Is it a good idea to place in your listening room a set of high-Q resonators reasonably well-coupled to the sound field? I realise that some damping is applied when no pedals are pressed, but what will resonators do to your group delay?
How is the total group delay of a system distributed among preamps, processors, CD mastering, CD replay, amps, speakers? Every unit in the studio will add at least one LF rolloff via either a coupling cap or a DC servo. The speaker will probably add two poles unless it is IB. I suspect that equality of the dominant LF rolloff between stereo channels is far more important than the absolute value.
How is the total group delay of a system distributed among preamps, processors, CD mastering, CD replay, amps, speakers? Every unit in the studio will add at least one LF rolloff via either a coupling cap or a DC servo. The speaker will probably add two poles unless it is IB. I suspect that equality of the dominant LF rolloff between stereo channels is far more important than the absolute value.
So, one records direct to <your favorite media>, perhaps digital, perhaps not, then plays back direct *from* that source to the power amps... arguably the minimum group delay possible for recording and playback of 'live sounds'. Is the reduction or lack of *additional* group delay what accounts for what ( I at least ) hear as almost always a better 'sound' than otherwise copied or distributed recordings??
Also, my personal feeling and experience is that monitored live with mics always sounds the *best* of all electronically reproduced sound.
RNM, a major reason that ur piano sounds different than your stereo is that it *is* physically different as far as being a source? Hard to get around that...
The major problem in getting 'realism' into reproduced sound is the sampling method, and the inversion of that - that being the playback method.
This process is always by definition going to be lacking, and the entire process that we have at present is a large compromise that depends on providing cues of various sorts that permit us to 'suspend disbelief' so that the mind may be permitted to assume certain things and use experiential learning to mentally recreate and reconstruct a sense of reality that corresponds to what goes on in the real world. What we are talking about is merely how well or how many cues can be imparted, and what interferes with those that are - and what does not.
...my zen interpretation, may or may not reflect the views of others, the staff or management...
_-_-bear
Also, my personal feeling and experience is that monitored live with mics always sounds the *best* of all electronically reproduced sound.
RNM, a major reason that ur piano sounds different than your stereo is that it *is* physically different as far as being a source? Hard to get around that...
The major problem in getting 'realism' into reproduced sound is the sampling method, and the inversion of that - that being the playback method.
This process is always by definition going to be lacking, and the entire process that we have at present is a large compromise that depends on providing cues of various sorts that permit us to 'suspend disbelief' so that the mind may be permitted to assume certain things and use experiential learning to mentally recreate and reconstruct a sense of reality that corresponds to what goes on in the real world. What we are talking about is merely how well or how many cues can be imparted, and what interferes with those that are - and what does not.
...my zen interpretation, may or may not reflect the views of others, the staff or management...
_-_-bear
Last edited:
John, that is a rather intriguing statement. Are you implying that you don't design for neutrality, or for 'the absolute sound', per se'? Or, does experience tell you that those values are inherent in winning listening contests? I'm not trying to take a cheap shot here, I'm genuinely curious about what are your subjective performance goals, and especially about how you go about translating those subjective goals in to technical design choices. I'm not asking for the specific recipe to your 'secret sauce', but rather, what informed, and continues to inform, the creation of your recipe.
I suppose, another way of looking at my question is, what in your view distinghishes your methodology as a experienced high-end audio engineer from that of other types of experienced electronics engineers? For me, this touches the single most interesting question surrounding the commercial audio engineering industry, what elevates engineering science to the realm of engineering art?
Last edited:
Preferably to the kitchen, that's the secret behind the wife detecting changes in equipment.
Well, um, perhaps, but generating 2H is about the easiest thing to do in electronic amplification, particulary in tube circuits. What then, to make of designs by Krell, or Spectral, or Levinson, or any number of lessor known solid state vendors which feature vanishingly low 2H, and higher harmonics as well, yet are extremely well regarded subjectively, versus seemingly objectively equally performing products from a host of other vendors? Not even differing models with a given top vendor's stable are similarly regarded in subjective terms.
It seems that more is going on than simply manipulating 2H (yes, I suspect you were being a good bit facetious in that statement). I'm hoping that John's experience spanning high-end at Levinson, to mid-end at Parasound, to ultra-end at Constellation enables him to offer something approaching an definitive answer. Perhaps, I hope for too much, we shall see.
Last edited:
Always loved that anecdote. Used it in my classic Audiophile Pricetag piece which I just realized will be celebrating its 10th anniversary next month:
It's the same old story.
You've sacrificed, pinched your pennies and saved up for months. But it's been worth it and the time has finally come. You rush down to your local Radio Shack and moments later emerge the proud owner their best Gold Series interconnects.
You break a dozen traffic laws racing home. You hook 'em up, turn on the power, cue up your favorite recording, and with your hands still dripping with the sweat of anticipation, your heart sinks.
It's like listening to music through a pillow. Big, warm, fuzzy sound. ZERO clarity!
You give Radio Shack a call to see if they can offer some assistance but the guy just started working there and his last job was selling orthopedic shoes.
So you hop on the Internet and start poking around. Eventually you come across a lively discussion group bristling with experienced audiophiles. You post a message detailing your plight, desparately pleading for help.
Soon you get a reply. It reads:
Until you break the $300 per pair barrier, you probably will still have haze etc... The performance improves dramatically above this price point.
Your heart sinks still lower.
We know.
You'd love nothing more than to own a much higher priced pair of interconnects but let's face it, not all of us have the deep pockets to spend even dozens let alone hundreds of dollars on cables.
And with the uncertainty of war in the Middle East and major corporate scandals breaking every week turning the stock market inside out on top of a looming recession, it's not likely that a pay raise is in your future.
We hear ya, bro.
That's why the dedicated folks at Kludge Research, Inc. have spared no expense and invested countless hours in research and development to bring you what promises to be the most revolutionary audio product of the past century. And bring it to you at a price that even you can afford!
Introducing, the Audiophile Pricetag!
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The Audiophile Pricetag will literally transform your cheap or giveaway interconnects into sonic marvels costing thousands of times more!
The Audiophile Pricetag is no ordinary pricetag. It's hand-crafted from the finest materials available.
The heavy-gauge, 99.9999% pure cotton string utilizes a proprietary twisting method which provides a superior connection to your existing cable.
The manila card stock is made custom to our specifications from virgin stands of Douglas fir from the pacific northwest and is hand cut in our factory using techniques hundreds of years old with the price hand-written by one of our many craftspersons, signed and dated on the back of the tag.
Our patented hole reinforcement technology assures that your Audiophile Pricetag will last a lifetime, even under continuous use.
Best of all, the Audiophile Pricetag is being offered at the special introductory price of just $29.95!
Imagine getting the performance of a $5,000 cable for less than pennies on the dollar!
A bit tight on cash? No problem! Kludge Research, Inc. offers zero interest, six month financing. And if you act now, we'll defer your payments until January 2003!
And for the Do-It-Yourselfer, the Audiophile Pricetag is also available in kit form at the substantially reduced price of just $19.95!
Each kit comes with a pre-cut tag, hole reinforcer, string and a tube of glue. The 23 page instruction manual is clearly written and includes more than a dozen illustrations walking you step-by-step from preparation to installation.
Let's hear what just one of our many satisfied customers has to say about this revolutionary new technology:
I was skeptical at first. But that ended just a few measures into the first song when I realized that I'd soiled my pants! You should offer a diaper with this thing! It's THAT good! And if you don't believe me, just moments later my wife who has no interest at all in this audiophile stuff telephoned me from the neighbor's house three doors down and asked me if I'd changed something in my system!
You guys are great!
Baskin Ennison
Runamok, South Dakota
It really is THAT good. In our own tests, we've even used the Audiophile Pricetag with interconnects made from coat hangers and bailing wire with the same result!
Of course all great innovations have had their detractors and the Audiophile Pricetag is no exception. There have been a number of critics who have claimed that any two reasonably well designed pricetags will sound the same.
We disagree. But who are we to say? Try it for yourself risk-free for 30 days. If you don't agree that it transforms even the cheapest interconnect into an interconnect costing $5,000, return it for a full refund.
The Auidiophile Pricetag: You owe it to yourself.
The Audiophile Pricetag is a registered trademark of Kludge Research, Inc. Copyright 2002 Kludge Research, Inc., all rights reserved.
se
LOL, however, wife might strongly disagree on at least three counts after returning home :
1) where did you get the money from,
2) why did you spend it on a stupid cable, and,
3) I need new shoes and matching outfit.
At that point she will run out of the house and explore the limits of your credit card. You will loose 5K anyways, with only a piece of cardboard to show for it.
Cable stories never have happy endings.
1) where did you get the money from,
2) why did you spend it on a stupid cable, and,
3) I need new shoes and matching outfit.
At that point she will run out of the house and explore the limits of your credit card. You will loose 5K anyways, with only a piece of cardboard to show for it.
Cable stories never have happy endings.
You'll have to get in touch with Baskin. He liked his Audiophile Pricetag so much he bought the company.
se
It is my experience and most anyone I know that do recordings is that master recording sound is the most accurate. A part of the sound degradation in a playback system is due to the accumulated group delay... thru mixing and the proceesing of music et al especially noticed at the bass quality. Limited bandwidth of tube equipment caused the bass to be known as that tube bass sound character. [over and above thd/IM effects). We are making inroads to reduce it but not universally yet. More by accident via the better bass sound of extending the freq response to very low cutoffs or dc.
The speaker system has only one polar response output. Musical instruments each have a different radiation pattern that interacts with the room uniquely. I dont see that being over come any time soon. Its a major flaw of the limited number of channels and lack of polar response steering ability in the home. Never-the-less, speaker dynamic range or compression is also a large contributor to the lack of realism. MP3 just makes it all worse for realism -RNM
Last edited:
I've forgotten the name of the engineer that worked for Boulez in the halcyon days of IRCAM, but he took part in a rather wide-ranging panel discussion at an AES convention in LA (another participant was Wolfgang Klippel). This was several years ago.
He described Boulez's dismay hearing music reproduced from conventional box loudspeakers set around on stage with the musicians, reproducing the processed and previously recorded material of his pieces (Repons was one such elaborate work along these lines that was part of their road show; I heard it when they came to UCLA and staged it in the athletic pavilion).
The individual listened to Pierre's criticisms and huddled with his compatriots. They wound up making loudspeakers in the shape of regular dodecahedrons, with all pentagonal faces save the downward-facing one (which had the supporting stand attached) having a driver. Boulez was satisfied --- he thought these speakers sounded more like real instruments.
Brad
He described Boulez's dismay hearing music reproduced from conventional box loudspeakers set around on stage with the musicians, reproducing the processed and previously recorded material of his pieces (Repons was one such elaborate work along these lines that was part of their road show; I heard it when they came to UCLA and staged it in the athletic pavilion).
The individual listened to Pierre's criticisms and huddled with his compatriots. They wound up making loudspeakers in the shape of regular dodecahedrons, with all pentagonal faces save the downward-facing one (which had the supporting stand attached) having a driver. Boulez was satisfied --- he thought these speakers sounded more like real instruments.
Brad
Seems he thought the uni-directional character on a wide stage didnt sound accurate. At home, it might still be true - Bose story - but wall reflections do a lot of damage to the frequency response. Surround sound or multi-channel has some promise if redirected in its use.
When something doesnt sound right, we tend to dig out the thd/im/frequency response tests. if all is good/normal then we say the people hearing something a particular sound are crazy or worse. Instead we should find a test that does correlate. here is an example: A low pass filter (termnated into an R). Flat and low distortion. How can it sound like everyone who listens carefully, like the upper end is bleared and not clear? And if a high pass was added, the whole region near the crossover is not clear. We hear this all the time. Are they crazy becuase the tests we did doesnt show anything that could be audible? Or should we do another test.
Every filter has a Q and that means energy is stored... passive or active filters. If you do a time delay - waterfall - test on it, you see there is a correlation to what is being heard. The time of decay is long and it can obsure details in the region.
Perhaps speakers with fewer, carefully and widely spaced crossover points need to be used to help get us towards greater realism and accuracy. This is another example (besides cap DA) of how linear distortion SOUNDS non-linear. -RNM
Richard, I am not suggesting that the IRCAM speakers would be suitable for reproduction in rooms. Merely that, to mimic live instruments on stage, PB found them more suitable, and that this may have some bearing on the "argument from illusion" and the LIAR seeming-paradox.
Brad
- Status
- Not open for further replies.