XXHighEnd

Hi guys,

It has been a very long time by now that I expressed something "wild", about my own "inventions" and strange stuff which actually can't be believed without scientific proof, but I think I found one again. Start laughing ...

As you know, quite a while back I created the digital volume in a way it should be. Ok, as how *I* think it should be.
Maybe not many got the real merits of it, which already starts with me actually never explaining what happened, and which I still don't.
Ok, never mind this, but what is kind of important to myself, is that me too could no really use it, because of too long interlinks, impedance problems, balance between those long interlinks and short LS cables and ... well, using the digital volume only, thus without preamp, in the end for me it just did not workout.

However, 10 days ago I got myself a line stage buffer (0 gain), and now things are different.
So, although the preamp is out of the way, there's still a device in there, but you could say it does nothing but creating the current to have the proper impedance towards the main amps. Ok.

All of the above is more or less UNrelated ...

:teasing:

At the first night I was very exhited. At the second night I was not and detached it again.
At the fourth night I gave it a try again, because I had to bring it back. I gave it one more go ...
It is still in there, and I have never in my life heard a so natural playback through loudspeakers.

Disclaimer : I have waited 5 days after subsequent playing to post this, and usually this is a bit too short of a time to be sure. So if I come back on it, don't shoot me. But I am just too enthusaist not to post now ...

Ok, I'll start at the end;

A guitar string has never been so tight. Bass strings have never been so full with individual vibes. Cymbals *did* have the color I am perceiving now, but this was in an earlier version of XX and was traded for - I don't know what anymore. Voices sound real as never before, and you can just feel this is better reality, although you never met the person in life. Emma Shapplin is singing like ... brrrrr

What happened, and what went wrong the second night ?
Most of us will have the experience of "balance". Balance to the sense of (possibly) the softer you play, the more things go wrong. Most often too few bass, and other things not fitting anymore. Now, one of the things the digital volume allows for, is pertaining that balance. Careful here, because a too low digital volume just creates distortion (certainly with 16 bit files and a 16 bit DAC), so the subject is difficult anyway.
This line stage buffer - or the effect it creates - shows a way *out* of balance when played softly. It just doesn't do the job at all, and far too much highs show then. BUT, again careful, because the digital volume may incur for it, and opposed to "without preamp and without buffer" it just could be so that actually distorted highs (because of too few bits) are rounded hence less harsh, whereas now, with the proper impedance, they are not and thus audible better than the lower frequencies. I just don't know (yet). However, I am fairly sure something very else is going on, looking at this (and this should be the strange "invention") :

Right at the (SPL) level the music is spit out at natural levels, things suddenly -and in one big bang- get so much realistic, a whole, natural, just right, that IMO something must be going on with the relation to the real level the instruments and all played during the recording, and the playback level *THAT* needs. Something like : when you play the violin softly it still produces the harmonics which consistently belong to that level of playing. But, when you play the instrument louder, the harmonics belonging to that level do not allow to squeeze down the volume ! In the latter case the harmonics to the louder playing stay, and you just make them softer, while in reality they just disappear, or change character.

What about that ! I think it just all fits. :yes:

Sidenote, and for your reference :
Normally I am using a TVC (passive preamp) of which I know now, after serious comparison, it will just *never* be able to reproduce music 1:1 when it is about the micro details. It will shovle out all the crispyness which actually is there, and it makes all bored. Not that I thought all sounded bored because of it, but relative to without, oh yes. An active preamp makes that even worse.
Now think of all "sharp" waves as spit out by the DAC, being so much more able to do their jon in air, and know that rounded waves where they should not be rounded, cannot do that job *AT ALL*. Possibly now you feel what can happen all together, and which happens in my room here now. So :

When the music plays at the correct level, suddenly (and you would be amazed what I mean with "suddenly") all the pieces of the puzzle fit.
Nothing of the kind happend with the TVC, and nothing of the kind happend without TVC and without buffer (impedance not right).
This just shocks, and shook me being the far most large improvement I ever heard. Extasy ...

