Distortion is the enemy

[chebby]

"Distortion is the enemy"

Or should be titled: "All passives are s***e".

Unlikely. Steve uses a system based on Neutron V bookshelf speakers with passive crossovers.

 

[matt49]

Discuss...

Steve, you could at least have phrased the thread title in words that weren't such an obvious reminder of a now-banned member of the forum.

 

[Alec]

"Distortion is the enemy"

Or should be titled: "All passives are s***e".

Unlikely. Steve uses a system based on Neutron V bookshelf speakers with passive crossovers.

Yeah, do pay attention, PP

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

Discuss...

there's nothing to discuss. everybody knows one speaker system produces no distortion. all else is just boom/ tizz, or both.

 

[plastic penguin]

I've had no audible distortion since the days of home-built speaker cabinets and some receiver I've never heard of since.

 

[busb]

There seems to be an almost schizophrenic attitude towards SQ: on one hand, it's "The closest approach to the original sound" or it's too clinical, not analogue-like, un-musical, lacking warmth etc, etc on the other. So we want accuracy but we don't really. Ummm. We don't want distortion but we can't live without it?

Exactly........which is why one should forget about it, and buy what you like the sound of. :wall:........Simples.

I wished it was! What I like the sound of depends far too much on the recording being played at any one time. The next album I play maybe so bass-light that I wish for something that reaches down to 20Hz. All the equipment I could possibly afford is going to be a compromise somewhere. I'm not convinced that spending 10 times more would mean a tenfold reduction in compromises either!

 

[CnoEvil]

I wished it was! What I like the sound of depends far too much on the recording being played at any one time. The next album I play maybe so bass-light that I wish for something that reaches down to 20Hz. All the equipment I could possibly afford is going to be a compromise somewhere. I'm not convinced that spending 10 times more would mean a tenfold reduction in compromises either!

I think your system is on the clean, detailed and slightly analytical side, so that is what you are getting.....ie. good sounds great, and bad sounds dire.

 

[plastic penguin]

I'd rather have a 'honest' system than one that smooths over the nasties. That said, one needs to draw the line and find that "ideal" compromise.

 

[CnoEvil]

I'd rather have a 'honest' system than one that smooths over the nasties. That said, one needs to draw the line and find that "ideal" compromise.

The problem is knowing whether or not the "nasties" are being exaggerated or added to......and since this is hard to ascertain, it make sense just to go with the kit that makes the majority of one's collection sound enjoyable.

 

[MUSICRAFT]

.......In which case, Class A is your friend. :shifty:

Hi CnE

Yes, you've got a good amplifier so relax

All the best

Rick @ Musicraft

 

[plastic penguin]

I'd rather have a 'honest' system than one that smooths over the nasties. That said, one needs to draw the line and find that "ideal" compromise.

The problem is knowing whether or not the "nasties" are being exaggerated or added to......and since this is hard to ascertain, it make sense just to go with the kit that makes the majority of one's collection sound enjoyable.

Agreed. Trying to find that "ideal" compromise can be so difficult. As I've mentioned before, especially when matching different makes, you can't allow one compaonent to stifle another. So for example if I had a source that was too warm then you will never hear what the amp is capable of (in my case the Leema).

 

[matt49]

.......In which case, Class A is your friend. :shifty:

Hi CnE

Yes, you've got a good amplifier so relax

All the best

Rick @ Musicraft

Yes, it's a great amp, but the remote control is steadily driving Cno crazy.

:help:

 

[NHL]

According to marketing, jitter is the little rascal.

:wall:

Your submission has triggered the spam filter and will not be accepted.

 

[CnoEvil]

Yes, it's a great amp, but the remote control is steadily driving Cno crazy.

:help:

It doesn't, you know.........it's put safely away in a drawer.........I use a nice LIGHT Linn one.

(Setting the volume at the right level, drives me mad though. :wall

 

[CnoEvil]

.......In which case, Class A is your friend. :shifty:

Hi CnE

Yes, you've got a good amplifier so relax

All the best

Rick @ Musicraft

I AM RELAXED, IT'S CHRISTMAS!! :help:

 

[busb]

I'd rather have a 'honest' system than one that smooths over the nasties. That said, one needs to draw the line and find that "ideal" compromise.

I'd say this is spot on! CnoE suggests my system sounds a little analytical which is an observation I'm not going to deny. However, one could argue that it's just "honest" or some may opine that it's too honest! There lies the rub. If we agree with Peter Walker's slogan ("The closest approach..") which I interpret to mean no rough edges smoothed over, we have to put up with a few bad recodings. I still think the people who listen to exclusively acoustic music have an easier time setting up a first rate system - it's far more obvious when mastering a recording as to what sounds believable & what doesn't - I have virtually no classical recordings that sound horribly bright but it is common with pop music! There is a variation in recording quality but the basics such as tonal range & dynamics are usually in the right area. I's say most of the pop/rock/alternative recordings are adequate but some pretty terrible: "Audio, Video, Disco" by Justice is absolutely appallingly mastered - the comression artefacts are ghastly; so bad, I question why the hell I bought it in the first place!

To me the choice is down to how much of our poorly recorded music we are willing to suffer with. I'd suggest that the wider our musical tastes, the greater the difficulty. For those that don't listen to pop music at all (or refuse to suffer poor recordings, such as Dave), life is a bit easier!

 

[CnoEvil]

I'd rather have a 'honest' system than one that smooths over the nasties. That said, one needs to draw the line and find that "ideal" compromise.

I'd say this is spot on! CnoE suggests my system sounds a little analytical which is an observation I'm not going to deny. However, one could argue that it's just "honest" or some may opine that it's too honest!

I have discussed my thoughts on this quite a lot.....but to expand a little further (in a manner that is not meant to be patronizing or judgmental):

Anyone with a "science brain" is looking for characteristics like honesty, neutrality and accuracy. Measurements, and the science behind it, is vitally important......in fact a Hi-Fidelity system is really just a scientific instrument for producing sound with as few anomalies as possible.

IMO. Live, unplugged "music" isn't about all the things we get so worked up about on forums like this. It's not about bitrate, active/passive, digital, analogue, measurements, class/type of amp or cables......all these things are about equipment, not about music, and by putting them "first", misses the point. A system is little more than a means to an end, if "music" is the main priority.

IME. In order to get a system where "music" is the priority, the "science brain" has to be sidelined, and the "art brain" has to be dusted off. This is difficult for the science types, as it means leaving the comfort and safety of measurements and logic, and trusting gut instinct. :O

Instead of thinking, "is this neutral and accurate" (which is difficult, if not impossible to determine accurately), you use totally subjective measurements like:

- Does it evoke emotion.

- Is it believable, authentic and real

- Is the intention of the musicians being conveyed

- Does it have immediacy authority and refinement.

Shedding the notion that it's all about the equipment, and making it all about the music, is quite liberating......though it does mean a bit of experimentation of different approaches to see which brings the music alive.

IME. It is possible to achieve the elements you are looking for, without sacrificing the enjoyment of the less well recorded stuff......though it can take a fair bit of trial and error.

For example, I have never got on with modern Linn amps, which I had always found a bit cold, unemotional and analytical....but I have had to have a rethink, since I have heard them with Kef R Series. So dramatic has my change in attitude been, that I could happily live with this combination.

Music needs the midrange to be accurate, and the treble to be sweet, but detailed.....but if every element of a system is on the analytical side, I think it all becomes too "hifi", and loses the mojo of the music.

FWIW. I think a very "musical" system could be built around the Primare amp, which would place "enjoyment" rather than "neutrality" as the ultimate goal.....but that would mean introducing a little cognitive dissonance. :shifty:

I know that this view will completely split opinion, and it comes from the viewpoint of someone with their feet planted in the "art brain" camp......which is where music and musicians usually reside.

 

[manicm]

Actually, I've changed my mind. Broccoli is the enemy.

Not with a good cheese on top no. A distorted blue especially.

 

[plastic penguin]

I'd rather have a 'honest' system than one that smooths over the nasties. That said, one needs to draw the line and find that "ideal" compromise.

I'd say this is spot on! CnoE suggests my system sounds a little analytical which is an observation I'm not going to deny. However, one could argue that it's just "honest" or some may opine that it's too honest!

I have discussed my thoughts on this quite a lot.....but to expand a little further (in a manner that is not meant to be patronizing or judgmental):

Anyone with a "science brain" is looking for characteristics like honesty, neutrality and accuracy. Measurements, and the science behind it, is vitally important......in fact a Hi-Fidelity system is really just a scientific instrument for producing sound with as few anomalies as possible.

IMO. Live, unplugged "music" isn't about all the things we get so worked up about on forums like this. It's not about bitrate, active/passive, digital, analogue, measurements, class/type of amp or cables......all these things are about equipment, not about music, and by putting them "first", misses the point. A system is little more than a means to an end, if "music" is the main priority.

IME. In order to get a system where "music" is the priority, the "science brain" has to be sidelined, and the "art brain" has to be dusted off. This is difficult for the science types, as it means leaving the comfort and safety of measurements and logic, and trusting gut instinct. :O

Instead of thinking, "is this neutral and accurate" (which is difficult, if not impossible to determine accurately), you use totally subjective measurements like:

- Does it evoke emotion.

- Is it believable, authentic and real

- Is the intention of the musicians being conveyed

- Does it have immediacy authority and refinement.

Shedding the notion that it's all about the equipment, and making it all about the music, is quite liberating......though it does mean a bit of experimentation of different approaches to see which brings the music alive.

IME. It is possible to achieve the elements you are looking for, without sacrificing the enjoyment of the less well recorded stuff......though it can take a fair bit of trial and error.

For example, I have never got on with modern Linn amps, which I had always found a bit cold, unemotional and analytical....but I have had to have a rethink, since I have heard them with Kef R Series. So dramatic has my change in attitude been, that I could happily live with this combination.

Music needs the midrange to be accurate, and the treble to be sweet, but detailed.....but if every element of a system is on the analytical side, I think it all becomes too "hifi", and loses the mojo of the music.

FWIW. I think a very "musical" system could be built around the Primare amp, which would place "enjoyment" rather than "neutrality" as the ultimate goal.....but that would mean introducing a little cognitive dissonance. :shifty:

I know that this view will completely split opinion, and it comes from the viewpoint of someone with their feet planted in the "art brain" camp......which is where music and musicians usually reside.

Think that's a fair appraisal... most bases are pretty much covered.

There's no one magic solution. For example, I would say my amp is fairly neutral but my system isn't, if that makes sense. The overall feel is on the smooth side IMO.

Sometimes system matching is akin to a one-armed juggling act. This is where all one makes or all-in-ones have the advantage.

 

[busb]

I'd rather have a 'honest' system than one that smooths over the nasties. That said, one needs to draw the line and find that "ideal" compromise.

I'd say this is spot on! CnoE suggests my system sounds a little analytical which is an observation I'm not going to deny. However, one could argue that it's just "honest" or some may opine that it's too honest!

I have discussed my thoughts on this quite a lot.....but to expand a little further (in a manner that is not meant to be patronizing or judgmental):

Anyone with a "science brain" is looking for characteristics like honesty, neutrality and accuracy. Measurements, and the science behind it, is vitally important......in fact a Hi-Fidelity system is really just a scientific instrument for producing sound with as few anomalies as possible.

IMO. Live, unplugged "music" isn't about all the things we get so worked up about on forums like this. It's not about bitrate, active/passive, digital, analogue, measurements, class/type of amp or cables......all these things are about equipment, not about music, and by putting them "first", misses the point. A system is little more than a means to an end, if "music" is the main priority.

IME. In order to get a system where "music" is the priority, the "science brain" has to be sidelined, and the "art brain" has to be dusted off. This is difficult for the science types, as it means leaving the comfort and safety of measurements and logic, and trusting gut instinct. :O

Instead of thinking, "is this neutral and accurate" (which is difficult, if not impossible to determine accurately), you use totally subjective measurements like:

- Does it evoke emotion.

- Is it believable, authentic and real

- Is the intention of the musicians being conveyed

- Does it have immediacy authority and refinement.

Shedding the notion that it's all about the equipment, and making it all about the music, is quite liberating......though it does mean a bit of experimentation of different approaches to see which brings the music alive.

IME. It is possible to achieve the elements you are looking for, without sacrificing the enjoyment of the less well recorded stuff......though it can take a fair bit of trial and error.

For example, I have never got on with modern Linn amps, which I had always found a bit cold, unemotional and analytical....but I have had to have a rethink, since I have heard them with Kef R Series. So dramatic has my change in attitude been, that I could happily live with this combination.

Music needs the midrange to be accurate, and the treble to be sweet, but detailed.....but if every element of a system is on the analytical side, I think it all becomes too "hifi", and loses the mojo of the music.

FWIW. I think a very "musical" system could be built around the Primare amp, which would place "enjoyment" rather than "neutrality" as the ultimate goal.....but that would mean introducing a little cognitive dissonance. :shifty:

I know that this view will completely split opinion, and it comes from the viewpoint of someone with their feet planted in the "art brain" camp......which is where music and musicians usually reside.

HFN (as an example) publish measurements & graphs. I feel they are generally pointless IMO & have too little bearing on how something sounds. There are some exceptions such as the matching of a pair of speakers under test. Measurements are very important during the development of equipment, especially to gain an idea how consistent a product is - again speakers being perhaps the best example of the importance of measurements.

I've said it before but will repeat it here, emotion, believability, authenticity should be down to the recording & the best thing that reproductive equipment can do is to not hinder this & do so without fear or favour.

Can equipment be designed to measure well but miss the mark? You bet - that's why it's crucial to listen to stuff during its design. I don't think either of us have particularly opposing views - we just state what we believe differently. My goal is to have a system that sounds fab with most of the music played through it - if a minority of that music sounds awful, that's the price myself & many others are willing to pay. Throwing money at a system still won't solve the problem - it will help but not turn muck into brass. As for seeking accuracy - as soon as even decent speakers are placed in a room in front of a listener, accuracy is at the mercy of room acoustics.

My idea of accuracy is that only bright recordings sound bright, only dull recording sound dull, only undynamic recordings sound undynamic, etc... What we all need as both music lovers & equipment owners is decent recordings! The equipment itself can only do so much - I don't want mine to hide too much in the name of SQ! If someone listens to stuff that mostly poorly recorded, I can understand the desire to render it listenable - I'm fortunately not in the situation.

 

[CnoEvil]

My idea of accuracy is that only bright recordings sound bright, only dull recording sound dull, only undynamic recordings sound undynamic, etc... What we all need as both music lovers & equipment owners is decent recordings! The equipment itself can only do so much - I don't want mine to hide too much in the name of SQ! If someone listens to stuff that mostly poorly recorded, I can understand the desire to render it listenable - I'm fortunately not in the situation.

Yes, but how bright, dull or undynamic?

It can be very enlightening to hear how this is presented / highlighted with different systems.

Where we probably differ, is in the extent to which equipment can effect this, and the ability of a system (at half sensible money) to let you have your cake, and eat it too.

I would, for example, love to hear your opinion of Linn Majik DS (has volume control for power amp) + Primare A34.2 + Kef LS50......I believe this system would cover most bases in a medium sized room. :shifty:

 

[busb]

I'd rather have a 'honest' system than one that smooths over the nasties. That said, one needs to draw the line and find that "ideal" compromise.

I'd say this is spot on! CnoE suggests my system sounds a little analytical which is an observation I'm not going to deny. However, one could argue that it's just "honest" or some may opine that it's too honest!

I have discussed my thoughts on this quite a lot.....but to expand a little further (in a manner that is not meant to be patronizing or judgmental):

Anyone with a "science brain" is looking for characteristics like honesty, neutrality and accuracy. Measurements, and the science behind it, is vitally important......in fact a Hi-Fidelity system is really just a scientific instrument for producing sound with as few anomalies as possible.

IMO. Live, unplugged "music" isn't about all the things we get so worked up about on forums like this. It's not about bitrate, active/passive, digital, analogue, measurements, class/type of amp or cables......all these things are about equipment, not about music, and by putting them "first", misses the point. A system is little more than a means to an end, if "music" is the main priority.

IME. In order to get a system where "music" is the priority, the "science brain" has to be sidelined, and the "art brain" has to be dusted off. This is difficult for the science types, as it means leaving the comfort and safety of measurements and logic, and trusting gut instinct. :O

Instead of thinking, "is this neutral and accurate" (which is difficult, if not impossible to determine accurately), you use totally subjective measurements like:

- Does it evoke emotion.

- Is it believable, authentic and real

- Is the intention of the musicians being conveyed

- Does it have immediacy authority and refinement.

Shedding the notion that it's all about the equipment, and making it all about the music, is quite liberating......though it does mean a bit of experimentation of different approaches to see which brings the music alive.

IME. It is possible to achieve the elements you are looking for, without sacrificing the enjoyment of the less well recorded stuff......though it can take a fair bit of trial and error.

For example, I have never got on with modern Linn amps, which I had always found a bit cold, unemotional and analytical....but I have had to have a rethink, since I have heard them with Kef R Series. So dramatic has my change in attitude been, that I could happily live with this combination.

Music needs the midrange to be accurate, and the treble to be sweet, but detailed.....but if every element of a system is on the analytical side, I think it all becomes too "hifi", and loses the mojo of the music.

FWIW. I think a very "musical" system could be built around the Primare amp, which would place "enjoyment" rather than "neutrality" as the ultimate goal.....but that would mean introducing a little cognitive dissonance. :shifty:

I know that this view will completely split opinion, and it comes from the viewpoint of someone with their feet planted in the "art brain" camp......which is where music and musicians usually reside.

Think that's a fair appraisal... most bases are pretty much covered.

There's no one magic solution. For example, I would say my amp is fairly neutral but my system isn't, if that makes sense. The overall feel is on the smooth side IMO.

Sometimes system matching is akin to a one-armed juggling act. This is where all one makes or all-in-ones have the advantage.

System matching IS important but I'd go further by suggesting that trying to match something that's bass-light with something that's bass-heavy is not the best solution ever. It can work until something either breaks or is upgraded. By the same token. there is little point in spending say 90% of a given budget on any one item - you end up impatiently waiting to change the rest rather than enjoying what you have. The exception is either inheriting or finding a bargain - how many of us buy a great & perfectly balanced system in one go unless it's something like an insurance claim or 1st system?

 

[MUSICRAFT]

For example, I have never got on with modern Linn amps, which I had always found a bit cold, unemotional and analytical....but I have had to have a rethink, since I have heard them with Kef R Series. So dramatic has my change in attitude been, that I could happily live with this combination.

Hi CnE

You forgot to mention the cables that were used

All the best

Rick @ Musicraft

 

[busb]

My idea of accuracy is that only bright recordings sound bright, only dull recording sound dull, only undynamic recordings sound undynamic, etc... What we all need as both music lovers & equipment owners is decent recordings! The equipment itself can only do so much - I don't want mine to hide too much in the name of SQ! If someone listens to stuff that mostly poorly recorded, I can understand the desire to render it listenable - I'm fortunately not in the situation.

Yes, but how bright, dull or undynamic?

It can be very enlightening to hear how this is presented / highlighted with different systems.

Where we probably differ, is in the extent to which equipment can effect this, and the ability of a system (at half sensible money) to let you have your cake, and eat it too.

I would, for example, love to hear your opinion of Linn Majik DS (has volume control for power amp) + Primare A34.2 + Kef LS50......I believe this system would cover most bases in a medium sized room. :shifty:

Lets say bright, dull or undynamic to the extent it shouts bright, dull or undynamic! Particular pieces of music will sound slightly bright or dull on all systems if one is listening out for such things. As to what extent we would differ would require us both to listen to the same gear & discuss our opinions.

 

[steve_1979]

I have discussed my thoughts on this quite a lot.....but to expand a little further (in a manner that is not meant to be patronizing or judgmental):

Anyone with a "science brain" is looking for characteristics like honesty, neutrality and accuracy. Measurements, and the science behind it, is vitally important......in fact a Hi-Fidelity system is really just a scientific instrument for producing sound with as few anomalies as possible.

IMO. Live, unplugged "music" isn't about all the things we get so worked up about on forums like this. It's not about bitrate, active/passive, digital, analogue, measurements, class/type of amp or cables......all these things are about equipment, not about music, and by putting them "first", misses the point. A system is little more than a means to an end, if "music" is the main priority.

IME. In order to get a system where "music" is the priority, the "science brain" has to be sidelined, and the "art brain" has to be dusted off. This is difficult for the science types, as it means leaving the comfort and safety of measurements and logic, and trusting gut instinct. :O

Instead of thinking, "is this neutral and accurate" (which is difficult, if not impossible to determine accurately), you use totally subjective measurements like:

- Does it evoke emotion.

- Is it believable, authentic and real

- Is the intention of the musicians being conveyed

- Does it have immediacy authority and refinement.

Shedding the notion that it's all about the equipment, and making it all about the music, is quite liberating......though it does mean a bit of experimentation of different approaches to see which brings the music alive.

IME. It is possible to achieve the elements you are looking for, without sacrificing the enjoyment of the less well recorded stuff......though it can take a fair bit of trial and error.

For example, I have never got on with modern Linn amps, which I had always found a bit cold, unemotional and analytical....but I have had to have a rethink, since I have heard them with Kef R Series. So dramatic has my change in attitude been, that I could happily live with this combination.

Music needs the midrange to be accurate, and the treble to be sweet, but detailed.....but if every element of a system is on the analytical side, I think it all becomes too "hifi", and loses the mojo of the music.

FWIW. I think a very "musical" system could be built around the Primare amp, which would place "enjoyment" rather than "neutrality" as the ultimate goal.....but that would mean introducing a little cognitive dissonance. :shifty:

I know that this view will completely split opinion, and it comes from the viewpoint of someone with their feet planted in the "art brain" camp......which is where music and musicians usually reside.

IME (forgetting science and measurements etc.) the most accurate, undestorted and neutral sounding systems are also the ones which sound the nicest. I appreciate that many people seem to prefer a slightly warmer sounding presentation and I agree that a warmer sounding system can sound very pleasent even if it does rob the music of some of its 'sparkle and emotion'.

It's also worth pointing out in this thread that there are many different types of distortion though. Phase distortion (for example) always makes the music sound worse irrespective of whether you prefer a warm, neutral or bright presentation.