[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ What an insight!

You know, if you want other people to treat you with respect, you'll do the same for them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ That's one method, another, better one is pink noise.

Pink noise is NOT better... it's just faster. When you have all of the frequencies coming in at once, you end up with masking problems. One frequency will cover up another one, making you overcompensate. It's very difficult to balance the relationships of fundamentals and harmonics even if you are taking it one frequency at a time. Getting it perfect with all of them coming in at once is next to impossible. You can only get close.

Likewise, the spectrum analyzers that are commonly used are able to read flat for spectrum analyzers, but that doesn't mean that it's flat for your ears. You'll find that particularly with low frequencies, spectrum analyzers tend to hear things much louder than you do.

If you'd like to do an interesting experiment, try balancing your system using pink noise and an analyzer. Then run a sweep and see if you think the tone remains at a constant rate throughout.

See ya
Steve

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot Pink noise is NOT better... it's just faster...

Let's leave it at that. I'm not buying your wisdom -- I prefer to rely on my own

(...whatever that means).

 

[bigshot]

You'll never know any more than you know right now with an attitude like that. Maybe you're just young and you'll grow out of it. I always liked the line that went something like... "The older I get, the smarter my father gets."

See ya
Steve

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot You'll never know any more than you know right now with an attitude like that.

What was that old saw about the pot and the kettle, again?

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot You'll never know any more than you know right now with an attitude like that. Maybe you're just young and you'll grow out of it.

Not exactly.

I guess I could be your father (although I thankfully renounce). It's just that what you think is wisdom is old hat to me and rather basic. I'm definitely not interested.

But that's not my general attitude, not even towards you and your juvenile overenthusiasm trying to convince other people of your knowledge.

 

[Jon L]

Quote:

Originally Posted by recstar24 If you want an analogue type sound with rhytmic tightness, a sound that is smooth, warm, yet extremely resolved and detailed with great punch and rhytmic drive, I haven't heard a CDP yet that can match even the most basic turntable in accomplishing such a wide variety of musical aspects so well. Of course,i would imagine something like the 10,000 crowd probably gets close,but i haven't heard any that price range.

That would be Meitner DCC2 DAC/preamp you're describing, and it happens to chime in at $10K. I really hate these expensive components, but in this case one could feel a bit better since DCC2 is DAC+very good active preamp.

I still secretly pray that Ed Meitner decides to market the DCC2 without a preamp for 1/2 the price, but that's just me..

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS What was that old saw about the pot and the kettle, again?

There are two ways to present ideas to other people to consider...

You can present it; refuse to explain it; insist that if someone
else can't hear it, there's something wrong with their ears or
their equipment- or both; and throw insults when it isn't
accepted on blind faith.

Or you can present it; clearly explain the physics behind
how it works; provide real world applications and solutions;
and suggest ways of isolating it and reproducing the effect,
so others can hear it for themselves.

I think if you look back through my posts, you'll see which
one of those describes the way I share info. The best way
to disagree is exactly the same.

I may be presenting info that is basic and simple, but the
big problems usually *are* basic and simple. The simple truth
is that frequency response is what we actually hear, it's
what we are paying for when we buy high end equipment,
and to the average person, it's the least understood concept
in sound reproduction.

I've spoken with engineers who can talk for hours on sampling
rates, numerical specs, and why digital/analogue/whatever
sounds so bad, but they don't really know what "masking" or
"harmonic distortion" is, or the difference between "white noise"
and "pink noise". They'll tell you that the sound that you need
to make sound better is the sound you can't even hear, and
they'll tell you that the problem with your stereo is the walls
in your room. They're the ones that throw money at a problem
instead of actually figuring it out and solving it. And they're
the ones who judge the quality of the sound of a piece of
equipment before the power light even comes on. They're
also the ones that get angry if you start asking them
questions... These engineers are usually the ones who
learned what they know from equipment salesmen, not from
actual listening.

I've also been lucky enough to speak with engineers whose
knowledge of acoustics makes mine look like an ant. These
guys are usually interested in thinking problems through
objectively, without preconceived notions; and they are
always willing to slow down and explain each concept so
you can follow their logic. I've also found that these sorts
of engineers are the ones who get you to describe what you
are hearing and then tell you why, rather than telling you
you can't hear.

There's knowledge, and there's knowledge... I think the
difference is pretty much self-evident.

See ya
Steve

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot I think if you look back through my posts, you'll see which one of those describes the way I share info.

I'm very well aware of how you typically "share info," and I don't think you realize how you may come across sometimes (or most of the time), which is why I was amused when you took a poke at Jazz for his "attitude."

 

[newmanoc]

Steve:
I understand that you have experience in professionally recording, producing, and engineering music. I also recognize that you have some knowledge of acoustic theory and its applications, and certainly more than I possess. But you are monomaniacal in the way you reduce the extreme complexities of human acoustic experience to important but limited measurements such as frequency response. These things are clearly a huge part sound reproduction, but most of us in the audio end of things - based on our carefully gathered, reproducible experience - have concluded it just isn't the whole story. Our ears and brains appear to be too sophisticated as organs, and the technical measurements we are able to use are comparatively so limited.

Mind you, this is also the view of a great many people in the hobby who have extensive (even mind numbing degrees of) technical expertise. So, when you belittle "minute cable differences," and claim to be unable to hear any relevant differences between $500 and $4000 CD players, I am left to conclude that, when it comes to *audio* as I hear and enjoy it, you really don't yet know much of what you are talking about. Sorry if that is harsh, because you clearly do know some things very well and I appreciate your posts.

Many people insist on reducing the scope of any subject to that which they can comfortably quantify by objective means, irrespective of whether the available tools/ theories are actually adequate. They tend to close their minds to the often abundant recalcitrant data that stubbornly won't cooperate with this reduction, always failing to look for it, and at times even denying that it exists as it stares them in the face. You can see this sad pattern repeated throughout the history of medicine, psychiatry, philosophy, and other disciplines. I think I see some of it in you with respect to audio.

By all means keep your opinions. But please do much more listening to high end gear, and do it with an open mind. It is much wiser to start with the data, and then see what you can come up with in terms of explanations (which if we are honest, aren’t always there). Too much of the time, it feels like you are working in the other direction.

None of this is intended to be rude or hurtful, and after all, it is just one man's opinion.

 

[bigshot]

The things that many audiophiles take for granted, like a flat frequency response, are the things that *count*. Think about it... When a set of speakers is rated to +/- 3db, can you hear what 3db sounds like? Yes. You can hear it, I can hear it, my 85 year old mother can hear it. And +/- 3db is REALLY GOOD SPECS for speakers.

If you run a signal through a silver cable and compare the output on the other end to the output of copper zip cord, it isn't going to be anywhere near as great a difference as that. In fact, the frequency response problem is going to be easily several orders of magnitude greater.

Next, pull out the specs for your system. Look at the specs for your CD player and amp. Compare those to the specs for your speakers... Again... not even in the same ballpark.

Now, look at your room. Is it acoustically perfect? Is the sound that comes out of your speakers exactly the same as the sound you hear in the room? I bet there are very few here who can answer yes to that. What's the point of spending a boatload of money on a sound system only to put it in a room that thows the frequency response off as much as 20db?

So, why are people worrying about minute differences in cables and distortion levels in CDs that don't even come close to the levels in their speakers, when they could be spending their energy correcting problems that are clearly audible... with a little bit of simple equalization?

You tell me!

I know what causes upgraditis... It's a result of people not having a clearly defined goal for their sound system. They get whatever component sounds impressive to them in theory, and they figure it will work all by itself, regardless of whatever else they put with it. It doesn't matter if the sound is *correct* as long as it's *different*. This results in a colored sound presentation. After a few months of "listening to music with rose colored glasses" they tire of the coloration and randomly try another color... and another... and another.

If you have a clearly defined goal, and you work on the broad strokes first and then work your way down to the details, you end up arriving at a point that sounds wonderful to you today, tomorrow and forever. Once you have a sense of proportions, you'll probably realize that a lot of the fine details you are worrying about now really don't make any appreciable difference. But you won't get anywhere if you ignore the most basic concepts.

You guys can feel free to think whatever you want about my advice. But you would be totally flummuxed at some of the PMs I'm getting.

See ya
Steve

 

[Aman]

Quote:

First of all, all sound is analog.

The origins of sound (the source) is not analog, it is digital. It is digitally read and digitally transfered to your amp into a signal it can understand.

A turntable, however, has a piece of diamond (instead of a laser) which actually "plays" the vinyl according to its grooves and transmits the sound waves through the arm and out to the phono stage. You will be unable to hear a CD player play its music unless your amp is turned on. However, if you listen to a cartrige carefully, without turning your system on, you WILL hear the cartridge playing music without your speakers.

Sure, the speakers could technically be considered analog, though we are looking further back than the speakers, because that's what really matters in this situation.

Analogue sound, to me, means a more "experiencing it" kind of sound - it sounds more like you're there. A more realistic sound stage, more realistic distortion that analogue equipment gives, and greater richness.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot The things that many audiophiles take for granted, like a flat frequency response, are the things that *count*. Think about it... When a set of speakers is rated to +/- 3db, can you hear what 3db sounds like? Yes. You can hear it, I can hear it, my 85 year old mother can hear it. And +/- 3db is REALLY GOOD SPECS for speakers. If you run a signal through a silver cable and compare the output on the other end to the output of copper zip cord, it isn't going to be anywhere near as great a difference as that. In fact, the frequency response problem is going to be easily several orders of magnitude greater. Next, pull out the specs for your system. Look at the specs for your CD player and amp. Compare those to the specs for your speakers... Again... not even in the same ballpark. Now, look at your room. Is it acoustically perfect? Is the sound that comes out of your speakers exactly the same as the sound you hear in the room? I bet there are very few here who can answer yes to that. What's the point of spending a boatload of money on a sound system only to put it in a room that thows the frequency response off as much as 20db? So, why are people worrying about minute differences in cables and distortion levels in CDs that don't even come close to the levels in their speakers, when they could be spending their energy correcting problems that are clearly audible... with a little bit of simple equalization? You tell me!

