|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
173.52.247.97
In Reply to: RE: Art Dudley - Listening, Nov. 2014 posted by John Atkinson on November 15, 2014 at 04:52:35
>The role of the editor is to present what his or her writers wish to say
>in as clear and as unambiguous manner as possible...
My previous answer was incomplete and it has been bothering me. Here's the
thing: you read my magazine in order to find out out what my writers have
to say and you do so in the expectation that those opinions have not been
influenced by other matters, nor have been changed from what the writers
intended. In that light, there will be things published that are found offensive
by some. But that goes with the territory with a publication that tends
toward what is called "accountability journalism" rather than "access
journalism."
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Follow Ups:
Thanks for posting that second bit. I found that a lot easier to take (and can see the point more) than simply lobbing out the "our job isn't to be PC" canard, especially given the subject of the analogy in question.
Well reasoned responses, as ever. I've said enough on that topic but, as I have your attention, I have a quick comment about the Air Tight measurements from the same issue:
"Fortunately, the distortion is heavily second harmonic in nature which will be subjectively innocuous provided it is not accompanied by significant intermodulation distortion"
We both know that the harmonic distortion and intermodulation distortion are tied together by the same non-linear transfer function - if you have the former, you get the latter too. Your sentence could be (mis)interpreted that they are separate things. The real question to answer is 'is second order intermodulation innocuous'? I'm sure it is relative to higher orders of intermodulation, because they produce more intermod terms, but it is innocuous in absolute terms? I don't know.
Regards
Pete
> We both know that the harmonic distortion and intermodulation distortion
> are tied together by the same non-linear transfer function - if you have
> the former, you get the latter too. Your sentence could be
> (mis)interpreted that they are separate things.
Yes, you are correct. I tend to be too terse in these measurement reports.
It is when the transfer function becomes increasingly bent as a function
of frequency, thus producing more IM at high frequencies, to which I am
referring. A transfer function that, say, produces, 3% of second harmonic
at 10W at 1kHz but remains the same across the audioband may well not
produce enough IM to be objectionable.
> The real question to answer is 'is second order intermodulation innocuous'?
Certainly the 1kHz difference tone between high-level 19kHz and 20kHz
tones is easily audible, given the lack of masking of the primary tones.
But the situation os more complex with music.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I think an interesting idea would be to show the graphs and not know the manufacturer or the price and then determine at what price would that performance equate in real dollars. Maybe knowing the price of something does cloud our feeling about it.
I would have to say that if and when a digital device would not measure better than my Denon DCM-290, that would be a pretty sad day for me. I use that in my classroom system and I paid $69 refurbished on line. We should be well beyond that type of poor measured performance in 2014. It is pretty sad to think that my $69 player betters a kilobuck player. I have always just considered my Denon 290 better than listening to MP3s. and, it can do that as well.
I don't worry about what kind of sound someone prefers. With my HF hearing diminished I don't fault anyone for the sound they prefer, but there is probably not a player I would find "bright" sounding. Many of you could probably not stand it.
Jim Tavegia
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: