A Zen of Audio

[fas42]

This flows on from the thread, http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/214725-silk-purse-project-musical-studio-monitor.html, and is a take off on Shaun's comment that I seem to be about "The Zen of Tweaking". So the changes are changing the "The" to an "A", because this is about my philosophy of what audio is all about, not what every else's should be. And it's now "Audio" and not "Tweaking" because it applies also to new designs: one of my projects was a chip amp incorporating all my ideas up to that point, and though it was in essential areas identical to all the others out there, it would appear quite bizarre in layout and construction to many.

So, initially at least, this thread is about a way of going about creating and modifying audio systems which I have developed over 25 years, and which is still evolving, which, for me, when everything falls into place creates immensely satisfying sound. The last comment in the old thread by DavidL was querying in some sense what my take on "hifi" was - a simple explanation is that "hifi" makes you aware of the process of sound reproduction: you hear the woofer, the tweeter working, you analyse whether the treble is harsh, airy, all the other adjectives; the machinery of the music making is very obvious, like being in the wrong position listening to a pipe organ, and hearing all the mechanical bits and pieces of the organ doing their thing, all too clearly. Whereas, "music reproduction" means that the only message registering in your brain is the sound event that was recorded in the musical track. The latter experience is what I'm after, that I have been pursuing for over 25 years, using an approach and philosophy that if followed carefully will in the end yield good results ...

Frank

 

[fas42]

terry's just replied on the other thread, I hope to keep the non-project patter solely here, so will respond as if he posted in this thread ...

Thanks for the good thoughts, terry, and your invitation, maybe some day ...

With regard to the HT, you do realise that standard studio monitors use the same amplifier setups within them as the Philips does? From an EE's point of view, electronically, there's no real difference between them except the monitors have extra protection circuits. And no-one laughs at a Mackie or Dynaudio in a studio, they go plenty loud enough to please most people. But, in standard form they are not capable of generating a "big" soundscape, hence designated near-field, etc. Thus, the project ...

With regard to bass, for me, it has to balance with the rest of the sound. The last high end beast that delivered that material in spades, heard a few weeks ago, had a total of 8 12" drivers facing me in dipole configuration, and playing a jazz track was ludicrously lopsided. No live jazz ensemble ever sounded like that, and that's what I base my opinion on. I want my bass to be sharp, tight, the kick in the chest variety, the sensation you get standing next to a real bass drum.

Cheers,
Frank

 

[bear]

here's the rub, Frank, it seems that you don't actually own any of the things you are talking about?? Or do you? Inquiring minds want to know!

Now, at one time, I was pretty darn broke. So, I modified stuff and built my own stuff out of other people's junk, garbage and throwaways... of course I did not at that time have as much information, knowledge or access to a mentor - the internet was not yet invented. Books were difficult to digest, being EE texts for the most part. It took me a long time to figure out all sorts of stuff, some of which is made excessively obscure for no apparent reason... yeah it is all there in the math and the texts but the *realizations* come from other places, mostly figuring it all out urself over time, and by doing.

Now we have things like DiyAudio and other great resources - look at John Broskie's site for example.

So, you could go from zero to 100 in almost no time at all.

That's what a lot of people here are doing or have done. Pretty much you have to brew it up yourself if you want seriously great results. I suggest you look at the F5 amplifier, and then at some of the "build" threads. Just to see the possibilites!

Its all well and good to do the best with whatever you happen to have in hand, but these days there are all sorts of parts and complete amps, PCBs and designs around, not to mention speaker designs and ideas... I think you are underestimating by an order or two of magnitude what is going on here and what is available right here and now.

The basic idea is that you might want to explore a bit more, poke around a bit, and perhaps update your ideas and notions in light of what you find?

Listen, I have never been to Australia, but I can imagine based on the population density that there isn't a critical mass in audio or pro audio happening - maybe some in the major cities - so it's sort of like working solo in a vacuum to a great extent.

Rejoice! You've walked into the biggest audio happening *ever* in the history of the world. Truly. Take advantage of it. I learn something new here almost every single day.

Otoh, if you have something different and special, go ahead and try to put that out there. But it's not enough to just talk about this or that, you'll need to get specific in some way before too long.

A side note, so far I am seeing that your point of reference, the way that your ideas are being framed may perhaps be indicating a certain naivete regarding the state-of-the-art and where the leading edge is compared to mid-level semi-pro gear and the like... the frame of reference is at least with regard to and in light of what the state-of-the-art is, and where the leading edge is currently even when discussing mid-level semi-pro gear. Fyi and all that...

Tally ho!

_-_-bear

 

[fas42]

Nice input, bear, thanks!

Yes, all the things I talk of indeed I own, have access to. There seems to a bizarre concept out there that if you can post a photo of something, somehow that makes it real, proves that what one is saying is the goods. Well, if someone wanted to fake it it would be drop dead easy to do so by grabbing a shot from somewhere obscure, or wandering around to someone who's got gear like it, photoshopping, etc, etc. Sounds like bloody hard work to me, but if a dog wants to fake being human on the Internet, the means are there ...

So, as regards the Behringer, I could post an image of the minute circuit board within, but I hear the company is a bit protective of its goods, so they might decide to give me a crack across the head about doing such. And I am not in the mood for playing those sort of games ...

With respect to normal DIY, I went through that eons ago, early 70's. Built massive enclosures for Goodman's Axioms, stereos from kits, tubed guitar amp for my brother, speakers to match, etc, fiddling with turntables. This was straight up and down DIY, typical for the time.

Slowed down, and then picked up speed in the mid 80's when CD turned up. Went for broke, and got the top of line Yamaha CD player of the time. This, in hindsight, was the smartest move I ever made, because it had enough intrinsic quality for a breakthrough, for me, to occur. I had got to a pretty savage level of tweaking because it kept paying dividends to try things, until one day, completely unexpectedly, a bit of magic happened. This was a level of sound quality that went beyond "hifi", it sounded like the real thing. Wow, I thought!! Trouble was, it was extremely fragile, the quality faded very rapidily for reasons I didn't understand. Now, this is a quality other people experience from time to time, and a very rare few more or less to order, but again with not all that much true understanding.

Australia has a thriving high end culture: last listen in a showroom was a full Gryphon electronics path talking to Wilson speakers: I can go up the road to another mob for Krell, Musical Fidelity, B&W, Meridian, etc. A couple of years back I belonged to the local audio club, did the rounds to member's homes with the intention of calibrating my understanding of what people were getting in their setups currently, easily a few million dollars worth of kit listened to in that period.

So I believe I have a fairly decent frame of reference from which to move forward ...

Otoh, if you have something different and special, go ahead and try to put that out there. But it's not enough to just talk about this or that, you'll need to get specific in some way before too long.

That's exactly the angle I'm coming from. But it's a message that only people who have already got it, get!! I learnt that, the hard way, on the other forum. A very small number knew precisely what I was talking about, but they were drowned out by the rest proclaiming that I was talking rubbish! Sometimes, you can only lose, no matter what! Ah, well ... .

Specifics? Can you be more specific ? A trite response is that I'm aiming for sound reproduction to sound like the real thing. And I know what the real thing is, I grab every opportunity to eavesdrop on live musical sound, not that which has been mangled by your typical PA monster, so I don't lose that perspective.

A quick and easy test for sound reproduction: wind up the volume to realistic levels, and then start to talk earnestly to a person standing next to you. A measure for quality is the number of seconds it takes before you or the other person runs to the volume control ...

Frank

 

[bear]

All fine Frank - your measure for quality is reasonable... but now you have to show how you or how to achieve that.

I have my methods... but it's ur show!

Doubt you can get there with store bought mini-monitors of any sort, but who knows?

I sure can not...

_-_-bear

 

[fas42]

The mini-monitors can get there, as the Philips HT has already done. In spite of what terry at one stage said, it is possible to raise the bar of performance of practically anything to quite dramatic levels, IF you have the right attitude to going about the exercise. To repeat, I've found the essential element IS the attitude, that's where the Zen comes in. You need to believe that the gear can perform that well, otherwise you'll pull back and go in another direction, just when you're starting to get somewhere. How many stories have I already noted here, on this forum for example, where people build, say, one speaker after another, after another. Each one does something well, other things not so well, none completely satisfy. Otherwise, why keep doing it? My approach would be, grab any of the literally hundreds of designs detailed in the threads here, doesn't really matter which one. Build it, listen to it ... why is it not working quite right? Start fiddling, keep fiddling, the key is to persist until it comes right, there's that good ol' Zen again! It's worked for me for 25 years, so, strangely enough, I believe it will work tomorrow as well ... !

One way of looking at the "problem" of sound reproduction is using simple dB maths. The speaker is yay sensitive, say 90dB; an amp produces 60W. This translates, for a single speaker to 108dB max SPL, at a metre. For stereo, this goes up to 114dB, the studio monitor manufacturers, naughty, naughty, all do this. Now that's pretty loud, good enough for orchestral from an audience position. And, surprise, surprise, that's what my Behringer is rated at. But an orchestral recording doesn't sound right on the monitor - a typical response would be, add a subwoofer. Well, doesn't work for me, I would get bulging bass but the rest of the audio spectrum still wouldn't improve.

So what's going on? The monitor should deliver the goods, but it ain't, so there's some screw loose. And here I draw upon my experience, which tells me that the number one culprit is the power supplies, that's going to get the "treatment". Until it's no longer a problem, but then it will be obvious that other things are also not quite right. And so the process continues ...

Frank

 

[fas42]

There's a marvellous thread in this forum, Sound Quality Vs. Measurements, which I'm sure contains somewhere in it every concept that I could add to this thread. If I were a real smarty pants, I could make every post nothing but a quote from that conversation. Which proves, but of course, that there is nothing new under the ...

For example, a couple of weeks back, there was a full on, back and forth on the significance of power supplies; dvv, here, http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/lounge/200865-sound-quality-vs-measurements-615.html#post3058529, expresses almost perfectly my point of view ...

Frank

 

[Pano]

There seems to a bizarre concept out there that if you can post a photo of something, somehow that makes it real, proves that what one is saying is the goods. Well, if someone wanted to fake it it would be drop dead easy to do so by grabbing a shot from somewhere obscure, or wandering around to someone who's got gear like it, photoshopping, etc, etc.

Perhaps you are a bit "Internet naive" but that's not likely to get very far. In fact folks have been busted for that on this very forum. It's not that hard to spot a fake, the members here are fairly savvy. Google images is a handy tool.

But that isn't really the issue. Prevaricating about the bush is. This is supposed to be a forum about doing and building things. Sure, there is more talk than action, but that's true offline as well. The trouble comes when a forum newb starts spouting all sorts of "revolutionary" new stuff, but never comes forward with any actual real work. It's hard to take that seriously. It all seems like so much hot air. Hot air we have in surplus.

Until we have something more than a nebulous philosophy from you, you should expect a great deal of cynicism. Shootz, even those who post real work have to run the gauntlet! The posting of vague ideas isn't likely to be met with much enthusiasm. It's a tough crowd here, but a smart one.

Brass tacks, as we say in America.

 

[fas42]

The only real work that is of any value is that which performs per the poster's "claims". And, the Raison d'etre for what I do is the quality of the sound, and no picture, etc, is going to indicate anything noteworthy there, it's just another round of pretty messy fiddling with parts, and other bits and pieces, hanging off gear. My god is the achievement of an audio goal, and being a neatness freak is well down the pecking order, until I get there.

The only thing that's going to "prove" anything is having something that can move around and do a convincing demo somewhere. And, guess what, I've been chasing the "dream" of creating a decent, transportable version of what I talk of for donkey's years, and I'm still not there yet !

THE biggest headache in pursuing what I'm after is that it is so fragile, at the moment, that the slightest problem anywhere knocks the stuffing out of it, for me at least! Simple shifting the stuff around is out of the question! That in part is what motivates me to do the studio monitor exercise: there you can have a pretty clear, before and after ...

That "Everything matters!" mantra I mentioned earlier is what always kneecaps the best intended show off of gear; and the more ambitious the components, the worse the problem gets. I've listened to too many pretty nothing demos to go through such an embarassment ...

The posting of vague ideas isn't likely to be met with much enthusiasm

The last thing my ideas are is vague. A space capsule has to be air tight, otherwise the people inside die: sort of getting some or even most of the leaks fixed is not going to be good enough. In the same way, a musically convincing playback will not occur until all the weaknesses in the audio system are plugged, otherwise my interest in listening will rapidly "die". How people go about plugging up the leaks doesn't matter, so long as they know they have to persist until all are fixed ...

Frank

 

[bear]

<snip>

One way of looking at the "problem" of sound reproduction is using simple dB maths. The speaker is yay sensitive, say 90dB; an amp produces 60W. This translates, for a single speaker to 108dB max SPL, at a metre. For stereo, this goes up to 114dB, the studio monitor manufacturers, naughty, naughty, all do this. Now that's pretty loud, good enough for orchestral from an audience position. And, surprise, surprise, that's what my Behringer is rated at. But an orchestral recording doesn't sound right on the monitor - a typical response would be, add a subwoofer. Well, doesn't work for me, I would get bulging bass but the rest of the audio spectrum still wouldn't improve.

So what's going on? The monitor should deliver the goods, but it ain't, so there's some screw loose. And here I draw upon my experience, which tells me that the number one culprit is the power supplies, that's going to get the "treatment". Until it's no longer a problem, but then it will be obvious that other things are also not quite right. And so the process continues ...

Frank

The monitor does not deliver the goods at high SPL. The measured distortion is way too high. You also have non-linear distortion products at high SPLs where those SPLs are near the limits for a given speaker system or driver.

For example this was a problem with John Dunlavy's speakers - they were designed for good phase response, good freq response flatness, and to be able to reproduce a credible square wave on axis mid-band. All things that are difficult to achieve and important to realistic sound reproduction. Problem was that he used a 1st order xover, so the distortion levels from his drivers, especially the tweeters were problematic as SPL rose in level.

These issues and problems do not yield to simple analysis nor simple solutions. The limitations are always present, and do not go away, even when the specific implementation is optimized.

You will always have a balance between positives and trade-offs.

The clever designer must pick and choose between them. The better sounding designs are the ones that have decided to trade-off those aspects that you as the listener find least objectionable vs. those that are absolute requirements.

There is just no simple or easy path.

_-_-bear

 

[fas42]

The monitor does not deliver the goods at high SPL. The measured distortion is way too high. You also have non-linear distortion products at high SPLs where those SPLs are near the limits for a given speaker system or driver.

...

There is just no simple or easy path.

_-_-bear

This is where I'm definitely going to get into trouble with a lot of the people here: I know, because it happened over and over again on the other forum ...

<really irk some people mode on>
Every experience I've had, with every driver I've had the pleasure of powering with my "improved" electronics has demonstrated, to me, over and over again, that the driver is not the limiting factor. Exhibit 1: my Philips HT, with miserable looking plastic desktop speakers that most PC music listeners would sneer at for placing besides the screen, 3" full range drivers, with piezo supertweeters. You know the style, it was used everywhere a few years ago for all the midfi gear. Now that the audio electronics in that machine is working properly, that driver has no trouble being driven hard, and never audibly compresses.

Yeeah, right, I can hear everywhere!! Well, I have a live Peter Green CD here which I know can sound superbly good on this machine, and this is what I took to check out the studio monitors. The Behringer was the best of the bunch, and did quite a reasonable job on the tracks, so was first pick for the project. Mackie H824s, in contrast were a real disappointment, very flat dynamics, imaging, tonality were woeful; even pushed hard into the red they never came to life, never sounded worth listening to ...

Huuhh?? Obviously the Mackie drivers are superior in every way to the HT throwaways, so why such a result? Well, from my point of view the much cleaner electronics path that the cheap drivers have make a huge difference to the audible result, the Mackie sound was crippled by its overcomplexity, and the relative poor, pro, source electronics.

To be fair to all the monitors I listened to, they all showed good sound consistency, the tonality at high SPLs matched that at much lower levels, remarkably well. Apart from some Tannoys, which completely fell to pieces when pushed - they appeared to be an excellent example of what you're talking about.

Frank

 

[fas42]

Fascinating how quickly some people become quite agitated when they are aware of someone veering off the well-worn, highly conventional tracks. Unless, of course, you are already acknowledged as an eccentric, etc, and have some street cred to your name, under your belt ...

Well, everyone has to start somewhere, so just call me a latecomer to the party. And I no longer have the energy, or interest in playing huffing and puffing games ...

Frank

 

[terry j]

terry's just replied on the other thread, I hope to keep the non-project patter solely here, so will respond as if he posted in this thread ...

Oh, you did see it, I just thought you ignored it. No biggie.

Thanks for the good thoughts, terry, and your invitation, maybe some day ...

Sure, maybe one day. No skin off my nose either way. I still doubt you have met me tho. Is there a pic of you somewhere? Perhaps on the introduce yourself section of that 'other forum'??

With regard to the HT, you do realise that standard studio monitors use the same amplifier setups within them as the Philips does? From an EE's point of view, electronically, there's no real difference between them except the monitors have extra protection circuits. And no-one laughs at a Mackie or Dynaudio in a studio, they go plenty loud enough to please most people. But, in standard form they are not capable of generating a "big" soundscape, hence designated near-field, etc. Thus, the project ...

I presume this is still answering me? Well, to be frank haha (I crack myself up sometimes) I don't give the slightest diddly twaddle to amps and the like. Got enough power to not clip? Thanks, I'll take it. I don't care what the name of the brand is so don't bother telling me...

In any case, I'd debate your insistence in equating non near field with spaciousness, or near field with 'no space'. (or soundscape, just re read your bit)

It's all to do with acoustics (reflections and stuff I mean), I have a BIG room yet had the computer in there as well for a while, those absolutely crappy $20 computer things from Big W type.

So very close 'speakers' (can't really call them speakers can we!) yet in a very large room, first reflections are way down both in time and amplitude...man, the space and ambience was astonishing.

You reduce everything to the twiddling of electronics. I've yet to see you look at anything else. That's ok BTW, we all concentrate on the things we know or think are the most important. Eg, I ignore the very things you concentrate on.

With regard to bass, for me, it has to balance with the rest of the sound. The last high end beast that delivered that material in spades, heard a few weeks ago, had a total of 8 12" drivers facing me in dipole configuration, and playing a jazz track was ludicrously lopsided. No live jazz ensemble ever sounded like that, and that's what I base my opinion on. I want my bass to be sharp, tight, the kick in the chest variety, the sensation you get standing next to a real bass drum.

Cheers,
Frank

Well, you did say (IIRC?) that you don't use measurements (FR etc), all you use is a multimeter (amp stuff). Maybe that system you heard was also very unbalanced in the bass, over bearing. Dunno.

I have four 18's, tho the bass is THERE it is not unbalanced. Want a kick in the chest? No problemo

You mentioned that some 'got it' on the other forum. Well, you think they did. How would you know? What you write is not exactly clear you know, doubt I am the only one to think that. But, it did contain a lot of flowery prose and mystical ramblings, so sure some others (who interpreted your jibber jabber god knows how) responded.

For all we know you wrote 'fish' they read 'fowl', both parties think they understood the other yet are talking on different worlds.

That is the essential weakness of audio forums ain't it, no one can actually hear the other system. At least on a photography forum I can post my picture!

So whilst it is indeed possible that those others did 'get it', I hope you can concede that indeed they may not have

Anyway, all I can see is another fifty thousand word essay on philosophy coming up with nothing other than your insistence that a phillips HTIAB can reproduce the full symphonic experience simply by twiddling electronics (nothing to do with drivers etc) yet is so innately unstable that you are forever 'losing that magic moment'.

Why is it that you think such an unstable system state is of worth to anyone here?

 

[fas42]

Is there a pic of you somewhere? Perhaps on the introduce yourself section of that 'other forum'??

I'm an ugly coot, and haven't much interest in photo type stuff, but one day I'm sure it'll pop out somewhere ..

In any case, I'd debate your insistence in equating non near field with spaciousness, or near field with 'no space'. (or soundscape, just re read your bit)

It's all to do with acoustics (reflections and stuff I mean), I have a BIG room yet had the computer in there as well for a while, those absolutely crappy $20 computer things from Big W type.

So very close 'speakers' (can't really call them speakers can we!) yet in a very large room, first reflections are way down both in time and amplitude...man, the space and ambience was astonishing.

Yes, of course you get space if the reproduced sound generates plenty of echo, but I'll talking about the sense of space caught in the recording. That live CD I took to audition monitors, recent, live Peter Green in Splinter was an excellent recording, in 2 stores I had staff grabbing me to ask what it was, one lot thanked me, saying, what a relief after having to put up with the usual rubbish! Yet, most monitors I listened to failed to get anywhere close to conveying what was on the recording.

You reduce everything to the twiddling of electronics. I've yet to see you look at anything else. That's ok BTW, we all concentrate on the things we know or think are the most important. Eg, I ignore the very things you concentrate on.

Simply, because that gives the greatest benefit - for me at least.

Well, you did say (IIRC?) that you don't use measurements (FR etc), all you use is a multimeter (amp stuff). Maybe that system you heard was also very unbalanced in the bass, over bearing. Dunno.

This was a Steinway Lyngdorf Model D. Has been raved about by some on the net, but on this occasion was way off the mark.

You mentioned that some 'got it' on the other forum. Well, you think they did. How would you know? What you write is not exactly clear you know, doubt I am the only one to think that. But, it did contain a lot of flowery prose and mystical ramblings, so sure some others (who interpreted your jibber jabber god knows how) responded.

For all we know you wrote 'fish' they read 'fowl', both parties think they understood the other yet are talking on different worlds.

That is the essential weakness of audio forums ain't it, no one can actually hear the other system. At least on a photography forum I can post my picture!

Agreed. The few who did tune into what I was saying were using language, ways of describing the sound they listened to which just rang true for me; I could understand what they were saying, and they appeared to follow my drift ...

Anyway, all I can see is another fifty thousand word essay on philosophy coming up with nothing other than your insistence that a phillips HTIAB can reproduce the full symphonic experience simply by twiddling electronics (nothing to do with drivers etc) yet is so innately unstable that you are forever 'losing that magic moment'.

Why is it that you think such an unstable system state is of worth to anyone here?

In the same way as if you're a winery, and one year you create a fabulous red: you're not quite sure what it was that made it all come together, but for the rest of your life you'll be chasing to repeat that happy "accident"!

Yes, the instability is the killer - aim high and it gets precarious. Which is why I'm going down the monitor route: much, much simpler electronics, much tighter control of key issues. I aim to create a giant killer which will be easy to cart around, makes it a lot easier to prove my point. It will still be dependent on the source quality, but should do well enough to convince ...

Frank

 

[bear]

In general:

Speakers and the space they are in need to be "matched".

Otherwise, results are going to be unpredictable.

_-_-bear

 

[JRKO]

from 2001 novel - The thing's hollow! It goes on forever, and... oh My God, it's full of.........wind apparently!

Your at it over here as well?!?!?!?! HTIAB and cheap speakers - wow what a combo lets tweak them! I bet you went down a storm on whatever forum hoofed you out the last time. For goodness sake build something like a chip amp and some Fonken's to have a real basis for judging sound

Take your awesome rig to the showroom with the 'Gryphon electronics path talking to Wilson speakers' and do an A/B comparison. Let us know your thoughts and what the sales guys say

Also if you belonged to an audio club a few years ago you must realise that you have absolutely NO idea how the systems sound now because your acoustic memory is faulty buy nature

 

[terry j]

from 2001 novel - The thing's hollow! It goes on forever, and... oh My God, it's full of.........wind apparently!

Yeah it does sadly. Go on and on I mean. Seriously, this is as far as it goes. We hear of the fantastic improvements that can be achieved (fix what is wrong...whoda thunk it?) but OTOH he cannot tell anyone what to do (no matter how many words) cause every system is different (whoda thunk that?)

That takes about ten pages btw.

Ask him how he can get the complete stereo image even if he is one inch away from his tweeter. Left, right, centre image the whole kaboodle. Well, he can't tell us how (see above) but he does have it.

Your at it over here as well?!?!?!?! HTIAB and cheap speakers - wow what a combo lets tweak them! I bet you went down a storm on whatever forum hoofed you out the last time.

They didn't hoof him out, they were amazingly tolerant. What they eventually did was simply quarantine him to his own thread basically. He had the habit of popping into ANY thread to repeat his mantra, got kinda annoying after the fiftieth time. I mean the 'message' was never different and as you might have already gleaned had little to no useful content ultimately.

Always breaking the laws of physics I might add.

I am amazed at his stamina in the face of obvious resistance to the nature of his posts. That he maintains a good humour is laudable.

Frank, if you are trying to find an audience, would not something like audiogon (if you are after suitable forum suggestions) be a better type place?? TBH I don't know which are the woolly forums, I never frequent them. Google Peter Belt and mingpo disks etc and find out what forums embrace that stuff, you might fit in there better.

All lofty talk, no way of validating except by 'the most exquisite and infallible measuring devices in the known universe..the human ear' and a rejection of measurements and the like, think you'd slot right in.

WHY would a system change constantly?? You talk about ensuring the basics are right, so I'd imagine it is not a loose or poor electrical connection that is faulty, so why would the character change ll the time?? And NOT be measurable?

Of course, it is not your ears or your emotional state at the time is it.

 

[fas42]

Frank, if you are trying to find an audience, would not something like audiogon (if you are after suitable forum suggestions) be a better type place?? TBH I don't know which are the woolly forums, I never frequent them. Google Peter Belt and mingpo disks etc and find out what forums embrace that stuff, you might fit in there better.

Terry, apart from the intro which was one of the usual old type posts you did your points are worth answering.

I have already tried audiogon, there was mild interest but it soon faded: we are talking "bling" land there of course ...

All lofty talk, no way of validating except by 'the most exquisite and infallible measuring devices in the known universe..the human ear' and a rejection of measurements and the like, think you'd slot right in.

Why is the thread "Sound Quality Vs. Measurements" here going like a rocket, a ferocious number of posts? Because, this is the great apparent dilemma of audio, people know that conventional measurements are almost totally useless in determining whether a system is worth listening to, long term. Two solutions, work out better ways of measuring, or use your ears to do the job. In the interim, I go with the latter ...

WHY would a system change constantly?? You talk about ensuring the basics are right, so I'd imagine it is not a loose or poor electrical connection that is faulty, so why would the character change ll the time?? And NOT be measurable?

Of course, it is not your ears or your emotional state at the time is it.

Because, firstly the hearing system is very sensitive, and is able to pick up subtle problems with the sound. A system changes constantly because it being battered by interference via the mains, radio frequency stuff from mobile phones and such, and is in the process of warming up and stabilising every time you switch it on from cold. These are all changes which the ear can pick up, but are hard to measure using conventional techniques.

Take digital TV: and a normal SD broadcast. Go up close to the screen, it's a bloody mess, the compression artifacts are constantly jiggling, the colour pixelates every which way in a mad dance, you would get a headache quickly if you kept watching in this way. Yet, same screen, same distance, put on a top notch Blu-Ray disc and marvel at the quality difference - you can see the details of a person's head in the crowd clear as a bell. That to me is the difference between normal stereo and what you can achieve if you go the extra yards, the contrast is that great ...

Frank

 

[fas42]

In general:

Speakers and the space they are in need to be "matched".

Otherwise, results are going to be unpredictable.

_-_-bear

That's the conventional wisdom, bear, but I don't buy it. Yes, the smoothness of bass response will likely suffer but that's all. Take a piano, a real piano: stick it in a tiny room, play it, then drag it out into a huge auditorium. Will the sound quality, its tonality radically change? Will someone who knows pianos no longer recognise, accept the Steinway in one place versus the other.

To me, that's what getting a sound system right is all about ...

Frank

 

[fas42]

BTW, for anyone interested, I'm kicking the The silk purse project: a musical studio monitor ... thread along, as Part 2, in my blog. That seems to a nicer area to hang out ...

Frank