..Yes usually 2nd harmonic..Perhaps with a bright twist of third..just to balance the mix..
This kind of stuff is OK..for a talking point...but snake oil..is better left for the people that want something to do...Its much easier to make a DIY system and use it every day for the music...Think of all the other things you could build instead of P*** about with this stuff..
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
Do they really? Or do you just imagine that they do? I've seen you say that many times, but have yet to see much backlash. Maybe I missed it.
one of the earthing (Grounding) forces of DIY audio..I value the input...even if it gets my back up at times..LOLNo an electron doesn't travel down a cable...well it appears at the other end...its not the same one.
....Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
You have. I've seen it repeatedly, and directed my way as well. Dave and I (if I may have the temerity to speak for him) take the view that amplifiers which change the sound are effects boxes by definition, and if that's what someone wants, fine, it's a valid target. But it is inaccurate to call it "hifi," and it is inaccurate to call such devices "accurate."
There's no such thing as "the same one." All electrons are indistinguishable.
I get this backlash too, unforunately, or maybe fortunately, the pundits are impervious to such statements. this special 'harmonic transparency' that transcends the normal definition of the words, resists all attempts to acknowledge it as a type of harmonic/pleasing distortion.You have. I've seen it repeatedly, and directed my way as well. Dave and I (if I may have the temerity to speak for him) take the view that amplifiers which change the sound are effects boxes by definition, and if that's what someone wants, fine, it's a valid target. But it is inaccurate to call it "hifi," and it is inaccurate to call such devices "accurate."
I try to call a spade a spade, if i'm after a bit if colour, I go for a bit of colour and dont mind admitting it, normally i'll do it digitally with a plugin, or EQ, where I have a bit more control, but not always. what I will never do however, is call it more accurate/transparent/transcendent/honest.
people get very offended when I make such comments, its that have your cake and eat it too thing. claiming that the effect is beyond normal measurements, making up new names for it, claiming its the lack of some esoteric type phase related distortion that doesnt hold up to scrutiny. Usually its described as a way to have an advantage over essentially flawless measurements that can be had for less trouble and less money than these more 'special' technologies.
I kinda gave up arguing the point a while ago though, the conversations never go anywhere and usually end in shouting or warnings
Last edited:
Like floating point numbers, music signals are like piles of sand: every time you move the pile you lose a little sand and pick up a little dirt. You can remove the dirt with filters, but no filter can replace the missing sand grains as you don't know exactly what shape/colour/substance they were or exactly how many there were.
If some process appears to polish up the pile of sand and 'improve' it then you are probably just spraying some sand-coloured paint onto dirt, or adding artificial sand. This can fool people, but it is not the real thing and it is certainly not the sand you lost during the moves. Some people prefer to 'improve' the sand by spraying it some other (non-sandy) colour. Fine, just don't pretend it is unadulterated sand or somehow more 'sandy' than real sand.
Like any analogy, this one should not be pushed too far.
Tone controls are clearly intended to provide some (hopefully limited) processing effect, which may or may not compensate for room issues. They could be regarded as a simple and honest FX box. In my view tone controls make more sense than 'tube rolling'.
If some process appears to polish up the pile of sand and 'improve' it then you are probably just spraying some sand-coloured paint onto dirt, or adding artificial sand. This can fool people, but it is not the real thing and it is certainly not the sand you lost during the moves. Some people prefer to 'improve' the sand by spraying it some other (non-sandy) colour. Fine, just don't pretend it is unadulterated sand or somehow more 'sandy' than real sand.
Like any analogy, this one should not be pushed too far.
Tone controls are clearly intended to provide some (hopefully limited) processing effect, which may or may not compensate for room issues. They could be regarded as a simple and honest FX box. In my view tone controls make more sense than 'tube rolling'.
Last edited:
I think,
The idea of "audio" parts is to not lose so much "Sand"/of the signal not try to put it back...
Of course the problem is...is it real or imagined..The other thing would be not to add anything either..or make a system open to RF or pick up..
Then again how good the recording is is a limiting factor..in theory you can only recreate the studio sound..so it should sound like the studio or venue..
Regards
M. Gregg
The idea of "audio" parts is to not lose so much "Sand"/of the signal not try to put it back...
Of course the problem is...is it real or imagined..The other thing would be not to add anything either..or make a system open to RF or pick up..
Then again how good the recording is is a limiting factor..in theory you can only recreate the studio sound..so it should sound like the studio or venue..
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
maybe it's a coincidence or maybe it was my subconscious that did the job but I was thinking just yesterday about noise reduction and how detrimental it seems to be.
it used to play with it in CoolEdit many years ago in an attempt to fix the noise on some cassette tapes I had. I remember that no matter how much I tried a compromise was almost impossible. compromise meaning significant reduction of noise with no audible sound quality penalty. and I was doing it with PC speakers the noise being at levels typical for good consumer tape decks (similar or better than what is found in old recordings).
so very good point.
and concerning the brick-wall filters, it's my understanding that an ideal (with the mention that a good enough one with enough taps, dithering etc is likely possible and likely used in some implementations) filter of the type is the one actually needed for perfect reconstruction, as per Shannon-Nyquist. it's the other types that are adding something and are actually doing a compromise.
of course, it is to be assumed that the equipment at the recording side is not ideal either.
Last edited:
did anyone read the TAS interview where some high-end guy said that one point on his "to do list" is controlling electron spin direction?
well it was done by physicists, by it's worth noting again a typical modus operandi: going by the slogan that everything matters and everything is audible.
That is what is often claimed. The snag is that some of these can be shown to add dirt or remove sand; sometimes they are even claimed to replace sand removed earlier by 'engineering-style' stages. We are asked to believe that their significant amounts of clearly visible added dirt are somehow more sandy than the tiny amounts of barely visible dirt added by conventional processing.M Gregg said:
To get back to audio, 'high end' stuff sometimes suffers from:
- high distortion levels (although, hopefully, mainly low order)
- lumpy frequency response
- RFI pickup (especially with cables)
- microphony (cables, handmade caps)
- noise
- clearly faulty circuit design, misusing active components
All these somehow combine to 'improve' the music.
I can only say,
That some of the high end systems I have listened to, make it difficult to believe you are in a room..the room seems to become a church or a venue. The acoustics of the venue that seem to mask the actual room you are in...why this should be I don't know..It can be difficult to tell if someone is talking in a room or if its the HIFI..
Its miles away from average home audio set up..
Of course it depends what people are trying to achieve<<this isn't stereo as most people know it..
Regards
M. Gregg
That some of the high end systems I have listened to, make it difficult to believe you are in a room..the room seems to become a church or a venue. The acoustics of the venue that seem to mask the actual room you are in...why this should be I don't know..It can be difficult to tell if someone is talking in a room or if its the HIFI..
Its miles away from average home audio set up..
Of course it depends what people are trying to achieve<<this isn't stereo as most people know it..
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
I sometimes wonder what major technologies will emerge in my life time.
unrelated to the above. there's a thread over at the "other place" where USB jitter is discussed. yes, it's from 7 years ago but it's interesting to read and see that what is displayed by knowledgeable audio professionals as an insurmountable problem is something with a rather basic fix (async USB) which is now widely used.
no one said otherwise.
and... maybe in at least some of the cases there's less snake oil in such systems than one would expect. or the one that is there is not necessarily having a huge contribution to the final sound, or maybe if it does it's not for the reasons they think or tell us etc
Snake oil,
Will never have an effect on sound..its the engineering<<<that doesn't mean that everything is snake oil even if it appears to be...it means that it either works or it doesn't..
I'm not talking plastic plates or Tibetan bowls either..
That was another one pieces of fools gold glued to circuit boards...cringe..or crystals or....cost...
What I want to see is someone build a clone of a system that can equal or beat the real thing with standard parts and engineering...see how much of the snake oil is engineering<<silver OP Tx's..etc.
Regards
M. Gregg
Will never have an effect on sound..its the engineering<<<that doesn't mean that everything is snake oil even if it appears to be...it means that it either works or it doesn't..
I'm not talking plastic plates or Tibetan bowls either..
That was another one pieces of fools gold glued to circuit boards...cringe..or crystals or....cost...
What I want to see is someone build a clone of a system that can equal or beat the real thing with standard parts and engineering...see how much of the snake oil is engineering<<silver OP Tx's..etc.
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.