16 bit files almost unlistenable now...

[PeterSt]

12 hours ago, mansr said:

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

As PeterSt would be happy to point out, the tiniest, tiniest variations in how the data is dealt with can be enough to make an audible difference

 

Well, he has a business interest in maintaining that position.

 

Sure. And thanks.

What is my business, you say ?

[PeterSt]

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

As PeterSt would be happy to point out, the tiniest, tiniest variations in how the data is dealt with can be enough to make an audible difference

 

Frank, and @numlogfor that matter :

 

This is not really about tiniest variations. In order to understand that, we must go all the way back to how I designed the first NOS1 (which was and is nothing of any business as such) and which was almost all about and almost about nothing else than :

Compare Redbook with Hires. And to mention what my business as such could be about : proving that no Hires is any substantially better than Redbook.

What did I need to do ?

 

Create a DAC that behaved 100% the same for Redbook vs Hires. How to do that ? let all happen in software and let the DAC run at the same speed and bit depth always.

And so it happened (the software testifies of that up to date - see fx button).

 

But now the reason how this thinking came about :

 

Back at the time a used a FireFace800 (Firewire connected Pro device) and I wanted to compare Redbook with Hires. It bugged me because I could nit find "a one and only" setting that sounded best for Redbook and worked for Hires. How come ? the buffer setting best sounding for Redbook, was too small to let Hires (24/192) work without stuttering. I thus had to higher the buffer length for Redbook and now it did not sound good. Then Hires would win. But ...

But his is apples and oranges.

Btw, this was true for all Firewire interfaces, which I developed with myself, until the software department of those guys (which was a split company from the main chip manufacturer) gave up on my latency requests. This is also where I gave up on Firewire (good, because it died anyway, soon after).

 

The net result of the whole exercise back at the time was that I could work with buffer sizes as small as 1ms (round trip), sufficiently low to not compromise the Redbook playback as it was back at the time (must have been 2009) and way more high enough to let Hires play just the same. Now we had apples and oranges and the DAC always playing at the same rate and bit depth.

 

Still necessary to elaborate on the difference ? well, the electrical difference between the both situations - each tuned for its best performance and in the Firewire situation, was huge. Longer buffers, lesser transmissions, only because of 32 bits vs 16 bits. It is as logical as can be, *if* you only know that this difference in interface can exist. Firewire (FireFace800) could do it and the NOS1 also always has been able to do it (no matter the kind of interface and no matter the driver version). And all is determined by the selection of the driver (mode). So play a 16 bits file and the transfer is per 16 bits.

N.b.: I2S is always 32 bits, and that indeed is padded.

N.b.2: 24 bit interfaces also exist (as a pain) and they again work out differently.

 

ALL already differentiates in the playback software, once it is recognized as a possible interface difference. So the software plays differently for 16, 24 and 32 bits interface (and that all in Integer - not float).

Only when one does not believe this all can't imply an audible difference, then it doesn't make a difference.

 

PS: My business as such is to imply the best SQ for Redbook. So now you know.

 

 

[Jud]

8 hours ago, mansr said:

Either way, he is biased in the matter

 

Or you could say, "As Einstein would be happy to point out, gravity is curvature of space-time."

 

The source of the "bias" is rather important.

[Ralf11]

Non sequitur Alert !!

[NOMBEDES]

I like @semente post above.   I just don't hear much (if any) difference.  But, you sure can tell a good recording from a bad recording.

 

You have to come to a point, in this hobby, where you have to acknowledge that any well crafted system sounds good.  Your personal preference in speakers and the vagaries of your listening room may be the only variables.   If you invite 10 music enthusiasts over to your home, five may like the sound, five may not.  At this point it is all personal preference.  Spend more money only if you want to play with new equipment.  I doubt the sound quality will change.  New speakers may sound different, but it is up to you to decide if they sound better.

[fas42]

13 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Frank, and @numlogfor that matter :

 

This is not really about tiniest variations. In order to understand that, we must go all the way back to how I designed the first NOS1 (which was and is nothing of any business as such) and which was almost all about and almost about nothing else than :

Compare Redbook with Hires. And to mention what my business as such could be about : proving that no Hires is any substantially better than Redbook.

What did I need to do ?

 

Create a DAC that behaved 100% the same for Redbook vs Hires. How to do that ? let all happen in software and let the DAC run at the same speed and bit depth always.

And so it happened (the software testifies of that up to date - see fx button).

 ...

 

ALL already differentiates in the playback software, once it is recognized as a possible interface difference. So the software plays differently for 16, 24 and 32 bits interface (and that all in Integer - not float).

Only when one does not believe this all can't imply an audible difference, then it doesn't make a difference.

 

PS: My business as such is to imply the best SQ for Redbook. So now you know.

 

 

 

Thanks for that, Peter - but, from where I'm standing it still sounds mighty tricky ... .

 

A piece of software that has "millions" of possible settings is really what I was pointing to - if digital replay is so well sorted, why is this necessary - and not actually asking you, Peter, .

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

A piece of software that has "millions" of possible settings is really what I was pointing to - if digital replay is so well sorted, why is this necessary - and not actually asking you, Peter, .

 

Haha. All I did was trying to point out that ahead of the tiny variations, first the rough stuff must be understood. I mean, if we don't see that the selection of a 16 bits file vs one of 24 bits implies a 16 bit audio word stream vs a 32 bit (no typo) word audio stream, or requiring double the bandwidth and processing activity (possibly not only at the PC side but also at the DAC side), then the fine variations are a moot thing. And btw Frank, I did not try to teach you or anyone else - I was only pointing out priorities of interest (and of course how a 16 bit stream vs a 32 bit stream, the last 16 bits zero-padded, will sound different indeed).

Once we have that behind us, there's the "millions" of possibilities of e.g. controlling the various buffers, a.o. (!) the one we are literally talking about (the buffer which is filled by the playback software to the driver, which from there has its own control apart from driver buffer settings, if possible). FYI In XXHighEnd these are 3 settings main settings, for Kernel Streaming a bit differently set up than for WASAPI (which uses Kernel Streaming itself, internally). There is also the setting which eliminates half of the normally double FiFo buffers which setting by far sounds the best (it consumes half of the bandwidth in use otherwise in all components). This setting ran into forgetfulness because NOS1 users (like me) can not apply it.

Anyway, on top of this all is the relatively infinitely more rough (for implied setting) physical buffer size implied by the 16 bits vs 32 (or maybe 24) bits stream.

 

Quote

if digital replay is so well sorted

 

It thus isn't much. Or maybe it is (as in bit perfect is super easy these days contrary to 12 years back) but we learned to control SQ with it anyway. 

[Shadders]

On 8/19/2018 at 3:18 AM, PeterSt said:

There is also the setting which eliminates half of the normally double FiFo buffers which setting by far sounds the best (it consumes half of the bandwidth in use otherwise in all components)

Hi,

I did not read your long post as above, but if you used a separate power supply for the FIFO read out section (assumed possible), and for the DAC, i assume you can use separate analogue power supplies for the DAC analogue section, then all those settings in software will have nil effect ?

You can create a faraday cage internally for the analogue section too.

Regards,

Shadders.

[gmgraves]

On 7/13/2018 at 5:29 AM, numlog said:

Even with the best 16bit recordings and I can now notice this distinct hazy and compressed sound , it's really surprising how clearly audible it is once you get to moderately high volumes.

That's not the format. It's what the producers/engineers and other muckety-mucks at the record companies want those releases too sound like. Neither the bit depth or the sample rate have anything whatsoever to do with the kind of sound that you are describing.

[Allan F]

On 8/18/2018 at 1:21 PM, NOMBEDES said:

If you invite 10 music enthusiasts over to your home, five may like the sound, five may not.  At this point it is all personal preference.  Spend more money only if you want to play with new equipment.  I doubt the sound quality will change.  New speakers may sound different, but it is up to you to decide if they sound better.

 

I doubt this very much if we are talking about quality high resolution systems. I can tell you that I have had far more than 10 music enthusiasts visit my home and all were either impressed by or blown away by the sound. Or, to use your words, all liked the sound. If you seriously do not believe that sound quality may be improved with "new" or better equipment, then by all means you should not spend any more money. You will, however, be missing out. While personal preference may play a part in preferring one quality system over another, that in no way suggests that one system is liked while the other is not. Given the many characteristics that determine sound quality, the sound of each system may be liked for different reasons.

