rowuk wrote:

Playback is much different than live music - especially if we are familiar with the recording. First of all, stereo does not have enough information to „recreate“ a live event. It can create only a plausible proxy.

Romy the Cat wrote:

rowuk wrote: I maintain that audiophoolery tries to convince us that there are hardware solutions for sound quality. I disagree. Hardware solutions only feed our egos.  This is very complicated question, rowuk, at least in my estimation. I do not argue that solutions feed our egos, there is plenty of it but it does not exhaust the whole picture. I have been in hear a strong supporter of a view that music and audio have distinctly different objectives and means, probably it is better to say not “means” but inner-mechanism for declaring itself. It is not that music and audio do not have arrays of inner-penetration, for sure they do. Still, they are different animals. It is would be similar to design treadmills and health, they for sure are connected and one can be used to evaluate other but essentially they are very different sectors of humans endeavor.    Now the complex thing: the relationship between are hardware solutions for sound quality. I very much insist that quality of hardware solutions are very directly impact sound quality and very directly impact music consequences of that sound quality. I know that you expressed skepticism but I think you incorrect.  The problem is not in the supposition that I am expressing but with the definition sound quality that might be interrupted very wide. The “audiophoolery tries to convince us that there are hardware solutions [do something] for sound quality”, and they are absolutely correct. The key is their definition of “sound quality”. The sound quality that industry is patronizing for many year is a direct consequence of hardware solutions, some of them positive, some of them negative. Did you ask yourself why for over 100 year of audio industry, in one form or another, the industry never formulated more or less standard methodology for sound quality evaluation and assessment? My point is that when “sound quality” has a proper formulation in the ears (and the most important in the minds) of sound consumers then the relationship between hardware solutions for sound quality is very direct and very unambiguous. Unfortunately, the definition of “sound quality” as it been sponsored by audio industry is not the sound that has any relation to musicality or to any other human benefits … besides the “feeding our egos”.    So, are the hardware solutions and sound quality related, yes they do. Does “sound quality” is a known ingredient or even to say commodity in the industry he produced the hardware solutions? Absolutely not and therefore in most of the cased the hardware solutions indeed are just to feed our egos. It might not ned to be this way…

rowuk wrote:

Amir, an audio event can be anything that our ears hear. It can be live music, a baby crying, a recording, playback in the car. Playback is much different than live music - especially if we are familiar with the recording. First of all, stereo does not have enough information to „recreate“ a live event. It can create only a plausible proxy. This proxy does not need audiophile artifacts to work. If we are familiar with a recording, we already know what is going to happen musically. That anticipation changes the way that we listen. No surprises. The geometry of live music is mostly not present in playback. This is because early reflections are far more prominent in domestic spaces. It is especially distorted in audiophile setups that brag about „imaging“ as a thing and not a result. In live music, we have intermodulation. Two trumpets or a trumpet and oboe playing together create sum and difference tones that change depending on pitch interval for instance. For music in major keys, this intermodulation is additive - for music in minor keys, it is destructive. Bruckner used this to great advantage for instance. This effect is never as present in playback as in live music. This is because the intermodulation requires LF response to 1 Hz as well as integration of the highest frequencies. Low frequency response is hugely different between audio events in a „smaller“ fixed space and „larger“ spaces. In a typical living room with the doors or inside an automobile, we have a pressure chamber. Our bodies react differently to this LF - a pressure chamber is impossible to musically integrate! Tone: live music has „Tone“. The various octaves have a sense of pitch and softness and articulation all at the same time. Audio playback very seldom can unite these factors. There are hundreds of further differences. You seem to want to argue, but never provide details. I will not talk about synthesized tone from electronic or heavily DSPed music. Here there is no „reference“ tone (well except compared to the live PA sound...) and more (LF/HF/transients) is simply only more - not better or worse.

Wojtek wrote:

people who are not exposed to a  possibilities of certain (SOTA) sound reproduction level  have NO IDEA what's actually achievable. To have a luxury of choosing five SOTA Trumpets from the masters is very nice indeed but assume that you're only able to get DDR quality tin crap trumpet made in Soviet republic and have no exposure whatsoever? Where that "inspiration' inside of you takes you ? This is reality of an average audio crowd. They are not so moronic or deaf actually.

rowuk wrote:

In live music, we have intermodulation. Two trumpets or a trumpet and oboe playing together create sum and difference tones that change depending on pitch interval for instance. For music in major keys, this intermodulation is additive - for music in minor keys, it is destructive. Bruckner used this to great advantage for instance. This effect is never as present in playback as in live music. This is because the intermodulation requires LF response to 1 Hz as well as integration of the highest frequencies. Low frequency response is hugely different between audio events in a „smaller“ fixed space and „larger“ spaces. In a typical living room with the doors or inside an automobile, we have a pressure chamber. Our bodies react differently to this LF - a pressure chamber is impossible to musically integrate!

rowuk wrote:

Hi Amir,I have many trumpets, some for early music, some for historical playing, some for jazz, some for modern symphony playing. One thing that I teach my students is that the instrument must never be an excuse. We can play stylistically correct with many different trumpets. I choose the instruments because of their „inspiration“ inside me, for their palette of colors. This has nothing to do with an audio event.

Wojtek wrote:

people who are not exposed to a  possibilities of certain (SOTA) sound reproduction level  have NO IDEA what's actually achievable.

rowuk wrote:

Wojtek wrote: people who are not exposed to a  possibilities of certain (SOTA) sound reproduction level  have NO IDEA what's actually achievable. To have a luxury of choosing five SOTA Trumpets from the masters is very nice indeed but assume that you're only able to get DDR quality tin crap trumpet made in Soviet republic and have no exposure whatsoever? Where that "inspiration' inside of you takes you ? This is reality of an average audio crowd. They are not so moronic or deaf actually.  Funny enough, the west block orchestras did not make „better“ music than the east, in spite of „better“ instruments. The reason is clear - the musician makes the music, even the „lesser“ instruments are still „good enough“ in the parameters that count. I believe that this is also true for playback. We do not need the „best“ hardware for the „best playback“. The hardware has to be „good enough“ and in the hands of someone who makes it sing. If we start to analyse the finest playbacks, what do we learn? Higher distortion in SET? uneven polar response? Inconvenient to use? Ugly?I think not. I think that we learn that there is too much that we do not understand and that technical argumentation from audiophiles has NOTHING to do with Sound. That is the problem with this thread - more hardware than common sense.

rowuk wrote:

Amir, In live music, we have intermodulation. Two trumpets or a trumpet and oboe playing together create sum and difference tones that change depending on pitch interval for instance. For music in major keys, this intermodulation is additive - for music in minor keys, it is destructive. Bruckner used this to great advantage for instance. This effect is never as present in playback as in live music. This is because the intermodulation requires LF response to 1 Hz as well as integration of the highest frequencies. Low frequency response is hugely different between audio events in a „smaller“ fixed space and „larger“ spaces. In a typical living room with the doors or inside an automobile, we have a pressure chamber. Our bodies react differently to this LF - a pressure chamber is impossible to musically integrate!

rowuk wrote:

Tone: live music has „Tone“. The various octaves have a sense of pitch and softness and articulation all at the same time. Audio playback very seldom can unite these factors.There are hundreds of further differences. You seem to want to argue, but never provide details. I will not talk about synthesized tone from electronic or heavily DSPed music. Here there is no „reference“ tone (well except compared to the live PA sound...) and more (LF/HF/transients) is simply only more - not better or worse.

rowuk wrote:

Proper playback assumes that we understand the „Real“ geometry, that we understand articulation as it applies to voices and instruments. Only then does transient behavior make sense. It also assumes that we are familiar with Sound in space. Does the space fit the music, or is it too large or too small. Are voices plausible, not etched in space. LF and HF extension are optional when listening. Our brain can insert LF proxy information. At a live classical concert, none of the better seats has response over 15-16K and no one is bothered. Audio recreation assumes experience, not „smarts“. Knowledge in itself is useless. The practical application towards musical goals is a very big subject. Our path gets more valid the more questions that we ask - not the more answers that we believe to have.

rowuk wrote:

Funny enough, the west block orchestras did not make „better“ music than the east, in spite of „better“ instruments. The reason is clear - the musician makes the music, even the „lesser“ instruments are still „good enough“ in the parameters that count. I believe that this is also true for playback. We do not need the „best“ hardware for the „best playback“. The hardware has to be „good enough“ and in the hands of someone who makes it sing. If we start to analyse the finest playbacks, what do we learn? Higher distortion in SET? uneven polar response? Inconvenient to use? Ugly?I think not. I think that we learn that there is too much that we do not understand and that technical argumentation from audiophiles has NOTHING to do with Sound. That is the problem with this thread - more hardware than common sense.

Paul S wrote:

.......By the way, Robin, when I referred to "Furtwangler's incomparable war time Beethoven 7" in my Neumann mic post a while back I of course meant his 9th. You mention how great performances "trump" the gear, or even the recording itself, and here's an excellent case in point. So very true, and what a shame so many people miss so much while listening to the sound itself and/or the gear. C'est la Guerre. There have been several posts over the years opining in various ways that a well chosen table radio is better for listening to Music than a "pretentious" hi-fi system. Generally speaking, I agree. Paul S

rowuk wrote:

Amir, In live music, we have intermodulation. Two trumpets or a trumpet and oboe playing together create sum and difference tones that change depending on pitch interval for instance. For music in major keys, this intermodulation is additive - for music in minor keys, it is destructive. Bruckner used this to great advantage for instance. This effect is never as present in playback as in live music. This is because the intermodulation requires LF response to 1 Hz as well as integration of the highest frequencies. Low frequency response is hugely different between audio events in a „smaller“ fixed space and „larger“ spaces. In a typical living room with the doors or inside an automobile, we have a pressure chamber. Our bodies react differently to this LF - a pressure chamber is impossible to musically integrate!

rowuk wrote:

Yes, knowledge and experience with live music is a powerful tool when thinking about musical goals for playback - even when considering that they are very much different events.

rowuk wrote:

Musicality has NOTHING to do with hardware and everything to do with the performance. A musical message can be adequately conveyed with a Bose wave radio or cheap car system. Musicality is not a feature of a sound system in my world. It is the soul of the performer. If we are talking about proper playback, I think we need terms that more closely describe what is happening. The audiophool speak is useless when defining goals. Distortion of geometry (placement of acoustic events), distortion of space (the physical size of the instruments and the distance between them), distortion of articulation (the characteristics that make instruments speak - related to transient behaviour and color). Distortion of pitch (when notes are in tune but sound like they are not) is a very big issue for me. Many audiophile systems have a sense of being high on the pitch. Strings need air, trumpets „brassiness“. Voices need „substance“. Proper playback can be soft and aggressive at the same time. An orchestra can create a billowy cloud and have sparks fly from the wind section. All of the factors mentioned are needed to avoid these unmusical distortions. I do not think that feedback is a problem or that eliminating feedback is a general solution. I use single ended pentodes (connected as pentodes) with Schade type feedback for my amplifiers (RH 307A Super and multiple RH 84). The issue is how the amplifier and speaker work together.  My experiments with pure feedbackless SET amplifiers was not as gratifying (in respect to the distortions mentioned above). Robin

rowuk wrote:

I ran across this site quite a while ago http://rh-amps.blogspot.de and decided to have a go at building one of Alexs amps. The idea of using a real pentode the way it was originally designed for appealed to me.  I had a chance to get some 307A tubes at a decent price and built the 307A Super. http://rh-amps.blogspot.de/2013_09_01_archive.html It is safe to say that I am VERY happy. I am listening to more complete works and almost never zap anymore. The amp has plenty of power and that something special that makes you sit down and listen. The sense of "melody" is very good even at the lower range of the contrabass. Since the amplifiers are done, I have identified some other areas in my playback that need attention. More on the process that brought me to this decision and what it now "after the fact" has fulfilled in upcoming posts.

rowuk wrote:

I have tried the 307A in triode connection in the "standard" no feedback moron 12Axx (in my case 12 AT7) easy configuration with a coupling capacitor and it was "nice". Critical listening was almost impossible, I kept zapping around to find more "impressive" cuts. With Alex Kitics RH concept I have more than enough power (+7Watts?), and very interesting "Sound". Good recordings have a certain "explosiveness" without the etched imaging or mush of the "easy triode". There seems to be some "intelligence" depending on how "thick" the instrumentalist plays. The most important aspect is that I am motivated to keep listening and discovering things not through more "detail", rather by being able to follow the musicians line. The zeners seem to be one of the key factors to the Sound. I tried a resistor, but the entire presentation changed in the direction of "soft". I can compare this to different trumpets that I own. The RH amp has more core and meat, the triode was big and fluffy but was more like a 3d animation than the space that I have when I am on stage. I just turn on the amp. wait about 5 minutes and listen. In the past years I have had EL34 and 84s in various configs, a PP config the longest with relatively inefficient speakers. I changed to a 4 way system with horns a couple of years ago and there was a fairly long list of things that I thought could be better that I thought were related to the amplifier - This is the first major step. Alex Kitic is a very vociferous designer, very convinced about what he is doing - He is very responsive to questions by mail and this venture to get a reference "melody range" for myself has been very good in terms of the sonic results and in getting some independent background behind what I am doing. It is worth looking through his website. I find plenty of inspiration and because he sells nothing and "gives away" his ideas, there is a credibility that is hard to find anywhere else - except here.......

rowuk wrote:

An orchestra can create a billowy cloud and have sparks fly from the wind section. Robin

Amir wrote:

i think the audio industry destroyed audio.

Romy the Cat wrote:

Amir,  Frankly speaking most of you thinking about audio that you expressed at this site is just an evidence of audio aimlessness, and to a degree I feel that you are very much a victim of the consumerism of the audio industry that you are trying to criticize.  I’m might be getting you wrong, I admit that I do not read your posts attentively  but from the few that I did read I feel your criticism about audio industry is no different than a blind person criticize people who use canes or waking dogs.