Tuning and Musical Adventures

Hi Sonic,

I feel like I should say a few things about your post on bit rot.  If I haven't mentioned it here before, I am a software engineer by trade and I've been building my own computers for the last twenty years.  So I have some experience with these issues.

The first thing to understand is that data corruption is a serious concern when the data you're keeping is unique and owned only by you.  But this is exactly not the case with digital music collections.  Every song in your collection has at least hundreds, and most likely tens of thousands of copies floating around in other peoples' music collections.  If one of your files became corrupted, it could easily be replaced by a good copy from someone else's collection.

"If bit rot has occurred, a backup won't save your files because you will just be replacing the old good backup with a new bad one."

This is only true if you are continuously creating backups the way that many people do with their computer OS hard drives.  But why would you do that with a music collection?  Just create a backup once, and then leave it.  

Also, the chances that any given WAV or FLAC file becomes corrupted at the same time in both your primary collection and your backup are miniscule.  But let's say that it did.  There is still no way on earth that the data in both files is corrupted in exactly the same way.  It would be a very easy thing to write a program that compares two music files, highlights the discrepancies, and allows the user to choose the correct version of each discrepancy.  The fact that no one has ever bothered to write such a program should tell you something...

If you're genuinely concerned about it, I suggest backing up your entire music collection onto a portable hard drive and giving it to one or more audio buddies.  You can get very large hard drives these days for less than a hundred US dollars.  If anything ever happens to your files, you have a convenient place to get a good copy.     Most likely your buddies will incorporate your music collection into theirs, which means there are even more good copies floating around...

Alan Shaw on Bass

Greetings Zonees

Sonic found these writings by Alan Shaw at: http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/forum/the-harbeth-line-up-m20-m30-m40-1-p3esr-c7es3-shl5/can-t-decide-which-harbeth-is-right-for-you/1659-bass-response-how-deep-should-my-speakers-go-for-a-lifelike-sound-at-home

You will have to visit Harbeth forum to access the Sound Clips but just reading the text, Zonees will get Mr Shaw’s point.

Would Michael or any Zonees want to give views in agreement or disagreement?

Sonic’s POV is that while what Alan observes may be empirically correct, we should where we can have our speakers designed with the capability to go strongly to an octave below the lowest average note expected to be played – in this case being around 30Hz – for dynamic range in the low end.  When we talk about bass drivers, it is like car engines: there ain’t no substitute for cubic inches. Besides Mr Shaw’s big speakers like the 40.2s can easily reach down to the 20Hz range.    

Quoted text starts:

Bass response - how deep should my speakers go for a lifelike sound at home?
15-03-2013, 12:12 AM

Ah! That old chestnut again. OK, you probably won't believe me if I say 'not as deep as you've been led to believe' so let's actually make some audio clips and you can hear and judge for yourself.

First: I'd like you to forget all about the numbers you see in speaker marketing literature. They are all as good as useless. Speaker designers are coerced by marketeers to provide these numbers, and cautioned by the same marketeers that if the competitor's speaker spec says 'bass down to 38Hz' then unless he gives way and writes the spec for his creation as 'bass down to 37Hz' he won't sell any. And believe it or not, the consumer will assume, based on just numbers, that 37Hz must be better than 38Hz. It's all smoke and mirrors.

The problem is that it is very, very difficult for a designer to say, with certainty, how the bass end of his speaker measures. That's because the bass wavelengths are so long (10mtrs. at 33Hz) when playing bass notes, in effect the speaker is reaching out and touching every object in the room. That means, the poor designer cannot say with certainty where the speaker's contribution stops and the room contribution starts: they are fused together. So he has to use an educated guess but even that guess cannot be how the speaker behaves in your room: at best it is how the speaker will behave in a reflection-free, anechoic chamber. A chamber of free field room is a good way of trying to minimise the room's contribution (but not eliminate it, hence there will still be some uncertainty in the measurements at low frequencies*) and you could ask, what's the relevance of an anechoic bass specification to my listening room. That's a damned good question. I don't have an answer for that.

My long held belief is that a speaker like the LS3/5a or P3ESR produces a satisfying listening experience for most listeners at a reasonable loudness on wide range material not, logically, because of amazing physics-busting bass extension but because the ear is very good at generating and filling-in missing fundamental notes by interpreting the second and third harmonics of the missing fundamentals. Were this not the case, music reproduced over very modest equipment such as a kitchen radio would be wholly unsatisfying through absence of any sort of bass at all.

So let's take some examples of a nice, warm orchestral sound that we associate with a fulfilling 'lifelike' listening experience and see how much deep, deep bass there really is. Then we can remove the really deep bass, and see if we miss anything.

Clip 1: full orchestra, Enigma main theme

Suppose we apply a brickwall filter set to 120Hz, cutting away everything below that. How does this sound? Noticeably lacking in warmth?

Clip 2: full orchestra,all bass below 120Hz erased

OK: lets allow a little more bass through. This time the brickwall filter removes all bass below 90Hz:

Clip 3: full orchestra, all bass below 90Hz erased

How about letting everything through above 60Hz?

Clip 4: full orchestra, all bass below 60Hz erased

I think that you'll agree that on this particular orchestral track, even though we have completely removed all bass below 60Hz with our 20th order Butterworth filter, it is not easy to tell Clip 1 from Clip 4. The point is that the weight and warmth of those stringed instruments (presumably cellos and double basses) has been substantially retained even with the filter applied which must, logically, mean that their primary contribution to the musical spectrum is above 60Hz - and even above 90Hz. This 60-90Hz region is reproducible on even the tiny P3ESR (at a sensible volume) for a fully lifelike experience.

Let's reverse the filter and prove the point. This time, rather than erasing all the bass below 60Hz, I'm going to erase all the audio above 60Hz. I won't change the levels, what remains is in the correct proportion to Clip 1. If you play Clip 1 again at a goodly loud volume and then fix that volume, Clip 5 will let you hear how much deep bass there is in Clip 1 here:

Clip 5: full orchestra, all sound above 60Hz erased

Can't hear anything? Listen very closely or cheat and turn up the volume! There is a very low level sound there. That tells you how extremely small the sonic contribution below 60Hz is. There is even less contribution below 50Hz, 40Hz or 30Hz. And remember: I have applied a brickwall filter to completely remove unwanted sounds. In the real world, filters - an a loudspeaker is like a filter - have a much more gentle action and would let more deep bass through.

*The BBC anechoic chamber (just demolished) was far from ideal. The published specification in 1965 after construction indicated that below about 70Hz (from memory) the foam wedges were not perfect absorbers and the frequency response evidenced significant ripples making reliable, accurate measurement impossible. In fact, I hit this problem in 2007 when using the chamber; I concluded that the foam wedges had dried out over their 40+ year life there, and that had made them harder and less porous. I had to find another way to get credible bass measurements.

15-03-2013, 10:29 AM

Rock music and deep bass

What about rock music - hasn't that got a strong deep bass line?

Clip 6: Wake up, Rage against the Machine - source file

Now if we take Clip 6 and apply the same brickwall filter to remove all sound above 60Hz, just as we did in Clip 5 what we're left with is the deep bass. Play Clip 6 and set the volume; then play Clip 6 without altering the volume and what you hear will be in correct proportion to Clip 6.

Clip 7: all audio above 60Hz erased

You can probably just about hear a repetitive bass pulse; if you turn up the volume it may be clearer.

Conclusion so far based on just these two randomly selected audio clips, one full orchestra, one rock music: the deep bass in the rock music track is more audible and it has an obvious beat to it. The deep bass in the orchestral track is quieter and has no obvious beat to it. An early conclusion would be that if you listen mainly to natural music you would not obviously benefit from having speakers with super-extended bottom octave, especially if that had been achieved by a sacrifice in overall neutrality. If you are a rock music fan, there is some information below 60Hz which you may appreciate but it is at a very low level and being of low frequencies with long wavelengths which penetrate walls with ease, would be irritating to neighbours in a way that orchestral music wouldn't.

It could be argued that as a socially responsible neighbour, your choice of speaker should be governed by the irritation that it causes to others versus the sonic benefit it may bring you. They may hear that boom-boom-boom from <60Hz throbbing through their walls: you probably won't notice its presence or absence.

Alan A. Shaw
Designer, owner
Harbeth Audio UK

"ignorance & bass-lightness observation from Sound on Sound"

Hi Sonic

These are very important issues that you point to. They're some of the issues that keep me from joining the ranks of the High End Audio Audiophilia movement. When folks show me evidence that they don't understand the Recorded Code, Audio Code, Audio Chain and the variables associated it shows me their ignorance. I use ignorance with all due respect "lack of knowledge or information". In this hobby the percentage of folks who don't know how variable the audio signal is, is staggering.

With the Sound on Sound comment, again there is no practical basis to make that statement. These folks are no doubt basing their critiques on fiction instead of on fact.

For example

"Note that you should beware of most recordings made during the '70s and '80s as, almost without exception, they are bass-light by today's standards.”

This is simply telling me that the comment maker doesn't know they can (and are suppose to) tune in the recording so the bass is displayed. So much of the industry and hobby exposes themselves when they make statements way outside of nonfiction. No recordings are purposely made to be unbalanced, that would be silly if not recording malpractice. The fact is Sonic High End Audio just doesn't know about tuning, or even that the signal is a variable continuum. We can grab 10 CD's or vinyl or any source and play them on a fixed setting and hear that the recorded code is completely different from recording to recording. For me anyway it jumps off the page as soon as I hear it. However (because I tune) my reaction to this is not to make a judgement, but instead I know I need to make an EQ adjustment (by EQ I mean tune up). The bass is there, or maybe too much bass is there (or any other part of the signal), but this is just a matter of allowing that particular code to be tuned into balance.

Alan Shaw (to me) is doing the same thing most of the industry does. He's viewing the music from the view of his system, instead of using his system as a variable tuning tool to reveal the recorded code. Same with the statement Sound on Sound made. The hobby is really screwed on backward when it comes to playback. It's maybe the biggest talked about subject here "variable". In my mind I don't understand why the hobby hasn't moved past Fixed listening. Recordings are exactly the opposite from Fixed, but High End Audio with all their failed attempts at playback still doesn't get it when one recording sounds different from the next. They have a system that makes "One Sound" and haven't made the connection that every recording made, was made with an unique set of variables. What I don't get is how "ignorant" (unknowledgeable) these folks can be. I always feel somewhat bad saying that because these guys (or gals) can whip up a philosophical or theoretical debate at the drop of the hat, as well as spin on a dime. But, their actual empirical testing and experience has not discovered things so basic.

Lets say there are 10,000 studios in the US (there's more than this but lets say). Not one of these studios' produce the same sound (the "Recorded Code"). Where is the disconnect on the playback end for High End Audio? That's what I don't understand. I can only assume that they don't understand the very basics of recording and playback, but why are these folks writing? When I read this stuff it only shows me how little they know. It's sad because they could be promoting something of use, but instead they can only speak of this fake, or should I say, incomplete paradigm. But why? Why can't they make the connection? It's like someone who needs to get inside of a place with a combination lock on the door but they don't have the combination or know that all the locks are set to different combinations. We stand there looking and reading these folks make statements about bass, or any part of the recorded code, but we don't see them turning the key or adjusting the dials to unlock the signal. You would think it's so simple to see, but there's a hole part of the playback crowd that has no idea in order to hear what the recording has on it you have to make adjustments.

quoting Sonic

"After a week of settling, Sonic finds the removal of the “tapestries” have created a big “honk” problem and now I can again hear the hard walls of this listening room. This is obviously a step backwards. Sonic needs something on those walls!

Sonic brought back the smaller and thinner of the two “tapestries” and hung it back on the RH wall where it was last.

Instead of the larger/thicker “tapestry”, I hung three thin rugs (22” wide x 33.5” long, Ikea Signes) on the LH wall.

Other than this, the pair of FS-DTs set parallel to the side walls about a foot ahead of the rear corners were moved back to the ends of the sofa.

In short, Sonic has returned to exactly the last room Tuning set up “pre-honk”, then I swapped the thick, vibration-killing “tapestry” on the LH wall for something much thinner, lighter in weight and about 1/3 smaller in area.

These moves cut the “honk” without the “dead soundstage” that came from the heavy damping on the walls."

mg

Now with my crazy schedule I may have missed some of this, but I do have a question. When you hang the tapestries on the walls, do you put them directly against the wall surface or do you give some space? Also have you put the tapestries on a board then hung the board? One last thing, have you put the tapestries on Styrofoam, then mounted?

Would be interesting to hear what porous Styrofoam sounded like behind the tapestries.

Hi Sonic

It's hard for me to describe the foam I use cause there are so many kinds, and there are many uses for them, mostly shipping. I'll get more pictures.

I have moved your cable comments over to your thread, so that visiting listeners don't get confused while Garp is burning in his cable.

Sonic said

Some of your customers used tinned for one conductor and your pure copper wire for the other  What effect will this have Sonic does not see the logic of this. In my town I know of one audiophile who uses what he calls "Super Pure" 16 AWG Litz wire for one terminal and solid core silver wire of 22 AWG for the other terminal. A rather off the wall idea IMO

mg

It's my job to explore audio from an empirical science, which means practical practicing listening . There are a lot of things I do for my own learning curve that takes me way outside of the norm.

sonic

Some of your customers used tinned for one conductor and your pure copper wire for the other

mg

Yes, by request. I keep a stock of different wires so I can do custom mixing.

sonic

What effect will this have

mg

It's totally system, including their space, dependent. And keep in mind that their wire closets are full of MGA wires and cable.

sonic

Sonic does not see the logic of this.

mg

That's why I hide much of what I do. It's too easy for folks to get confused because many hobbyist have a blended opinion that comes in part from the audiophile world and part the tune. The two don't always mix as smoothly as you would think. Here's an example of audiophile lack of logic and why I depart from it so many times (this is just one example).

Audio designing itself is not logical because designers build for shipping a unit and not using space as a paradigm. Nobody questions this because it's the way we're use to seeing components. We see component parts strapped down to a chassis which makes no sense at all yet we accept this as "they know what they are doing cause everyone does it". There's a total lack of understanding of how fields work, and how much fields play a part in our signals.

sonic

In my town I know of one audiophile who uses what he calls "Super Pure" 16 AWG Litz wire for one terminal and solid core silver wire of 22 AWG for the other terminal.

mg

Keep in mind that, that listener has a completely different setting than you do. The sound that he wants maybe something way off from what another listener may call correct, but to him it is correct. I look at my job as dealing with the variables. When I find a more open way of designing I will use that as my starting point but where a listener ends up inside of the Tune is their own creation. You like tinned, Garp doesn't, which one is correct? See what I mean? What I do is provide the beginning tool, but how that tool is used may be something (and usually is) unique to you and has nothing to do with audiophile theory.

sonic

A rather off the wall idea IMO

mg

Why would this be off the wall to you? A super good topic BTW. One that could help folks in this hobby a lot and get them thinking on what is really happening instead of trying to link all these different theories together. Some of the most basic logic in audio gets thrown out the window when the ego takes over.

For another example, what is your house wired with? I don't ask this from an ID perspective but from an OD. ID meaning inside of your component parts and OD out side of your component parts.

What I try to do is get a sense for your signal path mechanically, acoustical and electrically. That means I try to see the "whole", not just the obvious stereo equipment, but the whole picture.

I stole this off the internet so I could show you something.

here is a basic wall outlet pre-diagram

This isn't showing the whole electrical run found in most homes but enough to show a basic pattern or theme.

See how each room is surrounded by electrical wiring? This is your basic electrical field antenna. Now add your ceiling fans and all the other runs you have. Then add your appliances. Now put in your stereo and charged speakers. We're not done, add your electrical grid outside of your home. See how unique your field perspective is as compared to the next guy? You have several "transformers" sitting in the middle of all this. Not only that but your appliances (including components) have the wiring condensed (and close to transformers) and other parts of the field antennas are more spread out. Now look at your house and neighborhood wiring and notice how many field manipulators you have all affecting your sound on an continuing basis. And this is without anything being turned on. There is more energy affecting your sound in your stereo than your stereo itself.

In out hobby we try to created norms where there are none. This is why I talk so much about Earth's fundamental forces. It's those forces that play your music, and there's no way around them. In fact as we learn to interact with them ourselves, that's when we discover easier paths to our playback goals. I break this down to a usable guideline every day as if the hobby itself was my teacher. I can do things with my tools that go anywhere and each time I discover that new openness it takes me even deeper into the answers. From that point I can always go backward to find a particular place in my stage. And this is what I continue to press forward on. Can I do anything out there signal wise? Every year I feel I'm getting closer but this only means I haven't heard every recording out there yet. There will always be "A Hidden Harmonic" to discover but there are certain steps that develop as time marches on. The latest Rev Speakers for example are an animal that has never been done before and using them is more realistic than anything that as ever come out before. To me, they make Music Ply and my old Classic material sound incomplete. I have all 3 here, Classic, MP and the new models (along with the steps up to the new models). As I can go many places with the older designs, the new design is yet a new dimension. There's a tone that the Music Ply will never achieve nor will the Classic. They are great speakers, but moving to the desert showed me that they could go further because of a condition I didn't have access to before. My kilns back in Amish country, as dry as they got, different have the same energy source as I have here. Baking things here is a much different end effect both humidity wise and field.

But, back to the point I wanted to make early before I get lost in Rev-Land. Yes, I prefer the 22gauge solid core copper bare for it's ability to shape the interaction between the signal and the fields (to me they are one), but I'm not blind to the fact that there are other materials involve with the audio code. Like with my Rev Series. I may have Bare Essence wire inside but my ERO cap has Tinned leads. I'm using currently Nickle RCAs on my Rotel inputs and if you look through the Audio Chain start to finish you will see many different interactions between different materials, all combined to create an over all performance.

So no, hearing people use different combos is not weird to me at all. If you look through your system's parts and pieces there are all kinds of different ingredients contributing to your sound. Also keep in mind that because your signal is a continuum, that means any time you add a material's vibratory makeup to the audio chain the overall audio code changes. Your not talking a 2D strait line here, but more like pouring something into a glass of water. All of your signal and field makeup is not a bunch of short runs of cable where everyone is orderly. Instead, it's like pouring everything into a huge pool of energy and running a string from one end to the other while you pass the information. What people call distortion is nothing more than rocky waters before the calm. I hope I'm painting the picture clearly. Once you start to see the energy in your mind it makes more sense.

Hi Sonic

The black is hard to get good pictures of so use the white as more of a guide.



It's not a soft foam like rubber. It's not like Sonex for example. It's stiff but with very open pores. I don't know if this is in your art stores or not, maybe something close.

BTW the black sounds different than the white. I believe when they apply the color dye it does something to the resonance. I went through a lot of different samples to get to the one I use, but that doesn't mean other foams don't work as well. For me I just like this tone for the Revs.

Thanks Michael – I know what that is now. Sonic will go get some and put it up  

Which Groove = Which Channel?

Something Sonic found on Steve Hoffman’s site:

"Since the conventions of disc recording dictate that the right stereo channel is recorded in the wall of the groove closest to the edge of the record, and the left channel in the wall closest to the centre, it is clear from the micrographs that it is the right audio channel which is being subjected to excess force. Whether the differential wear pattern seen is due to stylus misalignment or to excess bias will determine which of the two channels will provide the first audible evidence of mistracking.

This means that Right and Left channels correspond to the records on the TT – Right channel from the side of grooves towards the Right speaker, and Left channel from the sides of grooves towards the left speaker."

Knowing this, Zonees can set their tonearm anti-skating by ear. Anti-skate is a complex topic given that the force to compensate for the inward movement of the arm varies across the radius of the record and is related to the intensity of the groove modulations.

The notable way to get it wrong is to use a blank record.  This is because the stylus tip does not contact the record, it reads the grooves with two patches on the sides of the stylus actually.

This is how Sonic adjusts my RB700 anti-skate:

First ensure the platter/record surface is level across the arm’s tracing radius of the record.  Then set the antiskate to the manufacturer’s recommended setting for your tracking force. Play a mono record in stereo (don’t hit the Mono switch on your amp) and see if the image is properly centered between the loudspeakers. If the image leans Leftward, increase the anti-skate a little, if it leans rightward, reduce the setting.  Then do fine adjustment using stereo LPs that you are familiar with.  For me, I find for a tracking force of 1.9gms, the antiskate that sounds best is that indicated for a 2.0gms tracking force.

Give this a try.  There are other methods which include playing a groove with high modulation then lifting the stylus from the groove while watching it through a magnifying glass.  See if the stylus and cantilever “snaps” towards the Right (too much), or to the Left (too little) and adjust accordingly. More accurate and complicated is to use the appropriate tones on a test record and get equal L and R signals viewed on an oscilloscope.    

There are vinyl fans who prefer to play their records with no anti-skate, in fact some arms like the old Acoustic Research, the 12 inch Shicks and the early VPI’s had no anti-skate.

While Sonic hears the effect of anti-skate or lack of it and wonder about those who prefer their turntables with no skating compensation, I recall what Michael said yesterday “In our hobby we try to created norms where there are none. “

Sonic

I hope you had a wonderful Easter Sonic!


I was listening to some of my favorite gospel from the 70's  to early 80's mostly.

I was transported back in time, in my mind, to some of the very cool music camps. Seems like I got turned on to some of the coolest music and met the coolest people at these camps. You might have up to 10 bands or so working on their tours. The energy level at these get togethers always was amazing. Not only did we do our stage setup practices but there were many "Playing in the round" sessions. Back in those days I was part of the music as well as being an engineer so I got to sit in on both sides. While not in performing mode I was able to be in on the production teams, which was really a blast. Remarkable how for many thousands of years folks have sot out the best places around the world to practice their craft. Sonic's talk about being at the conductor's perch, sitting among the instruments or being in the hall is one of the privileges of being in full time production and touring. You literally never stop experiencing new sounds. When you find the "very best" it sometimes only last till your next stop and then you feel reborn all over again fresh.

I can still remember how disappointed I would be when entering into a modern church after coming from a wonderful cathedral or ancient ruins. A friend of mine would invite us to play at his place with live bamboo 20 and higher feet tall all shaped in a have circle with other natural materials around and how it was the best I had ever heard my African drums. The amplification there was breath taking (all natural no mics or amps).

That's what I think of when I tune a room for myself. A room that speaks the recording without effort. That moment of unlocking the harmonic door and the room takes over in a way that you hear no component.

sonic said

"For example, Sonic has recently got my viola tone beautiful but a week on, playing the same recording has me remarking that the viola sounds “hollow”."

mg

Sometimes I like to ride that fine line between body and hollow. It's a place where the notes almost turn into pure fluff. And the other word "membrane" . A place of almost perfect impact to the place where the notes are a part of almost being pure pressure on the edge of sound. I don't even know if this is possible with two different sets of ear drums in the same setting. I did though have a fella walk in during a smooth jazz session and as soon as he walked in he said he could feel the pressure running through his body. Kind of interesting comments. The system was not turned up loud at all but you could sense the way the room had taken over.