|
Posts: 6659
Joined: April 4, 2000
Contributor
Since: March 1, 1999
|
If you only look at one dimension among many, then you can ignore all the other dimensions completely. Bliss.
You have to realize that places like Audioholics are NOT neutral in their presentation of material about audio. They have a definite agenda, and the gist of it is to remove anything but their one dimensional view of the audio world from the complete picture.
Early in their existence, while they were struggling to make a name for themselves, I came across a web sight where they were profiled as a new online business. Their avowed business purpose: to sell audio equipment and make a profit from the sheer traffic to the site on the advertising they have there, via a variety of means, which included stoking controversy in the audio industry and providing discussion forums to facilitate this goal. These goals and objectives, and the means to reach them, were all being discussed fairly openly on this site, in the manner of a businesses interview.
Once I realized that they weren't genuine, their actions and so-called scientific articles made a lot more sense. They weren't really interested in the truth, only in presenting their version of it, and stirring up as much controversy with subjectivist's as they possibly could.
Interestingly, this web site where I saw this industry profile and interview was later blocked from open viewing, it require a subscription and registration to view the pages, and archived articles were only opened at the discretion of the web site manager/editor.
Do you know how many e-mails I was sent saying they were going to do an actual listening test to high end cables? They were even going to test my DIY CC89259 speaker cables. Instead, after many promises and delays, they simply performed some measurements using some very one dimensional lab equipment, and postulated ALL of their conclusions from their own special interpretation of simple and basic LCR parameters.
BTW, they didn't even bother to measure a sample of the CC89259, but instead, used LCR figures I had measured and published. There was no opportunity to cross-check their measurements, as the cables they did actually measure were most all fairly new brand names of the oversized zip cord variety. It turned out that virtually all of the brands "tested" were offered for sale later on at the site as well. How convenient.
Cables were not looked at as a series of extended networks, or transmission lines, or any other quite acceptable models currently considered correct and acceptable in the scientific world, they looked strictly at simple numbers based on lumped parameter models. This was "explained" as relevant based on their own interpretation of what was relevant. Any other way of looking at cable measurements, cable measurement data, or other models or simulations or network type complex measurements were ignored or deemed irrelevant, based strictly on their POV, and not necessarily on science or current signal transmission theories or practice.
If you lock in on a one dimensional parameter POV, then everything can then be reduced to a single parameter number which can then be declared (erroneously or not) a figure of merit.
The single most relevant parameter they chose to hang their hat on was resistance, and therefore by inference, simple amplitude response as a figure of merit.
Quite simply, if amplitude was all it took to do audio right, then all anyone would need as a really decent equalizer, and voila! audio Nirvana is yours.
Guess what, it doesn't work. You can equalize till you are blue in the face, and you won't achieve anything even remotely satisfying sonically.
A $3,000 system can not be equalized to sound like a $30,000 system, nor can a $30,000 system be equalized to sound like a $300,000 system.
You need to realize, that if all of the BS that objectivist's spout has any basis in truth, that according to their own belief system, that it should be possible to make the $30,000 system sound as good or better than the $300,000 system does without benefit of a separate EQ.
On a $30,000 system, the noise should be low enough, the distortion low enough, the various parameters that they deem required to reach audio perfection are all going to be present, and if their rhetoric is to be believed, the simple act of EQ'ing the system should do the trick.
But it doesn't work that way. The "intangibles" of clarity, soundstage depth, pinpoint imaging, jump factor, PRAT and all the other high-end audio system benefits are present or not in varying degrees. A properly and well set-up $300,000 system will usually have those intangibles in spades compared to the $30,000 system, and no equalizer now known to man can "fix" the $30,000 system to get it to the next level.
If it could be done, someone would have done it by now, and sold it to the masses. Since it has in fact, not happened, I rest my case.
So if you want to be blinded by "science", go to Audioholics and read all of their "technical" articles, the end result will insure that you can only look at audio one confusing and constricted dimension at a time. After all of that reading, a Sony receiver, a simple HT cube and mini-sub speaker system, a $99 Blu-ray player, and you are set for life. As long as it is all hooked up with 10 Ga. wire of course.
Note that the above represent my own opinions after my own personal experiences with Audioholics, and do not reflect the views of anyone else at AA including the Bored or Rod.
Jon Risch
|
