Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

Contrary to what Stewart and others think, I've spent 35 years building and
tweaking hifi with one aim in mind - to make the hi-fi system sound like live
music. I didn't use measurements for this, I used my ears since I've been a
professional musician for most of my life. I also did all improvements
methodically, switching one thing at a time, and preferring a closer approach
to the original sound, more fidelity in instrumental timbre and more detail,
reasoning that any unrealistic timbre or detail masked was not 'fidelity' to
the source. OK. ~ Now the point is this:
How many of us know exactly how acoustic instruments and voices actually sound?
If you go to live classical or jazz concerts where music is unamplified (plus
folk etc), it actually has a particular sound to it which is smooth, natural,
even bland. It's unimpressive in many ways compared to our "delusional" hifi
kits and our delusional hifi language. It doesn't have 'warmth', or 'bloom' or
'bass slam' or even PRAT. What it does have is a lot of nothing - nothing
between individual instruments except space. To reproduce this it's necessary
to reproduce a lot of nothing, which is the fantastically difficult bit. It
means no gloss on the treble, no large soundstage to instruments - they should
sound like small point sources in exact locations in the soundstage - no
'dynamics' that aren't actually there, and no 'bass slam'. Pretty boring you
might say. And very hard to achieve - you have to eliminate resonances, all
sorts of interferences etc etc. You don't so much 'build' a syetem but 'take
away' infidelities of all kinds.
At this point Stewart must be rubbing his hands and saying "I told you so -
acoustically transparent". Jim must be happy that the amplifier doesn't exist.
It all sounds great. Except that this isn't the gospel according to Stewart.
Because:
a) I'm quite sure amplifiers and indeed componants sound different, and I've
been doing systematic choices between componants to eliminate infidelities for
countless years.
b) I've done all this by ear
c) I use all valve equipment, and I don't think I could get transparency so
easily with solid state.
d) I don't think valves sound 'warm' - another delusion - the ones I build
sound smooth (to my ears smoother than solid state) and dynamic (without a kind
of 'greyness' I hear in some solid state products)
e) I don't think there is such a thing as 'acoustically transparent', only
approximations towards this goal.
Why this post then? I just eliminated another level of grunge - yes, more has
"gone" leaving the sound a lot better. I started by using better speaker cables
(solid copper core, the previous ones were coloured). Then I wired my whole
system through a monster variac which I have (25 amps). Obviously an effective
mains cleaner. Some studios use huge toroids for this, like over 1K VA
isolation transformers, e.g. mine is over a foot in diameter and 6" high. My
first reaction was that the sound was boring. The "foreground" of the sound was
less obvious - the soundstage was the same, neither more forward or backward,
but instruments sounded relatively tiny and melodies less 'obvious'. There was
a lot of nothing between instruments, and their actual location was spookily
exact. The sound seemed quieter because of this, and also the treble seemed dim
initially. In fact the treble was all there, and the sound of the triangle and
cymbals was exactly right, just not spread all over the place. It took a while
for it to dawn on me that this was the closest I had come to the sound of live
music. Yep, smooth, quite bland, a lot of nothing but loads of fine detail,
faithful timbre to instruments - in short a step further towards acoustically
transparent. No warmth, no bloom, no PRAT, no bass slam. Spooky. After a little
while I started to get excited! And looking back on the whole saga of 'warm
valve amps', PRAT, slam etc etc, the whole business of Hi-Fi seemed delusional.
I'm sure this post will be of little use to those who listen mainly to rock and
amplified music, but for those who listen to classical and acoustic music,
getting closer to 'nothing much except the live sound of music' may matter a
lot. It's taken me 35 years to eliminate enough grunge to actually get this
far, and no I couldn't have got there sooner or even at all with a big Krell -
I know that one very well, my brother has a Krell and Apogees, and I've heard
all manner of big ss amps in high end demos. I'm quite unrepentant about how
I've made my Hi-fi sound natural, and all the changes I've done have been
carefully thought out. It's a bit like Salome's seven veils - you have to lift
all the veils to see what's really there, which is, errm, nothing. Thought for
the day.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

On 17 Oct 2004 19:45:44 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

Contrary to what Stewart and others think, I've spent 35 years building and
tweaking hifi with one aim in mind - to make the hi-fi system sound like live
music. I didn't use measurements for this, I used my ears since I've been a
professional musician for most of my life. I also did all improvements
methodically, switching one thing at a time, and preferring a closer approach
to the original sound, more fidelity in instrumental timbre and more detail,
reasoning that any unrealistic timbre or detail masked was not 'fidelity' to
the source. OK. ~ Now the point is this:
How many of us know exactly how acoustic instruments and voices actually sound?
If you go to live classical or jazz concerts where music is unamplified (plus
folk etc), it actually has a particular sound to it which is smooth, natural,
even bland. It's unimpressive in many ways compared to our "delusional" hifi
kits and our delusional hifi language. It doesn't have 'warmth', or 'bloom' or
'bass slam' or even PRAT. What it does have is a lot of nothing - nothing
between individual instruments except space. To reproduce this it's necessary
to reproduce a lot of nothing, which is the fantastically difficult bit. It
means no gloss on the treble, no large soundstage to instruments - they should
sound like small point sources in exact locations in the soundstage - no
'dynamics' that aren't actually there, and no 'bass slam'. Pretty boring you
might say. And very hard to achieve - you have to eliminate resonances, all
sorts of interferences etc etc. You don't so much 'build' a syetem but 'take
away' infidelities of all kinds.
At this point Stewart must be rubbing his hands and saying "I told you so -
acoustically transparent". Jim must be happy that the amplifier doesn't exist.
It all sounds great. Except that this isn't the gospel according to Stewart.
Because:
a) I'm quite sure amplifiers and indeed componants sound different, and I've
been doing systematic choices between componants to eliminate infidelities for
countless years.
b) I've done all this by ear
c) I use all valve equipment, and I don't think I could get transparency so
easily with solid state.
d) I don't think valves sound 'warm' - another delusion - the ones I build
sound smooth (to my ears smoother than solid state) and dynamic (without a kind
of 'greyness' I hear in some solid state products)
e) I don't think there is such a thing as 'acoustically transparent', only
approximations towards this goal.
Why this post then? I just eliminated another level of grunge - yes, more has
"gone" leaving the sound a lot better. I started by using better speaker cables
(solid copper core, the previous ones were coloured). Then I wired my whole
system through a monster variac which I have (25 amps). Obviously an effective
mains cleaner. Some studios use huge toroids for this, like over 1K VA
isolation transformers, e.g. mine is over a foot in diameter and 6" high. My
first reaction was that the sound was boring. The "foreground" of the sound was
less obvious - the soundstage was the same, neither more forward or backward,
but instruments sounded relatively tiny and melodies less 'obvious'. There was
a lot of nothing between instruments, and their actual location was spookily
exact. The sound seemed quieter because of this, and also the treble seemed dim
initially. In fact the treble was all there, and the sound of the triangle and
cymbals was exactly right, just not spread all over the place. It took a while
for it to dawn on me that this was the closest I had come to the sound of live
music. Yep, smooth, quite bland, a lot of nothing but loads of fine detail,
faithful timbre to instruments - in short a step further towards acoustically
transparent. No warmth, no bloom, no PRAT, no bass slam. Spooky. After a little
while I started to get excited! And looking back on the whole saga of 'warm
valve amps', PRAT, slam etc etc, the whole business of Hi-Fi seemed delusional.
I'm sure this post will be of little use to those who listen mainly to rock and
amplified music, but for those who listen to classical and acoustic music,
getting closer to 'nothing much except the live sound of music' may matter a
lot. It's taken me 35 years to eliminate enough grunge to actually get this
far, and no I couldn't have got there sooner or even at all with a big Krell -
I know that one very well, my brother has a Krell and Apogees, and I've heard
all manner of big ss amps in high end demos. I'm quite unrepentant about how
I've made my Hi-fi sound natural, and all the changes I've done have been
carefully thought out. It's a bit like Salome's seven veils - you have to lift
all the veils to see what's really there, which is, errm, nothing. Thought for
the day.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

Interesting essay, Andy - but you've wasted your time. The decision as
to whether what comes out of your Hi Fi sounds like live music has
been made long before any piece of media reaches your hands, and the
decision in pretty much 100% of cases is "no, it won't sound like live
music, it will sound the way the producer likes it". Unless you make
your own recordings, that is the situation you are stuck with and you
just have to make the best of it.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

Unless you make
your own recordings, that is the situation you are stuck with and you
just have to make the best of it.


Very good point and sadly..all too true....

--
Tony Sayer

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

you've wasted your time. The decision as
to whether what comes out of your Hi Fi has been made long before any piece of
media reaches your hands

Hello Don - yes, I expected this observation which is largely but not entirely
correct. Yes, of course, volume and placement of instruments (at least..) are
choices of the producer. But the microphones still pick up the sounds of the
instruments and the voices - the producer has to be remarkably ham fisted to
ruin that (not that it can't be done). So yes, we have to make the best of
this, but no - maximising one's hifi is never a waste of time. Why else would
we read these pages? (I'm tempted to say - "to find a convenient argument to
take part in"...)

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

On 17 Oct 2004 20:41:23 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

you've wasted your time. The decision as
to whether what comes out of your Hi Fi has been made long before any piece of
media reaches your hands

Hello Don - yes, I expected this observation which is largely but not entirely
correct. Yes, of course, volume and placement of instruments (at least..) are
choices of the producer. But the microphones still pick up the sounds of the
instruments and the voices - the producer has to be remarkably ham fisted to
ruin that (not that it can't be done). So yes, we have to make the best of
this, but no - maximising one's hifi is never a waste of time. Why else would
we read these pages? (I'm tempted to say - "to find a convenient argument to
take part in"...)

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

Unfortunately there is a world of difference between "sounds live" and
"sounds nice". For a start, you need to record anechoically for a live
sound, and there isn't a producer alive who would do that apart from
as an experiment.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

you need to record anechoically for a live
sound, and there isn't a producer alive who would do that

I;m not following this - don't you often record classical and jazz in a
performance venue (hall, club, whatever) to try and recreate the experience of
a listener? Sometimes this was done literally with a stereo mic (or ambisonics)
but more often it's multi mic, but in the same kind of hall? You're not
suggesting recordings like those Toscanini had in that infamous NBC studio,
which sounded dry as a bone? Not what one would hear live. Have I missed
something here?

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

Andy Evans wrote:
Contrary to what Stewart and others think, I've spent 35 years building and
tweaking hifi with one aim in mind - to make the hi-fi system sound like live
music.

Of course, no-one else here wants their HiFi to sound like they are
'there' then...

what a load of cobblers. full of vague garbage like "warm" "nothing
there" "PRAT" (whatever it is) and plenty of SS digs with no evidence to
back them.

and this 'multiple instruments in different places' crapola... your
EARS are effectively point recording sources, with their own
acoustics... if you're trying to reproduce that, try a pair of
headphones, a sub, and a binaural recording... no speaker system is
going to beat the stereo seperation of a pair of headphones...

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
...
Contrary to what Stewart and others think, I've spent 35 years building
and
tweaking hifi with one aim in mind - to make the hi-fi system sound like
live
music. I didn't use measurements for this, I used my ears since I've been
a
professional musician for most of my life. I also did all improvements
methodically, switching one thing at a time, and preferring a closer
approach
to the original sound, more fidelity in instrumental timbre and more
detail,
reasoning that any unrealistic timbre or detail masked was not 'fidelity'
to
the source. OK. ~ Now the point is this:
How many of us know exactly how acoustic instruments and voices actually
sound?
If you go to live classical or jazz concerts where music is unamplified
(plus
folk etc), it actually has a particular sound to it which is smooth,
natural,
even bland.

I can't agree with that, as with your hi-fi system the acoustics of the live
event and your position in the diffuse field can provide you with completely
different listening experiences. I have recorded many (unamplified) jazz
concerts and only a minority were acoustically bland, some were extremely
dynamic e.g. either concert or jazz pianists, drums in both classical or
jazz settings,. Consider a big band - it can be smooth or amazingly dynamic
depending on many factors.

It's unimpressive in many ways compared to our "delusional" hifi
kits and our delusional hifi language. It doesn't have 'warmth', or
'bloom' or
'bass slam' or even PRAT. What it does have is a lot of nothing - nothing
between individual instruments except space. To reproduce this it's
necessary
to reproduce a lot of nothing, which is the fantastically difficult bit.
It
means no gloss on the treble, no large soundstage to instruments - they
should
sound like small point sources in exact locations in the soundstage - no
'dynamics' that aren't actually there, and no 'bass slam'. Pretty boring
you
might say. And very hard to achieve - you have to eliminate resonances,
all
sorts of interferences etc etc. You don't so much 'build' a syetem but
'take
away' infidelities of all kinds.
At this point Stewart must be rubbing his hands and saying "I told you
so -
acoustically transparent". Jim must be happy that the amplifier doesn't
exist.
It all sounds great. Except that this isn't the gospel according to
Stewart.
Because:
a) I'm quite sure amplifiers and indeed componants sound different, and
I've
been doing systematic choices between componants to eliminate infidelities
for
countless years.

Agreed - to my ear without double blind testing

b) I've done all this by ear

Ditto as have the majority of hi-fi hobbyists.

c) I use all valve equipment, and I don't think I could get transparency
so
easily with solid state.

I'll agree with that.

d) I don't think valves sound 'warm' - another delusion - the ones I build
sound smooth (to my ears smoother than solid state) and dynamic (without a
kind
of 'greyness' I hear in some solid state products)

Ditto


e) I don't think there is such a thing as 'acoustically transparent', only
approximations towards this goal.

That's the fun in working towards the unobtainable goal ;-)


Why this post then? I just eliminated another level of grunge - yes, more
has
"gone" leaving the sound a lot better. I started by using better speaker
cables
(solid copper core, the previous ones were coloured).

I found the same after years experimenting with cables (used to manufacture
& sell them) I settled with Cogan-Hall copper (central heating pipes if you
want, they work as well and a lot cheaper)


Then I wired my whole
system through a monster variac which I have (25 amps).

Makes a huge difference IMO (again unsubstantiated by double blind tests) I
use 25mm SWA from consumer unit & distribution.

Obviously an effective
mains cleaner. Some studios use huge toroids for this, like over 1K VA
isolation transformers, e.g. mine is over a foot in diameter and 6" high.
My
first reaction was that the sound was boring. The "foreground" of the
sound was
less obvious - the soundstage was the same, neither more forward or
backward,
but instruments sounded relatively tiny and melodies less 'obvious'. There
was
a lot of nothing between instruments, and their actual location was
spookily
exact. The sound seemed quieter because of this, and also the treble
seemed dim
initially. In fact the treble was all there, and the sound of the triangle
and
cymbals was exactly right, just not spread all over the place. It took a
while
for it to dawn on me that this was the closest I had come to the sound of
live
music. Yep, smooth, quite bland, a lot of nothing but loads of fine
detail,
faithful timbre to instruments - in short a step further towards
acoustically
transparent. No warmth, no bloom, no PRAT, no bass slam. Spooky. After a
little
while I started to get excited! And looking back on the whole saga of
'warm
valve amps', PRAT, slam etc etc, the whole business of Hi-Fi seemed
delusional.
I'm sure this post will be of little use to those who listen mainly to
rock and
amplified music, but for those who listen to classical and acoustic music,
getting closer to 'nothing much except the live sound of music' may matter
a
lot. It's taken me 35 years to eliminate enough grunge to actually get
this
far, and no I couldn't have got there sooner or even at all with a big
Krell -
I know that one very well, my brother has a Krell and Apogees, and I've
heard
all manner of big ss amps in high end demos. I'm quite unrepentant about
how
I've made my Hi-fi sound natural, and all the changes I've done have been
carefully thought out. It's a bit like Salome's seven veils - you have to
lift
all the veils to see what's really there, which is, errm, nothing. Thought
for
the day.

Recreating fine detail, faithfully timbre in music is all very well but you
want those dynamics too - its all part of the listening experience. Good
live unamplified music is anything but boring surely?

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
Andy Evans wrote:
Contrary to what Stewart and others think, I've spent 35 years building
and
tweaking hifi with one aim in mind - to make the hi-fi system sound like
live
music.

Of course, no-one else here wants their HiFi to sound like they are
'there' then...

what a load of cobblers. full of vague garbage like "warm" "nothing there"
"PRAT" (whatever it is)


Pace, Rhythm And Timing (I think it's a 'Linnism' referring to the LP12??) -
means ****-all, like most 'hifi terminology'......


and plenty of SS digs with no evidence to back them.

and this 'multiple instruments in different places' crapola... your
EARS are effectively point recording sources, with their own acoustics...
if you're trying to reproduce that, try a pair of headphones,


Headphones? - Just done that on a pair of DM2As with my cheapychinky (40W
EL34s) maxxed out and I feel 'unwell' right now..... :-)

(Björk - Telegram)

(Note to Fleetie - You need bigger bass drivers or a sub, not a bigger
amp....)

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

Andy Evans wrote:
I started by using better speaker cables
(solid copper core, the previous ones were coloured).

Wat colour? girly pink?

Without wanting to get into a cable war (the entire subject being almost
universally ********) surely solid core is not the way to go - flex
having lower impedance, etc?

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

what a load of cobblers. full of vague garbage like "warm" "nothing
there" "PRAT" (whatever it is)

Read it again - 'Warm' and 'PRAT' is exactly what I'm calling delusional. I
don't think "nothing added" is delusional. I'm talking of taking away garbage
in the sound, not adding to it.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

Recreating fine detail, faithfully timbre in music is all very well but you
want those dynamics too - its all part of the listening experience. Good
live unamplified music is anything but boring surely?

Maybe I'm not describing this correctly - the dynamics are there, but what is
absent is the reproduction of sounds 'larger' than they are in real life
through added reverberation and hash in the hifi reproduction system. Take away
this added 'presence' and the original experience remains. If you are used to
resonances of various kinds enlarging the sound, then the effect is of removing
something or making the sound smaller. One example is a listening test I did
with three types of ICW capacitors (47uF) which increased in size and power
rating (160 to 630v) as the film used got thicker. The smallest was about an
inch diameter, the biggest the size of a coffee cup. The biggest was the most
acoustically dead, and the sound was as I describe - more focussed and less
lively. However, though I preferred the large cap, an audio designer sitting
next to me preferred the middle one, saying it was more lively and interesting.


=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

Ian Molton wrote:
Andy Evans wrote:

Contrary to what Stewart and others think, I've spent 35 years
building and
tweaking hifi with one aim in mind - to make the hi-fi system sound
like live
music.


Of course, no-one else here wants their HiFi to sound like they are
'there' then...

what a load of cobblers. full of vague garbage like "warm" "nothing
there" "PRAT" (whatever it is) and plenty of SS digs with no evidence to
back them.


Not sure if you already knew this but thought it was meaningless, but
I'll mention it anyway.

PRAT means Pace, Rhythm and Timing, which is commonly used to describe
Naim equipment.

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

Andy Evans wrote:

what a load of cobblers. full of vague garbage like "warm" "nothing
there" "PRAT" (whatever it is)

Read it again - 'Warm' and 'PRAT' is exactly what I'm calling delusional. I
don't think "nothing added" is delusional. I'm talking of taking away garbage
in the sound, not adding to it.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

Andy,

Could you format your quoted replies in a better way? You tend to
snip out the name of the poster whose post you are replying to.

Cheers.

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
...
Recreating fine detail, faithfully timbre in music is all very well but
you
want those dynamics too - its all part of the listening experience. Good
live unamplified music is anything but boring surely?

Maybe I'm not describing this correctly - the dynamics are there, but what
is
absent is the reproduction of sounds 'larger' than they are in real life
through added reverberation and hash in the hifi reproduction system. Take
away
this added 'presence' and the original experience remains. If you are used
to
resonances of various kinds enlarging the sound, then the effect is of
removing
something or making the sound smaller. One example is a listening test I
did
with three types of ICW capacitors (47uF) which increased in size and
power
rating (160 to 630v) as the film used got thicker. The smallest was about
an
inch diameter, the biggest the size of a coffee cup. The biggest was the
most
acoustically dead, and the sound was as I describe - more focussed and
less
lively. However, though I preferred the large cap, an audio designer
sitting
next to me preferred the middle one, saying it was more lively and
interesting.


=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

I can understand the component differences but try and get hold a good
recording of a live event that you've attended (before mastering if
possible) and use that plus your own memory (which is unreliable at the best
of times but it's the best you've got) use that as your reference. Remember
if its a dry acoustic recording then mastering may well add reverb,
compression and additional processing which muddles your objective. Using
that original gives you a reasonable chance imo of component selection.

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

"Mike Gilmour" wrote in message
...

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
...
Recreating fine detail, faithfully timbre in music is all very well but
you
want those dynamics too - its all part of the listening experience. Good
live unamplified music is anything but boring surely?

Maybe I'm not describing this correctly - the dynamics are there, but
what is
absent is the reproduction of sounds 'larger' than they are in real life
through added reverberation and hash in the hifi reproduction system.
Take away
this added 'presence' and the original experience remains. If you are
used to
resonances of various kinds enlarging the sound, then the effect is of
removing
something or making the sound smaller. One example is a listening test I
did
with three types of ICW capacitors (47uF) which increased in size and
power
rating (160 to 630v) as the film used got thicker. The smallest was about
an
inch diameter, the biggest the size of a coffee cup. The biggest was the
most
acoustically dead, and the sound was as I describe - more focussed and
less
lively. However, though I preferred the large cap, an audio designer
sitting
next to me preferred the middle one, saying it was more lively and
interesting.


=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

I can understand the component differences but try and get hold a good
recording of a live event that you've attended (before mastering if
possible) and use that plus your own memory (which is unreliable at the
best of times but it's the best you've got) use that as your reference.
Remember if its a dry acoustic recording then mastering may well add
reverb, compression and additional processing which muddles your
objective. Using that original gives you a reasonable chance imo of
component selection.

It helps to know a recording eng ..and most importantly get permission from
the artists, say its for your own tech use - some may refuse.

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

Andy Evans wrote:
what a load of cobblers. full of vague garbage like "warm" "nothing
there" "PRAT" (whatever it is)

Read it again - 'Warm' and 'PRAT' is exactly what I'm calling delusional.

Sorry, yes. however, you make reference to (as good qualities in your
system)

'less obvious' (what is? why? is that good for some reason?)
'spookily exact' (meaning what exactly?)
'boring' (meaningless)
'sounded tiny' (again, huh?)
'a lot of nothing' (cant all systems reproduce this 100% perfectly, if
you switch them off?)

and then you say 'no warmth, bloom, prat, or bass slam' which, if you
claim are meaningless, you cant claim you dont have.

oh, and whats 'grunge'? perhaps you should stop playing nirvana whilst
trying to get that 'classical jazz' sound out of your system?

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

"Keith G" wrote
(Björk - Telegram)

(Note to Fleetie - You need bigger bass drivers or a sub, not a bigger amp....)

I'd tend to disagree, Keith.

It's painfully evident that my current valve amp has insufficient
headroom to handle Bjork's obsession with deep bass. A 150W amp
would allow me to play some of her songs with the vocals at a
decent level, without the bass clipping to ****. Which is what happens
now if I try to listen to some of her tracks at such a volume that
the vocals are loud enough to sound really good.

A sub would *not* improve matters.

I know for a fact I need a bigger amp. If you could come here and
hear it, I think you'd know what I mean.

Anyway, I'm gonna have to wait until I can afford a bigger power
amp. :-(


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

Fleetie wrote:

"Keith G" wrote

(Björk - Telegram)

(Note to Fleetie - You need bigger bass drivers or a sub, not a bigger amp....)


I'd tend to disagree, Keith.

It's painfully evident that my current valve amp has insufficient
headroom to handle Bjork's obsession with deep bass. A 150W amp
would allow me to play some of her songs with the vocals at a
decent level, without the bass clipping to ****. Which is what happens
now if I try to listen to some of her tracks at such a volume that
the vocals are loud enough to sound really good.

A sub would *not* improve matters.

What speakers are you using?
Unless you have massive drivers on your speakers, a sub will usually add
more low level grunt.

Of course, it could be the case that your amp is unable to drive your
speakers at your preferred listening levels.


I know for a fact I need a bigger amp. If you could come here and
hear it, I think you'd know what I mean.

Anyway, I'm gonna have to wait until I can afford a bigger power
amp. :-(


you can always ditch your (low powered?) valve amp for a 100W SS amp
that will happily drive your speakers ...

;)

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:06:52 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On 17 Oct 2004 19:45:44 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

Contrary to what Stewart and others think, I've spent 35 years building and
tweaking hifi with one aim in mind - to make the hi-fi system sound like live
music.

Why is that 'contrary to what I think'? In point of fact, I'm sure
that it's absolutely true - I also think that you're going about it
the wrong way! :-)

I didn't use measurements for this, I used my ears since I've been a
professional musician for most of my life. I also did all improvements
methodically, switching one thing at a time, and preferring a closer approach
to the original sound, more fidelity in instrumental timbre and more detail,
reasoning that any unrealistic timbre or detail masked was not 'fidelity' to
the source. OK. ~ Now the point is this:
How many of us know exactly how acoustic instruments and voices actually sound?

At least three regular posters attend jazz and other unamplified
concerts on a regular basis. I'm one of them.

If you go to live classical or jazz concerts where music is unamplified (plus
folk etc), it actually has a particular sound to it which is smooth, natural,
even bland. It's unimpressive in many ways compared to our "delusional" hifi
kits and our delusional hifi language.

Agreed. The common 'hi-fi' sound is anything but!

It doesn't have 'warmth', or 'bloom' or
'bass slam' or even PRAT. What it does have is a lot of nothing - nothing
between individual instruments except space.

It's absolutely *not* 'nothing', some of us call it atmosphere.....

To reproduce this it's necessary
to reproduce a lot of nothing, which is the fantastically difficult bit. It
means no gloss on the treble, no large soundstage to instruments - they should
sound like small point sources in exact locations in the soundstage - no
'dynamics' that aren't actually there, and no 'bass slam'. Pretty boring you
might say. And very hard to achieve - you have to eliminate resonances, all
sorts of interferences etc etc. You don't so much 'build' a syetem but 'take
away' infidelities of all kinds.
At this point Stewart must be rubbing his hands and saying "I told you so -
acoustically transparent".

Close enough for guv'mnt work................. :-)

Jim must be happy that the amplifier doesn't exist.
It all sounds great. Except that this isn't the gospel according to Stewart.
Because:
a) I'm quite sure amplifiers and indeed componants sound different, and I've
been doing systematic choices between componants to eliminate infidelities for
countless years.

I'm quite sure that good ones don't, but I can still count the years!

b) I've done all this by ear

Me too, but under controlled conditions.

c) I use all valve equipment, and I don't think I could get transparency so
easily with solid state.

I use all solid-state equipment, because it's very difficult - and
extremely expensive - to achieve sonic transparency using valves.
OTOH, getting *added* 'nothing', i.e. reverberant hall ambience, is
very easy with valves.....................

d) I don't think valves sound 'warm' - another delusion - the ones I build
sound smooth (to my ears smoother than solid state) and dynamic (without a kind
of 'greyness' I hear in some solid state products)

Anything which does not sound *exactly* like a top-class solid state
amp is not removing 'greyness', it's *adding* artifacts. That these
artifacts are euphonic, so you obviously *like* that artificial sound,
is another matter. It's easy to make an amp sound smooth when you
knock off the edges that were in the input signal................

e) I don't think there is such a thing as 'acoustically transparent', only
approximations towards this goal.

I do, and I can prove it with a bypass test.

Why this post then? I just eliminated another level of grunge - yes, more has
"gone" leaving the sound a lot better. I started by using better speaker cables
(solid copper core, the previous ones were coloured).

Oh, phukkin' L!!!........................

I hope you mean that they were yellow, not that they actually sounded
different. Otherwise, you're a maroon.

Then I wired my whole
system through a monster variac which I have (25 amps). Obviously an effective
mains cleaner.

No, it has no effect at all, other than varying the voltage. That's
what a Variac is *for*, it varies AC - Variac, geddit?

Some studios use huge toroids for this, like over 1K VA
isolation transformers, e.g. mine is over a foot in diameter and 6" high.

An isolation transformer is an *entirely* different beast, and
requires specialist grounding techniques to be effective. Your
imagination of course requires no such technical input!

snip gushing expression of vivid imagination

BTW, sounds like you may have a hum problem in your system, 50Hz as
opposed to PSU ripple. The best way to fix that is with a 'scope, as
it's difficult to hear, nearly subliminal in most systems. You really
just feel that an odd veiling has been lifted when you remove the hum.
Hey!............

Interesting essay, Andy - but you've wasted your time. The decision as
to whether what comes out of your Hi Fi sounds like live music has
been made long before any piece of media reaches your hands, and the
decision in pretty much 100% of cases is "no, it won't sound like live
music, it will sound the way the producer likes it". Unless you make
your own recordings, that is the situation you are stuck with and you
just have to make the best of it.

Quite so. But you have to admire ol' Andy's enthusiasm, however
misguided..... :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

On 17 Oct 2004 21:49:49 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

you need to record anechoically for a live
sound, and there isn't a producer alive who would do that

I;m not following this - don't you often record classical and jazz in a
performance venue (hall, club, whatever) to try and recreate the experience of
a listener? Sometimes this was done literally with a stereo mic (or ambisonics)
but more often it's multi mic, but in the same kind of hall? You're not
suggesting recordings like those Toscanini had in that infamous NBC studio,
which sounded dry as a bone? Not what one would hear live. Have I missed
something here?

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

Just my interpretation of "live" - I took it to mean that you had the
impression the musicians were in the room with you. To achieve that,
you must record anechoically. This is very nearly achievable.

The other version of "live", in which you believe yourself to be at
the venue where the recording was made has never even been approached.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

In article , Andy Evans
wrote:
Contrary to what Stewart and others think, I've spent 35 years building
and tweaking hifi with one aim in mind - to make the hi-fi system sound
like live music. I didn't use measurements for this, I used my ears
since I've been a professional musician for most of my life.

Well, I've used both my ears *and* measurements. I find the measurements to
have been very useful in helping to identify what to do when my ears
weren't happy. Saved me a lot of 'flailing about' and helped me to get an
understanding of what it happening.


I also did all improvements methodically, switching one thing at a time,
and preferring a closer approach to the original sound, more fidelity in
instrumental timbre and more detail, reasoning that any unrealistic
timbre or detail masked was not 'fidelity' to the source. OK. ~ Now the
point is this: How many of us know exactly how acoustic instruments and
voices actually sound?

These days I only go to half or dozen or so live unamplifier music events a
year. Used to go to far more when I lived in London. So in my case this is
a matter of 'memory'. I seem to be able to hear the 'sound' in my head a
lot of the time, but this obviously is fallible.


If you go to live classical or jazz concerts where music is unamplified
(plus folk etc), it actually has a particular sound to it which is
smooth, natural, even bland. It's unimpressive in many ways compared to
our "delusional" hifi kits and our delusional hifi language. It doesn't
have 'warmth', or 'bloom' or 'bass slam' or even PRAT. What it does have
is a lot of nothing - nothing between individual instruments except
space. To reproduce this it's necessary to reproduce a lot of nothing,
which is the fantastically difficult bit. It means no gloss on the
treble, no large soundstage to instruments - they should sound like
small point sources in exact locations in the soundstage - no 'dynamics'
that aren't actually there, and no 'bass slam'. Pretty boring you might
say. And very hard to achieve -

In general, I'd agree. For me the hard bits tend to end up with:

1) Silencing things like faint mechanical 'buzz' that affect my ability to
get quite bit and silence 'sounding right'.

2) Speaker choice and placement and acoustics. In my experience these
dominate the ability to get the kind of 'solid and clear' stereo image you
describe.


you have to eliminate resonances, all
sorts of interferences etc etc. You don't so much 'build' a syetem but
'take away' infidelities of all kinds. At this point Stewart must be
rubbing his hands and saying "I told you so - acoustically transparent".
Jim must be happy that the amplifier doesn't exist.

Afraid I don't know what the sentence above means.

[snip]

Why this post then? I just eliminated another level
of grunge - yes, more has "gone" leaving the sound a lot better. I
started by using better speaker cables (solid copper core, the previous
ones were coloured). Then I wired my whole system through a monster
variac which I have (25 amps). Obviously an effective mains cleaner.

Having routinely used variacs during amplifier development I'd say that
they don't have any real effect as a 'mains cleaner'. Indeed, I'd say that
if anything they can upset the mains by producing a higher - and load
dependent - source impedance for the resulting 'mains'. The ones I've used
do nothing much to 'clean' the mains - either by ear or by measurement.

Can't recall the details of the variacs, but used a variety, and was
working on amps at the time that had to deliver very high powers as well as
pre-amps with MC stages.

[snip]


Hi-Fi seemed delusional. I'm sure this post will be of little use to
those who listen mainly to rock and amplified music, but for those who
listen to classical and acoustic music, getting closer to 'nothing much
except the live sound of music' may matter a lot.

FWIW I listen mostly to classical and acoustic music, but my own experience
seems quite different to yours. If I got the effects you describe I would
have redesigned the PSUs in the amps, or altered the amps to be less mains
sensitive. Indeed, I spent a lot of time sweating over just that. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

A few detail corrections here, where my meaning doesn't seem to have been
correctly understood:

What it does have is a lot of nothing - nothing between individual instruments
except space.

It's absolutely *not* 'nothing', some of us call it atmosphere..... (SP)

Yes of course - but what I was trying to say here was that there was 'nothing'
in the places bewteen instruments in place of the larger image of the
instrument caused by resonances etc.

b) I've done all this by ear
Me too, but under controlled conditions.(SP)
As I said, when I AB componants I do it one change at a time, and if possible
put the system back again to verify the change. I also control what I listen to
(acoustic music which is a known reference) and what I listen for (timbre and
known low level details which are nearly inaudible)
How, precisely, is Stewart listening differently from this?

ss versus valve - no comment, we've been there countless times, except:
"it's very difficult - and extremely expensive - to achieve sonic transparency
using valves."(SP)
It may be difficult and time consuming, but not expensive if you build
yourself. If you are going to buy, a Nagra VPA will set you back over £10k it
is true, but then so will a lot of ss amps.

"Anything which does not sound *exactly* like a top-class solid state amp is
not removing 'greyness', it's *adding* artifacts.(SP)
Well, this is where we disagree, as you well know and as I pointed out from the
first.

Then I wired my whole system through a monster variac which I have (25
amps). Obviously an effective mains cleaner.

No, it has no effect at all (SP)

Now this is where you constantly get into real trouble, Stewart. You are not
present when members of this newsgroup tweak their systems, you are not
listening so you can't possibly hear anything or comment factually, yet you
persist in telling people what they are hearing. Frankly, it's bizarro stuff.

That's what a Variac is *for*, it varies AC - Variac, geddit? (SP)
Stewart, you ar not the only person on this ng who knows what a Variac is

An isolation transformer is an *entirely* different beast,
An isolation transformer is a toroid with 230v in and 230v out, unless my
electronics catalogues are lying. You may be talking about balanced power lines
here?

BTW, sounds like you may have a hum problem in your system, 50Hz as
opposed to PSU ripple.

Now this is constructive. I've been reading about this on DIY audio, including
how to use probes since in some countries neutral is referenced to earth. I
really know very little about this, since cleaning mains supplies is completely
new to me.





=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

Using that original gives you a reasonable chance imo of component selection.


Well, I've recorded myself alone and in various bands countless times but not
recently and not well enough. I could do this, since I have a double bass and a
Bechstein grand right next to the hi-fi, and I have a Tascam DAT recorder. Not
sure about mics - I'm not a recording engineer. But yes, this could be done.
Andy

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

In reply to Ian: I don't know any alternative to using descriptive language
when describing sound in words, any more than wine tasters can't do better than
'a hint of blackberry and elderflower' when describing wine. It's one of those
things we're stuck with, faute de mieux.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

On 18 Oct 2004 09:16:44 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

In reply to Ian: I don't know any alternative to using descriptive language
when describing sound in words, any more than wine tasters can't do better than
'a hint of blackberry and elderflower' when describing wine. It's one of those
things we're stuck with, faute de mieux.


The problem is that the language you used (which is the standard
language of the audio reviewer) is meaningless - and deliberately so.
The point is that you can't actually mount an argument against
something that has no meaning - it is like trying t fight shadows.
Obviously I don't know if you are doing that deliberately (trolling)
or have just subconsciously absorbed the vocabulary. Either way it
isn't a helpful way to proceed.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

tony sayer wrote:

Unless you make
your own recordings, that is the situation you are stuck with and you
just have to make the best of it.


Very good point and sadly..all too true....


Sad, no, an opportunity, yes. There is nothing more satisfying than making
and listening to your own recordings. I have been doing it for 40 years.

Ian
--
Ian Bell

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

I don't know if you are doing that deliberately (trolling) or have just
subconsciously absorbed the vocabulary. Either way it isn't a helpful way to
proceed. (DP)
I'm not trolling (I don't) and I try to use my own vocabulary as much as
possible, but as I said - what's the alternative?

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

Re Stewart and Variacs:

- apologies here, it appears my Variac is an autoformer, I had presumed it was
an isolation transformer. This leaves the question, why does it appear to have
a beneficial effect? And, of course, what better effect could be achieved with
a similar size isolation transformer? Has anybody tried putting two toroids in
series with their highest secondaries tied together? This has been recommended
elsewhere. Andy

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

On 18 Oct 2004 11:12:04 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

I don't know if you are doing that deliberately (trolling) or have just
subconsciously absorbed the vocabulary. Either way it isn't a helpful way to
proceed. (DP)
I'm not trolling (I don't) and I try to use my own vocabulary as much as
possible, but as I said - what's the alternative?

Well, this is the big problem - you made a wine reference yourself,
and that is an area that has the same limitation. When anyone with
pretensions to wine-buffery describes the smell of wine, they will
talk about nose or bouquet, but never the smell. Why not? Well, if
they did everyone would understand them and that would never do -
there would be no exclusiveness, no club.

So always be suspicious of any activity that involves misuse of terms,
or extensive borrowing and mis-applying. You are always being
bull****ted, and it is as well to realise this. Most of the "high-end"
audio vocabulary is simply a pose - a way of talking that denies any
challenge, because the challenge can't make any more sense than the
original assertion. Examine the situation with a critical eye and nine
times out of ten the Emperor is indeed naked.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

On 18 Oct 2004 11:15:13 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

Re Stewart and Variacs:

- apologies here, it appears my Variac is an autoformer, I had presumed it was
an isolation transformer. This leaves the question, why does it appear to have
a beneficial effect? And, of course, what better effect could be achieved with
a similar size isolation transformer? Has anybody tried putting two toroids in
series with their highest secondaries tied together? This has been recommended
elsewhere. Andy

Bear in mind that every single piece of Hi Fi kit you own has an
isolation transformer built in. Adding more doesn't increase the
isolation in any way. As to why a Variac should have a beneficial
effect is anybody's guess - mine would be that including it somehow
changes the grounding arrangements for the better.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

In article ,
Andy Evans wrote:
- apologies here, it appears my Variac is an autoformer, I had presumed
it was an isolation transformer. This leaves the question, why does it
appear to have a beneficial effect? And, of course, what better effect
could be achieved with a similar size isolation transformer? Has anybody
tried putting two toroids in series with their highest secondaries tied
together? This has been recommended elsewhere.

The likely benefits - if any - are by removing artifacts outside the 50 Hz
mains waveform. But this is rather more easily and cheaply achieved by
normal methods.

--
*Upon the advice of my attorney, my shirt bears no message at this time

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

So always be suspicious of any activity that involves misuse of terms, or
extensive borrowing and mis-applying. You are always being bull****ted

I don't think such a generalisation is warrented, though I can't deny always
being suspicious in these days of spin. There is certainly a kind of vocabulary
which is designed to sell products - a good example is "de-toxes the system and
kick starts digestion" which I read on a diet book this morning. But I think
wine tasters, however funny and however inaccurate (I've seen 13 different
fruits used to describe the same wine) are genuinely striving to convey in
another language what really belongs to a different sense, whether taste,
hearing or whatever. Metaphor has its place. Even scientists do it - white
noise, pink noise, little green men...

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

Bear in mind that every single piece of Hi Fi kit you own has an isolation
transformer built in. Adding more doesn't increase the
isolation in any way

I'm in the middle of trying to read up on this, but so far I have come across
arguments for 'more iron' i.e. a very large isolation transformer. Haven't yet
read why. I'm googling on "isolation transformer" and finding sites like:
http://www.smpstech.com/qa/qa0002.htm

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

On 18 Oct 2004 12:24:43 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

So always be suspicious of any activity that involves misuse of terms, or
extensive borrowing and mis-applying. You are always being bull****ted

I don't think such a generalisation is warrented, though I can't deny always
being suspicious in these days of spin. There is certainly a kind of vocabulary
which is designed to sell products - a good example is "de-toxes the system and
kick starts digestion" which I read on a diet book this morning. But I think
wine tasters, however funny and however inaccurate (I've seen 13 different
fruits used to describe the same wine) are genuinely striving to convey in
another language what really belongs to a different sense, whether taste,
hearing or whatever. Metaphor has its place. Even scientists do it - white
noise, pink noise, little green men...

You miss my point. Scientists generally try and use words to aid in
conveying meaning. Where they use metaphor, it is because there is no
sensible alternative. By contrast the bull**** industries (like wine)
use incorrect words (nose, bouquet) despite the fact that there is
already an entirely accurate word (smell) available. The idea is to
obfuscate rather than inform. High end audio does this.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

"Fleetie" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote
(Björk - Telegram)

(Note to Fleetie - You need bigger bass drivers or a sub, not a bigger
amp....)

I'd tend to disagree, Keith.

It's painfully evident that my current valve amp has insufficient
headroom to handle Bjork's obsession with deep bass.


OK


A 150W amp
would allow me to play some of her songs with the vocals at a
decent level, without the bass clipping to ****.


No argument there!


Which is what happens
now if I try to listen to some of her tracks at such a volume that
the vocals are loud enough to sound really good.


Some of the tracks on Telegram are well distorted in the recording. I'm not
sure which ones from memory, but it would be no chore if you wanted me to
check!! ;-)



A sub would *not* improve matters.


I would have thought it would if you are on your Dynaudios (?) - if they are
anything like the Contours they will guzzle valve power and don't have the
deepest bass in the world. (Ie, nice low notes but no real 'air pressure' -
last night, the pounding in the chest/gut made me feel queasy and that's
without any clipping whatsoever... ;-)


I know for a fact I need a bigger amp. If you could come here and
hear it, I think you'd know what I mean.


If you lived up to, say, 20-30 miles nothing would give me greater pleasure.



Anyway, I'm gonna have to wait until I can afford a bigger power
amp. :-(


:-)

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

On 18 Oct 2004 12:27:16 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

Bear in mind that every single piece of Hi Fi kit you own has an isolation
transformer built in. Adding more doesn't increase the
isolation in any way

I'm in the middle of trying to read up on this, but so far I have come across
arguments for 'more iron' i.e. a very large isolation transformer. Haven't yet
read why. I'm googling on "isolation transformer" and finding sites like:
http://www.smpstech.com/qa/qa0002.htm


Well, I see what they say, and you can check for yourself if you need
better isolation. Disconnect all the inputs from the power amp, and
turn the volume control right down. Now have a listen to the speakers
and check what you hear. A bit of hum is normal, and unaffected by
better isolation. Likewise a bit of hiss will be there, and is nothing
to do with isolation. On the other hand, if you hear random pops and
squeaks they may - just may - be coming along the mains.

This would be very unlikely though, because not only does the power
supply in the amplifier do a hugely successful job of eliminating
mains-borne crap, but the amplifier itself is designed to reject any
signals appearing on the power line. Between the two of them you will
be hard-pressed to find a need for work on the British mains.

Single-ended designs like a SET are a different matter, and possess
none of the desirable attributes of power line rejection.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

Single-ended designs like a SET are a different matter, and possess
none of the desirable attributes of power line rejection.

My amps are PP, but without global negative feedback. How does this rate?
Incidentally, my speakers are quiet, no pops or squeeks. Thanks for the
information - it's good to get help on this ng. Andy

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

You miss my point. Scientists generally try and use words to aid in
conveying meaning. Where they use metaphor, it is because there is no
sensible alternative.

No, I do get your point. I'm just taking a more optimistic viewpoint of those
who use descriptors within what we could loosely call 'the arts' (relating in
this instance to music and culture). My database of 16PF profiles within the
arts make it clear that artists (remember I'm a jazz musician) are considerably
more straightforward than the rest of the population. Obviously searching for
'the truth' within art has some bearing on this, or maybe they're just naive.
They just aren't as shifty and Machiavellian as the rest of the population.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

Is Hi-Fi delusional?
 

The likely benefits - if any - are by removing artifacts outside the 50 Hz
mains waveform. But this is rather more easily and cheaply achieved by
normal methods.


Hello Dave - what 'normal methods' are you suggesting? Chokes and capacitors
etc? I know you can make mains cleaners in small boxes, and an isolation
transformer is a pretty large beast. I don't know what I'm hearing with this
monster variac, which isn't even an isolation transformer, but it's cleaning up
something. Evidently this sounds counter intuitive, but in the googling I've
done I've turned up a fair amount of disagreement on mains cleaners, even from
engineers.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.