I know excactly what you mean. I hear this as well on many recordings. But I’m a sound engineer so I’m focused on it to be honoust.
I’m not sure what mics they’re using for live concerts but based on audiophile standards for sound reproduction, equipment for recording simply doesn’t measure up. I own a pair of Schoeps CMC series mics and capsules. They’re near the top of the heap, but the engineering effort that goes into them pales in comparison to Avantgarde Trio Classico loudspeakers. But the twist is, I think science is on the side of the Schoeps engineers who make the mics for $1,600 while the makers of the Trio Classico can’t do it for less than $200,000.
Agreed. Trying to capture sounds is easy compared to trying to energize an unknown room volume and shape and get a decent image in more than one listening position and flat response…
Steve N.
Empirical Audio
Hi @Steve_Nugent,
what you wrote in your reply to my post is nowhere near an answer to my question, I’m afraid.
This is what I posted:
That was your response:
Quite obviously, all you did in your reply was replace the adjective “good” with the adjectival participle “highly resolving”. The question itself remains completely unanswered! So let me rephrase my question with your preferred choice of words: What makes you think an audio system can be characterized as “highly resolving” on the grounds that it creates audible differences between lossless playback formats such as WAV and FLAC?
Quite frankly, what you’re trying to sell here as something truly exceptional is nothing more than what can be expected from any halfway decent audio gear. The claim that “most systems are not capable” of exposing such obvious flaws of a recording is almost insulting. You can safely work on the assumption that most (if not all) music lovers are quite familiar with what you’re talking about. Many of us know or have such recordings and we all complain about them…
7 Likes
Just to be clear, my emphasis is on the words effort and science in my statement. I think the engineering science behind Schoeps mics exceeds that of what goes into the making of the audiophile loudpeakers.
I thought it would be obvious that if my system is this resolving, then if I hear differences in these formats, then it follows that the differences are real.
Steve_Nugent:
I can hear plainly the vocalist in a booth and the instruments in a room, and the effects somewhere else. It’s just unnatural sounding with many recordings. Most systems are not capable of rendering this kind of clarity, focus and imaging, so it sounds like the vocalist is singing in the same room with the instruments.
Quite frankly, what you’re trying to sell here as something truly exceptional is nothing more than what can be expected from any halfway decent audio gear. The claim that “most systems are not capable” of exposing such obvious flaws of a recording is almost insulting. You can safely work on the assumption that most (if not all) music lovers are quite familiar with what you’re talking about. Many of us know or have such recordings and we all complain about them…
Not IME. It takes a really resolving system to hear the things that I hear. I would never get best of shows if the system were not exceptional. I hear lots of systems at shows, where the exhibitors try very hard to get stellar results. I sometimes take my own reference recordings around to see what they sound like on these systems. 99% of the time, it’s a disappointment.
I achieve extremely low levels of jitter in my equipment, as well as low noise floor. I publish my measurements on my website and forum.
I’m sorry if people are insulted, but its the case that most people believe they have highly resolving systems and they don’t. The first thing they need to eliminate or change is their active preamp. This is the sore spot in most systems. The second thing is ground-loops. These introduce significant noise into most systems. There are ways to eliminate most or all of them. The third thing is to reduce jitter as much as possible.
Steve N.
I’m afraid that’s not obvious at all. Quite clearly, even someone with a “highly resolving” system can imagine differences that aren’t really there. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not criticizing your gear. How could I? As I told you, I’ve never had the chance to listen to anything you recommended in your earlier posts. It’s your hypotheses and conclusions I’m extremely skeptical about. But at the end of the day all that matters is that your customers are happy with what they bought from you.
2 Likes
I’ve been into audio since the mid 70’s. I have never liked passive preamps because I always preferred the sound with a quality active preamp in place. I really wanted to like the passive preamps because they are cheaper and don’t introduce distortion. Theory suggests they should sound better. But, to me, they don’t. This is an interesting video:
1 Like
What you are saying is understandable. You have this opinion I believe because you have not experienced the right kind of passive linestage yet. Evidently, neither has the gentleman in the video.
It is true that most passive linestages based on resistive attenuation can cause roll-off or a decrease in dynamics in most systems, particularly if you connect it with high-capacitance interconnect cables. With low-capacitance cables, on the order of 10-20pF/foot and if the amps are not too sensitive to current (like tube amps), resistive attenuators can sound very good. One way to minimize the effect of cables is to locate the attenuator close to the amplifier. With typical cables and amps, resistive attenuator linestages may be disappointing.
This is where the other types of passive linestages shine. These are transformer-based, with many taps to select from the transformer. These linestages will typically enable one to use higher capacitance cables and not worry too much about the amp and still get great results, sometimes stellar. The devil is in the details though. It is critical that the signal transformers used do not saturate and have wide bandwidth and good transient response. These are not cheap. This hand-made Finemet transformer from Japan is a good pick and not too expensive. It’s just transformers, so you need to mount it in a box and wire it:
The other consideration that is important no matter what type of passive linestage, is the output impedance of the driver, usually a DAC or CD player. If these devices have high output impedance, even the best passive linestage will not yield good results. DAC’s may have output impedance of 50-1000 ohms, whereas an active preamp may have 4-20 ohms output impedance. Most amplifiers will need more drive current than this to achieve good dynamics.
As for definitive answers as to why passive linestages may not sound as good: these have to do with impedances of the cables and attenuator and the output impedance of the source. These things can all be calculated, if one knows the cable impedance and source impedance. The real unknown is the amplifiers response, which is never adequately documented.
A lot of variables, but a good starting point is a passive transformer linestage.
I have a Music First from Britain with silver wired transformers that I had cryo-treated. I believe this particular model or one similar retails for around $8K now. Prohibitively expensive. I use it occasionally when I need a preamp. It’s better for me to use my Overdrive SX DAC direct to amps however because the DAC’s volume technology actually beats passive linestages. I also put a Final Drive transformer buffer between my DAC and my amps to break the ground-loop and convert balanced to single-ended. The Final Drive uses a custom designed transformer, also from Teramoto in Japan.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio
Right on Steve-- with you 100%
I get it, Steve. Only what you think is true is true…
All you do here is make me want to never have anything to do with Empirical Audio products.
9 Likes
There’s a fine line between robust self-confidence and megalomania…
2 Likes
Moderation comment
It’s fine to have different opinions and people should feel free to share them without fear of snidy or sarcastic comments aimed at the individual rather than the opinions.
Several comments above are more about the poster not the post.
Please consider this as none of you have exclusive rights to the truth.
6 Likes
O.k. guys, enough. Leave the guy alone. Steve is not completely stupid, he does know a thing or two.
Back on topic of the validity of audiophile ethernet cables. Conclusion out of all of this is that if you have a worldclass system the differences are “dramatic” (for us ordinary people read “noticable”) If you have a mediocere system like most of us the difference are “huge” (read “barely audible”) my own conclusion is that differences all have to do with changed grounding schemes (utp vs stp) and if the cable meets the impedance specs. A lot of cables unfortunatly don’t but you do not need any “high end audio” ethernet cables for it. 99.99% pure gold conductors ain’t going to help if the cable impedance doesn’t meet the specs. I have seen quite a lot of boutique High End USB cables in the past that simply failed the impedance test and where not up to the USB 2.0 spec. Some even not up to the USB 1.0 specs, despite the amount of silver an high quality insulation used in them. This makes me very sceptical to audiophile ethernet cables. I have a lot more confidence in a well executed Belden cable then any boutique high end cable.
1 Like
From my own personal experience I agree with you 100% here, Steve. For 17 years I used various sources plugged into a Bryston B-60 integrated amp before disconnecting the pre-out/main-in jumpers and purchasing a Schitt Freya pre-amplifier earlier this year to use with the Bryston’s amp section alone. The difference was so dramatic that it was as if the quality of the source material itself had changed: Apart from a noticeable change in transparency, it was the increase in overall dynamics of the system as a whole that really surprised me.
And I did not purchase a new pre-amp with the goal of improving sound quality; it was really the remote control Freya offered that I was after.
I’m not an electrician, or an expert in component matching, but I speculate that the Bryston’s pre-amp increases the signal to unnecessarily high levels (something in the area of +15V, I think).
Yes, many a high end preamp can output some impressive voltage swings. Mostly, however, that goes unused. With typical digital sources outputting 2 V (or greater), that is more than enough voltage to drive most power amps to full output. Only the highest power or lowest gain amps might require more input voltage. As such, preamps tend to operate largely or even exclusively in the attenuation range. And, even if a preamp can manage 15 V, for example, it quite likely never operates at that level.
AJ
I got that the other day from her mailing list. I notice she offers to set up a listening test in your home if there is “enough interest”. Not sure if enough interest means putting gobs of money on the table, like the other offer, but if not I might be interested. Though of course I’d be much more interested in whether she really hears anything than whether I do. I’m especially skeptical of the 0.1dB volume difference. Easily verified by measurements. According to late Audio Critic Peter Aczel that invalidates the test, if it were true.
Invariably when people have offered to show me how impossible things make an audible difference I haven’t heard anything, but have tried not to let my expectation bias effect me. When people like magazine writers claim to hear six impossible things before breakfast, it’s pointless to speculate about what may be going on physically until we have verified they actually hear them. The only way I am aware of to do that is with blind listening tests. But they generally demur, invoking a quasi quantum mechanical principle. Apparently, getting the “right” result from a blind test is as futile as deciding through which slit of a diffraction grating a single photon passes.
So if Cookie could demonstrate to my satisfaction she really hears what she claims to hear I could become a true believer. Otherwise I’ll happily continue using my generic cables. Without an unbiased test it’s like the voice from the back of the crowd in that Firesign Theater album says: “That’s metapheesically absurd, mun, how can I know what you hear?” And frankly, I have better things to do with my life than “auditioning cables”.
So you collected your wager? Glad to learn no laws of physics were violated.
When you all have the perfect system, then what? 
Then you start enjoying the music instead of listening critically to components. Spend money on more music.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio
Well, at whatever level the Bryston’s pre-amp section was operating, it was enough to collapse the sound stage and stifle the dynamics versus the Schiit Freya with its unity-gain JFET buffer.
Bryston’s origins are in the professional arena, where I suspect they have to take into account far longer cable runs than a typical home user would ever require.