What CD You Use For Testing Hifi Set

Aiya, ya, forget to add in.

When I called Adrian the dinosaur of Audio Image. he straight away fcuk me.
He told me precisely, he is not old dinosaur.
I replied to him that give a chance of my naiveness of my young age.
He accepted my apology and told me to come to his place most often for auditionings.

chewkwokhon wrote:Aiya, ya, forget to add in.

When I called Adrian the dinosaur of Audio Image. he straight away fcuk me.
He told me precisely, he is not old dinosaur.
I replied to him that give a chance of my naiveness of my young age.
He accepted my apology and told me to come to his place most often for auditionings.

thats why lah. So to keep oneself from becoming like a dinosaur ... u should go there more often. But this is only half the story. U must pay some "school fees" as well... Not just "cuci telinga" there once or twice a year only.

And then only you might realise, the "school fees" that u pay there is different from the "school fees" u might pay elsewhere. But don't worry. He won't hard-sell you anything one. All school fees that you might end up parting with, you will gladly do so and with great satisfaction as it would most likely perform a mini-miracle in your existing system. No con games here. This is how people can stay in business for 20+ years and still maintain a loyal following.

And if u ever get to know some of the regular people there, just be
careful not to drop your jaw on the floor too loudly if u come to know
the systems that they are playing.

I didn't drop my jaw listening to the Krell Master Reference, I shook the owners' hand for a job well done, and we share plenty of talks(talk 3 talk 4 wan). All very nice Uncles wan( or Dinosaurs if u want to call them that). We share share experience wan, where got call each other names wan! Somemore won't let us leave wan, until we have enuf drinks and food!

uncle_vic wrote:All very nice Uncles wan( or Dinosaurs if u want to call them that). We share share experience wan, where got call each other names wan! Somemore won't let us leave wan, until we have enuf drinks and food!

OK .. lets see now:

someone called the Audio Image guy a Dinosaur, kena fcuk instead. (Mebbe FCUK was the fashion label of the month at that time lah... who knows).


The dinosaurs in this forum, would be the ones saying things like ... human inner ear got damn alot of distortions lah ... but that guy ... (who was it , got to look back at the old threads is the one thats to take my offer of giving a brand new set of Edifier speakers in exchange for a pair of Harbeths... since by his theory, they all should sound the same anyways, thanks to all the inner-ear distortions).

The next brontosaurus is the one who'll tune everything by hear ... to get ... what was it called ... the "FM-Curve" type of sound .. or something that effect. More bollocks.

Then there's another one ... talking more cock like, to get twice the loudness, needs 10 times more power.
Ahh... this one for sure, must be his "uncle bronto" teach him one.

http://emusician.com/tutorials/square-one-can-you-hear-me-now/

Harvey Fletcher and Wilden Munson discovered that our hearing is
decidedly nonlinear with respect to frequency and perceived loudness,
and they mapped this data at various levels to produce what have come to
be known as the Fletcher-Munson Curves, or more generally the equal
loudness contours (see Fig. 1).


Many audio measurements are made using weighting curves that attempt to
skew the results in favor of the way we actually hear.

http://www.digisoundmastering.com/content/view/4

http://www.6moons.com/ramef/5.html


Frequency
Response
Our original definition was pretty simple: Frequency response
encompasses the range of human hearing, namely 20Hz to 20kHz. So what
should the goal be? A flat frequency response from 20Hz to 20kHz, right?
Maybe. It depends on both how it's being measured and subjective
preferences. First off, what is flat frequency response? It
admittedly does sound like a simple question but it isn't. On a linear
frequency scale, you probably would not like the sound of a flat
frequency response. In fact, it would be rather bright because our
hearing is logarithmic, not linear.

http://www.6moons.com/ramef/5.html


I
mentioned subjective preferences. Do we always want flat? The human ear
is not flat. By that I mean that we do not perceive every
frequency at the same volume while listening to a flat frequency sweep.

Our
listening rooms are naturally much smaller and as such, do not contain
diffuse sound fields. Thus many claim that the notion of reverberation
times in consumer listening spaces is invalid. However, our experience
has shown us that not only are reverberation times in a small field
valid, they are probably the second most useful measurement for
us. It's important to appreciate that the ideal reverberation times for
listening rooms, theaters (both large and small), churches, recording
studios and control/mixing rooms vary greatly. Each of these types of
spaces serve different purposes and as such should have reverberation
times optimized for their intended usage. Unlike the general goal
for frequency response, reverberation times can and will vary across
the frequency range depending on the type of room and its primary use.

uncle vic, i think you're seriously confused here with regards to these FM curves.

You'd wanna apply FM curves if you want to evaluate say .. the human tolerance/acceptance to noise pollution of some industrial zone or similar , e.g. the ambient noise inside a Boeing 777 cabin, etc etc

Sorry to say but these type of measurements or tests DO NOT TELL YOU JACK about the quality of reproduced sound.

Look, the fact is simple here....

To make a recorded instance of a Piano, sound like a Piano when being played back on electronic equipment and in a different environment than the venue of original performance, this will require an "as NEUTRAL as POSSIBLE" equipment and enviro.

This means, the hardware should be as FLAT a playback response as
possible, and the listening room as well. And FLAT as in Z-weighted Ruler Line!


Why would anyone want to add "10dB" at the 10KHz region just to compensate for this higher threshold according to the FM-curve ??

And besides, if u really want to get into the FM-curve thingy, u might compensate 10dB@10KHz if the playback volume is at say 70dB.

But if the overall volume is at say: 50dB, you would need to add 20dB at 10KHz to "compensate" back instead!!

So be honest here uncle vic, do you Re-position your speakers, each set of speaker locations meticulously marked, to match for every different position of your amp's volume knob? C'mon ... get real for once will ya ?


Or is it that you fiddle with the bass and treble knobs of your equipment more than the on-off switch itself each time u wanna listen to your system ?

Go ahead, chase those FM-curves like a dog chasing its tail. Yes its very amusing, for a brief moment...

Spoiler:

Last i checked, all my hifi gear specifically was missing such crucial tonal controls!! Can somebody please call the Consumer Forums ??? And get a Lawyer to SUE those hifi manufacturers too !!

The hifi makers especially the high end ones have CHEATED US ALL Audio consumers by Depriving us the Bass, treble, and iNSanity Knobs to tune for Fletcher-Munson CURVES !!!

WHERE IS THE BASS AND TREBLE CONTROL??? IT's MISSING FROM MY BASIC EXPOSURE AMP, & MY BIG CHUNKY HUNK of METAL called KRELL !! I TOTALLY NEED IT TO ADJUST FOR THAT FM-CURVE THINGY NOW!!!

Oh the Humanity!!

uncle_vic wrote:http://emusician.com/tutorials/square-one-can-you-hear-me-now/

Harvey Fletcher and Wilden Munson discovered that our hearing is
decidedly nonlinear with respect to frequency and perceived loudness,
and they mapped this data at various levels to produce what have come to
be known as the Fletcher-Munson Curves, or more generally the equal
loudness contours (see Fig. 1).


Many audio measurements are made using weighting curves that attempt to
skew the results in favor of the way we actually hear.

Uncle Vic,

I am so surprise that "dinosaur" finally "GOOGLE" instead of "draws upon their own memory bank for information".
Not dinosaur any more but becomes young "Cikus"?

Where did you cut and paste above information. I propose you better using the update version which no longer called Fletcher-Munson Curves but ISO 226:2003.

How about your ears? Still using FM curves? Please upgrade your ears to ISO 226:2003 revision and redo tuning for all your 6 subs + how many mid and high??? with your ISO 226:2003 EARS.

uncle_vic wrote:http://www.6moons.com/ramef/5.html


Frequency
Response
Our original definition was pretty simple: Frequency response
encompasses the range of human hearing, namely 20Hz to 20kHz. So what
should the goal be? A flat frequency response from 20Hz to 20kHz, right?
Maybe. It depends on both how it's being measured and subjective
preferences. First off, what is flat frequency response? It
admittedly does sound like a simple question but it isn't. On a linear
frequency scale, you probably would not like the sound of a flat
frequency response. In fact, it would be rather bright because our
hearing is logarithmic, not linear.

Uncle Vic,

Did you ever plot or even see a Gain vs Freq graph?
For your knowledge, normally all Freq (x-axis) will be in log scale.
Gain (y-axis) could be in linear or log scale.

For gain value G, it will have its log value = 20log(G) dB.
If the FR is flat from 20 Hz to 20kHz, every single freq in these range will have constant gain G in linear scale and 20log(G) in log scale.
So, no matter how you plot, FR will still flat either in linear or log scale.

Which axis is not flat after change from linear to log scale (or vice versa) you are talking about?
New theory again?
Follow Fourier Transformation or Uncle Vic Transformation?

mugenfoo wrote:


You forgot a few very crucial elements in your "experiment" which is "RECORDING SESSION itself" & "MASTERING". Ever heard of such names like Doug Sax, Bernie Grundman, Butch Vig, Alan Parsons ... ?

Even mike selection & miking techniques are an art-form executed by skilled recording artisans (aka mr./miss Recording Engineer guy/girl). What mike did u use ? An omni ? a directional cardioids ? Or issit a condenser mike? & do u even know your recording mike's polar pattern ?

What mike placement strategy did u use ... ? ORTF ? Blumlein? NOS ? XY-arrangement? ... etc etc ... ???

BTW, there is no such thing (as far as I have encountered) as a "perfect mike aka no signal loss" ok ? ... All mikes have their own sonic signatures as a Shure sounds like a Shure, an AKG is as itself, and a Telefunken is as Telefunken does, and a Neumann yesterday is still a Neumann today.

Oh, you had misunderstood. HAHA! I mean 'SUPPOSE', just like how theoretical physicist derives a formula before asking the applied scientist to do it. Sometimes, it doesn't need to have the real thing!

For me, even the best live performance (technically, perhaps musically), suppose they separate their FOH mix and recording mix.. Suppose they use some Neumanns, soundwave distorted, "relative" to Shure, right? Hence, no true Guitar sound edy, since 'GREAT' audioohiles can differentiate even what mic they are using.. LOL!

Anyway,

Suppose (assume) now i have a "perfect" mic.... Recorded a guitar with the room resonance... Playback at the same room...

If my room is "no walls, no floor", the waves came out without acoustic effects. Assume the system is "perfect" (just assume: 0% distortion, even dynamically), it shall reproduce the same sound.

Now put the wall back, the room will cause unwanted vibration (reverberation /resonant /etc).

So, is room flat response crucial? I do think so..

Erm, Actaully it feels great to have other people to read your opinion, and ponder on it.. Even if get scolded! Amongst all my frens, they won't "crazy" together with me. FUN FUN!

BUT, when you get this kind of system, you eventually only listen to those "very good records", because comercial music industry mix their product in a way that suits everyone. So, they'll use all sorts: WestLake, Harbeth, ProAc bookshelfs, headphones, PC tower speakers, laptop speakers etc. They adjust it to what the majority will use.. PC speakers and headphones, and some bookshelfs? maybe?

uncle_vic wrote:http://emusician.com/tutorials/square-one-can-you-hear-me-now/

Many audio measurements are made using weighting curves that attempt to
skew the results in favor of the way we actually hear.

Uncle Vic,

Just to clarify your misleading statement.

The reverse FM curve (or ISO 226:2003 revision) is called A-weighting filter. it is well fit for sound level 40 Phon. You could find it any audio analyzers in the market (who knows you may need it when attend live concert).

A-weighting filter will only turn on for certain measurements, such as:
1) Signal to noise ratio, S/N.
2) Dynamic range.
3) Total harmonics distortion, THD.
4) Channel separation and so on depended on circumstances.

But, the A-weighting filter will NEVER EVER turn on during FR measurement.

Uncle Vic,

Why not share share your opinion about live concert?
You will ask/tune all orchestra musicians and their instruments to play follow your ears ISO 226:2003 curves?


Or you will bring an A-weighting filter and microphone to concert hall? Music captured by the microphone then go thru A-weighting filter then only to your ISO 226:2003 ears?


Or you have another set of new theory?

Really interesting.
Anyway, it is almost time for you to request audition on my system.

THT89 wrote:


If my room is "no walls, no floor", the waves came out without acoustic effects. Assume the system is "perfect" (just assume: 0% distortion, even dynamically), it shall reproduce the same sound.

Now put the wall back, the room will cause unwanted vibration (reverberation /resonant /etc).

See. Thats the problem right there ... you've based your assumptions on a bad theory to begin with...

Bad theory -> wrong practices -> skewed results -> wrong conclusions.

WE wrote:
Which axis is not flat after change from linear to log scale (or vice versa) you are talking about?
New theory again?
Follow Fourier Transformation or Uncle Vic Transformation?

Hmmm.. by your usage of the " " icon , can safely say that you r definitely not me ...

I seriously think the concept of a Fourier Transfrom would overwhelm poor ol' uncle Vic there .... It might overload his "memory banks" coz he's accumulated too much experience over the years already!

But in the spirit of sharing info, lets just put the link here nevertheless ... ya?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform

And oddly enuff, for someone so "experienced" in hifi ..... he did not even know of a 20+year old hifi outlet in PJ right until 2 days ago only! I can only wonder what experiences has he been pre-occupied with all these years ?

mugenfoo wrote:
Hmmm.. by your usage of the " " icon , can safely say that you r definitely not me ...

I seriously think the concept of a Fourier Transfrom would overwhelm poor ol' uncle Vic there .... It might overload his "memory banks" coz he's accumulated too much experience over the years already!

But in the spirit of sharing info, lets just put the link here nevertheless ... ya?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform

And oddly enuff, for someone so "experienced" in hifi ..... he did not even know of a 20+year old hifi outlet in PJ right until 2 days ago only! I can only wonder what experiences has he been pre-occupied with all these years ?

Those formulas make me recall some sweet memories during my university time.

From what I observed so far in this forum, what Uncle Vic really interested is those glossaries/terms inside electrical/audio/acoustic, such as Feed Forward, Fletcher–Munson curves, Reverberation and so on. Those terms good enough for him to show off or talk cock in front of his non-technical followers/friends.

Does he really understand the theories? Who cares?
When speechless, the only thing he knows is to ask for audition on other system.

After I said so much, it is almost time for him to ask for audition on my system.


Maybe one day he will talk to us and many about Maxwell Equations, how Gauss's Law in electric, Faraday's law, Ampere's Law and Gauss's Law in Magnet will affect the sound in his so called ear tune based on FM curves HIFI system.
Just wait and see ya.


I guess he was so busy with ear tuning and FM curve for his 6 subs in the past 20 years.


Not easy man!!!!!
if one sub take him 10 years, total 60 years he need to complete the tasks.
Maybe 30 to 40 years later only he will free to go out visit Hifi shop.

mugenfoo wrote:

See. Thats the problem right there ... you've based your assumptions on a bad theory to begin with...

Bad theory -> wrong practices -> skewed results -> wrong conclusions.

Assumption always makes a theory wrong, nothing will b wrong with a simple theory (perhaps it's logically wrong?), coz the one who tried to make it doesn't realise, Quine told rite?, due to limited experience and detail thoughts. But sometimes it is essential, acoustic problems are too tough (at least for me, currently, maybe), so made a lot of assumptions. So, please tell.

Wrong conclusion? means that needing a room with flat response is a wrong conclusion?

So much maths.... Somehow, it disagrees how cable changes the sound quality. So sienz..

Guys....

All the theories or laws are find for a healthy discussions, but hitting some one below the belt is unwarranted and unethical.

Lets keep within the boundaries of healthy discussions and exchange of views.

No, I am not taking sides nor am i an Administrator or moderator in this forum, just a plain old bystander in this forum.

cheers

THT89 wrote:

But sometimes it is essential, acoustic problems are too tough (at least for me, currently, maybe), so made a lot of assumptions. So, please tell.

Yes, acoustic problems are tough. Maybe, that's the reason my acoustic consultant, Dr L.. is as bald as a billiard ball!

tycham wrote:

Yes, acoustic problems are tough. Maybe, that's the reason my acoustic consultant, Dr L.. is as bald as a billiard ball!

HAHA! Somehow got that idea!

mugenfoo wrote:
Last i checked, all my hifi gear specifically was missing such crucial tonal controls!! Can somebody please call the Consumer Forums ??? And get a Lawyer to SUE those hifi manufacturers too !!

The hifi makers especially the high end ones have CHEATED US ALL Audio consumers by Depriving us the Bass, treble, and iNSanity Knobs to tune for Fletcher-Munson CURVES !!!

WHERE IS THE BASS AND TREBLE CONTROL??? IT's MISSING FROM MY BASIC EXPOSURE AMP, & MY BIG CHUNKY HUNK of METAL called KRELL !! I TOTALLY NEED IT TO ADJUST FOR THAT FM-CURVE THINGY NOW!!!

Oh the Humanity!!

Extract from http://www.customanalogue.com/elsinore/elsinore_16.htm

Take a look at the F-M curves. They are not frequency responses but EQUAL LOUDNESS curves. At lower volumes the bass needs to be boosted to be equal in loudness. Because of this, F-M curves became mis-used in earlier Hi-Fi equipment and became the false reason for Tone Controls and some of us will also remember the Loudness Control switch on amplifiers. Those days are behind us.

I presume your equipments must be relatively new.

Quad pre-amps do have the bass lift and tilt control but these are not for FM curves compensation, but rather:

1.)The Tilt control changes the programme balance to compensate for the
difference between the reverberation of the actual listening room and the
recording engineers concepts.

It is a highly sophisticated eight pole filter that is smooth in operation with
no abrupt changes of response and no unwanted colouration.

2.)The Bass control fulfils one of two functions; as an equaliser for use with
small loudspeakers in the lift mode when it provides smooth progressive bass
boost to compensate for the low frequency roll-off of small enclosures, and
as correction for low frequency exaggeration due to floor or corner
placement, in the step mode.

Well, if this is only if the sole playback is to "please the ears". Then by all means, the (for example, not taking a shot at Quad or anything ) Quad amp's bass/treble lifts are useful. And ok, to compensate for some room and speaker deficiencies as well. But if you're going along this line of logic, why not just patch thru that 128-band equaliser as well?

How many people here have that fancy EQ deck in their system?
Ok ok , maybe too extreme here. How many here actually use a Cello Palette pre-amp and continuously fiddle with the tonal knobs based on the differing playback volume levels ? .....Anybody ?

So back to this same point:
To re-produce as neutral as possible (yes, to the point of danger that it is bad sounding to the ear), FM-curves are not referred to.

So this is back to the same point again. To make a reproduced Piano sound like the original Piano. Not to make a piano sound pleasing to the ears. For this, we can leave it to Mr. Steinway and his descendants to make sure the original constructed piano sounds good to the the general populace in the first place and that it's exquisite sound is appreciated and loved by music lovers and audio connoisseurs alike.


FM-curves in the ear apply equally when listening to a real piano while seated 3 feet away, and also while seated 30 feet away. Does a real-life Piano have any kind of "loudness" compensation mechanism to accommodate for the various distance of the listening audience ?

So why should this be the case for a simple honest to earth audio reproduction system then ?

mugenfoo wrote:
So this is back to the same point again. To make a reproduced Piano sound like the original Piano. Not to make a piano sound pleasing to the ears. For this, we can leave it to Mr. Steinway and his descendants to make sure the original constructed piano sounds good to the the general populace in the first place and that it's exquisite sound is appreciated and loved by music lovers and audio connoisseurs alike.


FM-curves in the ear apply equally when listening to a real piano while seated 3 feet away, and also while seated 30 feet away. Does a real-life Piano have any kind of "loudness" compensation mechanism to accommodate for the various distance of the listening audience ?

Totally agreed!

I saw from some threads or some articles saying that there are 3 major type of sound one's looking for in their hifi: some like SWEET and meltzy sound, some prefer STUDIO monitor's as-close-to-original-as-possible, some like very grand European equipments sound.

i like studio monitor's sound, coz wanted to make what i play close to what they played, & think that the recording studio will do the job of tonal control, just like Steinway, by the correct mic pre-amp and stuff, etc..

I have an uncle, using an Arcam amp, comercial DVD player, and a 50 bucks diy speaker, and an equiliser. The thing is, it sounded quite OK when i listen to it, although not so good as what i'd audit before. But, when i switched off the equilizer, and by pass all the tone control in the amp, it sounded like @#*#$@, like FM curve @ 10dB, muddy, no high, no bass, nothing.. LOL!. 1st time i'm surprised by equalizers!

Perhaps, not everyone could afford M Levin, not everyone can even afford a budget speaker, and they used things like equilizer to tame what they have, and have been having.

Hi all

If I may comment, I remember the thread title was about what music CD to test. The key word being music, not physics

I just use some familiar tracks, and as I like 50s-70s jazz/blues/rock stuff, recording quality is generally academic. Personally I detest "audiophile" recordings.

Its whether it makes me tap my feet and nod my head. I wont even call it a "test". I bought a hifi set to listen to music, not to listen to hifi. Very simple for me.

Gents (and lady, if ur still around),

Interestingly enough, there's an article on the May 2010 Stereophile by Jon Iverson titled 'The Holy Trinity' of Audiophiledom... a witty and interesting read especially with the ongoing hot threads in this forum...

Anyway, for me, the songs/music matters most, then as a bonus, quality reproduction... The one/track CD I almost always use to audition is Human Nature. Track 7, of Thriller, MJ on the 8th Anniversary, Bruce 'The Swede' Swedien Edition. Other regular spinners, depending on the artists, mainly jazz from 50' to 60's (mainly reissued AP/SMEJ/Fantasy (Miles/Chet Baker/Coltrane/Wes Montgomery etc)) and pop/rock recordings from the sountrack of my life over the 80's and early 90's when I wouldn't give a git about which plug, power chord or polarity of my equipments

IMHO, quality audio reproduction aka 'Audiophile recording' is a bonus when I can get one of my favourite tracks/songs mentioned above but to record specifically to be 'auphilic' (sorry, can't figure out the right word) ala Jacinta or Patricia Barber, IMHO is what I termed as 'glorified jazz'. hmmm... not my cup of tea.. my 2 sens anyway..

cheers,

zb

Jacinta or Patricia Barber, IMHO is what I termed as 'glorified jazz'.

He he you mean those elevator/hotel lobby type of "jazz" music? Some woman and a piano, or Fourplay? I mean how many times can you flog a dead horse? Zzzzzzzzzz

Personal opinion only, cheerio!

shah zain wrote:Hi all

If I may comment, I remember the thread title was about what music CD to test. The key word being music, not physics

Which brings to mind this sanguine quote.

"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we would let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines." N.P.

tycham wrote:

shah zain wrote:Hi all

If I may comment, I remember the thread title was about what music CD to test. The key word being music, not physics

Which brings to mind this sanguine quote.

"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we would let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines." N.P.

Deeeeeeeeppppp....

shah zain wrote:Hi all
If I may comment, I remember the thread title was about what music CD to test. The key word being music, not physics

i was reading the postings and all of sudden, become off topic and involved discussions which sound alien and very deep to me

my favourite CDs to test is Dali 1 & 2.

"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we would let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines." N.P.

Yes! As it plays on our taste buds, so shall it play on our eardrums

If we just wanted to listen to hifi, better watch an oscillograph and VU meters and salivate over the curves response !

swing123 wrote:

my favourite CDs to test is Dali 1 & 2.

Dont have the 1 but I have the 2 and I agree that the 2 is a very nice piece of recording.

The album is sort of a mixture of different kind of music. A very nice compilation indeed.

I use some Chesky's records, and a "pirated" "burned" disc, of Benny Goodman compilation. Ya, those 50's / 60's trio/quartet jazz stuff sounded so real.