|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
99.5.232.186
In Reply to: RE: I am not trying to bash anyone on this subject posted by Triode_Kingdom on August 07, 2017 at 08:13:04
.... not that I have perfect hearing or anything ..But just a point of view from a DHT / SET and a couple of PPDHT builds....
First as the man has said "you need a quality Hi-efficiency speaker system " to be able to hear the subtle difference, each part can make.
As a older listener/builder and yes " Tweaker " of my builds,... It
still amazes me when I do make a change and to my ears, I Like it.
I do Multi-bypasses!
Have fun !
Willie
Follow Ups:
Now if only Dennis would start each of posts with "To my ears" there would be nothing for me to grip about. :-)
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
The more one kisses ass, the less one conveys, and the less is said, or learned..Of course, I'm not into kissing ass.
"to my ears" is patently ridiculous! "to the music" is
relevant.-Dennis-
Edits: 08/08/17
.... I can only speak for my self ! To my ears, .. I listen to music !
Willie
Hi Willie!I know you listen to music with your ears!
You're a good reasoner and a fine listener.
Building equipment to reproduce all the actual parts of a music signal
(which many of us refer to as THE "signal")-- in this case, they're
meaning that the total composite parts of energy added together
comprise THE signal. They're thinking it is one item, but their use
of the word "signal" properly interpreted-- is PLURAL because a music
signal contains many separately operating parts.The important point of all this is that the better a piece of music
electronics is, the better it can separate the many items that together-- make up the "signal". Since these many items are occurring at different times, frequencies, and intensities, the equipment must be able to separate all of the energies, while at the same time, it must also
produce a sum of all of the energies.This is easy to observe in amplifiers. One amp may favor a piano note over all the rest of the signal mix. Another amp may almost drop the piano note, and favor a Mandolin strike over the piano. But both are playing. so why not reproduce EACH item because it is separate, being able to include all the other instruments and voices separately as well, yet be able to play the entire mix of all of them together accurately as well.
This is a very tall order for a piece of electronics to do, but the best recording equipment makes a good try at it, and multi-channel mixing
and volume control gets the rest of the job done.On playback, you don't want to apply all of these techniques, you just want to hear the whole performance-- every part of it, and the whole of it-- as well.
And that's all there is to it. Whether you consider all of it an individual "signal" or whether you think of it as being made up of many parts is your choice-- it's just a matter of wording, nothing more.
You still have to get the reproduction of both approaches right.
Whether that's to your ears-- or to honor the music is also
simply a different way of talking about it.The only thing that matters is that you get music right. Right is when
you can't tell the in-room speaker presentation from the in-studio
live presentation..The most important factor for musical electronics to deliver correctly is event-timing and event mixing. Each part of the mix preserved within its own time frame, yet a coherent part of the whole picture.
-Dennis-
Edits: 08/09/17
?
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
Too late! You can't change the record after you buy it!
You can, however, just play it like it is, and enjoy
what the record company thought you would enjoy most-- which
is, in the best cases, not too bad!
-Dennis=-
You have shown no evidence. "to the music" would require evidence.
You are talking about how caps sound according to your ears.
That's all you ever do is talk about audio electronics and how things sound according your ears.
You provide no proof of things being the way you claim but speak with authority as if everything you say is proven fact.
In fact, everything you say is just your opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
I have no problem with you stating your opinion but you need to start labeling it as opinion and stop presenting it as fact unless you are willing to show the evidence.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
No argument except for one: WHAT is "the evidence".
Define for all of us WHAT is "the evidence".
-De3nnis-
Perhaps some of the best "evidence" would be reviews from RMAF or what GPA published on their website.
I know a person can hear differences in dynamics, when the recording contains that information. Can you see (measure) more/less dynamics in some way other than with one's ears?
I ask this question out of ignorance and curiosity. The same question would apply to "resolution of inner details", by which I mean the ability of a "system" to look into a Mahler Symphony and hear different instruments clearly...rather than a mushed presentation.
Once digitized you can see (measure) just about anything you want to see.
You just need the correct algorithm.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Cool! Now that you've sampled the tip of one of the spark plugs in your engine, what about the other parts?
Music is a bit different yet. How are you going to sample the
other 20,000 signals that are contained within the waveform you are
sampling, and how are you going to measure each one of them's influence on the others?
Let's see: what is 20,000 X 20,000 X 20,000-- to infinity?
Go ahead! Make My Day! Measure ALL of them!
-Dennis-
Dennis, I tried to explain this to you once before.
There is only one waveform (per channel).
All the sounds (in that channel) are mixed together into one waveform.
At any given moment that waveform has only one amplitude therefore I am measuring all of them.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Are you sure of that?
You're measuring the total result of all of them combined at one moment in time.
Which is-- marginally useful-- but that;s all you're getting.
You have the cone with a tiny dab of ice cream in the bottom of it!
Vanilla, of course. No fruit additions allowed-- changes the measurements-- taboo!
Bon Appetit!
-Dennis-
"Are you sure of that?"
Yes, completely sure.
"You're measuring the total result of all of them combined at one moment in time."
I'm measuring/looking at the result of all of them combined at ANY and ALL points in time.
The result of all of them is all we have, one wave form.
The wire that carries the signal out of your preamp to the power amp contains just one wave form.
That wave form only has only one amplitude at any point in time.
The output of a microphone, even though it is responding to multiply sound sources, with thousands of what you call signals, is just one wave form that has only one amplitude at an given point in time.
I wish I could get into you head and see just what you don't understand about this.
I would then be better at explaining it to you.
Did you read any of the links about complex wave forms?
BTW The wave form above is part of the Cat Stevens song "Sad Lisa"
It is .06 seconds long. It is the left channel. Cat sings "she walks alone from wall to wall". The .6 seconds is part of the word "Alone".
It's just his voice and piano but as you know there are rich harmonic content to both (voice and piano) so there are "thousands of signals" contained in that .06 seconds.
All of those "signals" are mixed together and the wave form you see is the result.
The wave form you see is what your power amp would see when you play this CD into it.
There is no such thing as "thousands of separate signals" for our caps and amps and speakers to deal with all at the same time.
There is just one wave form (one composite signal) for each channel.
I wish there was a way for me to help you understand this.
Understanding this would open up a whole new world for you.
A much simpler, easier to understand world.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
If, for example, one used multiple bypass caps of different values, that might not produce a different sound without visibly affecting the wave form?
That observation would depend on the accuracy and timing capability of your measuring equipment.It takes a VERY expensive spectrum analysis to get this done. Most
oscilloscopes and other equipment that Hams and Hi-Fi enthusiasts
might possess will mostly just show the result of the signal's
composite mix, and show very little of it's actual component parts.Your ears/brain, however, can easily separate out all of it.
The trick here is to understand what is individual and what is composite.
You WILL HEAR BOTH. The question is-- will you recognize both?
People process information differently. That's of minor concern
here because nearly all people will like a truly superior music
system even if they don't know what it is doing.That's about as close as we're going to get to understanding all of this.
Superior will indeed sound superior, but most people will never know
why. And most lab equipment can only rudimentarily even hint at hoping to measure the many, many facets of music.It remains for the people who enjoy something to build what they
enjoy the most-- as always.-Dennis-
Edits: 08/09/17 08/09/17
People want sound to be voodoo and it often isn't.
Dennis, I agree with most of what your saying "Timing" and musical expression is most of it....Problem is that most music is recorded wrong to begin, so no matter what you do most music will sound and time differently!
I have giving these thoughts for a long time nothing is perfect in our audio world NOTHING
Tre posses an interesting ideas on how you can Prove what your saying, you should give it a go, just because its recorded digitally it will still tell a story!
Prove them wrong!!
Lawrence
Proof is in great overall performance and consistent, reliable maintenance of that performance level.
That proof is only provided by actual long-term experience with
a music system, asking it to reproduce many different kinds of music
over time in many different settings and moods.
Playing a good, really dynamic Blu-Ray movie on a good machine is an
interesting and highly rewarding test of a good music system. Most systems, no matter how pleasing to the assemblers of them, will utterly
fail this test. Remember, a good system does EVERYTHING well.
When a system reaches that level of consistent, long-term performance,
most people who hear it for the first time will LOVE it-- its performance
will be obvious, and more time with it will reveal further delights.
There will also be some who can't figure out what it is doing-- which
should be EVERYTHING in recorded music. That person may prefer to
have something HE likes accentuated and some other things suppressed.
Such a person will spend a lifetime thirsting after HIS Holy Grail,
and he may very well partially achieve it. UNTIL his musical tastes change. If they do, then he has to start all over again!
There is nothing that anyone can do for that kind of guy. He may very well spend all of his time testing equipment instead of enjoying good music. What a waste of time!
What works best for most of us is to get EVERYTHING that is on a recording played back right, and every part of it presented in its own
correct time domain and event timing, yet have the entire mix correct also. Correct frequency response also plays a part-- a lesser one
to be sure, but still a necessary one.
Most experts do go after correct tonal response. That is only a tiny
fraction of what is needed.
To answer your question, no one can prove anything in music. What
we can, and should do, is play it with fun and gusto, and then find
or build equipment that can convey the fun.... ALL of it, please!
-Dennis-
Dithering
You said that caps diminish the dynamics of music.
I showed you one way you might be able to prove that.
Now you are saying that we can't prove anything.
You don't seem to be able to think straight.
That is, we were talking about one thing and now you are talking about something else.
Are you doing that on purpose because you can't answer my question like some flim-flam man?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Yes, Tre... but IS working because I would like to hear his creation... am fairly sure it sounds good; just not superlative.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
...and yes it does work ... To my ears..
And I must add using a similar type (surely not as refined) speaker
and amplifier..... I can say some of his ideas has worked quite well
for me.
Thanks Dennis !
no ass-Mooching !
Willie
It not his claims about the sound... is the claims about the "why". Voodoo explanations stated as facts. Similar to the guy that used to rave a bout the Hogan amps.... had more explanation for the sound than John Hogan himself had......
Like I asked Tre', and myself for that matter...what drives pointing out that Dennis is a Salesman? Or that he states beliefs held to a standard a religious fanatic would be impressed by, as 'facts'?
You are not at risk of buying into his silliness, or his foolishly justified creations.
As a follow up, what have the people who are done for you to justify what appear attempts to save them from their worthless selves?
cheers,
Douglas
Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world...but thou art standing where I am about to shoot.
What is there to agree with? It is made up science by Dennis...
It is for sure not science. It is however supposed to be taken that way...and totally sad that more folks can not recognize it for what it is.
cheers,
Douglas
Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world...but thou art standing where I am about to shoot.
you are right...I can scarcely solder twofers together....but i read a lot and I know BS when I see it. A lot of consumers in audio want to see unicorns and the horse of a thousand colors because a snake oil salesman says so
not even up to pseudo-science quality...LOL
cheers,
Douglas
Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world...but thou art standing where I am about to shoot.
So which is it?
1. Dennis really believes what he says (ie: he is ignorant and does not understand electronics at all)
or
2. Dennis does understand electronics just fine and this whole thing is just a con by a MFing con artist.
If it's the latter then I pissed.
I have wasted a lot of time and Dennis should be banned.
BTW I think you think it's number 2 and I'm starting to lean that way.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
but just remember...since it matters not to the people who believe Him, why do you seek to save them from themselves?
cheers,
Douglas
Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world...but thou art standing where I am about to shoot.
.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I'm not sure who the "them" are?"Tre posses an interesting ideas on how you can Prove what your saying, you should give it a go, just because its recorded digitally it will still tell a story!"
I agree with you.
Digitizing the analog makes it easier to detect any possible difference the cap would make. (All other digital anomalies aside.)
I thought I was careful not to say which way I thought the test would go.It is the way Dennis states his opinions as if they were proven facts that bothers me.
Just for fun let's say that I have a theory that if one cap causes a loss of dynamics then more caps would just cause more loss.
I would never state that theory as fact without first proving it.
Even if I proved it to myself though listening.
In the absents of technical proof I would just say "to my ears"......etc.
My original comment had nothing to do with capacitors and everything to do with Dennis.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 08/09/17
"... might that produce a different sound without visibly affecting the wave form?"
IMO If it sounds different then it is different.
Whether or not you could see the difference is a separate matter.
Again, in the digital domain, a properly devised algorithm would detect the difference.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
"You're measuring the total result of all of them combined at one moment in time"
That indeed is all there is. EVER. No salesman's magic can separate them, as they are inseparable.
cheers,
Douglas
Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world...but thou art standing where I am about to shoot.
and of course is entirely irrelevant to a religious fanatic making Salesman's claims about his own take on his favourite sound processor. One which can magically remove all the processing/mastering artifacts and restore the 'music' to what it is thought to be like when on its way to the recording mic.
I thought I had heard it all. Learned again that is not quite so...LOL
cheers,
Douglas
Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world...but thou art standing where I am about to shoot.
Looks like you're still sold on Yugo technology. Measures OK. Same math used.
Make mine Ford GT, Lamborghini, Ferrari, or Porsche.
There ARE different ways to do things out there.
All that counts is repeatable, consistent and long-lasting maximum quality.
How you get it is your business.
IF you choose not to get it, but instead mount-up easily accepted
arguments in place of it, well then that is your business as well.
Do well and prosper!
-Dennis-
and the horse you rode in on Dennis.That you think a Yugo measures well comes as no real surprise at all.
You post opinion as if it is fact, and then spew this soooodo-sciency BS to 'back it up'. So you like yer own brand of SE signal processor. that it is nothing more, should you ever admit it, would no doubt hurt your income stream.
Douglas
Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world...but thou art standing where I am about to shoot.
Edits: 08/08/17
Scientific proof.
Just listening and having an opinion is fine but not proof.
We all have opinions. They are totally valid for us but not necessarily anyone else.
For something to be considered fact it needs to be true for everyone.
Let's consider just one of your claims,
You stated that caps are not dynamically linear and that this translates into squashed dynamics.
Certainly you could devise a test to show that what you are saying is true.
Try this,
Play a short piece of music from your CD player through a cap into a sound editing program on your computer and record it. (make sure the cap value is large enough to pass all the low frequencies of interest)
Play that same piece of music from the same CD but not through a cap into the sound editing program on your computer and record it.
Now compare the two recordings to see if there is a measurable difference in the dynamics between the two.
I could list other tests you could do to prove your statements but let's just focus on this one.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: