The most important parameter of all: overall system integrity

[fas42]

All of this said, I am happy to declare myself stomped and leave it at that.

Actually, it's all explainable - for me at least! The sense of "power", what I usually call "intensity" occurs because the level of some key distortion artifacts is very low - this I have now realised occurs because the sort of things that ASA talks about is happening, in the brain. Loudness and impact are two different things, and one can't substitute "more loudness" to achieve impact, the right sort, that is.

 

[Cosmik]

One puts a bigger smile on my face than the other . I don't know how to explain in words the subjective experience. But it is implanted in my mind. What I recall was two things:

1. Sheer volume and dynamics. I thought I could easily match this with the power I have at home which is 500 watts/channel at 8 ohms and 1000 watts (?) at 4. But didn't happen. I could get my system very loud, but just didn't have the grand impact that other system had at the show.

2. This sharpness and dare I say resolution of the organ notes. I hear it all in my system too but it just doesn't have that feel. Maybe this is a manifestation of #1.

I think there are two things that are at play here possibly:

1. Difference in the two rooms. The show location was in a presidential suite which was a massive room with very tall ceilings. Mine is in an open/loft space so perhaps I can't pressurize it like one can in a closed room.

2. Horn drivers. I hear the same "power" when I play the JBL M2 speakers. Their efficiency allows them to play loud and when well done, very clean sound.

All of this said, I am happy to declare myself stomped and leave it at that.

Has the science gone completely out of the window on this forum?
What about
3. Psychological factors: expectation bias etc. etc.

I thought this was the reason for the blind listening test that everyone talks about. It's almost as if you are saying that those tests are necessary only to tick the boxes; everyone knows that once you are an experienced audiophile you don't get fooled by the look of the equipment etc. I don't buy it. I think we are are all easy to fool.

(I'm not a blind listening test proponent though - I think they are riddled with pseudoscience too. I am happy to hear people's subjective experiences as a supplement to the main topic: the design of the equipment and why it is better than what went before. Or why it might sound 'good' (not necessarily accurate) for one genre of recording but not another.)

 

[Thomas savage]

If we could find the chemical formula for the substance used in the canapés, would this redeem the forum in the eyes of science Cosmik?

Or the precise neurological receptors and chemicals in play when amir gets the VIP treatment .. If we can recreate these neurological conditions at amirs house we might stand a chance at enabling him to gain a similar subjective impression from his own system!

 

[fas42]

Has the science gone completely out of the window on this forum?
What about
3. Psychological factors: expectation bias etc. etc.)

Unfortunately, expectation bias has failed badly for me ... when I pay a lot to see a show I expect to hear good quality sound - that was good money I handed over! ... Well, dang it all, that ol' bias thing failed miserably too often; it just sounded like shit, so many times ...

Guess I just wasn't made right ...

 

[Thomas savage]

What we have here is a man in Frank who believes the human auditory system is bomb proof and totally trust worthy and a man in Cosmik who believes this to be a fundamentally unsound assertion.

Frank relies on himself to be a totally consistent and 'known ' 'reliable ' measuring instrument.

There is no way to prove Frank wrong, at least not conclusively via this medium of communication and interaction.

I would draw a parallel with the dangers of the self help book, if it's you that are at fault you will bring the faulty phycology with you and corrupt the books sentiment. Likely you won't realise and will consider yourself to be a healthy self aware individual who found the answer in a book. Much like the various religions, one corrupts the sentiments to suit ones own narrative. we simply can't be trusted you know!

We fool and deceive ourselves knowingly or otherwise all the time..

Does the auditory system negate this fallible conscious self? Is it as pure and non corruptible as frank insists?

That's up to the readers, Frank won't be swayed in his beliefs, no matter how well thought out the logical argument is.

 

[amirm]

Or the precise neurological receptors and chemicals in play when amir gets the VIP treatment .. If we can recreate these neurological conditions at amirs house we might stand a chance at enabling him to gain a similar subjective impression from his own system!

That's right. You can start with arranging for a foot massage and we go from there...

 

[Blumlein 88]

That's right. You can start with arranging for a foot massage and we go from there...

So do we next have the Samuel Jackson John Travolta discussion about foot massage?

 

[fas42]

We fool and deceive ourselves knowingly or otherwise all the time..

Does the auditory system negate this fallible conscious self? Is it as pure and non corruptible as frank insists?

That's up to the readers, Frank won't be swayed in his beliefs, no matter how well thought out the logical argument is.

When we are exposed to a new experience we also learn - and when it occurs in a myriad different ways over a long time period we become very sensitive to all the markers that accompany it; it's how we became great survivors as humans eons ago.

I will draw a parallel. Amir had a listen to the Aries Cerat system, went home and listened to his own setup, and thought, hmmm - definitely no cigar here. If one wants to lock into a mindset, then one just dismisses it as "one of those things", or even better, brings up the smelly one, "expectation bias" - what happened to me 30 years is the equivalent to that which Amir heard, and instantly I said "Hello ... hello!!!". I was immediately extremely motivated, and so repeated hearing that special quality versus normal, over and over again ... I was learning, you see ... .

The auditory system has no trouble distinguishing hifi sound from the real thing. Normally. You would have to be pretty dang thick in the ears, especially if someone was, say, waving cash as a reward for getting it right, not to pick them apart. "Special" audio has the qualities of the real thing, and does make it hard to distinguish the two - the "fooling yourself" is happening, and in a good way. Being 'logical' and saying that we "proved scientifically" that audio can't do that is just being bloody minded, I'm afraid ...

 

[amirm]

I will draw a parallel. Amir had a listen to the Aries Cerat system, went home and listened to his own setup, and thought, hmmm - definitely no cigar here. If one wants to lock into a mindset, then one just dismisses it as "one of those things", or even better, brings up the smelly one, "expectation bias" - what happened to me 30 years is the equivalent to that which Amir heard, and instantly I said "Hello ... hello!!!". I was immediately extremely motivated, and so repeated hearing that special quality versus normal, over and over again ... I was learning, you see ... .

Frank, you don't know what I heard in that suite, nor what I hear at home. For all you know, you could listen to what I have at home and forever forget whatever you have been using at home. Of course, that is only possible if Thomas arranges for that overdue foot massage!

 

[fas42]

Frank, you don't know what I heard in that suite, nor what I hear at home. For all you know, you could listen to what I have at home and forever forget whatever you have been using at home. Of course, that is only possible if Thomas arranges for that overdue foot massage!

In a technical sense, true. What I "monitor" is how people describe the listening experience - if they just dish out the usual array of audiophile terms praising something then I know that there is nothing significant in it. But if a touch of WTF reaction comes across then I know that there is more meat to it. I have heard super loud, super "impressive" setups oodles of times - they're not interesting ... but the ones that capture the essence of what the real thing is like are ...

 

[amirm]

What I "monitor" is how people describe the listening experience - if they just dish out the usual array of audiophile terms praising something then I know that there is nothing significant in it. But if a touch of WTF reaction comes across then I know that there is more meat to it. I have heard super loud, super "impressive" setups oodles of times - they're not interesting ... but the ones that capture the essence of what the real thing is like are ...

Yet I never used the word "real" in anything I said.

 

[fas42]

Doesn't matter ... when I first heard my system produce "special" sound, 30 years ago, I didn't use that word either. It was the impact of it going to another level of quality that hit me, hard - later I tuned into the fact that it was actually projecting the same subjective experience as one gets listening to live acoustic music making - hey, this is something else, I thought ... .

 

[tomelex]

Systems sound different, rooms do, etc. And of interest here, is sounding better on one song does not mean better all the time on all songs, etc. Of even more interest, is that music (audio) processing lights up more stuff in our brains than say visual processing. AND, no one knows who they are or why they think the thoughts they do, if your sub conscious feeds up the statement, wow, I really like the way this sounds, then that's the message you go with at the moment, your higher brain has to deal with the consequences of that thought that appeared from "nowhere as far as you know" subconscious. Your higher brain has to decide to agree with it or dispute it. Atleast outside one or two individuals here, we do acknowledge that our ear/brain system is not reliable as test equipment for example.

 

[fas42]

Tom, the interesting thing for me is that "special" sound means that the differences between systems, and rooms, disappear - subjectively, what you "hear" is what's on the recording, which of course is completely locked in. I suspect, in fact I'm quite certain that if I listened to that Aries Cerat system with some of my "test" CDs they would sound completely familiar; there's my old friend, same as he ever was ...

 

[tomelex]

Frank, that is what indeed separates you from me in this audio game.
When I listen to a solid state amp with voltage or current feedback, I know what is going on in the amp speaker interface.
When I listen to a SET amp, I know what is going on.
When I listen to single speaker stereo systems, I know why the imaging is so much better
When I listen to low power high efficiency speakers I know why the dynamics are so powerful with a low power class a amp.
I just know this stuff via science, and you may say that it prebiases me, however, no more than I know that if I push a pin into my hand it will hurt, its just experience and in audio its measurments and understanding.

Simply, often, those who know little or enough to be dangerous in audio travel in the world of always trying to find something more, something else, those that know audio science, just make the changes to the circuits or system to get a desired result. And they know the room is the elephant in the room, then the amp speaker interface, and going back toward the source, if it is mid fi level, then what really makes the difference is if you PREFER the song or music that is playing, that brings in the emotional area, the preference area.

 

[fas42]

Simply, often, those who know little or enough to be dangerous in audio travel in the world of always trying to find something more, something else, those that know audio science, just make the changes to the circuits or system to get a desired result. And they know the room is the elephant in the room, then the amp speaker interface, and going back toward the source, if it is mid fi level, then what really makes the difference is if you PREFER the song or music that is playing, that brings in the emotional area, the preference area.

The getoutofjailfree card is getting the system to a level where, apparently, the ASA behaviour kicks in, in your brain. If one has never experienced it, or pursued it seriously then, yes, one will always "hear the system" - but that doesn't interest me. When I'm travelling in a car somewhere I don't want to be constantly aware of the engine chugging away, or the suspension bouncing up and down, trying to keep me comfortable - I want to experience the environment I'm travelling through - that's where the rewards are ...

 

[tomelex]

Yes, I always hear the system, however, because I am aware of the limitations of recording from the get go, I am certainly able to "accept" what the system is doing, by choice, and without effort, allowing me to enjoy the songs I like, without analyzing the systems strengths and weaknesses, I already know and accept what they are, and that no matter what or whos system I listen to, I can simply enjoy that systems approach to the song, yet I can also listen for what I might prefer or not compared to what my system does, all the while understanding that at any instant, a lot of what I am enjoying is because of stuff going on inside my head that is out of "my" "consiouous" control. Perhaps unlike you(if I understand your "system on song" routine) I can enjoy any system if I "choose" to do so. There need not be a special moment, as I accept the limitations of recording and playback. They say many men have a hard time dealing with or understanding their emotions, there might be something there going on too for some folks.

Your example of riding in a car and not hearing or experiencing the car of feeling the vibration of the road, that helps me understand your goal. Me, I can experience the car and the scenery, both at the same time, I don't detach from reality of my environment, and that's fine with me. I can listen to a system and not care about the system either, that's what we all can do I would hope. But it is a conscious decision for me, not some special moment that comes "out of the blue"...it requires no special everything just right in the system, I just decide to ignore the presense of the physical system...and I accept the difference between reality and recordings....indeed we just have to agree we are different Sir. What you call ASA behavior is something I can turn on and off at will apparently.

 

[fas42]

And that's fair enough, Tom. And I'm sure that there would be people who are literally unable to experience what I call "special" sound, because of how their brains work. This is nothing whatsoever to do with anybody being special or having a 'problem' - it's merely how their brains are wired; an analogy could be what they call colourblindness - who is to say that that those who see "less colours" are the odd ones out - if "colour richness" was rare, the latter would be abnormal - some people apparently see colours, always, when they hear music and such - not I, said the ...

ASA studies have been done of people who can't "fill the gaps" - if everything is not perfectly, directly clear in the auditory sense then they have a terrible time when listening - so, it is a survival tool in that sense ...

 

[RayDunzl]

I think there are two things that are at play here possibly:

1. Difference in the two rooms. The show location was in a presidential suite which was a massive room with very tall ceilings. Mine is in an open/loft space so perhaps I can't pressurize it like one can in a closed room.

2. Horn drivers. I hear the same "power" when I play the JBL M2 speakers. Their efficiency allows them to play loud and when well done, very clean sound.

Thank you for the reply.

Big room - that makes a difference.

Opinion:
Small room at high SPL seems to, let's call it "overload". The reflected sound (delayed) intensity is at such a high level that it conflicts with what should be the quiet (if there is any) between the notes, so, dynamic contrast is compromised, and gets worse as the direct gets louder, past the 'too loud for the room" level.

I can have a taste of that problem here. I'm not certain of the source of the irritation. It could be my ears, as they can do odd things with "too loud" sounds (not specifically the stereo).

But, drop the level a dB or two and things become normal loud listenable again.

Opinion in Search of a Fact to Misconstrue:
Small room and large room may attenuate the higher frequencies differently, which may affect the spectrum of the reflected energy disproportionately in comparison with a small room. Too much higher frequency coming back at you may increase irritation.

It took a while to find a reference for this, but here goes:

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-air.htm

"ISO 9613-1:1993 specifies an analytical method of calculating the attenuation of sound as a result of atmospheric absorption for a variety of meteorological conditions. For pure-tone sounds, attenuation due to atmospheric absorption is specified in terms of an attenuation
coefficient as a function of the frequency of the sound from 50 Hz to 10 kHz (no ultrasound), the temperature (−20 °C to +50 °C), the relative humidity (10 % to 100 %) and pressure (101325 Pa = 101.325 kPa) of the air. Formulae are also given for wider ranges and for other than pure tones − only audible sound 20 Hz to 20000 Hz."

Example of frequency dependent attenuation with distance:

Denver can be a low-humidity place, above is this afternoon's reading. That could increase the attenuating effect if that is something you heard.

Horns...

I don't but would like to have some quality horn time. The tweeters on the stacks for the Rocking Teen Combo were compression drivers (crossed at 1200Hz), and the mid cabinets were deeply recessed JBL 12" with at least some measure of directivity.

Opinion:
So, again, the direct has some contrasting SPL advantage over the reflected in terms of relative dynamics of the direct and delayed reflected sound.

Experience:
For sure, the band sound was crap in the practice space, but good in a club (I ran the PA), and the major difference was room size... A big room can swallow a lot of sound energy.

 

[Thomas savage]

Brown... It's all gone a terrible shade of brown.