|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
122.174.110.60
In Reply to: RE: my 2 cents posted by Dawnrazor on October 17, 2011 at 21:37:05
Yes. That's exactly what I feel, has happened. I am not saying that the steppes had all downsides. I guess most people have not clearly understood my last two posts (U turn, & theory vs Practicals ). I certainly agree that steppe 5 has a very open & clean sound. In fact I had again n again suggested people to move back to steppe 5 & analyse (in my posts last week). If u read my posts carefully, u will understand what I'm trying to say...
Steppe 5 was the best of "The Steppe Regimen"... It was the most balanced since the deletion process commenced. BUT... when one goes back to the unaltered cics recipe, u will immediately realise that there is SO MUCH that has been lost till steppe 5 as well. It's not just the Air & Openness that we have set up the cMp for. I too loved steppe 5 a lot TILL i woke up to the Original Optimised cMp.
WE FIRST HAVE TO GET THE BASICS RIGHT !!!!!!
Most inmates have never bothered to even play with the cPlay settings elaborately. There is so much in them. Everything including the buffer, phase, SoX, VHQ, HQ, tuning with alias checked/un-checked, all the above settings done to 95.0 or 96.0 & so on, Intermediate 10,15,20,minimum,maximum.... Without playing with all these combinations, how can u get the Basics right for YOUR system. Every combination of these settings change the way the Vocals blend with the Midbass, with the Highs transforming into sibilance, with the definition of instruments vs their spacing, the presence of instruments vs their imaging etc etc. With just the above cPlay parameters, there are nearly a hundred or more combinations. And every combination effects the overall nature of the Tone & it's presentation. As I have been doing this since the past 2-3 days, I am surprised how I had lost track & deviated from all this. There is so so much that is lost, yes LOST, not just thinned down or changed. The sound totally lost it's FULLNESS, BLEND, IMPACT, DELICACY, & most of all MUSICALITY...!!
And one more thing I really find funny & totally impractical in this forum. The cMp is a player, NOT an active equaliser or Room Corrector with which u can cure all your other faults. Instead, people here are trying to use just this ONE piece of their equipment & expecting everything else to benefit from it. This is totally wrong. For eg. No Room in the world has a totally flat frequency response. Every single room has Different Modal resonances, reverberation times, Peaks & Nulls. These are acoustical problems, & should be treated Acoustically. Just because one has a standing wave at 400Hz in his room, & a thin sound in some Steppe with less Mid-bass may compensate for that peak, he treats it like a saviour. Acoustical issues need to be treated acoustically & electronic issues must be treated likewise. If we could get EVERYTHING out of cMp, why would we ever upgrade components, speakers, interconnects, power cords, Acoustics or isolations. This is the basic mistake of most people in this forum. They are using this one cMp dart to hit on every issue they may have elsewhere...
Get the basics correct, then move on with other things....
Junaid
Edits: 10/17/11Follow Ups:
Dawnrazor, I have had that same train of thought at several points in this group pairing down party. Yet at other points, I feel pretty sure I hear something better for real. It is complicated by all the factors that cause us to like several different renditions of the music under different condtions internal and external(e.g.,group enthusiasm) at one time or another--the mood, what was heard last, the hour, expectation, hobby-horses, what we had for dinner, etc.
Jolida, I for one got all along what you say about step 5 and then your U turn. Taste and personal preference play an inescapable role in all this. Also, you are just as subject to subjectivity, bias, group influence, etc. The passion of your conversion back to optimized cMP makes me wonder. So does your suggesting that many/most of us have not explored cMP and its settings over the years we have followed it intensely thru many versions, many discussions of different settings, etc.
Hey Riboge,
I have had the same experience where I hear an improvement and am all excited. A few days later things seem a bit normal. Kind of a roller coaster at times, but that could just be the tunes I listen too.
Also this is on my headphone rig which is not the best so I am not making any conclusions based on this.
I am totally disappointed though in that my main rig with the icore 3 stuff isnt as good as my headphone rig in terms of upsampling. I cant get over 176k on the new hardware without stuttering but the old one does 192k easily. This makes me wonder if maybe the old hardware isnt better??
Now I think I have to take Ryelands advice and make images of each step. Damn you Ryelands :)
No one here remembers the bending of our minds
You said: '...A few days later things seem a bit normal. Kind of a roller coaster at times, but that could just be the tunes I listen too...'
Welcome to the world of tweaking. Even after the 'best tweak' I sort of subsume it after a day or so and I'm then ready for the next big thing.
Riboge,
I had not invented the stage till Step 5 nor was it me who invented cMp. Cics has put in a lot of effort to get things where they stand now, with his b39 version. It's upto inmates to understand why I initially suggested step 5 & what's actually the reason for me to revert back to the unaltered cics version. There should be some reason for it right? I have not posted it just like that. I have analysed & auditioned all steppes till step 16 & felt that after step 5, things don't stand a chance. This was when I MYSELF reverted to step 5. At that stage, I too was back to step 5. I had absolutely no idea that I would re-check the unaltered version ever. But something made me do it. And here I am. I still like steppe 5 a lot, but when compared with the Original cMp version, it too misses on quite a few things. What I have written In my posts is just MY OPINION. I am not compelling inmates to follow my route. It's their system, which they have worked very hard to optimise. I posted because I felt it's important to share our opinion. And I DID ADMIT that I too got carried away. Dint I mention that in my earlier posts??? Read them again !!! There should be some reason to sit down & write loads of data to make all the batch files & then swaying away from them. Who would do that without a reason. Yes it sure may be subjective, but I repeat "THAT'S MY OPINION".
And I guess u misunderstood my last line in the previous post. I said "get the basics right & then proceed". It did not imply to the cPlay settings. It relates to other issues one may have apart from their cMp, like Room mode problems, interconnect mismatches, & other faults elsewhere in the whole set-up & not to look for their rectification just by compensating for the same through the cMp. U sure must have played around with cPlay settings, but others might not. I'm just throwing light at the area of fine-tuning within cPlay itself, rather than looking for solutions elsewhere.
I hope that answers your question..
Junaid
Edits: 10/18/11
Jolida, what I wrote was a caution not an attack. I had read all you wrote before carefully and also with great appreciation. You have done enormous work to the benefit of all. I took you seriously enough to reinstall unaltered cMP and cMP up thru 5 in order to compare to thru16 to try to hear for myself what you were talking about. I was ready to be reborn to plain optimized cMP as you seem to have been, but I found thru5 still sounded better to me. I don't (yet?) perceive what you find missing. I am now comparing thru4+Jolida1,2 to thru5 at kclo's recommendation.
You have shown much to us. It may be possible that we can show something to you...or bring you back to something...or, without there being any disparagement of you.
Hi riboge and jolida,
I am now back to 4.5 (Steppe 4 + jolida's first batch).
As I come down from the full stepp 5, to steppe 5.5, to 4.6, and now 4.5, its like turning the tilt knob (remember the Quad amp?): the high is reduced and the bass filled up. What attracted us in the file deletion path was that the high frequencies seemed to be more refined as more files are removed. By focusing on the highs we were not aware that the balance was being tilted, and artificiality crept in.
With 4.5, Paul Mccartney's bass in Sgt. Peppers now has the right weight. How do I know? UK pressing vinyl is my benchmark.
KC
Hey kc,
What u mentioned above, is it any different from what I've been saying all this while?? This is what I have been trying to convey ever since I got back to the Original cMp. The only difference is that u are taking a reversed-walk & I took what I would say a reversed-jump...
Now as u are moving incrementally in the opposite direction (which is a good thing), u are getting a sense of what had been compromised. This 'tilt' which is apparent in the music, is a cumulative effect of hundreds of file deletions. So to rectify, or to say "balance" the equation, one needs to pin down the offending files which should-not-have-been-deleted. But as the number of deletions are a lot till step 5, it made more sense, TO ME, to start from the Original cMp, which sounds closer to that "balance" I am looking for.
I agree, & have always agreed, that step 5 sounds very clean & strain-free, but the Scale & Weight that's in the Original, is lost somewhere in the route..
Also, I suggest u do try one more thing at this point. Staying at step 4.5 (where u are now), uninstall the cPlay b39 u have, reboot the computer, install b38, & give it a listen.
I have been listening to five cPlay versions since two days now, starting from b35 to b39. It may seem un-necessary for others to validate what I am doing, by trying all this. I do not intend to post my opinion about this b35 to b39 session, as I feel, or as riboge said, may bias others as well. So try & decide for urself. If not all the five, try b38 atleast...
Junaid
Hi Jolida,
I am reversing stepwise because of 2 reasons:
1. steppe 4.5 is my earliest backup, so I can't jump any further backwards; and
2. I was very happy with each tweak until after 4.5, or 4.6; somewhere around there is the optimum for my setup, I think, and I want to capture that.
Will try out b38 like you suggested.
KC
That's wonderful. U are close to the Optimum for Ur set up, which is a real bold statement to make. Im glad u feel that way. I wonder what the others are upto. No news about the outcome of Steppe 21 or Mihaylov's list??? Some are at step 5, u are at step 4.5, I'm at where I started (original cMp with b38).
Also I would like to mention one more thing. When I put up my post for the Batch files, I received hundreds of emails even from people who do not post on this forum. This proves that there are a lot of them who are just playing safe & being Spectators of this whole Deletion roulette. I strongly suggest, they too post their opinions so that this discussion would be more elaborate & beneficial...
I agree with Ur other post as well. I'm doing exactly the same since I reverted to the Original cMp (looking for a good Transport or Cd player to assess where we stand now). I hope to get hold of one soon, to double-check the worth of all the pains we have taken in this project...
I'm sure cMp will have it's own Class. Atleast that's what I hope happens :)
Junaid
Hi Jilida,
Just tried b38 with steppe 4.6 (with most codec removed or disabled).
Comparing to b39, there is a sort of glare to the high which could make it more compatible with a native cPlay. with 4.6, because of the cleaner high end, b38's high frequencies might seem to be exaggerated. Moreover, the bass is too controlled such that some of the bloom of natural music is gone.
To my system b39 is more natural and is a better choice.
KC
That's good. It's all about synergy. Though I find quite the opposite here. The Highs are very smooth & the Bass needs control :)
Junaid
"With 4.5, Paul Mccartney's bass in Sgt. Peppers now has the right weight. How do I know? UK pressing vinyl is my benchmark." -
Tell me please you were listening the own digital copy of YOUR vinyl at cMP2? If not then you need to do such copy. Then the comparison will be correct.
Serge.
http://cmp2-mihaylov.narod.ru/
My cMP2: Windows XP SP2, Gigabyte GA-H55M-UD2H, Intel Core i3-530, Corsair CM3X160C9DHX 1GB, system drive - Transcend IDE FLASH MODULE TS2GDOM40V-S, ESI Juli@, full linear PSU, NAS - WD My Book Live, iPad
Hi Mihaylov,
If I do that, then I would be comparing 2 digital transfers (assuming playing both on the same cPlay/cMP platform): one is the CD remastered from the original master tape, and the other is my own digital conversion from the LP.
What we are trying to do here is to test/confirm the validity of the cPlay/cMP platform. To do that I think we need another trusted platform as a benchmark. To me, they are:
1. My vinyl setup with a good pressing as source, Another digital source (a good CD player?) might do as well, but a good CD setup is WAY too expansive. Moreover, a vinyl platform gives a very good contrast as it has a different set of good/bad points comparing to a digital source. And my other benchmark is;
2. Life. Play some acoustic instrument recording recorded in a natural space and ask oneself, is the human voice , etc, more natural in this cPlay configuration comparing to the previous cPlay configuration? Good candidates for comparison are: human voice because we are all very sensitive to it, piano, brass, and strings. I also found that cPlay tweak # 5.5 onward creates an artificial space that sounds quite attractive, but when played a live recording with real space information, the natural sound stage of the recording would collapse.
KC
Well. I agree that a proper comparative testing cMP2 is not easy. I just would like to say that in my opinion any CD remastering from old master tapes doesn't sound as good as the good old vinyl Edition.
Serge.
http://cmp2-mihaylov.narod.ru/
My cMP2: Windows XP SP2, Gigabyte GA-H55M-UD2H, Intel Core i3-530, Corsair CM3X160C9DHX 1GB, system drive - Transcend IDE FLASH MODULE TS2GDOM40V-S, ESI Juli@, full linear PSU, NAS - WD My Book Live, iPad
At the moment, I am at the plain Original cMp version, trying hard to locate sections which need refinement. The two main areas I find needing attention is as I mentioned earlier, the Upper Bass & the Upper midrange. Rest everything sounds perfect to me. I agree it does not sound as Liquid as step 5, but the offending parameters for it are the ones I mentioned above. Everything else sounds way superior, Correct & Full sized & scaled than step 5, atleast according to me. I have images of All the steppes till step 16. So it's easy for me to revert to any step anytime. And I did so. Back & Forth with step 5 & Unaltered cMp, I find the difference is not subtle, but a lot. If I am to listen to step 5 & revert back to the Original cMp in less than an hour, then I too may get puzzled. Because initially, the Original cMp sounds dry & hard, as our ears will be used to the Open & Liquid sound of Step 5. But when u remain with the Original & listen to it for atleast two days, anybody can sense what has been compromised & to what degree.
As I have posted, the Original cMp too needs tweaking. But slightly & carefully, so as to not let go of it's main qualities. This tweaking may be in terms of settings, file by file deletions, hardware optimisations like capacitor choices (I use Elna Silmic 2 which had a warmer sound than the Oscons), or a newer version of cPlay. I don't intend to do deletions in Full Steps which will take ages to ascertain what contributed to what. Though the file by file deletion is as labour-intensive as the former, it can make me pin down the effect of a single file vs the Cumulative effect of many files in a particular step.
By the way, my cPlay settings as of last evening are as under:-
Sampling rate: 44.1
Buffer : Small
VHQ with alias at 96.0
Intermediate 20
AWE engaged...
When playing any track, & adjusting each parameter shows a very profound effect in it's tonal variation. For eg. When I change the Buffer to Medium along with Intermediate Minimum, the Bass definition changes. So once we, or should I say "I" arrive at the best setting that gives the cleanest Blend I'm looking for, I can then move to the next line of tweaking which may be any of the ones mentioned above.
I do not want to follow the route of starting from step 5 & going backwards. Instead, I move with the Original cMp & go forward incrementally, because I feel it's more closer to the Sound I'm looking for...
Junaid
Edits: 10/18/11
You realize don't you that VHQ with alias at 96.0 Intermediate 20 and all that doesn't make any difference when you use 44Khz sr and listen to 44khz sr files. They only apply when upsampling.
It has never made sense to me, but these settings have quite an effect in my system, even though I rip basic CD's to 44.1, and play at 44.1. I use VHQ into a NOS DAC. If I have a harsh szz at instead of a sssss in female singers, I adjust down to linear and the szzzz turns to ssss. I also cannot check the alias box without losing dynamics. All this and the software is not suppposed to be engaged. go figure
Well to me it does most certainly. May be because all my music is 24/96 either from HD-Tracks or ripped via LP in 24/192. None of the Albums in my cPlay library are in the Native CD bitrate...
Junaid
ok fair enough but why would you listen to 24/96 or 24/192 files downsampled to 44khz sr?
I knew that question would come up :)
As simple as it is... My Wadia Dac is not an Upsampler. It accepts only 44.1 my friend...
Junaid
ok good answer. :)
Now don't ask me why am I keeping 24/192 files having a 44.1 Dac :)
Junaid
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: