I design loudspeakers and amplifiers to satisfy my own tastes ... and that taste has

[Rajiv]

Hi,

I design loudspeakers and amplifiers to satisfy my own tastes ... and that taste has now diverged pretty far from the mainstream high-end industry.

Lynn Olson's comments on his long running thread on Diyaudio.

Beyond the Ariel - Page 860 - diyAudio

My own tastes /expectations of what my system should sound like are so far removed from the "aproved" norm that most modern magazines and reviewers seem to promote these days. For me tone,richness,texture,colour,... take precedence over imaging,bass extention, detail etc.

As someone said "It's like we've gained the world and lost our souls,". This seems true with respect to hifi these days. I find most "approved" systems/components to be souless and bland . They tick all the audiophile check boxes but where is the music?

I am curious to know if there are other forum members who share my views on how a system should sound.

From another forum.

You are dead right- ALL electronics have colourations to some degree. The trick is to make the sum of them as musically enjoyable as possible.

There is no such thing as an accurate audio system, only live unamplified musical instruments and the un miked human voice are accurate- 'cos they're well, real!

A system may give (to some) an illusion of accuracy, but that's all it is, just an illusion. But if the illusion is really enjoyable, and brings out the emotive qualities of the music, then the end result is worth the effort.

To get the emotive qualites of the music from my system takes me further away from the mainstream. Like these guys.A long thread with some amazing system pictures and videos.

My Next Horns - Page 14 - Speakers & Subwoofers - StereoNET Australia


This is a restaurant I would love to visit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHlhHuNdMXA

That is full blown Western Electric system from the 1930's.



Regards
Rajiv

 

[greenhorn]

Re: I design loudspeakers and amplifiers to satisfy my own tastes ... and that taste

Remind's me of the article about the carver amplifier challenge, where eventually the reviewer asks himself, and us, since that the 'sound' of an amplifier boiled down to its transfer function, What exactly would that implify, as the 'sound' added onto something that should ideally be a piece of wire with gain would be going away from the ideal, and yet that was what people bought amplifiers over, not the spec.

I'd say spec is a hygiene thing once you go beyond a certain price point. Beyond that, I suppose these things matter, and they're very subjective, and science turns to art

 

[captrajesh]

Re: I design loudspeakers and amplifiers to satisfy my own tastes ... and that taste

Fully agree, esp the accuracy part & the enjoyability part. No matter how expensive, a hifi system can never be able to replicate live event, esp the unamplfied live show; atleast the present tecnnology. Whats the point in striving for the same?

Better to settle with what appeals to your senses.

 

[hemantwaghe]

Re: I design loudspeakers and amplifiers to satisfy my own tastes ... and that taste

, esp the unamplfied live show; atleast the present tecnnology. Whats the point in striving for the same?

Is so called unamplified live show is enjoyable? Where one can experience in case of popular rock / bollywood / filmi music? Anyone experienced???//

 

[stevieboy]

Re: I design loudspeakers and amplifiers to satisfy my own tastes ... and that taste

Thanks for the post Rajiv. That restaurant is amazing! Would love to be able to go there some day.

I too think a lot if not most modern components chase very different goals compared to those made decades ago.

Thankfully if one wants, one can build a system even today with fifties and sixties that era components. At least that's where my love firmly lies.

Regards

 

[anilva]

Re: I design loudspeakers and amplifiers to satisfy my own tastes ... and that taste

Rajiv,

Thanks. I have a running system based on the components that Lynn has selected for his LTO. What might be required to tweak once he completes his design publication will be the crossover. Even with the crossover points he initially mentioned, the system sounds terrific. I am also using his recommended AH425s.

Cheers.

 

[prem]

Re: I design loudspeakers and amplifiers to satisfy my own tastes ... and that taste

I agree with you Rajiv that there is something magical and musical about the vintage stuff. But some of the new stuff from First Watt, Yamamoto, EMIA, Wavac, Zanden, etc is a nice blend of musicality, resolution and detail.

I feel its nice to have resolution without sacrificing musicality.

 

[alpha1]

Re: I design loudspeakers and amplifiers to satisfy my own tastes ... and that taste

There is no such thing as an accurate audio system, only live unamplified musical instruments and the un miked human voice are accurate- 'cos they're well, real!

Sorry for bitching around, but even this doesn't hold true.

Unamplified music's characteristics change with the proximity of the listener and the geometry of the path.

The more close you are to the source of sound, the more bass you "hear". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour)
Also the geometry of the listening path acts like a band pass filter, and thus can attenuate a lot of frequencies.

So does this mean we should try stop coming close to the sound coming out from the source, and pander to our "preferred" sound?
Since I don't like the sound of a flute (which has less harmonics), let me try to make it sound like a saxophone (which has more harmonics) ... ?

Wow. Going by this attitude I can imagine we would be still listening to Edison's wax cylinder modified by everyone to "suit his ears".

 

[Asit]

Re: I design loudspeakers and amplifiers to satisfy my own tastes ... and that taste

Hi Rajiv,

Tonality has always been the most important thing in music and music reproduction - isn't that true? Is it true that the modern standards have changed, as you say? I don't know - I do not keep in touch with things happening around these days.

However, I do not agree with your observations on imaging. It is not one of the most important things, but it is important. Saying on one hand one likes live unamplified music, and then on the other hand that imaging is not important is not consistent, because live unamplified music has all the musicians positioned at physically different locations.

I have discussed my own preference in a old post (in response to Bhagwan's post) in this link: http://www.hifivision.com/amplifiers/22920-you-favorite-stereo-amplifier-7.html#post326856

For convenience, I quote from that post:

" .... The first thing a musician or a deep music lover is looking for is the tonality. Musicians try to get a certain tonality of their voices and instruments through years of practice and experimentation. Ravishankar's sitar has a very different tonality from Vilayat Khan's. Abdul Karim Khan's voice sounded very different from Faiyaz Khan's. Tonality, IMO, is the most important thing in any music reproduction. If one gets it wrong, there is no point going any further. If a system makes Ali Akbar's sarod sound like a guitar, I would not be able to listen to it even for half a minute.

Next, comes dynamics, both macro and micro. Without dynamics, the music is devoid of emotions. Generally a system with great transparency/cleanliness (that is, high signal to noise ratio) will produce good levels of macro and microdynamics. .... But it should be right after tonality in my list.

Then actually comes imaging (....) and soundstaging, but only after the above two. I like to know exactly where each musician is located. This gives a feeling of physical space to the recorded music being played. In a live unamplified music performance, this is already there. In a recorded music being played through a system, it is not easy to achieve. However, if achieved (both through proper recording and then playing it through a good system), this gives a sense of immediacy to the music. Soundstaging is a related concept, basically totality of the imaging of all the performers makes the soundstage.

Next, I look for openness of the sound. This is one feature usually not talked about, but I conceive it as follows. If a recorded music is being played from a system in a particular room, imagine a listener in the next room who is oblivious to the source of this music. Would the listener think it is reproduction of music, or would he think of it as a live performance. JA of Stereophile discussed this aspect some time ago, and it is a relevant point. No matter how expensive is the system, the listener in the next room would always be able to differentiate the difference between live unamplified music to the recorded and reproduced music. This is what I call lack of openness and naturalness in a system. It is there in all systems I have heard (and I have heard quite a few in my life so far, although I usually do not remember all the brands and models, because my focus usually always comes to the music). Although, never perfectly done, one should try to get this openness and naturalness in the system to best of one's abilities.

Last in my list would be SPL levels or loudness of sound. Of course one needs to have audible levels so that one can hear every nuances clearly. ....."

Regards.

 

[square_wave]

Re: I design loudspeakers and amplifiers to satisfy my own tastes ... and that taste

The past and the present have given birth to extremely musical designs.

Brilliant design principles from the past and musical bliss usually go together. There are many modern designers who respect this and married modern technology to such designs to take it to the next level. The problem is that most modern designers have chosen to ignore the brilliant ideas from the past.

 

[IndianEars]

Re: I design loudspeakers and amplifiers to satisfy my own tastes ... and that taste

Hi Rajeev,

Great post and a topic close to many Audiophiles' hearts.

I realise that most audiophiles have their own priorities regarding sonic characteristics. I do believe that each should purse their own dream sound, rather than swalow what some Hi Fi guru ( in the press or some local audiophile) tells them.

I for one prioritise Imaging.... after all Imaging is the ONLY SINGLE aspect that requires Stereo, and all of us have Invested in 2 Pre-amps ( Left & Right) + 2 Power Amps ( Left + Right) and ofcourse 2 Speakers.

EVERY other aspect of Hi Fi reproduction (Except imaging) can be accomplished with just 1 channel ....

 

[Nikhil]

Re: I design loudspeakers and amplifiers to satisfy my own tastes ... and that taste

I got off the "hifi" bus many years ago primarily because of similar sentiments.
I found hifi just getting more and more ridiculous especially in terms of prices of products.

I have to say I agree fully with the idea of "musicality" - systems have to have that basic quality to engage the listener. Bass levels these days are just not realistic anymore (literally). I hope that more people catch on to this. Thankfully there seems to be hope with some new designers because quite a few seasoned audiophiles are switching over to this preference.

 

[IndianEars]

Re: I design loudspeakers and amplifiers to satisfy my own tastes ... and that taste

Nikhil said:

I found hifi just getting more and more ridiculous especially in terms of prices of products.

That is true of cars too, Na?

20 years ago, the Best Merc made in India was Rs 12 Lakhs and a Maruti Esteem was Rs 1 Lakh.

Today Rs 1 Lakh does not even get you a Nano

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Re: I design loudspeakers and amplifiers to satisfy my own tastes ... and that taste

I believe that for a huge a mount of the music that is around in the world, any sort of "hifi" is a complete waste of money, except, perhaps, for making it loud. Might as well have a boombox. People like to say that it all begins with the source: actually, it begins with the source of the source, the music itself!

 

[navin advani]

Re: I design loudspeakers and amplifiers to satisfy my own tastes ... and that taste

While there is no debate over Live vs Reproduced the reason many of us keep music reproduction equipment around is that we don't always have the opportunity to have the Boston Symphony Orchestra or Eric Clapton or for that matter Shankar-Eshaan-Loy play for us in our living rooms.

To that end and albeit in a limited way music reproduction equipment serves it's purpose be it Bhagwan's system or Bose. It is all about trade offs (not all of them related to sound).

There will always be a "better" system and one that is "not as good" as yours, mine and every HFVians.

 

[alpha1]

Re: I design loudspeakers and amplifiers to satisfy my own tastes ... and that taste

Nikhil said:


That is true of cars too, Na?

20 years ago, the Best Merc made in India was Rs 12 Lakhs and a Maruti Esteem was Rs 1 Lakh.

Today Rs 1 Lakh does not even get you a Nano

Yes, but 20 years back a college fresher was earning < 1 lac per year.
Today he earns much more than 5 lac per year.

But you are right, the rich have got richer in the past 20-30 years, while the rest of the people in the country has become poorer in relative terms. And the price of "aspirational" good like hi-fi system has risen proportional to the income of the rich (which means that the rest of the country cannot really afford it).

 

[arj]

Re: I design loudspeakers and amplifiers to satisfy my own tastes ... and that taste

Hi Rajiv,

Tonality has always been the most important thing in music and music reproduction - isn't that true? Is it true that the modern standards have changed, as you say? I don't know - I do not keep in touch with things happening around these days.

However, I do not agree with your observations on imaging. It is not one of the most important things, but it is important. Saying on one hand one likes live unamplified music, and then on the other hand that imaging is not important is not consistent, because live unamplified music has all the musicians positioned at physically different locations.

I have discussed my own preference in a old post (in response to Bhagwan's post) in this link: http://www.hifivision.com/amplifiers/22920-you-favorite-stereo-amplifier-7.html#post326856

For convenience, I quote from that post:

" .... The first thing a musician or a deep music lover is looking for is the tonality. Musicians try to get a certain tonality of their voices and instruments through years of practice and experimentation. Ravishankar's sitar has a very different tonality from Vilayat Khan's. Abdul Karim Khan's voice sounded very different from Faiyaz Khan's. Tonality, IMO, is the most important thing in any music reproduction. If one gets it wrong, there is no point going any further. If a system makes Ali Akbar's sarod sound like a guitar, I would not be able to listen to it even for half a minute.

Next, comes dynamics, both macro and micro. Without dynamics, the music is devoid of emotions. Generally a system with great transparency/cleanliness (that is, high signal to noise ratio) will produce good levels of macro and microdynamics. .... But it should be right after tonality in my list.

Then actually comes imaging (....) and soundstaging, but only after the above two. I like to know exactly where each musician is located. This gives a feeling of physical space to the recorded music being played. In a live unamplified music performance, this is already there. In a recorded music being played through a system, it is not easy to achieve. However, if achieved (both through proper recording and then playing it through a good system), this gives a sense of immediacy to the music. Soundstaging is a related concept, basically totality of the imaging of all the performers makes the soundstage.

Next, I look for openness of the sound. This is one feature usually not talked about, but I conceive it as follows. If a recorded music is being played from a system in a particular room, imagine a listener in the next room who is oblivious to the source of this music. Would the listener think it is reproduction of music, or would he think of it as a live performance. JA of Stereophile discussed this aspect some time ago, and it is a relevant point. No matter how expensive is the system, the listener in the next room would always be able to differentiate the difference between live unamplified music to the recorded and reproduced music. This is what I call lack of openness and naturalness in a system. It is there in all systems I have heard (and I have heard quite a few in my life so far, although I usually do not remember all the brands and models, because my focus usually always comes to the music). Although, never perfectly done, one should try to get this openness and naturalness in the system to best of one's abilities.

Last in my list would be SPL levels or loudness of sound. Of course one needs to have audible levels so that one can hear every nuances clearly. ....."

Regards.

Asit..loved this post.
Tonality is something which may be a "Lost Art" as everyone talks about the fundamental frequency reproduction but not about the Harmonics which actually give the texture to the sound. Adding to the the above analogy on vocals, the Cello and the Double bass should sound the same at certain common frequencies but they do not and thats because the Timbre which is a complex addition of all the harmonics do not really add up the same way giving it that difference.

please do read the above link ans there are so many misconceptions on this

Soundstage is not really the end state but a means to get there in ie it is a Measurement. if you are getting a good soundstage then it means that all the components are doing their job and not bringing about any transformation of their own to the signal in terms of phase shifts etc..while a perfect soundstage does not guarantee it is accurate..it does give you a confidence that the components are good , subject to the recording- (the above may not be technically accurate)

IN the days of Yore, the tonality was perhaps given far more importance..but today due to some really lop sided and wrong measurements/specifications that has gone for a toss...and we break up and analyse..

for me tonality and Dynamics are both a must..else i simply dont enjoy it.I am not a great judge of tonality of instruments due to not having enough live experience but with human voices you do know when something is Off

 

[captrajesh]

Re: I design loudspeakers and amplifiers to satisfy my own tastes ... and that taste

Is so called unamplified live show is enjoyable? Where one can experience in case of popular rock / bollywood / filmi music?

The argument is not about which one is more enjoyable. Kindly read my post with reference to what has been quoted by the OP. I'm quoting the relevant portion for your convenience.

There is no such thing as an accurate audio system, only live unamplified musical instruments and the un miked human voice are accurate- 'cos they're well, real!

A system may give (to some) an illusion of accuracy, but that's all it is, just an illusion. But if the illusion is really enjoyable, and brings out the emotive qualities of the music, then the end result is worth the effort.

So does this mean we should try stop coming close to the sound coming out from the source, and pander to our "preferred" sound?
Since I don't like the sound of a flute (which has less harmonics), let me try to make it sound like a saxophone (which has more harmonics) ... ?

Dude, you are taking an extreme position. That is not (modifying the tone and timbre so that one instruments sounds like other) is being discussed here.

Could you explain what is the 'objective' of listening to music?

A) For enjoyment / soothing the senses / relaxing / chilling out / etc etc.

B) For analysing how accurate the music sounds / To test the abilities of gear etc etc.

I'm sure a majority of us would tick the former. That being the case (for those who ticked 'A') why should they get finicky about 'B'

Wow. Going by this attitude I can imagine we would be still listening to Edison's wax cylinder modified by everyone to "suit his ears".

Don't understand what Edison's wax cylinder has got to do with the point being discussed. Even the (purported) analogy (of hanging on to older gear) doesn't seem to hold any water.

 

[IndianEars]

Re: I design loudspeakers and amplifiers to satisfy my own tastes ... and that taste

Arj Said:

Soundstage is not reallythe end state

I agree, and I must state that I Never said that !

I said that Soundstage was the "Raison d'etre" ( the reason for existence ) of STEREO.

Most listners dont realise that they have practically doubled the cost of their Music system by going 'Stereo' and they do not pursue Soundstaging.

EVERY other HiFi reproduction parameter, Tone, Dynamic, resolution etc can be obtained from a SINGLE channel...

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Re: I design loudspeakers and amplifiers to satisfy my own tastes ... and that taste

Yes, soundstage is a vital part of stereo, it is what we are paying for two channels to experience, and it is an intrinsic part of the wonderful illusions that we submit to when listening to our sound systems, however hi or lo the fi is.

I don't know how much of it is about "reality." Recently I discovered a new joy in my headphones, by unplugging them from the computer (the internet was down for a couple of days) and plugging them into my Cyrus amp. It revealed new levels of what the headphones are capable of by revealing new depths in the music and the experience of listening to it. Some say that headphones give us fi that is as hi as speakers many times their price, but, without an additional effort of will, they do not give us reality, because real music is not L ---> L and R ---> R, but is a mixture. The imagination helps us to shift that exaggerated sound stage and imagine it in front of us, just as (with less effort) it allows us to "see" individual instruments between those two sound points of stereo speakers.