 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.173.233.47
In Reply to: Oh that's a good one, Dan, got me there...NOT! posted by morricab on March 30, 2007 at 09:23:44:
I observe and then judge based on observation, not preconceived notions...That's bullshit, and why I gave up attempting to communicate with you.
Follow Ups:
I have seen your system and it explains a lot about your position. It is SS and strictly midfi. Now I don't have a problem with this per se, either you can afford better and don't feel the need or you can't afford better. No matter, it tells me something rather important. You lack experience with really good hifi.Before you judge me as holding preconceived notions, let's have you look into the mirror for a second.
Have you ever: Owned or demoed for an extensive time (ie. more than one hour in a shop or 5 minutes at a show) top class tube or hybrid gear? Owned or demoed a top class loudspeaker that is dynamic? Owned or demoed a top class loudspeaker that is ribbon, electrostatic or horn? Owned or demoed a top class turntable or cd player? Go to live unamplified concerts or hear a live unamplified instrument being played more than once per month?
If you answered no to any or all of these questions then your experience is sorely lagging behind mine.
Now you own strictly midfi SS amps? Why? Do you feel that more expensive amps can't possibly sound better?
As we are in the amp/preamp asylum I will stick with this. Did you buy them because they measure good? Sound good? Both? If you haven't tried good tube and/or hybrid amps then why not? Is it because you read literature that says that those designs must be crap and only the accepted orthodox amp design is right?
I would argure that it is YOU that has preconcieved notions if you have dismissed these other amp technologies out of hand. DB is the same way as he hasn't even tried a tube amp in 30 years because he is convinced that they are noisy distortion devices. He is so convinced that he won't listen to them. These are preconceived notions, Andy_C.
I am tired of people like you trying to twist an argument around and you aren't even self-aware enough to see your own biases and preconceived notions.
I have seen your system and it explains a lot about your position. It is SS and strictly midfi. Now I don't have a problem with this per se, either you can afford better and don't feel the need or you can't afford better. No matter, it tells me something rather important. You lack experience with really good hifi.Classic morricab,Andy_c is the fourth person with considerably more knowledge or experience in either electronics or acoustics that has said the same thing about your opinion Earl Geddes, Dan Banquer and Soundmind now andy_c. I suppose what really baffles me about you how someone who claims to be so knowledgeable in science will discount the single most important parameter concerning speaker/amplifier performance i.e. frequency dependent amplitude level variations,influenced directly or indirectly by output impedance and feedback and chase mirages such as TIM and TAD, why not account for the most important effects before chasing all these debatable effects.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Oh I see you put this back up."suppose what really baffles me about you how someone who claims to be so knowledgeable in science will discount the single most important parameter concerning speaker/amplifier performance i.e. frequency dependent amplitude level variations"
whatever gave you the idea that I discount FR unimportant?? Why do you make false statements just to have something to argue with? I have told you more than once I imagine that I use digital room correction to smooth out room response. That doesn't mean that I find it the most important, just important.
Do you do anything to adjust the response of your system in your room? If not then I would propose that you don't take it seriously.
However; I have done experiments with different amps, equalized to the same target curve and got completely different sounds. Can't blame on FR anymore then can you?
When I do reviews of amps and preamps I level match to within 0.5db. I had 5 preamps for review and level matched all of them to the same level before doing any auditioning. I also checked that they didn't significantly alter the FR (they didn't not surprisingly).
Why do you continue to harp on the one standard measurement that is clearly audible but also the easiest to fix? If you have room correction then the FR of the speaker, which is generally not nearly as bad as what the room does to it especially in the bass, and the small (yes small) variations from the amp are not a big issue. What digital equalization cannot do is reduce distortion or shift its spectral content, affect an amps dynamic capabilities across the audible frequency range, etc.
As to these other guys:
Earl: Earl basically thinks all amps sound the same (he told me that he is more than happy with his $150 pioneer receiver and felt little was to be gained going to more expensive amps). He has biases regarding what is audible and what is not with regard to amp distortion. Obviously you don't believe like Earl or you wouldn't have a $20,000 amp or is the Sharp SX100 just to show off for the ladies?
Dan B: Thinks that there is only one right way to make an amp and it is strictly orthodox engineering that he learned in school. He hasn't actually listened to a tube design in a LONG time. His biases are based on some amps heard a long time ago and what they told him in school. Ironically, he touts his amp to give only 2nd order harmonic so he at least pays lip service to the idea that harmonic distortion content is audible (something I couldn't really get old Earl to admit).
Soundmind: Listens with old modded AR speakers (not even the best of their time) and old 70s SS amps (Yikes...I wouldn't even wish them on you). Stuck in a time warp. Even SS now would be a blessing by comparison.
Andy_C Had no problem with him until he turned suddenly rude. Guess he didn't like that I didn't accept his Baxandall papers as gospel. He clearly lacks experience listening to top gear given his modest system listed on the forum. Not sure what his technical background is. He has a lot of nerve attacking me over my observations and judgments based on them and my readings of several interesting papers.
You have to understand that my whole approach is empirical, I listen then make judgments. This means that by definition it is not preconceived as Dan B and Andy C assert. Once I have heard some techniques that yield what I consider to be natural sound then I investigate what they are doing and who else has explored this territory to try to understand the WHY.
"Oh I see you put this back up."With good reason.
"However; I have done experiments with different amps, equalized to the same target curve and got completely different sounds. Can't blame on FR anymore then can you? "
How did you accomplish this? And how did you arrive at your conclusion?
" you have room correction then the FR of the speaker, which is generally not nearly as bad as what the room does to it especially in the bass, and the small (yes small) variations from the amp are not a big issue."
You are well and truly wrong, your comments do not take into the "equal loudness curves", a small variation in the 1-5KHz region will be much more audible than a larger SPL variation in bass or lower midrange, ironically there is a prepoderance of speakers' whose input impedance rise in the selfsame region especially in the 1-5kHz region. Consequently, small amplifier induced SPL variations that invariably occur in this region in respect of high output amplifiers will have a BIG EFFECT on the overall sound of the system.
"digital equalization cannot do is reduce distortion or shift its spectral content, affect an amps dynamic capabilities across the audible frequency range, etc"
Only partially correct, Whilst equalisation may not reduce distortion, which is a much smaller effect anyway. FR variations will dramatically alter perception of the dynamic capabilities of the amplifier/speaker combo.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
"How did you accomplish this? And how did you arrive at your conclusion?"How do you think I did it? With digital equalization, duh!
"You are well and truly wrong, your comments do not take into the "equal loudness curves", a small variation in the 1-5KHz region will be much more audible than a larger SPL variation in bass or lower midrange, ironically there is a prepoderance of speakers' whose input impedance rise in the selfsame region especially in the 1-5kHz region. Consequently, small amplifier induced SPL variations that invariably occur in this region in respect of high output amplifiers will have a BIG EFFECT on the overall sound of the system."
What the Hell are you talking about? I said I equalized the two amps to the same target curve. What about that don't you get? Besides even without this the variations of the amp are much less than say with position of the speakers, damping in the room, geometry of the room, nature of the walls, type and amount of furniture etc. Nevermind though you obviously can't read when I say equalized to the same target curve.
You didn't answer MY question though, do you do ANYTHING to correct for these so called horrible FR variations in amplifiers? So I guess I take it more serious than you and all you do is give lip service on this forum...as usual. I guess you would rather get only 0.1 db variation from your amp but +- 10db in your room response.
I would rather have +- 0.5 db from my amp but +- 1.5 db in my room from 125Hz to 10Khz (I roll off the highs gently above 10Khz as recommended in rooms to give a more even power response. Also, I find the bass too lean if it is equalized totally flat so there is a few db bump below 100 Hz). It wouldn't matter though if my amp was +- 3db (an extreme case and nearly no amps are this bad) because with the equalization I can hit the same target curve.
"Only partially correct...which is a much smaller effect anyway."
Why do you continue to assume this? Where is your proof that this is so? Is it because the FR graph is much easier for you to read? Is it because it is easier for you to understand? Your downplaying of distortions tells me you don't have a good grasp on this stuff.
".. FR variations will dramatically alter perception of the dynamic capabilities of the amplifier/speaker combo."
Maybe but how is this applicable if we are equalizing two amps to the same target curve? You now have the same FR for both so any perceptual differences in dynamics are not due directly to FR. If you think they are then you had better come up with a good explanation.
"How do you think I did it? With digital equalization, duh! "
That was not the question I asked, I wanted to know how you used equalization to achieve the same target curve."What the Hell are you talking about? I said I equalized the two amps to the same target curve"
I am interested in a more complete answer than what you have provided. How did you equalizee the FRs of the different amplifiers to the same target curve. There is not much in your post to respond to until you provide a more complete answer to my question.
"You didn't answer MY question though, do you do ANYTHING to correct for these so called horrible FR variations in amplifiers?"
Unlike you, I have an easily accessible up-to-date system profile, I suggest you read it before mouthing off, afterall I note that you used andy_c's system profile as a platform to further push your misguided preconceived notions.
On the substanstive issues of the post, there are two issue at play here, I was referring to SPEAKER FR variations due to differing amplifier output impedance though on further reflection amplifier FR variation itself is also an issue, though it's effect should be more consistent in various speakers.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
"That was not the question I asked, I wanted to know how you used equalization to achieve the same target curve."And I told you, I set a target curve in the device and let it work until it achieved the target. Obviously you have never used one of these devices before or you wouldn't ask such silly questions.
"I am interested in a more complete answer than what you have provided. How did you equalizee the FRs of the different amplifiers to the same target curve. There is not much in your post to respond to until you provide a more complete answer to my question."
There is no more complete answer. I used a digital equalizer, I set a target curve in the device and let it correct the room response to that target curve. There really isn't anymore to say than that. It doesn't matter to the equalizer what amp is attached it keeps adjusting parameters until the target is met.
"Unlike you, I have an easily accessible up-to-date system profile, I suggest you read it before mouthing off, afterall I note that you used andy_c's system profile as a platform to further push your misguided preconceived notions."Thanks for (indirectly) answering my question. You have no room correction. THerefore, I can only conclude that you don't take the issue seriously and you like to hear your lips flapping.
I will repeat, you have a problem with reading comprehension. You obviously don't know what a preconceived notion is.
Here is a definition for you...maybe it will help but I doubt it:
an opinion formed beforehand without adequate evidence
1) I have reached my opinion after many years of owning and listening with many different amplifiers. So I can't really have reached my opinion beforehand now could I? This is especially true in light of the fact that I started, like nearly everyone else in my age range with SS amps like a humble Sony receiver up through decent SS integrated amps from the likes of Onkyo, then to old hifi gear like Hafler and Sumo, later to better SS like Simaudio, then to tubes, then to amps with no feedback and hybrids, then to OTLs, then to hybrid no feedback SETs. So, nothing preconceived about it. All empirical. Along the way I learned how they worked and what different design parameters did. This is called experience.
2) The evidence is from my listening experience and from papers I have found that give support to what I am hearing. I found these papers AFTER I had reached my current thinking that this kind of sound is more correct. The rationale behind why is interesting to me but by no means the decider if I like or dislike a certain technology. That comes from listening. Just like I would say there are one or two Class D amps (but of the true digital kind like TACT or Sharp) that sound pretty good so I can't condemn the whole concept. However; the majority of them sound not good so I would say that the implementation is seriously flawed in most cases. Even so, the best of that technology pales in front of seriously good tube and hybrid in my listening experience.
So, in conclusion, you can stop with the preconceived shit because it doesn't wash here. You on the other hand, are likely to dismiss an amp out of hand because you don't like its measurments, right? If that is the case then it is you who has preconceived notions about what the measurements mean regarding sound quality. It measures bad so it must sound bad, isn't that what you think? You are biased and worse, so blinded that you call others biased when it is really you who is.
"I was referring to SPEAKER FR variations due to differing amplifier output impedance though on further reflection amplifier FR variation itself is also an issue, though it's effect should be more consistent in various speakers.
"Can't you write an NON convoluted sentence? I know exactly what you are referring to. However; FR of the amp is almost solely dependent on the load it is attached to so the things here you try to separate are really the same thing. Almost all amps measure flat into a purely resistive load. So if by some miracle a speaker is nearly resistive (actually Apogees fit this very closely in fact) then the FR variations for all amps attached to it will be minimal.
I understood your point perfectly...the first time. My whole point, which you obtusely seem to want to dance around is that why worry about deviations in FR at all when there are tools to essentially eliminate the problem, ie. digital equalization? I agree it is an important problem but who cares when you can solve this most obvious of problems? I think you like to dwell on it because it is so obvious and easy for a non-technical guy like you to understand.
My whole point is that this problem is easily solved by today's technology. The rest of my point is that even when two completely different amps are hooked to a system and then that system is equalized to the same target curve, regardless of which amp, the sound with the two amps is STILL different, meaning it can't be due to FR variations as those have been corrected.
Once again, you assume (preconceptually) that FR is a major issue to be solved, when in fact if you take advantage of tools readily available on the market, the problem basically just goes away.
Its great that you want to sound scientific and important on the forum by talking about amp/speaker interface and impedance variations in the speaker leading to FR variations, as if we haven't known this for a long time or something. However; this is not 1985, it is 2007 and the issue of linear FR is not a major one when you have the right tools. In fact, a designer nowadays should be much more concerned with speaker sensitivity, dynamic range, and colorations from the cabinet/horns and drivers, thermal and dynamic compression, harmonic distortion, resonances etc. than they should be about FR because FR is so easily correctable regardless of the amp used. As long as the mismatch between the drivers is not too great and their headroom is adequate, equalization can make them match, in time and FR (look at TACT and Lyngdorf audio for example...they even provide some xovers).
Then the important parameters for an amp are not output impedance but distortion, headroom, power, linearity over that power delivery range etc.
"And I told you, I set a target curve in the device and let it work until it achieved the target. Obviously you have never used one of these devices before or you wouldn't ask such silly questions."The joke is on you, fool.
"There is no more complete answer. I used a digital equalizer, I set a target curve in the device and let it correct the room response to that target curve. There really isn't anymore to say than that. It doesn't matter to the equalizer what amp is attached it keeps adjusting parameters until the target is met."
Well I knew you are stupid like that! How do you know that the equalizer matched the target curve that you set for amplifier/speaker? Oh I see, you assumed that it was so. Ever heard of a Real-Time Analyser, that is how you validate that the equalizer settings matched the suggested curve, you do not just make an assumption to that effect, but then you are foolish like that. Even the manual itself suggests that it is possible for inaccuracies to occur under certain conditions, Furthermore the manual makes it clear that it is not trivial to retrieve the "true response" after equalization, look at the manual on pg 12, they use an Audio Precision RTA! to illustrate the corrected curve. But then you knew that, hot bag!
"Thanks for (indirectly) answering my question. You have no room correction. Therefore, I can only conclude that you don't take the issue seriously and you like to hear your lips flapping."
You are an enigma as brilliant as you are stupid. A simple trip to my system profile will have saved you from making a fool of yourself, but I suppose mouthing off and then looking like a fool afterwards suits you perfectly, here is an excerpt from my profile (Last Update: March 29, 2007 at 02:17:06)
CD Player/DAC: Sony SCD1 (VSEI L5+ balanced)
Behringer UltraCurve Pro DEQ2496(Analog In/Out)
.
.
The system employs digital equalization in the bass to smooth out and extend bass response . It is also selectively employed in the midrange and extreme treble to fine-tune the system's frequency responseOr do you want me to spoon feed further, as it seems you are stupid like that.
Not much to say, you are a pompous ignoramus and a bigot. There is no point continuing this discussion seeing that you did not know to verify that the adjusted FR equalization matched your intended target curve. A misstep that renders your level-matched comparisons of the said amplifiers totally invalid, As expected you fell at the first hurdle on a basic issue. I suggest you send a letter to your editor telling him to pull those articles till you correct your errors, LOL!
What baffles me is how someone who claims to be learned scientist, you have a PhD in a scientific discipline is so easily blindsided by fairly basic issues. Upon further reflection it is no surprise, your preconceived notions blind you. You are attempting to fit the data to suit your misguided notions. Unfortunately, such misdirected actions make you look stupid every time someone looks closer at your so-called investigation.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
My System has been posted on the this forum more than once. A simple search by you would have found that I have a Behringer. However; for the record here it is...again:Speakers: Acoustat Spectra 4400, Spectra 2200, or DIY ribbon hybrids
Amp: KR audio VA350i (until recently also had a Sphinx Project 14)
Cd system: Cambridge Audio Diskmagic transport, Monarchy Audio DIP, Behringer DEQ 2496, Monarchy DIP, Monarchy Audio M24 DAC
Analog: Voyd "The Voyd" TT, Helius Cyalene arm, Benz Micro H2O cart, Silvaweld SWH 650 phonostage
Digital xover for ribbon hybrids: Behringer DCX 2496
Cables: Goertz Sapphire interconnects and Kimber 8VS speaker cable
"How do you know that the equalizer matched the target curve that you set for amplifier/speaker? Oh I see, you assumed that it was so. Ever heard of a Real-Time Analyser, that is how you validate that the equalizer settings matched the suggested curve, you do not just make an assumption to that effect, but then you are foolish like that. Even the manual itself suggests that it is possible for inaccuracies to occur under certain conditions, Furthermore the manual makes it clear that it is not trivial to retrieve the "true response" after equalization, look at the manual on pg 12, they use an Audio Precision RTA! to illustrate the corrected curve. But then you knew that, hot bag!
"You are so stupid that it hurts sometimes.
The equalizer I am using has a BUILT in 1/6th octave RTA!!! I use a CALIBRATED microphone that plugs into it (it is a condenser mic if your really need THIS much detail) It also has the signal generator to make the pink noise. You see the changes in real time. Funny how that technology works, eh? Guess which one I have?? The same Behringer you claim to have! That's right you idiot and I am using the same equalizer but only digital in and out. Why you would use it in analog in and out is beyond me because basically it sucks that way.
"You are an enigma as brilliant as you are stupid. A simple trip to my system profile will have saved you from making a fool of yourself"
Can't look at it because its blocked at work (only some parts of the asylum are accessible...guess the IT guys missed something). So f&ç/ you.
"There is no point continuing this discussion seeing that you did not know to verify that the adjusted FR equalization matched your intended target curve. A misstep that renders your level-matched comparisons of the said amplifiers totally invalid, As expected you fell at the first hurdle on a basic issue. I suggest you send a letter to your editor telling him to pull those articles till you correct your errors, LOL!
"So clearly everything you have ASSummed here is completely wrong because now you know what I use so it should FINALLY be clear to you that I can check the measurement at will and use the fine SPL level meter to level match on top of that. So I don't think I have to admit anything to my editor. The levels were matched and verifiably so.
"What baffles me is how someone who claims to be learned scientist, you have a PhD in a scientific discipline is so easily blindsided by fairly basic issues. Upon further reflection it is no surprise, your preconceived notions blind you. You are attempting to fit the data to suit your misguided notions. Unfortunately, such misdirected actions make you look stupid every time someone looks closer at your so-called investigation.
"No blindside I have my bases covered just fine. Only your ASSumptions have forced me to state explicitly what I have and did. I am not attempting to fit data to anything. I am listening and making judgements and then finding support for what I hear as to how it could be correct.
So wrong again Audiohobby, I have been using the Behringer for the last 2 1/2 years. I also have a computer based MLS measuring system that I used when I developed my ribbon hybrid speakers. Its more of a pain to setup but works fine as well (see my review on the Piega C2 ltd. and you will see my in room and 1 meter measurements.). Put that in your pipe and blow me.
Why you continue to hinder useful discussion is beyond me. I tell you I use digital equalization there are only so many on the market and basically all have measurement capabilities. Why would you make such a stupid ASSumption that I can't check the results?? Then you refuse to state what you are using trying to play the "gotcha" game. Grow up.
"Upon further reflection it is no surprise, your preconceived notions blind you"
Blind me about what exactly? I use FR correction the same as you. I readily admit its usefulness. ARe you going to tell me now that all amps sound the same on your system when corrected?
"Unfortunately, such misdirected actions make you look stupid every time someone looks closer at your so-called investigation"
Nope, don't think so, your Gotcha failed again because you didn't know what I was using. Now you know and you realize all of your comments are based on your false ASSumptions.
"Can't look at it because its blocked at work (only some parts of the asylum are accessible...guess the IT guys missed something). So f&ç/ you."You could not access my system profile yet you were and still mouthing off about the information that was contained therein, now that is stupid.
Indeed, you are a pompous idiot.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
based on your non-response to my direct questions it was a logical conclusion. The fact that I was incorrect about you not having any room correction is not as important as you being evasive to try to "trap" me. This kind of behavior is not conducive to constructive dialogue.
Still playing fool, eh?"The equalizer I am using has a BUILT in 1/6th octave RTA!!! I use a CALIBRATED microphone that plugs into it (it is a condenser mic if your really need THIS much detail) It also has the signal generator to make the pink noise. You see the changes in real time.
Big deal, it is called a REAL TIME analyzer, you are supposed to see the changes in real time. If you want to make a curve matching comparison, you need an external tool. Secondly, the internal RTA is too coarse for that purpose. Neither can you compare the curves simultaneously to verify that they are matched, you need an external tool to capture the curves. All your lousy response has confirmed is that you are an ignoramus.
" Funny how that technology works, eh? Guess which one I have?? The same Behringer you claim to have! "I thought you were berating me for not using room correction. Now you are playing a game of one-upmanship, IDIOT.
"That's right you idiot and I am using the same equalizer but only digital in and out. Why you would use it in analog in and out is beyond me because basically it sucks that way."
urh....so now it is time for advice on how to use the device, LOL! Get over yourself, pompous IDIOT.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
"Big deal, it is called a REAL TIME analyzer, you are supposed to see the changes in real time. If you want to make a curve matching comparison, you need an external tool. Secondly, the internal RTA is too coarse for that purpose. Neither can you compare the curves simultaneously to verify that they are matched, you need an external tool to capture the curves. All your lousy response has confirmed is that you are an ignoramus.
"Did you bother to read the part of my post regarding my computer based MLS system? Guess you missed that part. Did you see the measurements that I put in my Piega C2 ltd. review yet? I showed them to the company and they thought they were pretty well done. First Dan and now you have serious reading comprehension issues...maybe you caught the disease from him? Besides for a quick check putting the RTA in average mode works pretty ok and allows you to check the response in various bands quite closely. It compares favorably with MLS and 1/6th octave smoothing. For preamps,I matched SPL levels at the listening position after I found that there were no significant FR deviations (I don't need to keep checking this, once is enough). Got a problem with that also?
I find it laughable that you think you understand how to make measurements...all you know how to make are objections! LOL!
"I thought you were berating me for not using room correction. Now you are playing a game of one-upmanship, IDIOT."
Obviously this comment was inserted so you could exercise your proclivity for pointless name calling. And just how is using the same eq as you one-upsmanship?? One upsmanship would be if I had something better than you but as you can see I admitted to using the same thing. Again you seem to lack comprehension of the words you are trying to use. Get a dictionary and thesaurus already so you will quite making so many mistakes.
However; I have had mine longer so are you copying me then? First you get Audiostatics after me and now a Behringer. SHEESH, you should be thanking me. LOL!
"urh....so now it is time for advice on how to use the device, LOL! Get over yourself, pompous IDIOT."
As if everyone on the web who uses this thing doesn't know the analog ins and outs are complete shite. Why do you think there are so many tweaks for them?? So I am telling you something you SHOULD already know but apparently don't or are too lazy to do anything about it. Its one thing to be ignorant but you are a ranting and raving and ignorant. Not very becoming.
I also find it again laughable that you would have such a nice machine as an Allen Wright (who is good personal friend of mine) modded Sony player and then trash it through the Behringer's analog in and analog outputs. Allen would shudder in horror at the thought of all his good sound undone. On that note, you know that Allen's mods have no negative feedback!! Oh the Horror!! Baxandall and would turn in his grave at the thought, eh? Better take those noisy, distorted transistors out and put all those wonderful super linear opamps back in because after all it measures better! LOL! His amps and preamps also have no negative feedback, why not talk to him about it and ask him why he does it that way? Careful you don't get an answer similar to mine.
"Not much to say, you are a pompous ignoramus and a bigot. There is no point continuing this discussion seeing that you did not know to verify that the adjusted FR equalization matched your intended target curve. A misstep that renders your level-matched comparisons of the said amplifiers totally invalid, As expected you fell at the first hurdle on a basic issue. I suggest you send a letter to your editor telling him to pull those articles till you correct your errors, LOL!"
Odd how we both came to the same conclusion. However there is no need to send a letter to his editor: The Web-zine Positive Feedback, who morricrab writes for gave a design award to the Clever Little Clock, and if they are stupid enough to do that..............
Well there's no need for me to go further.
d.b.
I thought you were going to send me your CLC.
"The Web-zine Positive Feedback, who morricrab writes for gave a design award to the Clever Little Clock"Are you surprised? They have morricab as their in-house audio theory guru, ROTLMAO!
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
And you have no idea about theory...period!
Is that so? Where the hell do you get off telling me about my observations? Please point out where I have expressed any comments that were based on preconceived notions. I have arrived at my current positions based on my experiences with listening first then reading literature to try to understand what i was hearing.This is by definition then not a preconceived notion. So either you think I am lying about my experiences or you have to accept that I arrived at my current position by experience.
I am also fully willing to accept that under most standard tests the amps that I find sound more correct measure worse than those that follow a more catholic approach. However; it would be nice if guys like you, who are obviously pretty well versed in electronics design, would acknowledge that how these numbers relate to the human auditory system are sketchy at best, thus leaving room for lots of exploration off the orthodox design path.
I fully accept that there are people here more technically experienced in design but when interpreting data I can more than hold my own. The comments of DB come directly from an orthodox EE training without consideration of listening results. Same for the Baxandall papers you presented, which BTW did not by any means give a hard conclusion to the matter.I am fully willing to accept other positions if my experience with listening bears out that the approach has merit. If you can kindly suggest which amplifiers that you think are the best sounding you know, I will gladly give them a thorough audition if I haven't already heard them at one time or another. If they surpass my current reference and other similar amps that perform at a high level, then I will happily reevaluate my position, but it does beg the question as to why so many others are making good measuring but indifferent to bad sound amplifiers.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
