Absolute Sound is Rubbish

[tomelex]

There you go again Tom. You can't have it both ways. First, you say the world revolves around THD. Then a week ago, you deny you've said that. Now it's THD is the second coming. Which is it Tom? Inquiring minds want to know.

BTW, please tell us what piece of audio equipment you've designed and built and experimented with to come to this conclusion other than reading it in some textbook. You never EVER answered my question of what happens when you reduce THD to triple naught values. Bottom line THD is pretty meaningless past a certain point. Have you ever carried out any experiments to see at what point THD becomes undetectable?

Oh and Dick Sequerra would be ROTFLHAO reading this!

I laid my comments out in post 45, and this is your response. I made a simple point, better means better THD, taking that as one simple measurment. Its simple. Yes, there is a limit to what I can hear, but others apparently not.

I tested two lm4562 chips against a wire and could not hear a difference. So what, thats just my ears. Arguments over what you hear or I do are pointless without dbt.

Tom

[NorthStar]

If only being about the best were as simple. Why are folks here ont his forum held up as having the best when the simplest THD measurment is not better than they were 30 years ago.....the best gear can not have a better THD measurment?

for example, say a pre-amp has thd of 0.05%, (just to pick on one boring spec).
however, now we have someone with a pre-amp at 1% or .05% and it is the "best", no if it is at 0.000001%, then it is the best. Its absurd to suggest otherwise. So, evey simple old boring spec better be better to be best, no?

Tpm

--- Bryston have great specs for their amps and preamps.

* Emotional musical reactions cannot be measured.
...And they happened to be part of that absolute sound equation, IMO.

[microstrip]

OK, divorce my comments or attachment to TAS magazine. Let me just say this again, the idea that plain old stereo, withy two speakers, can replicate an actual event, is rubbish.

Yet, reviewer after reviewer talks this rubbish. What plain old stereo CAN do is attempt to replicate the tone of an instrument, not the instument in its space. The illusion is fine, but to start out with the goal of the absolute sound, you need a different system than two channel stereo. Its just reality vs imagination.

Tom

Tom,

It seems you are playing with the sense words to show your disbelief in stereo and justify your liberal use of the word rubbish. Can you explain us what means the goal of the absolute sound in your sentence?

Stereo has limitations - F. Toole addresses a few of the spatial ones in short summary:

The directional properties of the loudspeaker, the physical arrangement and the acoustical properties of the listening room
determine the spectrum, amplitude, directional and temporal factors of the multitude of sounds arriving at listeners' ears. All of these
sounds combine and interact physically, at the entrance to the ears, and perceptually, in the auditory systems and minds of listeners. As
a result, virtually every perceptual aspect of stereo reproduction can be affected.
Variations in the perceived spatial representation, or imaging:
(a) the size of specific images of voices or instruments are changed by reflected sounds, especially those in the horizontal plane.
(b) the positions (lateral or in depth) of specific images are changed by reflected sound, and
(c) the sense of spaciousness or envelopment are influenced by reflected sounds, again mainly those occurring in the horizontal plane. (End of quote - read it all at http://www.harmanaudio.com/all_about...kers_rooms.pdf)

But once these conditions are optimized a very rewarding sound reproduction can be achieved, including the spatial information.

[Robh3606]

* Emotional musical reactions cannot be measured.
...And they happened to be part of that absolute sound equation, IMO.

Well if that's the case I have had Absolute Sound moments listening to some of the worst gear you can imagine. I don't need anything more than a simple AM Transistor Radio, remember them, to emotionaly connect with the music. Sound quality is simply not a factor for me to connect to the music. IMHO if you need that for it to happen somethings wrong. Not saying it doesn't help but it shouldn't be a requirement.

Rob

[MylesBAstor]

Well if that's the case I have had Absolute Sound moments listening to some of the worst gear you can imagine. I don't need anything more than a simple AM Transistor Radio, remember them, to emotionaly connect with the music. Sound quality is simply not a factor for me to connect to the music. IMHO if you need that for it to happen somethings wrong. Not saying it doesn't help but it shouldn't be a requirement.

Rob

Unfortunately connecting with the music and sound quality seem to be mutually exclusive. There's no reason why that's so except money.

[MylesBAstor]

Doesn't it come down to the sounds good group vs. those who hold the sonics to a higher level of accountability, eg the sound of real instruments in a real hall?

[NorthStar]

Well if that's the case I have had Absolute Sound moments listening to some of the worst gear you can imagine. I don't need anything more than a simple AM Transistor Radio, remember them, to emotionaly connect with the music. Sound quality is simply not a factor for me to connect to the music. IMHO if you need that for it to happen somethings wrong. Not saying it doesn't help but it shouldn't be a requirement.

Rob

Now Rob don't be so silly! ...You are over exaggerating to the extreme.

Simply take the wise side of life. ...The balanced one.

[Phelonious Ponk]

Of course it is unrealistic to expect a stereo system or even a surround sound system, any system at any price, to replicate the sounds of real instruments in the hall in which they were recorded. As we've discussed to death, recordings are rarely captured that way, but even if you have one that was, as soon as you play it you subject it to the ambience of another hall -- your listening room, and both of those points, while salient, are nits compared to the fact no set of speakers, no matter how advanced, can radiate sound like a drum kit, a stand-up bass and a piano all at once. And if they don't radiate and disperse like real instruments, they won't reflect (in your secondary ambient environment - your listening room) like real instruments. Nevermind the orchestra, you can't replicate a jazz trio. A damn good snapshot? Sure. Enjoy.

Of course that doesn't keep Audiophiles from setting real instruments in the real space up as the standard. It doesn't keep them from hearing it from their systems. Good for them; if it stopped there that would be fine. But it seems like there are always a few who have to position their fantasy as the higher objective standard and put the listening experiences and systems of all who haven't drunk the same koolaid below them.

Tim

[MylesBAstor]

Of course it is unrealistic to expect a stereo system or even a surround sound system, any system at any price, to replicate the sounds of real instruments in the hall in which they were recorded. As we've discussed to death, recordings are rarely captured that way, but even if you have one that was, as soon as you play it you subject it to the ambience of another hall -- your listening room, and both of those points, while salient, are nits compared to the fact no set of speakers, no matter how advanced, can radiate sound like a drum kit, a stand-up bass and a piano all at once. And if they don't radiate and disperse like real instruments, they won't reflect (in your secondary ambient environment - your listening room) like real instruments. Nevermind the orchestra, you can't replicate a jazz trio. A damn good snapshot? Sure. Enjoy.

Of course that doesn't keep Audiophiles from setting real instruments in the real space up as the standard. It doesn't keep them from hearing it from their systems. Good for them; if it stopped there that would be fine. But it seems like there are always a few who have to position their fantasy as the higher objective standard and put the listening experiences and systems of all who haven't drunk the same koolaid below them.

Tim

So tell us Tim why you even have an audio system? It would seem if it's just about the music, a Bose Wave radio would suffice.

[Phelonious Ponk]

So tell us Tim why you even have an audio system? It would seem if it's just about the music, a Bose Wave radio would suffice.

Because I want my music to sound as good as it can sound, within the limits of my space and my budget, Myles. The difference is that when I reach those limits, I don't feel compelled to imagine that my system's limitations are actually immeasurable, unidentifiable advantages, unfettered by the annoying realities of the engineering of recording and reproduction. I don't need to substitute my system's limitations for the ability to make my four amplifiers and four drivers in my listening space emulate the physics of a five-piece band in a completley different space. And I don't need to declare, or even believe that, because of these limitations turned to alchemy, my system must be superior to the systems of those who do not believe.

Or, alternatively -- I seek fidelity to the recording. I accept how close I'm able to get. I don't need to make more it than what it is. But I need to make a bit more of it than a Bose radio.

Tim