Well that is simply ridiculous. There are recordings that are sibilant. To reproduce them otherwise is an indication you have an overly inaccurate system.
Guess what? I've had that idea for years !!! ... but, a little thing has always got in the way - it's bloody hard to get a system to this point, and much harder to get it to work this well from switch on - and, the worst part is that it's very difficult to completely isolate the rig from external interference! The latter has been the killer - the performance that one is looking for can be crippled simply from some device in the electrical neighbourhood spraying out nasties; I've been playing with many ideas over the years to get this under control, but I'm still not there yet.What Frank could do is take his ' enhanced ' system to audio shows and show it off! Behind a curtain if he is concerned some might prejudge his offering. He is sure to take over the world! All he needs to do is get these inexpensive designs made in China but with his enhancements and sell them under his own brand.." ASA by Frank"
If it's half as good as he claims he will make millions and the world will be a better place, albeit in a small way
Of course there are recordings where the the vocal sibilants are more prominent than in others - but the point is that this characteristic should not be emphasised any more then what you would experience in real life, from a live person singing, if you happened to listen to her from a certain angle. IOW, there is natural sibilance, and then there are distortion artifacts from sibilants not being reproduced as well as they should be - the latter is what what we need to get rid of.
But how do you know that the problem recordings are unnaturally sibilant, except by listening to them over your own system? IOW, you're using some playback mechanism as a reference for estimating sibilance, what guarantees do you have that the negative quality you hear is 100% due to the recording, o% to the playback chain?
Yes its got to work in the real world, i take it your techniques for eliminating 'artefacts' are geared towards dealing with hostile environments as well as issues that are locally generated.
Exactly. The negative influences are from appliances in one's own home that present non-linear loads to mains current - some of most benign are incandescent lamps, which would show a nice sinusoidal current draw, but add a dimmer to that circuit which is active to some degree, and all hell breaks loose! Then there are wall warts using switchers, and other linear supplies which use classic rectifier circuits - everything which injects higher harmonics into the current waveforms in the environment's mains lines will then modulate the voltage waveform, because of finite impedance of the circuits, to some degree - as presented to the input of the power supplies of the audio components. If the power supplies of these components were "perfect" then there should be no impact - but I have always found there to be some.
My old English teacher would accuse you of waffling frank. There is not substance to your reply. Just headlines no content.
Because the answer is, as always, that it's all about the process - not a specific set of steps. Every system I've improved I've used a different set of procedures, a 'correct' answer would involve completely different things tried in each system - because I'm always experimenting. And some of things I used for a particular system most likely were largely useless, but I did them just in case, and didn't remove them because it was too much bother. Which are the absolutely best techniques that I use? I really have no idea, and there is every chance what was useful for my equipment in one situation may not do much at all for your setup. Something that happened many years ago - a prominent member at WBF was intrigued enough to go along with a procedure that I used for "troubleshooting" my systems - when I did this I would get a very strong result; he did the similar with his gear, and got a complete zero - he heard absolutely no difference. Why? Partly, because he was using very expensive gear, it had different "problems" - and the style of the components and the sound he was chasing was too unlike my own situation. There are too many variables ... the most important thing is to be able to hear whether something you've tried has made a difference - then, was that difference an improvement?
! This is the smartest way of producing a competent system, and the signs are that most things have been got right in these units - but reading between the lines of comments by listeners he hasn't got the isolation thing properly under control either ... this is not easy to do, so is quite understandable in this early stage of its life. But, it must be conquered for the potential of these boxes to be fully realised ...
Regular CD-quality digital outperforms analog tape and LP, so I would put that at number 1. Transparency is what I value in a recording medium. I personally can't stand the speed variations and distortions present on LP (and tape to a lesser extent). Fortunately we can preserve all of the "analogness" of tape/LP by transferring to digital!
What is "full stability?"
I'm on ebay now ordering replacement copy's for thousands of CD's that I ripped to flac. Now that I KNOW, how will I ever be satisfied listening to those files again.
Amir,
You are the one always saying the subjectivists never want to test their findings with blind testing. Now that they have a "study" to prove what they are saying, you want to dismiss it. How open-minded of you! Maybe you never heard of "bit rot."
