DACS Have they gone about as far as they can go?

[John Kenny]

that sounds like a typical saturday night out on the town... for me anyway.

you never know, Frank might be onto something...

Let's see - if I understand Frank's colourful posts, what he's saying is that low-level linearity is crucial to the portrayal of a realistic illusion from our stereo systems!

Of course he could be wrong but I haven't seen an logical arguments why this might be wrong

 

[March Audio]

Let's see - if I understand Frank's colourful posts, what he's saying is that low-level linearity is crucial to the portrayal of a realistic illusion from our stereo systems!

Of course he could be wrong but I haven't seen an logical arguments why this might be wrong

I havent seen any such description in Franks posts.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

What is so amusing is that people have the need to grossly exaggerate - the Philips is/was of a quality that you would have to pay over $2000 these days to get something equivalent; the current NAD units are roughly similar, and at times worse internal construction - with a pretty miserable power supply. Only clever engineering in some areas manages to get them performing better.

Which gives you all the clues you need, for what I do. Having a practised eye, I can see shortcomings in the construction, I don't wet my pants with excitement seeing shiny front metal panels a half inch thick, and very pretty internal arrangements of the bits and pieces. You see, I worry about engineering, where it counts - not where it gets a tick of approval from the cognoscenti.

This is a great summary for our readers. Frank worries about "engineering where it counts." You know, "clever engineering in some areas," undefined "shortcomings in the construction," "bits and pieces," that sort of thing. Nothing that can't be fixed with solder,

Let's see - if I understand Frank's colourful posts, what he's saying is that low-level linearity is crucial to the portrayal of a realistic illusion from our stereo systems!

If you understand Frank's colorful posts, you may want to check your meds.

Tim

 

[John Kenny]

Let's see - if I understand Frank's colourful posts, what he's saying is that low-level linearity is crucial to the portrayal of a realistic illusion from our stereo systems!

Of course he could be wrong but I haven't seen an logical arguments why this might be wrong

The problem people seem to have is that Frank eschews attempting measurements of this low level linearity, instead approaching this task by listening to results.

 

[March Audio]

The problem people seem to have is that Frank eschews attempting measurements of this low level linearity, instead approaching this task by listening to results.

Yes. A non scientific approach in a forum intended to explore and discuss the scientific approach.

 

[fas42]

I started this exercise, 30 years ago, by hearing the results, so never had to employ measurement to confirm anything. I have spent vast amounts of time in between reading whatever seemed relevant, to see if anyone was on the same wavelength ... and no-one was. Only lately have some others started to hear, etc, what the benefits of using this approach, or something that is a variation of it - and are exploring it in their own fashion - Opus111 is the obvious example here. And my stay at diyAudio clearly demonstrated that those who were chasing what I was, who had access to some of the best measuring gear available didn't have a clue what to measure ... QED.

John's "Let's see - if I understand Frank's colourful posts, what he's saying is that low-level linearity is crucial to the portrayal of a realistic illusion from our stereo systems!" is 100% correct - the major problem is that the low-level linearity is currently hard, inconvenient to measure, and the causes of less than necessary such linearity are many. IME every single one of the factors that affect that linearity have to be addressed, to achieve the illusion.

The situation now, fortunately, seems to be improving. There is no doubt that the current crop of audio gear is much better, one is that much closer to having the necessary quality on tap. But if one is still not getting the illusion then extra work has to be done, probably by you at the moment, to push the system above the crucial quality status.

 

[March Audio]

I started this exercise, 30 years ago, by hearing the results, so never had to employ measurement to confirm anything. I have spent vast amounts of time in between reading whatever seemed relevant, to see if anyone was on the same wavelength ... and no-one was. Only lately have some others started to hear, etc, what the benefits of using this approach, or something that is a variation of it - and are exploring it in their own fashion - Opus111 is the obvious example here. And my stay at diyAudio clearly demonstrated that those who were chasing what I was, who had access to some of the best measuring gear available didn't have a clue what to measure ... QED.

John's "Let's see - if I understand Frank's colourful posts, what he's saying is that low-level linearity is crucial to the portrayal of a realistic illusion from our stereo systems!" is 100% correct - the major problem is that the low-level linearity is currently hard, inconvenient to measure, and the causes of less than necessary such linearity are many. IME every single of the factors that affect that linearity have to be addressed, to achieve the illusion.

The situation now, fortunately, seems to be improving. There is no doubt that the current crop of audio gear is much better, one is that much closer to having the necessary quality on tap. But if one is still not getting the illusion then extra work has to be done, probably by you at the moment, to push the system above the crucial quality status.

Problem is Frank that no-one knows or understands what you do to tweak beyond the most the most nebulous and generic descriptions you provide. There is no evidence that low level linearity has been improved. You are also ignoring the very real issue of placebo/expectation bias. Opus has done a very similar thing. Stated that noise floor modulation is a dac design incompetence, is audible but provided no evidence to confirm either measurement or listening test. Not to mention that he didnt seem quite sure what NFM consisted of and of course then refused to take part in some listening tests to investigate.

Saying "I hear it therefore it is" simply will never be accepted in this forum. It is intended to be different to all the other forums

 

[fas42]

Just looked at the current discussion in http://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...wanted-proof-of-multiple-subs-and-sub-eq.185/. The trouble is, where the severe mismatch with me and others is, is that I haven't heard a shred of music on a system in the last 30 years that demonstrates, for me, the importance of that type of investigation, and refinement - for achieving the illusion.

The most amusing "proof" was the Philips setup - employing a decently competent, single subwoofer for everything below about 150Hz - at times it died, gave zero output; because of of a rushed tweak, too much moving of something, a connection would come adrift - solder has no mechanical strength - and there was zero true bass! And we didn't pick it!! At times several albums would be played, until I suddenly registered, hey, there should be more bottom end here - and realised there was, in fact, none!!

What was happening was that the rest of the spectrum was presenting such a convincing picture that our minds were reconstructing that necessary bass filler - is how I would explain it.

 

[fas42]

Problem is Frank that no-one knows or understands what you do to tweak beyond the most the most nebulous and generic descriptions you provide. There is no evidence that low level linearity has been improved. You are also ignoring the very real issue of placebo/expectation bias. Opus has done a very similar thing. Stated that noise floor modulation is a dac design incompetence, is audible but provided no evidence to confirm either measurement or listening test. Not to mention that he didnt seem quite sure what NFM consisted of and of course then refused to take part in some listening tests to investigate.

Saying "I hear it therefore it is" simply will never be accepted in this forum. It is intended to be different to all the other forums

The truth is that most people are refusing to "listen" to what I'm saying - if I said that I had a cold solder joint in the amplifier circuit board, or that the tightening nut on the speaker cable connector had come loose - and the perceived quality was suffering - would anyone here quibble with that? But that is precisely what I have been doing for 30 years - finding all those areas that have effectively become cold solder joints, or have always been, in the the overall system.

The "stupidity" of audio people as I see it, is that they get so excited about the quality in one area and are totally blind to the lack of quality in another - and, unfortunately, that latter area is just as important to getting the audible results they're so desperately chasing ...

 

[Blumlein 88]

1. If you don’t have to deal with a crazy person, don’t.

2. You can’t outsmart crazy. You also can’t fix crazy. (You could outcrazy it, but that makes you crazy too.)

3. When you get in a contest of wills with a crazy person, you’ve already lost.

4. The crazy person doesn’t have as much to lose as you.

5. Your desired outcome is to get away from the crazy person.

6. You have no idea what the crazy person’s desired outcome is.

7. The crazy person sees anything you have done as justification for what she’s about to do.

8. Anything nice you do for the crazy person, she will use as ammunition later.

9. The crazy person sees any outcome as vindication.

10. When you start caring what the crazy person thinks, you’re joining her in her craziness.

 

[fas42]

Obviously, I haven't the hangup with bass that a lot of audiophiles seem to have - when the bass is correctly reproduced, as with the fully DEQX corrected, dual sealed "half ton" subwoofers, fully active OB with top of the line Scanspeak drivers rig I heard recently, several times in the home of a local enthusiast - then it just fits in, becomes part of the musical picture as per normal. The "look at me, look at me!" type of bass does nothing for me, just irritates the beejeezus out of me.

This chap was obviously as crazy as me, because he was generating a sound picture which at times was highly competent, and for one recording was the best I had ever heard it - the inherent quality of the components was showing its value at that point ...

 

[Don Hills]

... you never know, Frank might be onto something...

Fixed it for you...

... but seriously, although I accept that Frank believes he hears improvements in "low level linearity", without actual measurements there's no way to know whether the changs he is making are actually improving "low level linearity" or are changing some other aspect of the sound.

 

[March Audio]

Just looked at the current discussion in http://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...wanted-proof-of-multiple-subs-and-sub-eq.185/. The trouble is, where the severe mismatch with me and other is, is that I haven't heard a shred of music on a system in the last 30 years that demonstrates, for me, the importance of that type of investigation, and refinement - for achieving the illusion.

The most amusing "proof" was the Philips setup - employing a decently competent, single subwoofer for everything below about 150Hz - at times it died, gave zero output; because of of a rushed tweak, too much moving of something, a connection would come adrift - solder has no mechanical strength - and there was zero true bass! And we didn't pick it!! At times several albums would be played, until I suddenly registered, hey, there should be more bottom end here - and realised there was, in fact, none!!

What was happening was that the rest of the spectrum was presenting such a convincing picture that our minds were reconstructing that necessary bass filler - is how I would explain it.

What illusion?
This your illusion, not mine.

Subs extend the frequency range and have the potential to make music more realistic. Try playing some organ music on a pair of tiny monitors. That won't provide any illusion of realism.

The issue is that you have to solve some very problematic room acoustic issues to use them. That is what that discussion is about.

 

[March Audio]

Obviously, I haven't the hangup with bass that a lot of audiophiles seem to have - when the bass is correctly reproduced, as with the fully DEQX corrected, dual sealed "half ton" subwoofers, fully active OB with top of the line Scanspeak drivers rig I heard recently, several times in the home of a local enthusiast - then it just fits in, becomes part of the musical picture as per normal. The "look at me, look at me!" type of bass does nothing for me, just irritates the beejeezus out of me.

This chap was obviously as crazy as me, because he was generating a sound picture which at times was highly competent, and for one recording was the best I had ever heard it - the inherent quality of the components was showing its value at that point ...

What you describe is an incorrectly integrated sub.

 

[March Audio]

Fixed it for you...

... but seriously, although I accept that Frank believes he hears improvements in "low level linearity", without actual measurements there's no way to know whether the changs he is making are actually improving "low level linearity" or are changing some other aspect of the sound.

This

 

[fas42]

Fixed it for you...

... but seriously, although I accept that Frank believes he hears improvements in "low level linearity", without actual measurements there's no way to know whether the changs he is making are actually improving "low level linearity" or are changing some other aspect of the sound.

It's exceedingly easy to assess low level linearity, subjectively: with poor competence, when you listen closely to the drivers, there is a raucous unpleasantness to the sound, the tweeters tell the story - this is, low level non-linearity in the flesh!

As improvements are made, that unpleasantness from the tweeters disappears - to be replaced by exactly the same sound as heard at a normal distance from the speakers! This is why the effect of "invisible" speakers occurs - the "off" artifacts that are so audible near the driver are no longer audible, the ear/brain no longer has anything to latch onto, to localise the speakers.

 

[fas42]

Subs extend the frequency range and have the potential to make music more realistic. Try playing some organ music on a pair of tiny monitors. That won't provide any illusion of realism.

The complete opposite is the case. One of my primary test CDs is exactly that, of our opera house organ - extremely majestic sound ... I haven't yet heard another system do the tracks justice; yes, the note fundamentals are there, but the intricate interplay of the complex wash of harmonics is sad, very sad - interestingly, I thought that the system I just mentioned would be able to pull it off, but it was well down on getting the tonality right - it was a "small" sound, far too small ...

 

[fas42]

What you describe is an incorrectly integrated sub.

Incorrectly integrated? It handled from 100Hz down, we ran a frequency sweep, from a test CD I have, back and forth, and the seam was invisible, to me. What may have disappointed many people is that the sub's were extremely clean, I couldn't hear the usual spray of harmonics from drivers not good enough for the job.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Read post #590. Makes life much simpler.

 

[fas42]

... stop talking about your wife that way!! ...