My approach is relatively different from how most address the business of getting good sound, and for me that's key to success. The most important "tool", I believe, is the attitude, the mindset you take to the process ...
Let's say you put on a difficult recording: it doesn't sound too good - most would say, well, that's a bad recording, not much you can do about it - however, I know, because I've experienced it on at least one occasion, that the particular recording in fact can sound extremely good, very enjoyable. Therefore, for me, there's a problem with the system, that's the beginning and end of it, irrespective of the nametags on the equipment or the cost of it, or its reputation.
So, next step is to track down the problem; there may be many or only one, but there is definitely a problem. It could be caused by a myriad of things: poor connections, poor power supplies, affected by vibration, affected by mains power quality, affected by RF interference - there are a whole host of culprits. One by one I eliminate each suspect as being responsible, by the sorts of techniques that everyone uses in their tweaking, until I get the sound I'm after from the "poor" recording -- I know it's there, because it occurred on, at least, that one occasion, 😉.
I've done this a number of times, on completely different equipment, and each time the "signature" of the recording comes through in the end, you hear what was put on the recording, not what your system does to "spice it up". At times I'm amazed what expensive, conventional systems do to albums, they're almost unrecognisable to me; a layer of sludge and veiling descends upon the sound because of the added distortion of the playback machinery ...
Last edited:
Ahhh... I was talking about what can give enjoyment (the bass) and you were talking about what can destroy the enjoyment (the faulty treble) 😀
I use "audiophile" parts, I have access to "best" DIY amps, I simulate and sometimes measure too, I build my own speakers (even amps) and on top of that, like you, I think tweaking (by ears) is very important. So may be that is the reason why I don't see many "problems". Because I try to improve, not to fix.
About treble, well, like mentioned in my previous posts, I like my tweeters to be smooth up to at least 40kHz (don't ask me where the number came from) and I like the amp to be perfect up to MHz region. And I don't like big dome tweeters (1").
But again, speaker is important. What can you do with electronics tweaking if the music produces high spl midrange that may bleed your ears with average speakers? This is what I like with my speaker, the musician can throw anything and my speaker will still "pass" the music. Whatever the music/recording, as long as it is from a great musicians or from a successful albums, it must sound good!
I don't know what you mean here, picowall. My number has nothing to do with Nyquist idea regarding sampling rate or anything. My number came from simple experience. Tweeters with such feature just happen to be my favorite, soundwise. Just a coincident thing, not science from my part 😱
I guess that with the Red book standard you wouldn't notice the difference 🙄
The ( new) Blu Ray standard sets the low pass at 40 KHz
My savaged 16Ω mylar dome with exp trumpet wouldn't care
Being difficult to make 'em reproduce above 18 KHz
Numbers guessed 😛😛😱😱
The ( new) Blu Ray standard sets the low pass at 40 KHz
My savaged 16Ω mylar dome with exp trumpet wouldn't care
Being difficult to make 'em reproduce above 18 KHz
Numbers guessed 😛😛😱😱
But this is really no different from saying "I don't suffer from expectation bias, and I tell you, my system is better at re-constituting the real thing from a bad recording than your system". I have certainly enjoyed recordings in the past played on very inferior equipment, and it was, of course, 'all in the mind'. Finding a recording enjoyable on one occasion does not mean it had anything to do with the equipment. Nor does finding it enjoyable on every occasion: I think that if you feel that you, alone, have found the secret alchemy that re-constitutes reality from bad recordings, you may persuade yourself that it works every time.
Are we talking about strictly nonlinear distortions, or linear? People make a distinction between the two, but as long as there's a real room interacting with the speakers, you're going to get 'echoes' mixing with the direct sound. Real music is not a single sine wave, so for every frequency component in the recording you hear directly, you're also hearing frequency components that weren't in the original recording at that moment and not necessarily harmonically related - which is a pretty good definition of distortion. In the world of frequency domain testing, the walls' 'echoes' apparently just give rise to amplitude and phase changes. With real music, they constitute distortion, it seems to me.
One thing I do know,
Drive a top flight car and compare it to another of the same "Value"..they are different..drive a family saloon and compare with the same Value..they are very different.
"High end" systems are like anything else..You can choose what you like from the middle range and compare..You can choose what you like from different makes of Super Fi and the difference is a pronounced..so if the Hi end is as variable as the low end what are we comparing? I thought it was supposed to be this is closer to reality than that...If Super Fi is as variable at the top end what are we comparing it against?
Take a Super Fi amp and just change either the source or speakers and we find that the "preferred amp" is now not as "Preferred" and the lesser contender is now the preferred amp..
Are we listening to the system...not the recording
I also think we like "Nice" things..to this end the visual impact has a part to play..who would buy a super car that looked like an escort? Even if it could do 200MPH..why because it doesn't impress the company we keep..
Who would buy a motor cycle that looked like a penny farthing?😀
Listen in a HIFI convention to the talk...Oh what system do you have <<<then the drone of all the boutique names like clothing manufacturers..
And Oh I like the "Read flavour of the month super fi component" that is then not talked about when it slips from fashion..
Oh my amp has Audio Note Silver in oil caps..and its got<<<drone..😀
Sounds like I have a Ferrari Oh but mine has the latest factory mods..
None of this is new...now why would someone move on with any Tweak or up grade...try going into a top end Super Fi studio and saying I have a 1970's super Fi and watch the response..
The DIY community is doing a brilliant job...High end DIY<<nobody builds to have a mediocre system what would be the point..
How many times do we see..lets have a look inside..lift the bonnet has it got nitrous injection...are we comparing what we have with what others have built?
Remember most of the time we can't hear what it sounds like..
Look at amps like Ongaku whats the appeal is it the sound or the 211 tube?
I think part of the Tweak in DIY audio is the challenge<<<I could do better than this...as your learn more you become dissatisfied with what you have now..why because you could do no better at that time..
Regards
M. Gregg
Drive a top flight car and compare it to another of the same "Value"..they are different..drive a family saloon and compare with the same Value..they are very different.
"High end" systems are like anything else..You can choose what you like from the middle range and compare..You can choose what you like from different makes of Super Fi and the difference is a pronounced..so if the Hi end is as variable as the low end what are we comparing? I thought it was supposed to be this is closer to reality than that...If Super Fi is as variable at the top end what are we comparing it against?
Take a Super Fi amp and just change either the source or speakers and we find that the "preferred amp" is now not as "Preferred" and the lesser contender is now the preferred amp..
Are we listening to the system...not the recording
I also think we like "Nice" things..to this end the visual impact has a part to play..who would buy a super car that looked like an escort? Even if it could do 200MPH..why because it doesn't impress the company we keep..
Who would buy a motor cycle that looked like a penny farthing?😀
Listen in a HIFI convention to the talk...Oh what system do you have <<<then the drone of all the boutique names like clothing manufacturers..
And Oh I like the "Read flavour of the month super fi component" that is then not talked about when it slips from fashion..
Oh my amp has Audio Note Silver in oil caps..and its got<<<drone..😀
Sounds like I have a Ferrari Oh but mine has the latest factory mods..
None of this is new...now why would someone move on with any Tweak or up grade...try going into a top end Super Fi studio and saying I have a 1970's super Fi and watch the response..
The DIY community is doing a brilliant job...High end DIY<<nobody builds to have a mediocre system what would be the point..
How many times do we see..lets have a look inside..lift the bonnet has it got nitrous injection...are we comparing what we have with what others have built?
Remember most of the time we can't hear what it sounds like..
Look at amps like Ongaku whats the appeal is it the sound or the 211 tube?
I think part of the Tweak in DIY audio is the challenge<<<I could do better than this...as your learn more you become dissatisfied with what you have now..why because you could do no better at that time..
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
I'm explaining a process for optimising a system, and that having a certain attitude for approaching the business of improving its performance is crucial. If one starts with the belief that certain recordings are poor, then to some degree one is immediately kneecapping the possibility of making progress.
An analogy would be to say that some roads are always uncomfortable to drive down - no matter how much a car's suspension is improved or refined, that road will always be unpleasant, and one shouldn't think of trying to overcome that, because such a thing has been deemed to be impossible ....
An analogy would be to say that some roads are always uncomfortable to drive down - no matter how much a car's suspension is improved or refined, that road will always be unpleasant, and one shouldn't think of trying to overcome that, because such a thing has been deemed to be impossible ....
Non-linear.
Linear distortions I've found not to be a problem, nor are echoes. This is apparently because the ear/brain is very clever and relaxed at sorting what's going on when amplitude and phase variations, and reflections are part of the picture. The non-linear components are comparatively difficult, and stressful for the mind to filter out, and we get listening fatigue ...
From the point of view of constant tweaking,,
I'm not saying this is so...however..
There is mention or fable call it what you will that a system ages..
solder joints get older..cables and connections get tarnished..
Do you ever unplug an amp and plug it back into system and think something has changed? or unplugged tubes and put them back again..
Many audiophiles think components burn in..now if and it is an if this was true..then perhaps there would be a formula for a system to sound good after burn in<<<of course this is a fallacy like everything else..It might be possible to stumble on this by accident..
Because if it was true..then the sound of a new system would not be the same after a few years of use..this would mean that tweaking a system to sound good at the start will not last..only if you could know how the amp would sound after aging and tweak at the start so its sound would end up with the desired result would the tweaking work..
Now we all know that things like contact cleaners and the like have no effect if they did then the system could never be stable from a sound point of view...changes in ambient temp are not permanent but aging would be? If you bias something and the sound changed during burn in so you had to rebias etc..This is not engineering its fable. We are back to blue tack under components etc
Of course tweaking a cross over with new speakers so it sounds good <<would you have to do it again after some run in time?
Regards
M. Gregg
I'm not saying this is so...however..
There is mention or fable call it what you will that a system ages..
solder joints get older..cables and connections get tarnished..
Do you ever unplug an amp and plug it back into system and think something has changed? or unplugged tubes and put them back again..
Many audiophiles think components burn in..now if and it is an if this was true..then perhaps there would be a formula for a system to sound good after burn in<<<of course this is a fallacy like everything else..It might be possible to stumble on this by accident..
Because if it was true..then the sound of a new system would not be the same after a few years of use..this would mean that tweaking a system to sound good at the start will not last..only if you could know how the amp would sound after aging and tweak at the start so its sound would end up with the desired result would the tweaking work..
Now we all know that things like contact cleaners and the like have no effect if they did then the system could never be stable from a sound point of view...changes in ambient temp are not permanent but aging would be? If you bias something and the sound changed during burn in so you had to rebias etc..This is not engineering its fable. We are back to blue tack under components etc
Of course tweaking a cross over with new speakers so it sounds good <<would you have to do it again after some run in time?
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
The other thing,
Are the tweaks talked about changes of value of a component or changing type of component with the same value? Because you have to accept if you are tweaking and you can hear a difference that the tweak is having an audiable effect..Its a bit like saying I can hear a difference if I mount my CD player on spikes or change the feet..(many will argue that the electrical characteristics have not changed) so there can be no difference..
I tried a silver cable once with polyester dielectric it sounded awful. Sorry I digress 😀
I suppose its a bit like saying you must put capacitors across rectifier diodes to remove noise..and then saying but if you use soft fast recovery or an tube rec you won't hear it... 😀
Fun link..(Someone else's ideas).
http://www.nutshellhifi.com/triode4.html
Regards
M. Gregg
Are the tweaks talked about changes of value of a component or changing type of component with the same value? Because you have to accept if you are tweaking and you can hear a difference that the tweak is having an audiable effect..Its a bit like saying I can hear a difference if I mount my CD player on spikes or change the feet..(many will argue that the electrical characteristics have not changed) so there can be no difference..
I tried a silver cable once with polyester dielectric it sounded awful. Sorry I digress 😀
I suppose its a bit like saying you must put capacitors across rectifier diodes to remove noise..and then saying but if you use soft fast recovery or an tube rec you won't hear it... 😀
Fun link..(Someone else's ideas).
http://www.nutshellhifi.com/triode4.html
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
I consider tweaking to be a change of value, measurable, aspect and not the brand.
Tweaking as I refer to it means that everything is fair game: if I simply plonk standard components down somewhere convenient, connect together using cables supplied and switch on then that is no tweaking; as soon as I adjust or alter anything in an attempt to improve the sound then that's tweaking. At the usual understood level it does mean changing parts, but this is relatively ineffectual; much more influential is re-engineering weak areas of the setup, sorting out interference behaviours, stabilising poor connections, circuit element positioning, and speaker integrity and movement. Everything matters, the one thing you don't do will undermine, limit the effectiveness of all the other effort put into the exercise...
How does this fit with the jobbing 'engineers', hundreds of metres of cable, joints and op amps that preceded your holistically perfect system?
This raises an interesting question about our perceptual processes, I'm not at all sure what's going on is 'filtering out'. I'm currently reading a book:
The Bates Method for Better Eyesight Without Glasses: William H. Bates: 9780805002416: Amazon.com: Books
and the author there says that when we don't recognize something visually, that's when visual strain happens. We get fatigued 'trying to make sense' of what's seen. I conjecture that the same goes on aurally - when there's too much 'distortion' (I'd say noise modulation myself but we're talking about the same thing so the term doesn't matter much) then we don't get recognition of what we hear.
Yes, this is the obvious question; and the answer appears to be a combination of factors: probably the most important one is that distortion introduced during playback is subjectively worse because of the high power levels in key equipment, the amplifiers. This means that the power supplies are working hard, drawing large and rather nasty looking current spikes from the mains, this has a ripple effect in that other components hooked into that same mains have to contend with noisier voltage rails - one reason that headphone listening is often perceived as being a higher quality experience. In the recording studio, at the time of doing the take, only line level signals of minimal power are about; the electronics are less subject to this type of "stress".
Another factor is that the recording studio is typically still built and operated to a good standard in spite of all the complications; the sound engineer has no desire to deliberately compromise the quality of his efforts by doing silly things.
Further, the distortion of the recording itself has a very different "character" from the distortion of the playback system; if the ear only has to contend with the recording's distortion style, because the playback distortion is subjectively negligible, then the job of the listening mechanism is easier.
As regads the 'cables' question - professionals use balanced for very good reasons, whereas balanced seem to be the exception in the consumer space. Consumers normally have fairly noisy mains too whereas professionals take their utility supply seriously in general. Combine noisy mains with unbalanced cabling and that's a recipe for oodles of noise modulation.
I agree entirely ... when the sound is too compromised then a lot of the low level detail is not recognised for what it is, especially when listening in a relatively casual way. But one can force oneself to unravel more of this by deliberately focusing hard on the sound, what people on WBF call "active listening" - this will obviously tire one out faster ...
An excellent technique for picking how good the sound is, and how the ear handles it, is to wind up the volume on complex, high energy music, and then deliberately engage in meaningful conversation with a person next to you. If your body immediately goes into a high stress mode, you can feel your anxiety level go through the roof, then there is a poor SQ problem ...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.