Return to Nirvana.

Hi Guys,
If I'm being a PITA by returning to this subject so quickly then I'm sure the Mods will so advise me and remove the post. I am in no way being divisive but I do plead guilty to trying to provoke another discussion around the (vain) pursuit of audio Nirvana (as it is generally understood, rather than Varun's technically correct translation - nobody's looking for extinction :) ).
I have been giving this subject a bit of further thought since I last raised it and I'd like to present another 'slant' on my opinion. We are all aware of how powerful the human brain is at convincing/persuading us that black is white, up is down and right is wrong if we are at all predisposed to believe it - witness the rise of the Nazis in the 30s and early 40s, but not all Germans were inhuman bastards, they just got caught up in the mass hysteria, if everybody else believes it it must be true, sort of thing.
A few examples from my own experience: -
1) I am told that the human eye actually sees things upside down rather than as they really are and the brain makes us 'see' the scene as it really is.
2) When I was very young and lived at home I grew up with a large clock on the wall with a pendulum - clockwork and needed winding every few days - step-father's pride and joy - visitors to the house would often comment on how did we put up with the extremely loud 'tick-tock' of this clock. The answer was that we never heard it, we were so used to it our brains permanently and automatically filtered out the continual noise and we all had to concentrate on it to hear it, and it was indeed loud, but a few seconds later it had 'disappeared' again.
3) From the age of 11 to leaving home at 26 to get married I was continually needing to do homework. Unfortunately, with only one room downstairs, other than an unheated kitchen, and a deaf step-father, there was no escaping to any quiet room in the house. Because of prolonged periods of trying to concentrate in this atmosphere I subconciously developed the ability to 'shut out' all extraneous noise and focus on what I was doing. This became automatic and continued throughout my working life, such that, in a crowded noisy and open office, I could shut everything else out and concentrate on what I was supposed to be doing - embarrassing when the boss comes in and calls your name to attend a meeting :lol: .
So to audio matters.
We add something to our system and listen. If it is worse we remove it and resort to as it was. However if it is not worse, but different or better, we leave it in place and continue listening to it. After a while it becomes the norm and we forget what it sounded like previously. The process is then repeated the next time we add something, ad infinitum in many cases. IMHO many of these additions must be merely change, rather than improvement. It just is not possible to keep adding improvement on improvement ad infinitum. Some will be genuine improvements I have no doubt, but, I respectfully suggest, not as many as we would like to believe.
Our brains are continually kidding us - discuss.

Hi Dave, broadly, I'd agree with you - an upgrade isn't always an improvement, but sometimes just a change. I have to be honest (maybe I need my ears testing!) but with some changes I struggle know if there is in fact a change, or if there is, if it is an improvement - I probably need educating in "how" to listen (in all seriousness!)

As has been mentioned before, though, I think the natural inclination of the human being is to assume that the "upgrade" is indeed just that, and not a step backwards - I think it is very hard to admit (to yourself as much as to anyone else) that the carefully planned and researched (maybe expensive?) "improvement" actually isn't...

A genuine upgrade is something that reveals more information on the recording or makes the information work together more cohesively. The novelty of the extra detail does wear off though after a while and yes we do filter out sounds we don't need to hear.

If you have a fairly revealing system it should still surprise you when you listen to it again after a few days away on holiday.

Also, really musical systems make you want to listen to music more for longer periods of time, more frequently and to a wider range of genres even when the novelty wears off.

Good OP not withstanding silly nonsense about Mods and deletions when you have clearly raised entirely new and very valid points.

Good Morning Steve,
I received an e-mail notification that you had replied to this thread, so I read it with great interest.

I now eagerly await your reply on this fascinating topic:)

steve

I think you guys are having a little communication problem :)

I can tell, Dave, from what you wrote in your opening post that you didn't mean what Steve has construed; similarly I can tell that Steve didn't mean what you've construed from his reply...

Fun this Internet malarkey, innit? :lol:

Seriously though, I think both of you are being overly defensive of each other, given the nature of past exchanges, and are reading into intent that doesn't exist. I'm sure this will only improve though when you get to know each other better.

Anyway, can we please move on? Dave, if you could do so by answering the hi-fi-related points Steve raised in his reply (if you feel it necessary to do so), that would be much appreciated :cool:

Marco.

Dave, have you edited your last reply to Steve? :scratch:

My post above now makes no sense.

Marco.

Hi Marco,
I must say that I take exception to your censoring of my post without also censoring the objectionable post by Steve which prompted it. :steam: :steam: :steam: . Sauce and Ganders spring to mind.
Which hi-fi related points raised by Steve do you feel I might respond to 'cos I don't see any.
Cheers,

Dave,

I haven't censored or deleted anything!!

I was asking you if you'd deleted it...

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Dave, have you edited your last reply to Steve? :scratch:

My post above now makes no sense.

Marco.

---

Nope - just seen your quoted post above - must be Steve - therefore my remarks to you are unreservedly withdrawn and re-addressed to Steve.

To Steve all I can say is that your actions only confirm my current opinions.
Regards,

Marco/Steve,
Going out now for a few hours - not ducking out - not my style - but won't be able to get involved again until mid afternoon - enjoy the silence.
Regards,

I know as I've got older my tastes in music have changed and my hearing is not as good as 20 years ago, because of this what I now look for in my system is very different to what it was 20 years ago.

However, my experience has grown over the years and I have a much better appreciation of what makes a good piece of Hi-Fi and how components work and how they work together in synergy...

In fact I can recreate my system except for the turntable from 20 years ago and not only does it sound very different as you would expect but it also sounds inferior...that's not because I now look for a different presentation, its because the component parts don't work together that well and in isolation...introduced into my current system, they still sound inferior....

Hi Dave,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveK

Nope - just seen your quoted post above - must be Steve - therefore my remarks to you are unreservedly withdrawn and re-addressed to Steve.

---

No problem - these things happen. However, can I direct BOTH of you to my earlier reply, which now has even more significance:

Quote:

---

I think you guys are having a little communication problem :)

I can tell, Dave, from what you wrote in your opening post that you didn't mean what Steve has construed; similarly I can tell that Steve didn't mean what you've construed from his reply...

Fun this Internet malarkey, innit? :lol:

Seriously though, I think both of you are being overly defensive of each other, given the nature of past exchanges, and are reading into intent that doesn't exist. I'm sure this will only improve though when you get to know each other better.

Anyway, can we please move on? Dave, if you could do so by answering the hi-fi-related points Steve raised in his reply (if you feel it necessary to do so), that would be much appreciated :cool:

---

Both of you please digest that very carefully if we are to avoid incidents like this in future.

Cheers!

Marco.

I edited Dave's post because I wanted his excellent OP to stay on topic. Perhaps I was a little abrupt at the end of my first reply but Moderation is not usually as capricious as Dave seemed to be making out. I would hardly say the Nirvana thread had been done to death and this fresh insight certainly could have happily been placed on either the existing thread or on a new one to underline the freshness of the perspective.

I then edited his post to try to maintain the integrity of the thread but my editing came in as a double posting with Marco's reply.

The vortex of this teacup tempest then intensified...

Sorry Dave I did not mean to cause offence.

Neal, points of reference do change over time I guess. Progression means raising the bar over time so what thrilled in years past is likely to be underwhelming now, just as a latest upgrade will only be thrilling for a limited time in the fairly near future.

Revisiting my system after a few days away always enables me to appreciate once again the extra detail on offer over music heard through systems in bars, clubs, on portables and in the car but this revived marvel does not last long.

I guess what counts is the integrity of the musical message being maintained as you raise the bar in terms of resolution. This makes all the difference between being blown away by the sonic prowess for a limited period and spending more time listening to more and different types of music thereafter, long after the upgrade novelty has expired.

Surely better equals more insight into the musical message on both an emotional and cerebral level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Toy

Sorry Dave I did not mean to cause offence.

---

Hi Steve,
I'm happy with that - no problems - normal servise returns - onwards and upwards.
Cheers,

Interesting Dave.I believe this ability to shut out extraneous noise is called "Habituation". Works both ways as I understand it-i.e. people used to living in a busy city centre will be unable at first to sleep well in a quiet place in the coutryside-and vice-versa of course.It's amazing what the brain can become used to.I certainly agree that a so-called upgrade may intially sound better just because it is different (Especially if you've spent a lot of money!).The brain of course adjusts over time and you either become used to the new sound and accept it as a new benchmark,or become dissatisfied.I've read that the brain's greatest strength is it's ability to see patterns where none exist-at least initially,but at the same time it's also it's greatest weakness.This can lead to great discoveries,but can also lead us a long way down wrong avenues too.I think this can apply to how we hear audio as much as anything else.Comments?

seeing or hearing patterns that do not exist is a "hallucination" Ali. Not consistent with a normal working brain.

Brain has an infinite power of "imagination or creativity".

I am sure the best piece of upgrade for many would be the next best piece of music. I rather busy myself listening- learning-exploring and moving on, rather than become hide bound (as Barry once said) about getting this right or that right-ad infinitum and so ad nauseum. The point for upgrades in my opinion is to determine- if there is a problem and then try and fix that problem.

If there is no problem to sort out- then rest assured the BRAIN is filling up the gaps- helping achieve the fulfillment music provides at so many levels to so many people.

Sorry don't agree there.For instance,how about the way we see faces in rocks and trees,or patterns where none exist? That's not an hallucination,simply our brain making connections in what we are seeing that are not really there.In the same way,our brains can make leaps of logic in the way of great genius,but some being spectacularly wrong,hence my comment about greatest strength and weakness.I realise it's a bit of an extrapolation to how it affects our perception of music and the equipment it's played on,but still a valid one I feel.Hearing is ultimately a function of the brain after all!

In an unfamiliar situation, the brain will always look for something familiar & emphasise connections to things that don't really have anything to do with each other.

Here's an example.
Have you ever been listening to an mp3 player on random shuffle & thought that its showing a preference for one type of music over another, or one band over another and that it's no longer playing things randomly? I've thought many times, that it was spooky because mine would play one track by say Bob Dylan, then next it would come up with a Dylan cover. Or five songs in a row with a similar theme etc etc.

It truly is random but your brain is looking for connections & because what's playing looks like a pattern forming, it makes the leap to a wrong assumption.

And there's this that I posted way back here:
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showt...ighlight=brain


...........This gets closer to the thing that really intrigues me.

It's all about your ear collecting the information & your brain processing it. Now I'm a strong believer in the power of the brain to perform 'error correction' to a greater or lesser extent.

I often heard it said in relation to speakers with not much deep bass that your brain makes up for what you don't hear. I used to think that was a load of old tosh - now I'm not so sure. Of course the brain can't put the physical thump in your chest that a big speaker can, but maybe it can make you think you heard it.

Now if that's the case, then why shouldn't your brain be able to correct things like imbalances in stereo information like different lengths of cables.

If you need convincing of the power of your brain to process information and apply error correction just like a CD player then you need to read the following paragraph which staggered me & started me thinking about all this stuff..............

The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mind.

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae.

The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm.

Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, it lokos at the wrod as a wlohe and tehn rletaes it to the ohetr wodrs nxet to it.


.............see what I mean?

Yes indeed that's an old chestnut but none the less telling for it.I think we're all on the same page here but just have different ways of expressing it. :)

Hi Chris,

I agree and I have been saying that about the brain filling in the gap about the bass deficiency for some time and that is why in a small room a LS3/5A would be as good. The error correcting- is the same as lip reading- surrogate action-or using other cues.

For brain to be able to 'fill in the gaps' the brain has to know that there is something-missing to patch up. Like the example of misplaced letters in a text you have given.

If a cloud formation appears to give an image of an object- you can photograph is and show what you mean-the likeness would be close. We are talking of perceived similarity and not "what was not there".

Returning to Hi Fi or to be specific sound reproduction- once we move beyond a base line of essential features of what a piece of music is all about-then in terms of expenditure SKY is the limit. I am talking of the Stereophile reviewer extolling the sound of the Australian Continuum TT- and saying he could hear bits he had not heard on Bonnnie Raits LP before. Now that brings in a question of 'hearing things you are not meant to hear' the kind of detail that is not the essential part of music. He is listening to a piece of music which has not a great deal of info on it anyway- he would be better off having an audition and listen to what is on the original tape- than spend 100K on a TT.

Yes indeed,it's why I went the diy route.I refuse to spend vast sums on commercial stuff when you can equal or better it for a fraction of the cost.

Very much the ethos of this forum-which is commendable. Is it not that Jerry also supports- he has all of sudden gone silent?

I do not wish to bore people with examples of classical music- but take a symphony as an example. The third violines (in the 3rd row) will be playing a different line of music closely related to the first row-but one is not going to hear that difference - although the conductor would know every bit and correct it if they go wrong. It is to do with tone colour and texture and if a system exposes that kind of inner detail than the music will become impossible to follow- or becoming unlistenable and so lose its purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varun

- but take a symphony as an example. The third violines (in the 3rd row) will be playing a different line of music closely related to the first row-but one is not going to hear that difference -

---

Hmmm, don't agree with that. If your system is properly revealing coupled to an expansive three dimensional sound stage with 'instruments in space' and the sound produced is received by trained 'ears', it is completely reasonably expectant that the listener will be able, even with orchestral music (subject to the quality of the recording) to differentiate between the score being played by 1st violin and 3rd strings. Actually I think this is pretty basic stuff. I thought all audiofools enjoy the skill of listening to a recording and at times like to aurally concentrate on one instrument (or group of instruments) in isolation from the rest of the sound. Thats the brain and listening skill bit which works when the system is good! Sorry, no offence intended.

Some of the arguements presented here don't make sense. If they did, a couple of old transistor radios with 2 inch speakers would do the business because, of course, according to arguement, the brain would fill in all that is missing?

Hmmm once again!

Sorry to butt in chaps...

Hi Greg,

Welcome back :)

Are you coming to Owston?

Marco.

Hi Marco,

Simply, 'No'

Regards,

Greg

Ok, no worries - welcome back anyway :)

As you were, chaps...

Marco.

To be able to hear the individual elements in a classical music recording depends upon the final mixing - whether the perspective is from the conductors podium, or whether the balance is from further away with far more ambience from the venue "blending" things together.

Musical listening, as apart from "HiFi" listening, is supposed to allow you to dip in and out of the mix presented by the production at any level you wish and the best systems I've ever heard (inexpensive ones as well) just let me forget the gear, format, recording production and "suspend disbelief."

As someone who's been a collector of unofficial live recordings for as many years as I've had a hi-fi, the ability to tune-out bad stuff is very familiar. Others have said the same thing about enjoying early blues or jazz recordings. But for me, regardless of the original source recording, I have sought to put together a system (mainly source components, admittedly) that minimises the 'losses' on reproduction of the original sound. I think most people would be amazed by the difference in sound from a budget 'hi-fi' tape deck and a high-end one. It's one of the components where the difference from top to bottom is most marked, and most audiophiles' expectations are so low...

On a more controversial note, I have often suspected that 'run in' - at least when considered in relation to cables - is more to do with getting used to - or willing a change in - the sound than a change in the hardware itself.

I'm happy to accept that more complex devices do benefit from run-in / warming up - capacitors 'form', operating temperature affects internal resistances, mechanical components such as cartridge cantilevers change due to use, but cables?

Hi Nick,

I was trying to involve you into this talk as the lows and highs- noise floor and head room- what is your experience? with the top decks!

Now turning to Greg's comments. Firstly it is great to hear from an experienced listener-probably far ahead of me-from the sound of it-(No Pun intended).

There is always a risk of being misunderstood on any forum. For some one like me- who can not read music, it is desirable to hear as much detail I can.The point was that I have seen the knowing classical musicians not too worried of the detail produced by stereo reproduction- they listen but can hear what they want to.

As for recorded sound- a large orchestra is a daunting prospect. Add to it a large choir, then the brain will not be able to cope with paying attention with all that is going on - the larger image or gestalt.

Dave DSJR as usual is spot on again.

The position of the microphone, the number used, and in the end mixing is what determines the sound reproduction. To highten the kind of detail I am talking about would require multi-close miking which will in the end destroy the soul of music.

Some of the detail can not be easily followed-and may not be intended to be followed. May I please recommend the series of "Great Composers" frequently telecast on Sky Art from time to time. The one on Tchaikovsky is very useful. In it Gyergev asks only the string section to play a piece of Tchaikovsky 6th- to high light a point. There are many strands to what I am saying. More importantly the position of the listener-on the conductors podium, in the middle of the auditorium or further back- or to one side and so on- again what DSJR has hinted at.

I would say that if there are different counterpoint melodies on a recording, a half-decent system should capture them so they can be listened to separately and as whole, in time with each other.

The timing bit is more important than the space around the instruments bit in my view, although both are desirable where possible.

Thanks Steve, that was the point,

I need to clarify why I made that comment. I knew a professor of Statistics in NZ who used to play for the local city orchestra. He told me that he was rehearsing Beethoven's Eroica-playing 3rd violin. I have spoken to my daughter-now a professional classical musician-who says not 3rd violin but he might have meant 3rd deck. There are essentially two layers- 1st and 2nd. Anyway this Statistician told me that to his surprise he was playing differently to the 1st violins. I am told that the second and 1st violins complement each other- one would play rhythm/harmony and the 1st melody. It is part of the melody-or theme so can not be split or separated. The same applies if the violas, cellos and basses become part of the same scheme- or are separated by the composer.

In short - counterpoint, canon, reverse canon or reverse counterpoint should be audible but not the basic structure of music-not the innards. That is what I was trying to say.