Hypothetical situation: measure good/sounds bad vs. sounds good/measures bad (1 Viewer)

[Larry B]

Saurav:

If that makes any sense.

It doesn't, at least not to me. (There's a first, since we usually see things similarly.)

To me, high-fidelity is about trying to get as close as I can (within space and monetary limitations) to the actual event. (Yup, we all know that many recordings are "created" by the engineer.) Tonal balance, naturalness of human voice, soundstage and imaging are all part of it. As an example, while at the HE show I heard a very nice set-up with an enormous soundstage. However, after a few moments I realized that there was no imaging whatsoever. The instruments, and the vocalists, occupied the entire soundstage (which, though in small room, seemed to be > 20 feet wide). Because of this, it didn't seem at all real. Definitely impressive (because of it's size, and other qualities as well) but just not believable.

In fact, when I audition components, one of my main "tests" is to close my eyes and see if I can picture the actual performance. With most equipment I can't; it just sounds like a flat wall of sound in front of me. But with the right components, I sense the three dimensionality of the stage, the body of the instruments, and to some degree, the room in which it was recorded. Does all this add to my enjoyment. You betcha' it does!

Larry

 

[Saurav]

I agree with everything you say. "High fidelity", as the term is understood today, is everything that you say. What I'm saying is, I don't care My priorities are different.

Does all this add to my enjoyment. You betcha' it does!

Again, agreed, but there are other things that are more important to me.

 

[Karl Englebright]

I believe specs for a specific piece of gear(at least the advertised specs) cannot tell you how something is going to sound to you. As an example, most reviewers and "experts" I have read about agree that most people wouldn't be able to hear the difference between, say a THD of .05% and .07%(as an example).

There are too many variables involved to say that, for example, this piece of gear with a THD of .05% will sound better than this other one at .09%. Your hearing, your room, your preferences, your experiences, on and on...

Now, if they start giving you details about circuit designs, discrete component quality, etc. and you know how each of those components and designs affects the sound, THAT would be of REAL benefit. Most people don't know and don't care about that. It's much easier to trust your ears, perception, whatever

BTW, I would pick the one that sounds better to me. But after making such an effort to make all other things equal, I would go the extra step and try to dig at a technical answer as to why I prefered a particular one.

 

[Saurav]

But after making such an effort to make all other things equal, I would go the extra step and try to dig at a technical answer as to why I prefered a particular one.

Good point. But like you said, the majority of users of this kind of equipment are probably not qualified to understand the technical answer that might emerge from such an investigation.

 

[Larry B]

But like you said, the majority of users of this kind of equipment are probably not qualified to understand the technical answer that might emerge from such an investigation.

Is anyone?

 

[Karl Englebright]

Is anyone?

Of course!

The people that design the stuff in the first place know! I bet several people that frequent this forum are probably qualified.

This stuff in not alchemy, it's not magic, it's designed and made by people that know what it takes to make a device perform according to their design goals. Just because WE don't understand all that goes into designing and building a device, doesn't mean that there is any "magic" to it...

 

[Larry B]

Karl:

Of course! The people that design the stuff in the first place know! I bet several people that frequent this forum are probably qualified.

This stuff in not alchemy, it's not magic, it's designed and made by people that know what it takes to make a device perform according to their design goals. Just because
WE don't understand all that goes into designing and building a device, doesn't mean that there is any "magic" to it...

Agreed, in principle. However, I question whether anyone properly understands synergy. Why, for example, do Lamm electronics go so well with Kharma speakers? Or why Spectral, the most analytical of equipment, sounds good (first hand experience) with Watt Puppies, which I find overly-analytical. Go figure!

You're right that it's not alchemy, but I think there's still a lot we don't (yet) understand.

Larry

 

[Saurav]

I think there is a little bit of "magic" in design OK, maybe not magic, but intuition, experience, stuff that you pick up when you've been doing something for years that can't easily be quantified or described in numbers.
But to answer Larry's question, yes, there are certainly people who understand this stuff well enough. And that's the amazing thing about the internet, that ordinary people (like me) have access to these knowledgable individuals, and can pick their brains about designs and issues. And most of them are nice enough to answer my questions very patiently. And yes, that certainly includes many people on this forum, and other forums like this one.
4 sentences, 1 starts with 'but' and 3 start with 'and'. I hope my English teachers aren't reading this
For me, I find it very educational (and humbling) to "listen in" on discussions between the DIY/designer kinds of people. I'm very far from being able to contribute to most of them, but I learn a lot. Also, this totally changes one's perspective for what kind of sound can be had for how many dollars... I don't think I'll ever buy a preamp/amp/speakers from a store again, ever.

 

[Larry B]

For me, I find it very educational (and humbling) to "listen in" on discussions between the DIY/designer kinds of people. I'm very far from being able to contribute to most of them, but I learn a lot.

Boy, do I feel left out. :frowning:
Larry

 

[Saurav]

Heh I remember complaining to my wife that I don't have enough time to get into this as deeply as I would like to, and she said "Why? You have a lifetime". That kinda changed my perspective on things.
It's a hobby, and it's up to everyone to decide how far they want to go with it. There's no better or worse here. I like fiddling and tinkering with stuff, so it's fun to open things up and change components around, build stuff from kits or schematics, and so on. In the process, I'd like to think that I learn something too, and that's just for personal satisfaction, it doesn't affect anyone else at all.

 

[Karl Englebright]

You're right that it's not alchemy, but I think there's still a lot we don't (yet) understand.

Yeah, there is a lot we don't understand. I just have trouble believing that design and manufacturing of high fidelity equipment is one of those cases. I just can't picture engineers at Lamm saying "Say Fred, did you hear our equipment sounds awesome with Kharma speakers? Did we get lucky or what!", or "Oh no, our present capacitor supplier just folded, we're going to have to test EVERY SINGLE capacitor made out there to see which one makes our gear sound the same!"

 

[John Corkery]

I'd pick the one with the best specs even if I didn't like the way it sounded.

(Did you really expect anyone to say that?)

 

[Larry B]

Karl:
Lamm makes great equipment and that is the result of Vladimir's knowledge. But I question whether even he knew that it would sound especially good with Kharma. Come to think, maybe I should ask him about this next time I speak to him.
Larry
P.S. Fred who?

 

[Saurav]

(Did you really expect anyone to say that?)

You just did
No, I'm more interested in the kind of discussion that this sparked off. And maybe I'm interested in seeing who posts to this thread and who doesn't?

 

[Larry B]

John:

(Did you really expect anyone to say that?)

I resisted saying this from the beginning 'cause I know that Saurav is no dummy. Occassionally misguided, but no dummy.
Larry

 

[John Corkery]

I was just kidding, of course...

 

[Saurav]

Actually, I did wonder if someone would say that they don't consider themselves to be experienced or trained enough to pick out the 'right' component based on sound, and they'd go with the generally accepted 'better' component. So far, looks like most people trust their ears.
I can live with "occasionally misguided"

 

[Larry B]

Heck, I'd jump at the chance to be only "occassionally misguided."
Larry

 

[Saurav]

All it takes is a specific delusional state of mind.

 

[Aslam Imran]

Sure, but when push comes to shove would you prefer the extra couple of inches of soundstage width outside your speakers, or a smoother treble and midrange, for instance?

I would actually pick the one with a wider soundstage and precise imaging, because to my ears these are easy to detect and vary widely from one good system to another, while the smoothness of midrange and treble is very subtle for me to detect. But then that could just be me.