[Dan Banquer]

Yeah, but introducing one more component into the mix surely must introduce distortion, etc by contaminating the signal path.

                d.b.

[Ethan Winer]

Our ears all have their individual hearing characteristics. How does an audio component designer compensate for all the possible variations in hearing?

That's the whole point! A good circuit designer doesn't try to compensate for that because it's impossible. So all we can do is aim for neutrality - flat response, low distortion, etc.

Plus, people are used to hearing as they do after a lifetime of whatever peculiarities their ear shape etc has. Since that is outside the gear it's irrelevant.

--Ethan

[rajacat]

Can SOTA equipment measure all there is to measure? Are there some parameters that we still can't account for? Isn't measuring equipment still being perfected or has it reached its zenith?

[miklorsmith]

How much importance is placed on transient fidelity, coherence, and instrumental tone in the design process?  I have gravitated toward single-driver and less-XO speakers having found through my apparently woeful listening instruments that these traits are sorely missing in most hi-fi, much of which measures great.

So, assume you can "measure it all", which even if we could we aren't, where do these traits fit in?  This stuff often has "poor" frequency extension at both ends, is "distorted" per the specs, and yet it does the stuff I personally find musically convincing far better than the "clean" stuff.

So, isn't the design process largely a series of decisions and priorities on behalf of the designer to emphasize their own values or their perceived customers' values in this hobby?

[rollo]

Our ears all have their individual hearing characteristics. How does an audio component designer compensate for all the possible variations in hearing?

That's the whole point! A good circuit designer doesn't try to compensate for that because it's impossible. So all we can do is aim for neutrality - flat response, low distortion, etc.

Plus, people are used to hearing as they do after a lifetime of whatever peculiarities their ear shape etc has. Since that is outside the gear it's irrelevant.

--Ethan

I remember the day when low distortion,flat response and neutrality ruled.Sansui.Sony and all the solid state devices that measured very well in these areas.However they all SOUNDED LIKE CRAP.
    I'll take my SET distortion any day.Do we really know what netrality really is?Not without being present during the recording session or editing.Neutrality IMO can not be truely identified.
What do ya think guys?
rollo

[rajacat]

Our ears all have their individual hearing characteristics. How does an audio component designer compensate for all the possible variations in hearing?

That's the whole point! A good circuit designer doesn't try to compensate for that because it's impossible. So all we can do is aim for neutrality - flat response, low distortion, etc.

Plus, people are used to hearing as they do after a lifetime of whatever peculiarities their ear shape etc has. Since that is outside the gear it's irrelevant.

--Ethan

Ethan,
Not to pry but what components do you use in your personal reference system?

Raj

[Dan Banquer]

How much importance is placed on transient fidelity, coherence, and instrumental tone in the design process?  I have gravitated toward single-driver and less-XO speakers having found through my apparently woeful listening instruments that these traits are sorely missing in most hi-fi, much of which measures great.

So, assume you can "measure it all", which even if we could we aren't, where do these traits fit in?  This stuff often has "poor" frequency extension at both ends, is "distorted" per the specs, and yet it does the stuff I personally find musically convincing far better than the "clean" stuff.

So, isn't the design process largely a series of decisions and priorities on behalf of the designer to emphasize their own values or their perceived customers' values in this hobby?

Hey! Yesterday you wanted magic, today you want the technical stuff, what's it gonna be tomorrow?

 

And I was just getting the hang of pulling rabbits out of my arse!
                  d.b.

[rajacat]

Maybe Ethan is a closet SET user!

Raj

[rajacat]

How about you Dan, what is your reference system? All pro audio I assume!

Raj

[Dan Banquer]

How about you Dan, what is your reference system? All pro audio I assume!

Raj

Better than that, It's listed on this site.
               d.b.

[miklorsmith]

Hey! Yesterday you wanted magic, today you want the technical stuff, what's it gonna be tomorrow?

 

And I was just getting the hang of pulling rabbits out of my arse!
                  d.b.

Hey, it isn't what I want!  I'm good to go Hoss, I love my rig.  Those component types I believe are properly engineered to produce the magic I crave because they are focused on different metrics than the mainstream.  You guys are like the bad guys in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" - "They're looking in the wrong place!"

[rajacat]

Maybe audio is like reading material.
The "objectivists" prefer reading engineering documents and the "subjectivists" prefer great literature.

Raj

[macrojack]

All you guys are talking when you should be listening. This topic has been shown in dozens of double blind tests to be an unwinnable dead end. I say tomahto.

[Daygloworange]

It seems to me the true goal of hi-fi is to hear the intentions of the recording and mixing engineers. That implies having a system that is as neutral as possible. Versus a system that adds a particular character or coloration to everything that passes through it.

--Ethan

NOT IN HIGH END
          D.B.

I'm actually curious as to the truth about high end. Is it a coloration that is pleasant, that people are looking for, or are they striving for a neutral system? Personally, I gravitate to as neutral as I think I can get.

And, no system sounds like the "original"  So, which incorrect flavor do you Like?

Yup, that's the bottom line. But based on stuff I'm starting to hear as I'm upgrading my 2 channel system, is that I believe many audiophiles have systems capable of higher resolution than a lot of studio's had/have.

So, isn't the design process largely a series of decisions and priorities on behalf of the designer to emphasize their own values or their perceived customers' values in this hobby?

I personally think that's exactly what is largely, fact.

Do we really know what netrality really is?Not without being present during the recording session or editing.Neutrality IMO can not be truely identified.
What do ya think guys?
rollo

I don't think you could ever have a true reference point, no.

Cheers

[miklorsmith]

Interesting and largely unrelated note:

I've been e-mailing one of the principals at Lessloss who was musing about two of their DAC solutions.  Of the worse of the two he said the following cues were missing:

Could no longer hear the director breathing
Could not tell which way the bow was drawn on a cello
All the strings on the acoustic guitar sounded like they were made of the same material.

The better of the two solutions was able to discern all of these things.  Wild stuff.

[Daygloworange]

Resolution. Gotta love it. 

Cheers

[Steve Eddy]

Are you really arguing that audio fidelity in gear doesn't matter? Isn't that the "fi" part of hi-fi?

What I am arguing is that what matters to me is my own pleasure and enjoyment. And if I ultimately derive more pleasure and enjoyment from that which is less "high fidelity," that's what I'll choose every time.

I would never tell someone they shouldn't enjoy their tube amp with 5 or 10 percent distortion because it uses too little negative feedback. If they like the sound of distortion added to everything they listen to, I'm cool with it. But you can add grunge like that for a lot less than the cost of these boutique products. Two silicon diodes and a pair of well-chosen resistors can do exactly that for about 50 cents.

First, and with all due respect, I think the notion that the distortion characteristics of a low feedback SET amp can be exactly replicated with a couple of diodes and resistors is hogwash. Though I'm perfectly willing to be proved wrong on this.

Second, why do you seem to have such a dim view of what you refer to as "boutique products"? It's almost as if you're implying that there's something inherently bad or wrong with them.

It seems to me the true goal of hi-fi is to hear the intentions of the recording and mixing engineers.

I guess, if one's goal is "hi-fi." But that's not everyone's goal. My own goal as I have said previously is my own pleasure and enjoyment. And to me that trumps any intentions of recording and mixing engineers.

But let's examine this stated goal of "hi-fi."

First, the only way you can truly hear the intentions of the recording and mixing engineers is if you were to use the same source components, playback gear, loudspeakers, and acoustical environment that was used to produce the recording.

That implies having a system that is as neutral as possible. Versus a system that adds a particular character or coloration to everything that passes through it.

But that also implies that all of the recordings you would listen to were made using systems at least as neutral as the system you're playing them back on.

So tell me, just how neutral was the system that say, George Martin used when making Sgt. Pepper compared to the neutrality that can be achieved with systems today? I'd hazard a guess of "not very."

Engineers like Martin had to work with the limitations of the systems they used at the time. And like any good engineer, they'd have employed various techniques to get the best results from those limitations. Mic placement, EQ, etc.

To have a system that's "as neutral as possible" is to have a system which plays back a recording with as little alteration as possible. But what exactly is the recording?

Let's say you're George Martin. It's 1966 and you're just getting started recording Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band for the Beatles. And let's say that the system you're using at the time is rather rolled off in the highs. We'll call this the system's transfer function.

To get around this, you apply some EQ, boosting the highs.

So now, given this, what exactly is the recording itself? One thing that it's not is the intention of George Martin. George Martin's intention is what he heard through his system after applying some high frequency boost to compensate for the system's transfer function. What the recording itself represents is the inverse of that transfer function, i.e. boosted highs as opposed to rolled off highs.

To play this recording back on a modern system which is far more neutral than the one George used back in 1966 would result in something quite different from what George intended. It would result in highs boosted above what he had intended.

So when you say "...the true goal of hi-fi is to hear the intentions of the recording and mixing engineers," just which recording and mixing engineers do you mean?

se

[TomW16]

Wow, what a string of posts with interesting view points.   I figure that I can jump in here and provide my two cents.  I believe the ultimate goal of hi-fi is to reproduce the original signal with as little change as possible.  Luckily for me, the sound of my neutral system, or at least as neutral a system as I can obtain, allows me to enjoy the music.  Would I pursue a neutral system if it didn't sound good to me?  No, since listening for me is a pleasurable experience and I don't want to waste time listening to bad sound for the sake of accuracy.

I would agree that if a system measures poorly then there are things that could be addressed to achieve a neutral sounding system.  Again, assuming that neutrality is the goal.  If, however, a system measures well but sounds poor, either not all of the appropriate measurements were taken OR new, additional measurements are required.  Maybe not yet developed.

Just because the aeronautical engineers "prove" the impossibility of a bumblebee flying doesn't make it so.

Tom

[jules]

Steve, I have to agree with all of that ... including the comment on tube harmonics not being the same as "a couple of diodes and a well chosen resistor.

TomW

um ... neutral? How do you know?

jules

[Daygloworange]

For years and years, you could go into any really well known top dollar recording studio with million dollar gear and see sitting right there on the meter bridge of their mega-buck mixing console, one lonely little piss ass Auratone speaker(yes, I said speaker, not speakers). A cheap little full range speaker. They would mix on the big monitors, but still reference to the Auratone in mono. And yes, it had some bearing on the final mix for a lot of recordings you and I enjoy on our mega peeked and tweeked 2 channel systems.

Yes, it becomes paradoxical, and in the end, what's important is what sounds good to your ears. If it makes you warm and fuzzy, then it's all good, y'know?

Cheers