|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
209.43.1.25
In Reply to: Re: Neutral audio posted by andy19191 on February 27, 2007 at 06:13:42:
Well, it sounds as if you're escorting me into the Black Hole of DBT's with your last paragraph. As I find them meaningless, am I then to presume that the list of neutral sounding audio gear becomes shorter? Still, I'd like some brand names and model designations for your list, long or short. Thank you.
Follow Ups:
If you have been happily comparing amplifiers in whatever way you compare their sound and have been hearing all sorts of differences what are you expecting? It is pretty well certain that many of the amplifiers you have already heard would be indistinguishable from neutral in a controlled listening test (subject to normal caveats about environment and supporting kit) and would be on "the list".Your perception of sound changes with factors other than what impinges on your ears. If you want to find out what something actually sounds like then you have no option but to perform controlled listening tests. If you are not interested which is a perfectly reasonable position to take when it comes to home hi-fi (I am not interested for this purpose either) then you and I will have to live with the consequences.
> Still, I'd like some brand names and model designations for your
> list, long or short.Why are you asking me since there is a fair chance that there is nobody who posts on this site that knows less about current commercial audiophile brands than me. I can tell you that most conventional solid state amplifiers above a fairly modest price by audiophile standards driving relatively benign loads in a benign environment will be audibly indistinguishable in a controlled listening test. That should be plenty of amplifiers for your list but I cannot help with the brands. In uncontrolled listening tests I would expect the amplifiers to sound different.
> If you have been happily comparing amplifiers... <If you were correct in your assumption that amplifiers essentially sound identical, I'd be VERY happy. If my system could only be improved by better speakers and better room corrections, that would cut down on my overall frustration immeasurably. Reality intervenes.
> Why are you asking me since there is a fair chance that there is nobody who posts on this site that knows less about current commercial audiophile brands than me. <
I didn't ask you to limit it to commercial audiophile brands. What do you use that you find so magically neutral?
> I can tell you that most conventional solid state amplifiers above a fairly modest price by audiophile standards driving relatively benign loads in a benign environment will be audibly indistinguishable in a controlled listening test. <
Are these controlled listening tests performed with 30 second snippets of music or over a much longer period to ensure the amp doesn't introduce long term cues such as listener fatigue?
> In uncontrolled listening tests I would expect the amplifiers to sound different. <
All of my serious listening tests use controls, although not necessarily the controls you require.
> If you were correct in your assumption that amplifiers essentially
> sound identical, I'd be VERY happy.Now, now. I have not said this and you know it. You have degenerated into being dishonest which is a shame.
It is somewhat more than an assumption that in controlled listening tests modern neutrally designed amplifiers (with usual caveats) cannot be audibly distinguish because it would be predicted by established knowledge about the audibility of distortion and the levels of distortion generated by such devices. It has also, of course, been determined directly by controlled listening experiments and even reported in the audio/audiophile press although probably not recently for obvious reasons.
> If my system could only be improved by better speakers and better
> room corrections, that would cut down on my overall frustration
> immeasurably. Reality intervenes.I am afraid that reality will force you to work out what improved and better means to you. Getting a bit more technical knowledge may also help with your frustration since it is likely to modify your expectations.
> What do you use that you find so magically neutral?
I do not use anything that I find magically neutral. Lacking a belief in magic is obviously one problem but my sound perception is influenced by nonauditory factors in the same way as yours.
> Are these controlled listening tests performed with 30 second
> snippets of music or over a much longer period to ensure the amp
> doesn't introduce long term cues such as listener fatigue?Chortle. It depends what type of audibility the experiment is investigating. Audibility is not a property of hardware alone. The results for a quick switch between sounds or relying on the long term memory of sounds will be significantly different.
> All of my serious listening tests use controls, although not
> necessarily the controls you require.I do not require any controls and do not use any myself when I listen to the hi-fi at home but then my listening is for pleasure and so is almost certainly not serious by audiophile standards.
I am interested in what you would consider a control if you reject those dictated by the scientific method which I presume are the ones you state I require.
ME:> If you were correct in your assumption that amplifiers essentially
> sound identical, I'd be VERY happy.
YOU: Now, now. I have not said this and you know it. You have degenerated into being dishonest which is a shame.
It is somewhat more than an assumption that in controlled listening tests modern neutrally designed amplifiers (with usual caveats) cannot be audibly distinguish <They don't sound the same but they cannot be audibly distinguished. Is that a zen riddle? :) If I seem dishonest, it's because your comments are, to be kind, wishy-washy.
The rest of your post is more of the same. Would you care to clearly state what your position is on neutrality and how it pertains to the equipment you use (or espouse, if you don't care to list your components)?
> They don't sound the same but they cannot be audibly distinguished. Is
> that a zen riddle?You are quite capable of understanding what controlled listening test means and I know you are familiar with some of the results from such tests for amplifiers even if you do not wish to accept them. Whether you accept that sound perception is not directly related to the sound impinging on the ear and the consequences for what is heard in uncontrolled listening I am less sure. Your response suggests probably not but I have no interest in trying to convert you as I have mentioned in the past.
> The rest of your post is more of the same. Would you care to clearly
> state what your position is on neutrality and how it pertains to the
> equipment you use (or espouse, if you don't care to list your
> components)?I am afraid I can think of nothing particularly relevant to add to that in the previous couple of posts on the topic. Simply repeating statements would not seem worthwhile unless you have paid for the full half hour.
> You are quite capable of understanding what controlled listening test means and I know you are familiar with some of the results from such tests for amplifiers even if you do not wish to accept them. <But I'm afraid I'm quite incapable of reconciling the difference between items that are not audibly distinguishable, yet don't sound the same.
Many amplifiers do not convey the magic of the live performance as effectively as some others. They are like hobbiest cameras. They give you an OK snapshot, a rememberance or an introduction to something, but nothing like the real thing.
For example, how many art books really give the experience of going to the museum and seeing a real oil painting? None that I know, BUT I know of one camera that can capture the essence of a real oil painting, and it has been used at the Louvre, in China, and all around the world to document priceless art. A photograph made by this process is so REAL that you feel that you can almost reach out and touch the object photographed, in the example of a photo of a flower.
This is what we try to do with hi end audio design. It is expensive, and sometimes limiting in versatility, but that is what it takes to convey the essence of Harry 'Belafonte at Carnegie Hall' on RCA Victor vinyl, recorded in 1959. You might even hear Harry Belafonte live, even today, but I doubt that he can perform to this standard, at this time. However, you can almost go back into time, if you have the right listening equipment.
Typical playback with a cheap CD is not going to get you there, just the snapshot of the performance. This is why we put time and effort into making better audio designs, and we haven't found perfection yet. Why this should bother some, I do not know.
Wonderful explanation John of what it is all about. Thanks.
"you have already heard would be indistinguishable from neutral in a controlled listening test "Is that so? What is your neutral reference in this case? Without a reference you can't make such an assertion. The closest reference I know of is live unamplified music, all else goes in circles.
"Why are you asking me since there is a fair chance that there is nobody who posts on this site that knows less about current commercial audiophile brands than me."
Then you are in no way qualified to make the statements you are making.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: