Nigel, you're experiencing bursts of what I call "convincing sound" - and it's happening for certain types of recordings, including the older ones at the moment. But it fails for more recent stuff - this is when one has to dig deep and apply even more effort to sorting out system issues. Because, all those "poor" mixes can be brought to life - their nature is such that they stress the behavioural capabilities of a system very strongly, and expose every weakness of the replay chain. Modern music most certainly has good treble, but the mixing puts much greater strain on the resolving abilities of a system, and quite often the latter fail, badly.
Some of my most severe test CDs are recent music ones - I only bother to try them on for size when the system is working at a very high quality level, they would be impossible to listen to otherwise.
Some of my most severe test CDs are recent music ones - I only bother to try them on for size when the system is working at a very high quality level, they would be impossible to listen to otherwise.
The Magneplanars do suceed, no other speaker has. Not the Quad. My atempts are to make high end for beer budget. I am very close and Spendor has similar faults which pleases me. One thing I always said is I will never make a speaker. In the last year I made two and these are my first in my life. I wasn't wrong to be cautious. Making a speaker is more like taking up painting. Most of us will never have what it takes. Were they not my own I would have to say a poor attempt. None the less they have very special moments. I dare say the Wartburg also. It had 3 coils, I like that. The little wonder was exactly that as DKW.
I was told how our James Bonds got away from Tatra's. The Tatra was air cooled. Our agents found a long step hill in Praha or whatever. They then went as slow as possible. It would take some minutes for the Tatra to recover from seizing pistons allowing Mr Bond to wizz off at speed. Tatra accused VW of copying their design. Seems true. My old boss was connected to that at two levels. Mostly as an engineer but also.....
Last night I heard something unexspected. OK, I can not hear a box . I can hear the wall behind the speaker like it is the box. Logical and not too hard to work out. It's only when you build a baffle you start to hear the room. Mostly a positive experiance. As someone told me an OB drives the room better. I think it must be true.
I was told how our James Bonds got away from Tatra's. The Tatra was air cooled. Our agents found a long step hill in Praha or whatever. They then went as slow as possible. It would take some minutes for the Tatra to recover from seizing pistons allowing Mr Bond to wizz off at speed. Tatra accused VW of copying their design. Seems true. My old boss was connected to that at two levels. Mostly as an engineer but also.....
Last night I heard something unexspected. OK, I can not hear a box . I can hear the wall behind the speaker like it is the box. Logical and not too hard to work out. It's only when you build a baffle you start to hear the room. Mostly a positive experiance. As someone told me an OB drives the room better. I think it must be true.
Frank, I know what you are saying, but what bothers me and I think quite a few people beside m are your blanket statements regadring sources. I can easily agree that MOST hitherto poor recordings can be improved by a good system, but not all. It's as if you deny the existence of truly poor recordings, at least that's what your posts lead one to believe. There are sme truly unredeeable recordigs out there which sound poor no matter what, on a good system they are just a bit less dreadful, but still awful.
Much of the usic material from the 60ies and 70ies pop music were recorded under very poor conditions using dreadful technology. As an example, the Beach Boys' mega hit in
its time, "Barbara Ann" was recorded in a motel room God alone (if even He) knows using what, and it comes across as dull and with almost zero ambience. On a good system, these faults will only be more pronounced no matter what you do.
Clarity and definition in a system is a double edged sword. It will ruthlessly show up what is not good, just as it wiil make it possible to hear more and better what is good.
Much of the usic material from the 60ies and 70ies pop music were recorded under very poor conditions using dreadful technology. As an example, the Beach Boys' mega hit in
its time, "Barbara Ann" was recorded in a motel room God alone (if even He) knows using what, and it comes across as dull and with almost zero ambience. On a good system, these faults will only be more pronounced no matter what you do.
Clarity and definition in a system is a double edged sword. It will ruthlessly show up what is not good, just as it wiil make it possible to hear more and better what is good.
I think what happens is we make the poor recording as they would be on a car stereo. I am happy with that. The best analogy is if we blow a photo up we get problems. Often we can live with it. Grain can be nice. Poor focus can never be and I don't mean soft focus.
Solid core wire seems to make the best come forward. It is a trade off. One that seems better.
Solid core wire seems to make the best come forward. It is a trade off. One that seems better.
Dejan, I can appreciate how it must come across, that what I'm saying doesn't seem reasonable - but this is an understanding I have come to, as a result of experience, and experience only. I've gone through the cycle of having those "poorer" sorts of recordings, like the one you mention, coming across dreadfully - been there, done that. But I've broken through the quality barrier too many times to take much notice of a system giving a poor rendition of that type of material - it's a "More work to be done!" marker when I hear these come across badly.
I guess in the end it is only actually hearing what happens when the playback is working well enough, that will convince many people - the key is, that in spite of the fact that the recording is "poor", that all the ambient clues have still been captured, but are submerged under a combination of the recording's distortion, and the playback distortion. The goal is to absolutely minimise the critical playback distortion, then your brain only has to deal with the recording distortion, and, seemingly miraculously, the brain without conscious effort discards the recording's imperfections, latches onto the ambient cues that are there, and creates the illusion, in all its glory.
This has happened over and over and over again for me, to the point where I just cheerfully say, "There is no such thing as a bad recording!" - at times I've had my doubts, with an unknown "baddie", but in the end I have always got them across the line, by applying just a little bit more tweaking. I will stress that one may have to go to what many will see as silly levels of effort - but that is not the point: key is that if enough is done then the recording works - and that's all that matters. Over time, this will only improve ...
An analogy might be, a very nasty road full of vicious potholes; drive a 50's car over it at speed and it will be a disaster, the car will shake itself to bits, or the suspension will be ripped out. Fast forward 50 years, and a current, quality car will be quite reasonable in its ability to negotiate this obstacle course; put more effort in, have a very sophisticated computer controlled suspension very smartly deal with the ups and downs, and the occupants barely notice anything untoward. This is the sort of progression that can be made to occur with audio playback, at the subjective level.
I guess in the end it is only actually hearing what happens when the playback is working well enough, that will convince many people - the key is, that in spite of the fact that the recording is "poor", that all the ambient clues have still been captured, but are submerged under a combination of the recording's distortion, and the playback distortion. The goal is to absolutely minimise the critical playback distortion, then your brain only has to deal with the recording distortion, and, seemingly miraculously, the brain without conscious effort discards the recording's imperfections, latches onto the ambient cues that are there, and creates the illusion, in all its glory.
This has happened over and over and over again for me, to the point where I just cheerfully say, "There is no such thing as a bad recording!" - at times I've had my doubts, with an unknown "baddie", but in the end I have always got them across the line, by applying just a little bit more tweaking. I will stress that one may have to go to what many will see as silly levels of effort - but that is not the point: key is that if enough is done then the recording works - and that's all that matters. Over time, this will only improve ...
An analogy might be, a very nasty road full of vicious potholes; drive a 50's car over it at speed and it will be a disaster, the car will shake itself to bits, or the suspension will be ripped out. Fast forward 50 years, and a current, quality car will be quite reasonable in its ability to negotiate this obstacle course; put more effort in, have a very sophisticated computer controlled suspension very smartly deal with the ups and downs, and the occupants barely notice anything untoward. This is the sort of progression that can be made to occur with audio playback, at the subjective level.
Last edited:
Frank, we are definitely on the same page, there's no doubt of that. All I'm really saying is that there are recordings around which truly ARE poor no matter what you do. The best you can hope for is to make them at least listenable. On the other hand, with the same setup, recording you previously thought to be rather poor come out as actually not so poor at all, not like the best native recordings, but actually reasonably solid.
Let's put it this way - with crap, all you can do is to make crap pie, and I have been told it's still best avoided.
Let's put it this way - with crap, all you can do is to make crap pie, and I have been told it's still best avoided.
How recordings are perceived has much to do with the work the brain has to do to create the illusion you refer to. Some people are better able to filter out sources of annoyance that would drive others crazy.
In my experience engaging the sense of vision such as when watching a movie can act as a mask to faults which would become more noticeable if I closed my eyes and just listened.
I have some old 60's vinyl records that are pretty worn and noisy. I am familiar with all these tunes having listened to them many times over. I still find them listenable perhaps due to stimulus of my memory allowing me to tune into the spirit of the music and ignore the obvious faults. That depended on my being in reasonably good spirits in myself - not tired, stressed or in a bad temperament for whatever reason.
I don't drink alcohol now but did so in moderation in my younger days - I found that got in the way of my enjoyment of recorded music.
As a species humans have always been adaptive to changes in the natural environment in the long term. Does this sensitivity needed to survive affect how we react to changes in the short term. I believe it does.
Mjonah, by the same token, one's brain will percieve improvements in sound reproduction if they happen just as it will percieve sound degradation. A physically damaged EP, scratched, etc, will not be removed by any playback system no matter how good, for that you need special tools, like the SAE 5000 click removing box I used to have. However, a really good playback system will make those clicks and pops a bit more bearable, that's about it. You will hear them anyway, it's just that they might become slightly more bearable since everything else will be improved, they will sound less obtrusive by contrast with better rendered music, so to speak.
