|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.96.83.110
In Reply to: RE: As I stated before - reviewers need a REAL reference. posted by carcass93 on December 12, 2014 at 08:53:26
is some sort of universal truth? or is it simply personal taste?Mine is simply what I've heard or experienced. I've experienced some killer systems. Many that I could never afford. I based my system on those systems, getting as close to the "ring" as I could afford.
My buddy had what he called a revealing system. It was his reference system. I'm sure it pushed 40K. Unfortunately, it made my ears bleed. I could never live with that reference system. Eventually, he grew out of it and now has a great system that is closer to mine....only better :)
Edits: 12/12/14 12/12/14 12/12/14 12/12/14Follow Ups:
Largely,
We are simply not doing enough of this. Whereas, - lots of folks are comparing one computer transport to another, with various degrees of "optimization" (sic): instead of looking at those old disc spinners. Many of which surprise folks when their computer dies, or hard drive goes, - they dust off their medium grade, $2000 CD player to find that it sounds better.
Carcass, BTW, IS experiencing better sound with his computer: something that I have not heard others having this same experience: and it also goes counter to mine.
The same elements that have made a great transport/DAC combo in the year 2000, are still important in 2014.
And it's no surprise to find some of these streamer builders using similar elements that make up "excellent" sounding disc transports & DACs: besting some computer hardware designs, - which are the antithesis of "good sound" designs.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
If Jaundiced Ear, who responded to you below, agrees with someone on any single audio-related point - that means something is seriously wrong with that someone's reference, and also with his setup, or his hearing, or his brain - or all of the above.
In a generally unreliable world of opinions about audio, the criteria above is as reliable as it gets.
So far as I can tell, carcass93 will agree with you on macro measurements. That is, if the system has measurably boosted bass or boosted treble, he too will agree that it is either boomy or shrill.
However, when it comes to micro measurements, so far as I know, there is nothing out there that can reveal whatever it is that carcass93 hears.
Now, for all I know carcass93 may be right. There's just no way to demonstrate what it is carcass 93 (among others) claims to hear.
JE
"However, when it comes to micro measurements, so far as I know, there is nothing out there that can reveal whatever it is that carcass93 hears."
I recall reading in one of the cics threads as to how noise related to computer processing was measured on the output of a DAC. The spectrum of the noise was related to the buffer processing rate in the software, e.g. would change as buffer sizes were adjusted.
Not sure if this is what carcass93 was hearing, but it's a good explanation of some of the differences that I and many others have heard. It also explains why real time playback of FLAC files often sounds different from converting the FLAC files to WAV and then playing the WAV files. (Among other reasons, this avoids an extra buffering stage and the necessary processing, probably at a different cycle rate because of variable bit rate encoding used by FLAC).
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
The point I'm trying to make, perhaps clumsily, is that while there are measurements that everyone can agree on: frequency response, distortion, etc, there are still no measurements for the things people cannot agree on. For example, I'm unaware of any measurement that would let me tell which of two amplifiers would have a "wider and deeper soundstage," or which preamp has superior PRAT.
Audiophiles have been remarking on these details for years, yet the engineering necessary to track these details has not kept up. We're still stuck with the same tests that have been used for generations. As a result, audiophiles are forced to either grin and bear it with whatever they've brought home, or have to follow the path of laboriously auditioning components with no real clear direction of where to go.
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: