Another thing I learned here is that it is extremely hard to get people to read papers and links, if their world view depends on not reading it.
jan
Right on, Jan.
I read very carefully that text on capacitors by Richard Marsh and Walt Jung. I don't mind admitting that on some points it flew staright in my face, but it was in my view so thoroughly researched and documented that it was rather easy to get me to change some things according to their findings.
Perhaps people are afraid that they might get caught out with some theories they have been promoting. But it doesn't have to be like that. Your little chat with Jan Lohstroh left me with a deep feeling of satisfaction, because ever since reading it in 1973, I wondered what ahppened to the other man in the Dynamic Duo. Otala I knew about in general terms, but Lohstroh - nada. It really felt GOOD to get a sense of the man, who turns out to be more than one would expect.
Now, if that isn't good news, I don't know what is. For me, at least.
Hi,
So, you don't remember what a Steinway piano sounds like, you won't recognize a Boesendorfer piano either?
I do, even when it's 20 years ago.
Now, minor tweaks of a circuit that's quite a different kettle of fish. That's difficult to do going from memory only.
But then you can help your memory by taking notes, making recordings, whatever works.
Heck, there used to be a time that I could give a quite accurate description of what a circuit would sound like just by looking at the diagram...
Pretty sure I wasn't the only one either.
Too old for that now.
Memory requires training, if you're passionately involved in something then that often sharpens the senses.
But sure, generalizing is easy enough to do.
Cheers,
So, you don't remember what a Steinway piano sounds like, you won't recognize a Boesendorfer piano either?
I do, even when it's 20 years ago.
Now, minor tweaks of a circuit that's quite a different kettle of fish. That's difficult to do going from memory only.
But then you can help your memory by taking notes, making recordings, whatever works.
Heck, there used to be a time that I could give a quite accurate description of what a circuit would sound like just by looking at the diagram...
Pretty sure I wasn't the only one either.
Too old for that now.
Memory requires training, if you're passionately involved in something then that often sharpens the senses.
But sure, generalizing is easy enough to do.
Cheers,
Last edited:
The most effective technique I've found is to listen to distortion - I completely ignore what the system is doing right, I'm watching out for what it's doing wrong - pretty easy for a normal system: wind up the volume a touch, and bursts of distortion pop out all over the place - you listen intently to the "quality", the nature and the style of that distortion, the auditory signature of what is going wrong - and base your next move on that information ... it's like having a very high resolution storage 'scope,In a similar vein, I try to work from memories of what a real iive instrument sounds like.
I do get your point though. (Which I think is once again deliberately misread...)
Best,
, you're mentally trapping the misbehaviour, you're "measuring" the flaws ...
Might just add, when I listen to a system critically I'm listening for, trying to find distortion - I'm diving mentally behind the curtain of the obvious sounds, the direct feed of the music, to the background murmurings - are they appropriate to the recording, or are they are a jarring clash? The latter always means the replay system is misbehaving, IME - work to be done!
IF, I can't detect any misbehaviour even when I strongly focus in this fashion then the system is up to scratch - I can relax, the system is over the hurdle of the required quality to be convincing ...
IF, I can't detect any misbehaviour even when I strongly focus in this fashion then the system is up to scratch - I can relax, the system is over the hurdle of the required quality to be convincing ...
Last edited:
our job/hobby is to create systems to replay this art with the ultimate fidelity and minimum added noise etc.
Especially low THD.....
Here is a "LOGIC" question for some to think about... (Assume you can understand only if your IQ is 130+. If not ignore it):
I don't think recording can capture the "art" in live sound perfectly. Recording could be considered an Art because in some situations music IS created/added during recording (compression could be an example?). Worse situation is during reproduction. There is no way, repeat, NO WAY you can reproduce the live sound. Especially with stereo system, and cheap system. So the question is, what are you designing for??? Illusion? What illusion???
Scientific consensus?
Few days ago I had a dream. In my dream I heard a sound that I haven't heard for a long time. When I woke up, I thought about the dream, about the way our brain stores auditory information...
Reading about brain, and about Scientists/Neurologists who work on understanding the brain, I always thought how little they know...
Disagree. Subjectively, it's possible to recreate the energy, the intensity of the real thing without too much difficulty - often, relatively minor flaws degrade the sound, to give it an artificial, unpleasant patina; these obstacles need to be overcome, one by one - then out pops satisfying sound.
An interesting example right now: we have a decent Yamaha electronic keyboard, with good quality acoustic piano samples built in - digital tracks played back, via a DAC, through ordinary amp, and speakers, built in. From cold, that piano sound is dreadful: tinny, electronic, a million miles from sounding like a piano; however, without doing a single thing to the internals, I've worked out a combination of procedure and setup to bring the sound up to full steam; running at full volume the sound of an acoustic piano thunders through the house, easily heard outside - would fool most casual listeners. Live sound is being reproduced, with no audiophile shenanigans - a satisfying illusion is happening, and that's the point ...
Last edited:
Hi,
Preceded by lightening bolts or....?
Cheers,
Preceded by lightening bolts or....?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Cheers,
Well ... poetic licence, maybe! We all should have some sense of the power and richness of the sound of an acoustic piano being given a good workout, there is a raw intensity to the sound when you're very close, and vast torrents of notes are rippling forth - well, the Yamaha is capable of doing this quite nicely, it completely overpowers the room acoustically where it's sitting - just what you want a decent audio system to able to do ...
Yes I like audio-food analogy. As a cook/chef it is vital to understand what we as a person and majority as a market like in food. It's talent.
But about high-end, I don't think it is moving towards pinnacle. Both consumers and producers have no idea what they supposed to look for.
There are many variables, and producers are just taking any arbitrary variable to improve using money.
As a consumer, I think we should have a "standard" of a good sound regardless of price. It's difficult to define but I know what I'm looking for, I have "standard". The closest view/opinion I can find is regarding voice/midrange: if the voice is wrong, forget the other qualities.
Worked extensively on communication equipment and noise cancelling stuff...the listening is analytical not art...including some very interesting listening tests...
Sorry if I seem rather joyless (lol) but as said in audio reproduction I still think the term 'art' is misused, it is used more often to give the illusion of some guru designing by ear only, like some craftsman making an instrument and creating its tone and sound, in audio the sound has already been created by the artists, our job/hobby is to create systems to replay this art with the ultimate fidelity and minimum added noise etc.
Especially low THD.....
By art I mean we all start with an informed idea and a blank page. Then we create.
Another observation I got from this (and other) threads is that people who state 'I hear what I hear' are totally sincere. That took me some time to accept. If you learn about perception and all it means for how we form opinions and decisions, it's hard to accept that the other guy 'doesn't get it' - it becomes so obvious at some point.
But alternatively, if you are not really interested in the ins and outs of perception, it is very hard to accept that what you hear is not what's out there. It is mentally almost impossible to 'get' that unless you understand totally how perception works.
Jan
If you have ever worked with musicians, trying to extract what they want to hear is near impossible. If you play an instrument, you know a great one disappears. you are no longer fighting it or thinking about it. But the kicker is, take a fender sratocaster and bassman amp for instance, what worked for Jimi Hendrix would not work for Stevie Ray Vaughn.
I find it odd audio designers talk like their interpretation is the end all. To give you a commercial example: 20 + year old Dumble amps are fetching $70,000 these days. He, Dumble, would work with the guitarist and tune each one individually to playing style etc. Now there are many guitar amps out there but these (Dumbles ) go for a lot. How many 20 - 30 year old audio components get bought immediately for that much?
Maybe this is harder to achieve in high end audio because the equipment has to "disappear" to a greater number of people. Or just maybe we have been blessed with people like Howard Dumble and John Curl who have that magic, regardless of what you think of their methods and thinking.
I find it odd audio designers talk like their interpretation is the end all. To give you a commercial example: 20 + year old Dumble amps are fetching $70,000 these days. He, Dumble, would work with the guitarist and tune each one individually to playing style etc. Now there are many guitar amps out there but these (Dumbles ) go for a lot. How many 20 - 30 year old audio components get bought immediately for that much?
Maybe this is harder to achieve in high end audio because the equipment has to "disappear" to a greater number of people. Or just maybe we have been blessed with people like Howard Dumble and John Curl who have that magic, regardless of what you think of their methods and thinking.
Last edited:
And THAT'S the whole point. Audio is supposed to fun; if it isn't, etither you have a terrible system, or you picked the wrong hobby.
Just let me hear "Walkning On Sunshine" and my heart will sing no matter what it's being played on. Or SDire Strait's instrumental "Local hero", never fails.
What I find remarkable is that so many people have tremendous tolerance for intermodulation distortion, perhaps because they expect it to be part of the package. I gave away live shows years ago, because of the terrible average standard of the sound reinforcement systems - I have little interest in paying for the "privilege" of suffering through an assault of poor quality sound for a couple of hours, every crescendo like the dentist straying a touch too close to a nerve while drilling, and when the chorus comes in the cacophany, the jarring mess of sound that results is like a long headache.
I guess if "professionals" see that as being competent, because they can't hear all the problems, then there is little that will be changed in the near future ...
I guess if "professionals" see that as being competent, because they can't hear all the problems, then there is little that will be changed in the near future ...
Good morning Columbus.
But seriously, we've been over that aspect several times by now, look it up in the log.
I disagree there is no way to recreate live sound. Assuming the recording has captured it as faithfully as it could, all you need is a good CD or TT+cartridge, a good amplifier with enough power to push you speakers to 114 dB SPL in peaks and , obviously, speakers which are efficient enough to swing it.
In my case, my speakers are relatively efficient at 92 dB/2.83V/1m and one of my amps is rated at 180W/8 Ohms, which works out to 22 dBW. Thus, theoretically, I could attain (92 + 22) 114 dB SPL at 1 m. I say theoretically becase the speaker's power use is not exactly linear and additional losses will happen at high power levels, but the amp will not clip at exactly 180W, rather it will start to be stressed as 210 W.
While not perfect, this will demonstrate awesome dynamics if required, but much more important, it will stay clean up to uncomfortably high SPLs. But you'd be surprised at what can be heard from a Decca Phase 4 stereo LP when the volume is adjusted to put you in say 8th row of seats. Even with my humble TT (Dual CS604) and cartridge (Ortofon LM20).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.