I'm sure people's brains work differently as to how well they do filter out the recordings' imperfections, I'm always interested as to whether other people hear the same things that I do when listening to optimised sound. And so far the result has been a thumbs up - other people do "get it" when the sound is in a good place ... very amusing, of course: so far the worst offenders, who miss it entirely, have been audiophiles,
- they're so obsessed with listening to some technical element of the sound that the fact that it just sounds good does not register, one iota, to them, .One of my biggest "victories" decades ago was my wife - I used Status Quo recordings to assess progress made, and she hated that "rubbishy noise". One day, I hit a superb sweet spot with system tuning, and my wife came in and said, "Wow, I love this group, full of energy, there's a real vibe going on - who are they ?!!" and I say, "Guess what ... " ...
Last edited:
You might like to note that what is being discussed is whether there is a uniformity in how people hear certain aspects in the sound - basically, I couldn't give a stuff whether people like yourself ever "get it", or experience better sound; those that do appreciate what's possible make talking about it worthwhile, and create hope that down the track there will be a lift in the general standard of audio replay - so that I can go to concerts and suchlike, without having my ears so savagely assaulted, as they so often are ..
Too right you have - it was really p!ssing me off, paying good money to see a show - and having to suffer bad sound for the duration. The pro audio crowd have to get their act together - they can get it right, I have heard superb sound from sound reinforcement setups - but the understanding of how to make it happen doesn't permeate that world, so somehow the message has to get out there ...
I'm sure people's brains work differently as to how well they do filter out the recordings' imperfections, I'm always interested as to whether other people hear the same things that I do when listening to optimised sound. And so far the result has been a thumbs up - other people do "get it" when the sound is in a good place ... very amusing, of course: so far the worst offenders, who miss it entirely, have been audiophiles,
My first audio DIY came through "High Fidelity Designs" A Wireless World Publication from 1974. The closing advice in the introduction was to "Enjoy the book-please do not lose sight of the objective. Music is for listening to, not for testing audio equipment. Do not allow the percentages to interfere with the Purcell". I think this supports your argument.
I'm sure people's brains work differently as to how well they do filter out the recordings' imperfections, I'm always interested as to whether other people hear the same things that I do when listening to optimised sound. And so far the result has been a thumbs up - other people do "get it" when the sound is in a good place ... very amusing, of course: so far the worst offenders, who miss it entirely, have been audiophiles,
One of my biggest "victories" decades ago was my wife - I used Status Quo recordings to assess progress made, and she hated that "rubbishy noise". One day, I hit a superb sweet spot with system tuning, and my wife came in and said, "Wow, I love this group, full of energy, there's a real vibe going on - who are they ?!!" and I say, "Guess what ... " ...
This leads to a male trait to which many wives can attest i.e. the response of their husband who is concentrating on another task. Whilst having been heard the husband has not listened and cannot remember a word of what has been said.
Perhaps men have an ability to switch off or render what we hear to a subliminal level in order to concentrate our thoughts. Perhaps as evidenced by your wife volunteering praise after your system tuning, women are perhaps more aware of their immediate environment while engaged in multiple activities.
I am interested in the points you are making. I believe the beauty lies in the ear of the beholder which can differ according to the time and place, source material or any other variable.
Last edited:
Not fussed - you gave me an opening to let off a bit of steam, I feel better now,
...
Yes , they absolutely KNOW ...
The tourists with their cell phones and heavy perfume tend to have many bad
encounters with the local Smoky mountain wildlife.
Do the animals sense fear - or a threat from them ?
I walk right on by ... they seem to not even notice me . Am I accepted ? Or
maybe I just don't smell (like a tourist)?
Yup , the Dogs have it , too . Wife is scared - they bark at her ... wag the tail for
the kids, and stay (the hell) away from me. They "psychoanalyzed" the whole family
in a single pass.
We should hire them to run the "show".
OS
I'm fortunate that my wife is very definite about it - literally five minutes ago she just about grabbed me by the throat, and said, "You get that better sound happening again, or else!!" - the house has been quiet for a bit, for a variety of reasons ...
A few times she has been quite disappointed - "You mean, that's as loud as it will go? I was trying to get more volume and nothing was happening ... "
Hehh ... sort of open plan space is how the house is, the kitchen cops it no matter where the sound is coming from ...
Trouble is, I can't just hook up any old thing - I'll hear it, and if it isn't good enough then it'll really bug me until I've got it sorted out - lots of time and energy spent fiddling and adjusting, something in short supply at the moment,.
Trouble is, I can't just hook up any old thing - I'll hear it, and if it isn't good enough then it'll really bug me until I've got it sorted out - lots of time and energy spent fiddling and adjusting, something in short supply at the moment,
.- Status
- Not open for further replies.