ASR Member Takes Offense At Real Science; Also Cries

*Quantify/characterize weather.

 

Not if they have the least bit sense of reality.

Whilst the "perfect" amplifier might be "a piece of wire with gain," it probably doesn't exist (maybe some pre-amps?) and if it did, it would be just one of the available flavours of hifi.

The non-manic-audiophile, a guy who just wants beautiful sound without making a huge fuss about technical stuff (hmm... I guess I was one) let alone measurement, walks into a hifi store. Various flavours are on offer. He buys what he likes.

From the designer, through the engineers, to the buyers, that's the reality. Nothing sounds just the same.

 

"How DARE you cook your food. You'll have it the way it was MEANT to be had-- RAW and UNSEASONED."

 

That's what she preferred.

 

In regard to wire with gain. Yes and no.


If we talk wire with gain with "X00$" budget dac then no.

It has become rather clear to me, that a speaker system should reflect real life sounds well. There are subtle differences between the weight of the sound on good systems, tonal gamut etc.. some of it we'll leave to personal preference. And yes, there are added coloration in the source material anyway.

As far as neutral.. I don't see ASR showcasing systems that represent true neutrality.
A speaker with ~60% real dynamic range can have level FR but it isn't neutral because the dynamics are lacking.

"where are the high-end speaker reviews"?

Exactly. If you are honest with your clients and community, You'd prove your credibility by doing reviews on different class of gear, different segments. Cheaper budget headphones to high-end 3-way speakers or anything that might represent high-end.

Also, include systems with DSP and without DSP. Many have steered clear of DSPd systems because the gains are marginal or nonexistent in many cases. (added phase issues, coloration, signal info takes a hit, less low level information).

 

I can't help but feel the OP's philosophy taken to its logical conclusion ends up being like a nightmarish Twilight Zone episode where "you will own nothing and you will be happy", where the only sound that is sanctioned is "wire with gain", where "interpretation" is considered a crime against the state, and anyone caught picking wild daisies will be shot on sight.

 

And this is why ASR will never truly understand why we can hear differences in audio components that engineering test instruments cannot measure. ASR doesn't understand that "music" is a construct of our brains upon hearing a sequence of tones. This also explains why some people are "tone-deaf", their brains cannot discern these differences. If everything that ASR said was correct, then a violin and a saxophone playing the same "note" (a tone signal of a specific pitch) would sound the same; they don't, and this is because of timbre. It's our brains that distinguish the difference in timbre we percieve between a piano and a saxophone playing the same exact note. Or, why a Stradivarius does not sound like a Guarneri or Guadagnini. Put all of these various "attributes" together, including overtones and different order-harmonics, the impact of phase noise and timing errors, and you'll start to get to some of the factors that influence what we perceive as "music". But you still won't get "all the way there."

My personal view, and this a recap of my Stoicism-based philosophical perspective above is: "Why worry about it?"

Do as Hans Beekhuizen says, and "Enjoy the music."

Cheers, gents.

 

Im all for kicking ASR when it's deserved, but I think this is a pretty gross mischaracterization of their views. often times when discussions like these occur, even here, there seems to be a conflation between the production of music, and the reproduction of music. these two things are different.

 

I think you have a point here.

I thought some studio montiors were a standard for quality sound. They are not. They are tools for detecting the more common errors and getting the product out there.

The reason why a "dry neutral" system is not actually neutral is because it gets the subtle details wrong or washes over.

A good systems reproduces transients, the attacks and decays well, yet should subtle sounds like summer breeze in an open space, with ease and softness. Total immersion. There can be hints of coloration there withing reason. I am the type who like Sonic Frontiers sound, but a hint more transparency would do (very good in terms of dynamics due to powerful output stage).

If your systems can't do that, its isn't that good.


There is also a case for big sounds. A cello sounds better with bigger drivers.. Say 10" - 12" + drivers.

 

Whats your assessment for DSPs in these systems (Crown or other DSP systems in mastering) ?


I believe cinemas with X * million setups have DSP speakers too. They seems to be impactful with crisp, pronounced highs ( for example: Daft Punk: "Tron Legacy" in a cinema).

Edit. Another question is, why do they use Class D? You could easily setup a pro AB amp there. The power draw is going to be quite big, but I guess that's not the main concern.

There might be marginal difference in sound quality compared to a power hungry class A / AB amp I guess.

The class D (BiAmp) I use seems reasonable but I haven't set it up properly yet and havent finished my setup yet so I am not adding this as a data point here. Its more for experimenting.

 

don’t sleep on raw corn. It’s really good. So sweet.

 

I've always wondered this: what happens when a system of greater resolving capability is used to reproduce a musical event that was captured, mastered, and approved for distribution on less resolving gear? I'm sure it happens quite often. So the follow up question is this: would anyone who approved of the original "truth" agree that Fat Bob and his $100k ORFAS rig reproduces sound that is closer to the intent of the musical event that was captured, verity notwithstanding? IOW, if I invite Butch Vig over to my house to listen to Pisces Iscariot on my "audiophile" stereo, is he going to approve, disapprove, or not give a shit? Would he give more shits if I just switched out my amp to a Benchmark AHB2?

 

Death of the author.

 

Wouldn't this fall into the category of crap recordings will sound like crap on "highly resolving" gear?

By what I'm reading on this site, most decent gear has the capability of resolving all the details in a recording--good or bad.

 

So what happens when I play Beniamino Gigli? How far back is too far back for this to make any sense, i.e., when does argumentum ad antiquitatem actually take hold?

 

Per this specific album (Pisces Iscariot), it's (subjectively) not a "crap" recording, but not great either.

 

I'm listening to it now. Shanling ET3>Yggdrasil OG A2>Valhalla 2>Rekkr>Diana V2.

I understand why you say it's a good recording, but not. To me, the issue is not fidelity. The crunch of the guitars, cymbal hits, Billy's voice, etc... all sound pretty good to me. It's just some tracks are mixed kinda funky.

I've never heard a $100k system. I've heard an $80k system though. My takeaway is that the system is utterly unforgiving. It reminds me of the story when Wilson had Jake Shimabukuro play live then they played a recording of him on their near top tier system. IIRC they were his commercially available recordings they were using.

 

Not give a shit. Audiophiles are mechanics where the means are at least partially (or fully) also the ends. Musicians are drivers: Gear is a vehicle to get where they're going.

If you're doing something creative or enjoying whatever it is that is your thing, they think that's rad, man. They'll make statements about some other artist who sucks or be jealous or spiteful, because they're flawed human beings like the rest of us, but when they're with you, it's all about what can be in that moment and the infinite possibilities.