Jump to content

sax512

  • Posts

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    country-ZZ

Retained

  • Member Title
    Newbie
  1. Once again, I'm not saying that we are at a time when hearing range has been completely been taken care of. I do have to say the ripple in the 20-20.000 Hz band can be processed by our brain and its effects leveled down, just like jitter below a certain level can't be detected.<br /> The fact that real world implementation isn't consistent with theory is in favor of my point of view, to me. Let's first optimize what everybody hears. Let's fix real world details that are not been taken in account in the model. Then, and only then, we can start to think about the ultra sound field. But this is only my philosophy.<br /> Chris, if you want to listen to the coloration like the artist intended to be, then you are one of my kind, and I don't see what you don't get in my reasoning.<br /> I also may say, since somebody came out with the k$ cables, that no RCA can yield the result of a good balanced XLR or TRS cable, as far as 'transparency' revealing. They are just better in the concept. Are there RCA that are more transparent than balanced connections? Probably. The longer the cable, the unlikely this is to happen. What I'm saying about this topic is: why not perfect something that is conceptually superior, instead of spending more money to fix something that is inferior?<br /> There is a reason why -10 dBu is considered the customer standard for a line level, while +4 dBu is the standard for professional gear.<br /> In the studio, which itself is far from perfection, the audio is mixed with certain gear. Since to reproduce the same sound the engineer wanted to convey you would have to be in the same room, listening with the same gear, and with the same ears and brain, I understand who wants to be less stringent on technical specs. I do. But I just have faith in the other approach. It really is a matter of listening 'strategy', all in all.
  2. How does Red Hot Chili Peppers album 'Californication' sound on your systems?
  3. Thanks for the HDCD reply, Chris. I had a few files at the time and wanted to experiment...
  4. I'm not trying to tell anybody that my side is better. It is better for me, and I have researched on this stuff like you did, talked to people who work on the field, but most of all I base my opinions on pure math. This is a question of faith. Either you fully rely on physics, or you have faith in the fact that there's something 'artistic', personal and unexplainable.<br /> I was trying to get replies from a certain kind of audiophile, but I got replied from the other side. It's ok, I still appreciate every input. We really don't disagree, all in all. We just start from a different perspective.<br /> I didn't do any study on the effect of ultra sound frequencies on hearing. I just think that before taking care of those frequencies, people that look for a transparent reproduction should stick with gear that tries to be optimized for that task in the audible range. Once hardware and gear improvement will get to the point of exactly reproducing the important stuff, I'm not against going further. It just isn't the right time yet, and by going further I mean that a guy like me can't take -10 dB as acceptable. Either you reproduce a frequency within a decent specific range, or you may as well not reproduce it at all. That's how I see it.<br /> All I'm saying makes perfect sense from a logical point of view, and it is valid even if was said from a teenager, but since here the subtle innuendo is about my 'moral' right to spread my beliefs based on some kind of education and experience, I must say that I am an electronic engineer, I've been a musician for the past 16 years and I have worked on signal processing, even if not for audio applications, more than a lot of people can claim for... but it doesn't mean anything. All that matters is a certain mind set and logic reasoning.<br /> If we don't agree on the definition of great sound, then we are just telling the other suggestions that they don't want to hear, if not only for the delight of exchanging point of views.
  5. Actually I think he described pretty exactly the other kind of philosophy. I appreciate his comment. But all I wanted to do was to give suggestions and hints to people that look at sound reproduction the same way I do, while all I get here seems to be people from the other side try to tell me why their way to look at it is better.
  6. I already said that there is a fundamental difference in the philosophy of some audiophiles respect to that of others. What more can I say?<br /> I took a look at TAD specifics. -10 dB at 100 kHz. To me it means that it doesn't reproduce 100 kHz. But that is just to me.<br />
  7. The logic is flawed, but from a practical point of view proving that Lavry's philosophy is wrong would put companies that comes out with 192 kHz products under a better light. It is more than a philosophy, anyway. It's backed up with a fundamental theorem of communications and the common sense that to put theory into practice there are a lot of down to earth considerations to be done.<br /> <br /> I'd like to see the real frequency response of those speakers in an anechoic chamber...<br /> I'd like to know what kind of preamp and amp is capable to deliver flat response up to 100 kHz, and with what ripple in band.<br /> I'd like to know how they come out with those numbers too.<br /> There's all sort of tricks that manufacturers can do to hype their products.<br /> Finally, the last transducer is your ear. It is a physical object, composed of a membrane, three bones, a liquid in a closed chamber and a 'few' other things. Just like everything else on earth it has a frequency response, and it's way below 100 kHz, like it or not.<br /> I'm not saying the approach of coloring the sound is wrong, all I'm saying is don't try to tell me that pseudo-physic explanations are a good theoretical back up for transparent sound reproduction.<br /> Mathematics is undisputable. You may object that sometimes transparent isn't enough, and you want 'more'. Well, that more is coloration, and I happen to try to avoid it. Other people don't. Like the song goes, if it makes you happy, it can't be that bad...
  8. Whatever analogy you want to use, the fact is that nowadays we are able to yield but an only approximately flat response in the most important hearing range.<br /> Also, remember that the weakest link in your chain determines the quality of a system. Even if your ears could perceive 100 kHz, there is no speaker out there capable to throw out such frequency.<br /> I don't get any money from sugar talking about specific gear here, but if you are curious as to what gear I have that to me approximate at best a flat response in the important frequency range with a more than comfortable dynamic headroom, I can suggest some stuff. But first... TREAT YOUR ROOM!
  9. An appropriate synonymous example would be this. If you had to lift 100 Kg, would you go to the gym and start training to lift 1.000 Kg? You risk to break your back and not be able to even lift 100 Kg.<br /> The philosophy would be. If you need to lift 100 Kg, and 100 Kg is all you ever need to lift, unless you want to look 'bad ass', why not focus on the correct lifting technique for 100Kg, and later worry about the 'extra' weight?
  10. Companies certainly don't lack of the ability to talk to engineers and mathematically prove that Lavry's philosophy is wrong. Why has it never being done then?<br /> If 96 kHz downsample sounds inferior, it depends on how the downsampling has being handled, how the possible conversion from 24 to 16 bits has been done and with what kind of dither, if any. It also depends on your definition of 'inferior'.<br /> Most likely the difference you hear between different 24/96 systems is due to digital filter design, DAC sensibility and the implementation of the analog stage.<br /> The difference between these designs that you hear are the part of coloration and aliasing that fall in the audible spectrum. If to you it makes the music sound better, I don't argue. I already said that to me a great sounding system is a true sounding one, even when the source is bad. Many think in a different way. The world is beautiful because it is various.<br /> There's a theorem that says that ALL the information of a signal under a certain frequency can be saved and eventually reproduced if sampled with 2 times the max frequency. In order to do that you need anti-aliasing (band-pass) analog and digital filters throughout the chain from the microphone to the speaker. Depending on how you implement these components, you have a different result.<br /> To have a true sound you need to first focus on the human hearing range. Only when you achieve perfect response in that range you can go on and try to reproduce higher frequencies, if you believe that they affect the listening experience.<br /> Since this is an impossible task to achieve, people who have a certain philosophy of sound recording and reproduction should spend their energy trying to improve this fundamental aspect of the matter, instead of coming out with hyped products. What is a 192 kHz sample rate worth if at the cost of reproducing possibly 'perceptible' ultra sounds it neglects the 20 Hz - 20 kHz range, i.e. with a higher in-band ripple and less resolution filter products?<br /> Add to this the fact that no microphone can catch infinite frequency range (mHz? Come on!), no speaker can reproduce those frequencies, no preamp or amplifier yields flat response over a certain range, and you will see that if you hear a difference it is caused by less than ideal handling of the signal in the hearing range.<br /> On the other hand, there are many people that claim that converting their files from 16/44.1 to 24/96 improves the sound. This is just a non-sense, if you agree on my definition of great sound. Else you can alter the sound as you wish. I'm sure it's a lot of fun. But not for my kind, not for my wallet...<br /> <br />
  11. Jud and Chris.<br /> <br /> Take a look at the technical data paper on Lavry website. They are quite understandable even for non engineers. As I told you, if you want to add your personal coloration to your listening experience, go on buying cables that are supposed to work as three-way systems, Lessloss black holes and whatever. After all the placebo effect is part of the game, and if it makes the listening experience more enjoyable, why not..<br /> <br /> I consider myself an audiophile, but of the first kind I wrote. If you stick with facts and physics you will see that harmonics influence the sound only if they fall in the audible spectrum. Every instrument produces ultra sound waves. Does it mean that we need to reproduce them on our sound system? No, we don't hear them when the real instrument is playing in front of us, why should we bother to have them coming out of the speakers (that physically can't reproduce them anyway)? Whether 44.1 kHz is enough or not is arguable, and depends on the ears, but 96 kHz is definitively way beyond enough. Moreover handling filter multiplications at higher sample rates degrades the frequency response and noise floor in the audible spectrum, since nowadays hardware can handle them in a less than optimal way.
  12. The question to ask yourself here is this:<br /> Do you want to listen to music as close to the original recording/mixing sessions as possible or do you want to add your own personal taste and coloration to your listening experience?<br /> <br /> If you are the second kind, there's no limit on whatever personal improvement a piece of gear would add to the sound you're listening to. The sky is really the limit. Mind that while a certain coloration might work great for certain music and medium (analog or digital), it may degrade other kinds of music and sources. This is where you really start to spend a ton of money to find your 'perfect' compromise.<br /> <br /> If you are lucky (or poor) enough to fall under the first category like myself, you have to do a little more 'technical' researching and stick with facts and physics. Since I did, for those that are interested, I'll write down some facts.<br /> <br /> Digital and analog have their own pros and cons, and this is obvious.<br /> <br /> Analog (vinyl)is , from a theoretical point of view, perfect. Of course nothing works perfectly in this world, and its performance is mostly restricted by noises caused by practical mechanical reasons. Rumble limits the dynamic range. Wow and flutter limit the frequency response, as they add modulation-like distortion. Also the frequency response is limited in the upper range by the cartridge.<br /> <br /> Digital is instead theoretically restricted by two factors: sample rate and quantization.<br /> The first limits the maximum frequency that can be reproduced, the second the dynamic range.<br /> <br /> Practically, digital is also restricted by hardware capabilities and filter design flaws, but that applies for analog too, as there is some equalization in the recording, for storage capabilities reasons, and that equalization must be leveled at the reproducing point of the chain with a matching opposite filter. Also, jitter problems can lead to wow and flutter-like issues in digital.<br /> <br /> A fundamental consideration is that human hearing isn't infinite either in its dynamic range, nor in its frequency response, nor in its jitter (or wow and flutter) sensibility.<br /> <br /> Lets start with analog myths. There is no point in spending thousands of $ in a cartridge and turntable that can replicate frequencies up to 100 kHz. Aside your own ears (everybody has the tendency to consider himself a bit of a superman, and say "yes, but I can 'perceive' some difference), there is no speaker that can replicate such frequency range.<br /> <br /> There is no point in spending thousands of $ in turntables that have whatever low dB rumble if your listening environment isn't 'perfectly' quiet (anechoic chamber). Also, LPs and analog tapes have their own dynamic range restrictions to begin with.<br /> Also, under a certain level, wow and flutter are not detectable.<br /> <br /> Now to digital myths. There is non point in listening to digital files with more than 96 kHz sample rate. No human can hear frequencies higher than 48 kHz, which is the frequency that can be reproduced with such sample rate (actually human hearing stops way before than 48 kHz). Also, hardware limits can degrade the signal at higher frequencies, so better stick with the bare minimum frequency and optimize filters for that.<br /> Regards to dynamic range, 24 bits is now a widespread format, and this grants a way beyond human hearing performance.<br /> Jitter can be reduced to a non detectable point with mindful oscillator and buffer design.<br /> <br /> The same philosophy must apply to every piece of gear in your system. Amplifier or DACs, cable and speakers have to be as flat and revealing as possible, with revealing meaning flat and extended frequency response. For speakers special attention must be put into transient response. While mathematically this is nothing more than a high frequency response, practical reasons and frequency response measuring methods can lead to speakers with a similar frequency response, but very different transient behavior.<br /> <br /> So if you want to get the sound as close as it was recorded and mixed (and unfortunately this means bump into crap sounding albums, sometimes), you need first to treat your room, as it adds to the frequency response, especially under 100 Hz. Second, invest in gear that doesn't try to achieve super human performances.<br /> <br /> With the same money, digital can give better dynamic range and frequency response than analog. With around 6k $ you can get great DAC and studio monitors, and cables (no need to spend more than 100 $ in a couple of 6 feet cables), and that's all you need for a true sounding gear system. Unfortunately treating the room is what can get really expensive.<br /> <br /> Also speakers placement and listening position interfere with frequency response, so you have to spend some time with ambient analyzing software and try to find the best configuration for your room.<br /> <br /> Even if perfectly flat response can't be achieved in a real listening environment, human brain and its psycho acoustic capabilities can overcome this fact to a certain extent.<br /> <br /> Hope this helps...
  13. Well, what's the point of it all? The articles seem to talk about audiophiles vs. skepticals but I don't think the exact core of the metter is discussed. In fact both "schools" agree on the fact that high-end gear sound better than mp3 on crappy laptop speakers. The point is that skepticals are usually skeptical on differences between vinyl and digital records, and which one is supposed to sound better. While the first article cite this point, at leat very shortly, the second focus on how stupid spending thousands of money to improve a stereo system can be. Now there's a huge difference between earing a difference due to the system and due to the source. It seems to me like in the three articles the two subject are treated together, but it's actually a big mistake in my opinion. Having it said, if you want my opinion I think that you need to spend more than 200$ to listen to music in a decent manner, but I think also that sometimes the nuances and subtle differences between k$ worth equipments can reveal another aspect of the subject that is often omitted: must music be heard as it's intended to be by the artist and sound engineers or is it a personal experience and one can seek for his own warmth to add to the sound coming out of the speakers? When somebody says the sound is warmer and richer with this set or the other, we have to keep in mind that only the recording engineer could test the different gears and say which one is closer to the original, and anyway at the beginning the record was still mixed with studio monitors that are supposed to have a flat answer, but just compare some of them and you will hear the difference too. So spending thousands of money for an audio set is fine with me. Just keep in mind that real flat answer is impossible to achieve and whenever one consider listening to the music as a personal experience and wants to have his own custom sounding system, then there's no use in quarreling on which system sounds better, because the hypothesis here is that it's a matter of personal taste. As far as I'm concerned I listen to the music with studio speakers. I bought a pair I liked the way they sounded and I'm fine with it. It's quite cheap, I can hear much difference between the same album as it was released first press and nowadays crappy remixes. You might have guessed that I prefere digital records, but actually I never tried vinyl with my equipment. It's just a matter of saving space and money. It could be that vinyl sound closer to what was indended to be at the very first moment after mixing in the studio, but as it's written in the third article some engineers say it's so, some others don't. If you want to accept a hint buy a couple of MFSL cd of some old recordings and compare it with monthly released new remixes. If the only difference you hear is that MFSL are more quiet, than you should listen to mp3 on crappy laptop speakers...
×
×
  • Create New...