I don't mind having a rather convincing simulation of that in my room occasionally.
I think the main ingredient is a powerful amplifier, then speakers, willing to speak.
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Aim for Realistic, not transparent sound
- Thread starter Lupin
- Start date
I don't mind having a rather convincing simulation of that in my room occasionally.
I think the main ingredient is a powerful amplifier, then speakers, willing to speak.
Pareto Pragmatic
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Simulation is a good term, because realism is an impossible target. Anyone who doubts me is welcome to listen to a recording of a guitar and then a bit of actual guitar in the same room.
Sometimes I want to feel like I am in the room with the musicians, and sometimes I want to feel like the musicians are in my room. The former requires more transparency for sure. That and snuggling up into the triangle spot. The later is easy, since I can use my room not fight it.
Go to an audiologist to get your hearing measured, the feed the calibration results into a Large Music Model AI system to generate 'corrections' for each track you listen to according to your hearing characteristics and specified target subjective preferences.
VientoB
Addicted to Fun and Learning
I used to watch IIWI Reviews until about two years ago. He loves using adjectives like "juicy" and "punchy" to descrive the bass of DACs.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 14,436
- Likes
- 32,500
Oh, I don't think I like my bass juicy.
... don't start with me as to the non-bass nature of the piscean actor in the montage above.
Hmm not logically possible you can’t know what’s lost microphones are not ears so it’s lost there and then good recording engineers and producers who was present at site can engineer a reasonable facsimile on the actual record if we are lucky.
But sometimes it’s lost .
It’s a typical audiophile idea that there is a one size fit all solution that makes everything sound good possible, it’s not how shit works .
Add more tooobs
Similar to fake medicine where one remedy cures everything from acne to terminal pancreatic cancer .
Things with no common denominator or common root cause suddenly share a common magic remedy ?
We all got to live with the fact that some records sounds like crap beer or vine works to an extent……
But sometimes it’s lost .
It’s a typical audiophile idea that there is a one size fit all solution that makes everything sound good possible, it’s not how shit works .
Add more tooobs
Similar to fake medicine where one remedy cures everything from acne to terminal pancreatic cancer .
Things with no common denominator or common root cause suddenly share a common magic remedy ?
We all got to live with the fact that some records sounds like crap
beer or vine works to an extent……So ... on a case by case basis (because it will be different for each recording)
What a load of nonsense
+1
This fallacy would ultimately bring one hifi system and one room per track and user, to have a sound profile that flatter that specific song. I have something like 5000 albums ( I have no exact idea ) and 60k tracks thereabouts in disparate genres with different sonic and estetik goals ..
Instead of 60000 goals I have settled on trying to get the damn hifi
to try the reproduce whatever is on the record ( and not second guess what it really was ) and I suffer or enjoy the results from there , one goal as in 1 ! Using some eq to taste for horrible offenders but that rarely happens when you try the hifi route it’s actually working the trick is to get better speakers .Suggest kef ls60 ( I have those) surprisingly versatile and true to source at the same time , due to good acoustical engineering.
I'll settle, when listening to a recording, for getting what's on the recording.
In-room peaks (red the sum of the peaks of the left and right source), with the left and right channels of the source CD below that:
Nothing sticks out, nothing much seems to be missing, other than a little hole in the bass centered around 48Hz.
LightninBoy
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Hey folks, I have this painting in my living room ...
I think the transparent glass I have covering it is too harsh. Could someone recommend a filter I could put over it to make it look more realistic? Like a real girl smiling?
I think the transparent glass I have covering it is too harsh. Could someone recommend a filter I could put over it to make it look more realistic? Like a real girl smiling?
Elevator music is the best music, no edgy solos or irritating voices. My dentist office has some good decades old stuff also, with the dynamic range de-tuned by some generic ceiling speakers. Very calming during a crown prep behind those high pitched bone conducting vibrations.
RE-production: the key word, or prefix, should I say.Where is the LOL icon ?
In the music production process, maybe (although it's like salt and pepper: a matter of taste, and you don't want tooooo much)
But for music reproduction, I beg to differ.
Or you want to be able to really control when and how much you add...
AcousticTheory
Member
Of course I got attacked here for asking a similar question - what is going to be the relevance of a high-end audio product in a world where every DAC easily breaks the 120dB SINAD barrier and there's nothing for a reviewer to do but test and approve yet another conventional product? And yet there have been many recordings that I wished I could re-master myself, or even re-record to remove audible clipping and restore dynamic range. When fidelity in the signal chain is a trivial achievement, but rooms, speakers, and headphones remain imperfect, why even pay any attention to the DAC or the amp used? An enthusiast might well begin to experiment with deliberately added coloration and effect processing to try to improve upon perfection. This led to much pearl-clutching about how such approaches are not "high fidelity" - maybe to the signal, but not to real life if it is the listener's judgment that such a process increases realism (not reality itself, but real-ism.)
But it isn’t ‘improving upon perfection’ it is merely adding colouration, which the listener may well enjoy.
Some products are marketed by suggesting that they are more ‘real’, ‘musical’ etc but the reality is just they are adding audible distortion ( if indeed they are adding audible distortion).
Keith
Some products are marketed by suggesting that they are more ‘real’, ‘musical’ etc but the reality is just they are adding audible distortion ( if indeed they are adding audible distortion).
Keith
Indeed. If you want colouration, then why not go all in and do what music producers do, and use the usual ubiquitous "soundgoodizer" effects? At least those are adjustable and don't limit you to one specific characteristic. Prime example
That (old and rudimentary) BBE Sonic Maximizer works wonders, subjectively. This kind of simple and basic effect that can be had in software for free has a much greater impact on the overall sound than all differences between reasonably well designed DACs, preamps, and amps. Because it's radical in the literal sense: grabbing the problem by its root.
That isn't a detailed image, it is a warm one, so transparent glass is okay.
Now this one:
you are going to need to run through some tubes to get to the second image.
I will admit there are times and music where I prefer a bit of harmonics and maybe some regular distortion. I sometimes wonder if it is just easier on the brain to process with things smoothed out a bit. But it is funny that so many rave about the 'detail' in those instances.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 14,436
- Likes
- 32,500
I had one of these RM1xes, and I'm telling you: the audio engine is, if not superb, but certainly good enough to get any party going, and HARD - and the sequencer is really superb and unsurpassed until today. This machine rocks!The Yamaha's clearly superior.
More knobs 'n' buttons -- plus a floppy drive!
