What makes a difference to sound quality and why?

[Anonymous]

Sorry to repeat myself in only my second post but could I ask the OP what he means by being faithful to the "original source"? Unless he has been present at every recording or asked each producer of all the albums he/she has what sound they were trying to record and played it to the OP personally what measurement are you using such that you can judge something is faithful to the original source?

I ask in particular because you seem to distrust anything that cannot be measured.

 

[idc]

JoelSim:

1)= Positioning of speakers in room 50% total change

1)= Speakers 50% total change

3) CDP 30% total change

4) Power amp 30% refine

5)= Rack 30% total change in character

5)= Speaker stand 30% change

7) Speaker cable 20% refine

8) I/c CDP to amp 15% refine

9)= I/c amps 10% refine

9)= Mains conditioner 10% refine

10) Mains lead CDP 10% refine

11)=Mains leads amps 5% refine

11)=Cleaning contacts 5% restore

Hope you don't mind Joel but I have added to your excellent summary of changes to sound quality.

 

[Anonymous]

Other than my change of actual components changing my speaker cable has made a big difference i was amazed doing some comparisons tonight, it was as if i was in a different room everything sounded so much more open i really was not expecting it.

 

[Anonymous]

I have not been present at every recording or asked each producer of all the albums I have what sound they were trying to record and had it played to me personally. The sound is recorded into a digital format, what the 1s and 0s represent is dictated by the format, not the producer. If they want more treble or reverb they have to encode the disc with the sound, they can not rewrite the cd format specification or require you to use a specific make of cd - amp - speaker to produce the sound the way they want you to hear it.

I think measurements used to judge something is faithful to the original source exist and are well know. Distortions to the audio like jitter are not true to source, harmonic distortion + noise as measured by amplifer manufactures are not true to source and viewed as undesirable, speaker dB ideally should be flat across the frequency range so the smaller the dB variation quoted the better. Room acoustics first order reflections within 5ms that cause a muddying of the treble and midtones are not generally viewed as desirable. Sitting in the middle of a room mode that causes bass to be excessive and one toned or in a null that causes bass to be absent is not desirable. The amount of audio diffusion desirable depends on taste, for cd audio it is desirable as it creates ambience, for surround sound it is encoded on the film soundtrack all ready so is less desirable.

The ability to know if what you are hearing is true to source requires using a sensor and a computer with reference test tones and frequency sweeps, etc. Or being present at the original recording, having it played back to you in ideal conditions by the producer having golden ears and perfect recall. Alternatively you can rely on good faith of manufactures and others who have taken readings and best practice for room acoustics, and hopefully get close.

 

[Anonymous]

So if I understand you correctly a producer will commit 0s and 1s to disk and will hope that disk sounds a certain way in other peoples hi fi systems?

I mean he will hear the sound on the master tapes (or the equivalent) and commit that to disk and we can hope that we have a system good enough to reproduce that sound (or some approximation of it) in our own living rooms?

So what standards exist such that we know that one persons system is reproducing the sound intended by the producer better than another?

 

[Anonymous]

CD players have the redbook standards that dictate how it is decoded and give a figure for output signal voltage.

Everything is suppose to be made to be as transparent to source as possible, so it is a matter of measuring distortions. The types of distortion and the amount of it needed to be actually audible in theory or audible in double blind tests or when you listen to something you know well at home, is one of the points of disagreement between those that say everything sounds the same and those that do not.

The fact that many manufactures rely on quoting high review scores and directing custommers to rave reviews with only subjective opinion and do not quote measured audible benefits of less distortion, flat response etc.. Is one of the reasons some people are skeptical of their claims. They reason that if it is better than the competition they would publish data proving it and have a massive increase in sales from those wanting accuracy - quality rather than hype. Many many years ago when I bought my current setup, amplifiers specs detailed total harmonic distortion + noise, the lower the better, speakers frequency range the wider the better and had frequency response graphs the flatter the better, cd players and cables I can not remember quoting any accuracy figures. I beleive amplifier and speaker measurements of distortion have become more accurate with different types of distortion being detailed. Some cd players quote comparisions of measured levels of distortion like jitter lower than the competion, but critics claim they and their compeditors are all massively below audible levels anyway. Cables etc.. still do not give any figures, or give figures that do not directly relate to audible distortions.

Speaker placement and listener position in the room has guidelines for best room acoustics. Sound diffusion that creates ambience is a matter of taste for stereo. Sound absorbers, diffusers, and bass traps can be used to adjust room acoustics.

Some speakers maybe designed to not be true to source, reference monitors are designed to be accurate, but a speaker manufacture may tune their speakers to a sound they think people will prefer. Like TV manufactures adjusting image quality to taste, which videophiles then end up calibrating to video standards to get a more accurate image. Unfortunately you can not user calibrate a speaker to make it a reference monitor if you want to. Most people seem to view that getting the sound or image as close to what the person mastering it heard or saw is desirable, presumably they made it sound or look as good as possible since they want consumers to like and buy it. This does seem to be more true with video than with audio.

The end user can adjust the sound to taste, amplifiers have bass and treble controls, to AV receivers with bass boost, bass management systems, graphic equalizers, and adjustable digital sound processing modes, speaker placement also has an effect on bass and treble. But the idea is that on source direct mode it is true to source, that is the starting point for user adjustment. The components should not be making the sound warmer or brighter or what have you on purpose they should be made to distort the sound as little as possible. Mixing and matching components to personal taste like buying pick and mix sweets to get the mix of flavours you like is not the way in theory it is supposed to work. Ideally you are buying the best most accurate components and if you do not like the sound it is because you do not like the way it was mastered to sound.

 

[SteveR750]

JoelSim:SteveR750:JoelSim:
No proof except my own ears

All based on my current system and the effects when I bought new items

1) New rack (Hifiracks.co.uk) - tighter and more substantial bass, sweeter treble

2) New CD player (Arcam CD92-CD192) - Vastly different sound, much sharper, faster, more treble, less emphasis on midrange, tighter bass

3) Power amp (Arcam P85) - More detail, finesse, separation between instruments, clarity, performance

4) New power lead on CDP (Merlin Black Widow - Nordost Shiva) - a great improvement in air around voices, better symbols, more resonance on strings (in a good way), more natural

5) New power leads on amps (Merlin & RA - Clearer Audio Silverline) - As 4 above but not as pronounced as that particular change

6) New speaker cable (old Furukawa - QED SA XT) - higher highs, brighter, more detail across range. Altogether nicer. Since trying some 6mm copper even more pleased with the QED's sound.

7) New speakers (Linn Index LS120 - Dali Ikon 6) - better in every way shape and form, more presence, more bass, better mids, better treble, better soundstage etc

8) New interconnect between amps (Furukawa - Crystal Cable Piccollo) - big improvement in quality throughout sound range, tighter and more defined

9) New interconnect on CDP/amp (vdh D102 III - Chord Chameleon) - Much bassier sound, and a better all round replay

Interesting - can you score them reative to each other..?

I have just fired up the Spendor's and they have blown my sock off that frankly no interconnects, racks, moondust etc has ever remotely come close to....

Yes I can try. A bit of a non science though because some compltely change the character and some just refine. Anyway here goes in order of magnitude.

1) Speakers 50% total change

2) CDP 30% total change

3) Power amp 30% refine

4) Rack 30% total change in character

5) Speaker cable 20% refine

6) I/c CDP to amp 15% refine

7) I/c amps 10% refine

8) Mains lead CDP 10% refine

9) Mains leads amps 5% refine

so you are saying a rack to house your components has the same effect as upgrading your CDP? Im intrigued as by far te biggest improvement for me ahs always been the equipment first.OK, siting it properly has imporve dit, but frankly to my ears a NAD C352 on the carpet trounces a cambridge 640 on atacama. The jump to the Kandy was massively more obvious, way way way more so than any furniture any of them sat on. The only pice of kit I have owned that was really senstive was the Linn, and I know that for most of its life it was compromised. Even so, it was still infintely better than the AR EB101 wherever it was placed that I had previously and that was hardly rubbish....

 

[professorhat]

Hi - this is in no way meant to be a conflicting post, merely my own thoughts on this thread which has been an interesting read. What I can't understand though (and never will, so please don't try to convince me!) is why people consider measurements more important than what their own ears can actually hear. I understand all the arguments about hearing degrading as you age, possible issues with your mood determining how something sounds, and of course the good old placebo effect etc. etc. but the first argument doesn't really matter in my mind, the second one can be ruled out with proper auditioning and the third is just a minefield and isn't worth getting into to save arguments!

However, for me, at the end of the day, I listen to the system with my own ears as opposed to any measuring equipment and what they tell me therefore overrules anything a measurement (or indeed another person) tells me. If I consistently hear an improvement and there's no scientific reason for it, I'm not really much worried about proving whether what I hear is scientifically possible, I'm just interested that I hear it - it's money well spent in my book.

As I say, I'm not out to start any arguments with this, and maybe I'm just being naive, but, in the case of listening to music for pleasure, I just can't see the logic of trusting what a machine says over what my ears are telling me.

 

[Anonymous]

I consider measurements usefull as they give an objective starting point for comparing products. I do not have the ability or time to home trial lots of different components to find the one I like the sound of best. Also when listening I do not have a point of reference as to what it was supposed to sound like as I was not present when it was mastered and have not heard it on a reference quality system in a acousticly ideal room and do not have perfect recall. I also do not know what it will sound like with lots of different material unless I spend time listening to it all.

Measurements in theory takes the self doubt and personal preference out of the equation and replaces it with accuracy, as the producer wanted it to sound. In theory they just need a reference test tone, frequency sweep, etc.. disc a sensor and a computer to tell you which one is best. They can make an informed decision as to what to buy based on its test results, they feel confident they are paying for performance and getting their moneys worth rather than simply buying into the hype or getting something that sounds different rather than more accurate. People who take it to the extreme even take in room measurements and adjust the room acoustics as the room has a massive effect on the sound you hear.

In part it comes down to what you put your trust - faith in: facts and figures, your own ears, the opinion of reviewers. People who put their faith in facts and figures do not trust their own ears, the rules for subjective testing to rule out biasing due to seeing the product, volume difference, timing differences, having the switching fast enough to still have the previous sample fresh in your memory, etc.. Point to them being very untrusting of their own senses and subjective opinions. So they are likely to be even less trusting of manufacturers and reviewers, when they see no reason why measured results can not be used to validate the subjective observations. So sad souls who lack self confidence like to see facts and figures to give them confidence and validate their purchasing decisions. Self confident, healthy ego types buy the one they like the sound of, after bothering the dealer for lots of home trials. Outgoing socialites get the one the reviewers say is best as they trust other people and they can impress their mates who read the same reviews.

If you view personal preference as your guide would you use a graphic equalizer and adjustable digital sound processing to alter the sound to your personal taste.

 

[the record spot]

So, maybe I'll get an answer to this long standing question of mine here...have you ever listened to a product which measured as being the one for you, but on hearing it you were disappointed? Have you ever listened to a product which you hadn't seen the measurement for, or it measured as a "lesser" item than the first example and found it to be a better experience?

 

[matthewpiano]

A really good thread and its so nice to read sensible, balanced discussion.

My views on scientific measurement are well known, but I think knightout makes some excellent points, particularly in relation to using measurements as a starting point for drawing up shortlists of possible components. However, I'm also very intrigued to hear an answer to Record Spot's question about whether knightout, or anyone else who has an interest in measurement, has ever been caught out and found that the specs and sound didn't correlate as expected.

Overall, though, I agree with ProfessorHat's post.

I still have this major question about what people are expecting the hi-fi to be faithful to. knightout - you talk about accuracy to what the producer heard, but surely this in itself relies on the producer's own ears and the studio equipment being used. With the producer being sat in an acoustically isolated control room, it certainly does not relate to the live sound of an acoustic instrument within an acoustic space. Furthermore, what the producer has heard, and the way in which it has been recorded, don't always necessarily correlate with the intentions of the musician. I know several professional musicians who feel that, at various times, their recordings have been compromised by the work of the producer/engineer.

Ultimately, do we want accuracy to the studio environment and the influences of the equipment, producer, and/or engineer, or are we looking for something which gets us as close as possible to the feeling of a musical performance within a real space?

There are recordings which provide this. Nimbus' Ambisonic recording technology does it wonderfully and Classic Sound Ltd.'s recordings for the LSO Live label are incredible. But what about the majority of recordings which don't do it, or which suffer from less impressive or less natural recording techniques? Isn't it beneficial in those circumstances for the equipment to be minimising some of the less attractive characteristics of the recording?

I can certainly see the advantages of measurements in some re
spects and I think a better case has been put forward for them in this thread than we have heard previously. However, I still believe this issue is far more complicated than just 'fidelity'.

Ultimately, are we wanting to listen to the recording process and resultant quality, or are we wanting to listen to the music?

 

[Anonymous]

I think it's vital to check preliminary measurements such as speaker impedance, amplifier rated outputs etc before heading out for any listening test. You wouldn't want to match a 10 watt power amp with speakers rated 50/100 watt with 84db sensitivity, for example.ÿ

 

[Anonymous]

knightout wrote the following post at 05-08-2009 2:03 AM:

".....If you view personal preference as your guide would you use a graphic equalizer and adjustable digital sound processing to alter the sound to your personal taste. "

Brilliant post, and brilliant conclusion. On my side, for other hobbies, I read reviews, try and identify individual reviewers that share my bias/tastes, and trust them. Works pretty well for me with music critics (purely subjective), photo gear (measurements and subjective comments), cycling gear (largely subjective).

Does not work as well for hifi: hard to find reviews in established magazines signed by individuals, esoteric concepts are all too often used to describe performance, few raw numbers are made available (besides spec sheets that do demonstrate very high general level of performance starting from mid-range models, but very few differenciators), hard to visually "show" sound. The WHF "star" system is really not transparent enough for me to put much credit in (but I'd probably avoid stuff that was rated 3 stars and below).

So, I do use spec sheets, compute forum and marketing blurbs, read mag reviews and would use my own ears (limited by the impossible challenge of accessing audition facilities long enough for relaxed and complete rounds of "testing" and "mixing and matching").

But at the end, well, all this is geared at having a great music environment at home. And you know what? I realised I could vastly improve the way a couple of my systems sound (speakers directly linked to Sonos amps in 2 of my rooms) by using the very basic Sonos equalizer (bass/treble/loudness/balance). Blasphemy for purists of course.

Am now experimenting with the itunes equalizer for the ADM 9.1s linked to my iMac, and feel like I am breaking some sort of divine rule... ("thou shall not modify the signal").

But, if there was a standardised set of objective measurements that would demonstrate that a given setup (with all the parameters you originally described) delivers a sound that is 99% true to the original sound of the recording session, I would most probably adapt myself to that, and "learn" to enjoy it. That does not seem possible.

 

[Anonymous]

I've got Cyrus cables that are directional, but apparently as long as you put them one way and then never change the direction, then you're OK. The arrows are merely to stop you changing direction at any point.

 

[Anonymous]

Those magazines that provide scientific measurements prove the point that you're making - they always seem to rave about a product and then say that it's got faults with measurements or vice-versa - pretty much an inverse correlation as far as I can see!

 

[Anonymous]

YES, the reviews all pointed to Cyrus gear, but on listening, I was immensely underwhelmed by the thin, tinny un hi-fi like sound. Then tried a Roksan Kandy set up and was blown away.

 

[crusaderlord]

Certainly i feel getting the separates right is the big priority - there is vast difference for instance between a Cyrus / Roksan / Arcam sound. Then you need to balance with the right speakers. Get this right and you will be very happy.

Once you have done all that you may realise you need a large cost outlay for another separates upgrade into the next price bracket. But smaller tweaks can yield results and did so for me and are very enjoyable to do. I find Joelsims post very interesting and if i were to do this again taking separates as a given my order would be.

1. Speakers put on stands - i have Soundstyle Z2 but still want to upgrade here to Partington Super Dreadnaughts very soon.
2. Speaker cable - i pushed a big upgrade here to Chord Epic SuperTwin and to find a signifant bonus to clarity and bass
3. Isolation Platforms or rack - tightened bass and made it all look better as well
4. Mains Conditioner - Tacima was cheap and effective
5. Mains Cable - A Clearer Audio copperline worked superb with the amplifier but enlarged and softened the CD player sound so much i prefered it with a normal cable so be careful
6. Interconnect - hardly any improvement over VDH Name with any cable i tried

Not every upgrade works better - for me both adding a power amplifier and also getting the mains cable upgrade on the CD was different but not better. Both expanded the soundstage and smoothed the treble but at thre same time lost some bass punch and layer clarity given a close listening proximity of 3m to the speakers and it was much harder to follow the music layers. I prefered the sound without these changes which is surprising expecially given everyone loves the power amps but i think room size dependency is important.

 

[aliEnRIK]

My upgrades ~

Atacama equinox hifi racks: To be honest ive had them so long I cant recall but theyre certainly more stable than most

Russ Andrews mains block with RA classic cable: definite better quality picture on my tv

16 core machine braided copper mains cables: a big increase in quality in sound and vision

16 core machine braided solid silver mains cables: the difference to my amps was jaw dropping (Anyone who thinks mains cables cant make a difference need to do some more testing of their own methinks)

Isotek Mira mains conditioner: even better quality tv picture

Isotek Sigmas mains conditioner: took a month or so before major changes were apparant but theyre certainly there. Deeper and more musical bass, lots more detail etc

RA mains socket with earth connection: cant testify that it made much difference

Isolation rubbers underneath all equipment: slight increase in quality

Upgrade from qed HDMI to Wireworld starlight and Van Den Hul flat: I saw differences. (Im not geting anymore into digital cables 😛)

Sat speakers on solid concrete plinths: biggest difference to sound by a mile

Biwire: depends on the speakers but my old mission 780s (I think thats what they were) REALLY came alive after biwiring. My mates Gales (sic) made no difference at all when biwired

Biamp: hard to say for sure as I actually took my Arcam A85 completely out of the equation and put in my present P1000 power amp. But it was quite a difference in quality.

Upgrade from QED silver spiral speaker cable to custom made 32 core braided solid silver: hugh difference (I dont understand why people rate the silver spiral so highly)

Upgrade from QED silver spiral interconnect to HOMEAUDIO 8 core braided soild silver interconnects: voices came alive and everything sounded so much more 'realistic'

Pioneer dvd player (one of the 1st upscaling) to Pioneer LX50 dvd: far better sound and vision (The difference in digital sound quality was staggering)

CD players: Someone said they dont think they make any difference at any price? I auditioned some when my dad was after upgrading his CD32 (Which I use now). We listened to 4 ranging from 3.5k to 10k! There were CLEAR audible differences in them (Connected to a 5k amp and 5k speakers). So much so we (he) plumped for the Chord Blue (8.5k) which draws up so much detail its truly staggering. Yes, they may break the 'cd rulebook', but I dont care for such quality

Incidentally, when we auditioned the cd players we HATED the sound at first. It turns out the speaker cable being used was Nordosts 'silver wind'. Great for detail but poor for bass. So we swopped for something else (Cant recall what though) and there was an INSTANT change in quality for the better

Conclusion: just about everything ive ever done has made an aural difference save perhaps the mains socket

 

[Anonymous]

"have you ever listened to a product which measured as being the one for you, but on hearing it you were disappointed? Have you ever listened to a product which you hadn't seen the measurement for, or it measured as a "lesser" item than the first example and found it to be a better experience?"

I have not been intrested in measured results long enough or owned enough products to answer that. I used to buy products based primarily on features, positive reviews and price. My mission 731i speakers and cable talk 3.1 cable had good reviews in what hifi, JBL MR Center was reported to be a good match to the missions by some magazine, Rega Vulcan subwoofer had a good review somewhere can not remember where and was made by REL which was highly regarded, Sony STRDB930 Receiver good review in home cinema choice, Sony HX525 HD/DVD Recorder was cheap and had favourable reviews on the net, Manhattan XT-F good review in What Satellite Magazine.

It is only since I became intrested in video that I have developed a preference for facts and figures and specifications. Video has standards for reproduction and competing technologies, understanding how they work and compare is useful in making a choice. I bought my projector after reading about how they are designed and picked it for its specification and then took it apart and diy modified its color wheel, light box and internal iris to improve its performance. Then calibrated its settings. I likewise picked the screen and did the room decor and layout for the projector based on alot of reading and specifications - measurements.

What I applied to the video side, I now seek to apply to the audio side. In video accuracy to source by meeting specifications for image reproduction is the aim of most videophiles. With audiophiles personal preference still rules, despite audio fidelity being measurable.

If the specification, measurements do not validate my observations, but disagree with them. I would first suspect the measurements being wrong or not representative, you could claim greater accuracy overall be being massiveley more inaccurate in a critical area, but very accurate in all other areas, or the figures may purposefully excluded certain types of inaccuracy or distortion. Next I would suspect it was source-disc dependent, it might sound or look better with this disc but worse with others, then I would suspect it might be a temporary effect, it stands out as more dynamic but in the long term looks/sounds less lifelike. Having ruled out the above I would go with personnal preference over measured results, ultimately standards, specifications and measurements are a guide - roadmap to get to a destination, they tell you when you have arrived and validate your observation, but you might prefer a slightly different destination.

"major question about what people are expecting the hi-fi to be faithful to. knightout - you talk about accuracy to what the producer heard, but surely this in itself relies on the producer's own ears and the studio equipment being used. With the producer being sat in an acoustically isolated control room, it certainly does not relate to the live sound of an acoustic instrument within an acoustic space"

Studio equipment and setup have I believe standards they attempt to adhere to. The idea is when they are mastering it they are not listening to it being distorted by the equipment or room. Studios use reference monitors instead of speakers, and the rooms are treated for good acoustics. If you mastered music using bright sounding speakers while sitting in a room mode that was nullifying bass or muddying treble and midtones, all the stuff you produced would sound odd.

The acoustic isolation I understand in terms of the recording booth in which the artists perform as they want the microphones to pick up the individual instrument, not reflections of the sounds of all the instruments or room harmonics. The producer who mixes the sound should be hearing it in an acoustically ideal manner, except possibly for lack of sound diffusion and size of sound stage due to the size of room. Sound diffusion adds ambience to the music with out distortion, it is dictated by the listening room, without sound diffusion stereo sounds artificial, lifeless, dead. With surround sound formats room ambience is part of the recording programed in to give the listener audio clues for position of effects. Soundstage is dictated by speaker placement and listening position so studios are usually limited by room, for representing its size, but not for mastering the tracks so instrument placement is well defined.

For listening environment it is my understanding you ideally want refelections of treble and midtones within 5ms to be absorbed as they do not sound like reflections they sound as if they are part of the original note so they muddy the sound reducing clarity. You also want bass response to be flat, to not suffer from one tone or boomy bass caused by the room modes reinforcing bass by reflecting it onto its self or be in a bass null where bass reflections are cancelling out the original bass. Sound diffusion, reflections over 5ms that are quieter and seem to becoming from many directions so are hard to pinpoint are desirable as they create ambience, warmth. A wide cohesive soundstage is likewise desirable.

"Furthermore, what the producer has heard, and the way in which it has been recorded, don't always necessarily correlate with the intentions of the musician. I know several professional musicians who feel that, at various times, their recordings have been compromised by the work of the producer/engineer"

I think the musician should hire a different producer or/and consumers buy the discs that are better mastered. Second guessing musicians intent and producers competence and altering the sound does not appeal to me. Besides if the sound you here is primarily dictated by personal taste and room acoustics, I do not see how what you hear is going to be very representative of what the producer mastered anyway.

"Ultimately, do we want accuracy to the studio environment and the influences of the equipment, producer, and/or engineer"

Yes I do. But with more sound diffusion, ambience than in most studio environments and a wider soundstage. I do not want to listen to distortion, I want fidelity to source. If my components provide music fidelity it gives me a good starting point. I can improve soundstage size and imaging by using good speaker and listener positions. I can remove first order reflections of treble and midtones muddying the sound so improving clarity by using sound absorbers and good speaker placement. I can remove bass reflections from my walls casusing bass reinforment or nullfication to improve clarity by using bass traps and sitting in a area with a flat bass response. I can improve ambience by increasing sound diffusion usually behind the listener making the sound more alive-natural.

"or are we looking for something which gets us as close as possible to the feeling of a musical performance within a real space?"

My room is too small to accurately emulate a live performance in real space just by choosing a good cd player, amplifier or speakers. They do not make sound reflections and diffusion that add the ambience of a larger listening environment reflections from lots of different surfaces. They also can not prevent the sound reflections of the real listening environment from muddying the sound. If I want to emulate different listening environments I need a setup an environment that is not reducing clarity and then to use dsp modes that add reflections.

"But what about the majority of recordings which don't do it, or which suffer from less impressive or less natural recording techniques? Isn't it beneficial in those circumstances for the equipment to be minimising some of the less attractive characteristics of the recording?"

How? By having a non-flat frequency response? This can be done with speaker placement or amplifier controls. How do you know the less attractive characteristics of the recording are not due to the setup distorting it. How do you compensate for these less attractive characteristics in some recordings while still being able to produce better recordings in all their glorly.

 

[Anonymous]

No-one is interested in the technical side of things. HiFi has been dumbed-down, and perhaps rightly so.

 

[matthewpiano]

I can see both sides of the argument and whereas other, less balanced posts about specification/measurements have alienated me I find knightout's posts interesting to read and balanced. For me, this is what forums are about. knightout clearly has firm beliefs in his approach and wishes to share them, but without shooting everyone else down in an 'I'm right and you're wrong' type way. Its also pleasing to find someone who is willing to answer all the questions rather than just ignoring those which don't suit.

An interesting discussion.

 

[JoelSim]

SteveR750:JoelSim:SteveR750:JoelSim:

No proof except my own ears

All based on my current system and the effects when I bought new items

1) New rack (Hifiracks.co.uk) - tighter and more substantial bass, sweeter treble

2) New CD player (Arcam CD92-CD192) - Vastly different sound, much sharper, faster, more treble, less emphasis on midrange, tighter bass

3) Power amp (Arcam P85) - More detail, finesse, separation between instruments, clarity, performance

4) New power lead on CDP (Merlin Black Widow - Nordost Shiva) - a great improvement in air around voices, better symbols, more resonance on strings (in a good way), more natural

5) New power leads on amps (Merlin & RA - Clearer Audio Silverline) - As 4 above but not as pronounced as that particular change

6) New speaker cable (old Furukawa - QED SA XT) - higher highs, brighter, more detail across range. Altogether nicer. Since trying some 6mm copper even more pleased with the QED's sound.

7) New speakers (Linn Index LS120 - Dali Ikon 6) - better in every way shape and form, more presence, more bass, better mids, better treble, better soundstage etc

8) New interconnect between amps (Furukawa - Crystal Cable Piccollo) - big improvement in quality throughout sound range, tighter and more defined

9) New interconnect on CDP/amp (vdh D102 III - Chord Chameleon) - Much bassier sound, and a better all round replay

Interesting - can you score them reative to each other..?

I have just fired up the Spendor's and they have blown my sock off that frankly no interconnects, racks, moondust etc has ever remotely come close to....

Yes I can try. A bit of a non science though because some compltely change the character and some just refine. Anyway here goes in order of magnitude.

1) Speakers 50% total change

2) CDP 30% total change

3) Power amp 30% refine

4) Rack 30% total change in character

5) Speaker cable 20% refine

6) I/c CDP to amp 15% refine

7) I/c amps 10% refine

8) Mains lead CDP 10% refine

9) Mains leads amps 5% refine

so you are saying a rack to house your components has the same effect as upgrading your CDP? Im intrigued as by far te biggest improvement for me ahs always been the equipment first.OK, siting it properly has imporve dit, but frankly to my ears a NAD C352 on the carpet trounces a cambridge 640 on atacama. The jump to the Kandy was massively more obvious, way way way more so than any furniture any of them sat on. The only pice of kit I have owned that was really senstive was the Linn, and I know that for most of its life it was compromised. Even so, it was still infintely better than the AR EB101 wherever it was placed that I had previously and that was hardly rubbish....

I can only go by the upgrades to my system's sound. The CD192 was only a model change from the CD92 but was quite a big difference in presentation - where the 92 was warm and soft, the 192 has a much harder edge. Likewise I was amazed when I put my kit onto the rack and sat open-mouthed listening to the difference it had made, especially to bringing the bass out from the recording and making it more rythmical

 

[Anonymous]

There is no scientific equipment, nor can there be, that allows someone to say a recording of a live performance plays better on their system than another. If this scientific equipment existed it would be full of test tubes with blue liquid in them and dry ice pouring out of the top and Peter Cushing running around like a lunatic screaming that he's "found it!"
There are simply too many variables involved in what the listening experience entails in a live event for someone to say there are objective measurements that means one person could say their system reproduces it better than someone elses.

 

[up the music]

Yes, great thread.

On the point of meaasurements vs subjectivity

I'd say that measurements can yield useful information. The low power amp into high power, low sensitivity speakers was a good extreme example of the obvious and makes the point nicely.

I think one of the problems in products that measure well but perform poorly and vice versa may be that some important aspects in reproduction are not being measured or that different factors interact with one another in complex ways.

Years ago a friend had an amp which in most regards measured better than my A&R A60 in a mid '80s magazine review. We both agreed, as did the magazine that my amp was vastly superior. Indeed the magazine commented on the fact that measurements and subjective listening often produces results at odds with one another. It was a HIFI Choice Amp book with over 100 amp reviews.

I'd disagree with the poster who said nobody is interested in measurements. I'd love to see more, though a learning process of how to interpret them would be needed in my case.

I'm considering upgrading my subs to something a little deeper and faster. To help me I'm relying on other peoples subjective opinions and tech data. My attention was drawn to BK subs as good value. As they sell from the factory they're hard to dem. I've relied on several reviews and forum threads to help me get some technical but mostly subjective information. I've also obtained data on the TS parameters of the drive units used and modelled the sub in WinISD software. The Monolith looks to be brilliant by the way.

How do you know a system is accurate?
Though very few people do this you can use signal generators or test tones and record the results. Use known correction for the mic you're recording with and compare original with recorded results.

Most people have heard musicians live and have an idea what they sound like. If the kick drum or clarinet or whatever instrument through your hifi sounds not very much like any you've heard live there's a fair chance your system is not accurate.

I'm not convinced strict accuracy is the ultimate goal, at least for me. Just as different producers and engineers aim for a certain sound which is their preference, so listeners probably have a certain sonic signature that would be their preference. I have no qualm with anyone trying to achieve this through choosing none accurate hifi.

 

[SteveR750]

It also begs the question whether the right parameters that indicate "good" sound quality are being tested - I'm sure that we don't really know what they are. For sure a flat frequency response is important, as indeed are power amp watts, but these are only pieces of the jigsaw. There "must" be a reason why and A&R A60 sounded better than the other "measured" amps, its about understanding how our ears and brains interpret the subtleties of sound to recognise and place things in space. Maybe a hi fi system is always just going to sound just that - a hi fi system in which case we'd better get over it quick!