AudioNervosa

I know this is a topic that has been discussed before, but I don't remember when or where. :duh

I have recently been tweaking my system with AMD products (which have been discussed on another thread here on AN) and think my stereo has been sounding really, really good of late.  (BTW - the purpose for this posting is not to discuss AMD products.) 

So, what's the problem you say?  Well, I am very happy for things to be sounding so good, but what's bothering me is the gap between a bad recording compared to a good or great recording.  That gap has seemingly widened considerably and is driving me crazy!  When I put something on that's recorded really well I can just get "lost" in the music, but crummy recordings are now sounding worse than ever in comparison.  It's all music I like (otherwise I wouldn't own it in my collection) but I can't seem to get through more than a song or two on a bad recording before I take it off.

I'm to the point where I can only tolerate the poorly recorded music in my car (LP's excluded of course!) because the (lack of) resolution of my car stereo (compared to home) and the road noise etc... actually make it more listenable there!

Comments?

I had a similar problem with my previous system. Every change I made to improve it also increased my awareness of the problems that remained. The biggest problem was the midrange echo. The quieter and more dynamic my system became with upgrades, the more audible was the room noise.  I discovered the source of the irritation by listening to the same tracks on in-ear headhones. Even with mp3 files on cheap portable, the problem was gone. As I eliminated distortion in the equipment, I exposed distortion that was already there to the point that it was more irritating than before. Acoustic distortion is the largest percentage of overall distortion in the system, but usually the last to be fixed because it is ugly and expensive and not as fun as system tweeks. And we can usually learn to "listen past" acoustic distortion with practice.

But in your case it may not be acoustic, it could be an electronic or crossover distortion that is being exposed after a new tweak removed another masking distortion. Noise covers up a lot of things. The important thing to remember is that you feel that the tweaks improve your enjoyment of the better recordings. That's positive and means you are moving in the right direction, just meeting an obstacle, that's all. You are a thinker, you can find it!

  Bill, welcome to the world of resolution. Its just something we can zero about. Well almost. Your not going to like my opinion though.
  It is the system as well as the recording :roll:. First off correct polarity helps most of the nastiness. Especially vocal sibilants, screechy violins, bright sounding pianos and electric guitars. . Second the system itself is highlighting a part of the frequency range that bothers you. Most likely cause is a hyped up recording along with a flaw elsewhere. A synergy flaw.
  Saying that , ones system has a basic character. If that character leans towards neutral one must be carefull not to use cables , tubes or powercords that are neutral as well. We cannot rely on the recording as you have found. A little flavoring goes a long way in our hobby. Finding that nirvana is the chase.
  I believe that when ones system gets rid of the "microscope affect" it becomes musical instead of clinical. With so called bad recordings we really have no choice.
  Yesterday I had the opportunity to listen to fine system playing LPs. When M. Fremer put on a fresh demo lacquered LP the sound was so much better than anything previous to it. As wonderfull as the sound was prior to this LP, just killed the others in sonics. both 50 and 60 year old recordings sounded great as well. Only some rock recordings were a bit hard sounding but listenable.
  Saying that its a double edged sword. poor recording plus neutral system leads to boredom and fatigue. poor recording plus colored sound equals pleasure.
  Now the color thing. Live music has color.  The goal torwards neutrality IMO has removed the color meaning the soul;. Body and weight are lost and detail and clarity have taken over.
  Granted there are poor recordings but its just not the recording


charles

Quote from: richidoo on March 27, 2011, 08:34:21 AM
...The important thing to remember is that you feel that the tweaks improve your enjoyment of the better recordings. That's positive and means you are moving in the right direction, just meeting an obstacle, that's all. You are a thinker, you can find it!

Rich

I think you're giving me too much credit... I may be a "thinker", but what I really need to be is an "answerer" here!  LOL :rofl:

I appreciate that you and Charles have responded here, but I'm still confused. :? All of our systems and homes have a multitude of variables to deal with; which is why they're like "snowflakes" - no two are exactly alike!  It is also why our hobby can be very challenging at times, because all too often (like you said) fixing one problem, exposes another. :roll:

What I am confused about is how to identify "what is causing what"... is it acoustic or electronic or a crossover or whatever, etc... (if that's what it truly is) and maybe more importantly, how do I continue to improve things without "un-doing" the progress I've already made??? 

There are more things that come to mind, but they overlap with Charles, so I will continue this in my next post later on tonight.  (Unfortunately, I have to "post and run" right now.)

Bill

Put your system back to how it was when you last liked it, then make one change at a time, once a week until you notice the problem again. Then remove that one tweak and try to continue adding more until you judge each new part. Hopefully you can get it down to one thing. Use the known good system config as your reference tool for judging each part. You may want to judge each part individually before adding more than one at a time to judge combinations. That's where the thinking comes in. Your mind will present solutions and experiments containing solutions if you have faith that the answer is within you, and if you are willing to do whatever is necessary to find the solution. Once you are willing, the answer will come easily without having to do all that you were willing to do. This works on any problem or ambition. Faith in your ability and willingness to use it opens the gate.

If the Maher electrical boxes are in the questionable pile then you have to weigh the value of finding the answer vs unplugging them.  I wonder if there is a way to remove their influence on the system without depowering them. Maybe using an unpowered battery UPS for keeping them hot while removed from the grid?

Just remember the possibility that an existing distortion was being covered up by a recently removed distortion. It can be confusing because you threw money at the system, heard an improvement, but now this new problem came from out of nowhere, right after the stimulation from the new sound wore off. No, it was there all the time, and making the system quieter revealed it. Upgrades breed more upgrades. There is no limit because the brain has infinite resolution.
(http://www.funny-junk.co.cc/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/need-those-brains.jpg)

  Man those would be some serious brains. Bringing brain food to a whole new level.


charles

Hah...who needs brains when you got something like that.  :lol:

Quote from: richidoo on March 27, 2011, 01:30:04 PM
(http://www.funny-junk.co.cc/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/need-those-brains.jpg)

Thanks, Rich... I forgot what the hell we were talking about! :yay2:

Charles

You (and Rich) have started to delve into specifics (E.g.: acoustics, crossovers, synergy etc...) but what I am hearing on "bad vs. good/great" recordings is a difference in the sound of my system on a much broader sense.  It's not a particular spectrum (highs/mids/lows) of the music that's being affected, it's the overall sound as a whole.

All of the things you (and Rich) have mentioned have merit;  E.g: adding (or eliminating) tweaks or making changes in your system one thing at a time is imperative if you want to have a fair chance at identifying "what is effecting what" and I wholeheartedly agree that synergy is of utmost importance in optimizing how good/great your system can sound.  But , none of that can account for how the same system is capable of making some recordings sound absolutely wonderful and others sound like crap!?!  With all things being the same within the system (as they currently are) the only variable has been the music and that is entirely the basis of my question in my original post.  (FWIW - I only mentioned AMD products because I wanted to point out that I thought my system was sounding better than ever now: not to draw attention to the tweaks themselves, which I think sidetracked everyone from the point I was trying to get at.)

Good/great recordings sound dimensional and expansive on my system right now.  They have good depth, a wonderfully wide soundstage.  There's texture, detail and subtleties with air/space between voices and instruments.  Complex passages and harmonies seem to present themselves in a layering of sound that just kind of draws you into the music.

Bad recordings have very few of the attributes I listed above for the good/great recordings.  Bad recordings sound flat and congested.  Soundstages on the bad recordings can be narrower, their overall range can seem compressed, everything musically seems to be "homogenized" into a nondescript musical blur.  The overall presentation on what I am considering bad recordings sounds much smaller. 

There's nothing I can pinpoint to sound-wise that needs to be addressed.  I'm not saying the highs are too hot or the system is lacking bottom end or there's "XYZ" missing, etc... because those problems would effect all recordings (good or bad) and that's not the case here.

The best analogy I can make is this: Good/great recordings are like eating a bowl of homemade beef and vegetable stew.  You can identify the meat and all of the veggies individually and yet savor all of the flavors working together in harmony for a satisfying meal.  Bad recordings are like serving up a jar of Gerber baby food! :shock:

Bill

P.S. - I have witnessed (heard) what the effects of correct polarity can be at your place, but I unfortunately don't have the availability to do that with my system. 

Ok, we all strive to make our systems the best they can be, but we have to remember that as the resolving power of our systems gets better not only will it bring out the best of a goos recording, it will also expose the flaws in someing that was not well recorded. Just as a new high resolution speaker can expose some of the shortcomings of the electronics driving it so can a good system highlight the "warts" on a bad recording. Sure a given recoding can end up having some kind of "dis-synergy" (is that a word?) with your system and if you suspect that, try playing it at a friends house toi see if there  is some kind of bad interaction with your system or if it is just a bum recording. Some CDs and LPs just sound bad from the start. Remember, no  matter how hard you try, you just can'y polish a turd. Unfortunately some of those bad recodingsa contain some really good material from a musical perspective. If this is the case you may just have to relegate thos ablums to being listened to on youe ipod or in the car.

I tend to listen to jazz at home, mostly, and jazz ecordings in general sound pretty good, if not great. However, when I put on some rock it can go either way. Some are good and som ejust plain suck. The sucky ones aren't going to sound good on anything other than a car stereo, so I either don't play them at home or I listen in the car or on my Walkman.

However, over the course of years of tweaking I have had my system at the point where only really good recordinigs sounded good and others showed all their faults. This was not a recipe for long term enjoyment. I like my system to sound good on most things and great on great things. It's up to you to find the balance that you can live with and make it so.

Besides, the experimentation is half the fun.

Quote from: BobM on March 28, 2011, 07:04:57 AM
The sucky ones aren't going to sound good on anything other than a car stereo, so I either don't play them at home or I listen in the car or on my Walkman.

However, over the course of years of tweaking I have had my system at the point where only really good recordinigs sounded good and others showed all their faults. This was not a recipe for long term enjoyment. I like my system to sound good on most things and great on great things. It's up to you to find the balance that you can live with and make it so.

Wow Bob, on your Walkman? You're really dating yourself.  :lol:

I agree that you should try and balance you setup between optimizing good recordings vs maximizing the number of recordings that are listenable. But the fact remains that not matter what you do with your system, there will always be some albums that are just beyond help.  :( (Unless of course you are doing the same drugs that the artists were doing at the recording session. (http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d19/xdomains/smilies/weed/9.gif) Then it sounds great :rofl:)

Quote from: tmazz on March 28, 2011, 07:33:40 AM

Wow Bob, on your Walkman? You're really dating yourself.  :lol:

OK, my portable CD player, for my commute to work. It is made by Sony though.

Quote from: StereoNut on March 27, 2011, 09:10:56 PM
But , none of that can account for how the same system is capable of making some recordings sound absolutely wonderful and others sound like crap!?!  With all things being the same within the system (as they currently are) the only variable has been the music and that is entirely the basis of my question in my original post.  (FWIW - I only mentioned AMD products because I wanted to point out that I thought my system was sounding better than ever now: not to draw attention to the tweaks themselves, which I think sidetracked everyone from the point I was trying to get at.)

Warning, rant...

Good/great recordings sound dimensional and expansive on my system right now.  They have good depth, a wonderfully wide soundstage.  There's texture, detail and subtleties with air/space between voices and instruments.  Complex passages and harmonies seem to present themselves in a layering of sound that just kind of draws you into the music.

Bad recordings have very few of the attributes I listed above for the good/great recordings.  Bad recordings sound flat and congested.  Soundstages on the bad recordings can be narrower, their overall range can seem compressed, everything musically seems to be "homogenized" into a nondescript musical blur.  The overall presentation on what I am considering bad recordings sounds much smaller. 

Everyone has that problem. Most old recordings have little of the spatial cues of modern audiophile recordings. They were meant to be played on single speaker, which was common for consumer playback until 1980 and beyond. Some of the spatial cues on older recordings would be better off in mono.

You pose the sound of old recordings as a problem. You said it started after recent tweaks. The solution would be simple, remove them, except that you are emotionally addicted to the feeling you get from the system in the new form.  You are torn between choosing the feeling of music enjoyment from the old records and sound enjoyment from the new recordings with the tweaks.

Fortunately all audio tweaks do wear off as the brain seeks homeostasis from the increased dopamine that you are enjoying now from the stimulation of increased fidelity. When it does wear off and your system sounds "normal" again, then you have a choice. You may be able to tolerate the old recordings again after the craving for dopamine has subsided, and then you can be content enjoying musical content emotionally but without the mental stimulation of ear candy. Or you can decide you prefer the stimulation for an ongoing high without requiring your emotional musical involvement, in which case you have to find more tweaks to further reduce overall distortion. As the distortion level falls lower, the cost of tweaks to take it even further become more expensive. But they are always available and they will always work, because the system can never reach the resolution of the brain. And the brain gets better at hearing details with each new tweak, the sonic details become even more precious and stimulating. The recordings that contain that level of detail are harder to find, and the musical content may not be your preference.

Eventually you realize that the sonic details are mentally stimulating, but not fulfilling your heart like good music does. And the thrills are not worth the money anymore. Then you decide to find a cheaper stimulant, or dial back the resolution and seek emotional fulfillment from music. The only risk is that anything that raises dopamine can be addictive and the addiction may continue after the audio bubble bursts. Dopamine addiction is the driver of modern culture. Having it at the touch of a remote control button has made it too easy. It used to be you had to play, hunt or fight for sex to get dopamine. Now just drive thru starbucks or listen to G-105. It's everywhere. But the addictive nature of it requires greater and greater stimulation to maintain unnaturally high levels. No problem, Apple will come up with something. A broadband internet connected portable TV in your pocket? WTF? Who really needs that? Dopamine is "want." 

What kind of system do you need (to emotionally interact with quality music) vs. want (to be mentally stimulated with ear candy and exaggerated dynamic range?)

I was done until i read Bob's response. Rant continues...

I went down the rabbit hole with my last system. Replacing every part of a very musically satisfying system in order to increase resolution to get a sound quality buzz. At some points, with borrowed gear added to mine, the resolution was extreme, dynamic range was way more than the room could handle. I found myself listening to music that I otherwise wouldn't listen to because that's what sounded good on the system. Sounded good? WTF? Fourplay and Chris Botti instead of Kenny Dorham? Something is wrong here. Fortunately I found enough things wrong with the Ushers that I could hang blame for my listening dissatisfaction on them. I sold them as quick as I could once I believed they were the problem. I couldn't identify a specific thing wrong with them, but I made up things in my head because somehow i knew that they were the root of the listening dissatisfaction. Like the importer bad mouthing them on avguide forum, or being made in China, or the lies about the bogosium drivers, none of that had anything to do with the sound of them, but I used those excuses to bail myself out of a painful situation. Actually they were awesome speakers, for an audiophile who loves sound quality more than musical interaction. But I could not get past the stimulating effect they had. They weren't meant for someone who does not want to be mentally stimulated by sound. They were not meant for music lovers. Now I know they had too much resolution for my needs. After they were gone I felt a huge relief. I couldn't understand why, because I mentally knew that I would never have speakers "that good" again. But I was relieved. It took a year to get unhooked from sound quality and start to listen to my old jazz recordings again. I first switched to in-ears for sound quality stimulation, but gradually that wore off too when I learned to recognize the missing musical satisfaction. I have no desire to increase resolution again. The Ushers taught me a valuable lesson about how much resolution I want and how much I can stand. The feastrexs had the right amount of resolution, but not flat FR. My Legacys had too little resolution. The only thing I have bought in 2 years that increases resolution is a set of interconnects, but I had auditioned those many times over 4 years and knew I loved them in every system.  OK preview button, maybe done... YES End of Rant!

So cathartic! Thank you Bill!!   Don't worry about it, it will work itself out in time. Just enjoy your nice recordings for now. Enjoy that feeling of being in love and winning the lottery, and taking coke, legally, at the touch of a button. WOW What a hobby!

Quote from: richidoo on March 28, 2011, 08:29:35 AM
...OK preview button, maybe done... YES End of Rant!

So cathartic! Thank you Bill!!   Don't worry about it, it will work itself out in time. Just enjoy your nice recordings for now. Enjoy that feeling of being in love and winning the lottery, and taking coke, legally, at the touch of a button. WOW What a hobby!

WOW, Rich!  That's not a rant, it's an epic! :)

You have touched upon the issue in a completely different way than I would've ever thought of by myself and think the completely different tact you've taken here is great.  You've provided both a psychological and psycho-acoustical evaluation of the problem, that goes way beyond the normal audiophile jargon that usually accompanies this sort of discussion! 

I guess the issue that still remains for me is how to find a balance that gives me the best of both worlds.  (Sounds like a re-make of a light beer commercial... "less filling, no tastes great!")  And as I think more and more about what you've said on the subject, the problem is based more in the psychology of it all, than equipment and source material itself.

I'm just having a hard time thinking that in order to enjoy more (most?) of the recordings in my collection, I need to "dumb-down" the resolution of my system.  It really goes against the grain of what all of us audio crazies spend so much time with day to day; which is how to get MORE out of one's system - not less!

Help, I need to be de-programmed!  I think I'm the one who need's a catharsis right about now!  Maybe, some more analysis by Dr. Rich will do the trick?  Do you take GHI and if so, how much are the co-pays? 

Thanks for the fresh look at all of this.  :thumb:

Bill

Quote from: StereoNut on March 28, 2011, 09:11:57 AM
You have touched upon the issue in a completely different way than I would've ever thought of by myself and think the completely different tact you've taken here is great.  

One of the great benefits of hanging out here. There is always someone available to put a different spin on things and get you thinking.  :thumb:

Quote from: tmazz on March 28, 2011, 10:04:06 AM

Quote from: StereoNut on March 28, 2011, 09:11:57 AM
You have touched upon the issue in a completely different way than I would've ever thought of by myself and think the completely different tact you've taken here is great. 

One of the great benefits of hanging out here. Here is always someone available to put a different spin on things and get you thinking.  :thumb:

Just noticed this now.  "tact = tack."  Sorry!  :duh

Wow Rich, that was an interesting (and comprehensive) thought piece.

Just for the record (ha ha) Bill came over for a "playdate" last night and in addition to listening to music, we spent a good amount of time discussing this. I think that Bill's original direction  got sidetracked a bit (not that this is a bad thing because it turned into a great discussion. Based on what we talked about last night I think the original problem was more what do you do about  a piece of great music that is just not up to par sonically. Most of us grew up in a time when audio equipment was no where near as good as it is today and got attached to music that didn't sound that "offensive" on the low-fi systems of yesteryear, but has all of its warts exposed on a modern system. My solution has been to just not play those things on the main system and try to find another way to enjoy then (car ipod or only listening to them when I have a cold and my ears are clogged.) Let's face it there are simply recordings out there that are sonic stinkers and we just have to deal with that

The key is you just have to get past listening to sound and back into listening to music. Listening to sound is a necessary part of this hobby, but it has its time and place. You need to listen to sound to do equipment selection and system setup. But all to often we get stuck in that sound listening mode and fail to enjoy the music for what it is. When I first got involved in the AudioSyndrome we had a number of older members who basically built all of their gear from scratch because there was nothing on the market at the time that would do what they needed (this was during the years that the aerospace industry was in full swing and Long Island was flush with engineers and technical types.) They were not interested in impressing anyone but themselves. and they did it all as a way to more fully enjoy the music. To them the system was a means to and end, not the end itself.I was very fortunate to mentored by some of these Hi-Fi veterans. One of them had a saying that I thought was a great philosophy. He used to tell us that you are not a "real" audiophile unless the value of you record collection exceeded the value of your hardware. While his verbiage may be a little extreme the pint is a valid on. If you spend more time obsessing with the mechanics of your system than you do enjoying music o through it, you are kind of missing the boat. While I have many discussions about this  philosophy during my journey through this hobby, your post is the first time that I have ever heard a discussion of why we stray from it. Nice job.  :thumb:

Maybe this is the answer...???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM9LJuRHshs&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM9LJuRHshs&feature=related)

http://www.soundwagon.jp/ (http://www.soundwagon.jp/)

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

There was a time years back where I started 'labeling' my best sounding CDs with a little green dot on the edge so that when I needed my 'fix' I could quickly find a CD that could provide it.   I did something similar by placing all of my 'audiophile' LPs in a different location from the rest.  In looking back, however, I've discovered that I all too often tagged what sounded best on my system rather than what music I personally liked best.  

So I can totally relate to this thread and Rich's rant!   For me, there is the audiophile 'fix' where I want my system to sound as good as it possibly can, and there is the musical 'fix' where I totally and completely want to get lost in the musical event.   This hobby all too often takes us down that first rabbit hole.  But personally, I find that it's the musical fix that stimulates far more fulfilling brain chemistry.

Quote from: mdconnelly on March 28, 2011, 11:19:28 AM
For me, there is the audiophile 'fix' where I want my system to sound as good as it possibly can, and there is the musical 'fix' where I totally and completely want to get lost in the musical event.

It's nice to hear (pardon the pun) that you understand and have experienced my dilemma here, Mike.

I'll be the first one to admit that I own a number of "audiophile recordings" because they are just that.  They may all be great recordings, but not all of them are great music too.  Yes, I will use some of these ("audiophile recordings") as "Test Records" for evaluating changes or tweaks to my system, but they're not my first choice in listening for the sake of the music itself.  Then there are some that are truly gems in one's collection, that satisfy the need for both "audiophile sound" and great music.  The problem is that these recordings are usually the exception to the rule.

What I still can't "wrap my head around" is why the two "fixes" you mention above have to be mutually exclusive events...???  :roll:

Bill

The old Jazz at the Pawnshop syndrome. Great sound, mediocre music. How many of us have that lying around and haven;t listened to it in years. I bet if we all preened our music collection just down to the things we actually listen to and love the CD and vinyl racks would not be warping under the weight anymore, and our nervosa would shrink like a pee-pee in cold water.  :nono:

It's all about the music, lest we forget. So if the music isn't being served properly then you might be an "equipmanist". You might be an equipmanist if ...

- you only buy music that "sounds good"
- you bought something because it cost more than what you had, not because it sounded better
- you drool over the Stereophile equipment guide, and save those particular back issues
- etc.

The desert island dilemma:  If you could only choose between super system that only a handful of recordings sounded good on or a medicore system with a big collection that sounded good, which would you choose?  Seems like you've got the super system, congrats.   :roll:

The devil is in the details, in this case too much detail (resolution). 

I'm an engineer, so my day is all about numbers.  Hell I dream in numbers and geometry.  So when I retire to the mancave, its to relax the analytical side.  Some systems (Lowthers come to mind) are hyper detailed.  I don't want to know what the vocalist had for breakfast or how much lint is in their belly button.  Those systems "force" me into analytical mode where I came to listen for the emotive affect. 

After decades I've found that improved imaging provides a "natural" sort of resolution that doesn't overload detail, but provides better focus (like a new prescription for your glasses).  Objects may appear smaller, but sharper/clearer.  I also find this sort of system to be less fatiguing as my brain isn't working as hard to "make sense" out of what I'm hearing. 

"Equipmanist"!  Great term that I have often resembled! 

Less so now on the equipment front perhaps because I'm extremely happy with where my system is now.   But I am quite guilty of seeking out particularly well recorded music and definitely appreciate the music reviews of TAS and Stereophile because they rate the sonics as well as the music.  Yet - it still must be music that emotionally engages me - and that's true whether I'm listening on my main system, or in the car, or soaking in the tub with earbuds. 


   

Classic Rock recordings--where SQ is literally all over the place--have always been the most troublesome for me. Various pressings of the same album on vinyl can sound vastly different, and the 'audiophile' pressing isn't always the best choice. The various reissues in the digital realm aren't that much easier to sort through either, especially for the more popular titles.

http://www.pinkfloydarchives.com/Articles/DSOTMCDM.htm (http://www.pinkfloydarchives.com/Articles/DSOTMCDM.htm)

Dark Side of the Moon may have cycled through nearly a dozen masterings since it first appeared on CeeDee in the early eighties. I've heard about four or five of these, and they all sound different--as do the various reissues of even lesser known titles from that era--mostly because of EQ choices, but also due to tape selection, and in some examples I've heard, possibly because Dolby A was misaligned. :?

Hard to say if the latest remaster will always be the best choice, but if it's been brickwalled,  ](*,) jacked up and tweezed out to sound all sparkly and 'modern'...maybe not.

I remember discussing this with miklorsmith here on AN. He wanted a lower resolution preamp and I didn't understand that. He was on the way down, I was still on the way up, thinking more resolution was always better. I had to go through it myself in order to understand the double edged sword of resolution and high end playback. If your system exceeds the quality of the creators' of the music you are asking for trouble. 

Bill, there are all kinds of ways to add in some euphonic distortion to your system that will let you keep the low noise floor you have gained with the AMDs, and still cover up nonlinear shit under the lousy recordings with linear lovely sounding distortion. You dredge out the mud in the noise floor of the system, then you fill it back in with chocolate fudge. The fudge is not perfect original signal but it sounds beautiful and covers up what's annoying in a controlled enjoyable way. You can have vanilla creme or strawberry gelato if you prefer...

I'm talking about signal tubes, paper or plastic drivers, transformers or chokes in the signal path, (I won't say vinyl but I'm thinking it ;) ) things that everyone loves the sound of them but not because they are low distortion. Magnetic hysteresis (3rd order harmonic) is universally loved distortion and it's in transformers coils, pickups, voice coils, tape. Maybe a 1:1 "isolation" transformer from Jensen would be enough, or a tube buffer, "warm" ICs, or something like that. Even better would be something easy to bypass so you can get the full dose of your Mapletree and Chesky type CDs. But I think you would enjoy those just as well with the sweetner in place. The linear distortion would smear the non linear distortion on the bad recordings just enough to make them sound lovely too, but not enough to ruin the edge of the perfect recordings. Nothing will fix the soundstaging issues, except getting out of the sweet spot.

I don't think there is anything wrong with resolution itself. When you think about it, real life sounds are infinite resolution, and sound pretty good! I do think that the more revealing the system is, the easier it is to hear the subtlest distortions in the gear and tracks. These are harder and harder to eliminate with increasing resolution you get when you remove distortions. This is what makes the price of exotic gear climb so high. Dimishing returns. You can never fix the recording quality though. Few recordists are as obsessive as audiophiles. So if you have a very low distortion system, eventually you need something to mask that for the recordings that aren't pristine. I think most audiophiles don't have this problem because budget "high end" gear has enough distortion still in there to not make classic recordings sound bad. Brands like Lamm and AR balance resolution and distortion nicely, but they are not budget parts.

It is possible to get unhooked from detail. I listen to midfi speakers and Pandora, and enjoy it just fine, for now... You can never forget the memories made under the influence of dopamine, it marks peak experiences as "read only." So better speakers are coming.

Quote from: StereoNut on March 27, 2011, 09:10:56 PM
P.S. - I have witnessed (heard) what the effects of correct polarity can be at your place, but I unfortunately don't have the availability to do that with my system. 

You can't swap the positive and negative wires at the speaker terminals  :roll:

When you think about how ultra close recordings are miked, its little wonder how (with the right equipment) we can hear more (exagerated) than live. 

Of late, I have been dwelling on much of what this thread is about...  about getting back to the music and away from the critical analytics of this hobby - or at least how to best balance the two.  One of the things that have helped me in this direction has been none other than Triode Pete's power cords.  I find that they are all about PRAT and musical engagement and very little about the myriad of analytical terms often used to describe the effect of wire.

Don't throw anything at me just yet ... while I realize that this smells very much of BobM's 'equipmanist' mindset, I also think it is very much in line with Rich's comments on resolution exceeding the quality of the recording and what it takes to balance that.  Can power cords help with this?  Sure.  Is it just me rationalizing yet another purchase - this time a bunch of power cords?  Hmmm...  :-k perhaps. But...

Most of us would fully agree that power cords can make a difference, right?  So if one cord creates blacker blacks, tighter bass and extended highs and the other gets you up dancing on the strum of the first chord, which would you prefer?  Think about that... it's actually a tough question to answer.  At least, it has been for me.  And... it is not restricted to power cords.  These are two somewhat different roads to travel in this hobby.  How often have we really asked ourselves this question as we listen to various and sundry gear?  

I had to choose between two speaker cables with those characteristics, one was very dancy, sunny warm ring, the other silent and clear.  I went with the silent one, but I still enjoy hearing the dancy SCs when I can on friends' systems.

I evaluate tough choices like that by noticing how much I listen over a longer period. Do I sit there and get into the music, or am I reading or thinking about other things? Whether I actually crave listening or if I have to "make an appointment" to remember to do it tells me how inviting the system is and if i need to change something, or go back to when it was more inviting. Also how good you feel after a long listen is a good clue.

In your case the 20A inlet makes borrowing cords to try out kinda difficult at least on the amp.

Quote from: BobM on March 28, 2011, 01:34:39 PM
The old Jazz at the Pawnshop syndrome. Great sound, mediocre music. How many of us have that lying around and haven;t listened to it in years. I bet if we all preened our music collection just down to the things we actually listen to and love the CD and vinyl racks would not be warping under the weight anymore, and our nervosa would shrink like a pee-pee in cold water.  :nono:

It's all about the music, lest we forget. So if the music isn't being served properly then you might be an "equipmanist". You might be an equipmanist if ...

- you only buy music that "sounds good"
- you bought something because it cost more than what you had, not because it sounded better
- you drool over the Stereophile equipment guide, and save those particular back issues
- etc.

