|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.3.91.159
In Reply to: RE: Please Tony.... posted by Tony Lauck on November 06, 2012 at 16:44:15
Ok I understand - there are audible differences and they are measurable.
It has nothing to do with believing measurements tell all or are even useful to any particular audiophile.
A responsible equipment designer should understand why his design sounds different than other designers - if he needs to buy new equipment or devise different tests to help in this understanding (or to prove his results) then that's what he should do.
IMO many audiophiles can rely on their listening experiences when assembling a system. There's no need at all to concern themselves with measurements and beyond just a few basic specs it's perfectly fine to concentrate on the listening and to leave the technical stuff to others.
Those who want to measure and prove can do it that way if they want.
It's all good.
Follow Ups:
The problem here that the designer had (and this is the typical situation for subtle artifacts) is that two designs both measured similarly and sounded similarly to the designers. So far, so good. This makes sense. However, other people heard differences.
Here is where the rubber meets the road: die hard objectivists vs. die hard subjectivists.
In this case, all the "scientific" evidence showed that the two devices were sonically equal. The fact that some audiophools imagined differences was their problem. NOT...
In this case, because of one designer who was not a hard core objectivist, new tests were found that showed differences that could be objectively measured. It was still the case that only some listeners could hear differences, of course. With the better measurements in hand it was then possible to pursue improvements to the design, eventually leading to a new design that measured better and sounded better to those people who heard the earlier difference. Of course, this designer was not a hard core subjectivist, either, otherwise he wouldn't have developed new measurements.
It is possible for hard core subjectivsts to be designers and operate entirely by ear. However, there are few people with the talent and intuition to succeed at this. For the rest of us, a combination of measurement and listening are more effective. Without a lot of talent and dumb luck it can be useful to turn on a flashlight if one is looking for one's car keys in the middle of a dark night. (Lesson I learned at age 13 tweaking the feedback loop of a Dynaco 35 watt amplifier that didn't sound right until out of tolerance parts in the feedback loop had been adjusted.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Obvious since there were audible sonic differences all the "scientific" data could not possibly prove they were sonically the same. Clearly they lacked the proper test methodology.
No doubt if a test is set up properly and an audible difference is actually being heard there will be a scientific measurement that reveals why the difference is audible.
It's insane to conclude that an audible difference doesn't exist because some set of test points doesn't reveal the difference. Clearly one needs to adjust the test or the measured parameters to find what is causing the audible difference.
It's insane to conclude that an audible difference doesn't exist because some set of test points doesn't reveal the difference.
Staunch non-experiential objectivists do exactly that on a regular basis. :)
Staunch non-experiential objectivists do exactly that on a regular basis
Yea sure equipment that measures exactly the same at all test points is going to sound the same - but equipment will not measure the same. And sometimes even same model / same manufacturer varies enough that there will be sonic differences.
...but equipment will not measure the same.
Using exactly what metrics? Most gear measures pretty flat frequency wise. We can certainly forget useless ones like THD.
The NAD preamp used in the garage, for example, measure pretty good but does not perform at the same level of the Audio Research.
What does perform mean? Surely given real world speaker loads it pretty easy to understand why amps sound different.
Even two amps that measure identical into the complex impedence at some power level will begin to measure differently at different power levels - and this isn't only a function of approaching/exceeding power ratings of one or both amps. Linearity is not a given in amplifier design.
What does perform mean?
If you don't understand the listening experience, I won't try to explain it to you.
Surely given real world speaker loads it pretty easy to understand why amps sound different.
We're talking about preamps. I'll ask the question again. What metrics fully cover the performance envelope of preamps?
"We're talking about preamps. I'll ask the question again. What metrics fully cover the performance envelope of preamps?"
How in the F would I know what metrics cover the performance of preamps or amps for that matter?
But in an effort to keep this on topic, among other things, surely the preamps i/o characteristics, power supply design and signal path isolation all can have an effect on how well performs, ie. effects the signal passing through it.
If you don't understand the listening experience, I won't try to explain it to you.
I didn't mean to put you on the spot when I asked you what YOU meant by perform. Given your snotty assed response I might assume how well your preamp integrates with the rest of your gear (ie. how it sounds) is all that matters to you. But I won't make that assumption since you decided not to answer my query there's really no reason to continue on with this conversation.....
How in the F would I know what metrics cover the performance of preamps or amps for that matter?
Thank you for illustrating my point. Apparently, you only have blind faith in the notion that all audible differences can be measured.
Do you really not understand what the audio experience provides?
1. Resolution
The ability to discern fine detail with instruments. Hear the rosin of a bowed string. The decay of bell trees and triangles. Articulate the human voice and hear the performer's breath. Be able to pick apart individual voices in a chorus.
2. Dynamic punch
Slam factor. The ability of the system to deliver instantaneous jumps in dynamic range from the softest to loudest passages. Provide a sense of authority that the system never runs out of power and is at ease.
3. Soundstaging
How well a component can define the physical space of the original recording. While multi-miked recordings are of little value here, minimally miked ones can have incredible width and depth. You are aware of the boundaries of the venue.
4. Frequency extension
Regardless of the measured frequency response, some components deliver more extended response at the extremes. They also give you qualitative improvements. Bass can actually present texture, not only a sine wave of low frequency content.
Ask any competent engineer and you'll find out there are no magical graphs or metrics that full quantify the performance of any audio component.
"Thank you for illustrating my point. Apparently, you only have blind faith in the notion that all audible differences can be measured."
Nope measuring the preamp functions I list, plus signal path distortion, will reveal all sonic differences between preamps - audible or not.
There's no blind faith here.
You can, but it's gonna mess you up, jumping from discussing component performance and system integration the way that you are doing here.
"Ask any competent engineer and you'll find out there are no magical graphs or metrics that full quantify the performance of any audio component."
Wishful thinking on your part - if there's any group more skeptical of audiophiles than audiophile wives it is engineers. Don't give me this competent engineer BS - engineers in hoards think audiophiles are full of BS!
And further good equipment designers measure and quantify a components performance based on the characteristics of performance that represents their values.
"
Resolution
Dynamic punch
Soundstaging
Frequency extension
"
What the F - this is all integration stuff - yea your preamp will have an effect but the i/o characteristics between components including the room between your speakers and ears all play a much bigger part?
But if you got enough power, well integrated system (including room) and a dynamic mostly smooth full range frequency response you've got all that.
I know it's tough but our perception of resolution, soundstaging, frequency response and dynamic has as much or more to do with how well integrated a system is, between components (io characteristics) and with our room than it does with the quality of the gear.
Nope measuring the preamp functions I list, plus signal path distortion, will reveal all sonic differences between preamps - audible or not.
Then quantify those criteria for the two preamps I mentioned. Data on both of them is easy to find. Best of luck to you!
Don't give me this competent engineer BS - engineers in hoards think audiophiles are full of BS!
The non-experiential theorists.
...but the i/o characteristics between components including the room between your speakers and ears all play a much bigger part?
As I suspected, you have no understanding of the concepts I delineated.
But if you got enough power, well integrated system (including room) and a dynamic mostly smooth full range frequency response you've got all that.
It is a shame you never got past the mediocre. We both share owning NAD components. I find them good sounding and great value for the money. Their sins are mostly of omission and fare much better than the hard, edgy sound of pro gear. On the other hand, they are not even close to the performance level available in audio. You will never be fooled that you are in a live environment listening to them.
You have no idea.
Then quantify those criteria for the two preamps I mentioned. Data on both of them is easy to find. Best of luck to you!"What difference would such a comparison make? What's more important to me would be how they work in my system! I wouldn't have any problem doing listening comparisons with one of NADs better preamps with one built by Audio Research.
The non-experiential theorists.
Engineers or detectivist audiophiles equal well fit the bill.
As I suspected, you have no understanding of the concepts I delineated."
What concepts? You mean the verbiage you use to describe what you hear when you listen to an audio system and have confused with how one might characterize a preamps performance? Like I said, which apparently you fail to understand, is that your verbiage is a discussion of a systems performance not a characterization of a components performance (outside of that system).
It is a shame you never got past the mediocre. We both share owning NAD components. I find them good sounding and great value for the money. Their sins are mostly of omission and fare much better than the hard, edgy sound of pro gear. On the other hand, they are not even close to the performance level available in audio. You will never be fooled that you are in a live environment listening to them.
You have no idea.
Well everything is relative but my main system moved beyond NAD several decades ago. But if Spendor and Roksan Xerxes and Exposure classic and Living Voice are what you consider mediocre well then so be it. I don't care and my experiences with Audio Research is that it's not the gear for me - you buy that as truth me I haven't left an AR demo without feeling like I've been listening to someone scratching on a chalk board. The harshest most unlistenable equipment I've ever heard. Take that back there was this Counterpoint stuff that was worse. I know I haven't heard it all but if you ask me NAD sounds better for lots less...
And FWIW I won't be fooled into believing I'm listening to live music via any stereo. I have classical musicians in my family and I attend live shows on a regular basis - maybe if I was less experienced it would be easier to fool me.
Edits: 11/08/12 11/08/12
What difference would such a comparison make?You continue to illustrate my point.
I wouldn't have any problem doing listening comparisons with one of NADs better preamps with one built by Audio Research.
But obviously, you have never done so.
What concepts?
That would be the four I listed. Apparently, they are beyond your grasp.
But if Spendor and Roksan Xerxes and Exposure classic and Living Voice are what you consider mediocre well then so be it.
So, exactly what measurements quantify the audible differences between NAD gear from Exposure? You really have no idea, do you? All in faith.
And FWIW I won't be fooled into believing I'm listening to live music via any stereo.
Sorry to hear that.
Edits: 11/08/12
Components will never measure the same. Whatever point it is you are trying to make you are doing a very poor job of it.
That would be the four I listed. Apparently, they are beyond your grasp.
I'm gonna say it again - obviously it you that doesn't get it. The items you listed soundstage, resolution, bass impact, etc that you listed describe a systems performance not a components performance. YOU'RE THE ONE WHO WANTED TO TALK ABOUT PREAMP PERFORMANCE.
Sure there may be a better soundstage given this preamp or that but thats a function of system integration not necessarily preamp performance. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
"So, exactly what measurements quantify the audible differences between NAD gear from Exposure? You really have no idea, do you? All in faith."
Of course I don't - why in heavens name should I care if I purchase based on listening comparisons not reading specs?
Without a doubt, components will never measure the same, and even well designed and well manufactured components of the same model will measure somewhat differently than each other.
Sorry to hear that.
I'm not and I'm happy you can be fooled by your stereo into believing you are listening to live music.
> Staunch non-experiential objectivists do exactly that on a regular basis. :) <
...only because they're patiently waiting for evidence to show up... presumably put together by someone they trust more than they trust themselves. It's a simple waiting game. They're willing to suffer through mediocre sound and cluelessness for as long as it takes, decades if necessary, until someone cares enough to provide them a reason to listen.
will be waiting for the rest of their lives. :)
"I'm still waiting..."
It's not so simple. Every time one plays the same recording it will sound different. This will be the case even if the sound waves were to be identical, because the listener's mind would not be identical. But the sound waves won't be identical because of random noise, changes in air pressure, humidity, temperature, changes of temperature of the electronics, etc...
There there are cases of people hearing "imaginary" differences. This is common. The classical case is the recording engineer who spends ten minutes tweaking the EQ on a recording and making it perfect only to discover that the "bypass" button had been pushed and all his tweaking resulted in imaginary improvements. (I've been there and done that, BTW.)
There is also the problem that measurements are limited in accuracy by the test equipment used and it will be difficult to get reliable measurements unless the test equipment is 10 times better than the equipment under test. That's the case with junk audio components, but not necessarily with high end equipment.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
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: