 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
65.28.168.99
One reads some comment about a modest change which elicits "jaw dropping" comment, and some agree, other are like 'WTF is this person smoking?'.
My post is to bring some light to this. (i hope)Factor, order of magnitude.
While messing with my stuff, I realized most of what i was seeking was in the third or even fouth order of magnitude.Like basic equipment is first order of magnitude. What it's basic sound is, plain and simple.
Then i stick on special interconnects, or power cords, and the changes really are in the second order of magnitude. Subtle. But very hearable.So i am tweaking the sound and now I am in the third order of magnetude.
For example, the new powercord I stuck on sounds a little different it from a Furman REF20i, or if from a Monter HTPS7000SS The first is warmer, bell like edges, the second more steely edges.
Very subltle, and third order stuff.
Then I go from the regular AC to balanced power, now into fourth order..So if i ignore what 'level' I an on, and comment, Wow, when I swapped the powerconditioner with this same cord it really got a steely edge.. Like What? are you and drugs? may seem appropriate. But is it is clear i an writing about a really sublte change, then it is not so strange.
So any thoughts, additions or clarifications? Am I full of Sh-- on this?
(Please skip the Elizabeth is full of Sh-- anyway, i already KNOW that.)
Edits: 08/25/12 08/25/12Follow Ups:
Audio skeptics rely on the fact that most changes produce no testable subjective reaction or rather a random one. Stereophile briefy experimented with blindfold speaker tests and the results were embarrassing, as some prestigious models got panned and then the reviewers later hemmed and hawed and retracted their worods.
But indiscernible improvements add up to discernible ones when taken together. You never notice your children growing from one day to the next but boy do they grow! It's the same with audio. Perhaps we should spend more time reviewing combinations rather than individual components, but that would piss the manufacturers off.
It's never too late to turn back the clock.
...thought provoking posts on Audio Asylum. ;-)
...it's all relative and a matter of perspective.An order of magnitude better means 10 times better.
Seldom do we make changes in our systems that are that great.
But when you listen critically to your system for hours a day like reviewers do, small incremental improvements can seem unusually large.
And that's when hyperbole gets the better of them.
A couple of times when I was reviewing, I tried to assign a percentage improvement that the reader could relate to.
For example, I reviewed an ARC LS-2 linestage and they updated it to an LS-2B.
I felt the improvement was about 10% - not ten times, but significant enough to justify the additional cost.
Edits: 08/25/12
Like each level above has bigger changes than any below.
As levels drop, the changes are more subtle, yet can be really iportant.
Just the smallest detail can make a dramatic change in how the music feels overall, yet it is such a tiny change!
I am just trying to sort this kind of listening out
...we need more ways to describe the level of differences.
This is true certainly, but it would also help if folks took the trouble to make sure they actually do know what a word or words mean.
Mike's catch of "order of magnitude" is certainly one of these. Few folks know what it actually means...ten times greater.
Very few changes to an already well sorted system are an order of magnitude.
There is also the problem of listening bias, which is, to some extent, based on hearing acuity.
For instance, if my hearing has begun the slow top-end roll off of old age, I might like a pair of speaker cables that would be too bright for, say my wife, but make me mighty happy.
It seems to me when we read an equipment review we may be asking for trouble for the simple fact that none of us really know what the reviewer's system sounds like, and this is especially true of folks who review equipment but not word usage.
> For instance, if my hearing has begun the slow top-end roll off of old age, I might like a pair of speaker cables that would be too bright for, say my wife, but make me mighty happy.>
As we age our hearing rolls off at say, 13-14,000 Hz.
Most of what you hear as "brightness" occurs in the 7000 to 10,000Hz range.
The very high high frequencies tend to be triangle overtones and air - not much in the way of actual sound there.
Yes, most of what we call "bright" is due to peaks in the 7,000 to 10,000 Hz response. However, even at 70, I can tell when frequencies over 10,000 Hz are missing. I recently heard the AN E with and without a $4,000 super tweeter (used over 10,000 Hz only), and the sound with the super tweeter was VASTLY more realistic. More air AND more punch. A trumpet has real impact with the additional tweeter.
"The very high high frequencies tend to be triangle overtones and air - not much in the way of actual sound there."
Triangle overtones, and if I may, ambient cues which help define the soundspace and the air that comes with good vinyl playback.
I am not sure exactly which nit you are picking, but I think my original point stands.
Something I have become acutely aware of among my audiophool friends is that changes in hearing with age are not linear. One guy's system which sounds bright and a bit etched to me, sounds mighty fine to him.
Thanks for thinking about what I said.
Changes in hearing over time also include changes in how we hear pitch and sensitivity to volume level, especially, apparently, with music in the upper register of say...massed fiddles.
I like the idea you brought forth. It seems clear but perhaps someone might want definitions for each level, I'm fine as it sits. I do think levels of what impacts who will vary in peoples systems for lots of reasons. Here goes:
Regenerating AC balanced and at 120hz for sources : 1st order
Adding crystals to the mains panel and inside CDP : 2nd order
Adding crystals to AC cables: 3rd order
Upgrading power cords: varies depending on many factors between 2nd to 4th
Speaker cables upgrades: 3rd to 4th
Interconnect upgrades: 2nd to 4th again many factors
Room Acoustic Treatment: 1st order
AC Outlet upgrade to Oyaide: 2nd order
I chose to generalize a bit on purpose but I think people will get my ideas and some won't care for my judgments.
ET
I think you've got the right idea in terminology. At first I was put off with 'orders of magnitude' as it applies to this, but now I'm not sure. I would bet money that Jon Risch has a handle on it.
My thoughts?
Source, speakers, room - 1st order
System synergy - 2nd order
Vibration control - 3rd order
Component parts upgrades/tweaks - it depends
Power cords, cables, wires, - 4th order
Voodoo - Nth order
The idea is that an improvement is likely to be negligible if you have a lower order weakness.
-reub
Like many tweaks. or cords.
My own digital stuff all was about the same level.
But with some work I have fin ally been able to hear differences in the digital stuff.
The amp preamp was just not transparent enough to hear the front end differences. But now i can.
Same thing for a lot of stuff.
.
So far the one you just commented on made the most sense to me.
Changing a component is a big deal in my book, and as he said... system synergy and so forth.
The only one that I personally haven't experienced a great impact from and can't say much about is room changes. I have done just a few things to the rooms and have really found them to be suitable, then system changes made my system what I wanted.
Steve
The idea is interesting but we will never agree on any of the definitions. Many people would place the idea of improvement in sound by placing crystals in your electrical panel as just nonsense. Others think it is a major improvement. my levels of sonic change for instance would be as follows.
1st level: Speakers
2nd level: Electronics
3rd level: Cables
4th level: Power conditioning
5th level: Tweaks
If you don't get the 1st level right the rest don't matter
Alan
I like your broad categories and these relate to diminishing returns. Visitors will only hear the overall sound put out by your speakers. Even if you have gone to great lengths to maximize their potential most won't realize that. If a non-audiophile heard ten different setups using the same speaker, they would likely think all ten sound about the same. Nobody completes their setup to work against the speaker's intended sound on purpose.
By the time you are into level three I content only the owner or someone who listens frequently could tell differences. By level four we may even be fooling ourselves to justify purchases, the differences being there but not necessarily being better.
1st level: Speakers and where you place them in the room (basic sound)
2nd level: Electronics and phono cartridges (tailoring the basic sound for personal taste)
3rd level: Power management and noise reduction techniques (ambiance and soundstage)
4th level: speaker and IC cables (minor tone controls)
5th level: Tweaks (feeding the lunatic within)
Like my system playing with some new power cables. Just a minor swap can alter the smallest bits of the sound, and make me 'happy' or 'this sucks'.
Naturally this after my system is tuned in pretty good, and I know it well.
So this sort of trivial change, in a fourth or fifth order level. Why is this such a huge deaal? and how can i make it clear this is a tiny tiny difference, and yet is a deal breaker?
n/t
Or just maybe it isn't as trivial as we think?
I like both ahendler and Awe-d-o-file's... rankings.
I feel that after level 2 (within the room with usually inherent restrictions) what the rest accomplish is to basically
fine tune your system to how you really want it to sound, and you know what a very personnel adventure (and task) that can be.
Some of 3,4,5 can be pretty major in the affect they achieve, but overall they aren't really going to (or shouldn't!) "ruin" your
system, just make it sound different than what you want, like or... desire.
I certainly agree that all have an affect on the goal you want to accomplish (the recent addition of a new PC to
my pre made a great difference/improvement, but my system didn't "suck" previously - and I know how much
difference just one tube change can affect the sound) but I'm not sure anything I've added that fits into the last
three groups has ever been a deal breaker, just a... misstep in the journey, and usually easy to rectify.
It IS amazing after all this time messing about with this hobby the difference a new PC can make in the right position, it
REALLY drives home the system synergy thing.
I understand why you want to be able to convey how important these changes can be, but finding a way to communicate
that to others beyond the "DAMN THIS IS GREAT!!!!" posts in some sort of "standardized" method is going too be... tough!
Really, you can't even get a standardized definition or consensus of what "warm" means in the context of audiophile jargon even
though everyone seems to know what it means.
I think that after level 1 and 2 are achieved in ahendler's list is where this hobby becomes VERY interesting.
"One this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" - Michael McClure
Princess and the Pea Syndrome. It's something I try to avoid. When you listen to something for hours on end, you start to notice and focus on every little detail and this can cost you your ability to see the forest for the trees. The risk is that you can end up with a system that's very pricey, but has virtues that only you can hear.
I like to get my system to the point at which it sounds so wonderful, so fulfilling, that it delights and amazes me every time I sit down to listen, and anyone else who does the same. Once it's at that stage, I can whittle away at the little things.
I think part of this is in your equipment and setup choices, but part of that is also cultivating the frame of mind in which you hear the flaws without letting them interfere with your enjoyment of the whole -- what someone who has never heard your system will hear if he walks in the room while you're playing music. My old 1-D's were the heart of the first system I ever owned that did this. I heard the flaws, but I was always delighted nevertheless. And since then I've always searched for components with that special quality, and tried to follow that tolerant philosophy myself.
It's sort of like being married, and knowing, after many years, all of our spouse's little quirks and flaws, but not letting them get in the way of your relationship.
Once you're at that stage, you can tweak your system to your heart's content -- in which respect audio is far superior to a spouse.
otherwise I'm wasting my time. Also, if there's a peccadillo, a bugbear, a bête noire to the system it annoys the hell out of me. Yes, it escalates.
Don't you think there are two kinds of pleasing virtue, though?There's the beautiful woman virtue -- shapely body, pretty face, fetching expression, nice hair.
And then there's a wart on her nose.
So -- the way I look at it, if the woman is beautiful, you don't want to let the wart get in the way.
Whereas if the woman isn't beautiful, getting rid of the wart isn't going to do you much good.
To me, a great piece of audio gear has that beautiful woman quality. Most don't, and it isn't always easy to know why because I think it comes from a combination of qualities. But when it does have that beautiful woman quality, it takes your breath away, and that of everyone who hears it, and it becomes, eventually, a classic that people are still enjoying 30 years later (more than 50 in the case of the Quads).
Edits: 08/26/12
Full-Range and very few others.
I must respectfully disagree on one point, I have always found it to be quite clear as to what is bugging me about a system or what its flaws are. I can tell exactly what is not right, well at least for my tastes anyway.
Sorry, guess my point wasn't clear. I'm trying to distinguish between the little things that bug you and the overall impression, which is a combination of many things. The point is that with familiarity you do end up hearing and identifying all those little things, hence JA's "Princess and the Pea" simile. I know that I get to the point where I know that I'm going to hear some kind of distortion on a single note in a single track on a particular CD. And I don't think there's anything wrong with fixing those things.
My point is that I try not to focus too heavily on them, to lose the forest for the trees. For one thing, they're always with you, in one form or another -- that's one of the frustrations of this hobby, but also one of the things that makes it interesting.
I don't know how it is for others, but I find that I can hear those flaws but still be blown away by one of those special systems, every time I listen. My concern here would be not to have one of those systems where so much attention has been paid to these things that only the owner can hear, that no attention has been paid to the overall sound. That almost can't happen if you start with the ESL 57 or the Full Range. But you could get speakers that avoid the shortcomings of the 57's -- limited bass extension, limited SPL's, etc. -- that wouldn't give you the kind of pleasure that the 57's will.
I think it's interesting BTW that so many of the loudspeakers of that sort are planars. As someone said to me a couple of weeks ago, "No dealer really wants to sell a speaker that permanently takes a customer out of his market for 20 years. The Tympani properly set up and powered is one of those speakers, as is the Infinity RS-1b (powerful output, extreme clarity in complex passages . . . really no weakness), Martin Logan Statement (the Original Protos), Infinity IRS, and for some (golden age listeners only) that can tolerate a loss of low bass and output the Quad ESL-63."
Or who about this, from Jonathan Valin?
"The listeners for whom the 20.7's are very nearly ideal--for whom Magneplanars have always been ideal--are those seeking the absolute sound. These Maggies' magical ability to transport listeners to a different space and time and to there realistically recreate (with lifelike scope and size) the sound of acoustic instruments and the venue they were recorded in is extraordinary."
Of course, people are going to debate the 57 vs. the 63, etc., but it seems to me that despite their differences, these speakers have in common a "beautiful woman" quality that makes you happy to hang on to them for life -- and that they're all planar dipoles (or I think cardioids in the case of some Infinities).
When I am comparing units, I just rate (on a 100 point scale) the same records over each system. Often, the scores are very close, but occasionally there is a large difference. By rating the quality of the music, it is easier for me to forget about the equipment that I am comparing.
I like to use the same tracks as well. It makes it much easier to pinpoint differences.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
