evdplancke;681814 Wrote: > I would attribute what you call "somewhat fuzzy, out of focus" with 3200 > to the fact that the highs are less prominent and there is less > sharpening of the sound. On my system, this looks more natural. > Interesting is that you don't feel that there is any perceptible loss > of details. For me indeed the details are still there but they are less > highlighted and more balanced with bass and mids.
You're right. By loss of detail I meant this: While listening to Jethro Tull's "Bouree" (from "Stand Up"), I have, for the first time ever, detected a very gorgeous, extremely satisfying cymbal splash (somewhere in the middle of the song). This particular detail had always been hidden from me (even back in the days when I was listening to this song on my Thorens turntable). Now, for the first time ever, this detail emerged in its full glory (such details make a world of difference when enjoying one's favorite performances). This was first detected with the buffer length 20,000. Switching over to the 3,200 buffer, and immediately noticing somewhat fuzzier, dispersed and less precise sound, I was expecting that this gorgeous cymbal splash will not be noticeable, or at least will be less prominent. But no, it was still there, only a bit colored, almost like someone poured a thin film of honey or maple syrup over it. So, in a way, I couldn't say that 3,200 buffer resulted in a loss of detail, because the exact same cymbal splash was still there. But at the same time, you're right, because certain attributes of that splash (or, lack of certain attributes) is what was detected, and that in the end affects the details. evdplancke;681814 Wrote: > Basic acoustics physics would tend me to say that the positioning of the > right hand on the neck is more due to good in phase highs than good > bass. You don't hear the hand by the sound of the guitar but rather by > the noise of the hand slipping on the neck, isn't it? Indeed, I have > noticed with buffer at 20000 that the localisation of the sound was > surprisingly precise. Spatialisation seems a little more unfocused with > 3200 on my system because bass, mid and highs are more balanced and > enlarge the noise source a little bit. But paying attention to it, this > is not because of a loss of focus, but rather because the sound is > richer and fuller and hence sounds wider... also due to the law of > acoustics. What I'm learning from all this experimentation is that each instrument/voice, while having clear cut limitations in the bottom part, seems to want to extend indefinitely into the upper region. You're right -- the bass appears to also carry with it many higher order harmonics. It is the faithful reproduction of these 'ghostly' higher frequencies that give it that extra push in the direction of realism. Also, it is very important that the swoosh from the lows to the highs be smooth, seamless, uninterrupted. Any slight aberration in this continuum results in the breaking of the spell, and the magic of the illusion is abruptly gone. That applies especially when listening to well recorded pianos. evdplancke;681814 Wrote: > This is a rather good news. My acoustics Nirvana must not be so far from > yours... but for a reason unexplained so far, there are not at the same > place. :) > > Somewhere my system must be less bass heavy or be more highlighting the > highs than yours (or both) hence loosing the balance at higher buffer > settings. It is true I have only two way speakers that generally do not > tend to highlight bass. I am also using DYI FFRC speaker cables (full > range response cable) that drastically improve the high frequency > response, creating a lot of air and openess. Combination of the two > might be why it is sounding better at 3200 for me. My big ass Maggies (basically, the size of barn doors) appear to be doing a good job at avoiding any glitches in the low-to-mid-to-high frequencies continuum. I'm not hearing any hiccups (a very good demo of that is the Fazioli piano sample track from the nuforce.com site). One cannot get to the point of reproducing full range piano faithfully if there are any issues with crossing over from low to mid etc. This is why I feel that buffer 20,000 is optimal in this given configuration, as it makes the piano sound freakishly convincing. I think I'll be using and reusing that particular Fazioli piano track in many of my future tweaking. -- magiccarpetride ------------------------------------------------------------------------ magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
