Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site


In the Forum: Playback Listening
In the Thread: My Audio Philosophy
Post Subject: My ViewPosted by Amir on: 6/4/2016
fiogf49gjkf0d
 op.9 wrote:
 Amir wrote:
I listened one time (just one time) to master tape (revox reel).
micro harmonic was so better than dCS Elgar (digital source) and it was better in micro dynamic. i did not tested good DSD in a good DAC vs good analog but in micro linearity analog and digital may be more close but in micro harmonic both were not close
 

generally good micro harmonic is harder to achieve than good micro dynamic.

i should add above graphs are very simplified edition just for showing my observation.
i am not 100% sure but i guess audio systems should react like graphs to frequency and power level changing.
i am not audio designer and my observation about relation of sound and electronics is more upon speculation . it is an theory .

In what way it sounded better? according to what criteria? who judged it? you? so it's a subjective and probably a biased opinion so you shall not generalize it to other listeners so I'm just amazed how can you define such an exact categorizations. I don't wanna insult you but all your point of views (to me) is playing with words and are moronic ideas. after all I have my ears with me and my feeling will tell me if the sound is good enough that I can live with it thus I don't need a particular moronic instruction to tell me if the sound if good. I didn't want to stroke that many of dirty keyboard keys about your philosophical headlines but I have no way to slip through, so:


Hey , I judge the sound by myself , you judge the sound by yourself but we could have common area in our view if we be trained listener, do not search criteria if you believe good sound really exist. biased opinion is between beginner listeners not professional listeners.
i should say again and again that good sound exist and our brain detect it but if we try to describe why the sound is good our ability will be restricted by our language. i just try to share my subjective view.
defining sound categorization is not easy and i told you these words are simplified version of my idea about sound. our brain is very complex and sound of systems is very different in out mind . i try to detect what thing in the sound make me more happy.

 op.9 wrote:

 Amir wrote:
I think we could categorize audio systems in 3 level.Level 1 is a system that make you sad in long listening session because the sound do not make you relax for music listening in long term.Level 2 is a system that it's sound do not change mind focus from music to sound and it let you to listen to the music for long period of time. sound is not attractive but listener is relax .Level 3 is a system that in long term make you more interested to music listening. the sound is beautiful and emotional in higher level of perception.
People are people. they are not statisticians and they listen to music on an irregular basis. the degree of satisfaction or listening fatigue and exhaustion differs from person to person. I've seen people listening to such a horrible sound of a PA loudspeaker at high pressure levels of +120dB that will make a billy goat to vomit! and they even enjoy it. so keeping this in mind you can't address what people like or dislike unless you investigate a considerable statistical population of listeners and come up with results. besides who is qualified to determine the border between categories you posed?


i do not agree "listening fatigue" is differ from one person to another person.
enjoyment in short period of time is different between listeners but long term satisfaction is unique to all and in long listening term all listeners sound reaction is similar. 


 op.9 wrote:

 Amir wrote:
Level 1 systems are 90% of audio market in a moderate-wrong "setup".Level 2 systems are minimalist old fashion audio systems in a moderate-good "setup".Level 3 systems are micro linear in a good "setup".

Seems you're pretty darn good at guessing and coming up with %s and absolute numbers ;-)



my english reading is not good . i do not understand above quote. please describe it again to me.


 op.9 wrote:

 Amir wrote:
good sound come from micro linear audio systems not macro linear audio systems. (Allen Wright describe it as DDR)micro linear means the system is linear in micro dynamic and micro harmonic .micro harmonic means when the forground music volume is high then the low level background music volume swing be very coherent , transparent and smooth.
we know what "downward dynamic range" is. where did that term "micro linear" come from?! who concocted and coined this word? downward dynamic range is the ability of an audio system to retain low level "micro dynamic" and details while producing the louder levels. a good system should have adequate instantaneous dynamic range which means the ability to emit higher voltages in time domain for an amplifier. sometimes it's mistaken as the speed of amplifier. I suggest you to google and read about amplifier slew rate and IMD. speakers are also moving systems so their speed might play some role here as I think an ideal speaker must be fast enough to retain that details...



I defined the Micro linearity as the graph shows what i mean. both dynamic and harmonic could be view in terms of micro linearity.
good dynamic is both speed and non-compress sound. speed of amplifier (Slew rate) in transient is more related to macro linearity not micro linearity.


 op.9 wrote:

 Amir wrote:
micro harmonic means the midrange should have 3d depth and body and in mid/high the sound not be lean and dark. the sound harmonic should be colorful with spark.
what you described here is like talking about neo-expressionism art in mathematics class. I think there are more issues here. a system with good linear response doesn't necessarily make midrange (vocal?) three dimensional.


hey , 3D image do not mean "3D soundstage with good depth" , in my view right micro harmonic make you feel the vocal has depth and it has no relation to soundstage depth.
linear harmonic refer to both amplitude and phase in frequency domain


 op.9 wrote:

 Amir wrote:
micro linearity will improve by good analog source (master tape) and good acoustic and speaker placement and micro harmonic will improve by good acoustic and good AC Power and it is limited by audio components design.

pure speculation! that's a moot point remains to be proofed as I told. Amir I think you lack the experience of auditioning good-sounding "setups" as I can see you are living in Iran so I think there is less possible chance for an Audiophile to run into varieties there. try to listen to more sounds and forget about everything else. just rely on your feeling when you listen to music


I think i have average to good experience in iran , check my website www.hifi.ir , i listened to many systems in many setups.
DPOLS concept never read in romy site before our real experience in tehran.
one night we placed speaker and the sound became 1000 times better than past. i searched the internet for the reason and i found romy site. before that night i never be familiar with romy site.
DPOLS article was my first visit to this forum.
 
Thank you
Amir




Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site