|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.255.208.188
In Reply to: RE: Great documentary - one thing said was interesting posted by Bold Eagle on September 14, 2016 at 15:19:41
We should try to forget the checklist, and just sit back and listen to the overall sound - the music.
If you recall, we recently had a discussion where you indicated the engineer in you wanted to know exactly why two preamps delivered difference perceived bass response, yet measured similarly. That seems to me to be an example of an inquisitive "checklist" approach. Which factor is responsible? Was it truly frequency response? Phase linearity? Power supply stiffness?
In this case, however, you seem to take the opposite tack. Why spend time analyzing which factors in musical reproduction affect the "holistic" effect, right?
I guess my approach lies somewhere in the middle. :)
My test is whether I fall asleep after a while.
My test is a bit different. On many an occasion while listening to HP's systems, I found myself laughing out loud at how remarkably realistic the result was! I simply couldn't believe how the walls disappeared and how deeply I got lost into the music!
Follow Ups:
It's hard to separate the two approaches. I'd have to say though, that my inquiry into why the preamps sound different isn't a check list approach in my opinion. Instead, it's the engineer (or the physicist) doing his thing. A kind of reverse engineering in this case. But a similar process to what the designer does along the way to bring a product to fruition. Quite different than the kind of rhetoric you find in Stereophile reviewer's comments where they dissect the sound of a product. Stuff like: this product is not as liquidly transparent in the highs as my reference system, and the midrange is a bit too forward and lacks the micro dynamics of the XYZ system. That's the Audiophile Checklist.
Jerry
Perhaps we'll just agree to disagree.Quite different than the kind of rhetoric you find in Stereophile reviewer's comments...
I don't find that to be the case at all. Let's dissect your examples:
this product is not as liquidly transparent in the highs as my reference system,
Translation: Why does the high frequency reproduction of A not provide the same resolution and ability to recreate the recorded space as component B?
Seems to be exactly the same question you posed only at the opposite end of the spectrum. The same could be said for your other examples of midrange clarity and ability to handle micro dynamics.
We had another conversation about my current Crown amp here . I raised the same observations where the Crown is superior to the NAD in the midrange, but fails at the top. Similarly, what surprised me most when I got the Audio Research SP20 preamp was how well it delineated the lower end of the dynamic range scale. I'd never thought about that before until the difference was put in my face. Is that because it has a stiffer power supply than 100 watt amplifiers? Dunno. But it works.
Edits: 09/15/16
I think we may have to do that- agree to disagree.
I see my case as different from your example - it's the difference between objective and subjective.
Jerry
"As in: why do two preamps that measure the same for frequency response and output impedance have noticeably different low bass with the same power amp and speakers? No problem hearing the difference; but I'd like to know why."
I guess I just find your "hearing the difference" as an observation in conflict with the objective.
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: