Plankton... and the ability to resolve properly

Would the plankton be sometimes mistaked as wet or kinda slurry coloration?
I've noticed this among few amplifiers and even dacs, not transducers tho.
Such coloration makes flat, grainy and lifeless recordings sound better.

Would you say high end studio monitor speakers (still solid state chip amp inside + lots of other compromizes) are better at plankton than totl HD800 rig ?
Surely the hp rig does microdynamics better, while one can't say the hp rig manages to portray better defined images in soundstage.

 

No, I think a TOTL HD800 rig is still plankton king. Some of the best widebander stuff in the right situation can get close to that level, but otherwise headphones always seem to pick up more low-level information than speakers. Probably related a few things as you say, extra crap in the way (amplification or crossovers), lack of efficiency and dynamism of inefficient transducers, and diffusion and room effects obscuring the little critters floating around.

 

Hey, then we're on the same page.
To further complicate the matter, I think the plankton that is available on my speakers makes more sense even though there is much less of it, as it aids to carve out the real images. On the HD800 through 2A3 these same nuances , yes while more whole and continuous are not unfolding to clear physical 3D images.

 

that brings the question of reference again. what are you trying to reproduce? I know there is a strong ideology "a la " Neil Young in audio where people want the real sound as it was played by the artist(so that he can replay it on a pono in his car...). but it's just not what we get, ever. we get manufactured sound. if several mics are used, then at least the gain must be set for each, then there is a made up panning to create positions out of mono tracks. those positions might be created as an attempt to put the band back to it's original position in the room, but I don't know that. and most of the time they instead follow a panning routine that is known to sound nice.
all that job is done by a guy who usually uses speakers to finalize the album. so when you get different information on the hd800, more audible information in some cases I'm sure like way less disto in the low end than even a great pair of speakers, is this an improvement or a loss of fidelity compared to the reference that is the album mastered on the studio's speakers?
my personal reference is this guy in the studio listening to the album one last time before deciding it's a wrap. that is the material we get for playback so that is the reference I can hope to reproduce when I seek fidelity and details. if details are anything we notice, then a grainy 3% THD tube amp adding some texture would be a magnificent "plankton" creator wouldn't it?

 

I don't know how is this related to 'plankton' stuff.
A simple square wave bass from analog synth or string pluck from guitar has all the gamut of microdynamics if properly recorded. It's no rocket science.
I recorded sounds that still make me awe today when I was teenager with entry level condenser mics and a RME pre. Not exactly world class equipment.
No reference is needed to assess plankton. It c a n be relative. The sum of 100 piece orchestra sounds is entirely different topic as I see it.
Transparency and 'plankton' are not synonymous. Plankton is simply a small part of transparent sound. Like, real life sounds have infinite plankton.

 

Right, but I think this may point to a weakness in your argument. The engineer signed off on the sound of the recording being played back on his/her studio system. At this point both the studio engineer and the consumer are listening to the same recording, the same sonic information. So, unless the studio engineer is intentionally listening to the recording on a colored playback system, generally speaking a neutral transparent playback system should approximate what a studio was using. In other words, the studio (arguably?) evaluates the playback on a neutral system, so that's what we try to achieve in our playback systems. Neutrality and transparency. This is something that there is a reference for, in the sense that we can play back all kinds of music, and if the playback system is coloring certain things, you will pick it up cross recordings/genres/etc. So I'm arguing that plankton is something that is inextricably audio information in the recording, and not artificially induced by the playback system.

Edit: tl;dr, I'm not buying this "there is no reference" thing.

 

I said 3% THD tubes, not to mistake the statement with "berrrgh I hate tube rhhhaaaaaaaa!". some have more, some have way less. I'd never argue that some tube amps sound pretty damn transparent. it was an example of sound we might like , that might add a feeling of details, but has nothing to do with the actual album. 3% THD is something I'd expect to be audible for most situations. thus that value.
(of topic: I forgot the pass for TN, I'll use my mad hacking skillzzz to reset it, but you could have PMed me here you sexy bear).

well that just confuses me even more about the meaning of plankton or what you'd call transparent sound. isn't transparent something relative to the original sound? so how is determining what is the original sound not relevant?

 

I'm just saying that headphone listening is nothing like speaker listening. is that up for debate? so if the reference sound was determined and created on speakers, how could headphones do better as they are? if human hearing was really just a more signal fidelity= more perceived details I might think differently, but any change in how we perceive music can alter a great deal of things. so I do not take the headphone vs speakers differences lightly.
about having a proper reference, of course we could, and me funding the smyth realiser is clearly because I believe there is a reference and also that we can achieve something close with headphones(and the proper DSPs). go to the studio, get the sound with your own body(not at the eardrum but measured in the ear canal... meh, close enough), come home, apply it to your best headphone while listening to an album mastered in that studio = theoretical nirvana of fidelity. no wondering if the room is right, if my body does something, if the headphone is still massively colored. I believe in this, I hope for it in every headphone at some point, with a song having the studio referenced in the metadata and even our cellphones doing the job of getting as close a sound as it can for everybody(with some averaging because I don't imagine everybody will go visit all the studios, I certainly will not).

 

Sound can not be reproduced in 100% transparent manner, it's against laws of physics. lol.

The plankton term is defined in previous posts, so I will not repeat others, but here's some history on the word of my knowledge:

As I understand and remember 'plankton' to describe music reproduction is coined or at least widespread used first by Marvey or V. Mike back in Changtar.
It got so much intention because digital stuff in the DSD crapfest and 140dB dynamic range S-D was very good at removing any low level signal or mucking it to fart-like sounds.
The little nr of good sources that were around had more plankton. Now, in the era of R-2R rise and vinyl re-wakening in hp arena the plankton is less important to talk about, because most sources and good tube amps of todays SBAF circles might have other, more bothersome flaws. It didn't help that the world spun around Audeze at the time, which were mostly impotent of playing back plankton in the first place.

Music must sound believable and enjoyable. That is what I seek in music. Both at the same time if possible, but I can go with enjoyable in a compromise situation. Again, not my original words, rather I remember Marv back in CS saying that plankton is the nr 1 attribute to make music enjoyable to him. I agree and can relate.

Do you really care if 17 kHz was 2 dB down because of amp roll-off ? Probably not. Loss of transparency, but who cares.
An absence of plankton however is really noticeable and to many and me including very bothersome, and is also loss of transparency. This is what you miss with O2 (or any other high feedback ss) amp and a crappy sounding (measuring impeccably S-D dac) in contrast of well implemented tubes and a proper source. Again, the latter can only mean anything to you if you have experienced these things. It takes ridiculous amounts of exp and knowledge in electronics to 'see' these things on paper. I am only lately beginning to scratch the surface here.

 

How does one go about signing up for this blind test? Is this something we can arrange at the meet in November?

 

Based on the immense amount of hype surrounding the Jotunheim, I am hoping that those who can't tell the difference between the O2 and Jotunheim in a blind test also can't tell the difference between an LCD2 and HD800 in a blind test.

 

This is like trying to talk about meditation, psychedelics, and states of consciousness with someone who has never even taken a sip of alcohol or taken a break from the keyboard to truly explore self-knowledge.

@Marvey might want to ban me from this thread.

 

It's like trying to explain snow to someone who has lived in the tropics their whole life.

 

oh cool, a strawman argument contest! I really missed that since 5mn ago on headfi.
what are the rules here? do I pretend like anything in this post is relevant to me or my previous posts to keep the ball rolling for no reason? or do I answer with more strawman and then there is a vote and the best strawman wins a travel free of charge to the USA? I'm still new here please guide me.

what's super weird is that we actually agree on so many subjects, you really seem to have no idea how often that is. my ideal audiophile would be someone like ultrabike, I agree with him most of the time and when I don't it's usually only an opinion thing, nothing more. but I have a shitty personality so I'm clearly closer to you in that respect.

if my understanding of plankton based on OP and only on OP is wrong, how about giving me links to where it's been better defined?
if you think I'm wrong with my idea that the reference I should try to reproduce is the sound of the speakers in the studio where the album was mixed, we can discuss that. the recording and playback chains are rather long and we don't all have to settle for the same things or even desire fidelity at all. if I'm wrong about something I said, I'm always happy to learn from my mistakes when presented with rational stuff. I like learning, that's what keeps me on audio forums, not audio. I'm fine with my music on my own for that.

also to get that out the way, and strangely enough, reply to your post:
I've noticed that ultrabike is left alone with his 2I2, well I have one too right next to my odac/O2 and some other crap I use for low-fi measurements, please think of me as the guy with a 2I2 from now on. I feel that it's the kind of subjective rebranding that could really do a lot for my likability in here. I'm not nwavguy, that is a fact, stop blaming me for shit that have nothing to do with me. the 2I2 headphone output is around 10ohm, it sounds clearly different from the O2 with several IEMs/headphones. do I get a cookie for saying that? when did I ever say otherwise?
do I need to "simply" fly to the US to apparently discover that I have personal preferences? I'd be glad to demonstrate my totally horrible french accent to you IRL(it's so bad I feel like I should charge for the spectacle), but I happen to have a simple life where I don't consider crossing the ocean anytime someone wants me to listen to something. I'm interested in audio, but not that interested(or not rich enough).