Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Difference between "revealing" and "detailed"?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Difference between "revealing" and "detailed"? - Page 3

post #31 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by germanium View Post

You don't have to have frequency response aberations to be revealing  or dtailed. One can have both without aberations. A lot depends on source & amplification as I have found. You can have flat boring sound or you can have exciting sound that also happens to measure flat. The trick is to find what causes flat boring sound & correct it. I have done that & the results are amazing especially when from frequeny response measurements, they measure the same.

 

Can you give us a specific example of changes you have made that have left the FR unchanged and yet made substantial and objectively verifiable changes to other audio parameters, what other audio parameters were affected , to what extent , how did you measure these or verify them in an objective manner, did you do any blind listening tests, were there substantial measurable flaws in the equipment before you made the specified changes, and if so what were they, you are an EE yes, what steps did you take to evaluate the effect of your changes rigorously ?

 

I'm having trouble with the whole large differences between sources part, even the ancient $20 - $30 used CD players I often buy from eBay ( for a laugh) demonstrate exemplary measurable performance in terms of noise,distortion and linearity. I've DBT'd many CD players and once adjusted for volume cannot tell them apart and others have done the same, the trick is level matching, without level matching you can forget it. Not saying that all sources always sound the same but the proper DBTs I have found that have shown audible differences between CD players used extreme cases such as early 14 bit machines or portables not competent modern units. I'm always willing to learn so if you do have some exmaples of successful DBTs between decent modern CD players I'll be happy to read them...

post #32 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhythmdevils View Post

 

Maybe you should read my post again.  Completely misunderstood what I was saying.  I said both how the terms were used on this forum frequently, and then explained what they should mean. 

 

And no, a lot doesn't depend on the source.  A neutral headphone would still sound very neutral out of an ipod assuming it didnt have extremely unique powering requirements.  The transducer is what determines the vast majority of how revealing and detailed the final sound will be.  And unfortunately your Denons are not neutral. 

I never claimed my Denons are neutral but I do have probably the most neutral phones out there in the form of the Etymotic Research ER4P with P to S converter. & my speakers once modified are very  neutral & very detailed as well as revealing.

 

I take revealing to be as having a midrange that not only accuratly represents the sound of the instrument but also captures the sound of the venue where the recording was made accurately where as detail is a high frequency phenominum that can emphesize instruments like cymbals though when combined with a revealing midrange does not sound out of place at all hense can be a part of a neutral sound if these 2 are in proper balance to each other as they are in my system.

post #33 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_charles View Post

 

Can you give us a specific example of changes you have made that have left the FR unchanged and yet made substantial and objectively verifiable changes to other audio parameters, what other audio parameters were affected , to what extent , how did you measure these or verify them in an objective manner, did you do any blind listening tests, were there substantial measurable flaws in the equipment before you made the specified changes, and if so what were they, you are an EE yes, what steps did you take to evaluate the effect of your changes rigorously ?

 

I'm having trouble with the whole large differences between sources part, even the ancient $20 - $30 used CD players I often buy from eBay ( for a laugh) demonstrate exemplary measurable performance in terms of noise,distortion and linearity. I've DBT'd many CD players and once adjusted for volume cannot tell them apart and others have done the same, the trick is level matching, without level matching you can forget it. Not saying that all sources always sound the same but the proper DBTs I have found that have shown audible differences between CD players used extreme cases such as early 14 bit machines or portables not competent modern units. I'm always willing to learn so if you do have some exmaples of successful DBTs between decent modern CD players I'll be happy to read them...

 

Sorry but you will just have to take my word on this as you will not believe me even if I provide measurements. My measurements are every bit as good as others I have see on line for the same product with the exception that my frequency response is slightly even flatter at the bottom by .03db  but the same everywhere else & the distortion spectrum is slightly different but overall results in the same overall result of .0020% as others results I've seen for this card  so nothing that should be audible here in THD & my IMD looked even cleaner than the others I have seen which is a more important measurement than THD. 2nd & 3rd harmonics are slightly higher but others are the same or lower & I'm not sure if that is from the input stage of the ADC or the output stage of the DAC.

 

The slightly flatter response is a result of D.C.coupling. This improves both detail & the revealing nature of the mids, but the biggest improvements come from the power supply bypasses that I do which seems to go against the conventional wisdom of others on the net but in my case they work very well indeed. A more revealing & detailed sound that not only sounds neutral but sounds also quite powerfull no matter the volume I play my music at.

 

 With these mods as well as the same mods done to my speakers, my speakers are the only direct radiator type speakers I have ever heard accurately reproduce the sound of horn instruments. Previously I have only heard horn speakers do a credable job of reproducing the sound of a horn type instrument. This is only possible on my system with all the componants modified that I have done otherwise the horn sound fails to sound convincing


Edited by germanium - 7/26/12 at 11:56pm
post #34 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by germanium View Post

I never claimed my Denons are neutral but I do have probably the most neutral phones out there in the form of the Etymotic Research ER4P with P to S converter. & my speakers once modified are very  neutral & very detailed as well as revealing.

So you do adjust the response on your speakers, just not your headphones?
post #35 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by germanium View Post

 

Sorry but you will just have to take my word on this as you will not believe me even if I provide measurements.

 

I'll trust you not to cheat on measurements !

 

My measurements are every bit as good as others I have see on line for the same product with the exception that my frequency response is slightly even flatter at the bottom by .03db  but the same everywhere else & the distortion spectrum is slightly different but overall results in the same overall result of .0020% as others results I've seen for this card  so nothing that should be audible here in THD & my IMD looked even cleaner than the others I have seen which is a more important measurement than THD. 2nd & 3rd harmonics are slightly higher but others are the same or lower & I'm not sure if that is from the input stage of the ADC or the output stage of the DAC.

 

So, basically there were no problems with the card beforehand and afterwards it measured sligthly better overall but not to any magnitude that should be audible ?

 

The slightly flatter response is a result of D.C.coupling.

 

as an aside you did measure multiple times to compensate for random variation ?

 

This improves both detail & the revealing nature of the mids... more revealing & detailed sound

 

But hang on, there is no notable difference in noise or distortion or FR after the changes - so where are these subjective differences coming from ? - i.e where in the realms of engineering do they originate from - what does DC coupling do circuit-wise and to what extent, why should it make a difference ,what parameters are chaning to the extent that they make an audible difference?


Edited by nick_charles - 7/27/12 at 4:49pm
post #36 of 55
I always associate neutral with frequency response.
post #37 of 55

Nick

 

I measured it many times there was absolutely no variation in the frequency response. I tried varying the input level & output level to compensate for the change in input level to bring it back to the same measured output level & frequency response does not change at all. Noise & distortion tests do vary slightly (no where near audible levels of change though) but frequency response remains an absolute constant as it should

post #38 of 55

:thumb: Page 3 has been a fascinating read. D.C. coupling? Bypass caps on power supply?? I'd miss opening night at the Olympics, in order to improve my Mac mini music server. Hope to learn more...

post #39 of 55

I don't know how you'd improve a Mac Mini!

post #40 of 55

I do. But often in this hobby, tongue_smile.gif what one has is never enough...more please!  Addressing the little one's quality of power is my next quest.


Edited by Silent One - 7/27/12 at 9:12pm
post #41 of 55

Nick_Charles wrote

 

But hang on, there is no notable difference in noise or distortion or FR after the changes - so where are these subjective differences coming from ? - i.e where in the realms of engineering do they originate from - what does DC coupling do circuit-wise and to what extent, why should it make a difference ,what parameters are chaning to the extent that they make an audible difference?

 

 

I'm writing.

Electrolytic capacitors have been known to me for quite some time to be quite lossy in terms of sound quality that you can get through them, It seems this true no matter where they are used but my experiments with an Adcom GFA 545 back some years ago drilled home in huge fashon when I replaced it's capacitor that was a bleed for the negative feed back in that amp that was an electrolytic type with a metalized film cap the sound was intantly vastly more transperant & made the amp sound much more like a Krell or Mark Levinson than an Adcom amp. It still had other issues that prevented from sounding exactly like these other amps which I did eventually address but The loss through the electrolytic cap going to ground in the negative feedback loop was absolutely huge. This was high gain amp & the cap controlled the gain of the amp so it's losses were amplified by the gain of the amp. Frequency response measured flat but sound was lifeless stock. After replacing with a  metalized film cap the sound still measuered flat but sound was more lively & tranperant.

 

Eliminating electrolytic coupling caps wherever possible has always for me resulted in a more transperant & revealing sound. Bypassing power supply caps adds more of the same but I found that I needed reasonably (actually most people would consider these excessively large but the work best in my case) large caps to be successfull & both the DAC power supply & the opamp powersupplies need to be bypassed otherwise  if you do just the opamps you will hear  some glare to the sound as it will reveal shortcomings of the stage before it & there is no analog stage before the DAC so that must be bypassed as well to get the neutral sound without glare. Detail & the revealing nature of this mod remains but the glare is gone. 


Edited by germanium - 7/28/12 at 12:53am
post #42 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by germanium View Post

Electrolytic capacitors have been known to me (citation ?)  for quite some time to be quite lossy in terms of sound quality that you can get through them, It seems this true no matter where they are used but my experiments(methodology?)  with an Adcom GFA 545 back some years ago drilled home in huge fashon when I replaced it's capacitor that was a bleed for the negative feed back in that amp that was an electrolytic type with a metalized film cap the sound was intantly vastly more transperant & made the amp sound much more like a Krell or Mark Levinson than an Adcom amp. It still had other issues that prevented from sounding exactly like these other amps which I did eventually address but The loss through the electrolytic cap going to ground in the negative feedback loop was absolutely huge. This was high gain amp & the cap controlled the gain of the amp so it's losses were amplified by the gain of the amp. Frequency response measured flat but sound was lifeless stock. After replacing with a  metalized film cap the sound still measuered flat but sound was more lively & tranperant.

 

Eliminating electrolytic coupling caps wherever possible has always for me resulted in a more transperant & revealing sound. Bypassing power supply caps adds more of the same but I found that I needed reasonably (actually most people would consider these excessively large but the work best in my case) large caps to be successfull & both the DAC power supply & the opamp powersupplies need to be bypassed otherwise  if you do just the opamps you will hear  some glare to the sound as it will reveal shortcomings of the stage before it & there is no analog stage before the DAC so that must be bypassed as well to get the neutral sound without glare. Detail & the revealing nature of this mod remains but the glare is gone. 

 

You are still refusing to show me any connection between objective measurable parameters where these changes make their presence known and your subjective experience. Unless I am missing something fundamental your answer above suggests you make changes which have no measurable effect but magically improve the sound in some way that cannot be objectively pinned down - what am I missing ?

post #43 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_charles View Post

 

You are still refusing to show me any connection between objective measurable parameters where these changes make their presence known and your subjective experience. Unless I am missing something fundamental your answer above suggests you make changes which have no measurable effect but magically improve the sound in some way that cannot be objectively pinned down - what am I missing ?

You will just have to do the experiments your self to truely understand where I'm coming from, Others on here have & came to the same conclusion that I have. My mods do work very well indeed.

post #44 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by germanium View Post

You will just have to do the experiments your self to truely understand where I'm coming from, Others on here have & came to the same conclusion that I have. My mods do work very well indeed.

 

You flatter yourself calling your trial and error tweaking "experiments" - you made a set of changes in a massively uncontrolled manner and you heard a difference relying on a memory of something that might be hours or even days old with no means of direct comparison - round here that is referred to as an anecdote and it does not matter if 100 or 1,000,000 people "heard" the same thing - that would be the plural anecdotes !

 

Mods - you can ban me if you like I am fed up of being politely indulgent of nonsense and magical thinking - especially from those who should know better ! - and especially here , the one subforum where standards of evidence should be much better !


Edited by nick_charles - 7/28/12 at 11:00am
post #45 of 55

 Nick_Charles wrote

 

You flatter yourself calling your trial and error tweaking "experiments" - you made a set of changes in a massively uncontrolled manner and you heard a difference relying on a memory of something that might be hours or even days old with no means of direct comparison - round here that is referred to as an anecdote and it does not matter if 100 or 1,000,000 people "heard" the same thing - that would be the plural anecdotes !

 

Mods - you can ban me if you like I am fed up of being politely indulgent of nonsense and magical thinking - especially from those who should know better ! - and especially here , the one subforum where standards of evidence should be much better !

 

I'm writing;

 

You seem to forget that all experiments are trial & error initially & even after you have a known result it still takes experimentation to tweak it for different circumstances

 

Note that I have no money nor the equipment nor the manpower as I am not a rich person, (but then again niether were Orvil & Wilber Wright when they invented the first working aircraft, Many others tried & failed that had much more money & schooling than they had yet they had the brains that made it work), to do the experiments you seem to require however I do actually have an ear for how things should sound & have  made the nessessary corrections to make it sound as it should sound. My experiment are easy to do if you know anything about tracing a signal through a circuit. I see you have a problem with that, that someone actually understands something that you don't, has performed experiments that you haven't that allowed me to gain that understanding. To me it doesn't matter why electrolyics cause the losses they do, All I need to understand is what doesn't cause the same losses that I can replace them with. I could come up with a lot of possible reasons why but I'm not going to go into them because like everything else here they will be shot down by the naysayers that seem to think they rule this part of the forum. They obviously haven't read the subheading at the top of this part of the forum.

 

The purpose of science is not to analyse or describe but to make useful models of the world. A model is useful if it allows us to get use out of it.

 

It is obvious to me that something has to change in the way that people anylize & design amplification to take into account these losses that come from electrolytics.


Edited by germanium - 7/28/12 at 9:33am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Difference between "revealing" and "detailed"?