Bob

I don't own "Jazz at the Pawnshop", but there are other recordings I own that would qualify as "great sound, but mediocre music".  At the same time, I refuse to believe there is one single Nervosian out there who hasn't done that with a few of their music purchases somewhere along the line.  And yes, I am also willing to admit that my music collection has recordings in it that don't get played much anymore. Whether they "hooked me" on one song and then afterwards I found out that the rest of the LP (or CD) has nothing else much worthwhile on it or maybe it's that my tastes in music may have changed since my first record purchase when I was 10 years old, it really doesn't matter.  We all are guilty to a certain degree.  So, up to this point in the "conversation" I am in agreement with you for the most part.

But, here's where I see (hear) things differently in relation to a lot of what's been written on this thread.  (BTW, I want to thank everyone who has posted here for providing their viewpoints and opinions on this topic.  It's what makes this "cyber-community" on AN such a worthwhile place to be.)

Some of the recordings that I have been recently listening to and enjoying so much of late are NOT special audiophile editions or what would be considered "ear-candy" by any means.

• Crosby, Stills & Nash - Disk #1 from their box set
• Keb Mo - "Slow Down"
• Norah Jones - "Come Away with Me"
• Mark Knopfler - "The Ragpickers Dream"
• Blood, Sweat & Tears - "Blood, Sweat & Tears"
• James Taylor - "Greatest Hits - Vol.#1 & 2"

It's all music that I love, first and foremost for the music's sake.  If you'll take notice; it's mostly a mix of "Pop", "Blues" and "Rock".  Norah Jones is the closest thing to jazz on the list, although Hank Williams tunes aren't what I consider jazz per se!  It just so happens that these disks are recorded rather well and it makes the listening to any of these recordings even better; because I love the sound and the musical content. 

Now, with all of that being said; none of you can accuse me of "cherry picking" music just to get the most resolution out of my system and justify why I started this thread to begin with.  Please take note of what's NOT on my playlist here, that would be "standard fare" at many audio club meetings:  no Jacinta, no Ava Cassidy, no Patricia Barber, no Miles/Gertu, no Dianna Krall or "Jazz at the Pawnshop" just to name a few.  And, please hold up on the slings and arrows - I am not saying that there's anything wrong with listening to any of these artists on this last list.  I own recordings from all of them (except the last one, like I said earlier) and I do enjoy them.  It's just that I needed to use them here to help me illustrate my point better.

So, again I ask all of you... if my stereo system remains constant and all I am playing are "run of the mill, plain old redbook CD's" and some sound really good/great and others of the same ilk do not - doesn't it come down to the only variable; which are the recordings themselves? 

Yes, at the end of the day, it always comes down to the music (we miss you, Earl) but I still don't understand why any of us should have to compromise the capabilities of our systems because the same resolution that makes things sound so great, also reveals so many flaws in poorly recorded material, that it in turn makes those recordings barely listenable to!

I'm sorry, but I'm (obviously) having a hard time getting past the "less is more" axiom.

Bill

We are slaves to the recording.  The over mixing, digital manipulations, and excessively close miking can all combine to produce an artificially processed sound.  So it probably doesn't make sense to obsess on our systems (can I say that here?) past elimination of "sins of comission" (power aberrations, small/square rooms with an abundance of hard walls, etc.). 

I owned a Tact preamp/dac for a few years.  It was amazing how I could manipulate and control the sound and it sounded pretty damn awesome.  But ultimately it fed the nervosa monster.  Everytime something didn't sound quite right on a given day/recording/etc..., I'd start tweaking the settings, change to a different response curve, etc...  I guess what I'm saying is that just because you can tweak everything doesn't mean you should.  And, in fact, the more you do so, the less time you spend just listening to the music. 

And ultimately, there are great recordings and there are bad recordings.  Personally, I want the great recordings of my most loved music to sound great and if it means that some recordings just collect dust... well, I guess I'm OK with that.

Quote from: richidoo on March 28, 2011, 06:14:34 PM
...

In your case the 20A inlet makes borrowing cords to try out kinda difficult at least on the amp.

Rich, I have had the opportunity to try a few.  At present I have an Alan Maher Quantum Ref, and a VH Audio Flavor 4, as well as the stock McCormack supplied PC (which is actually damn nice for a stock cord).   I will soon have a Triode Pete 8awg with a Hubbell 20a IEC as well.  It should be interesting.   To be honest, I don't find dramatic differences between these PCs on the McCormack.  The Alan Maher cord seems a bit more relaxed w/quieter backgrounds yet still allows for exceptional dynamics and transient response - all the best from the McCormack.

Mike - Pete is burning a cord in for me also to try out against the one I am using now. I guess we'll see if we can hear a difference soon enough.

As for "too much detail", as some of you know I am rebuilding a pair of Apogee Calipers. As a matter of course I put a .1uF teflon bypass on the tweeter caps. This teflon was burned in for several hundred hours and was used on another project I had, but I let it run in for another 50 or so anyway.

At first I said "wow". I could tell the bass players left sneaker was untied (and yes, he was wearing sneakers - they have a different reverberant field than leather shoes or boots). But after a while I felt it was just too much. The "musicality" was gone and it was just a bit too forward sounding and fatigue set in. When I pulled it off it was an immediate "ahhhh" that's better. Are teflons on ribbon tweeters too much of a good thing? Dunno, this was my first try of them on a ribbon. They certainly did unbalance the sound to my ears. But the bottom line was the music was better served without that extra detail.

Quote from: BobM on March 29, 2011, 07:16:04 AM
Mike - Pete is burning a cord in for me also to try out against the one I am using now. I guess we'll see if we can hear a difference soon enough.

As for "too much detail", as some of you know I am rebuilding a pair of Apogee Calipers. As a matter of course I put a .1uF teflon bypass on the tweeter caps. This teflon was burned in for several hundred hours and was used on another project I had, but I let it run in for another 50 or so anyway.

At first I said "wow". I could tell the bass players left sneaker was untied (and yes, he was wearing sneakers - they have a different reverberant field than leather shoes or boots). But after a while I felt it was just too much. The "musicality" was gone and it was just a bit too forward sounding and fatigue set in. When I pulled it off it was an immediate "ahhhh" that's better. Are teflons on ribbon tweeters too much of a good thing? Dunno, this was my first try of them on a ribbon. They certainly did unbalance the sound to my ears. But the bottom line was the music was better served without that extra detail.

Bob that is exactly what I have talking about and trying to communicate.  Just too much. The soul disappears. The emotional impact decreases.
  I call it the neutrality wars. Neutrality has replaced musicality. The new gear has st rived for neutrality to the source. Great concept if all recordings were well executed.
  The main reason I switched over to SET amps. The harmonic distortion created is suitable to the signal. No matter what one likes neutral or colored say bring back tone controls.


charles

Yes, and yes, Charles.  Great thoughts.

I was on my journey to the ultimate hifi a few years ago... During that time I found an emotional attachment to music listening to a pair of Mac 501's and Piega C3 Limiteds than I had have ever had before... This was at Brandon/Hantra's house listening to music I didn't even know.  That's when I realized I could have hifi that resolved the details in a way that was like real life.. The details were there if I wanted to listen for them.

I started linking/relating what I listened to when hearing music live vs. a hifi.  When I was into it, I didn't have much focus on the details, just a connection to joy.  When I wasn't into it, I started dissecting the sound of the instruments, amps, and then after a while, started looking around at equipment, people in the crowd, and whatnot.  So, my attention to detail shifted/changed throughout a performance.  I also learned a few things about myself.  I don't need really loud music to enjoy it.  It's fun but not required.  When I say 'really loud', I mean bringing earplugs to a concert and it's still too loud.  I really don't get the 120-150db performance.  I'd rather take a hammer to the toe...
Along the same lines of irritation/frustration that good music is recorded poorly, I have the same reaction to good music cranked so loud I can't enjoy it. but anyway..

My goal became building a system that could produce its own performance, what I called a '2nd generation original'... a musical reproduction that was unique and new in my room, and had its own soul.

I have ridden a similar cycle to what Rich describes on page 1..  During my journey, I focused on the limitless learning possibilities.  It was overwhelming at times but I chose what was important to building the system I wanted.  I love to learn and this hobby certainly provides a lot of that.  I created many iterations of what I hoped got me the presentation I wanted.  I changed and so did the gear.. and my goals were refined with each iteration.  

There really is something for everyone in this hobby.  Whether it is getting closer to a connection with music or understanding how to make the music sound better overall.  This hobby provides technical challenges and business opportunities.  Sometimes those are born out of a need to get a reward for the work that's been put into the hobby.  If you do this hobby long enough and you're unsatisfied, it's depressing.  So, getting some money for what you've done is a natural path.. but this business isn't exactly great for small businesses.

Fortunately, this hobby has provided me a means to learn more about myself, and that I have a technical side that loves equipment and analysis.  However, I've changed over the years and so has my interaction with audio.  I have built something that connects me with the soul or intent of the music... and even allows me to put my own intent into the music.  I can get lost in the sound and have a very emotional experience now, with very little to no thought about changing anything other than the volume... or what I want to hear next... or getting a box of tissues for the room. ;)

-C

I hear you Carl. I personally take on a project or two each winter. Some kind of a DIY thing or experiment. As a result I am invariably sitting and listening "criticallY" to discern minor changes (improvements, dis-improvements or just changes in general). This mode of listening is not relaxing or enjoyable, but it is essential to understanding what the tweak or change has rendered in the system. It gets fatiguiging, and is not really listening to "music".

It is nice to be able to sit back and enjoy a piece in its entirety, occasionally looking of from a book or whatever and saying, "boy that sounds good", but more importantly just enjoying the whole experience.

Do you think these may help!?!  :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Quote from: StereoNut on March 30, 2011, 10:38:27 AM
Do you think these may help!?!  :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Not big enough - we would all need the industrial strength dose.  :duh

Hmmm, maybe more like this...

(http://www.audionervosa.com/MGalleryItem.php?id=768)

Would I need 6 pills if I was obsessing over a 5.1 HT system?  :lol:

Remember what the dormouse said;
"Keep YOUR HEAD"

Scotty