GoodSoundClub - Romy the Cat's Audio Site - It is a very complex subject

08-21-2024

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Romy the Cat

Boston, MA
Posts 10,103
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #:	21
Post ID:	27537
Reply to:	27536

That is a great subject

rowuk wrote:
In live music, the performance result is the sum of all of the musicians efforts and the audience members listening capacity.

It may only very much be the case, but it also might not be. We certainly feed each other, but there were plenty of situations when musicians raised themself over the audience level and were able to throw a spectacular performance despite that “no one was there.” Interestingly, this situation might NEVER be reversed. If we have a full concert hole of acquired taste connoisseurs and an idiot musician, they will never be able to raise the musician level.

"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche

08-22-2024

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Amir
Iran Tehran
Posts 337
Joined on 02-11-2009

Post #:	25
Post ID:	27544
Reply to:	27535

Some examples

Paul S wrote:
Amir, for sure "most audiophiles" do not have personally developed audio/hi-fi awareness based on "evolved Musical awareness and taste". But this site is one of the few places one can go to for information based on these tenets. I wish anyone involved in mix-and-match selection of brand name audio components good fortune. Again, I think this site has information for people who already have ideas about the sound they want and they are working on ways to get particular sound rather than focusing on brands or "specs". This is not to say that specs don't matter, rather to say at a certain point (in experience) these things more or less "take care of themselves".

Best regards,
Paul S

Paul, I mentioned those speakers just for introducing an example.
I am lucky because of finding goodsoundclub.

08-22-2024

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,627
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #:	26
Post ID:	27545
Reply to:	27544

Shaping Sound

Years ago I did not like the sound of then-new metal diaphragm drivers, and I also found plenty to dislike about "horn sound" from various drivers in various horns. Over time I heard other drivers that used similar-but-not-the-same topologies, perhaps altering and/or limiting the range to produce sound I liked. Like Romy said in his recent video, there are lots of "hidden elements" that affect sound, that the "Sound Seeker" has to "deal with". It might be plastic vs. metal rings for diaphragms, or the length or "rate" of a horn for a given driver in a given frequency range, but what I am saying is that we can "shape sound" to our tastes if we "just" know how. A very common problem with speakers (to my ears) is trying to force drivers "too low" for their topology. And I can't presently think of drivers that can sound really good running more than 3 octaves. Everyone should suit themselves, of course; but I would not be looking for LF from 8" drivers, nor 1k Hz from a 1" dome. There are plenty of commercial speakers that I think are pretty much hopeless. But I hear glimmers from some, and, like I have said before, there is ALWAYS something to be learned from Good Sound. The buy, plug and play technique will only get one so far, IMO; but until the punter starts to worry about it "there is no problem". Find a (Personal) Need and Fill It.

Paul S

08-23-2024

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Amir
Iran Tehran
Posts 337
Joined on 02-11-2009

Post #:	27
Post ID:	27546
Reply to:	27545

My Audio Rule: go for perfect Dynamics

I think the magic key in advancing audio is understanding the proper meaning of “dynamics” .
In my opinion The main problem is audiophiles care more about “musicality”, “sweetness”, “resolution” , “soundstage” , “tone” , “transparency” … but I think the key is advancing audio playback for perfect “dynamics” in all frequency range 20-20khz.

When your priority is “dynamics” then you will find horn speakers overally are better than other types of speakers.When your priority is “dynamics” then you will find the amplifier should be match to Speaker for perfect dynamic in all frequency range. I think Romy DSET concept is more dynamic than single SET.When your priority is “dynamics” then you will try to find the perfect speaker position (DPOLS). When your priority is “dynamics” then you will find computer audio is not good enough for music playback.When your priority is “dynamics” then you will find ac quality is very very important and also you will find all ac filters and most ac cables are not good.

08-23-2024

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Amir
Iran Tehran
Posts 337
Joined on 02-11-2009

Post #:	28
Post ID:	27551
Reply to:	27545

Favorite sound

Paul S wrote:
Years ago I did not like the sound of then-new metal diaphragm drivers, and I also found plenty to dislike about "horn sound" from various drivers in various horns. Over time I heard other drivers that used similar-but-not-the-same topologies, perhaps altering and/or limiting the range to produce sound I liked. Like Romy said in his recent video, there are lots of "hidden elements" that affect sound, that the "Sound Seeker" has to "deal with". It might be plastic vs. metal rings for diaphragms, or the length or "rate" of a horn for a given driver in a given frequency range, but what I am saying is that we can "shape sound" to our tastes if we "just" know how. A very common problem with speakers (to my ears) is trying to force drivers "too low" for their topology. And I can't presently think of drivers that can sound really good running more than 3 octaves. Everyone should suit themselves, of course; but I would not be looking for LF from 8" drivers, nor 1k Hz from a 1" dome. There are plenty of commercial speakers that I think are pretty much hopeless. But I hear glimmers from some, and, like I have said before, there is ALWAYS something to be learned from Good Sound. The buy, plug and play technique will only get one so far, IMO; but until the punter starts to worry about it "there is no problem". Find a (Personal) Need and Fill It.

Paul S

Paul, “shape sound” to our tastes is ok for experts (like Romy) not all audiophiles.Most audiophiles use this method : comparing A vs B and if they like/prefer A then they will buy A.This method (I like it) will not advance the sound most of the time.
If I could simplify the terms for sound then it will be four category : Dynamic, Harmonic/tone, Transparency, Image.My rule is “dynamic” priority should be higher than other factors in each step of upgrading the sound (it means no upgrade should degrade dynamics) then we can find the balance between “transparency” and “harmonic/tone” .

08-23-2024

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,627
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #:	29
Post ID:	27552
Reply to:	27551

It's a Long Way to Tipperary

Amir, I think “dynamics” are very important, too, but I have to say that dynamics are just another “aspect” of electro-mechanically (re)produced music, and there is plenty to consider in addition to dynamics before “accurate sound” comes across as Music. From attending shows and listening to demonstrations it seems like plenty of people get stuck in “sound as opposed to music”. More power to them, and I have actually gotten some ideas from gear/systems that I would never choose for my own. But I repeat ‘til I drop that your system ultimately reflects your (personal) Musical Tastes (or the lack thereof). I will share (yet again…) that I have expanded my system’s “range of musical expression” over many years, in order to “expand my Musical repertoire” and “accommodate increasing Musical Awareness”. Basically, I have re-visited and adjusted/tweaked different parts in order to avoid narrowing my musical choices down to just a few “good-sounding” recordings. Saying this I realize it seems like I’ve “dialed back accuracy” like turning a squelch knob, yet I assure you this is not the case, as I currently have more “Musically Relevant Detail” than ever before, including dynamics. To my ears and taste, “not all detail is created equal” where Music Appreciation is concerned. As ever, YMMV, since – I repeat (yet again…) – it’s Personal.

Paul S

08-24-2024

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Romy the Cat

Boston, MA
Posts 10,103
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #:	30
Post ID:	27555
Reply to:	27546

It is a very complex subject

Amir wrote:
I think the magic key in advancing audio is understanding the proper meaning of “dynamics” .
In my opinion The main problem is audiophiles care more about “musicality”, “sweetness”, “resolution” , “soundstage” , “tone” , “transparency” … but I think the key is advancing audio playback for perfect “dynamics” in all frequency range 20-20khz.

When your priority is “dynamics” then you will find horn speakers overally are better than other types of speakers.When your priority is “dynamics” then you will find the amplifier should be match to Speaker for perfect dynamic in all frequency range. I think Romy DSET concept is more dynamic than single SET.When your priority is “dynamics” then you will try to find the perfect speaker position (DPOLS). When your priority is “dynamics” then you will find computer audio is not good enough for music playback.When your priority is “dynamics” then you will find ac quality is very very important and also you will find all ac filters and most ac cables are not good.

Amir, I disagree with what you say. The spirit of your expression is right: a wider dynamics range is better than a lower dynamic range, but there is so much more to it. It's it not about maximizing of dynamic range, it is very simple to do in audio. This is the problem that the audio methods that we use this expensing of dynamic range damage some other very fine but very important ingredients of the sound, mostly the extrapolation of the tones below and under the fundamentals. It would be simple if it were just the volume of under and overtones, but it is also about their compression and many other factors. Live sound and audio operate in different environments, like fish in water and birds in the sky. The rule of one does not apply to the rule of others. In addition, there are dynamic masking effects and many other factors. So, it is not just about perfect Dynamics but rather the maximum dynamism you can push out of a given audio topology without sacrificing musical and spiritual integrity and intelligibility of music. It is a very complex subject

"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche

08-25-2024

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Amir
Iran Tehran
Posts 337
Joined on 02-11-2009

Post #:	31
Post ID:	27556
Reply to:	27555

Sure, It is very complex

Romy, Thank you for sharing your idea. I agree you this subject is very complex so it is not easy (or possible) to simplify audio in a simple rule. Maybe I should describe more about my rule, I agree you (as you said) just one aspect of sound (dynamics) should not sacrificing musicality of sound.
Actually the meaning of “dynamics” to me is not just wider dynamic range, I think we can look at “dynamics” in each frequency range: bass, midbass, mid, upper mid and high. In each frequency zone I can define dynamic as 1- macro dynamic (like wider dynamic range, less compress/easy breathe, fast jump/transient, slow decay, pure music energy, pace and right flow like wider and more calm river) and 2- micro dynamics and also 3- dynamic rightness.
The example about 3-dynamic rightness is digital sharp filters in dacs (time domain overshoot and ringing) or ported bass topology, in my idea those are wrong dynamics. The dynamic behaviour should not change in different frequency area for example ribbon tweeters are not similar to dynamic drivers in midrange. The example about killing micro dynamics is like using ac filters or virtual grounds or so much filtering is psu. The example about macro dynamics is 6way horn vs 2way dynamic driver speaker. Multi channel amping is also give us better macro dynamics.

Romy, you have much more experience than me so I should accept your idea about importance of other aspect of sound like musicality but in my limited experience dynamic is more important than tone and transparency. I can agree I should trade-off transparency for better tone/musicality but I do not think I should trade-off dynamics for better tone/musicality. What I think is in right setup (DPOLS and perfect electricity) we can have both good dynamics and good tone.
I always said we can have two audio system, one system for better tone/musical and another for more real/transparent sound but I never like to trade-off dynamics.

08-25-2024

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Romy the Cat

Boston, MA
Posts 10,103
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #:	32
Post ID:	27557
Reply to:	27556

I think you are very confused.

Amir wrote:
What I think is in right setup (DPOLS and perfect electricity) we can have both good dynamics and good tone. I always said we can have two audio system, one system for better tone/musical and another for more real/transparent sound but I never like to trade-off dynamics.

The right setup has nothing to do with DPOLS or perfect electricity and it has absolutely nothing to do with tone. The right setup is a topology not DPOLS or electricity . I also very much do not know what it means "one system for better tone/musical and another for more real/transparent sound". Why we ever have a conflict between tone/musical and real/transparent? I think you are very confused. I will try to record a clip about dynamics later on.

"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche

08-25-2024

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Amir
Iran Tehran
Posts 337
Joined on 02-11-2009

Post #:	33
Post ID:	27558
Reply to:	27557

DPOLS and Tone

Romy, my english is not good so I did not know the proper meaning of “proper setup” .Back to topic :

please check this topic :http://goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PageIndex=1&postID=994#994

Please read the A. Polakov :“ 1) When the loudspeakers are placed into the DPoLS then all characteristics of sound improving very strongly: imaging, space localization, transient, dynamic range, space presentation, tonal contrast and many other. Even the tonal imperfections of reproduction become way less notable and less prominent. What is characteristic that the improving takes abruptly, very expeditiously and swiftly.

2) The strongest improvement takes place in the subjective domain, reflecting the emotion and spiritual content of recording. The DPoLS highlights the energy of performance; boosts the ethical load of the musical content, highlight the intonations and the timbre connections of the musical phrases. Starting with a certain level of capacity of the rest reproduction chain it is possible to talk about not “reproduction” but about the reinstating and resurrection of the “original energy of live”.”

As A. Polakov mentioned My experience shows proper speaker position has great impact on tone/harmonics/musicality.

08-25-2024

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Amir
Iran Tehran
Posts 337
Joined on 02-11-2009

Post #:	35
Post ID:	27560
Reply to:	27557

Tone vs transparency

Romy the Cat wrote:

Amir wrote:
What I think is in right setup (DPOLS and perfect electricity) we can have both good dynamics and good tone. I always said we can have two audio system, one system for better tone/musical and another for more real/transparent sound but I never like to trade-off dynamics.

The right setup has nothing to do with DPOLS or perfect electricity and it has absolutely nothing to do with tone. The right setup is a topology not DPOLS or electricity . I also very much do not know what it means "one system for better tone/musical and another for more real/transparent sound". Why we ever have a conflict between tone/musical and real/transparent? I think you are very confused. I will try to record a clip about dynamics later on.

Romy, It does not mean more transparency is equal to less musicality, I just say due to some limits in audio parts/design we can choose our priority between two sound.For example good solidstate dacs or good solidstate pre-amplifiers are more transparent than tube version but not neccessary more musical.Another example is you may prefer softer tone/presentation of CEC TL1 to TL0 in opera music but TL0 is more transparent than TL1.
http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PageIndex=1&postID=6427#6427
I think in this area some prefer to have better tone and some prefer to have more transparent sound.I think we can have two audio systems like your Tannoy/Yamaha and Macondo/Melquiades.

08-25-2024

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,627
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #:	36
Post ID:	27562
Reply to:	27560

Good Electricity vs. Topology

How great it is to revel in Music during good electricity or DPoLS! These conditions really allow one to “listen past” the system, which is a Joy unto itself. But neither good electricity nor DPoLS is a substitute for “correct topology”, in terms of range, power, or any number of “variables” one might summon to parse the sound of music from hi-fi. Ironically, both good electricity and DPoLS remind us of what we “ought to be aiming for” from hi-fi, which is to say, Music. And this takes us back to taste, and how much “Live Sounding” playback we actually want to hear from a hi-fi set-up. For me, and speaking for myself, neither DPoLS nor good electricity sufficiently scales up Bruckner from a small system. Likewise, the “wrong” system of any size does not help me make Musical sense of Bruckner. Which is only to say – again – that “topology matters” and the effects of topology on sound and Music are not nulled by good electricity or DPoLS. And then there is the matter of sources. What are we listening to in the first place? I think “topology” as we use the term plays in to the sound(s) and music from sources that we start with, as well. I have fallen so far off the pace with streaming that I have no idea what “streaming people” are “working with” these days, especially when streaming is used as default sound referred to in expositions about the sound they get from their systems. A nice place to end on the idea of Personal Sound.
Paul S

08-25-2024

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Amir
Iran Tehran
Posts 337
Joined on 02-11-2009

Post #:	37
Post ID:	27563
Reply to:	27562

Proper setup meaning

Paul S wrote:

How great it is to revel in Music during good electricity or DPoLS! These conditions really allow one to “listen past” the system, which is a Joy unto itself. But neither good electricity nor DPoLS is a substitute for “correct topology”, in terms of range, power, or any number of “variables” one might summon to parse the sound of music from hi-fi. Ironically, both good electricity and DPoLS remind us of what we “ought to be aiming for” from hi-fi, which is to say, Music. And this takes us back to taste, and how much “Live Sounding” playback we actually want to hear from a hi-fi set-up. For me, and speaking for myself, neither DPoLS nor good electricity sufficiently scales up Bruckner from a small system. Likewise, the “wrong” system of any size does not help me make Musical sense of Bruckner. Which is only to say – again – that “topology matters” and the effects of topology on sound and Music are not nulled by good electricity or DPoLS. And then there is the matter of sources. What are we listening to in the first place? I think “topology” as we use the term plays in to the sound(s) and music from sources that we start with, as well. I have fallen so far off the pace with streaming that I have no idea what “streaming people” are “working with” these days, especially when streaming is used as default sound referred to in expositions about the sound they get from their systems. A nice place to end on the idea of Personal Sound

Paul S

Paul, my english is not good and I did not know the meaning of “proper setup” so I correct my post:
“ What I think is the perfect speaker position and perfect electricity help to have both good dynamics and good tone.”

08-25-2024

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,627
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #:	38
Post ID:	27564
Reply to:	27563

Transparancy vs. Density

The first casualty of “transparency” is density, an effect that can emerge quite clearly [sic] when running ribbons over horns. Not to mention that the audio version of “transparency” really has no natural correspondent. A long while back I extolled here at GSC the then-new-to-me effect I got from then-new-to-me Lamm ML2 amplifiers, the way they rendered the part of the soundfield that is “not music”, and the effect this effect had on the density and solidity of musical sounds, including the instruments that made them, also outstanding tonality. I have not bettered these effects with my current system, but I have managed to extend the range of the effects considerably, according to my wish to listen to and hear Big Music better. It is certainly not a given that wider range and more power are independent of other “sound effects”, just as it is not a given that simply turning up the volume will yield “more of the same” sound. There are plenty of possibilities when looking for reasons for this, and not all of them pertain directly to speakers or amps. Pretty much the same idea when considering “issues that arise” with “increasing transparency”. “Transducers” (such as phono cartridges or speakers) might be fraught with sound effects that manifest as “character” that is continuous, or perhaps “characteristics” manifest at certain frequencies or volume settings, or when the music is “demanding”. As for the cause or causes of problems, I harken back (again) to Romy’s recent video, where he basically wishes us all good luck in finding, isolating and fixing/changing causal parts and/or conditions in audio in order to improve (or just change) the sound. The most basic rules of making headway in audio are (not listed in order): 1) Know where you want to go. 2) Know where you are.

Paul S

08-28-2024

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

rowuk

Germany
Posts 450
Joined on 07-05-2012

Post #:	39
Post ID:	27570
Reply to:	27564

Density is an elusive thing

My experience with "density" is that there is no stability of pitch without it. "Thinner" sounding presentations sound higher in pitch than they actually are. This is also an effect with real players. It often sounds like the performers are playing out of tune - switching to headphones or another system with "density" often proves that the pitch and intonation are just fine. Depending on the care during the driver integration process, certain frequency bands could suffer and others not.

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

08-28-2024

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,627
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #:	40
Post ID:	27571
Reply to:	27570

Bingo!

Yes, Robin, exactly. And since there seem to be many hi-fi "issues" contributing upward-developing "harmonics", any respite from this near constant is welcome. I have said that over the years I "opted for density every time", and this is +/- true, but it took me a long time to suss out and deal with this hated-by-me phenomenon. Not that I have totally solved it, either. Up the thread Romy hit on the typical hi-fi dearth of downward-developing harmonics, which sure seems to dovetail with and exacerbate the "upward-shifting" tone problem. He cited certain DG recordings, and I got a chuckle remembering how those LPs so frustrated me. "Grand Prix du Disque", my ass!

Paul S