sound. Sound is the foundation. Silence also sounds.
Neither sound is in the service of music nor music is in the service of sound. That one was beyond wrong. It's a different system.
You are romantic, and this one is good.
|
I have not heard of any SS amp unquestionably better than top Boulder.
If I win a lottery I won't give anyone a cent. Even less likely will I subsidize any school. They will learn nothing there, anyway, waist of time and effort. I will buy Berlin Philharmonic along with the concert hall. I guess, for that I must win big lottery. I don't need London orchestra or any other.
|
Music does not have to be a sound. It could be an idea in someone's mind (A STEVIE WONDER REFERENCE) or notes on a page. Furthermore, in the right context, any sound can be music. Even 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence is music.
You should be able to enjoy the music you like on pretty crappy systems. Think table radios or car systems. Music you like can still sound exciting on these systems. Will you enjoy it more on a better system? Of course, but at some minimum level of fidelity you should be able to relate to what the artists are doing.
And yes, I agree education is a waist of time.
|
My analytical brain’s been driving my preference for too many years. I’m bored and not enjoying my HIFI. Please tell me what speakers u fellas are using.
|
@onhwy61
I think the best reference for that would be Beethoven. You are right. Most of the time I am listening to music it is on the shop system which, although not terrible it is not near what is in the media room. My toe taps just the same.
Education is not a waste of time. That is a horrific thing to say, but worse is bad education, indoctrination. Too many minds are trapped in rubbish. Too many children are told they have to be X while their talents lie in Y. Zappa had it right. You do not need a school to get educated.
@alfa100
I suggest you get this record by Primus, Green Naugahyde and turn it up. You may want to get high first. This should fix the boredom, now tell me how much you have to spend.
|
The love of music and the love of audio are two entirely different but related subjects.
Using your ears to create a first class audio system is folly. You might use them in the end to make adjustments for taste like salting your food, but that is all. HiFi is all about technology and science. Understanding and applying both technology and science is the easy and sure path towards an accurate system otherwise it is a matter of luck. Your ears are more likely to steer you in the wrong direction. Saying you can is an excuse for not educating yourself and spending a little money on the right equipment. Let your ears enjoy the music.
|