[fas42]

A very positive takeaway I've developed over many years of foolin' around in this audio game is that there are almost no limits to how good the sound can become - the limitations are totally in the playback chain, not in the recordings. There have been moments I've managed to hit a very high point in the optimising, for a short period of time - and it has been mesmerising ... there is a huge world of tremendous music out there, captured forever in the recordings; it just takes focused effort to realise the potential for how good the listening experience can be ... something to look forward to ...

[NOMBEDES]

16 hours ago, fas42 said:

A very positive takeaway I've developed over many years of foolin' around in this audio game is that there are almost no limits to how good the sound can become - the limitations are totally in the playback chain, not in the recordings. There have been moments I've managed to hit a very high point in the optimising, for a short period of time - and it has been mesmerising ... there is a huge world of tremendous music out there, captured forever in the recordings; it just takes focused effort to realise the potential for how good the listening experience can be ... something to look forward to ...

 

@fas42 I respect your opinion, but unless you have some rather high end studio grade remixing equipment, I doubt you can make a poor recording sound like a good recording. Maybe you can coax improvement - but to state that there are “almost no limits “ to how good the sound can become- must be an overstatement.  Great recordings will sound.....well, great....and three great systems will all sound great in different ways, so OP should find the system that coincides with his preference and only “upgrade” as an extension of his hobby.

 

@Allan F  Your “high resolution” system will transmit a poor recording in all its horrendous detail.

[Allan F]

6 hours ago, NOMBEDES said:

Your  "high resolution" system will transmit a poor recording in all its horrendous detail.

 

It will reproduce what is on the recording, which is what a high fidelity system is supposed to do. On well recorded material, its excellent sound quality produces musical delight which, IMO, is the goal of investing in a sound system. Your observation above does nothing to support your opinion that you "doubt the sound quality will change" if you spend more money on better equipment. Nor does it support your view that, of 10 listeners, five will like the sound and five will not. 

 

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, NOMBEDES said:

 

@fas42 I respect your opinion, but unless you have some rather high end studio grade remixing equipment, I doubt you can make a poor recording sound like a good recording. Maybe you can coax improvement - but to state that there are “almost no limits “ to how good the sound can become- must be an overstatement.  Great recordings will sound.....well, great....and three great systems will all sound great in different ways, so OP should find the system that coincides with his preference and only “upgrade” as an extension of his hobby.

 

@Allan F  Your “high resolution” system will transmit a poor recording in all its horrendous detail.

Well, I do have some decent studio grade mixing equipment, and I find that once a mix is put together into a two (4 or 5.1) channel final release mix, there's really no way of taking it apart again, to fix whatever ills the record company has visited on the recording. 

 

And yes, the statement that there are no limits to how good reproduced sound can become, is hyperbole of the first order even if Frank believes otherwise. The worlds best, most revealing system still doesn't sound anywhere within a continent's breadth of the sound of real music playing in a real space. It simply doesn't and would fool no one who has experienced the real thing. 

 

And in my experience, the better the system, the worse poor recordings sound. The worst sounding recording that I believe I have ever heard was a fancily packaged two-record set of The Moldau  by Smetana on the Hungaritone label. The first time I played it, I remember thinking to myself, "I would swear this was recorded on a wire recorder if I didn't know that wire recorders couldn't do stereo." It sounded worse than 1930's era 78's and the better my playback equipment became, the worse it sounded. I sold it to a second-hand record store for pennies.Too bad too, it was a very nice performance by the Budapest Philharmonic. 

[fas42]

7 hours ago, NOMBEDES said:

 

@fas42 I respect your opinion, but unless you have some rather high end studio grade remixing equipment, I doubt you can make a poor recording sound like a good recording. Maybe you can coax improvement - but to state that there are “almost no limits “ to how good the sound can become- must be an overstatement.  Great recordings will sound.....well, great....and three great systems will all sound great in different ways, so OP should find the system that coincides with his preference and only “upgrade” as an extension of his hobby.

 

@Allan F  Your “high resolution” system will transmit a poor recording in all its horrendous detail.

 

No, one listens to the recording in its 'raw' state. And three great - that is, great in my view of such - systems will sound identical. The reason for the that is because they will all get out of the way of the recording - they are completely "invisible" - and that ensures the 'sameness' in what you hear.

 

The detail that is embedded in even the "poorest" of recordings, combined with the ability of the ear/brain to unravel "what it all means" is the combination that makes it happen - if it was only me that experienced this I wouldn't be so confident, but I have found that those around me have confirmed this aspect, every time. A key moment was when my wife walked in, decades ago saying "Wow, I love this music - who is it?" ... "Ummm, you know that album that I keep playing, to test the system - and you hate hearing it, it really bugs you ... weeell ..."

 

The sound gets better, because it can go louder and have more impact; it becomes even more immersive; you hear more and more of the subtleties in how the musicians wielded their craft ...

[fas42]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

The worlds best, most revealing system still doesn't sound anywhere within a continent's breadth of the sound of real music playing in a real space. It simply doesn't and would fool no one who has experienced the real thing.

 

Luckily for the music loving everyman, you're completely wrong, George. The sound of real music in a real space is very accessible via playback - I still remember quite keenly going to live performances after reaching this point, and now and again being disappointed by the "real thing" not hitting the buttons as much as replay did for me ... too far away, the performers weren't in a good zone, the instruments weren't in the best shape, not enveloping enough, etc ...

[NOMBEDES]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

 

It will reproduce what is on the recording, which is what a high fidelity system is supposed to do. On well recorded material, its excellent sound quality produces musical delight which, IMO, is the goal of investing in a sound system. Your observation above does nothing to support your opinion that you "doubt the sound quality will change" if you spend more money on better equipment. Nor does it support your view that, of 10 listeners, five will like the sound and five will not. 

 

Well, what I think I was attempting to state was that once you assemble a high quality system, you can only make the system sound different - not better not worse just different. The change may be for the better to your ears, but - again at a certain level of equipment quality - not all enthusiasts will think the changes are an improvement.  Because we all do not like the same tonal balance produced by various speaker and system synergy.  My opinion only, I may not be explaining my thesis in a coherent manner.

[gmgraves]

56 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Luckily for the music loving everyman, you're completely wrong, George. The sound of real music in a real space is very accessible via playback - I still remember quite keenly going to live performances after reaching this point, and now and again being disappointed by the "real thing" not hitting the buttons as much as replay did for me ... too far away, the performers weren't in a good zone, the instruments weren't in the best shape, not enveloping enough, etc ...

And you're nuts, Frank! The sound of a full symphony orchestra in full song is IMPOSSIBLE to create artificially with any audio equipment. Not difficult, not expensive, but IMPOSSIBLE! It cannot be done!

This was made very clear to me a number of years ago when I was visiting New Orleans Louisiana. I was walking down the side walk one evening on Bourbon Street in the heart of the French Quarter after having dined at Antoine's, then the oldest continuously operating restaurant in the New World. It was May and quite warm in NOLA, and all the doors to all the night spots (the Latin Quarter is pretty much all night spots and restaurants) were open. As I walked down that side of the street, passing establishment after establishment I could note to myself: there's live music playing here, but it's a PA system there, and here again is live music and here again is a PA system. The difference was so great, such a chasm between them that OUTSIDE, passing the door I could tell. Sticking my head in the door, merely confirmed that my observations were correct. I can always tell live music from canned or "augmented"; always!

In order to reproduce a full symphony orchestra would, in the average listening room, require an amplifier of greater than 1000 Watts/channel and the speaker that could handle that amount of power. Also the entire system would have to have, across the board, distortion that at full volume was below the threshold of human hearing. and flat frequency and flat power response in the room from below 10 Hz to better than 30,000 Hz with essentially instantaneous impulse response and no hang-over or ringing at any frequency. All of this is, of course, as I say, Impossible with current technology.

Now if you're talking about pop and rock recordings, you might be right. They don't exist in real time outside of a recording studio anyway (and in concert situations, the performers have to take the "recording studio" with them!) so who's to know what they actually sounded like in the studio, and anyway, I wouldn't care. I'm talking about real, acoustic classical; music played in a real space. Hi-Fi can only approximate it and I suspect that it will be thus for many years to come.

[Allan F]

3 hours ago, NOMBEDES said:

Well, what I think I was attempting to state was that once you assemble a high quality system, you can only make the system sound different - not better not worse just different. The change may be for the better to your ears, but - again at a certain level of equipment quality - not all enthusiasts will think the changes are an improvement.  Because we all do not like the same tonal balance produced by various speaker and system synergy.  My opinion only, I may not be explaining my thesis in a coherent manner.

 

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Even if it's wrong.  OTOH, if you were to state that selectively spending more money on an already good system brings diminishing returns, I would agree.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

And you're nuts, Frank! The sound of a full symphony orchestra in full song is IMPOSSIBLE to create artificially with any audio equipment. Not difficult, not expensive, but IMPOSSIBLE! It cannot be done!

This was made very clear to me a number of years ago when I was visiting New Orleans Louisiana. I was walking down the side walk one evening on Bourbon Street in the heart of the French Quarter after having dined at Antoine's, then the oldest continuously operating restaurant in the New World. It was May and quite warm in NOLA, and all the doors to all the night spots (the Latin Quarter is pretty much all night spots and restaurants) were open. As I walked down that side of the street, passing establishment after establishment I could note to myself: there's live music playing here, but it's a PA system there, and here again is live music and here again is a PA system. The difference was so great, such a chasm between them that OUTSIDE, passing the door I could tell. Sticking my head in the door, merely confirmed that my observations were correct. I can always tell live music from canned or "augmented"; always!

 

And what's the difference? The PA system!! These operate, normally, at such a low standard of SQ that it's like saying a car from the 60's can stack against a modern vehicle of similar type, in key areas. Sound reinforcement is about LOUDNESS, being bulletproof no matter how much it's abused - finer details of tonality are of very little consequence for such equipment.

 

The best "PA system" I've come across were a pair of Bryston monoblocks, driving Dynaudio speakers - this delivered seemingly unlimited potential for SPLs, with complete clarity - could do the drumkit at several paces, realistically, with ease.

 

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

In order to reproduce a full symphony orchestra would, in the average listening room, require an amplifier of greater than 1000 Watts/channel and the speaker that could handle that amount of power. Also the entire system would have to have, across the board, distortion that at full volume was below the threshold of human hearing. and flat frequency and flat power response in the room from below 10 Hz to better than 30,000 Hz with essentially instantaneous impulse response and no hang-over or ringing at any frequency. All of this is, of course, as I say, Impossible with current technology.

 

The power is not required. There are plenty of measurements done of what peak SLPs are in the concert hall, in the audience seats, and it's well within the reach of normal rigs; yes, within the orchestra itself the dBs can be frightening - if you are "unlucky" enough to sit directly in front of the brass section, ... but this is not the situation for the paying listener. The subjective impact of a live orchestra in full flight, the "bigness" is because the harmonic content, and complexity is delivered with no obvious audible flaws - this is what a playback setup has to get right.  And I've heard that consistently delivered by what I call, "competent playback" - the one limitation I usually hit is that I run out of gain - the volume is set to maximum, but the combination of recording levels, and the intention of the designers to not have the amplfier clipping stops higher peak SPLs.

 

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

Now if you're talking about pop and rock recordings, you might be right. They don't exist in real time outside of a recording studio anyway (and in concert situations, the performers have to take the "recording studio" with them!) so who's to know what they actually sounded like in the studio, and anyway, I wouldn't care. I'm talking about real, acoustic classical; music played in a real space. Hi-Fi can only approximate it and I suspect that it will be thus for many years to come.

 

Both classic and pop, rock 'work' - if I get the rig to do rock recordings with full visceral impact, then orchestral climaxes are easily handled. The goal is that the sound hits one with a tidal wave of intensity, without the slightest sense of any issues - it just rolls over one, with "zero pain" ... this is magic stuff, and makes the exercise of pushing a rig to this point all worth it ...

[PeterSt]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

As I walked down that side of the street, passing establishment after establishment I could note to myself: there's live music playing here, but it's a PA system there, and here again is live music and here again is a PA system.

 

Of course. That is because each band is sitting right in the shop window (say etalage in French ). No band ? then it is PA.

haha

[gmgraves]

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

And what's the difference? The PA system!! These operate, normally, at such a low standard of SQ that it's like saying a car from the 60's can stack against a modern vehicle of similar type, in key areas. Sound reinforcement is about LOUDNESS, being bulletproof no matter how much it's abused - finer details of tonality are of very little consequence for such equipment.

 

The best "PA system" I've come across were a pair of Bryston monoblocks, driving Dynaudio speakers - this delivered seemingly unlimited potential for SPLs, with complete clarity - could do the drumkit at several paces, realistically, with ease.

That's not the point. The point is that live music has a quality about it that simply cannot be reproduced by electro/mechanical means in a way to make it indistinguishable from live music. It is so obvious, that one can distinguish it from canned or sound reinforced just by passing a doorway in which live music was being played. 

 

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

And what's the difference? The PA system!! These operate, normally, at such a low standard of SQ that it's like saying a car from the 60's can stack against a modern vehicle of similar type, in key areas. Sound reinforcement is about LOUDNESS, being bulletproof no matter how much it's abused - finer details of tonality are of very little consequence for such equipment.

 

The best "PA system" I've come across were a pair of Bryston monoblocks, driving Dynaudio speakers - this delivered seemingly unlimited potential for SPLs, with complete clarity - could do the drumkit at several paces, realistically, with ease.

 

 

The power is not required. There are plenty of measurements done of what peak SLPs are in the concert hall, in the audience seats, and it's well within the reach of normal rigs; yes, within the orchestra itself the dBs can be frightening - if you are "unlucky" enough to sit directly in front of the brass section, ... but this is not the situation for the paying listener. The subjective impact of a live orchestra in full flight, the "bigness" is because the harmonic content, and complexity is delivered with no obvious audible flaws - this is what a playback setup has to get right.  And I've heard that consistently delivered by what I call, "competent playback" - the one limitation I usually hit is that I run out of gain - the volume is set to maximum, but the combination of recording levels, and the intention of the designers to not have the amplfier clipping stops higher peak SPLs.

 

 

Both classic and pop, rock 'work' - if I get the rig to do rock recordings with full visceral impact, then orchestral climaxes are easily handled. The goal is that the sound hits one with a tidal wave of intensity, without the slightest sense of any issues - it just rolls over one, with "zero pain" ... this is magic stuff, and makes the exercise of pushing a rig to this point all worth it ...

Like I said, you are delusional. No audio system can possibly sound like real live music and it never will. There are many reasons for this, but noise and distortion and other limitations of the electromechanical process are at work here. That's all and that's it!

[gmgraves]

12 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Of course. That is because each band is sitting right in the shop window (say etalage in French ). No band ? then it is PA.

haha

That's not true. The bands were, for the most part, not visible from the street. Do you believe that High-Fi can be perfect like Frank does ? 

[PeterSt]

7 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Do you believe that High-Fi can be perfect like Frank does ? 

 

George, yes. It is even my very example of the live bands, that once you can't differentiate the band from the stereo when walking on the street and listening from outside, the stereo must be the better one. I use it explicitly by means of walking outside (around to corners and then in the garden) to observe how "live band" I regard it.

I also have the toilet test, which is simpler but I think more down to the merit :

Go to the toilet, close the door which is good for the test and other reasons, also close the door to the living room (quite normal but again good for the test) and observe the still audible frequency spectrum. If things work out, you will here the same spectrum as in the living room (the stereo assumed there). Overweight on bass ? then things are not right. Hardly highs ? then not right. These both though, merely express the general merit of the system, like you referring to 1000W to be necessary for etc. When I read that, I thought to ask you for the math on my 118dB sensitive speakers and the knowledge about the 2x brigded amplifiers of 30W for the bass section.

And that this has been measured for 89dBSPL maximum THD of 2.7% (which is inaudible at 20Hz because you hear nothing indeed).

And that I out of everything could do the math on kick drum surface, pressure (mm of dent-in (excursion)) and reflect that on to woofer surface per speaker side (which is 3x15" in my case) again including the excursion of the woofers (which is depicted by the THD desire).

blablablabla

IOW, I sure try.

 

But I think you read my "report" about the drum kit being indistinguishable in all aspects ... this was in this very thread IIRC.

 

The toilet test is the real test because as you will notice (try it !!) that certain frequencies jump out. So now this is not about inherent merit like good sub bass or undistorted loud highs, but about how equal the performance is.

Did you try it already ?

Still not ?

OK, take your time with it. But if you do, you will notice that you have frequencies jumping on to you. And the biggest fun : you don't observe them audibly in the listening room. You are used to them ... (there).

The toilet hides nothing from you. 

All in other words : to a certain extent, if the toilet test succeeds (all frequencies come to you in even fashion) the "live band" will be close. No guarantee yet (because of rolled off bass and highs) but better yet. And the point is : we (our brain) work with such information. Buzzing ans standing waves and all what a stereo can do wrong ... it is not the real thing. Well, you know that.

 

[gmgraves]

47 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

George, yes. It is even my very example of the live bands, that once you can't differentiate the band from the stereo when walking on the street and listening from outside, the stereo must be the better one. I use it explicitly by means of walking outside (around to corners and then in the garden) to observe how "live band" I regard it.

I also have the toilet test, which is simpler but I think more down to the merit :

Go to the toilet, close the door which is good for the test and other reasons, also close the door to the living room (quite normal but again good for the test) and observe the still audible frequency spectrum. If things work out, you will here the same spectrum as in the living room (the stereo assumed there). Overweight on bass ? then things are not right. Hardly highs ? then not right. These both though, merely express the general merit of the system, like you referring to 1000W to be necessary for etc. When I read that, I thought to ask you for the math on my 118dB sensitive speakers and the knowledge about the 2x brigded amplifiers of 30W for the bass section.

And that this has been measured for 89dBSPL maximum THD of 2.7% (which is inaudible at 20Hz because you hear nothing indeed).

And that I out of everything could do the math on kick drum surface, pressure (mm of dent-in (excursion)) and reflect that on to woofer surface per speaker side (which is 3x15" in my case) again including the excursion of the woofers (which is depicted by the THD desire).

blablablabla

IOW, I sure try.

 

But I think you read my "report" about the drum kit being indistinguishable in all aspects ... this was in this very thread IIRC.

 

The toilet test is the real test because as you will notice (try it !!) that certain frequencies jump out. So now this is not about inherent merit like good sub bass or undistorted loud highs, but about how equal the performance is.

Did you try it already ?

Still not ?

OK, take your time with it. But if you do, you will notice that you have frequencies jumping on to you. And the biggest fun : you don't observe them audibly in the listening room. You are used to them ... (there).

The toilet hides nothing from you. 

All in other words : to a certain extent, if the toilet test succeeds (all frequencies come to you in even fashion) the "live band" will be close. No guarantee yet (because of rolled off bass and highs) but better yet. And the point is : we (our brain) work with such information. Buzzing ans standing waves and all what a stereo can do wrong ... it is not the real thing. Well, you know that.

 

Wow! Like I said to Frank, it might be easier with pop music, which is largely artificial anyway as there is no "live sound". Even at concerts, one is listening to SR equipment through an entire studio's worth of mixing and sound shaping gear and the only "real" sounds being produced (and thus need to be picked-up by actual microphones) are the drum kit and the singer(s) as well as the occasional trumpet or sax, and they are generally "Frapped" (captured with a contact mike affixed to the instrument itself). I've always maintained that unless one was in the mixing room when the final mix of a pop session was being done, or, if one at least had the same make and model of speakers that the session was mixed with, the listener has no idea what the pop recording is supposed to sound like. I gleaned this from years of working around Coast Recorders in San Francisco. I watched many pop bands' recordings being made there. Some of the artists I watched record were Walter (ne Wendy) Carlos, It's a Beautiful Day, Country Joe and the Fish, Jefferson Airplane, and many others of which I don't think I ever knew the names (and certainly have forgotten them, if I had heard them). Like most studios in the US, Coast Recorders used big JBLs for monitoring, and every pop recording I saw being made there was tailored  to sound "good" on those speakers.  

But you and Frank must be in the minority if you think a hi-fi system, any hi-fi system can even come close to perfection. I have never heard anyone else make that claim. I can guarantee you that Gordon Holt didn't believe that it was an achievable goal. A laudable one, perhaps, and certainly what the industry is supposed to be striving toward, but they know that it is not something that was likely to ever be possible across the entire spectrum of recorded music.