Author Topic: what’s your philosophy of voicing a system?  (Read 15528 times)

Offline GDHAL

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 1995
  • All we need is music, sweet music
Re: what’s your philosophy of voicing a system?
« Reply #30 on: December 07, 2022, 04:45:26 PM »
Beyond one's own hearing acuity, I think a valid argument can be made that no microphone is "exactly perfect". So, it follows that the expectation level of playing back sound(s) that have been recorded can also never be exactly perfect, no matter the room, speaker, electronics or anything else. Yes, the pursuit of audio nirvana is very alluring, especially when you love music.

The only truth is music….Music blends with the heartbeat universe and we forget the brain beat. - Jack Kerouac

To stay on point with this thread topic, I can tell when a system is voiced properly not just because of what my ears are transmitting to my brain, but by how/if my head is bobbing, my toes are tapping, or if I'm "moved" to dance and/or sing along.

At some point, "better" gear just doesn't do that. Only more music.

Many years ago I changed my listening habits, primarily because I'm the proverbial "deadhead". When I first started listening to Grateful Dead (80's) I couldn't understand what all the fuss over "different versions" of the same song, albeit performed on a different date and at a different venue, was all about. But at some point, it just "hit me". And as Bob Marley sings, this is the one good thing about music; when it hits you feel no pain.

So then I started "collecting" (90's) all Grateful Dead music I could get my hands (ears) on. Not long after listening to GD constantly, I realized that approximately half the songs they ever performed live, are cover songs (i.e. they are not the original composer). Then, I started listening to those artists, and my overall appreciation of music and artistic talent became greater and greater. Sure, like all of us, I started listening to music as a child. And many of those artists are still "with me" today, in mind, spirit, and on my hard drives! If I listen to song I  heard essentially in my infancy, like something from The Beatles, it's rather simple to know if my system - or someone else's - is "voiced" correctly.

These days I make it a point to always listen to something different. Hence this is one reason why I collect and listen to "live" music recordings. After I've listened to a studio album once, I just don't get the same enjoyment factor if I were to listen to it again. But that's just me.

Many audiophiles desire to constantly change their gear, or "something" about their system. I do not operate that way. Unless something is obviously wrong, I can stay content with my system for many years. Sure, I might tweak something here or there, but the dominant variable is the music itself.

Changing gear doesn't necessarily make anything sound better. More often than not it boils down to "different", not "better" or "worse".

Well, the aforementioned is my philosophy anyway.

Best.

Hal
GoldenEar Triton Reference (pair), Musical Fidelity M6si, Schiit Yggdrasil-OG-B, Oppo UDP-205, Emotiva ERC-3, LG OLED65C9PUA, Salamander Synergy Triple Unit SL20, Audeze LCD-X, GIK acoustic paneling
http://halr.x10.mx/other.html

Offline steve

  • Audiologist
  • *
  • Posts: 1234
Re: what’s your philosophy of voicing a system?
« Reply #31 on: December 07, 2022, 07:33:04 PM »
Beyond one's own hearing acuity, I think a valid argument can be made that no microphone is "exactly perfect". So, it follows that the expectation level of playing back sound(s) that have been recorded can also never be exactly perfect, no matter the room, speaker, electronics or anything else. Yes, the pursuit of audio nirvana is very alluring, especially when you love music.

The only truth is music….Music blends with the heartbeat universe and we forget the brain beat. - Jack Kerouac

To stay on point with this thread topic, I can tell when a system is voiced properly not just because of what my ears are transmitting to my brain, but by how/if my head is bobbing, my toes are tapping, or if I'm "moved" to dance and/or sing along.

At some point, "better" gear just doesn't do that. Only more music.

Many years ago I changed my listening habits, primarily because I'm the proverbial "deadhead". When I first started listening to Grateful Dead (80's) I couldn't understand what all the fuss over "different versions" of the same song, albeit performed on a different date and at a different venue, was all about. But at some point, it just "hit me". And as Bob Marley sings, this is the one good thing about music; when it hits you feel no pain.

So then I started "collecting" (90's) all Grateful Dead music I could get my hands (ears) on. Not long after listening to GD constantly, I realized that approximately half the songs they ever performed live, are cover songs (i.e. they are not the original composer). Then, I started listening to those artists, and my overall appreciation of music and artistic talent became greater and greater. Sure, like all of us, I started listening to music as a child. And many of those artists are still "with me" today, in mind, spirit, and on my hard drives! If I listen to song I  heard essentially in my infancy, like something from The Beatles, it's rather simple to know if my system - or someone else's - is "voiced" correctly.

These days I make it a point to always listen to something different. Hence this is one reason why I collect and listen to "live" music recordings. After I've listened to a studio album once, I just don't get the same enjoyment factor if I were to listen to it again. But that's just me.

Many audiophiles desire to constantly change their gear, or "something" about their system. I do not operate that way. Unless something is obviously wrong, I can stay content with my system for many years. Sure, I might tweak something here or there, but the dominant variable is the music itself.

Changing gear doesn't necessarily make anything sound better. More often than not it boils down to "different", not "better" or "worse".

Well, the aforementioned is my philosophy anyway.

Best.

Hal

Hi Hal,

I appreciate you views, although I saw several assumptions made. Of course you understand
that assumptions are about as valid as speculations.
I take it you have not been able to find anything better than what components you have now,
just different? I am glad you are happy with your system. One of the joys of life is listening to
good music. Being at the venue of the Vienna or Berlin Orchestras without being there is one
of the great joys of my work. I love live music.

I have some comments etc if I may.

1. Personally, I would like to be as close to the live event/experience as possible in sound
reproduction at home. I never get tired of playing my favorites over and over. Good music
reaches one's heart and soul.

2. "At some point, "better" gear just doesn't do that. Only more music." There appears 
to be an assumption that nothing is better, just different. Better, live is not as good?
I am wondering if you are, like many people, believing that expensive must be better?
Nothing could be further from the truth.

3. Being "voiced correctly" is a relative term. I have heard a beautifully recorded flute decades ago,
but now that same beautifully recorded flute sounds even more natural/real/live. "Voiced correctly
is a relative term, they both sound natural, but one is more natural than the other. A slight veil has
been lifted. The harmonics are just a bit more accurate/natural when compared to a live flute.

4. Not better or worse, just different? Same assumption as at the beginning of your comments.
Interestingly, there is actually a 10A line  preamplifier in the classified forum here for sale on Ebay. It has
been years since I have seen an ad. An 11A ad is virtually never. I believe the AR3, Ultra-verve preampliers
are in such a class. Why are some components coveted more than others?

I think we can agree that we both like live music.

cheers

steve
« Last Edit: December 07, 2022, 10:05:12 PM by steve »
Steve Sammet (Owner, Electron Eng, SAS Audio Labs, Ret)
SAS "V" 39pf/m 6N copper ICs,
SAS Test Phono Stage
Acutex 320 STR Mov Iron Cart
SAS 11A Perfect Tube Preamp
SAS 25 W Ref Triode/UL Monoblocks
2 way Floor Standing Test Speakers

Offline GDHAL

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 1995
  • All we need is music, sweet music
Re: what’s your philosophy of voicing a system?
« Reply #32 on: December 08, 2022, 04:19:11 AM »
Hi Steve. I appreciate your feedback.  :)

Sure, I've made assumptions. And I agree with you, (paraphrasing) a live event is best. But that's kind of my point. When you're at a live event, especially acoustic, you're likely to hear many unamplified sounds. In this context unamplified means the sound didn't first pass through a microphone. Once the sound passes through a mic, there is some degree of loss that has already occurred. You can't make up for what has been lost by playing back a recorded version of it.

To your other point, the fact that certain gear is somehow "revered" relative to other gear is, in my opinion, just part of the human condition where we somehow think that "normality" (in this example what it is that's being revered) is correct. Rather, normality is merely what the majority of the 8 billion of us humans do, think, etc.

Here's an analogy. What does science tell us that normal human body temperature is? Answer, 98.6F. Now, is that *everybody's* temperature *all the time*. Certainly not. Big variables plus/minus perhaps as much as 3 degrees.

"All of audiophilia is a search for the perfect distortion profile."
- Jason Stoddard

Yes, I've been able to find better gear over time, experimentation, etc. But that's merely my subjective opinion. Audio gear usually can be measured objectively. Once objectivity is brought to bear, I find it interesting that (usually, of course there are exceptions) most folks tend to like the sound of gear that measures *worse*, and dislike the sound of gear that measures *better*.

Add to that that once someone convinces themselves that something *is* better, as soon as blind or double blind testing is used, said individual becomes rather less convinced.

And yes, Steve. We can agree that we both like live music. :J
« Last Edit: December 08, 2022, 04:26:02 AM by GDHAL »
GoldenEar Triton Reference (pair), Musical Fidelity M6si, Schiit Yggdrasil-OG-B, Oppo UDP-205, Emotiva ERC-3, LG OLED65C9PUA, Salamander Synergy Triple Unit SL20, Audeze LCD-X, GIK acoustic paneling
http://halr.x10.mx/other.html

Offline rollo

  • Industry Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 6982
  • Rollo Audio - Home demo the only way to know
Re: what’s your philosophy of voicing a system?
« Reply #33 on: December 08, 2022, 09:46:45 AM »
  Not that complicated. If one is familiar with live music tonality and harmonics. One needs a starting point. My choice is speaker/room choice. Then Amp then front end then preamp. Cables as the tone controls. When the toes are a tapping and your singing along job well done.
  The choices at the beginning are crucial. Playing Trumpet and Guitar in the listening room teaches you a lot about tonality and harmonics. Having a Grand Piano close by to hear is a great benefit.

charles
contact me  at rollo14@verizon.net or visit us on Facebook
Lamm Industries - Aqua Acoustic, Formula & La Scala DAC- INNUOS  - Rethm - Kuzma - QLN - Audio Hungary Qualiton - Fritz speakers -Gigawatt -Vinnie Rossi,TWL, Swiss Cables, Merason DAC.

Offline steve

  • Audiologist
  • *
  • Posts: 1234
Re: what’s your philosophy of voicing a system?
« Reply #34 on: December 08, 2022, 10:33:28 AM »
Hi Steve. I appreciate your feedback.  :)

Sure, I've made assumptions. And I agree with you, (paraphrasing) a live event is best. But that's kind of my point. When you're at a live event, especially acoustic, you're likely to hear many unamplified sounds. In this context unamplified means the sound didn't first pass through a microphone. Once the sound passes through a mic, there is some degree of loss that has already occurred. You can't make up for what has been lost by playing back a recorded version of it.

To your other point, the fact that certain gear is somehow "revered" relative to other gear is, in my opinion, just part of the human condition where we somehow think that "normality" (in this example what it is that's being revered) is correct. Rather, normality is merely what the majority of the 8 billion of us humans do, think, etc.

Here's an analogy. What does science tell us that normal human body temperature is? Answer, 98.6F. Now, is that *everybody's* temperature *all the time*. Certainly not. Big variables plus/minus perhaps as much as 3 degrees.

"All of audiophilia is a search for the perfect distortion profile."
- Jason Stoddard

Yes, I've been able to find better gear over time, experimentation, etc. But that's merely my subjective opinion. Audio gear usually can be measured objectively. Once objectivity is brought to bear, I find it interesting that (usually, of course there are exceptions) most folks tend to like the sound of gear that measures *worse*, and dislike the sound of gear that measures *better*.

Add to that that once someone convinces themselves that something *is* better, as soon as blind or double blind testing is used, said individual becomes rather less convinced.

And yes, Steve. We can agree that we both like live music. :J

Hi Hal,

Glad to read your response as it is heartfelt. I would like to address some main issues, again
assumptions, listening to others, and testing methods as factual and/or scientific when they are
not.

The "mic" seems to be of special interest. Whether than means an actual mic or all of the
electronics I cannot tell.

However, my brother and I worked with audio, recording each other on a tape deck years ago.
Nothing special mind you. We would comment on how accurate the reproduction of our voices were.
We were 12 and 14 years old. The point is the "mic" itself has little distortion when it is
fed into accurate electronic components. Oh we may miss some peripheral, spacial information, it
depends upon the type of mic used as well.

Recording quality depends upon the electronics used just as it does with venue, speakers etc.
Recording quality varies wildly. When one sees a "console" in studio, the electronic's parts quality
inside is about the same as a cheap $199.00 stereo receiver. Cheapest junk parts, poor designs.
That is no exaggeration. Different designs do sound closer to accurate than others.

I think the problem you are facing, as are others, is that you have never heard a properly designed
component. That is not your fault as I have yet to find anyone who understands how to design
a basic component. A very few have almost, by accident, come close to being accurate/natural.

There is respect for those I have listed for a reason. If one actually checks, those pieces are more
accurate to the source. Testing is not simply installing in a system, like reviewers do, and coming
to a conclusion.

The nonsense, the unscientific posts in some forums and taken as science boggles the mind. One
must be on guard all the time.
 
One example that comes to mind are articles that compare and rate capacitors. Oh, they will tell
you the results are not absolute, to cover themselves, but then post "their findings" anyway not
knowing if their results are even close to accurate.

A couple of problems.

1. The capacitor under test is the wrong value. If the value in ufd is too small, the accurate ones will
sound anemic. The poorer, more fuller sounding ones will be given a higher score. The good ones
become extinct.

2. How much does the testing component design itself affect the test results.

Loving distortion, yep, some do. They love to manipulate and create their own music by using junk
designs. Does the music sound like the real thing though? I compare to live instruments.

"Here's an analogy. What does science tell us that normal human body temperature is? Answer, 98.6F.
Now, is that *everybody's* temperature *all the time*. Certainly not. Big variables plus/minus perhaps
as much as 3 degrees."

If people like a different sound, so be it. But I thought you prefer a live event as I do.

"Yes, I've been able to find better gear over time, experimentation, etc. But that's merely my subjective opinion. Audio gear usually can be measured objectively. Once objectivity is brought to bear, I find it interesting that (usually, of course there are exceptions) most folks tend to like the sound of gear that measures *worse*, and dislike the sound of gear that measures *better*."

Specialized listening tests check for differences, not preferences.
The specs given for a component hardly qualify as useful, except in some rare cases.

For instance, +/- 0,1db FR, as mentioned in an earlier post means virtually nothing; in the range of
-54db change. I suppose if masking is involved which can come from any component.

1 part in a million change in tonal balance is -114db to -120db down. HD does not mean
much either if an amp is only putting out a watt (unless a tiny SET amp).
What about objective channel separation not being listed in the specs?
What about other forms of distortion not mentioned in the specs. (See RCA Radiotron
Designers Handbook by 26 engineers for 6 different types, plus one or two of my own.)

Performed the way they are, blind and double blind testing actually skews the results toward no sonic
difference. Sight is taught and pushed as the only confound.
The individual public will perform the test incorrectly every single time with the
same false results. Interestingly, they claim science while teaching against science.
But how is the public to know.

Interestingly, I have found this same group posting fake graphs, going after a major peer reviewed
study. Reminds me of an article published by a criminal defense attorney, Martin DeWulf, titled
"Truth be Told". In it, the author brings out the point that a group gathers at different
forums claiming science while actually teaching against science. Same as what I had experienced.

A question. If there is a group blind or double blind test, and half the group are in a statistically bass
increasing mode while the other half are in a bass decreasing mode, how does the test arrive at 
95% confidence of a sonic difference?

cheers

steve
 




« Last Edit: December 08, 2022, 09:12:51 PM by steve »
Steve Sammet (Owner, Electron Eng, SAS Audio Labs, Ret)
SAS "V" 39pf/m 6N copper ICs,
SAS Test Phono Stage
Acutex 320 STR Mov Iron Cart
SAS 11A Perfect Tube Preamp
SAS 25 W Ref Triode/UL Monoblocks
2 way Floor Standing Test Speakers

Offline steve

  • Audiologist
  • *
  • Posts: 1234
Re: what’s your philosophy of voicing a system?
« Reply #35 on: December 08, 2022, 10:37:02 AM »
  Not that complicated. If one is familiar with live music tonality and harmonics. One needs a starting point. My choice is speaker/room choice. Then Amp then front end then preamp. Cables as the tone controls. When the toes are a tapping and your singing along job well done.
  The choices at the beginning are crucial. Playing Trumpet and Guitar in the listening room teaches you a lot about tonality and harmonics. Having a Grand Piano close by to hear is a great benefit.

charles

I have a violin here, and piano nearby. I played trombone in school. All helps.

Thanks for presenting the info Charles.

steve
« Last Edit: December 08, 2022, 10:39:41 AM by steve »
Steve Sammet (Owner, Electron Eng, SAS Audio Labs, Ret)
SAS "V" 39pf/m 6N copper ICs,
SAS Test Phono Stage
Acutex 320 STR Mov Iron Cart
SAS 11A Perfect Tube Preamp
SAS 25 W Ref Triode/UL Monoblocks
2 way Floor Standing Test Speakers

Offline rollo

  • Industry Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 6982
  • Rollo Audio - Home demo the only way to know
Re: what’s your philosophy of voicing a system?
« Reply #36 on: December 08, 2022, 10:43:51 AM »
  Steve while all valid in the Engineering world it is over our heads and frankly not important to the average Audiophile. All we have is our ears, room and system. I do not need a blind test to tell me what I am hearing.
  I choose live recordings mostly for listening. My reference is live music by real instruments in my room. Try hitting some cymbals and then be amazed as the natural decay of the harmonic, shimmer and detail. Let the Engineers figure it out and we will be the Judge.

charles
contact me  at rollo14@verizon.net or visit us on Facebook
Lamm Industries - Aqua Acoustic, Formula & La Scala DAC- INNUOS  - Rethm - Kuzma - QLN - Audio Hungary Qualiton - Fritz speakers -Gigawatt -Vinnie Rossi,TWL, Swiss Cables, Merason DAC.

Offline steve

  • Audiologist
  • *
  • Posts: 1234
Re: what’s your philosophy of voicing a system?
« Reply #37 on: December 08, 2022, 09:19:28 PM »
  Steve while all valid in the Engineering world it is over our heads and frankly not important to the average Audiophile. All we have is our ears, room and system. I do not need a blind test to tell me what I am hearing.
  I choose live recordings mostly for listening. My reference is live music by real instruments in my room. Try hitting some cymbals and then be amazed as the natural decay of the harmonic, shimmer and detail. Let the Engineers figure it out and we will be the Judge.

charles

Huh? I never said you needed to perform a blind/dbt test. I testified against such testing the
way it is performed.

See post #35 for this quote against blind/dbt testing.
 
"Performed the way they are, blind and double blind testing actually skews the results
toward no sonic difference
. Sight is taught and pushed as the only confound.
The individual public will perform the test incorrectly every single time with the
same false results. Interestingly, they claim science while teaching against science.

But how is the public to know."

And I use live instruments like you do.  I own a violin in my apt, have a piano close by, and had
played the trombone in my younger years. I know what live instruments sound like. See post #36.

I was not clear enough? 

cheers

steve
« Last Edit: December 09, 2022, 08:04:37 AM by steve »
Steve Sammet (Owner, Electron Eng, SAS Audio Labs, Ret)
SAS "V" 39pf/m 6N copper ICs,
SAS Test Phono Stage
Acutex 320 STR Mov Iron Cart
SAS 11A Perfect Tube Preamp
SAS 25 W Ref Triode/UL Monoblocks
2 way Floor Standing Test Speakers

Offline Nick B

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 4088
Re: what’s your philosophy of voicing a system?
« Reply #38 on: December 08, 2022, 11:39:50 PM »
I rarely go to live concerts and when I do, it’s in a large venue. So there’s not that much benefit in attending. Ideally, it would be great to hear many instruments individually and up close. But again, I’m really not in a position to experience that. So most of what I know about the sound of instruments is thru tv, video and audio recordings. With the improvements within the last two years gained by new components, speakers, wires, AC filtration etc. I’m getting much closer to what I think is the true sound of various instruments. Not ideal, but it’s what I have to work with….
Orchard Starkrimson Ultra amp
Supratek Chardonnay preamp
JMR Voce Grande speakers
Border Patrol SEi dac
Holo Red streamer
Hapa Aero digital coax
WyWires Silver cables
TWL Digital American II p cord
Audio Envy p cords
Roon, Tidal, Qobuz
PI Audio UberBUSS

Offline GDHAL

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 1995
  • All we need is music, sweet music
Re: what’s your philosophy of voicing a system?
« Reply #39 on: December 09, 2022, 07:43:33 AM »
@Steve

Steve, I realize your last post was directed @rollo. Nevertheless, I’d like to respond. First, I think you mean to refer to post 36, not 35. I could be mistaken though. Forgive me if I am.

I conducted a cursory (5-minute) google search of you, SAS Audio Labs, and the specific gear you developed. I must say, all is good on that front! Kudos to you.  I couldn’t find anything that suggests that you are not entirely credible, knowledgeable, and design very good products.

It’s perfectly fine that you dispel any kind of blind testing. And in fact, whatever your personal philosophy is regarding the “voicing” of an audio system is also perfectly fine. But let’s be realistic for a moment, shall we?

Nothing in an audio system (room, speakers, cables, electronics, amp, preamp, dac, turntable, cartridge, transport, electrical supply, something else, or a deity) is going to “change” or “influence” a recording to the extent that you or anyone else is going to hear something so overwhelmingly compelling that one immediately sells or discards their gear, by throwing it out the proverbial window, and then replaces it immediately with that which compelled them to do so. In this context, “overwhelming” means nothing short of a song is played on a “system”, and three verses are sung and documented online lyrically. Then, one or more components are changed in the same system, or an entirely different system is used. Immediately thereafter, upon playing the exact same song and version, there is a fourth verse that is sung. Sorry, but that simply is not going to happen. Certainly you agree.  If you disagree and are willing and able to prove it to me, I propose you insert any component of your choosing into my system, or install a completely different system entirely of your own in my space, and I (and independent witnesses of both our choosing) hear another, different verse, using any song of your choosing, I shall award you an amount of legal tender that will be many, many, many multiples of your travel expenses. As in, show me your round-trip airline ticket purchase price, and multiply that by 100. No obligation, of course, just an offer in good faith.

After a certain – and often modest - level, “differences” become very subtle. Hence this is why I’ve previously stated changes in audio components usually result in something “different” as opposed to “better” or “worse”. This is especially true given that what one desires in the way of quality sound is rather subjective.

Charles (rollo) is correct in that voicing philosophy really is simple. Whatever it is that your particular ears (operative words here are “your particular ears”) are hearing and find desirable (or not), is the way to voice a system. It may not be the only way, but certainly is one way and a very important way, so much so that, IMO, it’s of paramount importance.

To your assertion “I think the problem you are facing, as are others, is that you have never heard a properly designed component’ I think is both overreaching and inaccurate. Hence the offer I’ve made herein. But of course, you are in fact entitled to “think” however you like.

If you get confused, listen to the music play – Franklin’s Tower – Grateful Dead
GoldenEar Triton Reference (pair), Musical Fidelity M6si, Schiit Yggdrasil-OG-B, Oppo UDP-205, Emotiva ERC-3, LG OLED65C9PUA, Salamander Synergy Triple Unit SL20, Audeze LCD-X, GIK acoustic paneling
http://halr.x10.mx/other.html

Offline steve

  • Audiologist
  • *
  • Posts: 1234
Re: what’s your philosophy of voicing a system?
« Reply #40 on: December 09, 2022, 09:46:43 AM »
@Steve

Steve, I realize your last post was directed @rollo. Nevertheless, I’d like to respond. First, I think you mean to refer to post 36, not 35. I could be mistaken though. Forgive me if I am.

I conducted a cursory (5-minute) google search of you, SAS Audio Labs, and the specific gear you developed. I must say, all is good on that front! Kudos to you.  I couldn’t find anything that suggests that you are not entirely credible, knowledgeable, and design very good products.

It’s perfectly fine that you dispel any kind of blind testing. And in fact, whatever your personal philosophy is regarding the “voicing” of an audio system is also perfectly fine. But let’s be realistic for a moment, shall we?

Nothing in an audio system (room, speakers, cables, electronics, amp, preamp, dac, turntable, cartridge, transport, electrical supply, something else, or a deity) is going to “change” or “influence” a recording to the extent that you or anyone else is going to hear something so overwhelmingly compelling that one immediately sells or discards their gear, by throwing it out the proverbial window, and then replaces it immediately with that which compelled them to do so. In this context, “overwhelming” means nothing short of a song is played on a “system”, and three verses are sung and documented online lyrically. Then, one or more components are changed in the same system, or an entirely different system is used. Immediately thereafter, upon playing the exact same song and version, there is a fourth verse that is sung. Sorry, but that simply is not going to happen. Certainly you agree.  If you disagree and are willing and able to prove it to me, I propose you insert any component of your choosing into my system, or install a completely different system entirely of your own in my space, and I (and independent witnesses of both our choosing) hear another, different verse, using any song of your choosing, I shall award you an amount of legal tender that will be many, many, many multiples of your travel expenses. As in, show me your round-trip airline ticket purchase price, and multiply that by 100. No obligation, of course, just an offer in good faith.

After a certain – and often modest - level, “differences” become very subtle. Hence this is why I’ve previously stated changes in audio components usually result in something “different” as opposed to “better” or “worse”. This is especially true given that what one desires in the way of quality sound is rather subjective.

Charles (rollo) is correct in that voicing philosophy really is simple. Whatever it is that your particular ears (operative words here are “your particular ears”) are hearing and find desirable (or not), is the way to voice a system. It may not be the only way, but certainly is one way and a very important way, so much so that, IMO, it’s of paramount importance.

To your assertion “I think the problem you are facing, as are others, is that you have never heard a properly designed component’ I think is both overreaching and inaccurate. Hence the offer I’ve made herein. But of course, you are in fact entitled to “think” however you like.

If you get confused, listen to the music play – Franklin’s Tower – Grateful Dead

Hi Hal,

Thanks for the compliments. When performing specialized listening testing over the decades, subjects
could not tell if the 11A was in the system or out of the system, the output sounding just like the input.
Amp is also very very similar.

As such I do believe in multiple methods of listening testing, just Not the one way guaranteed to skew
the results 100% of the time toward no sonic difference. The one wrong way being taught and pushed
by "objectivists, experts, even "claimed scientists"" who work for certain companies and have certain
patents which would be rendered worthless.

One has to be careful whom one listens to on other forums Hal. I could tell horrendous stories of what
happens behind the scenes if one does not pay reviewers under the table, sell at a small fraction of the
costs to reviewers, what happens on other audio forums etc. Please be careful.

If you believe in the fourth paragraph, so be it. I would be careful when basing your beliefs on hearsay
in forums, and your own previous auditions, audio shows etc. You are making another assumption based
on your own experience.

What you are proposing concerning inserting one component into a system and bang, will purchase it etc
is actually against science. I thought you would understand that basic scientific fact.

For newbies, the reason is that the said rest of the system still has flaws, so

1. a perfect component has no masking problems, so will further expose the existing system flaws further.

For example, if a system is bright, the existing X component may fill out the sound for a more natural experience.
However, replacing X with a perfect component will allow the system to be bright as the preamplifier is totally transparent and alters nothing.

2. A perfect component may alter the spacial information as more low level information is forth coming.

3. The existing connecting ics may have excessive capacitance that my alter the perfect component's performance.

"After a certain – and often modest - level, “differences” become very subtle. Hence this is why I’ve previously stated changes in audio components usually result in something “different” as opposed to “better” or “worse”. This is especially true given that what one desires in the way of quality sound is rather subjective."

That is only based upon your limited personal experience and listening to others.
Another problem with your statement is, how do you know what is attainable, what is possible, and what is not?
Again it is an assumption, guess work on your part.

"Charles (rollo) is correct in that voicing philosophy really is simple. Whatever it is that your particular ears (operative words here are “your particular ears”) are hearing and find desirable (or not), is the way to voice a system. It may not be the only way, but certainly is one way and a very important way, so much so that, IMO, it’s of paramount importance."

And what else did Charles say???? He said he uses live instruments. I am sure live venues as well.
As far as ears, the differences in preferences are from the venues in which we form our standards.
That part is true.

"To your assertion “I think the problem you are facing, as are others, is that you have never heard a properly designed component’ I think is both overreaching and inaccurate. Hence the offer I’ve made herein. But of course, you are in fact entitled to “think” however you like. "

Not not much doubt that many of us use live instruments and venues as references to voice our systems. The
question is what venues? To those who wish their own music, by all means go for it.

As far as me exaggerating, again another assumption made.

cheers, gotta get going.

steve


 
« Last Edit: December 09, 2022, 02:59:32 PM by steve »
Steve Sammet (Owner, Electron Eng, SAS Audio Labs, Ret)
SAS "V" 39pf/m 6N copper ICs,
SAS Test Phono Stage
Acutex 320 STR Mov Iron Cart
SAS 11A Perfect Tube Preamp
SAS 25 W Ref Triode/UL Monoblocks
2 way Floor Standing Test Speakers

Offline GDHAL

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 1995
  • All we need is music, sweet music
Re: what’s your philosophy of voicing a system?
« Reply #41 on: December 09, 2022, 01:30:58 PM »
@Steve

Sorry. But now,  "I'm on fire". That's a Jefferson Starship reference, in case you're unfamiliar. Sung in the Paul Kantner , wooden ships style. Please, have a listen.

I'll reply to this part of your statement (last post):

"That is only based upon your limited personal experience and listening to others.
Another problem with your statement is, how do you know what is attainable, what is possible, and what is not?
Again it is an assumption, guess work on your part.
"


You can't be serious, can you?

My experience is that of a 60-year-old, who didn't just materialize on this planet. I revolved around the sun 60 times, in the same way, you and everybody else do. Everybody's personal experience is limited. Including yours.

"And all you touch and all you see, Is all your life will ever be." - That's a Pink Floyd reference, in case you're unfamiliar. Please have a listen

From an audio reproduction perspective, I know what is and is not attainable by listening to dozens of musicians, over many years, playing various instruments (string, wood, piano) within two to three feet of my presence. I studied music in high school and played clarinet for four years. My daughter is an accomplished flutist, using a flute custom-made for her - that I paid nearly $10,000 for. Add to that the nearly three dozen "hi-end audiophile-grade systems" I've heard (at least two of which cost north of $100K). Add to that my obsession with being a grateful deadhead, where one millisecond of missing music resulting in a spliced recording has me cataloging the recording (specific song) as such, only days, months, or in many cases years later trading, finding, or otherwise obtaining the uncut version and then updating my catalog and re-listening.

Please, do not state I'm making assumptions or "guessing".  This is how I know what is and what is not attainable. Make sense?

Best.

Hal

EDIT: I'll add that I myself am a somewhat decent "G" chord open mic singer, having performed in numerous watering holes throughout the years, accompanied by some rather talented bands, such as wonderful stories and my summer.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2022, 02:42:23 PM by GDHAL »
GoldenEar Triton Reference (pair), Musical Fidelity M6si, Schiit Yggdrasil-OG-B, Oppo UDP-205, Emotiva ERC-3, LG OLED65C9PUA, Salamander Synergy Triple Unit SL20, Audeze LCD-X, GIK acoustic paneling
http://halr.x10.mx/other.html

Offline steve

  • Audiologist
  • *
  • Posts: 1234
Re: what’s your philosophy of voicing a system?
« Reply #42 on: December 09, 2022, 02:47:30 PM »
@Steve

Sorry. But now,  "I'm on fire". That's a Jefferson Starship reference, in case you're unfamiliar. Sung in the Paul Kantner , wooden ships style. Please, have a listen.

I'll reply to this part of your statement (last post):

"That is only based upon your limited personal experience and listening to others.
Another problem with your statement is, how do you know what is attainable, what is possible, and what is not?
Again it is an assumption, guess work on your part.
"


You can't be serious, can you?

My experience is that of a 60-year-old, who didn't just materialize on this planet. I revolved around the sun 60 times, in the same way, you and everybody else do. Everybody's personal experience is limited. Including yours.

"And all you touch and all you see, Is all your life will ever be." - That's a Pink Floyd reference, in case you're unfamiliar. Please have a listen

From an audio reproduction perspective, I know what is and is not attainable by listening to dozens of musicians, over many years, playing various instruments (string, wood, piano) within two to three feet of my presence. I studied music in high school and played clarinet for four years. My daughter is an accomplished flutist, using a flute custom-made for her - that I paid nearly $10,000 for. Add to that the nearly three dozen "hi-end audiophile-grade systems" I've heard (at least two of which cost north of $100K). Add to that my obsession with being a grateful deadhead, where one millisecond of missing music resulting in a spliced recording has me cataloging the recording (specific song) as such, only days, months, or in many cases years later trading, finding, or otherwise obtaining the uncut version and then updating my catalog and re-listening.

Please, do not state I'm making assumptions or "guessing".  This is how I know what is and what is not attainable. Make sense?

Best.

Hal

Hi Hal,


Quoting someone is not fact. I have yet to hear a satisfactory response except excuses, assumptions, and
quoting individuals as if it means something.

Something novel, why not play some Chopin, Beethoven, Vivalvi, Divorak, Ravel, how about the
links presented on string "sharing top notch, reference musical links on your system. Got the
LP Don't let me be mis-understood by Santa Esmeralda?
What is your system setup optimized for?

The fact is that electronics does make a substantial difference when voicing a system. Unfortnately,
there are always those who feel it necessary to damn those for wanting and attaining the highest
quality musical, natural experience. I am sorry you feel that way. You claim you love live, then attack
those who want and who attain it.

I am 73, known many older and younger, and been to many shows, been to houses. Who says the
100+ grand systems are any better, or even as good as a 10 grand system. Such is common to
those who equate musical quality to price, which means little to nothing. With that said, there is a
minimum necessary for proper parts selection for a well designed component (Plus profit of course).

You did previously post that you love live performances, even in your last post.
So why are you knocking the electronics that help bring about that performance.
One would think you would be embracing such reproduction capability.
Why have you constantly attacked what you claim is what you want.
Why don't you want others to have the live experience.

What is probably the most scary concept though, is that no one can attempt
to improve voicing with more accurate electronics unless he/she has your
permission, which you have consistently argued against.

And yet you still consistently claim to love live music.
 
cheers

steve
« Last Edit: December 09, 2022, 03:29:49 PM by steve »
Steve Sammet (Owner, Electron Eng, SAS Audio Labs, Ret)
SAS "V" 39pf/m 6N copper ICs,
SAS Test Phono Stage
Acutex 320 STR Mov Iron Cart
SAS 11A Perfect Tube Preamp
SAS 25 W Ref Triode/UL Monoblocks
2 way Floor Standing Test Speakers

Offline Nick B

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 4088
Re: what’s your philosophy of voicing a system?
« Reply #43 on: December 09, 2022, 04:11:45 PM »
Thanks, gents. Very interesting reading…  :pop
Orchard Starkrimson Ultra amp
Supratek Chardonnay preamp
JMR Voce Grande speakers
Border Patrol SEi dac
Holo Red streamer
Hapa Aero digital coax
WyWires Silver cables
TWL Digital American II p cord
Audio Envy p cords
Roon, Tidal, Qobuz
PI Audio UberBUSS

Offline GDHAL

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 1995
  • All we need is music, sweet music
Re: what’s your philosophy of voicing a system?
« Reply #44 on: December 09, 2022, 05:21:06 PM »
@Nick B

Yes, the proverbial popcorn is very tasty 😋

@Steve

At this point of the thread, and our back-and-forth in particular, I'm of the opinion I cannot offer anything in writing that someone with good sensibility and logic do not already know, agree with, understand and prefer to no longer have to read about. So, in that context and spirit, I'll kindly bow out of engaging further with you on this particular subject/thread.

I'll add that you might be rather surprised and impressed with my classical music collection.

Best.

Hal
GoldenEar Triton Reference (pair), Musical Fidelity M6si, Schiit Yggdrasil-OG-B, Oppo UDP-205, Emotiva ERC-3, LG OLED65C9PUA, Salamander Synergy Triple Unit SL20, Audeze LCD-X, GIK acoustic paneling
http://halr.x10.mx/other.html