The most important parameter of all: overall system integrity

[fas42]

Yes, it's an illusion - just like listening to almost all sound is an illusion! The brain does remarkable "fill-in" work - which is why when we leave a room where a real piano is being played, and keep listening to that instrument as we do so, that there is a continuity in what is heard. The actual acoustic information hitting the ear as we do so goes topsy-turvy, the correlation between the in-room and just outside sound information is dramatically different. But our minds hear it as seamless ...

But if we do the same thing with a typical audio system playing a piano recording at similar sound levels, the discrepancy is quite marked. The outside impression can be pretty awful, the mind is struggling to register a decent fit ...

Competent systems don't have that problem - the transition when going to another room is as fluid as for the "real thing".

Regarding the cables, you're getting confused again - a system part is, part of what makes the whole operate correctly - if the part is not up to scratch the system suffers; if a replacement part happens to mitigate a problem elsewhere the system may now be good enough. If someone wants to charge a ridiculous amount for that part, and others are willing to pay it, that's another issue ...

 

[fas42]

What I was intending to do a bit before was mention this link: http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/vocals.htm. I found this via the Manger thread, and it concerns narrowing down on a bit of audio which highlights problems speakers have. What's relevant here is that it is one method for how I "debug" systems - I use recording tracks which excite very obvious artifacts in the sound; put it on repeat if my hearing is dull at the time , but best are tracks where the sound repeats over and over again as part of the content. It then becomes trivially easy to assess system integrity.

Achieving overall competence then just becomes a matter of having all one's test tracks passing muster, by sorting out why each artifact that occurs is audible - the outcome when all are resolved cleanly will be competent sound, automatically.

 

[Cosmik]

Inherent in your philosophy seems to be the idea that a commercial system can be modified into a state of specialness through the use of bits of wire, blu-tack etc. The commercial system can be a Beolab 90, a kitchen radio, a 1910 phonograph. You therefore seem to be crediting the creators of all commercial hardware with being, basically, 'special' but just missing the mark for want of a bit of sticky back plastic. I don't share your faith in the specialness of audio system creators. Many are just not-quite-as-good-as-hobbyists who have realised that any idiot can make something that 'works' and that audiophilia is the Emperor's New Clothes brought to life. Many commercial systems are fundamentally rubbish and you will never modify them into a state of specialness except in your mind.

 

[fas42]

The real story is that "specialness" is actually the normal state of play, it's the inherent capability of the particular system, and what the specifications would imply. But the real world implementation is normally defective in various areas, and, yes, the cheaper the system usually the worse the issues are. I've looked at a couple of sound producing devices, and after a bit of fiddling it was clear there were major shortcomings - here it was pointless to pursue anything further, a key component was too lacking or damaged - the returns for effort were on the wrong side of the balance sheet.

If an enthusiast has put together some system which is very warped in some way, to fit in with his thinking then, yes, it's probably going to be harder. The best candidates would probably be those that are nominally very standard in their design, but which fall short because cost cutting, and lack of insight about some key considerations.

I've only gone down the road I have because of my interest in the challenge, and the fact that some ordinary gear happened to around - if I was starting from scratch now, with money to burn, and wasn't bothered with making a mess of things, I would probably pick a Kii Three - nearly everything has already been sorted, shouldn't require too much extra to ensure consistent competence.

The concept in this thread is that there is no reason for having systems performing well below they're capable of, for want of some attention to detail. Something like the Kii Three is inherently capable of clean high volume, therefore is a better choice than a much more modest system which would have to be thoroughly re-engineered to deliver such.

 

[Cosmik]

But you don't even mention the various technologies that can be ranked in order of 'competence'. Passive vs. active; ported vs. unported; single driver vs. multiway; wax cylinder vs. CD etc.

In the car world you would be extolling the virtues of a mobility scooter, saying that it was very special to its own level of competence or some such.

 

[fas42]

Well, in one sense you're right - I particularly find satisfaction in having whatever device is at hand doing its job as well as possible - the pleasure of using a tool well made syndrome, something Amir relates to, in the stories of finding the right gizmo for doing something ... .

So, a mobility scooter could be well engineered and made - or OTOH, a poor specimen of the breed ... but as regards the analogy with the car world, a vehicle still has to perform the basic functions of a car: get the passengers to their destination comfortably, in a reasonable time frame.

I have been surprised by the level of information captured on primitive recordings - the best possible replay of them still manages to conjure up a satisfying experience; the way of doing that replay ideally would be that which is the best return on effort and money expended - a full DSP corrected, pure digital, active rig would be nice, so that all the T's are crossed, etc. But such is not essential, would be my point.

 

[Cosmik]

... a full DSP corrected, pure digital, active rig would be nice, so that all the T's are crossed, etc. But such is not essential, would be my point.

As a general point, one of audiophilia's mysteries to me, is that the above rig you mention costs no more to make than a lesser system. In fact it works out cheaper because it allows lower cost components to be used, particularly the speakers whose drivers are suddenly relieved from having to work outside their ideal zones. And it only takes a fraction of the time to develop.

People have not yet cottoned onto the fact that the perfect rig can be put together like Lego.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Modular rigs don't have cachet. They haven't been built by gurus with special vision. Owning one doesn't tell the world the owner has elevated sensibilities vs common folk. While some would appreciate high performing modest cost modular rigs there is always a market that will reject them for that very reason.

 

[RayDunzl]

They haven't been built by gurus with special vision.

 

[RayDunzl]

Here's my idea of system integrity, or, at least, one substantial measure of it.

From top, in-room (mono mic acoustically combined channels), left, and right channel source.



A little ragged up to 25Hz due to ambient noise, a little ragged at 40-50Hz due to room, the rest of it seems to have an appropriate level of integrity.

Red is the peak history, which is all you can look at on this. The black is real-time RTA, but the traces are not synchronized in time. I haven't figured out how to get that using three instances of REW.

 

[amirm]

Believe High Fidelity, the people doing these impressive demos of the Aries Cerat system, have a small number of their own videos on YouTube, recording show stuff. Volume for some reason is on the low side, which doesn't help, but this particular video probably does the best job of conveying a system getting things right. Suffice to say that all conventional audio setups I've come across are pretty hopeless on this sort of thing, completely fail to get the feeling of grandeur happening - but this shows a clean system doing it with ease ...

I had a 1+ hour private session in that room including hearing said pipe organs. That specific performance was exceptional. I have the same CD and cannot reproduce it on my home system.

 

[RayDunzl]

I have the same CD and cannot reproduce it on my home system.

Can you reproduce what's on the CD?

 

[amirm]

The CD plays if that is what you are asking. What are you asking Ray???

 

[RayDunzl]

Well, why does the same recording sound different on different systems?

Are they both "accurate"?

Is one fortuitously colored?

Your devices are of the finest kind. What's wrong?

Is it the room?

Harmonic content?

Distortion?

Sighted bias?

Thermionic glow?

Snarly cables?

Sorry, your comment (especially from you) piques my interest. I'm serious, here...

 

[Thomas savage]

They spike the canapés at those audio shows

 

[RayDunzl]

Hey!
Down in Joe's Garage
We didn't have no dope or LSD
But a coupla quartsa beer
Would fix it so the intonation
Would not offend yer ear
And the same old chords goin' over 'n' over
Became a symphony

Joe's Garage - Frank Zappa

YouTube...

 

[Thomas savage]

Hey!
Down in Joe's Garage
We didn't have no dope or LSD
But a coupla quartsa beer
Would fix it so the intonation
Would not offend yer ear
And the same old chords goin' over 'n' over
Became a symphony

Joe's Garage - Frank Zappa

YouTube...

Got to love Frank Zappa!

 

[RayDunzl]

That specific performance was exceptional. I have the same CD and cannot reproduce it on my home system.

What are you asking Ray???

I suppose what I am asking is

"What did the show system produce that you, at home, couldn't reproduce?"

 

[fas42]

I suppose what I am asking is

"What did the show system produce that you, at home, couldn't reproduce?"

I would expect the answer to be something along the lines of, an "intensity" hit that was completely clean in its impact ... this is something that is so, well, "special" when you hear it that it sticks in the memory banks. That's what I always work towards, getting a system to be able to deliver such. From experience, it's the absence of significant flaws in the sound that gets one there; so, the trick is to keep refining until you get the "hit" ...

 

[amirm]

Well, why does the same recording sound different on different systems?

Are they both "accurate"?

Is one fortuitously colored?

Your devices are of the finest kind. What's wrong?

Is it the room?

Harmonic content?

Distortion?

Sighted bias?

Thermionic glow?

Snarly cables?

Sorry, your comment (especially from you) piques my interest. I'm serious, here...

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.