|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
180.200.182.76
In Reply to: RE: If, then, else, but, eh? posted by vinnie2 on August 30, 2015 at 04:17:43
Listening and measurement are a necessary and entwined pair.
Like rights and duties are.
You regularly ask questions here about how to make things in yr latest DIY effort work, yes or no.
Warmest
Tim Bailey
Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger
Follow Ups:
That is what I said. Each can add information. Not sure what you are getting at.
What does me asking questions about my diy work have to do with anything? That is what this forum is for, yes or no?
"However, listening is easier to do for the average person, and is also the ultimate test.""You regularly ask questions here about how to make things in yr latest DIY effort work, yes or no."
I think Tim is saying that you clearly want (from time to time) to change the sound of your system.
Well, to change the sound you have to understand what's going on (technically speaking) with the circuit.
Once you start to understand what's going on with the circuit technically you might change your mind a little about listening being the ultimate test.
If you know that technically something is "wrong" but you just happen to like the sound anyway, you might realize that just because someone likes the sound of a system subjectively doesn't mean that it's "right" or "accurate" (ie: the output wave form matches the input wave form).
Tim, if I'm off base, I apologize.
BTW, just to tie this back to the other part of the thread, to understand what's going on with a circuit we use science (ie: the scientific method).
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 08/30/15
the scientific method also applies to what we do not know... one of the greatest scientists of our time was Max Planck, a German theoretical physicist whom had an unbounded belief in God. Some Scientists put more faith in their belief in science than the average believer does in God.
It is utterly foolish to posit the whole Universe was contrived by total random chance... no design. That sort of thinking is about as silly as my saying "One of these days, a Tornado is going to blow through a junkyard and turn out a 747".
Ridiculous.
So far as science, best thing we can do is humble ourselves and simply state,
"more will be revealed if we keep looking".
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
So did he make those hundreds of billions of stars one at time, or did he have an assembly line? If you had any idea of just how vast the universe is you wouldn't say anything so obviously ridiculous.
You lack vision ... and do not understand the word Omnipotent... gee, the word must have been invented for just such a being.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
That is the typical response for someone who has been backed into a corner and can't see a way out. Try to attack the other person with non sensical comments like "you lack vision". Not believing in fairy tales isn't a lack of vision, it's just the opposite.
And what a catch all that "omnipotent" is. Anytime something seems impossible or ridiculous and you know you can't defend it, just pull that out of the closest. That's a pathetic argument and you know it.
I know nothing of the kind, Vinnie.
My belief AND KNOWING that God exists is the most obvious fact in my life.
You sound like you are arguing something that you don't even believe.
In other words, the derision you display, conveys to me you don't know.
Perhaps it is as simple as you do not like the idea of being accountable for your actions.
As Dan said, you have my sympathy.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
"Perhaps it is as simple as you do not like the idea of being accountable for your actions."
Oh really? And just who is it that expects God to forgive them for all their sins? Not me, that's for damn sure, because I am willing to take responsiblity for my actions.
Like I said, it amazes me how many religous people never learn the difference between believing and knowing. Just because you want something to be true does not make it so.
We have all said ... why me? In exasperation with life's trials... everyone has made that statement to themselves.
My only question to you Vinnie is,
Who are You talking to?
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
No one in particular ..... just a general lament.
.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I do not diagree with that, that is why I said both can add information. I think that measuring helps you more quickly find a problem if your ears tell you there is one. If my ears are happy why shouldn't the rest of me be?
Edits: 08/30/15
Let me start by saying I am going use the word "might". I'm not accusing anyone of anything.
Your ears might be happy out of ignorance and you might not know what you're missing.
If you understand the science and the math and you just build the thing right in the first place then it will sound right.
I know that's a bold statement but I'm not talking about the lowest THD (like Julian Hirsch's way of thinking. To me he has no place in a discussion of Hi-Fi), I'm talking about the lowest upper ordered HD without resorting to FB because, you see, science has learned something over the years.
A good long read of Lynn Olson would be of great value.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
So you wouldn't be able to hear this distortion you speak of? Seems if it was important enough to bother with you would.
There is such a thing as the designing becoming more imoportant to the designer than the music itself.
If I hear a system that sounds better than mine I will probably try to find out why, but I am not going to spend all my time chasing a dream. I would rather listen to music on a system that sounds good to me, or try breadboarding a different piece of gear.
Edits: 08/30/15
"So you wouldn't be able to hear this distortion you speak of? Seems if it was important enough to bother with you would."
If a person doesn't know what a real cello sounds like how is he going to know when a playback system is getting it right or wrong?
So the question is, do we want a system that is right or one that just sounds good to otherwise uneducated ears?
The original goal of this hobby was not subjective at all.
We want the playback to sound like the original. Not everyone knows what the original sounded like so they just go for "sounds good to me".
I have made changes to my system (known improvements according to the facts) and haven't liked the "sound" because I had become accustom to what was wrong.
But being as objective as I could, I eventually realized that the playback DID sound more like the real thing.
In the end the system that sounds more like the real thing is more enjoyable, long term, than a system that doesn't.
It's not about my or your subjective opinion. Peoples hearing gets fooled, easily, all the time. Including mine and I'm a trained, professional listener.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I have attended my share of live symphony concerts and I have a pretty good idea of what the instruments should sound like. When I say it sounds good to me I am comparing it to that.
Being able to exactly reproduce a live concert is never going to happen for most of us. We do the best we can, and we live with what pleases us.
Edits: 08/30/15 08/30/15 08/30/15 08/30/15
Fair enough.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Science keeps learning trying
to catch up to what we hear.
If you listen to what your ears tell you
then you will always keep
a couple steps ahead of science.
Science keeps leading us down a path
that later we discover is wrong.
SS over Tubes
FB to lower distortion
CDs over Vinyl
Wrong paths advocated by science.
DanL
Again, I don't know what you mean by "science"Facts told us that feedback increases the number of upper ordered distortion and that has been known for a long time.
"Norman Crowhurst wrote a fascinating analysis of feedback multiplying the order of harmonics, which has been reprinted in "Glass Audio," Vol 7-6, pp. 20 through 30. He starts with one tube generating only 2nd harmonic, adds a second tube in series (resulting in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th), and then makes the whole thing push-pull (resulting in 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th), and last but not least, adds feedback to the circuit, which creates a series of harmonics out to the 81st. All of this complexity from "ideal" tubes that only create 2nd harmonic!"
It's also been known for a long time that the higher the order of the HD the more objectionable it is. It was purposed decades ago to weight the HD by the square of the order so that the numbers would better represent the annoyance factor.
I beginning to think when you say science you mean "the marketing department". Higher power, lower THD, etc....... That wasn't the best of science. They knew better at the time but wanted to sell product not made good product.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 08/30/15 08/30/15
I consider science as those people
who are devotees of the technical who
consider it trumps any other influence.
Or the science establishment if you will.
Yes but decades before the Norman Crowhurst paper
feedback was decried as the marvelous "cure"
for all tube amp distortion problems.
Even after the paper it was largely ignored
and was considered a heresy against the norm.
Science really dislikes being wrong.
DanL
"Yes but decades before the Norman Crowhurst paper
feedback was decried as the marvelous "cure"
for all tube amp distortion problems."
Norman wrote that in 1959.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
OK so a decade after it was
decried as the cure all.
And how many decades before
it had any credence?
3 or 4 I would say.
Science establishment is slow
on any disruption of the norm.
DanL
OK then, let's put science aside and just stick with the facts.
Those facts won't help us if we don't try to understand how electronic circuits work.
So we need to be technical people if we want to achieve our goal.
Can I be technical in your eyes without being scientific? :-)
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I use science all the time.
BUT it does NOT trump what I hear.
I have a problem with -
If it measures bad, it is bad PERIOD
DanL
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: