[Daygloworange]

Now, it may or may not be true that that two sources delivering similar measured signals will produce similar sounds.  If they don't, there are two potential explanations:
1) our ability to measure the signal is compromised (measurements may be inaccurate, inappropriate or incomplete); or
2) the mapping from signal characteristics to perceived sound quality is discontinuous

In order for us to infer very much about how a component sounds from measured specifications, it would need to be the case that neither of these failures occurs.  I have no idea how one would establish either of these propositions.  Then again, I'm not sure that one is at very much of a disadvantage if one proceeds assuming these failures do not occur. 

Chad

Very good post. I agree.

From what I see, there are a lot of measurements done with sine waves , and various sorts of broadband signals, most of them steady state. The leading edge attack of just about any musical "event" (event in this context is the beginning of any musical note, be it a single instrument, or ensemble of instruments) is a very complex thing. The first few milliseconds of a musical note contain the "attack" portion of the initial excitation of the instrument, with a very fast rise time in amplitude. It can tax a components ability to provide the proper onrush of stable current need to properly reproduce a signal as stable and distortion free as possible. This "attack" is actually not "music" but a high ratio of " random noise" (ie: the bow on a cello, the pick on a guitar, the stick on a snare etc...) mixed in with the launching of a steady state musical vibration (note sustain).

Transient response is critical to transparency. The sustain portion, and decay portion are more steady state events, and should be much easier to reproduce faithfully.

Cheers

[Mister Pig]

Question “What’s the order of importance in a two channel audio system?” Is it:
Room acoustic treatment
Speakers
Amplifier
Pre-amplifier
Or Integrated vs. Separates
Source – CDP or Transport & DAC combo or Turntable
Interconnects
Speaker Wire – Bi wire vs. Standard
Power Cords
Power Conditioning


Okay here’s my order

1-Amplifier
2-Pre-amplifier
3-Speakers
4-Turntable
5-CDP
6-Power Cord
7-AC Outlets
8-Room Treatment
9-Speaker Wire Standard

Tough question to answer since everything is dependent on the other equipment in the system. But I will throw my 2 cents in:

1. Speakers: They set the tone for the system, and every one of them have their own personality.
2. Room Acoustics: They allow the speakers to properly interface with the room.
3. CDP-Turntable: If it does not come off the disc, well then everything else is just a shadow of its true self.
4. Pre-Amplifier: In my experience a pre-amp swap makes a significant change in the performance of a system.
5. Amplifier: gotta have a proper match with the pre, and be able to drive appropriate speakers.
6. Speaker Wire&Interconnects: They really are on the level of a component, not an accessory
7. Power Cord: They make a bigger difference than you might think.
9. AC Outlet: Haven't played around with any yet.

Regards
Mister Pig

 


 

[/quote]

[*Scotty*]

What I find interesting is that Daygloworange and Jeff both have the sound of the real event as their yardstick by which a components performance is measured. Without this as a reference you can spend a lot of time going in circles much like this thread.
Scotty

[rajacat]

Mister Pig,

What? You actually want to return to the original topic?

-Roy

[miklorsmith]

This is an argument that's been done.  I guarantee nobody will be convinced either way at the end.  Thanks Darren for being the voice of civil dissent.  I disagree with you and vive le difference.

Here's my opinion - nothing is transparent.  Dayglo is probably in the best position to comment on this - while certain audiophile products may do a better job reproducing a recording, even that is a judgment call - others may disagree about which piece is reproducing "better".  In a direct comparising, nobody will claim their stereo truly sounds like live instruments.  There are those folks who pursue the numbers and like that sound.  I often read about how few of these people's recordings they can listen to because their gear is "too revealing".

Hypothetical - if you were able to pick one system out of two where you absolutely and factually knew one had better specifications and transmitted a more "accurate" sound into your room than the other but for some inexplicable reason the other sounded better, which would you choose?

Every single piece of audio equipment presents a series of compromises.  Every listener has a different set of values that defines their ear.  Matching equipment strengths with the listener's values is the definition of synergy and the thing we all must learn on this journey to be successful and happy.  Or, we can chase the trends and wonder why we're not happy.

Musing question - what is actually "on" the CD that we can "transparently compare" with our sound at the speaker?

[Housteau]

Now, it may or may not be true that that two sources delivering similar measured signals will produce similar sounds.  If they don't, there are two potential explanations:
1) our ability to measure the signal is compromised (measurements may be inaccurate, inappropriate or incomplete); or
2) the mapping from signal characteristics to perceived sound quality is discontinuous

If it were possible to properly test, analyze and quantify everything that is heard, then certainly the measurements could be quite revealing and show the pathway towards the truth and the light.  But, if the human experience does not correlate with the logic of the 'known' science, then the science is lacking at present.  I believe that the best test instruments at present can be our own ears.  Just as the human sense of taste can often superseed an analysis of that same item.

[doug s.]

i think you are wrong!

I have been wrong before - don't tell my wife. 
Darren

no need - she awreddy knows!   

doug s.

[doug s.]

all this is great, except i think you are wrong!     why?  because if everything is 100% perfect, undistorted, transparent, then what you will get is a perfect reproduction of A RECORDING.  which may NOT sound the same as the live musical ewent itself.     which is why, imo, electrical components that in fact do measure extremely closely, w/near-identical specs of all known engineering parameters, may in fact sometimes sound a lot different.

ymmv,

doug s.

Don't you mean "liwe musical ewent"?  And "ymmw"?

By the way, I don't understand your argument at all.  It may be true that someone does not like the sound of a perfectly reproduced recording, and prefers to hear the recording reproduced with various distortions.  But I don't see why that should imply some discontinuity in the mapping from distortion to perceived sound quality.  It would still seem perfectly plausible that two sources that delivered signals that were "close" would sound similar.  If this were the case, then Darren's suggestion of blind testing would allow you to determine which particular types of signal imperfections subjectively sound good to you.

Now, it may or may not be true that that two sources delivering similar measured signals will produce similar sounds.  If they don't, there are two potential explanations:
1) our ability to measure the signal is compromised (measurements may be inaccurate, inappropriate or incomplete); or
2) the mapping from signal characteristics to perceived sound quality is discontinuous

In order for us to infer very much about how a component sounds from measured specifications, it would need to be the case that neither of these failures occurs.  I have no idea how one would establish either of these propositions.  Then again, I'm not sure that one is at very much of a disadvantage if one proceeds assuming these failures do not occur. 

Chad

my point is that there is no such thing as a perfectly reproduced recording.  besides distortion of the equipment, there is the issue of room - is it a club?  arena? concert hall?  recording studio?  type of mic?  configuration of mic(s)?  so, even if the playback system is 100% perfectly neutral in all ways, both known measurements, & unknown measurements,  (which it is not), it may yust be possible that what playbac gear makes the software sound most like live music, & not like the recording of it, is not the most accurate in a purely technical sense.

in fact, i think this is proved by the fact that there's so much differing opinions on what sounds best, both by end users & mfr's, as has been stated here several times.  if everything were known for certain, everyone would be dong it the same way...

doug s.

[doug s.]

I choose it based on how it sounds, but curiously, the specs and measurents would bear that linearity is what sounds more transparent.

Cheers

except that this doesn't explain components whose sound you don't like, tho their specs & measurements are equal or better to what you do like...   

doug s.

It does explain it to me Doug, because I listen to recordings I made, and have the knowledge of the what the source sounds like sitting right next to me. So when I change out gear, and listen to my own recording, I know which piece of gear sounds truer to life.

Based on my experiences, I have found a direct correlation to equipment specs playing a very important role in how transparent something sounds.

i don't take issue w/you about this, but it really defies credulity, at least to me, to think that there is no gear out there that you do not like, either due to transparency issues or otherwise, that does not measure as well or better than gear you like.

all this is great, except i think you are wrong!     why?  because if everything is 100% perfect, undistorted, transparent, then what you will get is a perfect reproduction of A RECORDING.  which may NOT sound the same as the live musical ewent itself.     which is why, imo, electrical components that in fact do measure extremely closely, w/near-identical specs of all known engineering parameters, may in fact sometimes sound a lot different.

ymmv,

doug s.

I think your assuming only a 100% transparent playback of current (ie: crappy recorded) recordings.

Theoretically, if the "ewent"  was  recorded and/then played back with 100% accuracy with electronic equipment. It would in fact be a perfect duplicate.

Cheers

yes, as i later clarified, i am talking about the playback, not the recordings.  the fact is, we have to live in the real world, & recordings - crappy or otherwise - are part of the real world.  and, as i mentioned before, even if the recording equipment were theoretically 100% transparent, there is the issue of room differences, recording technique differences, mic type/set-up differences...

regards,

doug s.

[Steve]

"Hypothetical - if you were able to pick one system out of two where you absolutely and factually knew one had better specifications and transmitted a more "accurate" sound into your room than the other but for some inexplicable reason the other sounded better, which would you choose?"

I would suggest this comment is illogical unless,
1) The recording was off, sterile. But is that in every case?
2) one purposefully wanted to add even more emotion than the live sound
3) something else in one's system is off (but which your example seems to indicate is not the case).

No problem if either 1 or 2 is a priority. If 3, then I would find the culprit and rectify the situation instead of purchasing another inferior component to "compensate" for it, as new problems will almost certainly rear there heads.

It is my experience that as the system gets more accurate, the live even becomes more clear and the live emotions come through better and better.

Cheers.

By the way, what proof do you have that nothing is transparent?

[Daygloworange]

Here's my opinion - nothing is transparent. 

Yeah, with audio gear, that's the problem.

while certain audiophile products may do a better job reproducing a recording, even that is a judgment call - others may disagree about which piece is reproducing "better".

I often read about how few of these people's recordings they can listen to because their gear is "too revealing".

These are paradoxes to me. And I hear them all to often. Too revealing? If you have a really, really good recording, the playback system cannot be too revealing. A crappy recording? Well then yes, having beer goggles on is a good thing.

And I don't buy the arguement of "we all hear differently, therefore...". If a system plays back something well, we "all" hear that. If I have a snare drum here, and one system plays back very true to life, and one doesn't, I don't care who's "ears" are listening, one is more faithful. Don't talk about which one you "like", but which one sounds more faithful.

Hypothetical - if you were able to pick one system out of two where you absolutely and factually knew one had better specifications and transmitted a more "accurate" sound into your room than the other but for some inexplicable reason the other sounded better, which would you choose?

That's another paradox to me. The more accurate one will sound more faithful to the recording, which is what I'm looking for. I'm not looking to ameliorate bad recordings with my audio system. I take recordings for what they are, recordings. I want to reproduce the recording faithfully. Otherwise, I would just get a digital Eq, and be writing presets for each and every recording I own, and try and be a re-mastering engineer.

It all boils down to what are you trying to accomplish with your audio system.

A linear transfer function of a recording, or an amelioration of less than ideal recordings thru a non linear transfer function?

Cheers

[mfsoa]

Darren,
Since you seem to have a pretty thick skin and have remained pleasantly upbeat in this (and other) discussions, I have a question for you-

What would you do if there was a tube preamp out there that had, let's say, wild estimate here, 100 times the measured distortion (THD, or whatever) of your Krell. I'm guessing maybe 0.005% vs. 0.5% let's say. You try this preamp in your system and you think it sounds absolutely fabulous. I mean blows you away, didn't know your system could give you so much joy, have never hear the essense, the meaning, of music conveyed so well kind of blown away. You are confronted with a sense of emotion and feeling that you have not experienced before.

What would you do?  Would you unhesitatingly abandon your current equipment (and philosophy) and adopt this radically flawed preamp into your system?

I just recently had such an experience w/ my lowly VAC preamp (their bottom of the line unit). It has made me forget about
soundstaging, distortion, accuracy, frequency extension etc. etc. all that stupid crap. It made me not care what anyone else may think about my system. It made me taste the realm beyond all of the audiophile verbiage - a realm that I didn't know existed and had certainly not heard in my home. It makes music. It makes music mean something. How do you measure that?

Anyway, I appreciate the input you've given and commend you for standing up for what you beleive in.

But there is a realm of emotion, feeling, joy and passion that, AFAIK, doesn't show up on a scope or computer print-out.

Thanks for the open debate!

-Mike

[mfsoa]

Crap, I should have read the posts that were made while I was typing!!

Yeah, what Steve said too...

[Daygloworange]

It is my experience that as the system gets more accurate, the live even becomes more clear and the live emotions come through better and better.

Ditto. 100%. 

Cheers

[Daygloworange]

What would you do?  Would you unhesitatingly abandon your current equipment (and philosophy) and adopt this radically flawed preamp into your system?

If it gives you more pleasure, why not?

I don't choose my guitar rig based on anything but feel and sound.

I just recently had such an experience w/ my lowly VAC preamp (their bottom of the line unit). It has made me forget about
soundstaging, distortion, accuracy, frequency extension etc. etc. all that stupid crap. It made me not care what anyone else may think about my system. It made me taste the realm beyond all of the audiophile verbiage - a realm that I didn't know existed and had certainly not heard in my home. It makes music. It makes music mean something. How do you measure that?

There nothing saying that there needs to be a measurement for that. It's a personal barometer. If it floats your boat, more power to you. 

I'll never argue preferences.

Cheers

[darrenyeats]

Mike, thanks for the kind comments.

Have a look at my footer. See that JVC system? If you measured it overall it wouldn't do that well, but I love it.

I agree there are certain kinds of distortion which are more important than others. For example, my JVC rolls off the bass and treble - that's distortion right there in my book. However, the coherency and musicality is freakish for such a cheap mainstream micro system. I think the negatives and positives have something to do with the single-driver speakers it uses. I can and often do listen all day on that system. Yes I am inching back to the thread topic!

However, when we are talking about modern audio sources, ICs and amps really we don't need to choose between different kinds of distortion. The overall distortion is so low it doesn't really come into it. So I say tune your sound with your speakers and room.

I've got a feeling that a lot of the problem is passive crossovers in speakers. To overcome them you need more power and current, and even then I'm not sure you can ever match a direct connection between amp and speaker driver like in a single-driver or active system. The 'latency' or speed of power delivery through the passive crossover network is an issue and a direct connection can be heard as fine transients, speed and cleanness. Speaker distortion (and passive crossovers are only some of the problem) is the key IMO. The Krell is a beast of an integrated, and the PMCs are 2-way so I don't know how much this is an issue in the big system. However, I will end up going active eventually.

Also, that preamp you love might sound great in your set up. Enjoy it and share. But I'm talking about what manufacturers should aim for, rather than what sounds good in specific situations. If it works for you in your system, great.
Darren

[miklorsmith]

Lots of great input here, nice work fellas.   

Maybe my hypothetical was poorly worded.  Accuracy has many dimensions.  Of course, a perfectly accurate representation would be to completely capture a performance in the room, including all its dynamic scale, hall sound, instrumental separation, and all the other dimensions that stereo generally fails to convey.  My intent was more to what is measured/claimed/parroted when accuracy and transparency are discussed on audio forums.  These ethereal qualities are as a matter of course distilled down to a few numbers which are thrust outward in defense of "superior" sound.

However, as others have said, there's a lot more to it than that.  Once the measurements learn to capture the essence of a piece, I will change my stripes and become a measurements-first guy.

[Daygloworange]

  Accuracy has many dimensions.  Of course, a perfectly accurate representation would be to completely capture a performance in the room, including all its dynamic scale, hall sound, instrumental separation, and all the other dimensions that stereo generally fails to convey.  My intent was more to what is measured/claimed/parroted when accuracy and transparency are discussed on audio forums.  These ethereal qualities are as a matter of course distilled down to a few numbers which are thrust outward in defense of "superior" sound.

However, as others have said, there's a lot more to it than that.  Once the measurements learn to capture the essence of a piece, I will change my stripes and become a measurements-first guy.

Where it all begins is with microphones.

Specs are often similar, topologies and mechanisms are different, and none of them sound the same. None of them are totally linear. Look at any recording studio's website, and you'll find a page listing the dozens and dozens of (sometimes very, very expensive) mic's  in their arsenal. Why all the different mics?

Apart from maximum SPL capability, they're chosen for how they sound. Entirely subjectively. Not for their specs. There is no "best" microphone.

But that's a whole 'nother hill 'o beans....

Cheers

[Tweaker]

I caught this thread late. Lot's of really good thoughtful discussion! I think what I've got out of the "which is most important" part of it is that you can't really skimp on any one part of the chain. It's all important and perhaps equally.
I think, for me, the one thing that keeps what I'm hearing through my system from being believable as a live event is not whether the instruments sound real but the sound stage and scale. This may be due to the way the performance is recorded as much as the speakers ability, or inability to create a convincing sound stage with every thing in proportion. Piano is probably a good example of this. I have recording where the scale is way to wide or way too narrow to seem real, especially in relation to the other instruments playing. Cymbals are another good example. Very few recordings seem to capture a realistic scale and placement of cymbals in the sound stage.
 If this has been stated before, my apologies for the redundancy. It's a long thread so give me a break.
 

[opaqueice]

opaqueice,I think you saying that Jeff didn't really hear the tonal differences between Amplfier A and Amplfier B that he said he did.

Well, he might of heard them or he might not have - I don't know.  All I know is that just about no one ever manages to hear them blind, even when the amps are supposedly very different.