stereo coffee Posted July 19, 2023 Posted July 19, 2023 A recent thread here reveals an assumption that you can't add better dynamics or resolution to a speaker once purchased. When in a audio system given a well designed loudspeaker, it is the audio signal being amplified that determines dynamics and resolution. Famous audio engineers have said the same thing that the source determines what you hear " basically that a turntable could influence the sound. " https://www.kenkessler.com/hi-fi/interview-ivor-tiefenbrun/ What is your experience of where quality begins ?
muon* Posted July 19, 2023 Posted July 19, 2023 At the beginning, oddly enough I'm of "The weakest link" feturnity. Often what some refer to as a well designed speaker, can be improved IMO. Improvements can be made anywhere in the chain in most cases, be it the source, the amplifier or speakers. 1
andyr Posted July 19, 2023 Posted July 19, 2023 34 minutes ago, stereo coffee said: A recent thread here reveals an assumption that you can't add better dynamics or resolution to a speaker once purchased. As an owner of Magnepans for 25+ years, I can definitely state that I certainly was able to achieve "better dynamics" and "better resolution" from the mods I made to them, over that time. 34 minutes ago, stereo coffee said: When in an audio system given a well-designed loudspeaker, it is the audio signal being amplified that determines dynamics and resolution. Sure - so if you have a CD-quality signal (16bit/44.1kHz), if you then up-sample it to, say, 24bit/96Khz ... it won't capture the 'extra' which the same track recorded at 24/96 would have. IOW - if it's not there to start with ... you cannot "make it appear"! But certainly: the spkrs may be failing to reproduce all that's on the CD-quality signal ... for instance, bookshelf spkrs - or Quad 57s for that matter - will not be able to deliver even 40Hz well. and the amplifier may not be a good match for the spkrs ... for instance, it won't handle the LFs well if the spkr impedance drops to 2 ohms and the amp has been designed to drive 8 ohm spkrs. So for a particular pair of spkrs, the amplifier driving them can have a major effect on the audio signal being amplified. 34 minutes ago, stereo coffee said: What is your experience of where quality begins? "Audio quality" - to me - has a much wider meaning than just dynamics and resolution.
stereo coffee Posted July 19, 2023 Author Posted July 19, 2023 6 minutes ago, andyr said: Sure - so if you have a CD-quality signal (16bit/44.1kHz), if you then up-sample it to, say, 24bit/96Khz ... it won't capture the 'extra' which the same track recorded at 24/96 would have. IOW - if it's not there to start with ... you cannot "make it appear"! Agreed , but in many cases the extra is there in the form of the original recording , As example SACD is a revisit by creating further standards, to get closer to making it appear and to do things better, and closer to the original recording than CD could have done.
Grant Slack Posted July 20, 2023 Posted July 20, 2023 18 hours ago, stereo coffee said: What is your experience of where quality begins ? Hi Chris, when you say "begins", are you referring to "how early in the audio signal path"? If so, then it's obvious that the last item (loudspeaker) can't be the beginning point. If that's not what you mean, then what do you mean by "begins"? cheers Grant 1
stereo coffee Posted July 20, 2023 Author Posted July 20, 2023 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Grant Slack said: Hi Chris, when you say "begins", are you referring to "how early in the audio signal path"? If so, then it's obvious that the last item (loudspeaker) can't be the beginning point. If that's not what you mean, then what do you mean by "begins"? cheers Grant Hi Grant Yes, early in the signal path is where for me , "begins" seems quite natural, rather than at the loudspeaker. It is a point though being raised in the thread that what happens before the loudspeaker then changes or can change for the better , the quality of reproduction heard at the loudspeaker For some it might be earlier still where the music artist finishes the last note being recorded as their best example of their work, So interested on viewpoints where audio quality begins. Edited July 20, 2023 by stereo coffee
Grant Slack Posted July 20, 2023 Posted July 20, 2023 Well, in terms of signal path, then yes, it starts with the mic in the recording studio. The choices made there can make a difference to the sound, so it has to be included. As does every subsequent element in the chain...potentially. I say 'potentially' because I go by the principle that Everything Matters Until It Doesn't. Meaning that, once an element achieves audible transparency, it doesn't matter any more, if preservation and reproduction of the music (defined as audible sound) is the goal. And make no mistake, some elements in the audio chain have achieved audible transparency if you choose to go that way and select the gear that delivers it. Digital. Analog amplification. Switches. Cabling and connectors. Which, I suppose, could lead to the home listener concluding that sound quality begins in his digital audio playback chain at the loudspeaker, since that is the first element in his home that isn't transparent. I understand the logic of that. People choosing to play back from analog recording media have to include the playback source, because they have never achieved audible transparency. But these days, analog storage media are a second-tier product, no matter how much we love them, because they cannot achieve audible transparency between input and output. So, putting the analog media aside and sticking to digital, audio quality begins with all of the remaining things that matter, to wit and in order:- microphone type and placement art and skill of the sound engineering team in creating a final master number of channels of the final master saved in the distribution media sufficiently capable DSP in the home quality of speakers including subwoofers skilful implementation of the speakers and DSP in the home The rest can be treated as not mattering if they are chosen for transparency and with the correct specs for the application. A lot of people still make the mistake of ignoring the number of channels of playback (third dot point). This is truly one of the most critical decisions where sound quality begins, or is inherently limited. cheers Grant 2
blybo Posted July 20, 2023 Posted July 20, 2023 It happens every step along the way to your ears with the 2 most significant being the last 2... the speakers and the room they are in. I know I have great speakers and amplification along with pretty decent source equipment, but in my new home I can't make the speakers disappear like they should in stereo playback. In my case it's the room that is lacking to the point that what most would describe as an inferior system in another room sounds better.
Assisi Posted July 20, 2023 Posted July 20, 2023 If the question is about ones own audio system that one has control over, then to me it is simple question with a simple answer. It starts with the relative quality of the power going into the system. The quality of the power can vary and even though it may be a small part of the equation it has impacts on the final outcome John
davewantsmoore Posted July 20, 2023 Posted July 20, 2023 23 hours ago, stereo coffee said: it is the audio signal being amplified that determines dynamics and resolution This .... well, at least you can't "get back what wasn't there to begin with". 23 hours ago, andyr said: Sure - so if you have a CD-quality signal (16bit/44.1kHz), if you then up-sample it to, say, 24bit/96Khz ... it won't capture the 'extra' which the same track recorded at 24/96 would have. Recording in 24/96 only captures things you can't hear ....... the only reason why it will ever produce a different result with the things you can hear, is to do with flaws, or quirks in the 16/44 equipment... and to do with the audio production process, where we might want to avoid losing very very quiet sounds from tracks (because they will be amplified later in the audio production) .... or stacking up a lot of filters in the case where the studio might have a lot of AD / DA / AD processes happening. (ie. it's very sensible to recording in higher bits and samples.... but mean little for playback). 22 hours ago, stereo coffee said: Agreed , but in many cases the extra is there in the form of the original recording , As example SACD is a revisit by creating further standards, to get closer to making it appear and to do things better, and closer to the original recording than CD could have done. DSD does not represent the original signal any better than CD.... this statement will give a lot of people pause, but understand that you have been shown irrelevant specs, and told they mean things they don't. That being said.... you can have differences between equipment (eg. a SACD player and CD player) ... and you can end up with SACDs and CD which don't actually have the same "original signal" recorded to them. Simply take a SACD ... rip the audio off it, and convert it to "CD quality" and play the SACD and the CD-quality conversion, back to back on the same player, level matched, etc. 22 hours ago, stereo coffee said: Agreed , but in many cases the extra is there in the form of the original recording But more generally, yes.... I think there is lot hiding in the recording that many peoples speakers do not reproduce satisfactorily. 1
andyr Posted July 20, 2023 Posted July 20, 2023 1 hour ago, davewantsmoore said: Recording in 24/96 only captures things you can't hear ....... the only reason why it will ever produce a different result with the things you can hear, is to do with flaws, or quirks in the 16/44 equipment... and to do with the audio production process, where we might want to avoid losing very very quiet sounds from tracks (because they will be amplified later in the audio production) .... or stacking up a lot of filters in the case where the studio might have a lot of AD / DA / AD processes happening. (ie. it's very sensible to recording in higher bits and samples.... but mean little for playback). That's "your truth", Dave ... but I'm afraid I don't go along with it, And I don't think I'm alone in this.
davewantsmoore Posted July 20, 2023 Posted July 20, 2023 31 minutes ago, andyr said: And I don't think I'm alone in this. Indeed. 32 minutes ago, andyr said: That's "your truth" I didn't make it up <shrug> ... I can only tell you how it is. 2
MLXXX Posted July 20, 2023 Posted July 20, 2023 7 hours ago, Grant Slack said: number of channels of the final master saved in the distribution media ... A lot of people still make the mistake of ignoring the number of channels of playback (third dot point). This is truly one of the most critical decisions where sound quality begins, or is inherently limited. Grant, would you care to elaborate on the above? Certainly mono is not a common distribution format for music these days. I believe stereo is very much the dominant format for music. (For a modern movie released on Blu-ray or DVD, surround would be the norm, but in part that caters for a dialogue channel and special effects.) So, I presume you are referring to the use of 3 or more channels in the distribution format for music as being a distinct advantage. 1
playdough Posted July 20, 2023 Posted July 20, 2023 Where it begins ? Are we discussing "The actual reproduction within a habitable environment ?" aka, house lounge. 1) The quality of the media. Some is mediocre, to the point it is easily resolved with a good HiFi rig. Some is simply staggeringly brilliant, genius. The variability of the quality of a media production is in all practicality endless. Choice production by these Masters is where it all begins. 2) The lounge room (weakest link in the reproduction you hear), some have experience with this already suggesting a poor acoustic environment does create all manner of reverb, resonance, ill defined imaging among other attributes. These attributes are corruption of the reproduction, sometimes blamed on the hardware or 3) Speakers, generally measured professionally open field or anechoic chamber to produce an outcome within a defined parameter 40 to 16 000 Hz + or - 6dB, or better would be reasonable, more or less. (the second weakest link in the reproduction you hear) This is a relatively fixed parameter and a less resolute or absolute outcome can take away from the media being played, speaker inaccuracy at it's finest. Some sound different to others, but they all fall under the same operational parameter to accurately and to some extent faithfully reproduce the audible frequency band. 4) Other hardware/electronics/cables/connections, the signal chain, which to be fair, for a caring and astute Audiophile will be quite ok and only create fairly minor corruption of the media you actually hear and being the most accurate part of the reproduction. Some will stand out from others however. The sum of all these parts becomes the reproduction the Audiophile is listening. How well all the points above and links in the chain perform, well that's end game. Playdough 3
Grant Slack Posted July 20, 2023 Posted July 20, 2023 (edited) 12 hours ago, MLXXX said: Grant, would you care to elaborate on the above? (that number of channels is one of the places where "sound quality begins") Certainly mono is not a common distribution format for music these days. I believe stereo is very much the dominant format for music. (For a modern movie released on Blu-ray or DVD, surround would be the norm, but in part that caters for a dialogue channel and special effects.) So, I presume you are referring to the use of 3 or more channels in the distribution format for music as being a distinct advantage. Hi MLXXX, that's right; a minimum of 5 really. If I may quote Floyd Toole, "It is not necessary to replicate the sound field of a real space in a listening room; it is sufficient only to provide key cues in order to elicit a recollection or an emotion. "With good two-channel stereo recordings, one can get impressions of these kinds. With multichannel audio, such illusions can be delivered in any amount— including excess. "Envelopment requires multiple loudspeakers, delivering recorded sounds containing the appropriately delayed sounds from the appropriate directions. "...Complete listener gratification is likely to require reflections that are higher in level and later in time than those naturally occurring in small listening rooms. This is where multichannel sound reproduction systems enter the picture." F E Toole, Sound Reproduction, 1st ed. cheers Grant Edited July 20, 2023 by Grant Slack 1
Satanica Posted July 21, 2023 Posted July 21, 2023 1 hour ago, Grant Slack said: Hi MLXXX, that's right; a minimum of 5 really. If I may quote Floyd Toole, "It is not necessary to replicate the sound field of a real space in a listening room; it is sufficient only to provide key cues in order to elicit a recollection or an emotion. "With good two-channel stereo recordings, one can get impressions of these kinds. With multichannel audio, such illusions can be delivered in any amount— including excess. "Envelopment requires multiple loudspeakers, delivering recorded sounds containing the appropriately delayed sounds from the appropriate directions. "...Complete listener gratification is likely to require reflections that are higher in level and later in time than those naturally occurring in small listening rooms. This is where multichannel sound reproduction systems enter the picture." F E Toole, Sound Reproduction, 1st ed. cheers Grant Hi Grant, quick question. Does this recommendation include 2 channel up-mixed to 5 or more channels or 5 or more channels as the source?
stereo coffee Posted July 21, 2023 Author Posted July 21, 2023 1 hour ago, Grant Slack said: Hi MLXXX, that's right; a minimum of 5 really. If I may quote Floyd Toole, "It is not necessary to replicate the sound field of a real space in a listening room; it is sufficient only to provide key cues in order to elicit a recollection or an emotion. "With good two-channel stereo recordings, one can get impressions of these kinds. With multichannel audio, such illusions can be delivered in any amount— including excess. "Envelopment requires multiple loudspeakers, delivering recorded sounds containing the appropriately delayed sounds from the appropriate directions. "...Complete listener gratification is likely to require reflections that are higher in level and later in time than those naturally occurring in small listening rooms. This is where multichannel sound reproduction systems enter the picture." F E Toole, Sound Reproduction, 1st ed. cheers Grant IMO, doing the opposite, is better.
robmid Posted July 21, 2023 Posted July 21, 2023 I believe there are a large number of component choices that can influence the sound of a system including speakers, stands, valve amp, integrated amp, power amp, SS amp, Class D amp, active preamp, passive attenuation, copper or silver RCA connectors etc. Combination changes can alter SQ even more, so it's slippery slope My stand mount speakers and digital streamer have become keepers and they are now my ‘rocks’, because I bought them immediately after hearing them at their best during a dealer demonstration. My passive attenuator is also a keeper. Since then, component 'rolling' has allowed me to influence my system sound to exceed the musical enjoyment of the dealer system, by a long shot. Extensive experimenting over time, proved to me that the choice of interconnects from the Tidal source to the passive LDR attenuator had a major impact on my musical enjoyment. It seems to me now, that the purity of the audio signal via the passive LDR attenuator allows the RCA interconnect to have a more noticeable effect on the listening experience than I have experienced with active preamplifiers. * The ‘elephant in the room’ = cleaning RCA contacts. As the result of this, my choice for influencing the sound would be: Music source (Rock) 1. Interconnect type from source to LDR attenuator 2. Passive/active preamplifier Amplifier type e.g valve, SS, Class D Speakers, stands and room placement (Rock) Room treatment if practical * My speakers and digital source are 'rocks' and won’t be changed.
Grant Slack Posted July 21, 2023 Posted July 21, 2023 5 hours ago, Satanica said: Hi Grant, quick question. Does this recommendation include 2 channel up-mixed to 5 or more channels or 5 or more channels as the source? Hi Paul, it does, but discrete surround is distinctly superior to matrixed surround, because the sound engineers can implement exactly their intention, album by album, song by song, section by section. The upmixers are relatively formulated and restrictive. Nevertheless, they were developed via listening preference trials, so they definitely deliver the goods over stereo for a good proportion of recordings. If a specific individual consistently prefers stereo across a wide pantheon of music, there are several possible reasons to explore, including quality of setup, or the individual being a statistical outlier, or the most dominant issue, sighted listening allowing for individual bias to dictate preference. The key component, that makes it literally impossible for stereo to succeed in this regard, is the human need for not just delay but also directional cues, to enable what Toole called “complete listener gratification”. cheers Grant
tripitaka Posted July 21, 2023 Posted July 21, 2023 (edited) 19 hours ago, playdough said: 1) The quality of the media. Some is mediocre, to the point it is easily resolved with a good HiFi rig. Some is simply staggeringly brilliant, genius. The variability of the quality of a media production is in all practicality endless. Choice production by these Masters is where it all begins. 2) The lounge room (weakest link in the reproduction you hear), some have experience with this already suggesting a poor acoustic environment does create all manner of reverb, resonance, ill defined imaging among other attributes. These attributes are corruption of the reproduction, sometimes blamed on the hardware or 3) Speakers, generally measured professionally open field or anechoic chamber to produce an outcome within a defined parameter 40 to 16 000 Hz + or - 6dB, or better would be reasonable, more or less. (the second weakest link in the reproduction you hear) This is a relatively fixed parameter and a less resolute or absolute outcome can take away from the media being played, speaker inaccuracy at it's finest. Some sound different to others, but they all fall under the same operational parameter to accurately and to some extent faithfully reproduce the audible frequency band. 4) Other hardware/electronics/cables/connections, the signal chain, which to be fair, for a caring and astute Audiophile will be quite ok and only create fairly minor corruption of the media you actually hear and being the most accurate part of the reproduction. Some will stand out from others however. The sum of all these parts becomes the reproduction the Audiophile is listening. How well all the points above and links in the chain perform, well that's end game. Playdough Playdough has adequately expressed my own thoughts on the matter. And, since 'my thread' was mentioned in the OP's opening comments: ...that thread was actually a comment which was extracted from an unrelated thread and presented out of context (which was defending a bloke who wanted to buy some speakers in spite of the measured frequency response). @stereo coffee of course you can improve the output of the speakers if you change something else in the system - I'd have thought that didn't need a thread of its own, so I presume you are running an agenda so why don't you just say what that is? Can I guess it has something to do with passive preamps? Edited July 21, 2023 by tripitaka 1
stereo coffee Posted July 21, 2023 Author Posted July 21, 2023 5 minutes ago, tripitaka said: Playdough has adequately expressed my own thoughts on the matter. And, since 'my thread' was mentioned in the OP's opening comments: ...that thread was actually a comment which was extracted from an unrelated thread and presented out of context (which was defending a bloke who wanted to buy some speakers in spite of the measured frequency response). @stereo coffee of course you can improve the output of the speakers if you change something else in the system - I'd have thought that didn't need a thread of its own, so I presume you are running an agenda so why don't you just say what that is? Can I guess it has something to do with passive preamps? Where does audio quality begin for you ? is what the thread is about , , and looking forward to your reply.
tripitaka Posted July 21, 2023 Posted July 21, 2023 29 minutes ago, stereo coffee said: Where does audio quality begin for you ? is what the thread is about , , and looking forward to your reply. Fair enough, happy to sheath swords. For me it starts with the recording and a decent set of speakers. After that it comes down to a balance between different approaches thatvseek to overcome the unavoidable shortcomings - and different folks will prefer different compromises. Cheers Trip 2
ENIGMA Posted July 21, 2023 Posted July 21, 2023 25 minutes ago, stereo coffee said: Where does audio quality begin for you ? is what the thread is about , , and looking forward to your reply. It begins the moment you seriously sit with your system and connect with your music. 3
Satanica Posted July 21, 2023 Posted July 21, 2023 (edited) 5 hours ago, Grant Slack said: Hi Paul, it does, but discrete surround is distinctly superior to matrixed surround, because the sound engineers can implement exactly their intention, album by album, song by song, section by section. The upmixers are relatively formulated and restrictive. Nevertheless, they were developed via listening preference trials, so they definitely deliver the goods over stereo for a good proportion of recordings. If a specific individual consistently prefers stereo across a wide pantheon of music, there are several possible reasons to explore, including quality of setup, or the individual being a statistical outlier, or the most dominant issue, sighted listening allowing for individual bias to dictate preference. The key component, that makes it literally impossible for stereo to succeed in this regard, is the human need for not just delay but also directional cues, to enable what Toole called “complete listener gratification”. cheers Grant I agree in an idealised setup. But that's one that is usually very far from obtainable for the vast majority of listening spaces and budgets. I do have a 4 channel setup and I generally enjoy >= 5.1 content downmixed (of which I have a few) more than the 2 channel equivalent. Interestingly, I watched this today which is the thoughts of a professional from a practical and economic angle. On another note I've started using uBACCH which is an entry level plugin of BACCH https://www.bacch.com/ubacch and so far it has greatly increased the spacialness (if that's a word) and my overall enjoyment of my 2 channel playback. Edited July 21, 2023 by Satanica 1
Recommended Posts