It seems to me that Head-Fi is primarily about headphones, and how to get the best out of components, cables, etc. that are being used in headphone systems. It also seems to me arguing about the differences between speakers is really not relevant, for the most part. Perhaps that's why you're losing a lot of us with your arguments. You may have similar arguments with respect to the components that we all use with headphones, but when you continue to argue in the most emphatic manner by comparing and contrasting the differences between speakers with the differences between cables or other components, you're talking about a component (i.e., speakers) that many of us are not interested in or that often is not the subject under discussion in a particular thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot I know what causes upgraditis... It's a result of people not having a clearly defined goal for their sound system. They get whatever component sounds impressive to them in theory, and they figure it will work all by itself, regardless of whatever else they put with it. It doesn't matter if the sound is *correct* as long as it's *different*. This results in a colored sound presentation. After a few months of "listening to music with rose colored glasses" they tire of the coloration and randomly try another color... and another... and another.

This insistence you have on telling the rest of us at least once or twice in every thread in the most dogmatic way why everyone else does things (e.g., "I know what causes . . . "), what everyone else is thinking, and why they are or are not satisfied, is another thing that I think is bothersome to many of us. Can't you say something like: "I think that a lot of people might be upgrading when the real problem is that they really don't have a defined goal for their system. Sometimes they may be trying to just get a "different" sound, instead of sound that is "correct." As a result, they may tire after a few months of listening to sound that might be colored in some fashion, which leads them to pursue improvements which just color the sound in a different way. I think if they would try to get the correct sound in the first place, and an equalizer, IMO, is the best way to do this, they would achieve correct sound and a sound that they like, at much lower cost."

I think those types of comments are a bit easier to swallow, and your essential point does not get obscured by an attitude or approach that some might find objectionable.

 

[newmanoc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS It seems to me that Head-Fi is primarily about headphones, and how to get the best out of components, cables, etc. that are being used in headphone systems. It also seems to me arguing about the differences between speakers is really not relevant, for the most part.... you're talking about a component (i.e., speakers) that many of us are not interested in or that often is not the subject under discussion in a particular thread.

Well, actually it seems to me a large number of us who participate on this site own speakers as well as headphones. This is probably particularly true of those who lurk around the dedicated source forum. I for one don't think the subject irrelevent or inappropriate for head-fi, and it is the first time I've seen someone suggest it is. I simply think you are off base on this one.

 

[clarke68]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot ... Some engineers don't even bother to calibrate their equipment any more. They mix to horribly unbalanced bookshelf speakers because that's what most people listen to music on. This results in music that hangs free in the spectrum with no relation to other recordings. If your speakers happen to precisely match the bookshelf speakers the engineer happened to mix on, the sound will be great.

Even the fact that many engineer mix while sitting at a console is problem, because sound reflections off the console itself cause comb filtering...even wearing a hat with a brim causes a dip in the frequency response around 2kHz. A sound engineer who so much as wears a hat during mastering can send a 2kHz boost to every record store in America!


Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot Very few people have any idea of what flat sounds like. The only place you can hear it nowadays is at a classical concert.

Some people even go so far as to argue that the colorations present in most concert halls are so dramatic that you won't hear flat even at a classical concert.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ That's one method, another, better one is pink noise.

How do you balance a system using pink noise?

 

[Aman]

Quote:

It seems to me that Head-Fi is primarily about headphones, and how to get the best out of components, cables, etc. that are being used in headphone systems. It also seems to me arguing about the differences between speakers is really not relevant, for the most part. Perhaps that's why you're losing a lot of us with your arguments. You may have similar arguments with respect to the components that we all use with headphones, but when you continue to argue in the most emphatic manner by comparing and contrasting the differences between speakers with the differences between cables or other components, you're talking about a component (i.e., speakers) that many of us are not interested in or that often is not the subject under discussion in a particular thread.

Ridicule!

This website is made up of audiophiles, not "headphiles". The veterans here all have speaker rigs, and the people here who don't have speaker rigs only don't because of either space limitations or budget issues. While there are a select few who prefer the sound of headphones, most here would say that they'd rather have a 10,000 dollar speaker setup than a 10,000 dollar headphone setup. Am I right? And, well, speakers are not a "difficult concept" or whatnot simply due to the fact that they have been in the consumer market far longer than headphones have. They act the same as headphones. I don't think that Steve's terrific posts can be discounted by the fact that this is a "headphone forum" and not a "speaker forum". It's all the same.