OT: Audio part 10: What is "pure" sound?

[William]

A remark about sound degradation in the Vintage Tubes thread got me thinking...

You hear and read a lot of talk about having as few components as possible is the signal path to get a purer sound...but what is “pure” sound?

From all the reading up I’ve been doing there is no “pure” sound in two channel audio. Can you even hear “pure” sound when you are at a live symphonic performance? You are closer to the source but most people don’t take into account that you are also hearing the sound as it is reflected off of all the elements around you…ceiling, walls, floors, seats etc. In that sense it is colored and has an added element to it. Why are some concert halls considered better than others? Because they “sound” better…but why? Acoustics, how the sound is reflected in that particular hall.

If the sound is amplified it’s colored.

First microphones can’t accurately capture the reflected sound, they can get the direct sound, but not exactly what you would hear being there.

Microphones add color, and from what I can gather different microphones sound different.

Then the audio engineer does his/her mixing and matching to try and get what he/she thinks is the best sound.

But the thing is every person has different tastes, likes, and processes what they hear slightly differently. One person can listen to a bright system and love it, another wouldn’t be able to listen to that same system for more than ten minutes.

So that brings me back to what is “pure” in a two channel (or even a surround sound) system? I don’t believe there is any system in the world, regardless of price, that someone wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between a live symphony performance and an electronic sound system playing that same performance. Don’t get me wrong because I think there are systems and equipment that sounds great, but I would never mistake it for a live performance.

So if we are back to people hear what they hear and like what they like, and there really is no “pure” sound in an audio system, what does it matter if there is an EQ or anything else in the signal path that a person can use to adjust the sound to what they like to hear?

So again, what is “pure”? Seems to me it’s all colored and compressed to some degree. The real trick is finding something that delivers sound in a form you like to listen to. From that point of view, find your price point on the spectrum of audio gear that sounds good to you and makes you happy.








W.

[redir]

I would agree with you. As I build guitars I have this discussion a lot. The purest form of a recorded acoustic guitar is through good microphone. Even in live settings this is the 'purest' sound but it's also the most difficult to manage because of feedback and musicians moving away from the mic. The next best is modeling and that has come quite a long way. And in fact there is all kinds of modeling done now in recording to create so called pure tones and frankly I think that's the best at this point. In the end the purest is an acoustic guitar in a small setting in a room with good acoustics. Same with a jazz band, symphony or what ever.

[benb]

It's tilting at a windmill.

There's no such thing. If you're live in the room with the performer a given two seats don't even get to hear the same thing.

The worst seat in the house with an acoustic guitar is the person playing the guitar.

OT but I just got back from vacation and heard live music almost every day last week. Almost every performer had an acoustic guitar, every one was plugged in, every one sounded piezo-quacky. Incredibly weird that none of the solo performers didn't go with a microphone.

[Ti Designs]

Pure sound is the rat hole at which audiophiles throw money...

You're never going to get a reproduced sound to be exactly what the original sound was. The trick is to get close enough and learn to let the remaining differences be.

I recently found that the music industry is as much a fraud as the cycling industry. I've been in the cycling industry for a few decades, sales people don't know as much as you think they do, but they assume they know it all. I have my own little audio project that I've been working on for more than 6 years called the piano project. I'm trying to reproduce the sound of a real piano. To do this I needed digital samples of a piano. I spoke to six sales people at one of the largest on-line music stores, they all swore that the Abby Road CFX sample set sounds just like a Yamaha CFX. I even asked a few of them if they had ever played a CFX (it's a concert grand piano, they don't sell 'em at Walmart). They all said yes and I figured it's a music store so they must be musicians... Turns out they put bios up on the web page, only one of them even plays piano. The sample set sounds just like a recording of a piano - not what I was looking for.

Recreating the sound of a piano is almost impossible for one good reason. Hammers hitting strings. If you do to a speaker what a hammer does to a string, something is going to break. Amplifiers overheat, speakers break... The rise time of a bass note is faster than any normal speaker can handle, so sample files are compressed. That compression isn't something I'm willing to live with (I have played a Yamaha CFX and a Steinway D - I kinda want one of each and my birthday is coming up!). Right now the bass cabinet has two 10" drivers, one sits directly above the other. This cuts the strain on the cone in half, so it has a chance of surviving. The amp is a Haffler 500 with a really large heat sink. Together with an uncompressed sample of the Yamaha C7 (the best sample set I can find) it actually has the percussive sound of hammers hitting strings. I've used an instrument mic to take samples of a real piano and compared the wave to what the piano project produces. It's not a pure sound, certainly not a pure copy of the real thing, but any time I play the thing and it doesn't burst into flames I'm damn happy.

[parris]

I wonder if "pure" is something that's pointing down an incorrect path when it comes to sound. Maybe a better way to approach things would be to look toward accuracy in what the artist, recording engineer, studio, etc are working toward as far as their vision. That is if they share what they're after...

William brought up the microphone which is funny because last night I was watching a video where the microphone tech that's been at Abby Road Studio for 50+ years talks a bit about the 800+ microphones they have as well as who likes what for the application. They also touched on the mixing board and recording gear a little.

Look at what the Beatles and Brian Wilson did to get what they wanted on a number of their songs/albums and I don't know if pure is the right term. Just a thought.

If you look at some of the rig rundown video's that've been put out by I believe Premier Guitar, the tech's speak at length about the sound and such that the performer is after. It's all good stuff.

[Mark McM]

"Pure" sound is a sound that is both stiff yet compliant.

[yinzerniner]

"Pure" sound is a sound that is both stiff yet compliant.

Or tight harmonics with broad range.

But mostly agree with everything the OP said. There's no way to get "pure" sound that will perfectly replicate being there live, but rather all equipment is essentially the quixotic quest to conquer the impossible.

That being said, I've been in systems listening to live recordings of a band I've seen live and the reproduction sounded better than being there in person.

Case in point - saw My Morning Jacket live many times and while they're great in concert, but Okonokos on vinyl in a good system is a revelation.

[benb]

I recently found that the music industry is as much a fraud as the cycling industry.

Truth... a lot in common.

Digital pianos are frustrating.. no matter how much they cost they're still not the real thing, and since pianos are so big and so expensive and so loud more pianists are stuck with a facsimile than most other instruments.

[redir]

Almost every performer had an acoustic guitar, every one was plugged in, every one sounded piezo-quacky. Incredibly weird that none of the solo performers didn't go with a microphone.

Uggg I hate that sound so much. Makes me want to just get up and leave. But I think the reason why is pure convenience. For the most part it's 'good enough' for the audience. In fact since the 90's audiences have been trained to hear that terrible sound.

[9tubes]

I'm baffled at the people who want as little as possible between the source and the speakers.

There's no such thing as pure sound. The instruments, amps, microphones, recording engineer, electronics, speakers and room all affect the sound. Other than the speakers, the item that most affects sound quality is the room, at least of the stuff that I can control.

The most surprising improvement I've seen in my system was to replace my Pioneer Elite AVR (certainly no slouch) with a NAD 758v3. They licensed software from DIRAC and their version of computer frequency sound level equalization is so much better. The NAD also has impulse correction, meaning it cancels the effects of the primary reflections of the sound bouncing off the side walls and ceiling. It uses the same technology as noise-canceling headphones: it uses a mic to read the delay time between the sound coming from the speakers and the sound bouncing off the walls and ceiling, then cancels the reflected sound. The difference is really impressive. Those primary reflections create a harshness to the sound, especially at high sound levels. I never knew my room sounded so bad.

I'd like to compare it to a $10,000 preamp+amp in what an audiophile would call pure mode (no correction) and I'd bet that the NAD would sound better. I suspect this is why McIntosh chose to license software from Lyngdorf Audio and they have offered sound correction for years. So my choice would be the McIntosh setup with sound correction but that kind of money would buy another Hampsten custom bike plus a tour in Tuscany with Andy.

Meanwhile I'll still be baffled at the "pure sound" crowd.

[Ozz]

"Pure" sound is a sound that is both stiff yet compliant.

...and it planes.

:banana:

[kingpin75s]

A remark about sound degradation in the Vintage Tubes thread got me thinking...

You hear and read a lot of talk about having as few components as possible is the signal path to get a purer sound...but what is “pure” sound?

W.

Not a fan of the term pure.

In the context you state, seems to me only systems like the First Watt line by Nelson Pass would even qualify.

I prefer the term transparency and the transparency of a quality system can be heavily impacted by it's tubes, cables, platform it sits on, room acoustics and on and on.

[kingpin75s]

I'm baffled at the people who want as little as possible between the source and the speakers.

There's no such thing as pure sound. The instruments, amps, microphones, recording engineer, electronics, speakers and room all affect the sound. Other than the speakers, the item that most affects sound quality is the room, at least of the stuff that I can control.

The most surprising improvement I've seen in my system was to replace my Pioneer Elite AVR (certainly no slouch) with a NAD 758v3. They licensed software from DIRAC and their version of computer frequency sound level equalization is so much better. The NAD also has impulse correction, meaning it cancels the effects of the primary reflections of the sound bouncing off the side walls and ceiling. It uses the same technology as noise-canceling headphones: it uses a mic to read the delay time between the sound coming from the speakers and the sound bouncing off the walls and ceiling, then cancels the reflected sound. The difference is really impressive. Those primary reflections create a harshness to the sound, especially at high sound levels. I never knew my room sounded so bad.

I'd like to compare it to a $10,000 preamp+amp in what an audiophile would call pure mode (no correction) and I'd bet that the NAD would sound better. I suspect this is why McIntosh chose to license software from Lyngdorf Audio and they have offered sound correction for years. So my choice would be the McIntosh setup with sound correction but that kind of money would buy another Hampsten custom bike plus a tour in Tuscany with Andy.

Meanwhile I'll still be baffled at the "pure sound" crowd.

I would hope any audiophile with a $10K plus pre-amp/amp setup has already managed their first reflections as that is the cheap and easy way to ensure your expensive system does not sound like garbage.

A rug between your listening space and the speakers and $50 in Owens Corning 703 panels on the front wall behind any back ported speakers/subs will address a lot of what room correction SW can do for many rooms. Manage side wall reflections only if you are close to the side walls as reflections over say 10' are not audible so no longer qualify as first reflections.

Room correction programs do work. If I was interested in going down that path I would look at the new Bel Canto EX DAC/Pre. It is a fully featured swiss army knife of a product and I would use its features if I owned one. That said, am not going that path and have no need for the features so it is just another way to skin things.

[CAAD]

Sound is so subjective. Your average consumer has no idea what "good" audio sounds like. EVERY time I get a rental car which is a couple of times a month the stereo EQ always has the bass cranked up all the way. Treble and mid somewhere towards the bottom, sounds like garbage. I know not the best comparison. Most people for some reason think a good system has over the top bass.

I have a Yamaha amp with a "pure direct" button. For my room size and room setup, I like it with pure direct on. All audio is played bypassing the built-in EQ. Granted the EQ is basic and only has bass, treble, loudness adjustments. I tried with and without EQ but really prefer the pure direct. Really is well balanced, to my ears. My ears are all that matters.

[XXtwindad]

I don't really comprehend much in this thread. But, clearly, there are some very passionate and informed musicologists on the Forum.

Best of all, it's not the mind numbingly depressing Coronavirus thread...

[glepore]

in the words of art and george, ain't no use...

[kingpin75s]

I will say that the less is more can be applied as both a pure concept in the sense of a wire with gain concept but also can be applied to more complex systems in the form of signal path optimization.

On the first part I would again refer anyone to the work of Nelson Pass and his work on the First Watt project. This is the best representative of what I believe everyone is referring to when talking pure here. Low watt systems that really leverage a concept like this and I bet they do it well. Nelson Pass has been doing great stuff since at least the 80s. Understand this is really niche stuff, but still a purposeful niche. If I had the $$$ and a small enough primary listening space I would track down a pair of his 10w mono blocks and find some high efficiency speakers (maybe horns?) to match:

https://www.dagogo.com/first-watt-sit-1-mono-power-amplifiers-review/

On the second part, signal optimization is about limiting the losses at every context switch. When it comes to cables, I believe in materials and design first but connectors do matter. WBT low mass connectors make an audible difference as speaker terminations even compared to high quality Furutech spades. It would be great if they didn't because the materials cost difference is a lot, but there is an audible difference on the top end of a bi-wired system.

[Ti Designs]

Digital pianos are frustrating.. no matter how much they cost they're still not the real thing, and since pianos are so big and so expensive and so loud more pianists are stuck with a facsimile than most other instruments.

And sometimes not the real thing is just as large and almost as expensive, and sometimes catches on fire...

[mcteague]

I'm not sure what "pure sound" is. So much of audiophilia is nebulous. I think double blind tests have shown that much of the hi-end gear really makes no difference to the sound as long as competently designed and working as intended. I have said before that I think speakers, rooms and recordings are pretty much the only things that affect what you hear, assuming your electronics are working and not driving loads they were not meant to.

My goal is to have sound that matches, as closely as possible, what I hear in a concert hall or recital room. As I primarily listen to classical music, there is a better chance of knowing what the original sound was. With pop, all bets are off; just pick what sounds best to you. With hip-hop.....:crap:

Tim

https://forums.thepaceline.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1697975292&stc=1&d=1551148544

[William]

I would agree that maybe "pure" isn't the best term to use...I just used it since it's one that seems to get thrown around a lot. Realistic or original sound might be better? I think all electronic systems can do is try to get closer to realistic sound but I don't think it will ever get there in the current format that has been utilized for the last 70+ years. It's come a long way, but hasn't really changed a lot...if that makes sense?

Uggg I hate that sound so much. Makes me want to just get up and leave. But I think the reason why is pure convenience. For the most part it's 'good enough' for the audience. In fact since the 90's audiences have been trained to hear that terrible sound.

Is high end audio a dieing hobby? I don't know, but it does seem like much of the younger generations are happy with ear buds connected to their phones or low cost speakers contected to a computer. Is the resurgence of vinyl just nostalgia from audults who grew up with it or is it more a younger generation hearing something much more dynamic than ear buds and iPhones?








W.

[josephr]

Pure sound is the rat hole at which audiophiles throw money...



audiophiles like to listen to their equipment, musicphiles like to listen to their music. The closest you'll ever get to a reproduction is a digital out straight into the soundboard...even with that, you miss the ambiance of the venue and its particular influence of the sound. Pink Floyd's Azimuth Coordinator was the real deal surround sound and the sonic experience of that live really blows me away, even 27 years later. Seeing Radiohead at The Gorge Amphitheater and Rush live are all experiences that cannot be replicated.

"Where would rock and roll be without feedback?" - David Gilmour

[benb]

Sound is so subjective. Your average consumer has no idea what "good" audio sounds like. EVERY time I get a rental car which is a couple of times a month the stereo EQ always has the bass cranked up all the way. Treble and mid somewhere towards the bottom, sounds like garbage. I know not the best comparison. Most people for some reason think a good system has over the top bass.


LOL I have a Harmon Kardon system in my car. It's this to a T. I have to roll off the bass more than 50% to get parts in the car to stop rattling if the sound is turned up to a decent volume. (Sub in the trunk)

Audiophilia vs Musicophilia? Are any of these words? They are definitely very different things.

The Audiophile likely cares more about the amount of distortion in the recording or how much stereo separation is in the mix. All nice things to care about.

The Musicophile at one level wants to care about the meaning of the piece, the history leading up to it, cultural context when it was written, what other artists it influenced, etc.. at some additional level they want to go pick up an instrument or two and learn the pieces and the music theory behind them.

You want a strange and amazing side of all this, check out this website that's a resource to recreating David Gilmour's sounds yourself:

http://www.gilmourish.com/

He more than almost anyone else seems to get guitarists in a tizzy to figure out how he got his guitar to sound a certain way. The other big one that I've seen a website like this for is the Edge from U2.

I do wonder if High End Audio has any popularity with Millenials & Gen Y. It was always a balance of conspicuous consumption and none of it is minimalist. I sold all my stuff a few years ago and just do headphones now.

[kingpin75s]

I'm not sure what "pure sound" is. So much of audiophilia is nebulous. I think double blind tests have shown that much of the hi-end gear really makes no difference to the sound as long as competently designed and working as intended. I have said before that I think speakers, rooms and recordings are pretty much the only things that affect what you hear, assuming your electronics are working and not driving loads they were not meant to.


I would be interested in a link to any tests that that presume to show "hi-end gear really makes no difference to the sound". They are often an amusing read and many are pretty easy to pick apart. I am surprised to think anyone would think that a big tube amp and a big solid state amp would sound the same as just an example, given same room, speakers and recordings.

While speakers, rooms and recordings are all near the top of the list, unfortunately in a high end system that has those basics addressed, everything else still makes an audible difference. It's not really subtle either.

Be careful to dismiss what you personally have not experienced and feel free to make your case with specific examples if you have one. Always happy to understand and learn why others have the perspective they do.

[kingpin75s]

LOL I have a Harmon Kardon system in my car. It's this to a T. I have to roll off the bass more than 50% to get parts in the car to stop rattling if the sound is turned up to a decent volume. (Sub in the trunk)


You need some dynamat installed in that ride. Nothing worse than your stereo making your car rattle.

[Mark McM]

I would be interested in a link to any tests that that presume to show "hi-end gear really makes no difference to the sound". They are often an amusing read and many are pretty easy to pick apart. I am surprised to think anyone would think that a big tube amp and a big solid state amp would sound the same as just an example, given same room, speakers and recordings.


Here's one, using professional guitarists as test subjects, playing through tube and transistor amps:

http://www.co-bw.com/Audio_Vacuum_Tubes_Vs_Trans_Guitar.htm

There have been others as well.

According to audiophiles, there are only two types of blind tests: Those that scientifically confirm what they already know; and those that have fundamental flaws that lead to incorrect conclusions.

[mcteague]

I would be interested in a link to any tests that that presume to show "hi-end gear really makes no difference to the sound". They are often an amusing read and many are pretty easy to pick apart. I am surprised to think anyone would think that a big tube amp and a big solid state amp would sound the same as just an example, given same room, speakers and recordings.

While speakers, rooms and recordings are all near the top of the list, unfortunately in a high end system that has those basics addressed, everything else still makes an audible difference. It's not really subtle either.

Be careful to dismiss what you personally have not experienced and feel free to make your case with specific examples if you have one. Always happy to understand and learn why others have the perspective they do.

Do some searching. There are countless blind tests where people cannot tell the difference between an expensive amp and a basic model. Again, as long as the are not driven beyond their established limits. Studies also show most people hear clear differences when told there was a change when, actually, nothing was altered.

Tim

[William]

You need some dynamat installed in that ride. Nothing worse than your stereo making your car rattle.

In one of the systems in my house I have a dedicated power amp running a dual 12" sub set up with a custom cross-over box that has dual gain and frequency controls. I use it to fill out the low end but if people didn't see it visually they have no idea it was there. That said I could rattle the whole house if I wanted to.:banana:







W.

[josephr]

I would be interested in a link to any tests that that presume to show "hi-end gear really makes no difference to the sound". They are often an amusing read and many are pretty easy to pick apart. I am surprised to think anyone would think that a big tube amp and a big solid state amp would sound the same as just an example, given same room, speakers and recordings.

While speakers, rooms and recordings are all near the top of the list, unfortunately in a high end system that has those basics addressed, everything else still makes an audible difference. It's not really subtle either.

Be careful to dismiss what you personally have not experienced and feel free to make your case with specific examples if you have one. Always happy to understand and learn why others have the perspective they do.

The real question is: Are you happy with what you got? Absolutely a pair of Klipschorns pushed by a McIntosh tube amp is amazing....especially compared to your cousin Jeremy's Sherwood. Personally have been down the rabbithole. Currently my 30 year old yamaha amp and JBL 2-ways streaming Spotify take care of my needs. Everything else is chasing distortion minimization, which might be important when downloading HD pictures from Mars, but replicating an analog signal that was recorded on a reel-to-reel 50 years ago and then transferred to a plastic platter, I don't really see the point.

[robertbb]

"Pure" sound is a sound that is both stiff yet compliant.

Pure is a sound that gives me a stiff...

:fight:

[Ti Designs]

The closest you'll ever get to a reproduction is a digital out straight into the soundboard...

Tried that. My first prototypes were soundboards. What I learned is that it's not that simple. Each string not only transfers wave energy to the soundboard, the tension of the string also acts to damp the soundboard. How a piano works is complex in ways you couldn't imagine...

[kingpin75s]

Here's one, using professional guitarists as test subjects, playing through tube and transistor amps:

http://www.co-bw.com/Audio_Vacuum_Tubes_Vs_Trans_Guitar.htm

There have been others as well.

According to audiophiles, there are only two types of blind tests: Those that scientifically confirm what they already know; and those that have fundamental flaws that lead to incorrect conclusions.

So I ask for a test case reference for hi end audio and you link a test on guitar amps. If there are so many well documented cases that support your opinion then, again, please link one that is directly relevant. A HiFi system where they are testing a single change of a cable would be a fine test. Open to others that are directly relevant.

Your dogmatic bashing of audiophiles in your second statement is kind of tiring especially when you have not yet brought anything to the table that supports your point. What next? More links to the Amazing Randi. Those are always fun.

Please reference your direct experience that leads you to the conclusion that most changes do not make a difference with examples of equipment you have personally tested or send a directly relevant link supporting your case.

[kingpin75s]

Do some searching. There are countless blind tests where people cannot tell the difference between an expensive amp and a basic model. Again, as long as the are not driven beyond their established limits. Studies also show most people hear clear differences when told there was a change when, actually, nothing was altered.

Tim

Why don't you pick a good one that you feel supports your case and share it?

If their are countless tests that are clearly grounded in HiFi, it should be easy to find a good one to share.

[kingpin75s]

The real question is: Are you happy with what you got? Absolutely a pair of Klipschorns pushed by a McIntosh tube amp is amazing....especially compared to your cousin Jeremy's Sherwood. Personally have been down the rabbithole. Currently my 30 year old yamaha amp and JBL 2-ways streaming Spotify take care of my needs. Everything else is chasing distortion minimization, which might be important when downloading HD pictures from Mars, but replicating an analog signal that was recorded on a reel-to-reel 50 years ago and then transferred to a plastic platter, I don't really see the point.

Being happy with what you have is always the most important thing. Just like it doesn't take a $10K Ti bike to enjoy a ride, it doesn't take 180W mono blocks to enjoy music.

You mention that a pair of Klipschorns pushed by a McIntosh tube amp is amazing, yet you don't see the point of high end analog reproduction.

Let's talk something specific like Dire Straits Sultans of Swing. A well recorded album that exhibits more depth and detail when played on a transparent system. Why is there no point in extracting and preserving every bit of information when you can hear the difference. On a mediocre system, the album is still a very nice sounding piece but it is a flatter image with less detail, body and dimension.

Alternately, there are albums like Pete Rock and CL Smooth's iconic album which is hot garbage no matter what you play it on. While there are actually lots of great hip hop recordings, this one is barely worth playing on anything but earbuds. Its that bad.

[benb]

So I ask for a test case reference for hi end audio and you link a test on guitar amps. If there are so many well documented cases that support your opinion then, again, please link one that is directly relevant. A HiFi system where they are testing a single change of a cable would be a fine test. Open to others that are directly relevant.


There's no such thing as a blind test of a guitar amp if a human gets to touch the guitar that's plugged into the guitar amp.

Even an intermediate player gets a massive amount of information back through their fingertips.

There are loads of Digital modeling amps which can pass a blind test versus a valve amp if you setup the test like this:

- Play the guitar into a looper (a very common pedal that records and plays back)
- Play the looper into each amp switching back and forth with an A:B switcher (again a very common pedal many guitarists have)

If you let the guitarist hold the guitar and play it and try to disguise what the amp is it's not really a blind test cause a guitarist gets tons of feedback that a listener doesn't get.

Last night practicing with friends I played through a type of valve amp I'd never seen before. (I have a collector friend) As an example of how ridiculous it is to discuss guitar valve amps vs Hi-Fi amps that amp didn't even exhibit consistent behavior across the hour and a half I played it. As it heated up it changed its sound and I had to think about whether I was playing harder or the amp was reacting different and I needed to play lighter. That's the kind of thing a guitarist can pick up on that a listener can't.. and it is a *dead* giveaway you're playing a valve/tube amp. Digital & normal Solid State amps are way more consistent than that and often have weird artifacts that give you clues. (And a brand new modern valve/tube amp will be more consistent than a vintage one)

[William]

Lots of links to different tests here, some no longer work but many do. Make of it what you will...

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/


Interesting to note the differences between blind and ABX testing as well as sighted and blind testing.





W.

[William]

I haven't really listened to Supertramp's Crime of The Century since I was a kid but I remember really digging the sound. I listened to the remastered album last night and was amazed at how clear and detailed it sounded to me. I love being constantly amazed at hearing details in music I don't remember hearing before... tingling goosbumps on the back of the neck moments.:cool: My system does that for me.








W.

[kingpin75s]

I thought this was kind of interesting, even if not directly audio related, the parallels are certainly there:

https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/shunyata-power-products-tested-in-medical-applications/

While I prefer locally made products from Sain Line systems, I have a great deal of respect for Shunyata products. I run their power conditioners and have benefited from their sharing of knowledge as I continue to test and develop my own understanding of what is real in a field full of disinformation.

[kingpin75s]

Lots of links to different tests here, some no longer work but many do. Make of it what you will...

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/


Interesting to note the differences between blind and ABX testing as well as sighted and blind testing.

W.

Did you note any in particular that appear valid in structure and conclusive in results?

For example, I recently read number 8 on that list and the results were inconclusive which does not really help either side of the argument.

Happy to look at any one article that someone is willing to stand behind amd say that supports what I think directly.

[William]

In the links to different tests that I posted there were references to trained vs untrained listening. Harman and Phillips have a testing program that is supposed to help train one on how to listen...


Harmon International
https://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com


Phillips Golden Ear Program
Link not working at the moment.









W.

[Mark McM]

There's no such thing as a blind test of a guitar amp if a human gets to touch the guitar that's plugged into the guitar amp.

Even an intermediate player gets a massive amount of information back through their fingertips.

There are loads of Digital modeling amps which can pass a blind test versus a valve amp if you setup the test like this:

- Play the guitar into a looper (a very common pedal that records and plays back)
- Play the looper into each amp switching back and forth with an A:B switcher (again a very common pedal many guitarists have)

If you let the guitarist hold the guitar and play it and try to disguise what the amp is it's not really a blind test cause a guitarist gets tons of feedback that a listener doesn't get.

I don't understand your objections. The guitarists weren't ask to distinguish between guitars, they were asked to distinguish between amplifiers (which to them was blinded). Also, you are saying that the musician gets more feedback than a passive listener, which would suggest that a musician might sense a difference that a passive listener wouldn't. And yet, the musicians couldn't reliably sense a difference, so does that mean the passive listeners are even less likely to sense a difference?

[William]

Did you note any in particular that appear valid in structure and conclusive in results?

For example, I recently read number 8 on that list and the results were inconclusive which does not really help either side of the argument.

Happy to look at any one article that someone is willing to stand behind amd say that supports what I think directly.

I'm still going through them and looking for others. I really don't have a dog in the fight other than I do believe there is no electronic audio system that could be indistinguishable with live. I'm on the fence about other things but I do think perception plays a big role between what people hear and what people think they hear. Just like the difference between sighted tests and true bllind tests. Hearing and sight is all processed in the brain and everyone percieves differently. What people perceive, what they think they perceive, what they want to percieve, and what they can be persuaded to percieve/believe are all on the table.

In a nutshell, I'm fleshing it out.








W.

[kingpin75s]

I really don't have a dog in the fight other than I do believe there is no electronic audio system that could be indistinguishable with live. I'm on the fence about other things but I do think perception plays a big role between what people hear and what people think they hear.

W.

I understand and appreciate that you are just interested in learning and that is a large part of why I even participate when I know what is in store. At least this place doesn't get as bad as an audio forum ;)

Agreed on your first point that there is no electronic audio system that could be indistinguishable with live.

Regarding perception, I get the argument except for the fact that my significant testing has shown me clearly that the differences are not subtle under the proper conditions and therefore IMHO not in the realm perception only. When you hear details in a song you have never heard before or the imaging of a song changes from flat to having depth and separation, these are significant changes. Its tough for most to understand as most people have never actually heard well architected HiFi but a single listen on my or any of my listening groups systems has changed plenty of minds and converted many to believers not because of any A/B testing but simply because they have never heard music so involving before.

I believe that subtle differences do probably abound in the low end of HiFi, but once you move into the mid range of real HiFi or above and have your setting sorted, small changes make big differences.

[kingpin75s]

I haven't really listened to Supertramp's Crime of The Century since I was a kid but I remember really digging the sound. I listened to the remastered album last night and was amazed at how clear and detailed it sounded to me. I love being constantly amazed at hearing details in music I don't remember hearing before... tingling goosbumps on the back of the neck moments.:cool: My system does that for me.
W.

Honestly, that's all you need in a system. A sound that is articulate, involving and makes you want to listen more.

[benb]

I don't understand your objections. The guitarists weren't ask to distinguish between guitars, they were asked to distinguish between amplifiers (which to them was blinded). Also, you are saying that the musician gets more feedback than a passive listener, which would suggest that a musician might sense a difference that a passive listener wouldn't. And yet, the musicians couldn't reliably sense a difference, so does that mean the passive listeners are even less likely to sense a difference?

For the purpose of that test the guitar used isn't important as long as each player uses the same guitar for the two amps being tested.

Being the player is nothing like being the listener. The behavior of the amp changes your perception of how the strings feel under your fingers. Not everyone is as perceptive of this but it's generally held that better players become more and more perceptive of it.

Also note in that study that was linked once the amps started operating in the distortion boundary & region the guitarists started more reliably being able to tell them apart. That's a very important factor because that is where the amps start to behave differently and that is your perception of feel starts to come into play. Notes sustain much longer. Notes will "sag" on some tube amps. You realize you can pick lighter. You get different responses to hammer-ons, pull-offs, natural and artificial harmonics start to behave differently. There are a lot of techniques on electric guitar which are not used or used much less frequently on acoustic guitar because they are dependent on the interaction between the guitar & amp.

If you play guitar 100% "clean" a tube amp often doesn't have as much benefit. That's one reason it's an odd comparison with Audiophile stuff cause all audiophile equipment is supposed to be running 100% clean. It has to do with the valve/tubes in a guitar amp typically being operated in the "active region", the boundary between "active" and "saturated", and the "saturated" region. Hi-Fi amps need to stay in the "active" region. The differences with guitar amps have to do with non-linear ways valves/transistors/op-amps behave in those regions that hi-fi amps stay out of.

Almost every guitar amp & effect that is analog looks like a disaster to an Electrical engineer. Everything is based on using components in ways they weren't necessarily intended to be used and right on the ragged limit of damaging the tubes. It's really different. An Electrical Engineer probably looks at a hi-fi amp and says it looks great and looks at a guitar amp and says it looks broken.

[mcteague]

Why don't you pick a good one that you feel supports your case and share it?

If their are countless tests that are clearly grounded in HiFi, it should be easy to find a good one to share.

Not really worth my time. This is a well travelled road. Every test gets attacked. Too short listening times? Sessions were extended as long as wanted, still people could not tell differences. ABX box gets blamed so cable swaps were used, same results. And so on. Now, proper blind tests can be work. Signals need to be matched to 1/2 decibel or less. Over the years and years of blind tests it became clear, cables and electronics will sound the same as long as they are well designed and not exceeding their capabilities.

Speakers, OTOH, were always detected when swapped. There, I read reviews and audition. Even so, they will always sound different when in your home...rooms again. So, with electronics, I follow the science and buy well built stuff that is not crazy expensive. I’m willing to pay a little more for reliability and support but have little doubt as to it giving me better sound. Again, tests clearly so humans tend to hear differences when nothing was actually changed, they just were told something was. We all need to draw the line somewhere.

http://www.biline.ca/audio_critic/audio_critic_web1.htm#acl

Now....back to bikes! ;)

Tim

[josephr]

You mention that a pair of Klipschorns pushed by a McIntosh tube amp is amazing, yet you don't see the point of high end analog reproduction.



its a value/quality perception on my part....some folks want to drive a 1986 Porsche 911 Turbo and will spend all day extolling the virtues of air-cooled engines...blah blah blah. Not saying thats nice or has its merits, but a good used Miata is just good ole rock-n-roll.

Disclaimer: I have 40% hearing loss bilateraly - mostly in the upper ranges, really tinnitus, and a kid in college...so my perspectives may be swayed by ability to enjoy/afford such pleasures in life. Maybe when I win the lottery, I'll build out 4 or 5 'listening rooms' and we'll rock out and drink really expensive Scotch just for giggles.

[cash05458]

Basically it comes down to this...a recording degrades sound...there is loss all over the place...and the tilting at windmills comment above is true...again, it depends on initial recording method...and its transfer and into what medium...an example would be why 8 tracks sounds so ****ty via records...at this point, do digital...think of that kevin bacon argument...that is sorta what recording and its medium and the way it is played etc really is...

[kingpin75s]

its a value/quality perception on my part....some folks want to drive a 1986 Porsche 911 Turbo and will spend all day extolling the virtues of air-cooled engines...blah blah blah. Not saying thats nice or has its merits, but a good used Miata is just good ole rock-n-roll.

Disclaimer: I have 40% hearing loss bilateraly - mostly in the upper ranges, really tinnitus, and a kid in college...so my perspectives may be swayed by ability to enjoy/afford such pleasures in life. Maybe when I win the lottery, I'll build out 4 or 5 'listening rooms' and we'll rock out and drink really expensive Scotch just for giggles.

Funny you specifically mention Porsches. I use them as an example of different people valuing different things with dispensable income. I am a committed one car family and drive a used Subaru because my financial values focus on making responsible choices on the big things in life, leveraging sweat equity as much as possible and enjoying the littles things in life to the fullest. Bicycles, Audio and, you got me there as well, maybe a bit of good Scotch are the little things I value highly. I am also making value and quality choices I just highly value having an active hobby (bicycles) and a more passive hobby (audio) for my life balance.

Plus it is hard not to engage when I have so many amazing resources to learn from locally. In fact, I literally just got back from Audio Research over lunch as I was dropping off a Sain Line Systems Pure (that word again) Current Power cable for Warren Gehl. He is sending the power cable along with the new ARC Ref 160M Stereo Amplifier to Wilson Audio and wanted a Sain Line power cable with the Amp because that is the cable he used to voice it. I get to do a very small favor for a couple of people in the industry and its nice that they are sharing with their time and knowledge with me. Plus sometimes when I am the go between, it gives me an opportunity to test cables (sometimes even prototypes) before ARC gets them because Sain Line Systems would like to deliver a broken in cable anyway. I get to break them in and expand my experience as such.

https://audioresearch.com/product/ref160m/

You seem to have at least heard and have some appreciation for HiFi, whereas most people have actually never heard real HiFi. Those are the doubters that do not add value because they simply have no experience. It always ok to hop off where the value stops for you.