The Audiophile's Dilemma.....

[busht4169]

Agreed, it has been proven giving a speech with directed thoughts does cloud both an individual's perception and affects groups.  

 

That being said, I have read numerous articles like this and I have a bit to convey.  First, from my experience and training in software engineering (not graduated yet), I know about digital signals.  One thing I would like to paraphrase from a CNet article "Why all HDMI Cables are the Same", and this applies to all digital signals, is you are either getting all of your signal, or none of it.  The ethernet, hdmi, coax (digital) will carry all your digital signals to the processing point.  This is one thing the article didn't point out well.  Every pre-amp, receiver, processor has to 'process' the signal sent to it.  There in is where audio quality can be impacted the most.  Even if it is just test tones, it is a signal sent via a format digitally e.g. mp4, FLAC, and so on.  It must be processed.  The more efficient the processor, the closer to the original the sound being produced will be.  

 

Opinion only, but a receivers or pre-amp processor's ability to process signal is one of the most integral parts to any listening experience...aside from having awesome Klipsch speakers of course!!!

 

Analog is a different discussion for another time, but digital is less susceptible to certain interference such as microwave, 120-volt A/C current.  

I really like this particular thread and look forward to other's opinions.

[busht4169]

 

 

...I played her a near mint 78 recording...It could not possibly generate any more excitement if it were recorded in DSD surround. No offense intended, but those who simply cannot tolerate ticks, pops, hiss or whatever are not listening to music....This forum is as bipolar as any group that exists.

 

Whenever I read someone trumpeting the virtues of the sound of phonograph records, my mind automatically and quite uncontrollably shifts into thinking about analog audiophile litmus tests and political correctness (PC) of vinyl, and "the experience of being a part of the process" by those that have no other way to relate to the music rather than simply through listening to true high fidelity (hi-fi):

 

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/10/146697658/why-vinyl-sounds-better-than-cd-or-not

 

I don't try to dwell on this out of politeness...as I believe others here do also...at least until someone makes a real issue of it by pushing it into the conversation.  Personally, I really don't need rituals or nostalgia of "the old way of doing things", including bygone formats of surround sound.  I'd rather just have the music as close as possible to that which was performed--acoustically, without all the the fuss and muss. I listen to my old vinyl only when I can't or don't own it on another format. 

 

I came to Klipsch via Roy in the first place to buy Jubilees, and by his recommendation, the K-forum itself to post my listening and setup experiences with Jubilees.  I also try to share my experiences of setting up other loudspeaker types to increase their acoustic performance value.  I do this in order to save others the time and expense that I had to go through in learning it.

 

More recently, I've spent some time finding ways to reconstruct music recordings from terrible mastering practices, and to share those experiences for those that are interested and that will listen for themselves in A/B fashion after trying it.  Those efforts have paid off handsomely...at least for me.  YMMV.

 

Chris

 

Very interesting read….thanks for sharing that.

 

I posted a long response.  But forgot to thank the poster of the thread.  Thx for sharing!

[Mallette]

Whenever I read someone trumpeting the virtues of the sound of phonograph records, my mind automatically and quite uncontrollably shifts into thinking about analog audiophile litmus tests and political correctness (PC) of vinyl, and "the experience of being a part of the process" by those that have no other way to relate to the music rather than simply through listening to true high fidelity (hi-fi):

 

You quoted me as if this is relevant.  My entire post was about MUSIC, not about media or format. 

 

The other point is the observed failure to communicate on these matters over the years.  I fail just as miserably. 

 

While it probably still won't help I'll put it succinctly:  Musical excitement and engineering excellence comes through in reproduction whether it's from an early 20th century acoustic recording or the latest "last word" in perfect sound forever...as does the opposite. 

 

For some, the medium is the message.  For others it is about the message. 

 

Dave

[DrWho]

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/07/even-vegas-strangers-agree-340-audiophile-cables-make-no-difference/

 

I really wish these snake oil companies would get hit with class-action lawsuits. When Audioquest demonstrates these cables - they first start with the Apple Airplay thing that uses a lossy compression when transmitting over WiFi. Of course you hear a difference between lossless transmission over Ethernet versus a lossy codec over WiFi. Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

 

I'd suggest that the most important/useful/interesting thing in a comparison listening test is when someone can repeatedly and reliably identify a difference. And all it takes is one person. Ever single instance I've seen just one person repeatedly and reliably identify a difference, we've always been able to find an objective way to quantify that difference. The next step is to correlate the objective measures to subjective preference, and that has also been very consistent (although sometimes it requires analysis of the cultural context). On the flip side, when a comparison test doesn't demonstrate a "proven difference" - that doesn't mean a difference doesn't exist. It just means the engineering focus should instead be placed on the other variables that do have a proven and correlated subjective implication to preference.

 

At the end of the day I want to make the best sounding products possible. Comparative listening tests are a tool for achieving that goal. A good sales force is another great tool - expectation bias is a very easy way to improve sound quality. Heck, all of the environmental factors affecting preference are absolutely important too.....that whole nostalgia process thing surrounding the listening experience is far more important than the number of electrons moving in the right direction. Engineers have a habit of "optimizing" the wrong variables....a good friend of mine pointed that out to me and it's so true. It's the holistic experience that matters. If someone gets in a bad mood because they're fighting with the daft user interface, then anything coming out of that system is going to sound bad. It's just how humans work. I just wish companies like Audioquest were honest about trying to sell an image / experience instead of actual performance...

[Jim Naseum]

lots of funny comments in here. seems obvious to me, but maybe not to others that each guy tunes his system to a sound he like to  listen to, and each guy must have a different idea, because....well, each system is totally different! LOL!! if there was a right way, wouldn't it be universal?? LOL!!!

 

1. if you like live music, shouldn't you be spending your money going to live music events?

2. If you like pretend music recorded onto discs and tapes and files and whatnot, you play those on electronic music systems. Some use iPods, others have baseball stadium speakers in their house, and so on. What's the big deal?

[Jim Naseum]

i asked everyone last year, what's a good car to buy? I wanted a new car. Everyone tried to sell me the exact car they have!!! LOL funny as can be. Well, obvious that every man think his car is the best car, or he would not have bought it!!!

I think the same with stereos. every man here has "the best stereo their is".....for him!!!! LOL How can my sound be your sound? LOL

[Jim Naseum]

lotsa times when I go to the bars to hear music like combos and singers and ther like, they play into those black stage speakers - I think Bose and maybe a few other brands. All you hear are those speakers. So, it that live music? usually sounds like crap. Or, go to big auditorium or casino, and still listening to great big PA speakers in the house. I guess you have to have THOSE speakers to hear live music? Isn't each live music just played over whatever speakers the house uses? or the band has giant amps! Who gonna have that in their house!!! LOL a giant Marshall stack!!!! Silly. Maybe symfony music is played without speakers? Not sure. I went once and they had big hanging speakers in ceiling, but you could also sorta hear the band playing too. I have upper seats and I can't say the sound was anything special. Maybe you have a friends who come with guitar and drum into your house? otherwise, seems like you need 50 pair of different speakers to duplicate music!! LOL!!

[Chris A]

...this applies to all digital signals, is you are either getting all of your signal, or none of it...

 

The problem being, of course, that there are a LOT of people that just don't understand that point--and that it must be explained, again and again.  Even then...we still have a ferocious level of relative ignorance on the subject that should be better identified as anti-digital bias due to the fact that it can and is more abusible than the (analog) format that it replaced. 

 

I believe this is one of the greatest successful disinformation campaigns that I've seen, and is actually perpetuated by big music in order to sell you more expensive and lower fidelity music that's more difficult to pirate on vinyl, and this is perhaps inadvertent on big music's part.  YMMV.

 

Every pre-amp, receiver, processor has to 'process' the signal sent to it. There in is where audio quality can be impacted the most. Even if it is just test tones, it is a signal sent via a format digitally e.g. mp4, FLAC, and so on. It must be processed. The more efficient the processor, the closer to the original the sound being produced will be.

 

I've actually heard the difference between good and bad processing, e.g., DSD to PCM, and it clearly is controlled by the less-than-hi-fi algorithms used to convert. 

 

Ever single instance I've seen just one person repeatedly and reliably identify a difference, we've always been able to find an objective way to quantify that difference. The next step is to correlate the objective measures to subjective preference, and that has also been very consistent (although sometimes it requires analysis of the cultural context).

 

That's clearly Floyd Toole's bottom line in the video (...and in his book and white papers).  I believe folks that identify as "subjectivist audiophiles" don't want it to be true, however.  Toole's points are clearly phenomenal in terms of being able to predict listener's relative preference levels based on a few "dial-able" loudspeaker characteristics that can be designed to. 

 

Also, the degree of agreement in the human subjects used and in the differing room environments in double blind testing is clearly without precedence elsewhere using human subjects for relative "goodness" calibrations.

 

Most people seem to gloss over that last important point.

 

Chris

[busht4169]

 

...this applies to all digital signals, is you are either getting all of your signal, or none of it...

 

The problem being, of course, that there are a LOT of people that just don't understand that point--and that it must be explained, again and again.  Even then...we still have a ferocious level of relative ignorance on the subject that should be better identified as anti-digital bias due to the fact that it can and is more abusible than the (analog) format that it replaced. 

 

I believe this is one of the greatest successful disinformation campaigns that I've seen, and is actually perpetuated by big music in order to sell you more expensive and lower fidelity music that's more difficult to pirate on vinyl, and this is perhaps inadvertent on big music's part.  YMMV.

 

 

 

Every pre-amp, receiver, processor has to 'process' the signal sent to it. There in is where audio quality can be impacted the most. Even if it is just test tones, it is a signal sent via a format digitally e.g. mp4, FLAC, and so on. It must be processed. The more efficient the processor, the closer to the original the sound being produced will be.

 

I've actually heard the difference between good and bad processing, e.g., DSD to PCM, and it clearly is controlled by the less-than-hi-fi algorithms used to convert. 

 

 

 

Ever single instance I've seen just one person repeatedly and reliably identify a difference, we've always been able to find an objective way to quantify that difference. The next step is to correlate the objective measures to subjective preference, and that has also been very consistent (although sometimes it requires analysis of the cultural context).

 

That's clearly Floyd Toole's bottom line in the video (...and in his book and white papers).  I believe folks that identify as "subjectivist audiophiles" don't want it to be true, however.  Toole's points are clearly phenomenal in terms of being able to predict listener's relative preference levels based on a few "dial-able" loudspeaker characteristics that can be designed to. 

 

Also, the degree of agreement in the human subjects used and in the differing room environments in double blind testing is clearly without precedence elsewhere using human subjects for relative "goodness" calibrations.

 

Most people seem to gloss over that last important point.

 

Chris

 

I thought I explained it rather well.  Pretty sure my points made sense.  What do you think?

[DrWho]

I believe folks that identify as "subjectivist audiophiles" don't want it to be true, however.

 

 

I don't think that's entirely fair to the "subjectivist". A person's preference is going to be a very honest one. Even when they 'hear things' that they can't prove they hear, I still absolutely believe they experienced something different. It just means they didn't "hear" a difference - they "experienced" a difference. I suppose the strictest definition of 'audiophile' implies that these people are poor "audiophiles", but that's a bit loaded of a thing to say - especially when the majority of the "audiophile" community is full of people that focus on experiential refinement rather than audible refinement. Ironically, I'd argue there is more merit to maximizing the experience - and yet such an honest approach gets chided by the experiential subjectivist that wants the "elite title" of golden ear audiophile. Ironically, the term audiophile usually brings to mind the experiential subjectivist and the true audiophile is discarded as the cold hearted engineer.

 

To be an audiophile is to be a lover of the medium (borrowing Dave's term). I really don't understand why we don't coin a different term for the nostalgic music lover that strives for the inaudible experience of refinement. Audiophile certainly isn't the correct term.

[JJkizak]

After watching the lecture I know now that I don't know what I think I knew and now I know that I can't fix it even though I know the infinite number of things that are causing the things that I don't know.

JJK

[Chris A]

What do you think?

 

Yes, it's actually too easy: you have want to believe the information being given. 

 

Most analog-only thinkers (i.e., the seat-of-the-pants, touch-and-feel types) can't accept that.  Digital suffers no degradation--if you can read the "bits" at all (including parity), the information gets through to the other end, unchanged, very unlike analog.

 

Remember that there is a significant fraction of the population that still believe that we never made it to the moon with real guys.  Darwin beat the space program by more than 100 years in his repeatable findings.  Galileo was condemned from 1633-1992 for saying what Copernicus (the monk) proved via experimental evidence 70-90 years earlier but died before saying it out loud.  People believe what they wish--regardless of facts. 

 

Against that backdrop, I'm not terribly surprised about current misinformation abounding on the subject of digital buses and cables.  Same thing on analog vs. digital music formats: some want to believe that it can't work.

 

Chris

Edited September 8, 2015 by Chris A

[Chris A]

Audiophile certainly isn't the correct term.

Actually, I believe that it is...but I guess that you can never believe my point because that appears to be a subjective one that can never be proved.

 

Chris

[Mallette]

To be an audiophile is to be a lover of the medium (borrowing Dave's term). I really don't understand why we don't coin a different term for the nostalgic music lover that strives for the inaudible experience of refinement. Audiophile certainly isn't the correct term.

 

I've given it thought.  No luck so far.  I do work towards a high degree of perfection, but it is perfection for whatever media I need to reproduce as I am after music first.  I am media and format agnostic.  I don't join in the analog vs digital or any of those battles.  I don't even understand them as a music lover. 

 

I'll stand at the aforementioned window and listen to great music...and have done so on more than one occasion.

 

Dave

[garyrc]

the really terrible EQ curve that was applied to the original recording to arrive at a "commercial product".

 

Thanks, Chris

 

I always wonder who decided that this terrible EQ makes a recording more "commercial."

[muel]

 

the really terrible EQ curve that was applied to the original recording to arrive at a "commercial product".

 

Thanks, Chris

 

I always wonder who decided that this terrible EQ makes a recording more "commercial."

 

Yes, name and address please so that appropriate objections can be shared with our nemesis.

[Chris A]

Perhaps I should do a little more dialogue on this, since the resulting EQ curve looks so severe.

 

Whenever I open up a classical track of almost any sub-genre will always have a large peak somewhere around 400-800 Hz and drooping curves on either side of that peak. 

 

The curves used by virtually all the recording companies of classical music really haven't changed a lot over time, so I'd bet that the curves themselves have been forgotten inside the organizations applying them to the tracks, i.e., the rational for using them has probably been lost--so we don't read about them.

 

As far as the sound of the tracks before correction, they will sound distant, thin, and "restrained" with NO deep double bass registers audible while playing.  Cellos and double basses will compete and will be undifferentiated above 63-100 Hz.  Contrabassoons, tuba (lower registers), contrabass clarinet, will simply disappear, as will half of their soprano cousins (bassoon and bass clarinets).  below 100 Hz.  Bass drums will lack their deep punch, as will the deepest tympani notes. The only dead-giveaway of this (other than the complete lack of double bass) is the "steely violins" that result from the huge midrange boost and bass frequency attenuation. 

 

Low frequencies below the peak will plateau and have drop-outs in the cumulative SPL response curve in odd places which usually must be boosted (everything is minimum phase, thank goodness, so boost is okay in this method).  Frequencies below 100 Hz are always attenuated more strongly, and below 63 Hz (approximately the open lowest string on a cello) will almost always be attenuated more strongly still, effectively castrating the double basses and their unique contribution to the orchestra below the cellos.  One must be careful not to boost below 41 Hz, unless there are tympani or bass drum accompaniments to the orchestra, so this is a natural break point.  The overall shape of the response SPL curve should be rising toward the bass frequencies, with perhaps a little bendover in the lowest frequencies to approximately a level curve, depending on the number of double basses, the volume of the venue, and where the microphones and double basses are located in the stage/orchestra pit area that the music was played in.  

 

High frequencies will always drop off the graph somewhere around 4-7 kHz and any visibility of the remaining HF response.  I switch to Spectrogram log(f) view to see how much I'm boosting there beyond nominal by looking at the green (or blue) background color, to make sure I'm not boosting too much.

 

All in all, the curves that I posted above are not very unusual.

 

Chris

Edited September 9, 2015 by Chris A

[minermark]

Audiophile ? No, iv no interest in Drama.

 

70s, i was refered to as, i liked having a stereo around.

 

80s, Running Heresys, OC wife did not care for music, called me "Excessive" <got rid of that wife>

 

90s, Scalas my neighbor had over powered my tunes, so i bought Scalas too. current wife at the time,

no likey, Called me child, Got rid of that wife/house/car/job and moved north.

 

2000s, new wife, new Diggs, new job, two pairs of Scalas, wife wanted her own pair, Keeper. This wife states i have taste.

 

2015, I walk into the house and tell the wife, hey, i found some speakers i really want in St Louis, she asks when do we leave?

 

Audiophile ? Not Me, maybe the wife?

i just had a lot of people around me that had no clue that, life is what you make it

Edited September 9, 2015 by minermark

[garyrc]

...

Whenever I open up a classical track of almost any sub-genre will always have a large peak somewhere around 400-800 Hz and drooping curves on either side of that peak. 

 

The curves used by virtually all the recording companies of classical music really haven't changed a lot over time, so I'd bet that the curves themselves have been forgotten inside the organizations applying them to the tracks, i.e., the rational for using them has probably been lost--so we don't read about them.

 

As far as the sound of the tracks before correction, they will sound distant, thin, and "restrained" with NO deep double bass registers audible while playing.  Cellos and double basses will compete and will be undifferentiated above 63-100 Hz.  Contrabassoons, tuba (lower registers), contrabass clarinet, will simply disappear, as will half of their soprano cousins (bassoon and bass clarinets).  below 100 Hz.  Bass drums will lack their deep punch, as will the deepest tympani notes. The only dead-giveaway of this (other than the complete lack of double bass) is the "steely violins" that result from the huge midrange boost and bass frequency attenuation. 

 

High frequencies will always drop off the graph somewhere around 4-7 kHz and any visibility of the remaining HF response.  I switch to Spectrogram log(f) view to see how much I'm boosting there beyond nominal by looking at the green (or blue) background color, to make sure I'm not boosting too much.

 

All in all, the curves that I posted above are not very unusual.

 

Chris

 

Very, very interesting, Chris.

 

Sooo ... in the 1970s and 1980s my friends and I had pre-amps with tone controls that provided a maximum of 18 or 20 dB boost ... and we classical and later orchestral music collectors used them liberally ... my usual settings on a McIntosh  preamp were Bass +2 or +3 (8 or 12 dB boost), and, maybe, Treble + 1 or +2 (3 or 6 dB boost) .... later, with my Luxman, I often used the Low Boost switch at 70 Hz (I forget, but it probably was about 3 dB) and the Bass control (selectable turnover frequency set for the lowest) boosted anywhere from + 3 dB to + 12 dB, with the Treble control (selectable turnover set for the highest) set for about + 7 dB at 15K.   All of this provided a "U" shaped EQ curve, with the midrange largely untouched.  We realized we might create phase problems, but adjusting by ear for the most natural balance, avoiding thinness, sounding a little more like the live orchestras we heard fairly often, produced the settings listed above, on the average.  We were told we were crazy by true believing audiophiles, and tone controls gradually disappeared from "quality" pre-amps (although wimpy ones were still included on AVRs). 

 

Nowadays, on my Marantz preamp/processor I am restricted to tone controls that provide a pitiful +/- 6 dB.  Audyssey flattens the room curve fairly well, and, unfortunately cuts the bass a bit ... since classical recordings tend to also cut the bass and treble I put up to 6 dB of it back with the tone controls (not the virtual sliders, since they can't be used with Audyssey on).

[Chris A]

You probably weren't brave enough and didn't have enough EQ authority to fully correct your classical recordings.

 

One of the most interesting observations that I've had to date is that the typical rock recordings that are the biggest hits (i.e., "classics") typically don't have bass attenuation except below 40 Hz, where the deepest electric bass (modern 5- and 6-string models) and kick drums reside. 

 

Those same rock recordings typically have 6-12 dB of boost starting at 700 Hz and continuing up to 6 to 10 kHz, which makes them extremely strident.  Other than that, however, the biggest hits and most memorable rock recordings typically require the fewest EQ changes, and the bigger the hit was, typically the flatter the EQ was used: however, this observation is highly variable and statistical in nature.

 

Sometimes it takes over 21 dB of boost from 50 Hz down to 30 Hz and below to regain the deep low bass continuity within the cumulative SPL plot and the Spectrogram log(f) views.  Most built-in EQ sections in preamps can't really handle that, and certainly don't have the control adjustment and visibility needed to do that successfully.  When you correct for that loss of deep bass, what you get back is realistic kick drum transients and deep 5- and 6-string bass lowest string frequencies. 

 

Once you hear that corrected in a well restored track, you wonder why the big music corporations have survived.  Talking about "losing the music"...they've done it for many decades. CDs seem to have the worst EQ applied, especially from 1983 to 1991, after which multi-band compressors started to be used on a wide scale by popular music mastering engineers.  It's not the recorded music format fidelity, it's how the CD format has been abused.

 

[Note: typical rock instrumentation is very "full" in terms of frequencies present across the music tracks, so any wholesale changes in the EQ of the mastered tracks will show up as extremely audible deterioration of the tracks.  Sparser instrumentation tracks (such as acoustic guitar and voice only) typically have the greatest levels of EQ manipulation due to the fact that it's more difficult to detect them outright by ear.  However, once you correct those EQ "liberties" (actually, it's damage) to the original recordings, the restored tracks can sometimes sound miraculous compared to their on-disc versions.]

 

Really bad mastering jobs (too much treble, too little bass) typically correlate with severely reduced sales all through the 70s-90s.  The best mastering jobs--those requiring much less correction--seem to correlate with the biggest hits. 

 

Classical recordings and solo instrument (no vocals) recordings typically have the greatest amount of EQ applied, and usually to produce a dark, distant result with little below 100 Hz and nothing really audible below 63 Hz--you're only listening to the harmonics of the fundamental frequencies from the double basses.

 

When comparing this to trivial things like the "sound of digital cables" or even of amplifiers and loudspeakers, one wonders if the words "hi fi" have any meaning at all.

 

Chris

Edited September 9, 2015 by Chris A