Call me crazy but they (magic dots) work!

[tonepub]

Jeff, to me the explanation is quite simple........ some PEOPLE hear it right and some don't !!

Tonal balance, IMO, is an acquired ability. One which requires benchmarks of listening experiences upon which one can refrence from their memory bank.

If someone has never heard live music (preferably unamplified, IMO) and their sole listening enviroment is that of their radio in the car....well that leads us right back to my first sentence !

If you haven't heard unamplified music on a regular basis, it's pretty hard to comment on the sound of any piece of gear in an absolute sense. Even though I'm not the world's biggest classical music fan, I go to the symphony on a regular to hear what acoustic instruments sound like.

I have a lot of friends that are musicians, so I make it a point to listen to as many acoustic instruments as I can and we have a piano in the house. Granted a Steinway sounds a little different than a Yamaha, etc, but it still helps to have a real instrument as a reference close by.

Some gear certainly does a better job at achieving a more realistic tonal balance.

 

[jtwrace]

Granted a Steinway sounds a little different than a Yamaha

I prefer a Yamaha myself.

 

[twich54]

Some gear certainly does a better job at achieving a more realistic tonal balance.

Amen brother, and as you stated in your earlier post........how does one "measure that" ? !!

 

[tonepub]

I prefer a Yamaha myself.

So does Chick Corea, you're in good company!

 

[Gordon Gray]

Speaking of Chick, have either of you, as well as the rest of the forum, had a chance to check out the Japanese CD set entitled "Chick Corea-Five Trios Series".

If not, highly recommended. Pricey yes but, IMHO and relative to this genre, absolutely exquisite.

GG

.

 

[amey01]

So does Chick Corea, you're in good company!

Plenty of Jazz recordings use Yamaha. In fact, it's probably easier to find recordings of Yamahas rather than Steinways.

I personally prefer a Bösendorfer...

 

[Ethan Winer]

acoustic treatments we are leaving out then?

Again, acoustics can be considered part of the room construction, or possibly an accessory. To me it's an essential item, but I understand that many / most audiophiles have no idea what acoustic treatment even does, let alone have any experience with it.

The only "tweak" I have is DIY loudspeaker isolation pads in my living room system. Isolation products are mostly useless, except for speakers which can vibrate transmit sound through the floor as well as the air. Since sound travels faster through solids, sound arriving via that path reaches your ears earlier than the same sound through the air. And that can lead to comb filtering if the sound through the floor is loud enough in comparison to the sound through the air.

Digital Room correction

I'm not opposed to EQ cuts (only) below about 50 or 60 Hz, but products that claim to correct room response are mostly nonsense. I tested the Audyssey system and found it did not do what is claimed:

Audyssey Report

[Shakti] products ... Quantum Physics Products ... Bybee Tech products ... Power conditioners in general ... CD treatments (coatings and cutters) ... High end racks including cable lifters ... dedicated power lines ... Cryogenically treated items

Yeah, I consider that stuff mostly useless, and I don't believe anyone could hear a difference in a proper blind test. Power conditioners can help if you have obvious clicks and pops when the air conditioner motor kicks in. But claims for improved clarity, fuller bass, and better imaging etc make no sense to me. Also, Bybee might put diodes and resistors in the signal path to add distortion, which some could find pleasing. I'm not sure what all of their products do, but clearly putting anything in the signal path can only degrade the sound.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

Almost every solid state receiver built in the late 70's...

That's why I asked for specific examples.

There's no measurement for tonality.

Of course there is. It's called frequency response.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

would you elaborate a bit on what products sold by Shunyata you feel are in the same category with the magic clocks.

All of them.

--Ethan

 

[jtwrace]

OK Got it! You unpack the equipment and play it. No extra "tweaks".

In your opinion, what percentage of ones system should they spend on acoustic treatments? I know this is general due to room...

 

[tonepub]

That's why I asked for specific examples.



Of course there is. It's called frequency response.

--Ethan

Sorry, frequency response does not measure tonality or tonal character.

 

[Ethan Winer]

Sorry, frequency response does not measure tonality or tonal character.

Of course it does. What else do you think there is beyond the four basic parameters of frequency response, noise, distortion, and time-based errors? If you can identify another as-yet unknown audio parameter, I promise there's a Nobel Prize in your future.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

OK Got it! You unpack the equipment and play it. No extra "tweaks".

Right. The goal for high fidelity audio reproduction is, well, high fidelity. So once you have a good source player, and a good power amp, and good speakers, that about does it from my perspective. Putting speaker wires on little elevators might look cool, but it won't improve the sound even a little.

In your opinion, what percentage of ones system should they spend on acoustic treatments? I know this is general due to room...

Yes, it depends. I'm mostly opposed to "formulas" that advise buying this or that based on a percentage of total system cost. Maybe there's a fabulous receiver out there that costs very little. So what sense does it make to spend even more just to satisfy someone else's idea of a quota?

To put my own system percentages in perspective, I have more invested in room treatment than everything else combined including my 65-inch Mitsubishi RPTV and $2,000 SVS subwoofer. Even though I own the company, so to speak, it still costs me something. And even at my cost I have more invested in treatment than all else combined. But I don't necessarily suggest that much treatment for others, and the first eight bass traps made more improvement than the last eight.

--Ethan

 

[amey01]

Of course it does. What else do you think there is beyond the four basic parameters of frequency response, noise, distortion, and time-based errors?

--Ethan

Most audio coponents (including speakers) have near enough to DC-light frequency response, yet they all sound different.

 

[Brad225]

Thanks for your response to my last question.

So I might have some prospective of yours. Would you mind describing your 2 or more channel music system (equipment) and possibly pictures of your listening room so me might have some better understanding of where you are your search for high quality sound.

Brad

Right. The goal for high fidelity audio reproduction is, well, high fidelity. So once you have a good source player, and a good power amp, and good speakers, that about does it from my perspective. Putting speaker wires on little elevators might look cool, but it won't improve the sound even a little.



Yes, it depends. I'm mostly opposed to "formulas" that advise buying this or that based on a percentage of total system cost. Maybe there's a fabulous receiver out there that costs very little. So what sense does it make to spend even more just to satisfy someone else's idea of a quota?

To put my own system percentages in perspective, I have more invested in room treatment than everything else combined including my 65-inch Mitsubishi RPTV and $2,000 SVS subwoofer. Even though I own the company, so to speak, it still costs me something. And even at my cost I have more invested in treatment than all else combined. But I don't necessarily suggest that much treatment for others, and the first eight bass traps made more improvement than the last eight.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

Most audio coponents (including speakers) have near enough to DC-light frequency response, yet they all sound different.

Most gear these days is audibly transparent unless overdriven, and when carefully level-matched sound identical. Not loudspeakers, of course, but electronics. So if two devices really do sound different, the difference can be identified by measuring the four parameters I listed. Note that there are subsets of those categories. For example, under noise there's hum and buzz, vinyl crackles and pops, etc.

As I told Jeff above, if you manage to identify a new audio parameter not yet known by audio engineers, you are guaranteed fame and fortune.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

Would you mind describing your 2 or more channel music system (equipment) and possibly pictures of your listening room so me might have some better understanding of where you are your search for high quality sound.

It's all on my web sites. You can see a tour of my living room setup in the video How to Set Up a Room, third in the list on the RealTraps Videos page.

You can see my home studio setup in the Tele-Vision Trailer video on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdjFQcsWNoY&fmt=18

As for my "search" for high quality sound, I'm already there. I stopped looking a few years ago.

--Ethan

 

[amey01]

Not loudspeakers, of course, but electronics.
--Ethan

And loudspeakers? Most also have a wideband response +/- 2 or 3 dB, are reasonably phase accurate, low distortion and zero noise.

 

[User211]

Ethan, I have watched your video, listened to your arguments etc. But I'd personally be absolutely amazed if a nice new pair of CLX's in the room shown in the video wouldn't improve things just a tinsy bit, to say the least.

Losing yourself in theory (sorry, fact?) rather than what you can actually perceive?

I urge you to consider that is at least a possibility! If you were to try the above, along with an appropriate amp, and reported no difference... well, you catch my drift....

The CLX's will simply blow the Mackies away. Period. At least, they would for me.

The "below 60Hz" comment astounded me as well!

Just my honest opinion based on a good few years of actual listening. I know that sounds harsh, but hey...

 

[Gordon Gray]

With all due respect Justin, Mr. Winer's view of the audio world should be pretty obvious to all by now.

Simply stated, if you can't measure it, it does not exist. Period. End of discussion.

GG