|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
12.189.30.99
In Reply to: RE: GAMUT CD players posted by Phelonious Ponk on June 29, 2010 at 14:42:27
I can go back and say it again..... but.... back to work.
The Gamut player is a source.
It sounds much different than an Arcam, it measures much different than an Arcam. You can measure a pre-amp, you can listen to a pre-amp. It can be the same going in and coming out. The SOURCES are so different that you'll get two different sets of measurements coming out of your very "accurate" pre-amp. Then, we an always bring a very in-accurate turntable into the mix.
""Regarding builders who deliberately color the signal, there have been many DACs and preamps advertised to make digital audio sound "more analog." Other audiophile gear adds "warmth," or is "more musical." More "musical" than what? Other manufacturers have talked about how their products have more "PRaT." What do you think these folks are talking about? If their objective was the simple, unaltered reproduction of the recording, if that was even the audiophile's objective, the language would be very different.""
Right, there is no standard. Some manufacturers call these "warmed up" players more analog-like and more accurate. Others say that analog-like is a paltry ambition and that is not accurate.
It just goes to show that there is no definition of accurate, and it's certainly not universally recognized and not objective. Besides, almost all manufacturers try to assert that their product is more accurate: it is the reviewers and consumers who use terms like warmed-up.
""I'm not sure if you're being argumentative or simply naive.""
I'm not sure if you're being argumentative or simply naive. Wait a minute, - you just said that.... :-)
""Can I, or anyone, "prove" that one piece of gear more accurately re-produces the signal it is given than another (ie: is more transparent)?""
If it was a well defined, objective fact: then you would be able to both adequately define "accurate" and you would be able to prove that something was more accurate than something else. You'd be able to make a clear, provable statement along the same lines as: "A Manley Stingray is an tubed integrated amplifier."
""It can only be proven to those who believe in measurement and/or blind listening tests.""
No, an objective fact can be proven: the earth revolves around the sun is an objective fact. The very act of listening by definition eliminates objectivity. This is why no manufacturer would ever be permitted to claim: "I have built the most accurate source, no other source is as accurate," - and have it be universally recognized as such. Halcro states that they have made an amplifier with the lowest amount of distortion: this is probably provable given allowances for those particular measurements that they have made: but they do not claim, nor do people universally support the notion that it is the most accurate: even if the term accurate had an agreed upon definition.
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
Follow Ups:
...and I answered it. "Of course you have to begin with the source." Did this not concede that sources will vary to you? Of course if you had the access and resources, you could measure the recording on the system upon which it was mastered, compare that against the output of the source and its transparency would be as demonstrable as any other electronic component in the signal chain.
"The SOURCES are so different that you'll get two different sets of measurements coming out of your very "accurate" pre-amp."
Duh. What defines the accuracy or transparency of the components in the chain after the source is their ability to leave the source unaltered. Of course they'll measure differently with different sources. That's like saying all measurement is meaningless because the numbers change when you change recordings.
"No, an objective fact can be proven: the earth revolves around the sun is an objective fact."
Cool. Prove to me that the earth revolves around the sun.
"The very act of listening by definition eliminates objectivity."
The very act of listening for subjective judgement eliminates objectivity. The act of conducting blind, rigorously controlled AB/X listening tests through enough trials to reach a statistically significant sample yields pretty objective results. Proof? I guess that depends on what you call proof, and I know it is very popular not to believe in such tests in audiophile circles. But done properly, it will give you as much solid data as you're likely to come up with to support that earth revolving around the sun thing. We can argue about this all night and neither of us will yield. May as well agree to disagree.
P
You're right in that we can go on and on about this.
This is also not a new fight: people have been fighting about this here a lot.
Let me leave you with this to consider though: If we/the audiophile community had agreed upon objective definitions of accuracy: the fine folks at LAMM and the fine folks at Halcro would not be both asserting that their respective amps are more accurate than the other. One of them asserts a lower rate of THD, the other questions that relevancy, and asserts that it doesn't matter as much as harmonic feedback. Indeed, listeners fall on each side of this argument asserting one is more accurate than another.
How do we resolve this? We resolve this by saying that one can never be UNIVERSALLY accepted as being more accurate and we give up. We say that each manufacturer and listener must decide for themselves what is more accurate, and if not accurate, then some other SUBJECTIVE term.
As human beings, our hearing varies from person to person. For it is not only our ears that hear, but it is our brains that interpret what we hear. And, what is "accurate" for an older person may have changed from another younger person, or perhaps even in the same person when she was younger.
I bet you that if you and I sat down over a couple of beers and listened to the same music and the same gear and ran a comparison between Halcro an LAMM, we might come to similar conclusions listening to a certain recording of Stradivarius violin. But, perhaps a player of that violin might come along and disagree. When we hear a normal, rock, recording, it is at least 5 generations removed from when it was played in the control room. I can tell you that when my band was recorded, the lead bass guitar sounded different in the room, then different on the rough mixes, then different on the final mixes, then different being cut to lacquer, then on the final vinyl, then different on the final CD.
Cripes, this happens all of the time, another subjective variance removing us from objectivity accuracy. Have you ever heard a small system, in a small room, (with stand-mount speakers), ever deliver the real bass weight of the lower register of an acoustic piano?
My point in saying this is in order to have objectivity, you must have universal acceptance: otherwise it's subjective. Objectivity is like theoretical math. 2+2=4 always, anyway: it's either right, or it's not, and we all agree. "Natural," - is always subjective.
From All Experts:
"" Generally, demonstration is limited by a set of assumptions, and also by acceptance of what given observations mean. If you therefore reject either or both of these, it's doubtful that whatever I provide will be found satisfactory.
First, one must assume that: Earth is a planet and not some confection of the mind, or "virtual entity" within we all find ourselves. In other words, there exists an objective and independent reality.
Also, one must assume that whatever I can tell you that I can see, or observe, you can also. If you are blind, for example, even partially, this assumption fails and what I provide is useless.
Third, we must assume that the language I am referencing is also understood by you to mean the same thing. Else, all bets are off.
In terms of the observations, it must be clear that what I describe is reasonable to you, and moreoever can be confirmed and duplicated where you are. It must also be at least approximately true, that the meaning of the observations as I interpret them, is also shared by you.
If any of these breaks down, then what I tender will be dismissed.
That out of the way, let's get to specifics. If the Earth revolves around the Sun - and is not static in space - then it must be true that over the course of a year say, we observe differences - for example in:
i) the stars that appear at the same time in the night sky
ii) the altitude and azimuth (position with respect to the horizon's N, S points) of the Sun.
The first is easily verified, say over the course of obseving the night sky at the same time (say, 8 p.m. local time) each night. You will therefore see a procession of different stars, objects as time goes by.
This is the first indicator that Earth must be moving through space and not stationary.
A further observation to reinforce this is *revolution* and not merely linear displacement is obtained by repeating said observations *year after year* and making notes of the objects seen.
In the same 6-month period, therefore, you ought to see the same objects in the night sky at the same time.
This implies repetitive motion, and hence that the Earth is not merely linearly moving in space, but returning time and again to the same relative position in space (e.g. in it s orbit)
Second, the position, altitude of the Sun. If you do the same thing for the Sun, you will note its changing positions both in altitude - at specific calendar dates - and its rising (and setting) positions along the horizon.
Thus, it ought to be obvious - again, say over a 6-month period of observation - that these are changing.
Again, if you repeat them *year after year* you will see the exact same positions duplicated, suggesting that the Earth is returning to its same position in space relative to the Sun. (The seasons, of course, are also indicators of this)
Of course, you can refine measurements - say of the Sun's changing altitude - through the use of an instrument like an astrolabe (which can easily be made using a lead bob attached to a string, and affixed to a wooden or cardboard protractor).
Hopefully, this will help you to see how we know the Earth revolves around the Sun - even though I do not claim it is "proof". ""
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
Yeah, I've logged a few hours in the studio myself, I know exactly what you're talking about, and we're talking about two different things. I usually don't have this much trouble getting a point across, but I'll just assume it's a communications failure on my part, because what I'm getting at is not at all abstract, and you keep replying with abstractions. Enjoy the music.P
Edits: 06/29/10
.
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
a
.
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
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: