|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
173.61.48.6
In Reply to: RE: P simple test posted by Phelonious Ponk on March 01, 2010 at 16:24:31
If those unsupported, unexplained, unmeasured and untested differences somehow were magically supported, explained, measured and tested - what would that change for you personally?
Would it make you think about the quality of your system and/or hearing? Would it force you to spend some money, to give yourself a chance to hear those differences for yourself?
Or, at the very least, would it make you refrain from posting what you usually post here?
Kind of doubtful - on all counts...
Follow Ups:
c) All of the above.
P
Why do you need some kind of confirmation, approval, affirmation etc. from some people who are NOT YOU, doing tests on audio systems that are NOT YOURS? How results of those tests, positive or negative, could possible mean anything to YOU personally? This just sounds bizarre, frankly.
Measurements are different story (more objective), but would it be wise to put too much faith into a set of measurements, whose completeness and relevance are questionable at best?
Too put it differently - what prevents you from starting doing "all of the above" right now?
we have a measure of agreement!
What people hear in their own homes is their own business. Whether folks want to waste $1K on powercords, or buy any of Machina Dynamica's garbage, or tack black wooden discs on their walls, is totally up to them. I wish them all the best on their audio endeavors, and much listening happiness.
But, one objection lies with folks, amateurs and professionals alike, regurgitating unproven/scientifically doubtful/highly questionable statements of causality as fact, or that XYZ factually makes a difference, when they aren't factual. This type of nonsense hurts the industry as a whole, to the detriment of the induction of new audiophiles. Non-audiophiles hear these things, see the gigantic prices on the equipment, and run the other way thinking audiophiles are mad. This is where audiophiles could do with some readings of the many available online issues of The Audio Critic and AES papers.
Another objection lies with tweak makers and other purveyors of audio BS selling their wares in ways that amount to nothing less than consumer fraud. The only reason these ding-dongs haven't been shut down is because their corner of the business world is insignificantly tiny. If Bose made the claims the mad-hatter tweakos do, they'd get hammered by the DOJ and State attorneys general.
If you don't mind, I won't be commenting on your last 2 paragraphs - except may be for the question why would you give a damn about induction of new audiophiles. To switch perspective a little - when I sit down with a glass of 16 y.o. Aberlour, am I supposed to think about induction of new single malt drinkers?For the record - I personally don't own Machina Dinamica products. The most expensive power cord I own was only something like $440 (used), however I'll take solace in the fact that it'll probably still qualify as waste on your scale of values.
P.S.: I thought you would enjoy, and may be want to comment on, the post linked below. What makes it special - the guy apparently is (was?) one of "yours".
Edits: 03/02/10
Too many variables. E.g., it is unknown whether the stock cords were able to deliver the needed current (which they probably were), and total lack of comparison testing. The single fact that he descibes an earth-shattering, enormous difference in sound from replacing one generic cable with another suffices to discredit the poor fellow.
Plus, it sounds like the dude fetishized having poor Erykah Badu standing in his bed. Perhaps even over his head. That's enough for me to question anything he says.
FWIW, I use 10 AWG Carol cable (Lowes' very best) with Marincos just for good measure--and with big ferrite cores to boot. It'll carry more current continuously than any amp needs that I'll ever own and costs nothing. I own Element Cable cords, too. Nicely made, fat, look good, cheap.
"Why do you need some kind of confirmation, approval, affirmation etc. from some people who are NOT YOU, doing tests on audio systems that are NOT YOURS?"
-- You're not really paying attention to what I'm questioning. I'm questioning whether or not the people who hear these things that cannot be measured are hearing actual differences or what they expect to hear. Why would I question it in my own system, in my own ears? Not because I'm looking for approval or affirmation, it's because I understand that I am not immune to psychological bias. A few here seem to think they are.
"Too put it differently - what prevents you from starting doing "all of the above" right now?"
-- The fact that what I hear, or don't hear, is consistent with what is generally considered possible and what has been measured independently, even in listening tests.
P
I don't mean to wax too philosophical, but why does it really matter whether the cause of a music lover's increased enjoyment is due to altered sound waves or changes in one's psychological factors? If it works, enjoy it!
The distinction will matter to scientists, engineers and marketers, for different reasons.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Why it might matter to me is my experience that listening enhancements via components which make significant positive alterations in sound waves but insignificant alterations in psycholgical dynamics provide more long term satisfaction for me than components which make no discernable alterations in sound waves but significant positive alterations in psycholgical dynamics.
Hopefully these tough choices are never necessary but defined priorities make deciding about which gear is best to use easier.
Long term listening will separate out short term effects from extended effects. This applies equally to acoustic and psychological factors.
With quick fixes of either type there can be longer term hangovers. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
It doesn't matter what you enjoy. I'm sincerely glad that you do. But it matters if it is reported here, by "authorities," as if it were established fact, because it dismisses true standards and replaces them with a subjectivism that has eroded the credibility of audiophiles and audiophile manufacturers and the audiophile press. It has been around now for many years, has taken the rigor out of, and all but banished measurement from product development and audio journalism, leaving us with handsome, expensive kit that too often is out-performed by good "mid-fi." As a result, the lion's share of the progress seems to be taking place in the pro audio market and the high end seems to be doing little more than re-cycling old ideas and applying often misguided analog principles to digital information for old hobbyists who seem to have abandoned the quest for fidelity to a comforting tone. I think it has been very bad for the hobby and the industry and I hate to see it coming into the digital arena. I wish it had stayed with the analog loyalists where it would no longer impede progress.
MHO. YMMV, of course, but frankly, I fail to see how my POV is any more of an "agenda" than the belief that everything makes a difference, even when there is no clear reason to expect it to and instruments many times more sensitive than our ears say it does not.
I'm sure this will stir up a lot of ire, but you asked. With that, I'm growing tired of the angst, and even more weary with a relative few who, while they feel free to repeatedly express their own views, seem to think the expression of mine is an offense to audiophiledom. I think I'll withdraw for now.
Rylands -- There is no cultural or language divide here. The moderator is the person who guides and interacts with the participants during testing, as opposed to the person who designs the methodology or interprets the results. If you can't understand why that person would need to be as blind as the participants in an AB/X study, I recommend Google as a starting point. I suspect a bit of reading will also inform you that AB/X studies are, indeed, a recognized, respected research tool, not a house party or a marketing plan, as you seem to believe. And THAT, by the way, is how I know you're out of your depth here. You may be able to write the book on some other brand of research, but this one is clearly not within your range.
P
I think you place too much faith in "authorities" and "true standards". For me, the watchword is "caveat emptor". In this day and age it is not just business which is corrupted, but other institutions including organized science. In matters audio, I use my own senses and mind to double check all so-called authorities.
I judge the pro-audio market by the quality of recordings that are being produced. The bulk of them are execrable, what with loudness wars and pitch correction, not to mention commercial sound at "live" concerts. No doubt there is good pro equipment, but the same can be said of high end audiophile equipment.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"I judge the pro-audio market by the quality of recordings that are being produced."
You judge the quality of the equipment being produced Apogee and K&H by the questionable tastes of the major labels' management? Odd.
P
"You judge the quality of the equipment being produced Apogee and K&H by the questionable tastes of the major labels' management?"
It goes well beyond major labels and management. It goes right to the engineers who buy the pro gear, turn the dials, and produce the c***. These people may be able to hear, but their love for money exceeds their love for music. (If it were otherwise, they would have found a different career.) Many of the Indie labels suffer from the same problem. My presumption is that the equipment is well made for the purpose for which it is used, producing s***t.
There are exceptions, including the high end pro audio companies marketing to engineers and labels making quality classical music recordings.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
There are a lot of assumptions there, Tony. Damning assumptions about people you don't know. If you are in a position to do what you like, in spite of the desires of your employers and the demands of the market, I congratulate you. Most people don't have that luxury.
If you ever find yourself interested in pro gear, I'd be happy to point you toward a level of excellence that only a few high end companies approach. What you do with it to listen, or to make a living, will be up to you.
P
"There are a lot of assumptions there, Tony. Damning assumptions about people you don't know. If you are in a position to do what you like, in spite of the desires of your employers and the demands of the market, I congratulate you. Most people don't have that luxury."
People who know that they are doing bad things to earn a living for their family have my sympathy. However, this does not excuse their actions, which result from an unfortunate combination of a corrupt culture, a corrupt industry, and their particular circumstances. If these people had been blessed with better circumstances or more strength of character then they would have been able to find a respectable occupation, rather than one that serves a commercial master at the expense of musical art.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Wow. I deeply dislike brick-walled masters, but I don't take it nearly that seriously. Perhaps it's because my tastes in music expose me to little of it. I do have a few albums of very good music that have been rendered nearly unlistenable by bad mastering, though, so I sympathize with your POV.
P
Wow. I deeply dislike brick-walled masters, but I don't take it nearly that seriously. Perhaps it's because my tastes in music expose me to little of it. I do have a few albums of very good music that have been rendered nearly unlistenable by bad mastering, though, so I sympathize with your POV.
P
Fortunately I don't listen to pop or rock, so it's no personal loss what has been done to this music. I would have neglected the loudness wars, except that this style of over-processing began to infect some genres of music that I do listen to. This led me to see what I could do, in some cases mastering some albums that would otherwise have been compromised, as well as trying to educate musicians, who are the people who really need to be educated as more and more production goes independent.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I've noticed a bit of loudness creeping into some of the music I love as well, but so far it hasn't been the kind of excessive compression that crushes the dynamic range out of so much popular music. Whatever you are doing to push back that tide, I commend you. I think it is turning, but very slowly.
P
What pro DAC do you recommend P ?
I doubt I would recommend a change of DAC at all. Unless you use something colorful, like an NOS DAC or a DAC with a tube output stage, or anything that is attempting to create "analog sound" out of digital to analog conversion, a change of DAC isn't likely to make a worthwhile change in your system's sound. If there is any piece of equipment that you should buy by the numbers, it's a DAC. YMMV. MHO. YADDA YADDA.
P
If it's a physical change in the performance of the system, then it is probably transferable to other systems (though perhaps not audible to other listeners). But if it's purely a psychological change, then it's less likely to be transferable to other listeners.
I know that I'm not going to get anywhere by sticking only to things that have been "proven" in rigorous double blind peer reviewed experiments. But I also don't have the time to waste endlessly throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. That's a mostly futile exercise, like trying to solve a min/max problem via random walk. So I think it's important to understand the mechanisms affected by the changes we make.
Sounds like you have the engineering mentality. (Me, too.) :-)
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: