I have never heard anyone throw out that example before, but it is an obvious example of an awful acoustic environment that would most definitely spoil the quality of replay from any hifi system. Ermm.... oh no it cant. So you reckon your brain can just filter out the effects of any acoustic...
well I can enjoy a musical performance being played on my phone speakers while im relaxing in the tub in a tiled bathroom, but thats not the point is it? The point of hifi is to render an accurate rendition of the performance - it adds to the enjoyment of the performance. The room and its...
So how do you know your are reaching these levels without measurement?
So how do you know if distortion is caused by the amp or speaker if they are unknown to you?
Now, the point in question was your statement I've found that a system when correctly working always has a "presence", irrespective of how correct or incorrect the room is. Both myself and others disagreed. I certainly think the speaker and room acoustics are extremely important - to the...
Its not an excuse its a very real problem along with other biases. Why the subjective position cannot recognise this is very telling.
This is all just subjective tuning to your taste.
How do you fix poor low level detail without changing components?
Interference - a subjective judgement riddled with the risk of expectation bias - I have an smps in the room and it sounds better with it off
High SPL - subjective issues again with perceptions changed by room acoustics and...
I disagree. The room and it's acoustics are critical and that can very much be analysed by measurement.
Can you be specific about "incorrect audible distortions"? What they are and how you eliminate them?
No, thats not what I'm trying to say - but if your room has lots of hard surfaces and little absorption it will simply not sound as good as it could.
Studio control rooms have very controlled reverberation times, often down to 0.2 seconds so the room "interferes" with the sound as little as...
Its simple acoustics. Hard surfaces reflect the sound. Without absorption the sound will take a very log time to decay. This will cause "confusion" in the sound and difficulty in discerning lower level detail as its obscured by the decaying previous sounds. You equipment is totally...
With the greatest of respect your room without a reasonable degree of absorption to control reverb will sound appalling. I have rooms like this and they totally ruin the sound. The speaker / room is by far the most important factor.
I dont disagree with this, essentially it means getting the room acoustics right - an area I have concentrated on. However I do disagree that you will re-create a concert experience, the original instruments and acoustic space and the way microphones / stereo speakers work is quite different...
A generic description to allow others to place their own interpretation of best, but essentially within the bounds of high fidelity - faithful to the original.
No you are changing the tonality to your preference/to suit the recording. Or you are trying to ignore a deficiency.
So precisely how do you take my focus away from a distractingly bright recording? Again this all sounds very nebulous.
Sorry fAs but I couldnt disagree more. A bad recording sounds bad on the best system. If you have a "screechy" recording as you put it, Ill interpret that as bright, what are you doing to your system to stop it from sounding bright?
Problem is, every time I have ever put anyone to test their ability to establish what is "accurate" they fail. hence my example above where a whole bunch of dedicated audiophiles thought a less accurate, degraded re-recording was superior.
Simple fact is that instruments and our hearing do not work the same way as recording and replay with mics and speakers. It will never be more than a facsimile.
I know people who say those sorts of things about a dac that has a lot of intermodulation distortion.
Those sorts of things were said about my re-recording mentioned above.
This may be a pertinent point to ask how you have got on with the test tracks I devised for the other thread?
I think you are talking in very gross terms. My sub can make the windows rattle. I can hear that. Difintively Identifying the cause of some perceived issue by ear - lets say the sound of jitter as an example - by such gross analysis would be extraordinarily difficult. Yet jitter is quite...
Thats not measurement, thats guesswork. Thats just tuning to your personal preference, which of course there is nothing wrong in doing so.
The other night a bunch of audiophile friends thought a recording of a DAC output was superior to the original. (blind test) It of course had been...
My experience has been quite the opposite.
Regarding speakers you need to define what is a "good" measurement. Flat in room response is not good for various reasons, but once you know what curve to achieve measurements will get you there.
Thing is some subjectively prefer the sound of certain...
Yes. Its why I think single ended IC is a pretty dumb idea. If you have loops or a noise issue with mains ground connections you couple this into the signal gnd. Its dumb. Whilst it can work fine you certainly have potential for lots of issues.
Go balanced and or use double insulated kit...
Quite possibly. It just raises my eyebrows when they felt the need to test this when it should be obvious. So their mains cable might have 0.01 ohms lower impedance than a normal one, and they are worried about that in a circuit that might be 5 ohms or more?
people are looking in the wrong...