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
r_f_sayles's avatar
r_f_sayles
872 posts
 
"The mystery man came over
and he said "I'm outta sight!"
he said for a nominal service charge,
I could reach nirvana tonight.
If I was ready, willing and able
to pay him his regular fee,
he would drop all the rest of
his pressing affairs and devote
his attention to me.

But I said "Look here brother-who you
jiving with that cosmik debris?"

Happy Listening!
rockvirgo
587 posts
 
Jade, my observation was not an attempt to rate you, your logic or choices. But given your predilection for a numerical methodology to come to grips with your pursuit I can see why you might see it that way. You're a pioneer of sorts and I applaud your efforts.

My point is that beauty is not quantifiable and exists wholly in the listener's imagination and nowhere else. If some people need more help than others to free their imagination, or are simply just plain restless, their persistance to fill that void is admirable.
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,229 posts
 
No offense taken and I truly hope I haven't given offense. I have nothing but admiration for your dedication to this hobby, but at the same time that doesn't mean I won't vehemently disagree with you.

As audiophiles we seem to place increasing importance on extremely small sonic changes. For some people that is the hobby. For others, those increasingly small sonic changes are of little or no musical importance. Each is a valid position. You could of course argue that the sonic changes are in fact not small, but quite large. But I would argue that if you could tell it was an oboe and not a bassoon, that it's Ella and not Sarah, that Paul is playing a Rickenbacker and not the Hofner, etc. before the upgrade, then by definition any sonic improvements resulting from any upgrade to that specific system are small and subtle. If the change in sound was really dramatic then even untrained people could spot them in blind listening tests. If we can accept that some people are happy with $150,000 systems and others are equally happy with $30,000 systems, then logic would dictate that there must be some people out there who are equally happy with their boomboxes. And depending upon how they got there, to the boombox level, they could even be considered audiophiles. Not everyone is walking down the same path.
jafox
1,457 posts
 
Wow great thread. I thought Jadem6 was only at 90% so I went ahead and bought the green wrapping paper and red ribbon and bow to deliver a Callisto Signature for Christmas. But hey, if he's at 95% ...........

And yes, for most of us, the big issue to tackle is the room. And oh what a task it is.

John
gregm
3,405 posts
 
In his excellent post, Jadem adopts an holistic approach to a system (i.e. NOT focusing on specific sources of improvement: cable or room or...) -- and talks about quantifying improvement. The exponential -- rather than linear -- explanation is very attractive in that it adequately covers the otherwise absurd-sounding statements "I changed (say) wires and the system soared... at least 50% improvement!!!

Jadem sez:
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
I think that your original post is clearly on the subject of the perceived IMPROVEMENT rather than the subject of enjoying music (even thru a $10 clock radio -- enjoy listening to music even through a clock radio).
Onhwy61 sez:
As audiophiles we seem to place increasing importance on extremely small sonic changes. For some people that is the hobby. For others, those increasingly small sonic changes are of little or no musical importance. Each is a valid position
Again, methinks that Jdm's post wasn't addressing the latter; he tried to offer an explanation (using mathematical support) to the disparity b/ween what SEEMS like a minute change and the perception of improvement that change makes (i.e. "wow, wee, etc" effect).

Finally, I don't think we're discussing existence of improvement and the reasons why, either; i.e. WHY a wire should make a difference and if it does offer improvement...

Nsgarch's comment on the POTENTIAL for improvement any system may have is very interesting. This is a simple way to explain why, by inserting the same item in two different systems, the change is not identical. That much is obvious -- but I think that Ns's point is that one can go beyond the subjective (I like the change) to a more objective approach (whether I like it or not, the change is significant in system A that in system B).

After taking up lots of space already, I'd add :^) that different kinds of music also may hi-lite changes to differing degrees. I have many examples with classical. Not to be any more tedious suffice it to say that SOMETIMES, the reproduction I've heard fm systems is, basically, "impossible". Simply put: EITHER what I was hearing was tonally, phase, etc, wrong OR it was right and the musicians were grossly off track. Since the latter is highly improbable (i.e. they'd never have graduated fm conservatory in the first place, let alone that recording reaching the music stores) it must be the former. No?
More to discover