There is a downside :swoon: ...
Do we all know what real levels are ? Did you ever have a drum set in your room ? I have, and I can tell you, this is not always funny.
But it *is* real ...

I measured, and a bit depending on the music, the SPL meter drifts between 92dB and 98dB. Have Emma Shapplin singing, and it goes to 104.
Does it hurt ? NO !!

This latter is -all together- one of the most strangest things to experience. At this way loud level highs are so fragile, they actually can't be. Still they are;
Very hard to explain, but all is so razor sharp that at first you will be blown off your socks. But strangely enough this "sharpness" is no harshness. It is just right, and reality when listening close.
Can you ever imagine that day before yesterday the music was playing at these levels for 4.5 hours ?? wife and child were there ...

As usual, things get extra-extra when playing music where synthesizers are involved. Hahaha, I don't think Emerson Lake & Palmer ever heard their own Pictures at an Exhibition like I did the other day.

Okay, another thing; Of course when playing loud the room gets more filled with music than playing softly. But here again, I feel some other thing is happening now : this filling of the room gets done in a way that it doesn't matter anymore where the sound is coming from.
What am I saying ?
The combination of the ever so important "no problems at all with standing waves" with this loud "sharp" level of playback, makes that it becomes rather impossible to focus on the source the music comes from (yep, the speakers). I know how to listen for reflections (just step into the middle of the speakers, and face the opposite of the room), and it is not that doing it. Instead, far more seems to happen in mid air;
Think of those now very "sharp" waves interacting far more in air with eachother, and where they collide they produce extra energy.
Focusing of instruments stays, but you are in the middle of them now. Or more in the middle. Walk through the room (12 x 8 x 3 meters here) and you'll meet them underway. Ehh, yes, 2 speakers here. :)

Yesterday a.o. I played The Byrds. 1963 stuff. Oh yes, you can hear recording capabilities are not on par with todays', but man, I prefer that above anyhthing else (you probably know I already shouted about the beatles, and Christmast old stuff). Besides the music itself (did I hear any from them ?) it is one flow of interesting things happening in the room. Way way way more than Roger Waters and his Q-sound Amuzed to Death. And again, the in your imagination in advance more brittle sounding Byrds, were they ? NO !

Enough said. Back to work.
Peter

Yes SQ improvement time again!  :grin: :biglol:

Dunno if it's the same thing, but I do play a balancing act between the Pass Labs xover volumes and XXHE volume.  I keep trying different "ratios", but the one thing I've found to be true is that using both the XXHE volume and the xover volume together is better than trying to have all one or all the other by itself.  Right now the xover bass/highs are set at 3 oclock/1 oclock, and XXHE is set at -12db ...

Finding that a combo of XX volumecontrol and preamp volume is necessary due to different recording sound levels on each album.

Som albums I run on 0db (full XX volume, works best with top of the line recordings with little compression) and some need 6-12db lower from XX (usually the more compressed recordings with lousier quality).

Finally found the right post to respond to ... yes, this was my "magic moment", all of 26 or so years ago. The number of people who have experienced this level, this quality of sound seems to be very, very small; and so the vast majority of audiophiles have absolutely no clue of what one is talking about ...

Of course, once experienced no normal hifi reproduction can ever again be good enough, and you spend your time from then on chasing down the factors that allow the "good stuff" to happen ... 26 bloody years, and counting  :(

Again, pleased to meet a fellow traveller ... :thankyou:

Frank

Haha Frank. Well, time goes fast.

It depends a bit on what we regard "normal" for audiophools.
In my early days I was tweaking cassette tapes so they would exhibit better high output. This must have been 40 years ago for me and I recall that my father gave me a Nakamichi Tri-Tracer (which was regarded Pro stuff at the time) and from there I went on.

But nothing special for that next 30 years or so. Nothing different from what I always saw my father doing with home-made amps, speakers and everything. But then ? I guess then I got obsessive. So, say the last 7-8 years consume 100% audio of my time while before I went fishing as well ...

But I feel it is worth while.
Regards,
Peter


PS: And then to think this topic is 5 years old;
When I'd listen to the situation from then and what's described in the first post ? I guess I'd regard it horrible sound today. Has to be, since so so many things improved since then. Not for me, but for everybody and BY MEANS OF everybody.

Hello, Frank
I've just read your post and I feel myself fully identified with your history. There is only a difference because you have been persistent in your searching, but at some point I threw the towel. For almost five years I didn't hear a single note of music. I was so dissapointed (I call them the dark years). After four different CD machines I concluded there were no way with it. Then I returned to retake the the vinyl road and I went reconciling with this hobby (passion) again increasingly until my accidental finding of the Peter's software that meant a new era for me.

Welcome

Maxi

Thanks for that, Maxi ... I will say that my "dark years" lasted for nearly a decade - like yourself, the frustration became too much and I retreated into just having a nominally OK system for playing music in the normal way, that most people do. Then, went to a specialist high end audio show in Sydney, and was inspired by the enthusiasm and strong interest of the large crowd in what was happening, and the strong performance of MBL, and some vinyl gear there.

Of interest then, at a guess, how many frequenting this forum would have experienced the "good stuff" at some stage, and how strongly in control are they of being able to replicate the experience at will?

Cheers,
Frank

Hmmm, not a good sign, no-one else putting up their hand ... :(

I can understand this, the battle to produce good sound on cue is not easy. My current setup would be laughed at by nearly all, it's an old, effectively worthless, Philips all-in-one HT setup, a throwaway by a family member. But, it has a decent, self powered woofer that can keep up, and in one sense I now have the best bass that I've ever had, :grin:. The idea was, to see how down market one can go and still generate good sound, and this have proven competent enough to get the job done ...

The downside is, that everything has to be thoroughly warmed up, conditioned for hours from cold, every day to get the best out of it. Something like a dose of Foo Fighters at deafening volumes is excellent at speeding up the process, the speaker suspensions are pretty ordinary, and must be hammered for a while to have them loosen up sufficiently ...

Frank

Haha


Maybe the question is too difficult. I already looked at it, now am looking at it again, but I still don't know what it exactly is about. But it seems to be about having it all right at some stage, to find it next day not working again and how to get it back ?

Outside washing machine do or do not running, maybe this never happens ...

It is also quite :offtopic: and possibly a reason not to continue on it ? Ok, I just did myself. :sorry:

Peter

Okay, sorry about being obscure ... in the first post of this thread you describe a system working "correctly", from my point of view. Everything less than this is not in the realm of the "good stuff", that's the sense, the meaning of the phrase I used in that post.

So, in simple terms, could you apply this description to the sound of your system at any time, is it always running at this level? And, likewise for others here on the forum ...

Edit: as an example, in spite of people insisting otherwise, that the room is 100% irrelevant to getting quality of sound
 
Frank

This is difficult to answer because the "good stuff" is a moving target. I think we get used to it. For example, for the last few days, I've been using a totally different digital front end including a Mytek DSD DAC instead of XX and my NOS1. Only when I put the NOS1 back in the chain did I realise how bloody good it is. I mean a quantum leap better. So someone coming to visit me will probably hear what they consider the "good stuff". For most of us, it's become an everyday listening experience. But still not totally 'real', hence our continuing quest.

FWIW, in my office/study I use a pair of old Celestion SL600 speakers. I doubt many would consider these right up there with the best of the best. However, I'm pretty confident that being fed as they are with the XX/NOS1 and Bert's super amps, I'm getting more of the "good stuff" than many, many audiophools could even imagine.

Mani.

There's a certain peak quality level, as described by Peter in the first post here, where a whole lot of seemingly "magical" things happen. It's taken some time to more fully understand what's going on, but I believe the key thing is that the ear/brain mechanism in your head "gives in" to the illusion of the sound; it no longer processes the sound as something artificial, but accepts it for what it pretends to be: a recreation of a musical event. You can liken it to the holodeck in Star Trek; you are no longer watching a movie, you become part of the movie!

So, the mind says, "this is the real deal", and it interprets the sound accordingly. I've noted some aspects of this in Peter's comments: the subjective impression that the SPL is the same everywhere, the sound completely detaches from the speakers, and, some cute tricks with true mono recordings. I don't know whether Peter has mentioned this one, but a good marker is that the mono image remains perfectly in front of you as you move from side to side in front of the speakers, it never suddenly drops back to clearly coming from the speaker itself. At the extreme of this illusion, even when your head is in the plane of the speakers your mind still doesn't "realise" that the sound is actually coming from the speaker drivers.

Frank

Ok, it becomes more clear now where you come from and what you're heading for (??).

First surprise, but the most good to interpret well : no single *illusion* as such is ever ever part of my thinking and doing.

Aha.
So this means I'm in denial for that eh ?
No. :)

So Frank, read again that first post in here but now read it from the angle of physics. So, how all this is really and with that *physically* happens. It may change your world and how you can (now) read everybody's post in here. This is nothing about mind tricks and illusion. It is pure physics.

Please read this post to see where at least I come from, and which is followed - as far as I know by everybody in this forum : Re: How to piss off a frog (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=2422.msg24772#msg24772) (start just above the middle in that post, about LPS).
Done ?
What's not explicitly in that post is that this all works with minute phase differences.

Although I don't really know anymore, it can well be that what you see described in the first post in this topic, is the first proof of being in the right direction. And mind you, this has been extended "somewhat" in the past almost 4,5 years. Not that it is mentioned anymore often, but it just has become a standard (of living ?).
Again stroll through that "Windows 8 experience" topic and see how we actually *all* look into the whole thing through phase. Not that I told people to do so, it just *is* about that all. And now try to find one single thing about Windows 8 strangely performing on audio anywhere on any forum. I tried ... Nothing anywhere.

There is one other thing :
I think you yourself talked about hurdles to take; I tried to read that in the same context as I always do, but could not see you had written it in the same context. This is : once you have taken the hurdle of not being disturbed anymore by music implying annoyances, you head for more realism only. This is out of our mind for a virtual ages by now and so it is no subject anymore; We have taken this hurdle long ago. But read that W8 topic and you see that we're suddenly all back to in front of that hurdle. Is it important ?

For a general perception I think yes;
We are in this leag (not meant in snobbish fashion) that makes it hard to understand what your question is about (to come back to that). So, we listen to "live" music as far as we are concerned, but still manage to say "it can't be better than real today !!" ... and come back on that the next month because again it could. This really is different from what 99.99% of audiophools perceive who *also* are convinced it won't get better. But in a different leage. Not better for annoyances, which is different than not better than a live instrument. This latter is what we explicitly strive for and it is what we think is achieved by now.

... which it never is and never will I guess, because the recordings are and remain so-so. It still is so that a home brew recording of the drum kit we have here is by far and miles and eternity better than any album I own. How ? Because I don't know what to do to destroy it. *That* recording can hardly be distinguished from live and the test has been done many times here. I say hardly and the lacking part is in the SPL department. The slam of a kick drum. But then I have this poor 15" single woofer (ok, 2 :)) which already is different from an array of 4 ( 8 ) like our BertD uses them and which again makes a difference into eternity.

Ok, now I'm a snob.

Btw, speaking about SPL ...
That was not perceived through the mind, but physically measured. Does that help ?
There's much more going on once you focus on the physics of our strange hobby ...

Peter

Allow me to approach this topic from a slightly different angle. There is an important variable here that is, in itself, a bit of a moving target. What I'm talking about is the listener. No, I'm talking you versus me, I'm talking about me versus me(or you versus you) on different days or, perhaps, at different times of the same day. Somedays everyday just sounds so radiant, clear and perfect and other days, with the very same equipment plugged into a clean power regenerator, it all sounds just a little bit off. It matters whether or not you have a headache, a head cold, some preoccupying stresses, etc., or whether you're drinking water or coca cola or wine or cognac. It matters whether you've had a light but filling meal or too much of a heavy meal. It matters who or what you're sharing your listening room with(one of the best listening partners being a sedate and mellow canine though a like minded audiophile can be a close second). It matters if you are dealing with a conflict with your spouse or your boss.

And then some days you almost stumble upon the perfect mood for listening and find that you're just in the zone.

Esau

Now things are getting interesting ... I am not sure I fully understand what you're saying here, but the implication is that you're micro manipulating the waveform envelope with the end result that phase effects are perceived, a type of subtle "pre-distortion" so to speak. Put it this way: if one were to monitor the digital input to the DAC, and use Diffmaker, say, to compare what, say foobar delivers, there would be a significant difference - correct?

I think at least we agree that the goal is achieving a subjectively high quality experience: you believe that physics is the key, I believe that "fooling" the ear/brain system is key. In one sense the process is the same; it's feeding the ear/brain with precisely the right information so that the mind registers the result as high quality sound. And my technique for generating the right information is different: I scrub the final sound as clean of certain types of underlying distortion generated by the playback system as I possibly can, which allows the ear/brain to dismiss the remaining audible distortion as irrelevant. So, I rely on the listener's mind to do the "physics", the untangling of the sound; in my experience this is highly effective.

I work with whole system tweaking, which means that it is not fragile in the face of the replay mechanism. The ideal is that the sound can go from barely audible to literally deafening, PA levels, peaking in the 120 to 130dB range, with no change in perceived tonality. The limitation in the loud end is obviously the capabilities of the combination of amplifier and speaker, but I see no inherent reason why a smooth gradation to that sound level is not possible. My current system is capable, as a good guesstimate, of about 106dB  peak at close listening distance, which is perfectly adequate so far, I have no trouble having my ears ringing after a couple of tracks with the "right" material.

Intrigued,
Frank

This has been suggested many times, and I believe that "good sound" is beyond this. Take the example of a real piano in your listening room: if you were in a "foul" mood, and a brilliant practioner sat down to play on it, you might be offended about the choice of material, the creak of the foot pedal, his breathing, etc, and quickly walk out on the performance. But you would still have no trouble registering the quality of that sound; if asked by someone at that moment, you would never say that doesn't sound like a real piano, or it sounds "off" ...

Frank

Sadly Frank, no. The difference shown will be 0.00000.
Now *that* must be intrigueing without further elaboration, right ?
:swoon:

But this is a strange one :


So, there's a solid solution built from physics, and now you are rather be fooled ? I knew it, you guys from down under are strange. :grazy:

Nobody says when you first have it "physically" all right that next further tricks are not allowed to be applied, although I would NEVER allow that to happen to myself. Why ? because I would not be able to continue on the physical side.

So Frank, I saw it coming for a few posts ... this is not an arbitrary thing. Audio, to me, is an absolute matter and no guessing or hokus-pokus is needed to let it work. If you, for example, perceive the better sound with knots in your LS cables, then there's still a good explanation for it. For 100% everything there's a good explanation. Yes, even in audio.

Peter

This is not just blahblah you know. Many tricks can be applied but without exception the tricks lead to anomalies. Overhere we say that only the sun comes up for free, and you might say there is no free lunch. This too is physics. Filter out noise ? it doesn't exist. Not without other effects and these effects are unwanted always. It's just an example.

Read in the link I'll provide below how it is true that I really can not live with tricks. It's a small topic which refers to one that may take half a day of reading. This too (by coincidence) is about an SPL which gets 100% the same in 100% of the room up to 1.5 meters from the speakers (closer and and SPL finally rises); This is a physical trick so not even an illusion. But it can't be for the better, in the end it is not for the better and all you do is diffuse. Remember, no free lunch, but the better one is that sun coming up for free, because energy is not created and will not get lost. This is how the in the end verdict "less accurate" meets physics. IT CAN'T stay as accurate. Better sound and pleasure ? the h*ll with that. Better sound is to come from better accuracy. Those who don't believe in that should be, well ... eh, audiophiles ? haha

Re: Peters Mystery Feet (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=2398.msg24287#msg24287).

Peter

This is good ... we are making progress in understanding each other ...

First of all, I don't use any "funny stuff". As an example, the cables I use are bog standard, straight from the electrical store; there are no expensive, "magical" things involved in getting my sound, it's all based on trying to understand what the influences on sound quality are, and mitigating them. I will admit I have done funny things at times because there was an impact on the sound, but there is always a progression to reaching an engineering understanding of what's going on. Just so you know, I am an EE, but this as a profession never happened for me, I ended up doing computing instead ...

Also, I feel you're misunderstanding my term "fooling" the hearing system. The intrinsic nature of us as physical creatures has meant that our ability to listen has been refined, has evolved to a very sophisticated level - we are able to perform remarkable feats of hearing if we are so inclined. Like listening to a musician busker on a busy city street, the signal to noise ratio could be atrocious, yet we can pick subtleties of the instrument's tone and playing technique with no trouble at all; the mind can switch to another gear where it can filter out all the irrelevant racket with little effort.

So, that's what I believe a system can be tweaked to do: lifted to a level where the mind easily separates what it wants to perceive, the musical performance, from the "racket", which are all the distortions of the recording process and the remaining ones of the playback setup. In that sense the hearing system is being "fooled", because there are no actual performers in the listening space, yet the brain wants to interpret what it hears as being the same as the real thing.

I misunderstood you, because I was forming the impression that you're manipulating the sound, using physical, as in electrical,  "tricks" to make the sound appear more realistic.

Yes, tricks will cause anomolies. But reduction of distortion is not a trick, it's an eminently sensible thing to do - and the brain appreciates what has been achieved by hearing everything more clearly, in a more satisfying way.

The illusion that I mentioned with mono occurs because the brain "wants" to believe what the soundstage messages are telling it; hence the effect. Another one is the completely invisible tweeter: running at normal volume you are able to go up to adjacent to the speaker, put your ear a few inches from the tweeter, and not be able to perceive the sound as coming from the driver. Caution: for advanced practioners only ... :grin:

Frank

So, indeed we are making progess. Good !

Here is another quite contradictionary example of my personal behaviour. Well, at least it should be contradictionary to your ideas;

When I listen for merits, I do NOT close my eyes. Why ? because speakers and everything disappear, and all what remains is music in my head like wearing headphones. So, this is good eh ? mind tricks and things.

But it is not good at all. It is not good, because with many worse or worst settings this will happen, and while actually the reproduction is poor, it is perceived as nice. It is now just up to mood and whatever I like to see in the performance what will be in my mind. But I am NOT listening to the real merits of the system.

With eyes normally open, the music will not get into your head (like with headphones). It will be perceived from where it comes from, and where it comes from is determined by the quality of the lot. So, come from speakers = bad, come from nowhere = good (to name the extremes).

I apply more tricks not suitable for all;
I hardly ever listen from a sweet spot. Why ? it is a waste of time for me in the first place. I'm doing things - always (u/i lifting glasses :)). From this though, springs the idea that sound is not to be perceived from any sweetspot while in the mean time the image has to be there just the same. Can't be done ? then I'm further with my system then you. This is just because it *can* be done. And to give the example : with Windows 8 this is impossible (and this is because something is wrong in there). So, all is very fragile, but in the end it meets with what I said in the first post in this topic.

What it comes down to is that one can "tweak" far beyond normal satisfaction, if only theories are attempted to put into practice. So there's now "theories" which is similar to knowledge and no matter it doesn't workout, one can always attempt to let it do that. The example of that is the standing waves, which will just all vanish once playback approaches 100% (good). Never mind those who won't believe it, if you only know it is one of my measures and which *is* based on theories, never mind they are my own.

Regarding our abilities with hearing and how this is NOT smart of the brain or anything, think of this and relate it to that LPS system I developed :

We know GPS, right ? We do know how many satellites must be received in order to poper receive location data, right ? this is one more than the number of dimensions involved, which number is 3. So, 4 satellites are needed. We are now able to localize and this includes altitude (height).

Now go out and listen for birds. You are able to localize the bird whereever it is in the 3d space. If you can't you probably have one ear only. So ...
how ?
Because we have a smart brain ?

Of course not. This is just how all the different phases of frequencies can be worked out for distance. But think of it with your two ears only 30cm or whatever it is apart. The bird is at 100m distance and with your two antennas as close as 30 cm you can still instantly see where the bird is, which makes the phase difference used maybe 0.0001 degree (I'm just typing a small number, but someone like Pythagoras will be able to tell you the real difference with a 30cm base and 10000cm sides). Twist your head a little may help, because the phase differences will become larger (think about angles here).

Smart eh ?
Still official math and science etc. will tell you that this can't be done with two antenneas only. Ok, so we can't localize birds at all.
Indeed, with one frequency only we will not be able to do that. For the 3D space phase differences this will provide non-unique locations (phase differences) all over the place. But combine it with more frequencies and less non-unique positions remain. Combine it with enough frequencies and one unique position remains.

For fun, now try to find the flute bird. A flute bird exhibits one frequency only and (this is because) it is a sine (sinus). I am fairly sure that the flute bird has never been seen because it can't be localized ...

I made up the above right on the spot. But having finished it I have the real example : the cuckoo. Not sure whether everybody has them in their surroundings, but we do and never saw one. You just can't localize them especially not for distance. And they exhibit this nice rounded sound of two sine frequencies, cu and ckoo.


Anything else ?
This is how I deal with audio. Nothing much special. No tricks, no illusions.
And hopefully the best music reproduction through speakers on the globe, although these days this is more and more doubtful with all the phools listening to me and/or getting stuff we provide.
haha

Peter

Agreed. I do not close my eyes, or listen in the dark, or believe in the sweet spot, or worry about where I am when listening. When a system works correctly these are all aspects of the situation. I can listen to the system from the other end of the house, and it sounds "right". Conversely, if there is a problem I can also pick it immediately from the other end of the house ...

There's another very simple test: if you're not sure whether the sound is as good as it can be, then it most definitely isn't. If every fibre of your body tells you that there is no way anyone can convince you that there is any problem with the sound, then you're in pretty good shape ...  ;)

Frank

Impossible due to different echoes/reflections/reverberation times!

You both are discussing and we are waiting for XXH running with W8.  :) :((This is a joke)

Joachim, I am sorry, but I don't agree.

IMHO, the very best way to test whether your audio reproduction is correct is NOT listening in the room itself. Go elsewhere in the house up to outside and make sure you made a couple of turns when going through doors. Or : wherever your bathroom is, go there, close the door behind you (hehe), close the door of the listening room in advance of that, and listen while reading a newspaper or whatever you do in there.

Sounds like a live band playing ?
Then all is right.
Don't mind too much bass or whatever which is not in line with your perception of good audio. That live band could be playing in your listening room, and no way reflections because of all the turns you made on route to the bathroom are influencing yoyr perception of a live band playing, because there *is* a live band playing.
No difference with audio reproduction IF ALL IS RIGHT.

This too is an explicit measure of me. I'm serious;
When you listen in the listening room you are subjectively listening. You may like your profound bass or highs. Outside of the room this shows an all over out of balance; music plays, but it's no live band.

And in the mean time Frank an I get along quite well.

Also known as the LIAR test: Listening In Another Room ...


This is getting scary!! At the moment I peruse the electronics bible, "The Art Of Electronics" when I am, ahem, otherwise engaged ... . My poor weary brain needs constant refreshing, what goes in one brain cell very quickly pops out on the other side ...  ;)


There are simple ways to switch off the analytical side when right on the front line  :smile:, basically you do what we in Oz would call Clayton's listening: listening while not listening, doing it in a distracted way. An excellent test is to put on a "nasty" recording, wind up the volume and deliberately engage in conversation with the person next to you. If you start getting edgy, uncomfortable, start feeling that you must turn down the volume as soon as possible then the sound is not right ...

And, apologies to anyone who's getting bugged by this conversation, wants Peter to do important stuff, like fixing W8 ...  ;)

Frank