2. misc-audio
  3. 1133464025

The last 5 ?????

Sometimes as an Audiophile I come to a place where words no longer express the experience I’m having with my system. In this past year I have needed to sell off parts of my system, the biggest changes were going from two Plinius SA-102 amps bi-amped to a single amp, and replacing my Nordost Valhalla cabling with the far more affordable Kubala-Sosna Emotion cables.

The loss of the amp was clear, less dynamics and less involving. The cable change was something significantly different however. The Kubala-Sosna cables are every cliché we audiophiles use. Blacker, better definition, more space between notes, dynamic, extended… These words fail to express the improvement over my Valhalla cables however, and all I can say is I’m more musically involved. This was a clear improvement to my system, and for less money!!! But words fail to adequately express the improvements.

The second experience came when my Sony SCD-1 receiving all the remaining modifications available through Richard Kern at Audiomod.com I had half the mod’s done four years ago, and received the remaining just last month. The fully modified player is said to better the EMM Meitner/Phillips combination. I can not speak to that in that I have never heard this combination, so my basis is strictly within my experiences listening to other systems.

The fully modified Sony is simply amazing, beyond my limits of expression. I could say it’s more analog than any digital system I’ve heard, and yet it’s well beyond analog. It is simply so much more than the analog most of us can afford. It’s also not at all digital, it has none of the electronic, edgy artifacts of solid state and digital systems. The best way I can explain this system is it’s beyond digital and analog that I’m aware of.

Words like three dimensional, attack, tightness, extended, clear, dynamic, natural, subtle all fall completely inadequate when trying to explain my system today. Words just can not explain the sound.

This leads me to my purpose of this post. The topic actually came up talking to Albert Porter when we were discussing continued improvements we make to systems that are already beyond 95% of anything available. In Albert’s case I suspect he is beyond 99.99% and yet we continue to change our systems and reach DRAMATIC improvements.

How is this possible if the last five or three or one percent is as significant as 50% to 90%? What I mean is when I moved from a $1000 system to a $4000 system the improvements were dramatic. Then I moved to a $9000 then $20,000 and finally to where I am now. Each step was marked improvement over the earlier step and even at $4000 I was far beyond anything 95% of the consumers will ever hear. So what’s actually going on? If $4000 gets me to the last few percent, how can each additional step be doubling or tripling the previous systems musicality or involvement or measurable improvement?

Why do some of us get to a point where we believe a single multi-thousand dollar interconnect brought us 100% closer to the music? Why are there some who still claim cables do not effect sound? Clearly they want good sound, but somehow are not aware of what is possible due to limits in there 95% system.

My answer is either the last couple percent are actually far more significant than the first 95% or we are actually only 25% “there” with a $4000 system. I can not even express how big the changes I have made are. They are well beyond two times, maybe three or four times the significance on the system before these changes. That would mean I was something like 25% or 45% “there” before. Well that is crazy because I have not hear a system I enjoyed more than mine. I’ve heard some that were better in one area or another, but overall… Of course this is a subjective topic, and I understand that, but the point is for my room, my ears, my taste I was already 100%, yet now I’ve bettered it by two or three fold.

All I can think is this is not a 100% issue. This is something more like the open ended Richter scale. On the Richter scale every tenth of a point is doubling the magnitude of an earthquake. The Richter scale is logarithmic, that is an increase of 1 magnitude unit represents a factor of ten times in amplitude. The seismic waves of a magnitude 6 earthquake are 10 times greater in amplitude than those of a magnitude 5 earthquake. However, in terms of energy release, a magnitude 6 earthquake is about 31 times greater than a magnitude 5.

-1.5 on Richter scale, equals 6 ounces of TNT
1.0 on Richter scale, equals 30 pounds of TNT
1.5 on Richter scale, equals 320 pounds of TNT
2.0 on Richter scale, equals 1 ton of TNT
2.5 on Richter scale, equals 4.6 tons of TNT
3.0 on Richter scale, equals 29 tons of TNT
3.5 on Richter scale, equals 73 tons of TNT
4.0 on Richter scale, equals 1,000 tons of TNT
4.5 on Richter scale, equals 5,100 tons of TNT
5.0 on Richter scale, equals 32,000 tons of TNT
5.5 on Richter scale, equals 80,000 tons of TNT
6.0 on Richter scale, equals 1 million tons of TNT
6.5 on Richter scale, equals 5 million tons of TNT
7.0 on Richter scale, equals 32 million tons of TNT
7.5 on Richter scale, equals 160 million tons of TNT
8.0 on Richter scale, equals 1 billion tons of TNT
8.5 on Richter scale, equals 5 billion tons of TNT
9.0 on Richter scale, equals 32 billion tons of TNT
10.0 on Richter scale, equals 1 trillion tons of TNT
12.0 on Richter scale, equals 160 trillion tons of TNT

So if we said a boom box was a 1.0, a Bose radio might be considered a 3.0. A top of the line Best Buy system might be a 4.0. The typical audiophile system might then be a 5.5 where the old 98% system might be a 6.5. If my system was a 7.5 before the changes it might be a 7.9 now. Albert’s system might be an 8.5, but his new cables could make his system 100% better, or become an 8.6.

In my mind this is more logical for explaining the effects I have experienced. This also means we never find 100% for this scale has no end. Now the issue is how we actually mathematically quantify this logarithmic expression. I figure if some of the engineering minds out there might have an answer for this and this could be a new expression for us to use. If we could come up with a quantifiable formula, it might be a new language for us to express our systems to each other. If we had something like this maybe it could be a part of the virtual systems. We could then begin to understand how an improved cable is affecting our systems.

I may be way off here; it would not be the first time. I do however feel we need another language to express the “last couple percent” because the system we are using is inadequate, and at some point all the clichés mean nothing, and words are wholly inadequate. Perhaps this is a start???
128x128jadem6
nsgarch's avatar
nsgarch
2,524 posts
 
I'm trying to figure out if (maybe in a different way) this has already been said, but all the other remarks notwithstanding, there is a qualitative issue that affects the (subjective) percentage gain one experiences from the addition of new hardware, at different levels of system development. This has to do with whether, or how much, of the improved performance latent in that new cable or component, the system is ALREADY capable of making audible.

This most often happens with cables, both IC and PC. Someone with a modest (but respectable) system adds (for instance) some Purist Dominus or Siltech ICs. They hear an improvement over their old Maestros or budget Audioquests, but "no big whoop." Conclusion? The megabuck cables are hyped up, overpriced snake oil!! When the guy with a 99% system says those same expensive cables made a HUGE difference in his system, the first guy thinks he's deluded, ignorant, has money to burn, or worse!

Who's right, when you take their respective systems into account? Answer: Both

So adding new improved stuff to any system is a bit like remodeling a house -- you don't want to "overbuild" for the neighborhood!
jadem6's avatar
jadem6 OP
1,074 posts
 
Of course I fully understand some people are completely satisfied with a ten year old Aiwa clock radio or a simple low budget system, and to that persons ears, they are satisfied. Clearly this thread was not addressing those people. In fact I’m always taken back by people who make these comments. Why are you even here at Audiogon? I also understand some people who are offended by others spending more money to get more out of their systems. I even understand there are people who just don’t like me; I’m fine with that too. I always wonder why these people chose to read these threads and what they are looking for at Audiogon. If it’s a low budget sound system fine, but why the need to respond to threads that are clearly not your interest? Onhwy61, you and I have always gotten along well I thought. I’m sorry if my generalizations offended you, I guess I made an assumption that an audiophile website might have audiophiles at it. I guess I didn’t expect too many boomboxers hung out here, sorry I meant nothing against you.

I feel as if somehow I need to explain to these people that I enjoy this hobby, and it has nothing to do with how much I do or do not spend, it’s what I discover is possible. I also feel judged that my expenditure is wasteful or wrong in their eyes. Well to them, until you live in my shoes, please you have no right. When I hear some of the comments it just puzzles me, are these comments for learning or just to make controversy? Some of what I read makes me think these people somehow think I’m lying or have something to gain by expressing my experiences. I just don’t get it, why even comment?

OK, back to the topic at hand. First I fully applaud the comments made by Bigkidx. Your recognition of the room is so big, and so important to the overall experience. I often forget about the countless hours I spend working on improving my rooms reaction to my system. I am very lucky in that my music room is not used for any other activity than music or reading. The full wall of books is not only my library, but it’s a huge piece of the overall room’s performance. I have base traps, corner acoustic triangles, panels on some reflection points, heavy wool rugs, strategic placement of furniture, strategic location of brass pucks, wood “things” that add a pleasant acoustic to the room. I have spent many hours working on deadening lively nodes as well as livening up dead nodes. My bookshelf is designed to break up standing waves…

These features all affect the room’s response to my speakers. Some things have hurt the sound; some have helped create a more realistic sound. Most things do nothing, but the process of trying things never stops. I am always “playing” with something. See the difference between me and those who do not understand my constant striving for better is I enjoy it. Yes I’m certifiably crazy, I accept that, but I’m happy.

So yes the room improves the system in a very, very significant fashion. Once my room is “right” I discover a different tweak suddenly has a far bigger impact than it had before. This is obvious in my endless isolation experimenting. Then once I get a new tweak to increase the performance, I now hear a room effect that I could not hear earlier because the tweak had not been made. The system and room build simultaneously and in harmony with each other. This is the fun for me, and I enjoy sharing these experiences with others who enjoy the hobby.

Bgrazman, I love the question, and the concept of grading actual venues could be useful for us to understand what people are hearing. Again if I’m suggesting my system is now a 7.9 to my ears in my experiences I would say Patricia Barber heard from a center fourth row table in a local jazz night club rated 7.1. Hearing Crosby Stills, Nash and Young a couple years ago in a arena was 6.6. I’ve seen a number of people in a 3000 seat auditorium that was 7.4. A local outdoor 500 seat amp theater was 7.6. Minnesota Orchestra in Orchestra hall is 7.7. And Michael Hedges in the world renowned Guthrie Theater was 8.0. So in my personal experience Reference Recordings disks of Minnesota Orchestra sound better on my system than live. IN MY OPINION, of course. So if all music could be performed in Guthrie Theater in front of 2500 people I would probably not need such a system. My reality is most live music is in woefully inadequate venues and/or the people I enjoy are dead, or not touring 2500 seat theaters, or no long playing or never tour. If these comments are not true, then the venues they play are substandard to my personal tastes.

So what I’m saying is Minnesota Orchestra on my system is two or three times the experience of live in Orchestra Hall. Now the disclaimer is, I have not had the opportunity to be born into a family that owns third row center seats. I expect that would be an experience of 8.5 or more.
sufentanil's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
sufentanil
782 posts
 
I've thought about this, too, and agree that many things in life are perceived logarithmically, and that this is likely one of them.

However, I think it's more complicated than that. I believe that most audiophiles actually respond more to the change in the perceived sound, rather than the absolute perceived sound. They may also respond to the rate of change of the system's sound (the audiophile equivalent to velocity or perhaps even acceleration). But with the rate of change theory, you don't necessarily have to be increasing on your "Richter scale" to perceive benefits; you could also just keep making lateral moves.

Jadem6, you have a very well thought-out post that I largely agree with. It's good to hear other people thinking similarly.

Michael
gs5556
1,235 posts
 
Ah, but you are forgetting the Audiophile Paradox: the more you improve upon the system, the closer you get to the actual ideal - the cumulative losses of the recording chain.
hpims
129 posts
 
Boy, with such a mind blowing system, how did you find any time to post? :)
More to discover