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
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?
mechans
3,048 posts
 
Firstly with regards to the last 5% and logs. What you are describing when making a comparison with the Richter scale is an a steep asymptote. You're simply describing the law of diminishing returns. I disagree with a couple of concepts. The first is that the quality of a system in terms of delivering what you like hearing, nevermind sterile empiracle lab data, must cost something extra. Secondly the quality of your system is entirely in your mind. And your mind only. You imply there is a true absolute as Sufentanil points out better audio system. This is simply not true. The great unwashed teeming masses are quite pleased with vastly less expensive systems.
Where is the sacred book of audio rules which defines better and worse. We all have an idea of what we like but there is extraordinary diversity amongst well liked systems and sonics in the mid fi and up cost wise. Clearly there is no way of knowing that you couldn't find the same qualities you like in a less expensive system. Its only 95% to you. There is no known route to your 99.99% costing more or less. Its more like sex than science- how much you like it depends on how you percieve it.
garyb6
25 posts
 
I enjoy bathing in the sound of my system, it washes the numbers from my head and that's why I'm drawn to this hobby. I'm sorry if this sounds condescending but I don't understand why so many are hung up on quantifiing pleasure.
jax2
3,031 posts
 
Jadem - I feel the urge to address your most recent comments that seem to question why certain folks are posting here. Perhaps you might consider to extend the definition of "audiophile" to anyone who appreciates the reproduction of music outside of the actual performance, and the associated gear used to reproduce it. My guess is that all who pursue this hobby don't limit the hobby to the same absolutes and extremes that you are writing of here, yet do enjoy it at all the various levels which it can be appreciated on (which are many). That would include ten year old Aiwa's, boom boxes, as well as those who choose to invest larger amounts of money into the hobby. One need not be a champion swimmer to enjoy swimming, nor does a car enthusiast need to own and tinker with Ferraris in order to truly appreciate the automotive hobby. That's a long way of saying that I take exception to your singling those folks out whose investments appear to drop below a certain threshold as not belonging on this forum. I find the elitist viewpoint that appreciating musical reproduction and the associated gear has something to do with some kind of "absolute truth" to be, well, to be polite about it, a bunch of hooey! That said, I agree (I think) with what you seem to be asserting in your original post, that the hobby becomes a pursuit of rapidly diminishing returns as greater investments are made. I'd also be willing to bet that the vast majority of folks posting and reading here are not investing the kind of money into their sytems and related room treatments you are talking about demand. Therefore I wonder why it comes as any surprise that you'd get more than just a few folks raising an eyebrow and questioning the motivations to pursue the hobby to those extremes (which, by the way, I think you addressed quite eloquently as far as your own viewpoint is concerned).

Marco
r_f_sayles's avatar
r_f_sayles
872 posts
 
This is indeed a grand thread. I apologize for the Zappa lyrics earlier if it left anyone offended or confused to my intention. It was an abstract response (yes, poking a little fun) to how abstract I personally find it of trying to quantify seeming improvement of faking the sounds of real music from a real acoustic environment in our living rooms. I would agree also that many times live performances compared to Hifi performances leave me with mixed review to what I would rather sit in front of. I commend the higher thinking and questioning of this thread as it is a rare departure from the usual blabber present in a growing larger amount of threads.
What I find hard to come to terms with though, and so the cosmic Zappa lyric outburst, is the effort to put a numerical value on a feeling of possibly rapturous proportion. Just as Mechans put it so well before me "the quality of your system is entirely in your mind". It's an illusion. How does one intellectually grapple with explaining an illusion? I realize we are not comparing something as simple as the merits of why chocolate might be better than vanilla. I would agree that it is much more a thing of texture and nuance and timbre and pace that tickles our perception.
I am an artist by trade and on a daily basis I deal with engineering and sales people who try to quantify something as I create it from a blank sheet of paper. I always find it interesting the dynamic of perception from one person (vantage point) to another. It's juxtaposition to expectation and preconceived notion leaves me entertained but gleans little true light on an understanding. I am not the wordsmith that many of you are and I hope I can convey my ideas of this clearly enough. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and for me maybe Shakespeare or Chagall, Wagner or Hendrix might have been able to express this thing better than all the mathematical theorists we could employ (with all due respects). Happy Listening!
More to discover