What and how do we know what IS ‘Better’?
or
It’s all in our heads, or is it?
Part 4 The MASTER Control - DRC
So now we are heading into a little different territory.
Mostly to introduce a few terms and show how they are related to each other.
And I’m going to change the order of the topics just a bit.
And instead of posting all of these at once, I’m going to post them one at a time, even though there will be some overlap.
It will be a much easier read this way.
1st up is a look see at DRC (Dynamic Range Control), then another post dealing with tLFF (the Listener Fatigue Factor), followed by another post examining Acoustic POWER vs Volume, then Jitter gets its turn.
The first 2 concepts of DRC (Dynamic Range Control) & tLFF (the Listener Fatigue Factor) both tie into the related concept of Acoustic POWER vs Volume.
So first off…
Dynamic Range Control
AKA The MOAR Knob
Or, can I crank it up moar, 4 me…?
I have come to think of the volume control as more like a Dynamic Range Control.
When the DRC goes up, all the low level detail comes up and out, accordingly.
IOW there is more there, there.
More to hear in terms of the added harmonically related audible cues or over/undertones that ‘belong’ to their parent ‘voice’ (source of sound).
It is these small signal dynamics which are related, as associated harmonically rich information, that allows me to hear into the music as well as be able to all the more easily, focus on any and all of the different 'voices'.
More there, there.
Side Step of Note…
When I use the term ‘voices’, I mean any individual source of sound, be it a human voice (organic) or a musical instrument of any type.
Each has its own unique sonic signature with a unique set of harmonics based upon and determined by the range of primary frequencies it can generate.
‘Voices’, when presented either alone or en mass, of what ever type, are carefully crafted by the musician to creatively represent the tonal representation of their creative intent.
They can range from being extremely rich in complexity to startlingly simple and everywhere in between.
And one of the purposes of using all of these tools is to be able to easily focus upon any one or any aggregate of these ‘voices’ and hear it in its entirety.
This is a tall order!
This definition will apply to the entire ‘Better’ series.
And now back to our discourse, which is already in progress!
Another perspective or way to say this is, when the system is well tweaked, the volume control doesn't make the music louder, it does however present more of the music to hear.
So when the DRC is raised and lowered and it is never 'loud', I ‘know’ that the overall system distortion is very low.
And let me clarify my use of “loud(er)” so the distinction is more pronounced.
When we listen, what our sense of hearing often perceives as louder, is more distortion, a greater deviation away from the 'natural' sound of any ‘voice’. When these added/induced distortion byproducts start to rise faster than the volume level, we hear that, and interpret it as being loud(er).
And if these distortion byproducts (which ARE harmonically related added ‘information’) were reduced, at the same playback volume level (dB), we would also tend to perceive that the volume had been reduced (if such a thing were possible).
So if this type of distortion were lowered, at any specific playback level, this would 'allow' us to raise the volume level to a greater (dB) amount for a given perceived loudness level.
IOW as these added distortion byproducts are further reduced this enables our ability to listen, comfortably, at a greater volume (dB).
This effectively raises the low level signals up and out of the background and into a more perceptible range of hearing.
This is why I refer to it as a Dynamic Range Control.
For example, if say certain related over and undertones (harmonics) which were created by a particular instrument were oh, ≈ -45dB lower than their primary 'source’ frequencies, and we were playing the source at say 80dB, then these related harmonics are playing at ≈ 35dB, which is close to being buried in the ‘noise’ floor and is at such a low level, as to be difficult to clearly and distinctly hear.
Now raise the DRC (volume control) up to 95dB and those same harmonics are now playing at ≈50dB. In effect we have raised all that low level music above the ‘noise’ floor so that we can hear it much more distinctly.
This is what I mean when I say there is more to hear.
One of my favorite albums is by Gustavo Dudamel entitled Discoveries. I don't remember which track it is (the whole album is amazing) but the final note is one of those big huge drums being hit, hard, along with the rest of the crescendo from the orchestra.
The entire acoustic space gets energized and lights up, and as this boom drops off in intensity AND as it recedes away into the rest of the room, the very character of the boom morphs as the acoustics of the room adds it character to the initial boom. This is where a wider or increased dynamic range can present impressive results.
And let me be clear here.
I am NOT suggesting that anyone NEEDS to listen at elevated SPL’s all the time, but as a test procedure to determine if these low level details are improved, or not, this test can be quite useful.
So when I crank up the MOAR Knob, what I’m really doing is bringing up the low level details into the acoustic presentation so they can more fully contribute to my experience of the music, which means there is moar there, there.
Another way of looking at this is…
As the signal that is converted to acoustic power becomes more cohesive, coherent, and better coupled, the power of the generated acoustical 'wave' is more 'efficient' because less power is 'wasted' or smeared thru time. This smearing means the wave form is slightly out of time and focus, with respect to its original 'parent' source. So this more precise wave front can deliver more power all because the signal can convert the inherent power in the wave form, more effectively/efficiently into acoustic power.
I notice this as being directly related to the Listener Fatigue Factor, and the ability to crank up the MoarKnob even higher, before discomfort kicks in, as the indication, that tLFF has been improved.
And to determine where Listener Fatigue does start to kick in, to help determine if it has it been improved, will be covered more in depth in the next topic of tLFF.
I have been tracking this as my own MoarKnob ‘behavior’ shifts and changes, and there is a strong correlation to improvements and tweaks I make.
For instance when I soldered the ground return leads (instead of just wire nutting them) at the j-box just upstream from my gear, this essentially 'tightened' or made more 'rigid' the ground connection to the dac and amp.
This was followed up by soldering the hot and neutral wires in that same box as well.
These tweaks provided beneficial improvements in multiple ways such as being able to use Moar of the DRC because of improvements in tLFF.
JJ
End Part 4
Next up is tLFF
At least i'll be able to compare the yggy and bimby side by side. Either way, i'm sure the bimby sounds pretty fantastic for it's price point. I know Stillhart is partial to his DAC19 and I understand why! I used to own one and think quite highly of it for a SE DAC... that's why I ended up selling it and upgrading to the M11.
