|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.255.203.68
In Reply to: Re: If you guys are bored... posted by andy19191 on February 26, 2007 at 04:13:18:
Most folks, including yourself as you have stated previously, are quite content with the performance of ordinary audio gear. There's certainly nothing wrong with that.Other folks, however, desire more than mere ordinary.
Follow Ups:
> Other folks, however, desire more than mere ordinary.Nothing wrong with the desire but reality is unlikely to be helpful. Neutral audio equipment tends to sound ordinary and unimpressive. To get "better" than ordinary requires a bit of creativity which some want and some don't.
"Neutral audio equipment tends to sound ordinary and unimpressive"This is simply not true. If the recording is excellent then TRULY neutral gear will sound dramatic and exciting...just like the recording.
If it always sounds ordinary and unimpressive this is a sure sign of coloration and/or distortion in your system.
> This is simply not true. If the recording is excellent then TRULY neutral gear will sound dramatic and exciting...just like the recording.If it always sounds ordinary and unimpressive this is a sure sign of coloration and/or distortion in your system. <
Absolutely correct! And some gear makes the same recordings sound more (or less) dramatic and exciting. Simple, no? ;)
I would argue that if a good recording sounds more lifelike (ie. dramatic exciting... like a good live performance) then that system is simply getting out of the way of the recording and doing LESS damage than the other systems that make it sound gray and sat upon. See I believe there is less damage or more damage not euphonic. This euphonic nonsense is simply a misnomer way to describe something that simply sounds more real despite the metrics saying it shouldn't. All that means to me is that the metrics don't correlate well with what is audible in distortion.
To get "better" than ordinary requires a bit of creativity which some want and some don't.What a strange assertion! I've never known anyone who didn't want the best sound. It is usually because they really don't care or cannot afford what is possible. Something I doubt you have ever experienced.
I've never really heard any truly neutral audio equipment. I've always been fascinated by the prospect. Can you name any pieces of gear that you believe are absolutely neutral?
> Can you name any pieces of gear that you believe are absolutely
> neutral?One of Klaus's little resonating cups when, unknown to the listener, placed in a courtyard outside the listening room. Even when the position of the cup is moved about the courtyard, again unknown to the listener, I am quite confident it will remain absolutely neutral sounding despite reports to the contrary.
The list of neutral sounding audio gear is long but only if one considers the audibility of the sound perceived by the ear alone. As soon as one admits the sound perceived by the eyes and the brain all bets are pretty much off which is why my example is like it is.
"The list of neutral sounding audio gear is long but only if one considers the audibility of the sound perceived by the ear alone"I would again challenge this assertion. From my experience MOST hifi gear is seriously flawed in one way or another. That bland boring "neutral" you refer to is flawed by distortion. Sterile, analytical gear that is touted as "neutral" is nothing of the sort. This is NOT how music sounds either live or on the majority of good recordings.
The list of truly correct sounding hifi gear is very short indeed.
> From my experience MOST hifi gear is seriously flawed in one way or another <Or at least somewhat flawed. To this day I haven't found a piece of gear that I would refer to as totally neutral. I've found some that are pretty close, though; however, the money investment is just too high for me. I really can't do $8000 preamps.
"I really can't do $8000 preamps."Well I have owned one (it was very good but not perfect by any means...still it let a lot of information through) and tested many and none are perfect (even the Kondo). STill, they kick the crap out of even the usual 4 and 5k ones (much to my dismay).
At the moment the closest I have found are some estat and planar speakers (not maggies though) and a couple of tube/hybrid amps.
I heard one and it was certainly what I would buy if I could afford it. But life and audio are full of compromises. It would be nice if I could accept the high level of sonic compromises that many PHP posters apparently do and be totally satisfied as they seem to be.
Try the VacuumState SVP-1. It is one of the only ones I know below 4K that can really deliver ALL the goods.
Well, it sounds as if you're escorting me into the Black Hole of DBT's with your last paragraph. As I find them meaningless, am I then to presume that the list of neutral sounding audio gear becomes shorter? Still, I'd like some brand names and model designations for your list, long or short. Thank you.
If you have been happily comparing amplifiers in whatever way you compare their sound and have been hearing all sorts of differences what are you expecting? It is pretty well certain that many of the amplifiers you have already heard would be indistinguishable from neutral in a controlled listening test (subject to normal caveats about environment and supporting kit) and would be on "the list".Your perception of sound changes with factors other than what impinges on your ears. If you want to find out what something actually sounds like then you have no option but to perform controlled listening tests. If you are not interested which is a perfectly reasonable position to take when it comes to home hi-fi (I am not interested for this purpose either) then you and I will have to live with the consequences.
> Still, I'd like some brand names and model designations for your
> list, long or short.Why are you asking me since there is a fair chance that there is nobody who posts on this site that knows less about current commercial audiophile brands than me. I can tell you that most conventional solid state amplifiers above a fairly modest price by audiophile standards driving relatively benign loads in a benign environment will be audibly indistinguishable in a controlled listening test. That should be plenty of amplifiers for your list but I cannot help with the brands. In uncontrolled listening tests I would expect the amplifiers to sound different.
> If you have been happily comparing amplifiers... <If you were correct in your assumption that amplifiers essentially sound identical, I'd be VERY happy. If my system could only be improved by better speakers and better room corrections, that would cut down on my overall frustration immeasurably. Reality intervenes.
> Why are you asking me since there is a fair chance that there is nobody who posts on this site that knows less about current commercial audiophile brands than me. <
I didn't ask you to limit it to commercial audiophile brands. What do you use that you find so magically neutral?
> I can tell you that most conventional solid state amplifiers above a fairly modest price by audiophile standards driving relatively benign loads in a benign environment will be audibly indistinguishable in a controlled listening test. <
Are these controlled listening tests performed with 30 second snippets of music or over a much longer period to ensure the amp doesn't introduce long term cues such as listener fatigue?
> In uncontrolled listening tests I would expect the amplifiers to sound different. <
All of my serious listening tests use controls, although not necessarily the controls you require.
> If you were correct in your assumption that amplifiers essentially
> sound identical, I'd be VERY happy.Now, now. I have not said this and you know it. You have degenerated into being dishonest which is a shame.
It is somewhat more than an assumption that in controlled listening tests modern neutrally designed amplifiers (with usual caveats) cannot be audibly distinguish because it would be predicted by established knowledge about the audibility of distortion and the levels of distortion generated by such devices. It has also, of course, been determined directly by controlled listening experiments and even reported in the audio/audiophile press although probably not recently for obvious reasons.
> If my system could only be improved by better speakers and better
> room corrections, that would cut down on my overall frustration
> immeasurably. Reality intervenes.I am afraid that reality will force you to work out what improved and better means to you. Getting a bit more technical knowledge may also help with your frustration since it is likely to modify your expectations.
> What do you use that you find so magically neutral?
I do not use anything that I find magically neutral. Lacking a belief in magic is obviously one problem but my sound perception is influenced by nonauditory factors in the same way as yours.
> Are these controlled listening tests performed with 30 second
> snippets of music or over a much longer period to ensure the amp
> doesn't introduce long term cues such as listener fatigue?Chortle. It depends what type of audibility the experiment is investigating. Audibility is not a property of hardware alone. The results for a quick switch between sounds or relying on the long term memory of sounds will be significantly different.
> All of my serious listening tests use controls, although not
> necessarily the controls you require.I do not require any controls and do not use any myself when I listen to the hi-fi at home but then my listening is for pleasure and so is almost certainly not serious by audiophile standards.
I am interested in what you would consider a control if you reject those dictated by the scientific method which I presume are the ones you state I require.
ME:> If you were correct in your assumption that amplifiers essentially
> sound identical, I'd be VERY happy.
YOU: Now, now. I have not said this and you know it. You have degenerated into being dishonest which is a shame.
It is somewhat more than an assumption that in controlled listening tests modern neutrally designed amplifiers (with usual caveats) cannot be audibly distinguish <They don't sound the same but they cannot be audibly distinguished. Is that a zen riddle? :) If I seem dishonest, it's because your comments are, to be kind, wishy-washy.
The rest of your post is more of the same. Would you care to clearly state what your position is on neutrality and how it pertains to the equipment you use (or espouse, if you don't care to list your components)?
> They don't sound the same but they cannot be audibly distinguished. Is
> that a zen riddle?You are quite capable of understanding what controlled listening test means and I know you are familiar with some of the results from such tests for amplifiers even if you do not wish to accept them. Whether you accept that sound perception is not directly related to the sound impinging on the ear and the consequences for what is heard in uncontrolled listening I am less sure. Your response suggests probably not but I have no interest in trying to convert you as I have mentioned in the past.
> The rest of your post is more of the same. Would you care to clearly
> state what your position is on neutrality and how it pertains to the
> equipment you use (or espouse, if you don't care to list your
> components)?I am afraid I can think of nothing particularly relevant to add to that in the previous couple of posts on the topic. Simply repeating statements would not seem worthwhile unless you have paid for the full half hour.
> You are quite capable of understanding what controlled listening test means and I know you are familiar with some of the results from such tests for amplifiers even if you do not wish to accept them. <But I'm afraid I'm quite incapable of reconciling the difference between items that are not audibly distinguishable, yet don't sound the same.
Many amplifiers do not convey the magic of the live performance as effectively as some others. They are like hobbiest cameras. They give you an OK snapshot, a rememberance or an introduction to something, but nothing like the real thing.
For example, how many art books really give the experience of going to the museum and seeing a real oil painting? None that I know, BUT I know of one camera that can capture the essence of a real oil painting, and it has been used at the Louvre, in China, and all around the world to document priceless art. A photograph made by this process is so REAL that you feel that you can almost reach out and touch the object photographed, in the example of a photo of a flower.
This is what we try to do with hi end audio design. It is expensive, and sometimes limiting in versatility, but that is what it takes to convey the essence of Harry 'Belafonte at Carnegie Hall' on RCA Victor vinyl, recorded in 1959. You might even hear Harry Belafonte live, even today, but I doubt that he can perform to this standard, at this time. However, you can almost go back into time, if you have the right listening equipment.
Typical playback with a cheap CD is not going to get you there, just the snapshot of the performance. This is why we put time and effort into making better audio designs, and we haven't found perfection yet. Why this should bother some, I do not know.
Wonderful explanation John of what it is all about. Thanks.
"you have already heard would be indistinguishable from neutral in a controlled listening test "Is that so? What is your neutral reference in this case? Without a reference you can't make such an assertion. The closest reference I know of is live unamplified music, all else goes in circles.
"Why are you asking me since there is a fair chance that there is nobody who posts on this site that knows less about current commercial audiophile brands than me."
Then you are in no way qualified to make the statements you are making.
Andy is one of those guys who is insecure talking about what gear he has heard or uses as his point of reference. Other than, of course, "his education". Yep, I guess those books convey a marvelously deep soundstage!
Poster KlausR came up with a "perfect" preamp but I've never been able to find anyone in the U.S that sold it. I'm assuming "perfect" means "neutral" in this case. I'm still trying to find even one piece of perfectly neutral audio equipment and I'd like some product names that I can go out and audition.
rw
...that you be right less often, thereby mitigating some of that hatred. :)
Life is so much more easily understood through Pollyanna's eyes!
That's my cousin you're talking about. ;-)
Pro gear I've owned was fairly neutral tonally, but opaque and dimensionally flat. When your frame of reference is limited, then it is truly difficult to imagine that which is superior.
"Pro gear I've owned was fairly neutral tonally, but opaque and dimensionally flat. When your frame of reference is limited, then it is truly difficult to imagine that which is superior."Neutral here is a total misnomer. This gear is NOT neutral. It is suffering from lots of problems that make it far from neutral (when live unamplified music is the reference). Crossover distortion, resulting in high order harmonics, high negative feedback exaccerbating the problem for example.
One listen to the real thing tells you how woefully unneutral it really is.
I'm not sure what pro gear's original intent was but very few pro's I come in contact with that use the gear will assert that it is the last word in neutrality, resolution or just about anything else. It's cheap, it's reliable, it's powerful and it amplifies. End of story. If someone uses pro gear in a home environment and likes it, that's certainly fine. But as you said, it in no way is representational of live music in my experience.
I disagree with this opinion. Good audio tends to bring out the magic of the original performance. I have NEVER deliberately adjusted an audio design to sound different from the original live performance.
> Good audio tends to bring out the magic of the original performance.Is good audio different to neutral audio in ways that can be measured?
There is no such thing as neutral audio, because there has been no perfect component that passes audio perfectly. Mid fi usually leaves out information and often imprints a signature that is usually associated with solid state electronics. However, the better that you make solid state electronics perform, the less its presence in the audio chain will compromise the sound. Tubes are not perfect either, but they are usually more listenable than typical solid state.
> There is no such thing as neutral audio,Neutral is that which inaudibly modifies the signal which is straightforward to determine in an audibility experiment.
> because there has been no perfect component that passes audio
> perfectly.There is no requirement for perfection only that the imperfection is inaudible.
> Mid fi usually leaves out information and often imprints a signature
> that is usually associated with solid state electronics.Can this signature be measured?
> However, the better that you make solid state electronics perform,
> the less its presence in the audio chain will compromise the sound.This will only be the true if the presence of solid state electronics is audible in the first place. Is it?
> Tubes are not perfect either, but they are usually more listenable
> than typical solid state.What does listenable mean and can it be measured?
You have not responded to the question asked which was is good audio different to neutral audio in ways that can be measured?
The reason for banging on about measurement is that if something cannot be measured it cannot be addressed by the application of scientific knowledge. If this is the case with your claims then that is fine and we would be talking at cross purposes if I were to expect the scientific method to apply. Clark, for example, has stated that the scientific method does not apply to audio which makes his position clear. No problems.
"Neutral is that which inaudibly modifies the signal which is straightforward to determine in an audibility experiment"
Your original question is meaningless, because there is no such definition as 'neutral audio'. How do you measure that?
Personally, I can measure to 1 million to one, with THD and IM distortion. This appears to be about 10 times better than 'Stereophile' typically measures. This is about -120db. I also can separate individual harmonics and noise from the measurement, and accurately measure harmonics to 100KHz. There is even newer and better test equipment out there, but I cannot personally afford it. However I doubt that an even lower measurement would gain much. After all, sooner or later, an extremely low value in distortion, by itself, must be meaningless, even to the 'objectives' of this world.
I will give an example however of how I once changed the sound of a power amplifier that even surprised me.
It was 1973, and I was hanging out at Mark Levinson's house. We were making a new phono pre-preamp together, to be called the JC-1, and Mark also made some discrete line level modules for the Grateful Dead, for use in their new sound system.
Mark had retired his Marantz 9 tube power amps and bought a Phase Linear 700 power amp that went well with his new DW electrostatic loudspeakers.
Both Mark and I thought this combination pretty good, and well balanced. However, Mark's mother (did I mention that Mark lived with his family?) complained that the new setup hurt her ears, so Mark and I discussed the problem.
I told Mark: "We could change the bias and cut out the protection circuitry."
I knew that the Phase Linear 700 ran next to empty in bias, because I could just put my hand on a heatsink after some time in idle and it would be just barely perceptably warm over the ambient.
Well, we did what I suggested on his workbench. The bias was slightly increased to reduce the xover distortion to where I could just feel a slight difference in the heatsink temperature. (you must remember that by 1973, xover distortion had been proven to be inaudible in DB tests) and the protection circuits were snipped out.
Well what happened? After we got the unit running again, Mark asked me: "Where did the highs go! Did you change something that would affect the frequency response? " I said: "No, Mark, I just removed some of the xover distortion in the amp.
Well, the next time I came to visit, Mark had an electrostatic tweeter mounted on top of his big electrostatic speakers. Subsequently, the electrostatic speaker came out with a MK2 version with a piezo tweeter (ick) on top. Apparently, the electrostatic speaker manufacturer had exaggerated the actual high frequency performance of his speaker in his literature, but this was originally taken care of by the addition of higher order harmonics from the bigger amps that were necessary to drive the speaker properly.
So much for the inaudibility of xover distortion.
Now I want to ask you engineers out there: Why do Motorola piezoelectric tweeters sound the way that they do? What can I MEASURE to show how they sound, and why doesn't everyone use them?
Thanks for the length of the reply but you still seem to have avoided directly answering the question can you measure what you are reporting hearing. Nonetheless, the gist of your response would seem to be that you cannot measure what you are reporting hearing. Is this fair?
I remember the Dayton-Wrights well having heard Dr. John W. Cooledge's pair back in '76. While his MK Is were a tad shy on the top, I was taken by their incredible coherency and low level resolution capabilities. Thirty years later, I'm still a 'stat freak.Indeed the later MK II / MK III's were a mixed bag (no pun intended - remember the outer diaphragm used to contain the SF2 gas?). More efficient, somewhat more reliable, but had that damn tweeter. I worked for a dealer who picked up the line at the time of the MK IIIs. He drove them first with a Dunlap-Clarke amp (Dan D'Agostino was the rep for both D-W and D-C at the time) and later with Nelson Pass' first effort, the 800A and finally a Stasis 2. Some folks disconnected the piezo. The store used an identical driver for use as a - burglar alarm!
SF6 gas :)
rw
Well, I am a chemist :)
it bears repeating. Dr. Cooledge not only wrote for TAS from day one, but he has been a member of the Atlanta Symphony Chorus for about thirty years as a baritone. One of the Dayton-Wright panels required replacement. He had to first cut the outer diaphragm to gain access to the interior where the panels are located. After replacing the panel and resealing the outer diaphragm, he had to replace the SF6 gas. So...As you know as a chemist, SF6 is heavier than air. Exactly the opposite of helium in that regard. You can put it in a cup where it remains colorless, but you can feel it. JWC inhaled a bit and then sung a line from an opera. It sounded like Lurch at the Met! That was hilarious. :)
Cool! I have heard that people have tried that before but personally I have never played with SF6. I am glad most electrostats don't need it. I guess the panels were moisture sensitive or did it simply reduce the chance of arcing?
Electrical insulator to prevent arcing.
...if something cannot be measured it cannot be addressed by the application of scientific knowledge.Perhaps now you are beginning to understand the underlying challenge and limitations of current metrics. In the real world, final voicing of virtually every kind of audio component is done by human ear, not THD plots.
> > ...if something cannot be measured it cannot be addressed by the
> > application of scientific knowledge.
>
> Perhaps now you are beginning to understand the underlying challenge
> and limitations of current metrics.I was simply stating how to determine what is and what is not in the scientific domain. If John considers his observations to be unmeasurable then his statements are not in conflict with anything I have signed up for.
> In the real world, final voicing of virtually every kind of audio
> component is done by human ear, not THD plots.Listening under controlled conditions is a perfectly valid form of measurement. However, if a sound is loud enough to be heard under such conditions it will be straightforward to measure using more reliable and repeatable techniques.
I was simply stating how to determine what is and what is not in the scientific domain. >For stating the obvious.
Listening under controlled conditions is a perfectly valid form of measurement.
Right. We've known that for decades.
However, if a sound is loud enough to be heard under such conditions it will be straightforward to measure using more reliable and repeatable techniques.
Using what metrics? Which combination fully characterize the entire envelope of performance characteristics of any audio component? Every audio designer on the planet will surely benefit from your unique knowledge in this regard. Make it good!
> > However, if a sound is loud enough to be heard under such conditions
> > it will be straightforward to measure using more reliable and
> > repeatable techniques.
>
> Using what metrics?Metrics? Using a microphone plus normal kit.
> Which combination fully characterize the entire envelope of
> performance characteristics of any audio component?What has that, whatever it means, got to do with measuring sound?
> Every audio designer on the planet will surely benefit from your
> unique knowledge in this regard. Make it good!
What you propose Andy is what has been done for the last 70 years. Why do you think it will change due to your suggestion?The question is which measurements are meaningful and correlate with the sound. It is clear that the basic metrics like THD and IM do not.
So, what Estat wants to know is WHAT are you going to measure and how are you going to arrive at that metric and how does it correlate with listening? Assuming of course you accept that different gear actually sounds different, which at the moment it doesn't sound like you accept this basic tennet of the discussion. If you don't think that then there is no point in developing a metric to correlate to something that doesn't exist!
First of all, let's agree on the definition of "metric" in the proper context. My dictionary says this:A standard of measurement.
Anyone disagree? So what metrics do we have for measuring audio gear? THD. IM. Frequency response. Phase shift.
Metrics? Using a microphone plus normal kit.
Which measurement(s) will the microphone be capturing? Not sure what you mean by "kit". Is that a metric? What does it measure? What is the unit of measure?
> Which measurement(s) will the microphone be capturing?Usually they measure a variation in pressure.
> Not sure what you mean by "kit".
A microphone on its own is not much use without supporting kit such as a power supply, preamp, A/D and a storage device.
> Is that a metric?
Is what a metric?
> What does it measure?
Assuming it refers to the microphone, it usually measures a variation in pressure.
> What is the unit of measure?
Whatever unit for pressure you want. Pascal is quite a good one.
I am not sure much clarification has occurred although I do still remain intrigued.
Andy19191919191:However, if a sound is loud enough to be heard under such conditions it will be straightforward to measure using more reliable and repeatable techniques.E-Stat: Using what metrics? Which combination fully characterize the entire envelope of performance characteristics of any audio component?
Andy19191919191:Metrics? Using a microphone plus normal kit.
E-Stat: First of all, let's agree on the definition of "metric" in the proper context. My dictionary says this: A standard of measurement...
So what metrics do we have for measuring audio gear? THD. IM. Frequency response. Phase shift. Soooooooo.
Which measurement(s) will the microphone be capturing?Andy19191919191: Usually they measure a variation in pressure...Whatever unit for pressure you want. Pascal is quite a good one.
_________________________________________________________________________________
So, the measurement of pressure alone is capable of fully characterizing the complete set of all performance criteria of high resolution audio components. Huh?
> So, the measurement of pressure alone is capable of fully
> characterizing the complete set of all performance criteria of high
> resolution audio components. Huh????
I am still find it hard to work out what you are going on about. Are you discussing measuring the difference between two sounds that you can hear or are you discussing something else? If it is something else can you please let me know what it is.
You fail to grasp the concept that the conventional measurements on which you base your qualitative judgement (through your education, of course) are completely useless. Incapable of rendering meaningful correlations to that which is heard.If you haven't already, I recommend you buy the cheapest pro amp on the market like a Behringer and enjoy ordinary audio quality.
"There is no such thing as neutral audio"Yikes, if you restricted your comments to loudspeakers and turntables, you might have an arguable point.
"because there has been no perfect component that passes audio perfectly."
err....Perfection and neutrality, of course no audio component is perfect in the absolute sense, but however does relate to neutrality? Afterall, neutrality means the lack of own signature rather than absolute playback perfection.
"Mid fi usually leaves out information and often imprints a signature..."
How? the job of the components is simple, to playback the software, the measurements can give good indicator of the performance. If you claim that the measurements i.e. controlled listening tests and meters, do not tell the full picture, you are back to where you started? How do you know a component leaves out information.
"However, the better that you make solid state electronics perform, the less its presence in the audio chain will compromise the sound"
The questions stated previously also apply here, how do you know this without the use of some objective metrics. Of particular concern and relevance are the commments "Mid-fi leaves out information"
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
"the measurements can give good indicator of the performance"
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: