Toward a Theory To Increase Mutual Understanding and Predictability

[microstrip]

The amount of immersion in my system is recording dependent. I can here changes from track to track on the same CD so from my point of view the recording is the most important aspect of this attribute

Rob

No two listening sessions of John Cage's 4'33" sound the same. The public and room wins!

 

[DaveC]

The amount of immersion in my system is recording dependent. I can here changes from track to track on the same CD so from my point of view the recording is the most important aspect of this attribute

Rob

I'd agree, but I think we need to assume good recording for it to make any sense.

I also agree electronics have the most potential to fudge things up, but only because so much of it does... I'd bet if we were back in pre-transistor days it wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue, as SET based amplification using tubes of carbon for resistors and hand-made copper foil caps actually sound better than a huge massive majority of electronics today. I'd argue the biggest difference modern manufacturing has had on audio quality is volumetrically efficient film caps such as Clarity TC series that can be used in the power supplies of tube amps. Otherwise imo we're way worse off than we were decades ago....

Frantz M has a good point too, while I think most people here have experienced and probably own a system that can recreate an immersive soundstage, a definition and list of factors that enable it or take away from it might be helpful...

 

[Diapason]

I'd agree that "immersion" is a massive target, and all of the best hifi/musical moments I can remember at home have been when that box has been ticked and I've been utterly transported, into the soundstage, into the performance, into the beauty of the sound, into the beauty of the music. That indeed seems to be a worthy contender for the biggest goal I have in any system or listening session.

I don't really know whether electronics or speakers make a larger difference in nurturing or destroying that sense of immersion, but I know the single biggest factor in my own personal experience of it is me. It's predicated so much on mood, time of day, mental state etc., that I almost don't trust it as a repeatable measure of quality. There have been too many times that I've spent an evening utterly intoxicated (no, not in that way!) in front of the speakers, only to find the spell broken when listening to the same music on the same system the following day. If I could find a system that could guarantee to put me back into that intoxicated space every time I turned it on I'd be happy indeed!

 

[still-one]

I'd agree, but I think we need to assume good recording for it to make any sense.

I also agree electronics have the most potential to fudge things up, but only because so much of it does... I'd bet if we were back in pre-transistor days it wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue, as SET based amplification using tubes of carbon for resistors and hand-made copper foil caps actually sound better than a huge massive majority of electronics today. I'd argue the biggest difference modern manufacturing has had on audio quality is volumetrically efficient film caps such as Clarity TC series that can be used in the power supplies of tube amps. Otherwise imo we're way worse off than we were decades ago....

Frantz M has a good point too, while I think most people here have experienced and probably own a system that can recreate an immersive soundstage, a definition and list of factors that enable it or take away from it might be helpful...

Thats your opinion and not valid for most listeners.

 

[microstrip]

(...) I also agree electronics have the most potential to fudge things up, but only because so much of it does... I'd bet if we were back in pre-transistor days it wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue, as SET based amplification using tubes of carbon for resistors and hand-made copper foil caps actually sound better than a huge massive majority of electronics today. (...)

Can I ask what is the "minority" of electronics that does not sound inferior to this SET/carbon/copper coalition?

 

[DaveC]

Thats your opinion and not valid for most listeners.

So you speak for "most listeners".... Hahahaha, that's ridiculous.

Speak for yourself. I do and never claimed otherwise.

 

[DaveC]

Can I ask what is the "minority" of electronics that does not sound inferior to this SET/carbon/copper coalition?

That's a good question and I don't have a list, but I also haven't heard everything in the world and want to leave some space for possibilities. IME nothing sounds better than a good SET amp as long as the speakers are compatible, but I'm totally open to being wrong and hearing other equipment that might change my mind.

 

[still-one]

So you speak for "most listeners".... Hahahaha, that's ridiculous.

Speak for yourself. I do and never claimed otherwise.

I speak for no-one but myself and never have. I was just correcting your statement that indicated that things were better back when.

 

[Diapason]

So Ron, how do you think this thread is going?

 

[jkeny]

So Ron, how do you think this thread is going?

Haha. it's the nature of the beast, I reckon

 

[DaveC]

I speak for no-one but myself and never have. I was just correcting your statement that indicated that things were better back when.

You spoke for for "most listeners", lol, it says so right in your post!... Your statement wasn't necessary. I know and everyone here knows that's my opinion and other people may have different opinions. My statement absolutely did not need correcting thankyouverymuch!

Or I can just tag everything I write with "IMO" if that'll make you feel better.

 

[microstrip]

So Ron, how do you think this thread is going?

For me +1 for mutual understating between WBF members, 0 for predictability!

 

[bonzo75]

Lol

 

[GaryProtein]

Nice one, Ron. I'll bite.

1. I fully respect that it is IMPOSSIBLE to recreate the original event since even the recording may not have done so, certainly not perfectly.

2. At the same time, i also accept i have NO IDEA what the original recording engineer and mastering guy heard at the mastering board either...so trying to be 'true to the recording' is also not possible for me.

In the end, the ONLY reference i have is what i 'believe' a piano sounds like in real life, a voice, a flute. Does it sound like that in our living room?

Following this alone, flawed as it may be, I can say that the more i have 'honed' my system to make certain recordings sound more and more like a real piano or a real voice in our room...funny thing, more and more of our various albums ALSO start to sound better and more lifelike.

With perfect correlation? Absolutely not...but certainly a 'trend' which continues to reinforce my instincts and my honing process.

I agree with your first two statements.

Your reference is still not a standard and neither is mine. I'm sure the Steinway in your living room sounds different from the Steinway in mine, or that your voice and my voice sound different in each other's rooms and that your flute and my daughter's Powell will sound different in each other's rooms and that none of these instruments will sound the same in Carnegie Hall, Avery Fisher, now David Geffen Hall (I guess when you donate $100 Million for renovation, they re-name the hall after you) Eastman Hall, Boston Symphony Hall or any other hall.

The key is to to choose what sounds excellent to you, but that doesn't mean there aren't any standards or reference points. Some systems are clearly better than others despite what individuals may have a preference for. After all, you're the one who is going to be paying for and listening to it so the only person that has to be happy is you.

 

[GaryProtein]

No two listening sessions of John Cage's 4'33" sound the same. The public and room wins!

Boy oh boy, when it comes to 4'33" NOBODY wins!

 

[853guy]

Boy oh boy, when it comes to 4'33" NOBODY wins!

Gary, you need to get the right version. Forget any of the pre-90's recordings, you need to track down a modern one and then upsample to DSD, preferably 512.

 

[GaryProtein]

Thank you, LL21.

Objective 1 is to recreate the sound of an original musical event.

Objective 2 is not to recreate with the mastering engineer heard (we are not him or her) but rather what is on the master tape.

To which objective do you subscribe?

It would be great to recreate the sound of the original event, but we weren't there so we don't know what that is.

We also don't know what is on the master tape. The sound of the performance could have been wonderful and original recording could be poor and if the engineer is talented he can fix the problems. Some recording engineers are morons and will ruin recordings of the best performances, so maybe we don't always want what's on the master tape.

I don't think you can be absolute in the choice between objective #1 and objective #2.

 

[GaryProtein]

Gary, you need to get the right version. Forget any of the pre-90's recordings, you need to track down a modern one and then upsample to DSD, preferably 512.

LOL !

I'll have to try that. Maybe also getting a Vivaldi stack will help!

 

[Jazzhead]

It would be great to recreate the sound of the original event, but we weren't there so we don't know what that is

I don't think you can be absolute in the choice between objective #1 and objective #2.

+1 ... With you on that , they are both interlinked and cannot be separated as such .

 

[bonzo75]

I think original event should be interpreted as "realistic concert like sound". It might not sound exactly like the violin that was played at the concert on that day, but should not sound like a violin that was never ever played anywhere because it is too plastic or too rolled off.