Abraxalito, you dissappoint me, I expected better arguments from you 🙁
What I repeated in that post is not propaganda, if you had read it you would have noticed I was not even repeating a statement 😛 , I was simply (again) suggesting a test.
Do you want to apply for it?
Yes or no?
The claimed 'test' isn't an experiment that can actually be conducted in a scientific manner. But if you disagree then feel free to support your disagreement by explaining how you're going to control for 'design competence' in practice.
Why it happens is that our hearing systems have evolved to make sense of echos, reverberations; it is not the phase information from the direct sound of the recorded instrument or sound alone, it is the combining of that with the indirect sound, in the recording space, which does get picked up by the microphones - and your brain unravels that, to work out "what was going on". As an example, a musical production with the orchestra and chorus in a large space, but you can "hear" that the soloist is in a small recording booth, completely disconnected from the rest of the sound - the echos, even though in a space prepared to minimise that artifact, are still enough to give it away.
This of course can only happen if that indirect sound in the recording space is faithfully reproduced, not submerged in noise, or mangled by other distortion mechanisms - the better the listener to the replay can make out the information, conveyed by the sound bouncing around before hitting the mic's, the more the sense of a convincing soundstage is formed.
Even totally manipulated recordings work - the "fake" reverb does make sense, and gigantic, empty spaces form behind the sounds in some productions, because that's how it computes to the ears - but, again, only if the replay is good enough ...
Last edited:
No one knows how the "totally manipulated recordings" should sound, in fact. There is no reference. If you use the "totally manipulated recordings" to evaluate your audio system, you mostly probably want to make them sound "polite" and "pleasing" to your ears. This has nothing in common with "high fidelity" in sound reproduction and you may easily prefer a piece of audio system garbage.
The effect is that all the sounds in such a production exist in their own space, Michael Jackson's efforts are a good litmus: multiple sound elements all co-existing, yet each occupy their own place on the soundstage, and you, the listener, can audibly isolate each with ease. Something like listening to a band of 12 or so musicians, and being able to focus on, "see" a particular member of the band as having a distinct identity, place separate from the others.
If the system does the manipulated recordings well, then it is also excellent with the real thing, such as the above band - a good cross-check that you're hearing a decent reproduction.
The sound is most definitely "pleasing" - but "polite" is the last word one would use. Intense, overwhelming, urgent, a sense of energy and drive are the sort of terms more applicable ...
If the system does the manipulated recordings well, then it is also excellent with the real thing, such as the above band - a good cross-check that you're hearing a decent reproduction.
The sound is most definitely "pleasing" - but "polite" is the last word one would use. Intense, overwhelming, urgent, a sense of energy and drive are the sort of terms more applicable ...
This is silly, really , i guess you must have read this somewhere, Stereo Review is my guess ..
You should get out more, never heard of the soundstage knob .... 😀
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qjkGPvrQP5s
Last edited:
Probably because after what he claims are thousands of failures and not a single winner it gets a little old.
Edit: I find it interesting that people keep saying the test is flawed, and then in the next breath, type out two paragraphs about how it should be able to be passed easily.
Last edited:
Yeah, nevermind pan controls on the mixing console, what they should really be doing is just using hot-snot audiophile amplifiers.
But, where in the absolute sea of OPamps and computers present in a modern studio should they insert it?
Has anyone bothered to try the tests in post 18 of this thread?
UP/DOWN/LEFT etc (Sound stage tests from a known source) so you know where the sounds should be!
Regards
M. Gregg
UP/DOWN/LEFT etc (Sound stage tests from a known source) so you know where the sounds should be!
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
You understood it the wrong way 😛
I read this amplifier soundstage modification silliness right here, specially in this already 600 post thread 😀
And of course I state that the soundstage knob does NOT exist in an amplifier, in fact that the amplifier does NOT influence it, knobs or not, why would you say otherwise? 😕
The experiment I suggested is a classic "blind test" , nothing new here, to prove/disprove that 😉
Last edited:
There’s an expression for painting in China “boating on the ink sea”. Boating on the op-amp sea, I like that.
You are committing a category error. The electronic function of a hi-fi amplifier is to reproduce sound. There are objective criteria for that.yldouright said:
An amplifier may also play a role as a piece of furniture - I understand that some audiophiles display their system. That is a subjective matter of taste. Some like big glowing valves. Some like huge heatsinks. For bought items there is also things like long-term support and brand loyalty.
That's really the only thing I preferred about my old separates..I sold them for about 75% of what I paid...the same can not be said about A/V receivers, as once their feature set lags behind the times (HDMI for example) they become almost un-sellable.
Aside from that though, there's absolutely no audible difference between a proper A/V receiver and a boutique pre/pro + amplifier, because if you could reliably say so, then it wouldn't be a contentious subject.
So, the whole idea of voicing something which by design has no voice becomes kinda goofball.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.