Newness

[Gary Eickmeier]

Do you ever sit down to listen and find yourself getting bored with it,
unless it is one of your all time favorite recordings? Have you ever
auditioned a few other people's systems, or gone around at an audio show,
and been amazed at first but unamazed later?

I have been saying that the reproduction problem is less about accuracy and
more about acoustics, and I think these observations are a subset of that
principle. You know that there is no system that can be made to sound
exactly like the real thing, because if it is an acoustic problem then you
just cannot get away from the problem of the smaller space. It is not long
before your ears "glom on" to your acoustic situation between your speakers
and room, and the suspension of disbelief gets messed with because you
realize that you are not in Symphony Hall or the Concertgebeauw. So you make
a few adjustments, tweek something, change something, if only to put on a
new recording. But soon.... well, you see what I mean.

But this is the source of this whole industry called The High End. They
convince you to try all these silly tweeks, real or imaginary, and you go
along with it happily just to change something. Not me any more, thanks to
double blind testing and learning what matters and what doesn't, but still
it is good to get away from audio for a couple of weeks and then when you
turn it on again it sounds so... so fresh, new and amazing! The best deal
for me is when I go travelling, maybe listen to a few other people's rigs,
then come back home to "the real thing" and enjoy mine all the more for the
comparison - and the seeming newness!

We thrive on variety and change, and I wonder if one could become bored even
listening in the same concert hall every time? Any thoughts on that? Do you
always sit in the same seat, or do you like to move around a little? Maybe
if a hall is good enough, you could never get bored with it and the
suspension of disbelief problem of course does not exist in the live
situation, so the principle doesn't apply live. I mean, sitting there you
never even question fidelity or imaging or balance or volume or anything
that most of us consider hi fi problems. Your brain just knows that it is
real and live, so you stop worrying about capacitors and channel balance and
enjoy the music!

I think I am getting old and sounding like Bert White.

Gary Eickmeier

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Thursday, April 4, 2013 4:47:33 AM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> Do you ever sit down to listen and find yourself getting bored with it,
> unless it is one of your all time favorite recordings? Have you ever
> auditioned a few other people's systems, or gone around at an audio show,
> and been amazed at first but unamazed later?

Sure. Most of the program material that we get to choose from is
uninspiring in the extreme. Most is indifferently recorded (or worse,
deliberately rendered unlistenable to anyone with an ounce of audio
savvy).

> I have been saying that the reproduction problem is less about accuracy and
> more about acoustics, and I think these observations are a subset of that
> principle. You know that there is no system that can be made to sound
> exactly like the real thing, because if it is an acoustic problem then you
> just cannot get away from the problem of the smaller space. It is not long
> before your ears "glom on" to your acoustic situation between your speakers
> and room, and the suspension of disbelief gets messed with because you
> realize that you are not in Symphony Hall or the Concertgebeauw. So you make
> a few adjustments, tweek something, change something, if only to put on a
> new recording. But soon.... well, you see what I mean.

While I agree with you, I think that is a matter personal
expectations. For instance, I know that absolute realism is
impossible, but I do know when a recording sounds good and I am still
thrilled every time I find such a recording and every time I play
it.

> But this is the source of this whole industry called The High End. They
> convince you to try all these silly tweeks, real or imaginary, and you go
> along with it happily just to change something. Not me any more, thanks to
> double blind testing and learning what matters and what doesn't, but still
> it is good to get away from audio for a couple of weeks and then when you
> turn it on again it sounds so... so fresh, new and amazing! The best deal
> for me is when I go travelling, maybe listen to a few other people's rigs,
> then come back home to "the real thing" and enjoy mine all the more for the
> comparison - and the seeming newness!

Most so-called "tweaks" are imaginary and rely upon expectational bias
for their promised "improvements". I.E. since "they" said it would
improve the sound of my system, it does.


> We thrive on variety and change, and I wonder if one could become bored even
> listening in the same concert hall every time? Any thoughts on that? Do you
> always sit in the same seat, or do you like to move around a little? Maybe
> if a hall is good enough, you could never get bored with it and the
> suspension of disbelief problem of course does not exist in the live
> situation, so the principle doesn't apply live. I mean, sitting there you
> never even question fidelity or imaging or balance or volume or anything
> that most of us consider hi fi problems. Your brain just knows that it is
> real and live, so you stop worrying about capacitors and channel balance and
> enjoy the music!

I would sit in the same seat - the best seat in the house, were that
possible, but unfortunately, that is something over which I have no
control. I sit where my ticket tells me to sit. Sometimes I get a good
seat, sometimes I don't.

> I think I am getting old and sounding like Bert White.

That's not too bad, you know. Bert was nothing if not extremely
interesting and entertaining.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Sunday, April 7, 2013 5:37:09 AM UTC-7, Barkingspyder wrote:
> On Thursday, April 4, 2013 4:47:33 AM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> > Do you ever sit down to listen and find yourself getting bored with
> > it, unless it is one of your all time favorite recordings? Have you
> > ever auditioned a few other people's systems, or gone around at an
> > audio show, and been amazed at first but unamazed later? I have been
> > saying that the reproduction problem is less about accuracy and more
> > about acoustics, and I think these observations are a subset of that
> > principle. You know that there is no system that can be made to
> > sound exactly like the real thing, because if it is an acoustic
> > problem then you just cannot get away from the problem of the
> > smaller space. It is not long before your ears "glom on" to your
> > acoustic situation between your speakers and room, and the
> > suspension of disbelief gets messed with because you realize that
> > you are not in Symphony Hall or the Concertgebeauw. So you make a
> > few adjustments, tweek something, change something, if only to put
> > on a new recording. But soon.... well, you see what I mean.
> >
> > But this is the source of this whole industry called The High End.
> > They convince you to try all these silly tweeks, real or imaginary,
> > and you go along with it happily just to change something. Not me
> > any more, thanks to double blind testing and learning what matters
> > and what doesn't, but still it is good to get away from audio for a
> > couple of weeks and then when you turn it on again it sounds so...
> > so fresh, new and amazing! The best deal for me is when I go
> > travelling, maybe listen to a few other people's rigs, then come
> > back home to "the real thing" and enjoy mine all the more for the
> > comparison - and the seeming newness!
> >
> > We thrive on variety and change, and I wonder if one could become
> > bored even listening in the same concert hall every time? Any
> > thoughts on that? Do you always sit in the same seat, or do you like
> > to move around a little? Maybe if a hall is good enough, you could
> > never get bored with it and the suspension of disbelief problem of
> > course does not exist in the live situation, so the principle
> > doesn't apply live. I mean, sitting there you never even question
> > fidelity or imaging or balance or volume or anything that most of us
> > consider hi fi problems. Your brain just knows that it is real and
> > live, so you stop worrying about capacitors and channel balance and
> > enjoy the music!
> >
> > I think I am getting old and sounding like Bert White.
> >
> > Gary Eickmeier

> <Snip>
> If you look around at what is
> available you will find that all of the most thrilling speakers have
> drivers from just a very few companies. B&W, Scan-Speak, SEAS, and
> Dynaudio seem to dominate the market and for very good reason. They do
> the job better than anyone else. I can't think of a speaker system
> that I find to be exciting to listen to that don't have drivers
> sourced from those companies. Hmmm, I guess I should include Revel
> into the mix as well. YMMV. And I know it does.

You forgot Magnepan (no drivers from those sources), and you can't say
that Maggies don't sound amazing. Might not be your cup of tea
(especially if you are a rocker - Maggies can't produce that
gut-punching 80 Hz bass that rockers seem to love), but you can't deny
that they are among the best speakers available at their list or any
other price. You also forgot Martin-Logan, the company that made
electrostatics reliable (nothing in my experience is more life-like
and neutral above about 400 Hz than the curved-screen ES unit in a
Martin-Logan design. Yeah, the bottom end uses conventional drivers in
most M-L designs, but I don't know who makes 'em.