|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.90.39.24
In Reply to: RE: Your assumption that anyone who doesn't agree with your interpretation the sound of "real instruments" posted by kuribo on September 19, 2015 at 10:00:57
When you walk from the studio to the control room, the mic feed either sounds like the instruments in the studio or it doesn't.
Educated people present and taking that walk do not disagree.
The mic feed either sounds like the instruments or it doesn't.
How many times have you been in a recording studio with real players playing real instruments while being the engineer who is setting the mics and making the decision whether or not the true sound of those instruments is being captured?
Never.
Yeah, I thought so.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Follow Ups:
nt
try it! you know you want to!
No you don't but it's a matter of degrees.
Your opinion is not as reliable as the opinion of a person that has spent years professionally studying the sound of live instruments. Correct?
Again you wouldn't hire a surgeon with no experience to cut you open, would you?
All I trying to get across to you is that not all opinions are equal.
You do agree with that, don't you?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I don't buy on reviews even though no doubt most professional reviewers have heard more gear than I have.
Again, audio isn't brain surgery. You are confusing the subjective with the objective. When it comes to matters of taste, no one knows what I like better than me....
try it! you know you want to!
...apparently you don't understand the scientific method.
Objective is observational - how does this sound differ from live, unamplified music?
Experts with well developed critical listening skills and knowledge of live music would agree.
Subjective is opinion - how do I like the way it sounds?
Everyone has different priorities in the way music is reproduced.
If measurements correlate to the objective observations, then they have relevance. If not, you continue to look for other measurements which do.
for anyone who actually believes there are amplifiers with "inaudible distortion". :)
Objective is metrics- how does something measure. How something sounds "different", objectively, requires a physical measurement, rather than someone's opinion, which is simply subjective, regardless of who makes the observation. Why? Because measurements are not subject to bias, tastes, or other foibles of human perception. You can't argue with an oscilloscope. A SN ratio is a defined quantity. Your claim of what constitutes a "better" amp, without any defined physical metrics, is simply your subjective opinion. And we all have those...
Experts don't agree. That's the whole point. Human perceptions differ, tastes differ.
Some people like distortion, some don't. Some prefer signal fidelity, some want what they perceive to be a "live sound", which is simply their conception of a live sound, as there is no one "live sound".
Still want to compare specs?
try it! you know you want to!
...here is the part you are missing - for a measurement to be RELEVANT it has to be correlated to the goal and purpose of the product.
If the goal of an audio amplifier were to produce the lowest THD+N, you would be correct.
But it isn't.
The goal here is to reproduce music as realistically as possible through loudspeakers.
You cannot determine that with measurements unless they correlate to the result - and you cannot judge that without objective, observational listening.
Which is what JA attempts to do in Stereophile with his suite of measurements.
Otherwise the objective measurement "watts per pound" would be just as important.
Better go back and take a basic science class.
I would have thought you understood that I am referring to measurements related to the goal of an amp, which for most designers, is a wire with gain.Your goal is some nebulous, undefined, subjective "as realistically as possible", which means different things to different people and is completely and unarguably, without any definable metric, SUBJECTIVE. If you can't comprehend that basic concept, you are the one lacking in basic understanding.
There is no such thing as "objective, observational listening". What exactly is "observational listening"? LOL...Listening, by definition, is a subjective act as you will always find people who will differ on what was "heard", never mind the established fact that human senses are prone to bias and other error.
You arguments are flawed, as is your understanding of the topic. Enough, I am tired of you and your demonstrated inability to comprehend the difference between subjective and objective and the implications of each with regards to claims about amp performance.
try it! you know you want to!
Edits: 09/20/15
...since there IS NO SUCH THING as a straight wire with gain, how do you know how one amplifier's deviations from that goal affect the music as opposed to another amp's deviations?
Which reproduces music more "accurately"? One of the two must.
It is NOT POSSIBLE to find out JUST with measurements.
Observations of trained critical listeners are not "subjective" any more than is your ability to identify your wife's voice on the telephone.
And of course you are tired of my comments because you KNOW my logic and reasoning are correct.
Which makes you WRONG.
Music reproduction is the ultimate goal, not trading off one bench measurement for another, and you cannot determine the success or failure of a design WITHOUT LISTENING to the result.
"You are confusing the subjective with the objective"
No, I think you are.
Do you have any understand of physics or electronics?
We have to use our subjective interpretation of our senses to try to determine if we are meeting our objective goals.
Whenever I make a change to my system, that physics (the type that morricab was talking about in his original post "I would say nearly all amplifier designs are conceptually WRONG!") tells me will be an objective improvement, it ends up being a subjective one as well.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
nt
try it! you know you want to!
Well once again, the goal of the hobby is expressed in it's name. Hi-Fi.
A high degree of truthfulness to the original.
I believe if we had a playback system (this would include the room and all aspects of the system) and a recording (both of which being deemed perfect in every way by the good Lord Himself) a lot of people wouldn't like it because that's not what their looking for.
I do not have a problem with that. People can listen to whatever they want to and enjoy whatever sound (no matter how far away from real it is) they want to....just don't call it Hi-Fi.
If it's Hi-Fi you're after then there are rules (as pointed out by morricab) prescribed by science and the study of psycho-acoustics that need to be followed.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
How do you determine how close you are to that goal of high fidelity, whatever it may be?There is only one way to reach that goal?
If your audio experts can't agree, then clearly there is no unique solution.
try it! you know you want to!
Edits: 09/19/15
"What is your definition of high fidelity?"
I just gave you THE definition of Hi-Fi. It's not exclusively mine.
" "Original" what?"
Sound of the instrument. In a recording that would be the sound of the instrument at the mic position.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
A high degree of "truthfulness" to the original? That is subjective goal unless you have a metric to define "truthfulness". Not everyone will agree on what is most "truthful" to the original.
The "sound" of the instrument? Another subjective goal. Unless you were there at the mike feed, it's impossible to know with certainty what the sound was exactly, and even two people who were there may not necessarily agree because not everyone interprets sensory input identically. And that isn't even touching on the fact that not all instruments of the same kind even sound the same!
That's the problem with subjective goals. There is no objective way to prove when you have reached them, or no absolute reference to judge exactly how close you are. All you can do is give your opinion, and as we know, even seasoned experts with all the experience in the world may and do disagree. There is no closed solution.
try it! you know you want to!
"Unless you were there at the mike feed"
It's "mic position" and I was, many times.
With the likes of Dennis Green (RIP), Roger Kellaway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Kellaway and John Ondrasik (Five For Fighting) playing our 9' Baldwin concert grand piano.
Jim Capaldi's (RIP) drum set and congas.
Johm McEuen's (Nitty Gritty Dirt Band) banjo and acoustic guitar.
Kenny Loggins' voice.
Dave Mason's voice and acoustic guitar.
Chris Hillman's (The Birds, The Flying Burrito Brothers, Mcguinn Clark and Hillman, The Desert Rose Band) guitar and voice.
Jonathan McEuen's voice and martin D-28 acoustic guitar.
Phil Salazar's fiddle.
Ann Kerry Ford's (wife of Robben Ford and Broadway singer) voice.
I can do this all night but it won't convince you of anything so what's the point?
I can see that this is going no where.
Why don't you just bring your amp over and we'll give it a listen?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
what I doubt is that everyone would share your interpretation of that experience.
And no, I won't be swayed that your experience and opinion of those experiences is universal truth.
Ever see the film Rashomon?
Anyway, I have a feeling you are no where close or I would be happy to give you a listen. I suggest trying to find someone local with an ncore based amp and have at it....In the meantime, check out the specs. I think you will find them interesting.
try it! you know you want to!
"Isn't "high fidelity SET" an oxymoron?"-No, but High Fidelity Class D is.
"How do you determine how close you are to that goal of high fidelity, whatever it may be?"
-See post #1.
Can you tick any of those boxes?
My Garg0yle 2A3 DC's hit 6 out of 7 with a quick glance, 7 out of 7 with a verifying measurement.
( 7) Flat distortion profile vs. frequency (most amps rise in the highs or bass or both). )
△ᴉʇɐuᴉɯnllI oᴉpn∀△
Edits: 09/19/15
http://www.hypex.nl/docs/NC1200_datasheet.pdfAs for the "check list", can you point me to some documentation or research that proves those factors positively correlate universally with subjective preferences? Or even objective measurements? Of course I am referring to normal human preferences, not those with infinite hearing sensitivity....
try it! you know you want to!
Edits: 09/19/15
"As for the "check list", can you point me to some documentation or research that proves those factors positively correlate universally with subjective preferences? "
-I could, but obviously you wouldn't read it anyways, so what's the point.
I recommend you re-read what has been posted so far before you try anything more advanced.
You know, I don't consider myself a smart man, however I was chosen as a global community teachers assistant for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's circuits and electronics course in 2013.
This was not based on my skill set per se, but on my ability to explain electronics in a different way so that people new to the field from across the world could understand.
That being said, I am qualified to say, that you are one of the most stubborn people in the world.
△ᴉʇɐuᴉɯnllI oᴉpn∀△
or leave me alone...
try it! you know you want to!
I understand, you probably feel silly now arguing with a guy that learned electronics from MIT.
Can't blame you there.
It is time that you start providing information that proves the superiority of your gear instead.
I don't have anything else to say on the matter at this point in time.
I really only stayed in this long to lend credence in regards to what Morricab was talking about.
Perhaps in the future there will be an interesting thread that explains as to why we as humans have evolved over thousands of years to find certain harmonics distressful.
I don't want to spoil it for you, but I'm sure some here can already guess which typologies sound distressful. ;)
For now, carry on as you were.
△ᴉʇɐuᴉɯnllI oᴉpn∀△
You're the one claiming the objective superiority of your SET and how it "checks all the boxes" and how class d is "low fi". I call your bluff and offer you the chance to make your case and you fold.
I'm guessing you had a look at the ncore specs and you are the one feeling a little silly now...
try it! you know you want to!
I had the opportunity to experience one of the Telarc recordings of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra. After many takes, Shaw would review the results downstairs and critique the performance.
Jack Renner is a sharp guy.
I'm not saying I have the experience or the trained ears of a Robert Shaw or a Jack Renner but 15 years in the recording industry did teach me a thing or two.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: