• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Audiophilia - From skeptic to believer

upconverting might help. line doubling and quadrupling was done in the days of VHS/LD and helped on high-end Runco systems.
 
WDB said:
ExtremeSkeptic I'm curious, you must be extremely limited in the selection of music that you can buy to listen to that will sound great on your system. Presumably your average CD recorded in a normal recording studio using standard power cables and off the shelf equipment must have already lost too much information to ever sound any good ?

Also I'm interested what speakers you use as you don't seem to mention it anywhere, and to what extent have you acoustically modified your house to create a suitable listening room ?
Click to expand...
I listen to trance music with different sounds mixed together. I tried classical "Reference recordings" but they sounded muddy because the sounds were recorded all at once. To get the highest quality you need to record each sound one at a time, and then mix all the sounds together. This way the recording gear doesn't need to be as good as the playback gear.
 
I'm sorry, but I'm just going to have to start laughing at you now. "Trance music"? Electronic music?

You could have spend $400. You'd have gotten the exact same result.
 
JonnyFive said:
Actually, if you're using Video Enhancer, I suspect you're probably just upconverting a low-res source, not a 1080p (1920x1080) source. The res of 1080p is sufficient to yield acceptable results without upconverting (just scaling would be sufficient). If you are bothering to upconvert 1080p, you'd probably get better results by simply not. It'll stretch to your display's native just fine. If you're using the low res source, I suggest you try hooking it up to a Blu-ray or HD-DVD player... that is quite nice looking. :)

2560x1600... you using one of them fruity Mac monitors? ;) (I'm kidding, they're great monitors!)
Click to expand...
Is it because you have tried it or because you have made yourself believe there isn't a big difference because you don't want to spend the time in upconverting the videos?


1920 (source) 143 KB

3840 (Video Enhancer) 407 KB



1920_to_3840.JPG
 
JoeEllison said:
I'm sorry, but I'm just going to have to start laughing at you now. "Trance music"? Electronic music?
Click to expand...
Yes. Even 192kbps mp3 demands more from the system than HDCD Reference classical recordings, I have many of them. After I upgraded into a cheap amp and DAC my trance albums sounded better than any of my classical albums. I haven't listened to classical ever since.

High-end gear add muddiness to the sound which makes it smoother and more "musical". Benchmark DAC1 and ICEpower amp is the way to go, they show more of the recording. If people don't like them because they are too bright, they aren't using Magix levitation feet and ERS Paper. A Noise Harvester separating each channel of the amp is great also, otherwise it sounded edgy. I'm using different Isozones of the Premier Power Plant now, everything is separated.

Fat Nordost Valhalla cables also add extra "body" to the sound, it isn't neutral, that's why I modified them thinner, it gave more low-level detail and extra speed! Transients are crazy now.



JoeEllison said:
You could have spend $400. You'd have gotten the exact same result.
Click to expand...
Have you tried it? Or have you made yourself believe it because you sit and listen to trance music with gear costing exactly $400?
 
JonnyFive said:
Ah, but I bet there's some fancy looking stones you can put on your stereo that'll make things right as rain.

Miracle Hearing Stones, only $3,499.99 a pair!
Click to expand...
Ancient Coprolites are even better. Coprolites are fossilized dinosaur feces, and resemble the face of Helen Keller, who could discriminate different stereo components' sound production about as well as our resident woony.
 
illogical said:
despite his alleged mental illness (actually considered libel in my country), his viewpoint is not unlike the audiophiles who subscribe to Stereophile.
Click to expand...

Libel laws vary with the jurisdiction, but even assuming someone like ES could afford the lawyer or find one deluded enough to champion his case for free, most of what you see in this forum could be considered fair comment. ES provides enough written and photographic evidence that his thinking and reasoning is not mainstream.
 
ExtremeSkeptic said:
High-end gear add muddiness to the sound which makes it smoother and more "musical".
Click to expand...

Nobody can be this... whatever. "Muddiness"? You buy a basic equalizer and kill the highs. No one would spend money to degrade the signal, and then spend more money to sharpen it up.

You're a fraud and a liar.
 
JoeEllison said:
Nobody can be this... whatever. "Muddiness"? You buy a basic equalizer and kill the highs. No one would spend money to degrade the signal, and then spend more money to sharpen it up.
Click to expand...
Ok, so you are saying vacuum tubes are neutral because the tube amp costs $$$$$ while the solid-state amp costs $$$.
JoeEllison said:
You're a fraud and a liar.
Click to expand...

It's not hard to figure out who are the liars in this forum. They not only lie to themselves, they lie to everyone else who want to know the truth. How many times have you read a skeptic say "It doesn't make a difference".

Skeptic: The Earth is flat, and I don't need to find out because I already know everything.
Believer: But I want to find out on my own.
Skeptic: I will not allow anyone else to find it out either, because I don't want someone else to know something I don't, I want to make my ego grow bigger.
Believer: But...
Skeptic: No buts, if you leave with your boat I will try to stop you!

(10 years later the boat arrives)

Believer: I did it, Earth is not flat, it is round.
Skeptic: You are delusional!
Believer: But I saw it with my own eyes!
Skeptic: It's not real. You need to make a double blind test.
Believer: I can't deny the truth.
Skeptic: You are a fraud and a liar. Now you will get crucified!
Believer: Arghh the pain!
Skeptic: We can stop this crucifixion, as long as you admit you were delusional!
Believer: You are evil!
Skeptic: No, the Earth is flat, I am 100% sure. Everyone who say otherwise are delusional, period.
 
Please. I have over $8000 worth of music/recording/entertainment gear, and plan on spending another $4000 in the next year. I know the difference between reality and the nonsense you're spewing.

I think you've been making this stuff up from the very beginning.
 
JoeEllison said:
Please. I have over $8000 worth of music/recording/entertainment gear, and plan on spending another $4000 in the next year. I know the difference between reality and the nonsense you're spewing.

I think you've been making this stuff up from the very beginning.
Click to expand...
So you try to justify the purchase of the expensive gear by making yourself believe if you spend more the better sound you get. I thought you were a skeptic.

I have optimized my system to get better sound for a fraction of the price. I have high-end gear inside boxes in my room because they give worse sound. They fix something but also add many weaknesses in the process. The less band-aids the cleaner the sound. High-end gear have everything jammed inside the same chassis. Multiple vibrating transformers and stuff.
When I removed the transformers out from the chassis I got the biggest improvement in low-level detail I have ever heard. Rear soundstage got much deeper, all the sounds were more distinct even when they were behind each other in a row.

01.JPG


03.JPG
 
Last edited:
illogical said:
if this is true, and you've done mixing at high levels (2 assumptions), then a typical audiophile will hear better in the midrange. that is the area where a lot of speakers have issues.

despite his alleged mental illness (actually considered libel in my country), his viewpoint is not unlike the audiophiles who subscribe to Stereophile.
Click to expand...

I was trying to say that "ear training" is actually valid. My hearing may not be as good as some, but I can pretty easily ballpark things like attack and release times and ratios of a compressor on a track for instance.

Ive seen good conductors throw their batons at one clarinetist in a whole troupe of em...old guys who probably dont hear jack above 8k, but they know "how to listen"
 
ExtremeSkeptic said:
Skeptics are good at ignoring a truth they don't like. They just run back into their cave.
Click to expand...

I think it's more like ignoring the sources of low quality information, separating the wheat from the chaff, turning down the volume of the gibbering drunkard who approches you on the high street telling you the world is about to end, and turning up the volume of the person with well reasoned arguments who makes sense. Heck, perhaps they might even support their point of view with unbiased evidence in an easily accesible form.
 
pipelineaudio said:
I was trying to say that "ear training" is actually valid. My hearing may not be as good as some, but I can pretty easily ballpark things like attack and release times and ratios of a compressor on a track for instance.

Ive seen good conductors throw their batons at one clarinetist in a whole troupe of em...old guys who probably dont hear jack above 8k, but they know "how to listen"
Click to expand...

exactly.

ES, you are not so different from me in some ways. I, too, share the pleasure of endless screwing around with gear. In my case, it was parabolic microphones and attachments to them. Also, we share the self-scrutiny and some of the fussiness. I will invent all kinds of ways to make composing difficult for myself in the quest for the 'perfect' structure. And I can procrastinate with the best of them.

But, I think you should try to remain open to listening to different kinds of music, and open to the possibility that learning about the music intellectually will open up new ways of perceiving that would be exciting for you.

One musical example. One of my favorite jazz trios is Keith Jarrett, Jack DeJohnette, Gary Peacock. When they play, they often don't emphasize 'one' of the beat very much. DeJohnette never hits a big crash cymbal on 'one', and Peacock walks in a way that moves over the bar line. Jarrett plays a lot on one and three, but in a subtle way that can be deceptive.

So, unless I'm paying attention, I sometimes lose the bar structure.

This has a huge effect on the listening experience.

What sounded three-dimensional and purposeful becomes a relatively flat and anxious exercise in trying to figure out where I am--like wandering around in a maze.

When I know where I am in the form, the listening experience has an extra dimension of pleasure--being able to hear how the music is going where it should. Then I can really hear how amazing their playing is. Otherwise, it merely sounds good.

I'm saying that there are dimensions of listening that open up when you can direct your attention to aspects of musical structure, and participate in the music that way.
 
ExtremeSkeptic said:
I don't know what you mean with this. This is my thread and you entered it.

Skeptics are good at ignoring a truth they don't like. They just run back into their cave.
Click to expand...
No one owns a thread. Skeptics are good at getting to the truth and cutting thru the woo-woo which you can't seems to do, but then you are full of woo-woo and yourself.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Paulhoff said:
No one owns a thread. Skeptics are good at getting to the truth and cutting thru the woo-woo which you can't seems to do, but then you are full of woo-woo and yourself.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...
Yes, if skeptics don't like something, they just take out their knife and start cutting through it. Problem solved!

Skeptics 100 years ago blew up cars because they didn't believe in them. They just kept riding their bicycle and ignored all the woo-woo cars going past them on the road. Skeptics like to live in their little delusional dream world where everything makes sense to them. If they find something they don't know, they explain it as placebo, that way they know everything about everything and their ego keeps growing bigger and bigger. Now who is the one full of it, the skeptic or the believer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom