|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.46.7.90
I've been wondering as of late how subjectivists & objectivists can have an intelligent & rational technical conversation/debate/arguement if they cannot agree on the technicalities? For Example: I believe it's quite apparent that today's accepted audio measurements do NOT correlate with what we hear. If they did then the component that measured best would always sound the best. However that's not the case. Many times we find the component that doesn't measure the best, sounds the best and visa versa. Yet at the same time there are those who believe today's accepted audio measurements are indeed sufficient within themselves. In fact those who hold to these beliefs do so, so strongly they come up with dogma to enable them to support thier beliefs like this one Peter Aczel "...a "properly designed" amplifier has no sound of its own." This statement if followed to it's logical conclusion means if an amp comes along that sounds different, that amp is simply not "properly designed"!Sadly when I and others disagree with that asessment we're often immediately labled as being anti-science or anti-measurement, when nothing could be further from the truth. I and I believe most other rational subjectivists believe there should be and there are measureable, verifiable scientific reasons for EVERYTHING we hear. To those of us who hold these beliefs know the reality is today's accepted audio measurements don't correlate sufficiently with what we hear! For Example: Measuring THD reveals as much about how well that amp replicates music, as measuring my weight reveals what the color of my eyes are! Both of these measurements are useful, but neither tells us what we really want to know.
Any rational thinking person can see these beliefs on my part and those who embrace these same beliefs doesn't mean we think all measurements are useless. Rather it means we believe today's accepted measurements aren't sufficient enough to reveal what we really want to know. We who hold these beliefs understand scientists and audio manufacturers haven't yet discovered exactly which traits in live music the human ear/brain uses to determine it is live music and not recorded. These are the measurements that will correlate with what we hear! These are the measurements that once discovered and implemented, rational subjectivists can embrace and use. These are the measurements that will help to close the gap between the rational subjectivists and rational objectivists who honestly want to know the truth about whats actually happening in audio.
The main problem is we also have many unrational objectivists and unrational subjectivists amongst us who simply wish to fan the flames and preach their version of how to attain Audio Nirvana as being the one true way. When an unrational objectivist like Peter Aczel preaches his religous dogma via statements like "...a "properly designed" amplifier has no sound of its own." I often wonder how Aczel and those who hold to his beliefs would react if Aczel reviewd an amp that sounded completely different from all his previously accepted "properly designed" amps. After all being that this new amp sounded different from all Peter's previously accepted "properly designed" amps would mean that this amp couldn't possibly be a "properly designed" amp, right? However, what if this new not "properly designed" amp sounded almost indistinguishable from live music? Would Aczel and those who hold to his beliefs still reject it as being not being "properly designed"? That would be an interesting dilemma no?
Then of course at the other end of the spectrum are those unrational subjectivists who believe you can simply place a block of some type of wood, like the exotic Mappa wood for example, on a table anywhere in the room where your audio system is located. Doing this will allow via quantum physics for the quantum mind to be effected in such a way that the audio system, the block of wood and the person's mind are now in quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglment is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which the quantum states of two or more objects have to be described with reference to each other, even though the individual objects may be spatially separated. This leads to correlations between observable physical properties of the systems. The quantum entanglement in turn permits quantum coherence, which is the condition of a quantum system whose constituents are in-phase. Finally because the audio system, the exotic Mappa wood and the person's quantum mind are in-phase via quantum coherence the music is perceived as sounding more realistic! PAAA-Leeeasssseee...
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
Follow Ups:
From your first paragraph:"To those of us who hold these beliefs know the reality is today's accepted audio measurements don't correlate sufficiently with what we hear!"
Here you start off with beliefs and broad generalizations. If you want a real technical discussion, get down to real details.
What are the 2 amps that measure the same but sound different? What measurements are the same? How do you know they sound different, what were the conditions?
Maybe with this kind of information, progress can be made. For example, perhaps they sound different when driving electrostatic speakers. Then maybe a different measurement needs to be made, using a highly reactive load. And maybe these measurements will not be identical after all.
Just a suggestion. Beliefs and generalizations just lead to endless arguments as far as I can see.
a
They may tell you something that's important to you, but not everything that's important to you.Same with audio measurements.
They tell you where the components have input versus output "errors".
But all components have measureable "errors", so it's often not possible to predict which component you'll like best without listening.
Even with listening, strong expectations and biases (and a good saleman) could steer you toward components that many other audiophiles would not enjoy.
> They may tell you something that's important to you, but not everything that's important to you.
Same with audio measurements. <But you don't have to buy audio gear dinner and be sensitive in order to turn it on.
Hi TubeguyAm not sure you can have this conversation, as one needs a common language or frame of reference in order to have one view make a coherent picture to the other.
At the fringe of each side, Like the chemist and alchemist meeting to openly discuss there crafts, there wouldn’t be much common ground.A reoccurring theme here is the apparent failure of measurements to describe what you hear.
I am curious where that came from anyway, it is not a position held in engineering, I suppose such references come from the voodoo marketing as an effort to increase the mystery and plausibility of some products.
Measurements are a measure of some property, not a “quality” judgment, unless specifically designed to align with human perception, they do not even try to make such a judgment.
For example, THD is the sum of the Voltages of all the harmonics compared to the fundamental signal. One percent THD means that the difference in the sum of the Voltages is 20dB or the differences in power 40dB (like if you used an RTA).
These were “important” as a sales tool back when all amplifiers made audible distortion of a similar type. Important now as the distribution of the harmonics and level can be an aid tracking down the non-linearity, which is the source of it.On the other hand, what you hear is Level and frequency dependent AND dependent on the harmonic number because of masking AND with music ones ability to detect distortion is much less than with a pure sine wave.
I suppose it would be nice to have a measure correlating to “quality” but there are too many variables, even from person to person there is a large variation on masking levels, distortion detection and so on. Personally, I believe that hearing is maybe like vision, it is different from person to person and where one person may be especially annoyed by time errors, they may be happy with wide fluctuations in frequency response and vis versa. Some may be bothered by room effects and reflections more than others.
Among serous listeners, there remains a relatively wide variety of loudspeaker systems used, all of which have different yet large, significant flaws when compared to a straight wire to sound conversion.Perfection.
For the engineering type, a perfect amplifier is one that is a straight wire with gain as is said often. As such, there is no difference between the input and output signal in any way other than its magnitude with any signal.
This is a relative thing as there is always some degree of difference between the input and output so the issue is where does reducing the difference further stop being audible.Perfection.
For the end user, perfection is the best reproduction of some source material.
This has gone through many stages of recording, mix down and mastering and of which the listener wasn’t present at the original. Thus the listener is judging the sound based on what they expect or want to hear.
As each stage adds some “character” to the sound and the balance was made by an engineer, listening / mixing down through speakers other than yours, the odds of you hearing what the mix engineer and musicians heard the studio, as intended, are extraordinarily small.
By listening alone, at best, one can arrive at a system coloration, which compliments the source material, and so, it sounds great with some things and worse with others.An example of dependency on source material is on how even vs odd harmonics sound with difference source material. Studios often add even harmonic distortion to fatten up the sound at final mix, it makes things sound more full. If I recall the Beatles Abbey road was the first album where intentionally modified electronics were used to produce this.
This worked because even harmonics are all partially chord fragments of the fundamental and being music, this is nice.
Odd harmonics are discordant, sound bad because they do not blend in with music.
With natural sounds, which are generally not harmonically structured, adding either even or odd harmonic sufficiently, changes the sound.From this it becomes clear that a gage of “perfection” based on the lack of any difference between input and output is a much less vague target to shoot at than the typical approach, listening to the sum of potentially much coloration, of a source which you didn’t hear first hand.
Listening depends on loudspeakers, I can tell you with certainty that loudspeakers are by far the weakest link in this chain, they have so many problems that it is hard to quantify how many ways they can be wrong.
Even if everything at your end was actually perfect, your source material has been filtered through the taste, skill of an engineer, listening to speakers with problems, artificially contrived into “stereo” added to the sum of the effects of everything in that chain.I think the real problem here is that there are some genuine “mysteries” and some unexplored territory but they are $hard$ to get at. Part B of the problem is the companies who sell things nearly entirely define what is “known” now in the “hifi” market. While this was the case all along I suppose, what was known was entirely based on what the engineers said interpreted by the magazines who are the educators for the market.
Food chain:
All hifi business’s are about making money.
The hifi customer is where it comes from, both ends of the food chain are clearly defined.
Taking advantage of the gap between the companies with something to sell and the customer are the magazines. They are a for hire marketing agent, they charge a small price to subscribe to make you think your buying information but the real money is in selling advertising space to the manufacturers. Thus the primary allegiance is to the manufacturers, if the advertising helps sales, the mfr will grow and advertise more etc.
Think of the largest of all audio companies, their size is never based on a superior product; it is based on superior marketing and image building fronting a mediocre or even crappy product.
It is sad but simple, a dollar in marketing produces more sales than a dollar in R&D, especially in a mostly mature area..The consumer end, the “batteries in the matrix”, aren’t aware that magazines are the main channel for this “education” and so the BS level has risen to an astonishing level.
It used to be that they had technical writers, engineers who could spell, now many are not technical at all and ability to write an attractive review counts most and a whole new concepts and a new vocabulary has sprung up to help it along.
I have to say, not all go this way but the most successful ventures always seem to be the ones who throw reality out the window and run it like a cold “for profit” business.
Truly now in hifi, we are were the new age movement was some years ago.
Like that area trusted figures rise to offer profound relationships and wisdom, always directly or indirectly tied to selling something. Like healing stones, pyramid power and such, there are those users who just as firmly declare that a magic dot, little stones, small wood blocks and so on have some actual effect. They grip the belief that here, science doesn't apply or that somehow a great sounding explanation can't be wrong.For the engineering type, they say, ok to rule out the power of suggestion, a real problem in every other area of human perception, prove it. Show me you can actually hear this effect when you don’t know if it is there or not using a “without knowledge” listening test.
They say show me how in this area, that electronic principals and theory if sufficiently detailed, still don’t predict an effect that is large enough that you can hear it in hifi.While the engineering view is based a history of proofs, on sound reproducible logic, they are often proud humans, also have a tendency to feel that “everything” is within their personal book of knowledge.
This gives them a clear map of the known territory but are sometimes unaware the map has edges or how to deal with them other than to stay away..Actually a potential weakness of all sides is an excess of confidence that you personally have it “all figured out”, both sides, everyone really, wants it to be simple black and white.
I leave you with that warning which also covers what I wrote.Best,
Tom Danley.
I quote the great Count Alfred Korzybski, who, as far back as the Thirties, pretty well nailed the audio semantics problem -- inter alia in Science and Sanity.One could also reference here, the great Michael Polanyi's Personal Knowledge.
...a tinfoil hat.
'In fact those who hold to these beliefs do so, so strongly they come up with dogma to enable them to support thier beliefs like this one Peter Aczel "...a "properly designed" amplifier has no sound of its own.'All properly designed amplifiers sound the same? I don't think so. I think all IDEAL amplifiers (a wire with gain) sound the same, but nobody has ever heard an ideal amplifier!!
Now, is Mr. Aczel saying that a properly designed amp, whether it is SET, OTL, class A, Class AB, Class D or T all going to sound the same?
To make this statement we surely need to define "proper design".
In my business, 'proper design' is getting the job done on-time and on-budget, while meeting minimum code and IEEE requirements, and any additional customer specific requirements, or things which clearly add value due to improved safety, functionality, maintainability, and durability. There is little subjectivity in electrical engineering, save for what people consider to be "sufficient room for expansion", which varies depending on who you ask.
Now in audio amplifier design (admittdely something I know little about) do not some of the best designers speak of the "sound character" of different fundamental design types? I thought many amp designers thought amplifiers had a "voice" - perhaps not as obvious as the "voice" loudspeakers have, but a voice nonetheless.
Some prefer to call things that have a voice simply a source of distortion (or modification of the source material aka BAD). Others speak of "voicing" as a positive thing - something they can control, even manipulate and modify. It's a VERB in speaker design... to "voice a loudspeaker"... aka to add a subjective analysis loop to the design process. Voicing involves circular refinement (change-listen-change-listen) with some testing in between, but only insofar as to ensure that one is not deviating too far from a predermined measurable benchmark.
So, according to Mr. Aczel, designers who "voice" things like amps or speakers are simply wasting their time because if they designed a good amp (or speaker) in the first place the unit would HTML tag not allowed
My SET 300B sound different than other amps. The soundstage is different. The vocals are different. How can you measure involvement? How can you measure "perceived size" of performers and instruments? You can't. It's a subjective analysis. Is the perceived speed of those 300B amps measureable, perhaps in the area of slew rate? Does it matter if the amps just consistently SOUND faster despite slew rate measurements?So how do we differentiate between "acceptable" subjective analysis and mere psychological delusion? Must there be corollary between measured data and what is heard? Or must there only be a concensus between a group of folks who performed their own subjective analysis? Or does the subjective analysis of the individual trump the results of measurements AND other people? From an existential standpoint, it really only matters what the individual hears, and what that individual deems pleasing. The trick, imo, is to know when scientific tools are the order of the day, and when subjective analysis and consideration of psychological effects (both positive and negative) are called for.
Most good designers seem to suggest that building a "successful whatever" for audio requires a mix of science and art, a mix of measurement and subjective appraisal.
So, you could say I disagree with Mr. Aczel, and agree with designers who maintain that specific designs have their own unique "voice".
These are subtle differences at times, but I feel I've experienced them far too often and consistently for them to be merely a figment of my imagination.
Imagine, a guy in engineering that likes measuring his audio systems and DIY speakers and crossovers saying "I know what I hear". Sometimes we're NOT being fooled. Sometimes there IS a difference!
The question is, in some cases, "Okay, that's different - but is it really BETTER??"
I guess I am a "SObjectivist" after all!
But how *can* you reduce a human experience to a set of measurements?
Perhaps you can offer me some ideas.I work at a hospital and because of a building expansion we have to replace the utility company’s transformers (in the vault) with larger ones. The engineering firm is telling us that when that is done many items will have to be replaced to meet the larger allowable fault current. Amazing that this wasn’t discovered until after the new building was built huh! In a hospital (in my area) all downstream devices must be capable of handling the maximum possible fault current so a "main beaker/fuse" solution won't do.
Given that I don’t wish to buy all new VSD’s for my chillers and pumps and replace a bunch of switchgear I wish to look for alternatives. The vault isn’t large enough to go with two banks of parallel transformers (4 in total). Do you know if a “current limited” transformer would meet the code requirements? I also understand some work has been done with high temperature super conductors as a solution. Have they hit the market yet? If so, are they a legal, viable, cost effective solution?
IIRC we would be talking two 1,500 kw, 3 phase 13,800 X 480 transformers in parallel. I need to stay at no more than 65K fault current levels.
Russ:Very common problem indeed.
What is likely happening is that the larger transformers have what is referred to as a "higher let-through". Let-through (fault current) is a function of %Z and KVA rating. And you are correct, this impacts the available fault current all the way down the distribution. When you change the transformers, you are changing one of the major variables in the systems fault-model for the worse - and many times it's a very expensive proposition.
Although it is possible to get custom wound transformers that have higher %Z ratings (to reduce fault current), it requires a cost-benefit analysis - since although you intially save $ on equipment, in the long run you have to pay for the additional transformer losses associated with the higher %Z.
I am afraid there is no "cable technology" that would work here.
There is another way to go. Instead of putting the transformers in parallel, figure out a way to split the bus - perhaps utilizing an existing main-tie-main switchgear configuration. This way you get the added power capacity without parallelling any transformers. Very often, adding a "new section" to a power system is a far better alternative than making it simply larger. The problem with the latter approach is what you are facing: larger capacity = bigger transformers. If the existing system can handle the additional fault current associated with larger transformers, then it's an excellent choice. If the system cannot, it may be financially prohibitive, or even not possible to do at all.
Post your e-mail address, and we can discuss this further.
Cheers,
Presto
Rbrunt(at)mercymiami(dot)orgYou can google for SCFCL, superconductor fault limiter. It seemed a better solution than line reactors. But it might still be vapor ware.
Well said, Presto. I wish that traditional measurements actually did tell me everything that I need to know about a design, but the are too 'one dimensional' in every case.
When it comes to things like a turntable, terrible measurements aren't likely to lead to good sound. We could argue when it comes to digital sources perhaps. Given that the current rage is to ditch the last opamp stage and go with a simple passive solution (or transformer) these might not measure as well. Dr. Toole with Harman feels it is possible to correlate speaker performance and listener preference with measuring techniques. So, Berenek"s law aside, a combination of subjective and objective evaluation is required to assess audio gear (IMHO). I am darn sure you would never offer something for sale without running it through its paces on the test bench. I don’t care how good it sounds, if it isn’t stable it needs fixing!IMHO it isn't about whether a tube amp and a solid-state amp measure the same or not. The bottom line is different folks have different tastes and prefer different presentations. Many might say the ultimate goal is for the electronics to impart no sound of their own but I don't think that is what the average consumer wants. We want the ability to "tune" in some way, be it tone controls, cables, circuit changes, or parts substitution.
Beautiful art can be created with any number of materials and techniques. Some are a lot more labor intensive and a lot less forgiving though. For me, tubes are simply easier as a DIYer with limited knowledge and resources. Sadly I don’t think there are unlimited funds and resources being spent on the pursuit of top quality audio reproduction. Certainly nothing like what Western Electric, Bell labs, and RCA did in their heyday.
No one I've ever met carries such opinions a priori . It isn't until after experimenting and finding to one's own satisfaction that something works, that an opinion can be stated -- and then it falls outside the realm of belief, into the realm of the experiential.If the wood works, it works; if not, you take advantage of the guarantee and send it back. What's not to like? More to the point, what's all the caterwauling about, from the so-called objectivists?
Excerpt from article (peer-reviewed, one assumes) in Journal of Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 120, No. 4, October 2006, M. C. M. Wright: A Short History of Bad Acoustics:...makes objective assessment of subjective listening experiences very difficult, and easily swayed by suggestion, a fact that is exploited by many purveyors of devices that purport to improve sound.
"Brilliant Pebbles is a unique room & system tuning device for audio systems and satellite TV. Original Large Brilliant Pebbles is a 3-inch clear glass bottle containing various minerals/stones. A number of highly-specialized, proprietary techniques are used for preparation/assembly. Brilliant Pebbles acts as both a vibration “node damper” and EMI/RFI absorber via various atomic mechanisms in the crystal structures.
On the floor in room corners, Large Brilliant Pebbles reduces comb filter effects caused by very high sound pressure levels that occur in the corners when music is playing. Large Brilliant Pebbles is also effective on tube and solid state amps, on speaker cabinets, on armboards of turntables and on tube traps and Room Lenses."
The doyen of this field is Peter Belt, whose products have a
small but devoted band of followers who seem to be convinced
beyond doubt that their listening experience has been enhanced by the use of his products. And how could they not, after all:"Any series of identical species of living objects are linked by Nature irrespective of their location within the world. This applies equally to inanimate objects such as identical Compact Discs, vinyl records, printed objects etc. The energy pattern emanating from such man made objects has similarities to those same living objects to which our senses evolved. The man-made objects have, however, some energy patterns which are dissimilar from those emanating from living objects. Placing a
strip of the new type ‘Real’ Foil on these man made objects within the listening room interjects a changed energy pattern which allows the senses to respond as though the man made object had the same energy pattern as a living object."If the actual effects of these foil strips, jars of stones and varnish might seem negligible the prices charged for them are certainly not; readers are invited to guess what they might be before investigating for themselves.
Of course, the actual value of any such device can be separated from the psychological effect of its presence and price on the listener by careful double-blind testing. Sadly this is strongly resisted by a significant proportion of the audiophile community.
> > Excerpt from article (peer-reviewed, one assumes) in Journal of Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 120, No. 4, October 2006, M. C. M. Wright: A Short History of Bad Acoustics: < <I'm not sure what Mr. Wright is getting at in general, but I presume it has something to do with building a recording studio in a bathroom. Which I will agree is a very very bad idea. However, I suppose it makes it all worthwhile when you read in a technical paper, the prestigious "Journal of Acoustical Society of America" no less, that:
"...Large Brilliant Pebbles reduces comb filter effects caused by very high sound pressure levels that occur in the corners when music is playing. Large Brilliant Pebbles is also effective on tube and solid state amps, on speaker cabinets, on armboards of turntables and on tube traps and Room Lenses".
So there you have it. Peer-reviewed proof that the funny rocks -work-. And, leaving no "stone unturned", Mr. Wright goes on to confirm the efficacy of Mr. Belt's products, saying:
"... Peter Belt, whose products have a small but devoted band of followers who seem to be convinced beyond doubt that their listening experience has been enhanced by the use of his products. And how could they not, after all:
"Any series of identical species of living objects are linked by Nature irrespective of their location within the world. This applies equally to inanimate objects such as identical Compact Discs, vinyl records, printed objects etc. The energy pattern emanating from such man made objects has similarities to those same living objects to which our senses evolved. The man-made objects have, however, some energy patterns which are dissimilar from those emanating from living objects. Placing a strip of the new type ‘Real’ Foil on these man made objects within the listening room interjects a changed energy pattern which allows the senses to respond as though the man made object had the same energy pattern as a living object."
So there you have it again. That's all the confirmation -anyone- needs to believe in these products. Jim, hey Jim? Are you getting this? There's your scientific peer-reviewed affirmation you've been longing for! Courtesy of an EPSRC Advanced Research Fellowship! Prestige and validation up the yazoo! Now you have no choice but to accept the truth.
Of course you just assumed the article was peer reviewed.Flat Earth theories were peer-reviewed too.
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
Geoff,I readily admit I am skeptical of your products. However I don't just write you off as a charlatan. It's quite possible your devices work as you describe, I honestly do not know. I find it difficult to believe they do, yet at the same time I once felt the same way about wires. How could one wire possibly sound different than another? Especially is they're both copper for example. Yet these days I'm a diehard proponent of wires. So I also attempt to remain open-minded.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
not calling me a con artist. It happens so rarely these days.... :-)
...you not being a con artist. I have no intention of trying your products but that speaks more to my own state of mind than to your stuff. I've just never had much success with "tweaks" for the most part. When I first started listening to CD's, I think I tried just about everything available to make them sound like actual music and nothing worked... that is, nothing worked until I just got used to them, I suppose. These days I've heard enough good sounding CD's to believe that the problem was more with the R/E's unfamiliarity with the media and how best to present it.Or it could just be that I'd be dreading the day when people ask me why I have little jars of pebbles in my room and I have to stutter and stammer and finally say "uh... for better sound?" :)
Suggest reentering the fray and trying a few of the array of advanced tweakery available out there. I imiagine you might find CDs that you used to think quite average, even crappy, actually sound surprisingly good, even excellent. In which case, you might even be inclined to agree with me: the R/Es knew what they were doing after all, and that the real problems surrounding digital playback lie elsewhere.
...aren't you one of those freaks that say 78s sound really great? LOL! No wonder you don't know anything about audio, you'd rather listen to noise! Ha ha!
You're back! :)> aren't you one of those freaks that say 78s sound really great? <
Yes, one of the few remaining freaks. What I like about 78's is that beneath the noise and low bandwidth, I get the sense that a real live orchestra is somewhere close by. Whoa! :)
But I'm not so freaky that I believe 78's are audiophile quality. I just think they did a few things better back then than we apparently can do them today. And they're a lot of fun to boot! It's the only way to listen to old swing bands... along with a hip flask and raccoon coat! :)
Interesting comments. I have a pianist friend who is not into hifi but somehow she heard music played back on a grammophone (yep all mechanical) and told me she was shocked at how live it sounded in some ways. Within the bandwidth there may simply be less information lost.
but the raccoon coat has started to smell bad.Right you are about that remarkable sense of immediacy those old 78s possess.....
Well, Father Knows Best! :) Sorry, I've just been dying to say that. :)Most of my 78's were acquired in one fell swoop. I was in the right place at the right time (such a rare event!) and got right of first refusal to a large estate sale of old jazz LP's and 78's. It cost me a small fortune but I've never regretted it. The value of these things cannot be measured in dollars and cents.
Geoff,I'm not one to lable people derogatively without some sort of proof. For Example: When I call someone a liar it's because they lied to me. In your case it's possible your products work and I just don't understand how or why they do. So until it's been proven to me personally that some sort of scam is occuring, I'll remain skeptical, yet openminded to the possibility that they work as intended.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
Wrong. If you read carefully you'd see that between receiving and accepting that article there's only two days. Time enough to check for typos, one assumes.Still, thanks for the info, I'll get a copy next week
This notice on the JASA site suggests all submissions are subject to peer review. IMO that language is a bit vague, as "subject to" could mean that some articles are actually not peer reviewed. In any case, there is a big problem with the article no matter which case is correct IMO, as the article is pure "speculation," as they say. Furthermore, I should point out, it appears that discussion found on Randi Foundation web site was the genesis for the article.From JASA home page:
Subject Coverage and Contents
Since 1929 The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America has been the leading source of theoretical and experimental research results in the broad interdisciplinary subject of sound. The Journal serves physical scientists, life scientists, engineers, psychologists, physiologists, architects, musicians, and speech communication specialists.
Subject coverage includes: linear and nonlinear acoustics; aeroacoustics, underwater sound and acoustical oceanography; ultrasonics and quantum acoustics; architectural and structural acoustics and vibration; speech, music and noise; psychology and physiology of hearing; engineering acoustics, sound transducers and measurements; bioacoustics, animal bioacoustics and bioresponse to vibration.
*All submissions for publication are subject to peer review to determine their suitability for publication.*
Further information in the JASA article (I am providing below) appears to indicate that there's the assumption on the part of the Author AND the Editor that this is all pretty much self-evident or, shall we say, an Open And Shut Case).And I quote:
"It will be hard for those who seek to improve Hi-Fi systems by
legitimate means to distinguish themselves from those who
just sell false hope. As a last psychosociological note it is
worth pointing out that such devices are given short shrift in
the world of professional audio systems, where the audience
neither knows nor cares what has been done to the equipment,
and is therefore immunized to the power of suggestion.
V. CONCLUSIONS
We are unlikely to see another Wilford Hall or Battell arguing that the fundamental theories of acoustics are mistaken, because acoustics is no longer sufficiently novel. Contrarians have long since moved on the denying the validity of relativity, quantum physics, and cosmology. But fantastical powers are still regularly ascribed to acoustic and vibratory phenomena that can be understood with elementary physics. Furthermore, the language of acoustics forms a significant part of the new-age lexicon, replete as it is with resonance, harmony, vibration, waves all good, and rays usually bad.Without evidence I can only offer the conjecture that this is
because this mindset saw a great growth in popularity in the
1960s and 1970s, when supersonic flight was front page
news—if the TV series Dr Who were starting today I do not
think its hero would depend on a sonic screwdriver. In the
present day a key goal of scientists and educators is clear: to
ensure that our students in the broadest sense of the word
are equipped with the critical thinking skills necessary to
avoid falling into any of the traps listed here, or becoming
ensnared in others of their own making.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This article is based on a lecture first prepared for the EPSRC Summer School on Mathematics for Acoustics, and subsequently given to other audiences in Southampton and
Cambridge. Thanks are due to all the audience members
whose encouragement led to the writing of this article and
whose questions and comments helped to improve it. Several
examples of Hi-Fi pseudoscience were made known to me
by James Randi’s online newsletter “SWIFT.” Thanks are
also due to the following people for assistance, discussions,
and suggestions: David Chillingworth, Frank Fahy, Martin
Gardner, Martyn Hill, Lars Hinke, Sheilah Mackie, Christo-pher
Morfey, Allan Pierce, James Randi, Christine Shadle,
Harry Swinney, Niels Sřndergaard, Jeff Volk, and Jim Wood-house.This article was written while supported by an
EPSRC Advanced Research Fellowship.
1 M. Jeng, “A selected history of expectation bias in physics,” Am. J. Phys.
74, 578–583 2006.
2 C. Darwin, Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms
With Observations of Their Habits Murray, London, 1904.
3 A. W. Hall, The Problem of Human Life: Here and Hereafter, 2nd ed.
Hall, New York, 1883, 1st ed. published anonymously 1877, facsimile
2nd ed. published by Kessinger, Whitefish, MT.
4 J. Tyndall, On Sound, 3rd ed. Longmans, Green, London, 1875.
5 J. Tyndall, Heat, a Mode of Motion, 6th ed. Longmans, Green, London,
1904.
6 A. W. Hall, “Improvement in phonographs,” US Patent 219,939, 23 Sep-tember
1879.
7 J. Battell, Ellen, or Whisperings of an Old Pine, 2nd ed. The American
Publishing Company, Middlebury, VT, 1901.
8 M. Gardner, Fads and Fallacies: In the Name of Science Dover, New
York, 1957.
9 J. Sladek, The New Apocrypha, 3rd ed. Panther, London, 1978.
10 D. Pond et al., The Physics of Love; The Ultimate Universal Laws Mes-sage,
Santa Fe, NM, 1996.
11 H. Jenny, Cymatics MACROmedia, Newmarket, NH, 2001, first pub-lished
Vol. 1, 1967, Vol. 2, 1972.
12 F. S. Merkt, R. D. Deegan, D. I. Goldman, E. C. Rericha, and H. L.
Swinney, “Persistent holes in a fluid,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 184501 2004.
13 J. W. von Goethe, Theory of Colours MIT, Cambridge, 1969, first pub-lished
1810.
14 This view has recently been contested. Ref. 31.
15 H. von Helmholtz, “On Goethe’s scientific researches,” in Popular Lec-tures
on Scientific Subjects Longmans, Green, London, 1898.
16 J. Tyndall, “Goethe’s ‘Farbenlehre,’ ” in New Fragments Appleton, New
York, 1897.
17 A. Collins, Gods of Eden Bear, Rochester, VT, 1998.
18 V. Vandaele, P. Lambert, and A. Delchambre, “Non-contact handling in
microassembly: Acoustical levitation,” Precision Engineering—Journal of
the International Societies for Precision Engineering and Nanotechnology
29, 491–505 2005.
19 H. Kjellson, Forsvunden Teknik Nihil, Copenhagen, 1974. Danish trans-lation,
First published in Swedish as Försvunnen Teknik, 1961.
20 C. Dunn, The Giza Power Plant Bear, Rochester, VT, 1998.
21 J. Reid, Egyptian Sonics Sonic Age, Northumberland, 2001.
22 L. G. Horowitz and J. S. Puleo, Healing Codes for the Biological Apoca-lypse
Tetrahedron, Sandpoint, ID, 1999.
23 S. Edwards, “Sound Health Inc.,” 2001, URL http://
www.sharryedwards.com.
24 Interestingly the suggestion that magicians, as well as scientists, should be
employed to examine supernatural claims was apparently first made by
another acoustician, Sir Charles Wheatstone Ref. 32.
25 J. Randi, “James Randi Educational Foundation,” URL http://
www.randi.org.
26 URL http://www.indigo.com/tuning/scientific-tuning-forks.html.
27 W. C. Sabine, “Acoustical difficulties,” in Collected Papers on Acoustics
Dover, New York, 1964, Chap. 6, pp. 132–133, first published in The
Architectural Quarterly of Harvard University, March 1912.
28 D. Ennemoser, “C37 acoustics,” URL http://www.ennemoser.com.
29 “Machina Dynamica Advanced Audio Concepts,” URL http://
www.machinadynamica.com.
30 “P.W.B. ‘Real’ Foil—the entry point into the Real World,” URL http://
www.belt.demon.co.uk/product/realfoil/realfoil.html.
31 N. Ribe and F. Steinile, “Exploratory experimentation: Goethe, Land, and
color theory,” Phys. Today 55, 43–49 2002.
32 B. Bowers, Sir Charles Wheatstone FRS 1802–1875 HMSO, London,
1975.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 120, No. 4, October 2006 M. C. M. Wright: A short history of bad acoustics 1815
Sorry, but that's rubbish.Human hearing responds to sound pressure. To a lesser degree it responds to phase (group delay). It also responds to arrival times (interaural time delay). All those you can measure and very precisely so.
Of course no measurement will tell you which component sounds better. However, measurements will tell you which component is more accurate. Hifi is about accuracy of reproduction and IMO it's here where opinions diverge, whereas they should'nt.
If you record a solo instrument in an anechoic environment and play this recording at home over one speaker I think you won't know it's a recording, simply because the ambient cues from the place where the recording was made are not there so they can't mix with your room's ambient cues and cause confusion.
So you'd first have to define what this is all about: best sound or most accurate reproduction. In the first case there's no rational discussion possible, in the second case there is.
Klaus
Hello Klaus.I'm sorry but I have to disagree 100% with you're opinion: "Sorry, but that's rubbish." to my statement that's today's measurements do NOT correlate with what we hear. Fact is if I'm stating what they said correctly and Pat D, PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong. but even Real JJ & Pat D admitted that any RATIONAL objectivist would agree with the statement that's today's measurements do NOT correlate with what we hear. As you said Klaus first we have to define what this is all about. But you made a great blunder after that. You seem to feel that best sound and most accurate reproduction are two different things and they aren't! "IF" replicating live unamplified music is the primary goal (and it should be. Because if you can replicate that correctly than you can replicate anything else correctly.) then what sounds best IS the most accurate replication of the music.
Where the real problem lies is in defining what is and what isn't accurate. You choose to use a microphone's signal output of an unamplified live acoustic event as your reference standard. Then you compare that signal against the output of an amplifier. The amplifier that replicates that signal the closest is the most accurate in your opinion. This is how you define accuracy. I on the other hand choose to use the human ear/brain's deteremination as a refernce standard. Then I compare that determination against the output of an amplifier. The amplifier that replicates the closest to that determination is the most accurate in my opinion. This is how I define accuracy. The problem as I see it is you want to accept an electronic device's output (a microphone's signal) which cannot determine live music from recorded music as a reference standard. Whereas I want to accept the human ear/brain which can determine instantly live music from recorded music as a reference standard. Sorry Klaus but I believe the human ear/brain is significantly more accurate and reliable in this case.
As you freely admitted Klaus no measurement will tell you which component sounds better. But it's my opinion that the component that "sounds" better IS the most accurate, provided we're using live unamplified music as the reference standard! Measurements will tell ONLY you which component tracks the output of a microphone more accurately. It will NOT tell you which component sounds the closest to the original unamplified live acoustic event itself. The moment electronic touch live music they begin to strip away some of the traits that makes live music sound like live music. Proof of that is quite easy to find. All one needs to do is record a live musical event. Now play that recording through same speakers and record that event. Continue doing that i.e., live musical event equals #1. The recording of that equals #2. The recording of #2 equals #3 and continue till you have #10. Now compare #10 with #1. Yet you want to trust the output of theseelectronics over what the human ear/brain determines sounds the most like #1? Not me!
I agree it's true that Hifi is about accuracy of reproduction and it's here where opinions diverge. The reason the opinions diverge is easy to explain. Some like yourself prefer to take a microphone which cannot tell live music from recorded music, and use it's output as your reference standard to test an amplifiers accuracy of the replication the original acoustic event. Others like myself use the human ear/brain which NEVER mistakes live music for recorded music, and use it's determination as a reference standard to test an amplifiers accuracy of replication the original acoustic event.
Klaus anytime you wish to setup up a test anywhere near Orlando Fla. We can attempt to record a solo instrument in an anechoic environment and play this recording at home over one speaker I believe I'll be able to differentiate the recording from live each and everytime! You of course are free to disagree...
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
Oh, don't they?Then please tell me why measurement of amplitude vs frequency does not correlate with what human hearing is responding to, i.e. sound pressure level?
I agree that measurements like voice coil temperature (which is done in active speakers for triggering the protection circuits) do not correlate with what we hear. Measuring a speaker's weight or height won't tell you a lot about its sound. Measuring sound pressure level, however, DOES correlate with what we hear. And speaker measurements are just that, sound pressure level mesurements.
Re: Is it live or is it recorded?You know that it's not live because of ambient cues. You know it's a recording because you KNOW that it's not Clapton sitting in your living room playing his guitar.
You seem to be defining accuracy as accuracy to the original event. Agreed. BUT, between you and that event is the whole recording chain where loads of errors are made. Your system now has to compensate for all those errors, which of course it can't because you don't know which errors have been made on a specific recording. Any audiophile serious about this issue, i.e. accuracy to the original event, would have to have at least an equalizer. Do you have one? I have one but I'm not using it. And even if you get timbre right you won't get the spatial aspect right. So it will never sound like live. It will possibly sound like live when you start recording everything in anechoic rooms, so the only ambient cues involved are those generated by your listening room. It also could sound like live if your listening room itself is anechoic.
I'm living in Holland and am not planning to come to the States any time soon. Anyway, you test has a flaw in that you kow that you are playing a recording. Do that test blind, meaning that you invite the person who has been recorded and put him and your system behind a curtain. Then listen.
The only measurement that I can imagine that would correlate perfectly with the subjective experience of hearing music (or anything else) is fMRI. From moment to moment, our brains process sound differently based on all sorts of different acoustic and non-acoustic factors. Yeah, I know this isn't what you meant, but it's true and important nonetheless.There is absolutely no doubt that the experience of hearing music involves the brain at least as much as it does the ear. And that, at least, is something that must be taken into account that cannot be measured with a microphone.
Yeah, I know, you can't :-)I think that MRI goes a bit too far, MRI won't tell you if what you hear is accurate to the source. That's what Hifi is about, the sound arriving at your ears, before further processing, must (ideally) be an identical copy of the original event.
If you get MRI from different individuals these MRI will probably look different, depending on many factors related to the respective individual, such as taste. If I hate Bach, that music will generate a response very different to the one from a Bach lover. So which response is correct? Both, but that doesn't get us very far.
MRI is certainly an important measurement when investigating how we perceive things, but for determining how faithful a set of speakers reproduces, I don't think that it's of much use.
or at least not much. Certainly we're in agreement that the goal of a sound system should be to accurately reproduce what's on the software, even if it sounds bad. But I guess I am taking issue with the argument that the most basic acoustic measurements--accurate frequency and phase response, etc.--can fully characterize a listening experience. I'm not yet convinced, as you are, that those basic measurements tell the whole story. But even if they do, there's a whole other side to what we hear. You can get the sound waves perfect and it'll still sound different from day to day, depending on what you had for breakfast that morning, your degree of conscious focus on the music (more not necessarily being better)--or whatever.
KlausR is right. He is much more knowledgeable than I am, so if what he and I say seem to conflict, it much safer to follow him.When you use the word "hear" you usually mean perceive. As Lynn points out, measuring audio equipment does not tell us what people will perceive, since perception is subject to other factors besides the actual sound waves.
There are two things here. First, can the particular phenomenon be heard at all (detected)? Second, what do you prefer. If one cannot heard the difference between two components, then it makes no sense to say one sounds better than the other. However, it does make sense to prefer one component over another.
As I have pointed out before, one can measure various thing to a level well below what anyone seems to be able to hear. Harmonic distortion is one of them. The conventional THD result does not provide weighting for the various distortion components. but their are different weighting systems as can be found on Earl Geddes site (even the masters thesis by Cheever proposes one). But good solid state amps have distortion components well below that of typical tube amps at any frequency in the audible range. But with many tube amps, the distortion is low enough, too. So, like it or not, there is a correlation: with many amps, the distortion is inaudible. There might be an audible difference due to something else, however.
Again, you probably cannot get a close replica of a live concert performance in your home except maybe with headphones (ever hear a good Kunstkopf recording over good open ear headphones?. However, you may be able to get something that sounds very much like the live performance. Reports are that jj developed such a system while he was at AT & T, but unfortunately we were unable to get down to hear it. It doesn't depend on special speakers and amplifiers, either.
http://www.onhifi.com/features/20010615.htm
TG54 commenting on KlausR's post:
"The amplifier that replicates that signal the closest is the most accurate in your opinion. This is how you define accuracy. I on the other hand choose to use the human ear/brain's deteremination as a refernce standard. Then I compare that determination against the output of an amplifier. The amplifier that replicates the closest to that determination is the most accurate in my opinion. This is how I define accuracy."The problem is that a technical measurement of the amplifier's output makes sense, but you cannot directly compare the output of an amplifier to either a live performance or to the "the human ear/brain's deteremination [sic]." The amplifier doesn't make any music except as part of a system, so you have the speakers and other components of the system in addition. So your definition has application to the system, not the amplifier alone.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Thanks for the flowers, Pat:-) However, I have acquired knowledge only to a degree that allows me to be no longer impressed by all that high-end hype. So I'm far from being an expert. I have been talking to experts in these matters in the past and I've learned quite some things. One of those experts is now reviewing for German mag AUDIO, so things are getting less worse.
Pat D,I'm quite saddened to see you back tracking yet once again from something you previously said. This is one of the reason's I call you an audio politician as that's what politicians are always doing too. Back on March 9th you responded to my statement that Klaus is now objecting to. I stated: "There are measurements that correlate to everything we hear in audio components be it amps, wires, etc. However the typical measurements used today in audio don’t correlate with what we hear."
You Pat responded with: "The trouble is that most rationalists accept that as well. jj said the same thing, for example. So there is nothing peculiar to subjectivists here." The complete post can be seen below. So first you agreed that most rationalists accept that as well. Yet now you claim: "KlausR is right. He is much more knowledgeable than I am, so if what he and I say seem to conflict, it much safer to follow him." Thus we see that first you support Real JJ's acceptance & belief that most rational accept my statement AND you support Klaus's objection to that same statement! Talk about 2-faced and having no real postion on the issue!
Next you almost agree with my postion again, after agreeing with Klaus that I'm wrong. For now you state: "The problem is that a technical measurement of the amplifier's output makes sense, but you cannot directly compare the output of an amplifier to either a live performance or to the "the human ear/brain's deteremination [sic]." The amplifier doesn't make any music except as part of a system, so you have the speakers and other components of the system in addition. So your definition has application to the system, not the amplifier alone."
Pat any moron knows an amplifier is part of a system. So why you feel the need to explain what is the blatantly obvious to myself and everyone else here is beyond me. However I can remove an amp from the system and replace it with another can't I? But as I stated today's accepted measurements will NOT reveal squat diddly about how well that amp, in that system will replicate music, and whether or not it actually sounds like live music. Just because I cannot get a close replica of a live concert performance in my home, doesn't mean I shouldn't strive for an audio system that can get as close to that event as possible does it? Thus what I do is use simpler events like a small jazz group recorded live and then I try to replicate that live event as closely as I possibly can. I'm not talking about some vague subjective opinion. I'm talking about a violin sounding like a violin a guitar sounding like a guitar, a saxophone sounding like a saxophone etc.
Fortunately for everyone here you've now revealed your true colors and beliefs. It's plain to see that you just disagree with anything I write. For now you've both agreed and disagreed with the same statement from me, by first stating that most rationalists will agree with my statement because that's what Real JJ believes and now disagreeing with my statement because Klaus does and he knows more than you do.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
I can add "today's measurements to "typical measurements" and "accepted measurements." Ummm . . . well . . . they're not the same things, Tubey. As well, we really don't know what you by any of them--and I suspect you don't, either.It seems that no matter how I answer your questions, you don't like the answer. It doesn't much matter whether I analyze your question for assumptions and possible meanings, provide what I think is a sensible methodology for answering it, or giving some sort of an answer to a vague question to see where you are going with it and what you mean by it. Nothing seems to please you.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat,I'll keep this short and simple. As you hold no real postion but instead change your opinion like other people change their underwear, you're correct in believing that no matter how you answer my questions, I don't like your answers. How can I, when you'll probably respond by saying just the opposite next time I post. That's what you did in this thread. So I just cannot believe anything you say and yes, I don't like that, because it's a waste of my time.
Finally for your audio politics of attempting to find mistakes in my usuage of words, instead of actually addressing the topic raised is getting boring. I've noticed you're simply trying to play semantics once again like you usually do! I would have thought you to be intelligent enough (obviously I was mistaken) to realize that today's accepted audio measurements would in fact be the typical ones being used! All one has to do is read the many specifications to see the same specs typically being used over & over again. So the ones being typically used are today's accepted audio measurements. Same thing hold true for preamps, CD players, speakers etc. Now grow up and either offer something of value in these posts of yours Pat or else PLEASE make like nature and hide...
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
TG54
"All one has to do is read the many specifications to see the same specs typically being used over & over again. So the ones being typically used are today's accepted audio measurements."I see no reason to suppose your second sentence is true. The logical comprehension and extension of "accepted audio measurements" is simply not the same as the "the same specs typically being used over & over again."
As well, we still haven't much idea what you mean by the various terms used and you for the most part refuse to specify. You did mention THD and I pointed out that it comprises various components which (according to the experts like jj and Earl Geddes) need to be given some sort of psychoacoustic weighting--but that evidently passed over your head.
As for the alleged changing my mind, it was only with regard to the validity YOUR formulations in what I took to be casual conversation. I simply have had more time to think about YOUR formulation (KlausR pointed out that taken technically and literally, you made nonsense assertions--and I agreed with him). But for you, it seems someone doesn't have the right to think about what you say and come to a better conclusion about them. GMAB.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Ah, so you now agree that it is the system that makes the sound, and that therefore it is the system that will sound good or bad, or close to reality or not.TG54
"But as I stated today's accepted measurements will NOT reveal squat diddly about how well that amp, in that system will replicate music, and whether or not it actually sounds like live music."Of course measuring an amp will not tell you how the whole system performs. It's only part of the system, and the resulting sound depends on the rest of the system. Why didn't you say that in the first place? (Probably you want to talk about how good your tube amp is: world-class, I think you termed it!)
You talk about "today's accepted measurements" yet in a link you referred to "the typical measurements used today in audio" as if both were the same. Both are vague generalities and you don't explain what you mean by them. But you want to act as if they had some precise meaning. So, no, you haven't found me doing anything but not controverting some careless wording you used.
You may want to play around with amps, but with accurate electronics, I don't have to worry much about anything but the speakers. If my amp were out of action, I could easily get a Bryston that would sound virtually the same.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Good post, Klaus.> Hifi is about accuracy of reproduction and IMO it's here where opinions diverge, whereas they should'nt. <
Agreed, but this is where my posts title comes in. Having spent a fair amount of time in recording studios and then listening to the playback and THEN hearing the recording once it hits a CD, HiFi is about accuracy *to the recording*. Unfortunately, the recording is not accurate to the original event (there are exceptions, of course -and I'm talking mostly about small band jazz).
So, for me, it boils down to which I choose to serve, the recording or the live event. The problem, of course, is that I was NOT present at 99.9999% of the recording sessions of the music to which I listen. :) But even so, I cannot trust current measurements to ensure accuracy and even if I could, what IS accuracy in light of my recording studio experiences?
I can't seem to reconcile the obvious difference between live and recorded music so, therefore, I can't sit passively by and say "Well, live and recorded music are two different things". My goal is to narrow that gap. An awful lot of audio gear that measures less well does narrow the gap. So I prefer sound that is perhaps less accurate to the recording and more accurate to my idea of what the music probably sounded like when it was recorded.
And THAT is where I part company with the staunchest of both objectivist and subjectivist. Usually when I make this admission to audiophiles, I'm told that I simply love the sound of distortion. My reply is usually something like "Have you never heard live music? Recordings themselves are distortions!"
Accuracy to the recording is a noble goal and, I'm told, a measurable and quantifiable one. However, it just does not give me the satisfaction of the live experience that I seek.
Actually Kerr what you perceive is correct but its not, IMO, for the reasons you suspect.One of the biggest misconceptions, IMO, is that equipment that measures less well but sounds oh so much better is somehow making "euphonic" distortions.
I think this is a crock and a way for people to wave away an unpleasant truth (unpleasant to those who would rather stick with an agenda rather than listen that is).
I too am interested in closing the gap between what I hear live and what I hear from my recordings...but only with recordings where I know that this is possible. A studio ablum like Dark Side of the Moon or some such thing has no realistic reference. It might be very well recorded but by no means should it sound like live music.
So, with the right recordings we must trust our ears to a large extent. If you are hearing that the perfect measuring speaker and amp are not sounding very close to live but the imperfect tube amp and horn speaker are sounding much closer to what you know live sound to be then the question should be, "What are the 'perfect' measuring devices doing wrong?" because clearly they are doing something wrong.
The question should be not if the amp has "euphonic" colorations or not but does it have AUDIBLE colorations or not. I would argue that many components that fail to sound realistic are either adding distortion that is audible and offensive OR they are simply missing information that is necessary to recreate the event acccurately (ie. loss of low level information and resolution).
The problem is that what KlausR thinks of as accuracy, ie. perfect standardized measurements, is not really the kind of accuracy we should be seeking from our hifi. It is fidelity to an oscilloscope and not fidelity to the human ear/brain mechanism. When this can be fooled completely then you will have true accuracy in audio.
Morricab... score! A Direct Hit...Your post mirrors my feelings precisely. I didn't actually "suspect" the reasons you think; rather, they are the "reasons" I've been hit over the hit with constantly by the measurement folks. Unless live music is distorted, the way we measure audio gear simply isn't adequate, IMHO.
If the recording is not accurate to the original event and you want your system to be accurate to that event then your system has to compensate for the errors made during recording/mixing/mastering etc.Now in all these different recording studios different people with different ears use different gear resulting, quite obviously, in different errors being made. How can one hope to compensate for all those different errors?
And what about those recordings that are actually accurate to the event? With a system that is compensating for errors while there are none you are messing that accurate recording up. Bad deal.
IF error compensation is the goal then why not use an equalizer, or better, sth like the DEQX PDC 2.6? Apparently that device is able to do miracles:-) End even when using a DEQX you still have listening room acoustics messing things up.
Accuracy to the event is a noble goal too but IMO a goal much more difficult to achieve.
Audio recording and playback is not an attempt to recreate an original event. It is an attempt to create an illusion of an original event from a single perspective. The difference is lost on so many and yet it is sooooo significant. People who chase "accuracy" in components are chasing their tails and looking for trees when they should be looking at a forest. All the accuracy in the world between the transducers will be meaningless if one ignores the fact that recording and playback is essentially smoke and mirrors. It's an aural illusion. It has to be looked at as a system and one has to forget about the idea of "recreation" of an original event and focus on the illusion.
Accuracy to the original event is one goal, accuracy to the source (i.e. recording) is another. I for one am trying to achieve the second.When a manufacturer claims that his speakers are the best sounding, this is difficult to verify. When a manufacturer claims that his speakers are the most accurate you just need to look at the measurements. The fact that most speaker manufacturers don't provide measurements when asked speaks for itself.
"Accuracy to the original event is one goal,"It is not a meaningful goal since stereo or even multi-channel recording and playback are not designed to do that. Again they are designed to create an "illusion" of an original event "from a single perspective." Huge difference.
" accuracy to the source (i.e. recording) is another."That is an absolutely meaningless reference since no "recording" as a "stand alone" entity has no intrinsic sound of it's own. You have to use playback equipment to get any sound out of a recording so you are using equipment as a reference. Another tail chase in the end.
"I for one am trying to achieve the second."How? What playback system do you use as your ultimate reference? And whay set that particular limit/signature on your reference?
"When a manufacturer claims that his speakers are the best sounding, this is difficult to verify."Actually it is meaningless because speakers do not exist in a vacuum. They need a room and a playback system and a recording to have any sound at all. All of those things impact the sound so the claim has no context without all those other elements.
" When a manufacturer claims that his speakers are the most accurate you just need to look at the measurements."Absolute balony. Speakers are transducers. They they turn one kind of energy, electrical into another, sound preasure. The idea of accuracy in speakers as a single component is absurd. At least with amps and preamps you can literally compare the input signal to the output signal and determine it's accuracy. How do you do that with speakers?Yet another tail chase.
" The fact that most speaker manufacturers don't provide measurements when asked speaks for itself."Indeed. But perhaps not in the way you think. I suspect they often realize what an absurd idea accuracy is in speakers as a component.
AS
"they are designed to create an "illusion" of an original event "from a single perspective."That's pretty much what old Julian Hirsch used to say about stereo reproduction. I believe he called it a "plausible illusion."
On the other hand, I don't think you are really in a position to prescribe what audio goals are possible, especially with multi-channel processing. For example, here's an account of a system jj had a hand in developing when he was still with AT & T. He invited Asylum memebers to come and listen to it, but unfortunately we were unable to do so at the time. But Wes Philips was impressed and evidently John Atkinson heard it, too, but I don't know his reaction.
http://www.onhifi.com/features/20010615.htm
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Any updates? I actually hadn't seen this link before.
I have no further information on it and I gather the technology is proprietary to AT & T.jj retired from AT & T and the last I heard, he was working for Microsoft.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
"On the other hand, I don't think you are really in a position to prescribe what audio goals are possible, especially with multi-channel processing."Multichannel is just stereo with more channels. It essentially works the same way. It still is an attempt at creating an aural illusion and it is still limited to a singular perspective.So the goal remains the same, unless it is being missused of course.
Analog,Don't waste your precious time with Pat D. he he just likes to disagree with subjectivists no matter what they say. Pat D has no real opinions of his own. Instead he just mindlessly parrots whatever the most intelligent or prominent (in Pat D's opinion that is) objectivist happens to say at that time. Even then no matter what Pat D says, what he supposedly believes can change faster than the weather.
An excellent example of this behavior is how Pat D responded to my statement as I originally stated it, i.e.: "There are measurements that correlate to everything we hear in audio components be it amps, wires, etc. However the typical measurements used today in audio don’t correlate with what we hear."
At first on 3/9/07 Pat D disagreed with me because he felt I was stating ONLY subjectivists believed that statement to be true. So Pat D disagreed with me and called upon Real JJ's authority as evidence that most rationlists believe this statement. Pat D stated: "The trouble is that most rationalists accept that as well. jj said the same thing, for example. So there is nothing peculiar to subjectivists here." Pat D's complete post can be seen here: http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=29742&highlight=JJ+Pat+D&r=&session=
Pat D now completely disagrees with what he said on 3/9/07 Even though he used Real JJ as backup of his belief that most rationalists would agree with my statement. Now on 3/30/07 21 days later Pat D agreed with Klaus. Pat D now states: "KlausR is right. He is much more knowledgeable than I am, so if what he and I say seem to conflict, it much safer to follow him."
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/30691.htmlOn top of that Pat D claims he ONLY allegedly changed his mind. Now Pat D claims: As for the alleged changing my mind, it was only with regard to the validity YOUR formulations in what I took to be casual conversation. (PAAAA-LLEEAASSEEE when did Pat D and I ever have a casual conversation?)
Pat D is now claiming: I simply have had more time to think about YOUR formulation." But the reality is Pat D doesn't do anything but follow the leader. When Real JJ agreed, Pat D agreed, when Klaus disagrees Pat D disagrees. See Pat D only follows what other, better informed, at least in Pat D's opinion objectivists believe. It should now be readily apparent everyone that Pat D has no real opinion of his own. He just "changes his mind" and believes whatever the most intelligent or prominent in Pat D's opinion objectivist has to say that's posting at that time. How can one hold an intelligent conversation with such a person?
Pat D's present belief has to mean that he now believes Real JJ is wrong and most rational people don't agree with my statement. I guess now that Real JJ isn't posting and Klaus is that's Pat new idol. So now that Klaus disagrees with me and feels that I made nonsense assertions--Pat D agreed with Klaus! My friends that's what I mean when I call Pat D an audio politician.
Sure people can change their minds, but Pat D doesn't even form opinions for himself. He simply parrots what the objectivist that disagrees with any subjectivist's post says. Even if that means completely disagreeing with something he said 3 weeks earlier.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
I know when to walk away. After I leave him babbling. It happened so quickly this time. Pavlov's dog?
No wonder why you don't discuss reasonably: reasoned discussion might lead to a modification of your opinions.And here's another lesson in logic: you are drawing a generalisation from extremely limited evidence. I simply took another look at something YOU said and reevaluated it, in this instance, because of something KlausR said. He has had virtually no role in the formation of my basic opinions about audio, opinions which you seem constitutionally unable to grasp. You don't seem to be able to grasp suspending judgment in the absence of sufficient data:
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." ------Sherlock Holmes in a Scandal in Bohemia.
http://www.bcpl.net/~lmoskowi/HolmesQuotes/q.detection.html
Meanwhile, to get back to audio matters, you still have failed to specify just what measurements you are talking about but worry about vague generalities.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat D-Cake,The reason I CANNOT discuss reasonably with the likes of you is you have no opinions of your own SQQWWWAAACCCCK! You simply have nothing of value to add that could possibly lead to a modification of my opinions. You seem to forget that I speak with intelligent, rational objectivists like Roger Russell & Tom Danley. Next to them you pale in comparison and sadly enough are revealed to be a person who simply wishes to muddy the waters and be correct at all costs. You don't want to talk/debate/argue to discover whatever truths there are to be discovered. You want to make converts, to your misguided POV. I'll grant you try to give an apperance of an intelligent rebuttle, and occasionally you almost succeed, but sadly your bitterness always causes you to stumble.
==================================================================
As I read your posts I see you vain attempts to obfuscate what the real topic is, so you can hijack this thread into another Pat D-Cake is always right thread. You mistakenly claim that I'm drawing a generalisation from extremely limited evidence. Perhaps if you let your bitterness, obsession with me and being correct at all costs go you'd realize you're wrong yet once again. I've looked at 100's if not 1000's of specs, which brought me to the conclusion that everyone except a few lunatic-fringe objectivists disagree with. Todays accepted audio measurements that are typically used to define a specific components performance in no way correlates with which component will sound the most realistic. Hence they don't correlate with what we hear! Sorry but that's the sad truth and something you apparently are unable to accept, but that just goes along with your always having to be correct, even when you're not.
==================================================================
Now you're claiming Klaus has had virtually no role in the formation of your basic opinions about audio, opinions which you believe I'm constitutionally unable to grasp. I understand that's what you claim is the truth Pat D-Cake, but the sad fact is all anyone needs to do is go back and re-read your very many posts to see Real JJ opinions were your opinions at one time and now that he no longer posts here Klaus's opinions are starting to be your opinions. I don't believe you honestly have any opinions of your own. IMHO you just parrot the opinions of others, period. Here is something which you seem constitutionally unable to grasp, i.e. I believe you're a weak-minded man who cannot make up his own mind and whose words I seldom if ever trust or believe to be true.
===================================================================
Yet once again we see Pat D-Cake making up pure fiction to support his inabilities to actually form opinions for himself. I quite well understand suspending judgment in the absence of sufficient data. That's what a rational, intelligent person would and should do. But you forget, I don't see you as a rational, intelligent person. Instead I see you as being incapable of making up your own mind Pat D-Cake. What you call suspending judgment in the absence of sufficient data, I see as your simply waiting for some much more intelligent and better informed objectivist to say in a post so you can later reword and parrot the comments, in the quise of reformulating your opinion.
===================================================================
Now as you further attempt to create more chaos by claiming I've still failed to specify just what measurements I'm talking about while I worry about vague generalities. I'm sorry to say you just show how little you understand about audio components, their measurements and how little they correlate with what we hear. You see Pat D-Cake I'm not worried about anything. I have the best sounding audio system I've ever owned. It's considerably superior to anything I can buy in any audio store here in the Orlando area.It's actually people like you and POLLYinFLA who'd benefit from this if you could let go with all your bitterness and obsession with being correct at all costs. I'm taking about the typical measurements used with any audio component amp, preamp, CD player etc. These supposed vague generalities is just one more lame attempt to get others to do your work for you. If you don't know what today's accepted measurements are and which ones are typically used I suggest you look up some components online. For once get off your lazy ass and do some research on the subject and stop always requiring everyone do your work for you! You are pitiful Pat D-Cake, really you are. You honestly think you're this great debater when the sad fact is you cannot even make up your own mind, SQQQQWWWWWAAAACCCCKKK!
Pat D-Cake Pat D-Cake faker man.
Fake an excuse as fast as you can.
Obscure it and change it and mark it with "B" (for bullsh#t)
And post in PHP for POLLYinFLA and thee.Ha ha ha at least you're good for a laugh.
Thetubeguy1954
Well, you still can't make up your mind as to about accepted audio measurements, but can't tell me what they are.Where do you suggest we go to get these measurements? "I've looked at 100's if not 1000's of specs . . . " IOW, we are to look at manufacturers specs found in advertising to find "accepted audio measurements! This is confirmed by his further statement, "If you don't know what today's accepted measurements are and which ones are typically used I suggest you look up some components online." This is amazing, tubey! But you still confuse measurements and specifications. I'm sure there are lots of measurements that don't show up in manufacturer's specifications. Reviewers do some of them though designers like Dan Banquer, Tom Danley, and John Curl seem to think they are seldom sufficient. So accepted measurements go way beyond manufacturers' specs. Of course, there is the problem of who determines what measurements are accepted as many of them are not regulated.
Now, if we want to say that a lot of manufacturers specs do not tell us much about how equipment sounds, that makes sense.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat D-Cake,I see you're still attempting to obfuscate the truth. Just because you're either incapable of understanding what I say (which happens a lot with you, but few others here) or you're unwilling to admit you understand what I'm saying to help you obscure and complicate a statement everyone else seems to easily understand. Doesn't mean I can't make up my mind as to what today's accepted audio measurements are, but can't tell you what they are. In fact Pat D-Cake it's a blatant untruth for you to claim this! This is just one more lame attempt for you to get me to do your homework for you. Sorry lazy you'll have to get of your ass and do something for yourself for a change.
===================================================================
I'll readily grant you I cannot tell you specifically what all of today's accepted measurements are or how they are performed, but that's not a requirement of understanding the specifications they provide! Just like a child doesn't need to know how a scale works to read and understand their weight is X amount of pounds. So too, I cannot tell you how THD is obtained, but just like the child I don't need to know how the specification is obtained. I can read and understand the final fiqure and I know full well that I hear no difference between .000001% or .1%. Hence detect no correlation with how THD effects what I am hearing. Here's what I can tell you about the specifications the measurements provided. These specifications, and the measurements that provided them are virtually useless in describing what I/we hear. Thus logically speaking if the specifications are useless in describing what I/we hear, the measurements that provide those specifications are equally useless in describing what I/we hear. Hence my statement today's accepted audio measurements simply don't correlate with what we hear! Of course that doesn't mean the measurements themselves are useless. It simply means their specifications provide nothing that directly correlates with what we hear! If you feel differently Pat D-Cake please explain how these specifications will reveal how closely this amp will make a violin, guitar, saxophone or piano sound like it would live and unamplified.1) THD: < 0.15 % at full power
2) IM distortion: balanced 16 V rms < 0.03 %
3) Slew rate: > 130 V/µsecond
4) Dynamic headroom: > 1.8 dB
5) Input sensitivity: 1 V for 28.28 V, THX Reference Level
6) Input impedance: 100 k Ω
7) S/N ratio: > 120 dB, IHF A-weighted, bias set to high
8) Damping factor: > 1200 at 20 Hz===================================================================
Where do you suggest we go to get these measurements? This is confirmed by his further statement, "If you don't know what today's accepted measurements are and which ones are typically used I suggest you look up some components online." This is amazing, tubey! But you still confuse measurements and specifications.Pat D-Cake you amaze me at times! You try to act like this intelligent, well informed person but then reveal your ignorance in the questions you ask and the statements you make. I've told you more than once and illustrated the point that I understand the difference between measurements and specifications! Yet once again you imply I don't know the difference between measurements and the specifications they provide. This is typical Pat D-Cake playing of games and attempting to the muddy the waters and make yourself look more intelligent than you actually are. Now just so you know I understand the difference a measurement is the estimation of a quantity such as distortion, length, excursion, temperature, or time. Measurements find the ratio of some quantity to a standard quantity of the same type, thus a measurement of the height of a speaker is the ratio of the physical height of a speaker to standard length, such as a standard meter. Measurements are usually given in terms of a real number times a unit of measurement, for example 3.35 meters. In this case the 3.35 meters is the specification the measurement provided. Have I now explained this sufficiently enough for you Pat D-Cake? For some reason that I don't understand you seem to believe that I need a deep understanding of the measuring process itself. But I don't, what I need to see is the specifications those measurements provided!
===================================================================
I'm absolutely 100% postive there are many measurements that don't show up in manufacturer's specifications. But if they are unavailable to me as a consumer, these measurements and the specifications they also provide are useless to me. Besides "IF" one of these unrevealed measurements somehow correlated closely with what we hear and would reveal how closely an amp, preamp etc would make a violin, guitar, saxophone or piano sound like it would live and unamplified, you cannot possibly believe that a designer and manufacturer like Tom Danley, Roger Russell or John Curl wouldn't include the specifications that measurement provided with their other specifications can you?
===============================================================
So the fact that it's possible that today's accepted measurements go way beyond manufacturers' specs. is of little relevance to this discussion. We can ONLY work with the specifications of measurements that manufacturers choose to reveal or provide to us. That's all we have and nothing more! Thus based on those measurements that are typically used and specifications they provide us as provided by the manufacturers, I'll repeat today's accepted measurements (and the specifications they provide) don't correlate with what we hear! If rewording that to: "Manufacturers specs do not correlate with how equipment sounds" makes more sense to you, that's OK with me. But you're basically just restating what I said with different words. It's not a different concept. It's just another lame Pat D-Cake attempt to appear to be right at all costs once again...Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
Well, I am not very good at mind reading. So now you want to change "accepted audio measurements" into the ones you have easy access. I'm not trying to be too hard on you, but when you start stating seriously the accepted measurements do not correlate with the sound, I want more precision. Why do I have to work so hard to get it out of you?TG
"If rewording that to: "Manufacturers specs do not correlate with how equipment sounds" makes more sense to you, that's OK with me. But you're basically just restating what I said with different words. It's not a different concept."Sorry, but that's simply and obviously incorrect. The logical comprehension and extension are quite different. You do not quantify manufacturer's specs with "some," and you also seem to expect a partial set of specs would indicate the overall performance of the amp. And of course, as Analog Scott and I have both pointed out, an amp does not make any sound (other than things like power supply hum or mechanical blows on it) except in a system. And the sound of a decent system is mostly due to the program material, the speakers, and the speaker set up in the room.
I don't see anything in the amplifier specs you provided that would indicate it would sound much different from lots of other amps, although it is very low noise--kind of looks like one of Dan's amps, but I don't have time to look it up. The damping factor indicates a low output impedance. However, I would definitely want to see the power specifications and the frequency response specifications. I would also like to see some actual measurements such as those made by BHK Labs or JA at Stereophile because from what is given, I have no idea whether the amp would be suitable for me or not.
Of course, this also shows that we often do in fact have access to measurements beyond manufacturer's specs, as some reviewers supply them. And especially, speaker reviewers' measurements can be quite helpful in differentiating speakers.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
> The trouble is that most rationalists accept that as well. jj said the same thing, for example. So there is nothing peculiar to subjectivists here." <Is he saying people who believe without listening are "rationalists"? That's a rather curious designation. I would call those folks "ignorantists". Different strokes, I guess.
Hi Kerr,You had it right before, "rational subjectivists" show a healthy skepticism for a lot of the tweakier items out there but that trust in their ears and "rational objectivists" believe in measurements but also know that science cannot explain everything.
Pat D is just doing his best to obfuscate the topic. Even when I wrote from a neutral postion labeling both some objectivists & some subjectivists as irrational, he found something to disagree with! But then again that's all Pat D ever does anyway, disagree with anything a subjectivist says.
TG54
"that's all Pat D ever does anyway, disagree with anything a subjectivist says."Of course, you're position is contradictory. You've tried to maintain that I have no fixed opinions, and if that were true, I could never be able to identify subjectivists so as to be able to controvert them. Well, as Aristotle pointed out, once you introduce a contradiction into your reasoning, you can "prove" anything at all, contradictories included.
As well, it cannot possibly be ""all that I "ever" do, as I have to do lots of other things just to survive. I eat, sleep, shower, shop, bank, talk to my wife, clean, wash dishes, listen to music, rehearse and perform music, do vocal exercises, and lots of other things.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
TG1954 - "that's all Pat D ever does anyway, disagree with anything a subjectivist says."Pat D-Cake - It cannot possibly be ""all that I "ever" do, as I have to do lots of other things just to survive. I eat, sleep, shower, shop, bank, talk to my wife, clean, wash dishes, listen to music, rehearse and perform music, do vocal exercises, and lots of other things.
TG1954 - Ok I'll reword this one to: that's all Pat D-Cake ever does on PHP anyway, disagree with anything a subjectivist says. I keep forgetting that you need the obvious explained to you, I'm sorry Pat D-Cake I'll try to dumb down what I say so you'll comprehend it better in the future. I guess I gave you credit for more than the little intelligence you typically display here.
1) ANY component whos sound I speak about is always when used in a system. I realize that NO audio component works by itself, apparently you need that explained to you.
2) Specifications are USUALLY a result of a measurement being taken when speaking about audio specifications. But because there are different types of specifications and you need the obvious explained over & over I say USUALLY because there's also some others like:
a) Maintenance Specifications.
b) Materials Specifications.
c) Operation Specifications.
d) Design Specifications.3) When I speak about something you, Pat D-Cake I'm refering to when you're here on PHP. I personally don't give a horses pa-toot what you do or say elsewhere in your life. In fact the thought of you showering was a lot more info than I needed or cared to hear about.
Hopefully you won't require the blatantly obvious to be explained to you many more times....
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
TG54
"1) ANY component whos sound I speak about is always when used in a system. I realize that NO audio component works by itself, apparently you need that explained to you."No, I don't need that explained to me. Why don't you modify your language to take account of that? Instead, you claim your tube amplifier is "world class" and concretely you take a suggestion it might not work so well with some other speakers as a dastardly slur upon it.
YOu even want to define the amplifier's accuracy by how well it sounds in your system! This deprives the concept of accuracy of any definite meaning, since your tube amp may not so good with other speakers.
TG54
"2) Specifications are USUALLY a result of a measurement being taken when speaking about audio specifications."They may or may not be related to measurements. In any case, they are not the same as measurements as a spec is a performance standard. For example, a distortion spec of .15% states that the distortion under specified conditions will not exceed that, and those conditions are regulated for US advertising. It is quite possible the amp will do better than that. As well, in the US, if an amplifier is claimed to be able to put out X watts continuous power over a frequency range of A-B into a load impedence of Y then it is supposed to be able to do that. Unlike THD, this can often be of some use.
Now, speaker specs often seem not to be based on measurements. A speaker may be said to have a frequency response extending to, say, 30 Hz, but there is no guarantee it will actually have any useful response that low. Now, there are some manufacturers whose LF extension specs seem honest as they come out close to what the measurements done by the NRC (Soundstage), Stereophile, or AIG indicate, but others do not. Sensitivity is another spec--but there is really no standard way of measuring it to which they must adhere, and as well, some manufacturers grossly exaggerate it. Adn unless it is extremely tight, an FR spec really doesn't indicate much about how a speaker will sound.
On the other hand, speaker measurents done by the NRC, Stereophile, and AIG can be quite useful. Frequency response and dispersion measurements can be quite helpful for those who have some idea what they like or don't like.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
TG1954 - ANY component whos sound I speak about is always when used in a system. I realize that NO audio component works by itself, apparently you need that explained to you.Pat D-Cake - No, I don't need that explained to me. Why don't you modify your language to take account of that? Instead, you claim your tube amplifier is "world class" and concretely you take a suggestion it might not work so well with some other speakers as a dastardly slur upon it.
TG1954 - Apparently you DO need that explained to you Pat D-Cake. Otherwise you wouldn't require modifing my language to take account of that, when it's just an obvious fact! You're 100% correct that I know that my amp is "WORLD-CLASS". However your comment that I concretely take the suggestion that it might not work so well with some other speakers as a dastardly slur upon it, is something you simply made up and cannot provide any evidence I've ever said anything like that. Even if it wasn't an SET that fact that it only has 40W/ch would surely reveal to anyone with a real knowledge about audio equipment that the Mastersound will not work with all speakers. Surely you realize Pat D-Cake that any system is only as good as it weakest link. The Mastersound used with the right ancillary components is a "WORLD-CLASS" amp. A QSC on the other hand no matter how good the other components are would never sound like a "WORLD-CLASS" amp! So even though both are used in a system, one can determine how good the individual components are, or haven't you developed that skill as of yet?
==================================================================
Pat D-Cake - You even want to define the amplifier's accuracy by how well it sounds in your system! This deprives the concept of accuracy of any definite meaning, since your tube amp may not so good with other speakers.TG1954 - Once you learn how to deteremine the sound of individual components in the confines of a system you'll see the problem with your statement.
===================================================================
TG1954 - Specifications are USUALLY a result of a measurement being taken when speaking about audio specifications."Pat D-Cake They may or may not be related to measurements. In any case, they are not the same as measurements as a spec is a performance standard. For example, a distortion spec of .15% states that the distortion under specified conditions will not exceed that, and those conditions are regulated for US advertising. It is quite possible the amp will do better than that. As well, in the US, if an amplifier is claimed to be able to put out X watts continuous power over a frequency range of A-B into a load impedence of Y then it is supposed to be able to do that. Unlike THD, this can often be of some use.
TG1954 - I addressed this yesterday Pat D-Cake, I mentioned there are other types of specs, granted I didn't list everyone, but I proved I knew others existed. I've already told you that specifications are USUALLY (that means not always -- so I don't see why you're pointing out the obvious) a result of a measurement being taken when speaking about audio specifications. But because there are different types of specifications and you need the obvious explained over & over I say USUALLY because there's also some others like:
a) Maintenance Specifications.
b) Materials Specifications.
c) Operation Specifications.
d) Design Specifications.If we take your example of: a distortion spec of .15% states that the distortion under specified conditions will not exceed that, while true can also be viewed as a measurement spec as well. Remember I stated: "a measurement is the estimation of a quantity such as distortion, length, excursion, temperature, time etc. Measurements find the ratio of some quantity to a standard quantity of the same type..." thus in your example a measurement of the distortion of an amplifier is the ratio of the actual distortion of the amplifier to a standard of 0% distortion. Measurements are usually given in terms of a real number times a unit of measurement, for example .15%. In this case the .15% distortion is the specification the measurement provided. So it can be both a measurement spec and a performance spec.
This is just you once again attempting to shift the topic from what it is to what you want it to be in an effort to appear correct at all costs!
===================================================================
Pat D-Cake - Now, speaker specs often seem not to be based on measurements. A speaker may be said to have a frequency response extending to, say, 30 Hz, but there is no guarantee it will actually have any useful response that low. Now, there are some manufacturers whose LF extension specs seem honest as they come out close to what the measurements done by the NRC (Soundstage), Stereophile, or AIG indicate, but others do not. Sensitivity is another spec--but there is really no standard way of measuring it to which they must adhere, and as well, some manufacturers grossly exaggerate it. Adn unless it is extremely tight, an FR spec really doesn't indicate much about how a speaker will sound.TG1954 - As usual we disagree. Here's just one spec of a speaker...
Frequency Response: 15-35 kHz, +/- 2 dB, 13 Hz-100 kHz -6 dB, (+/- 1dB at mid band). To me this is a measurement Pat D-Cake. It measures against DC to whatever upper limit one choices to use. Just because there's no standard accepted measurement for this doesn't mean it isn't a measurement. This also serves to fortify my postion that today's ACCEPTED measurements don't correlate with what we hear, because there is no accpted standard in many cases, this cases the measurements and the specification they provide to be useless to us! Personally I think speakers should be measured against 0 - 100Khz. It also measures the deviation from flat frequency response +/- 2 dB when 15-35Khz is the standard and -6 dB when 13-100Khz is the standard. I agree with you that a (not an) FR spec really doesn't indicate much about how a speaker will sound. But that just further illuminates my statement as being true.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
Sorry, the specification is a standard, not a measurement. Someone might formulate a specification with a knowledge of measurements that were done, or it might just be advertising copy. It is itself a standard. Now, if someone measures the speaker, they could see whether it meets or exceeds the specification or not.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/specification
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat D-Cake,I can see we've reached the point where you'll continue on desperately needing to be correct and striving to have the last word. When you get like this there's no possible way to have an intelligent conversation with you. You're next move after this is to start continually twisting the truth and then outright ly#*@. So I'm going to stop wasting my time on this subject with you. As I've stated numerous times you have absolutely NOTHING of value to offer me. So go ahead, have the last word, thump your chest like an ape and feel like you've won the arguement, but at the very least don't lie to yourself. Simply realize you've won nothing, but have succeeded in wearing me down. It's a waste of my time talking with you any further and I have better things to do than repeat the same thing over & over again....
Pat D-Cake, Pat D-Cake faker man,
Create an excuse as fast as you can.
Roll it, pat it, mark it with a B (for Bullsh!t)
Post on PHP for Polly and thee.Bye, bye either make like nature & hide or go waste someone else's time.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
AS
"Multichannel is just stereo with more channels. It essentially works the same way. It still is an attempt at creating an aural illusion and it is still limited to a singular perspective.So the goal remains the same, unless it is being missused of course."Well, not according to Wes Philips:
"It didn't matter how much we squirmed or moved our heads, the sound was spread evenly across the front of the room, and the spatial cues were coming not from behind us, but from all around us. And, it didn't seem to matter where we were sitting, the soundstage remain centered and huge, even well away from the sweet spot."
http://www.onhifi.com/features/20010615.htm
One could certainly say that this is creating an "aural illusion" but then mono does that, too. I've heard some pretty remarkable stereo: for example, the Ethera Vitae speakers project a good stereo image even if you stand further left or right than the speakers are--I wouldn't say it didn't change, though. But Wes Philips description does not read like "stereo with more channels," and the hardware and software required doesn't sound like it, either. No, it doesn't seem to work just like stereo.
You also don't seem to have shown why any of the goals KlausR mentioned are meaningless, either, as it would seem one could work towards them.
Besides, if I put on Eric Salzman's "The Nude Paper Sermon" (Nonesuch H-71231), "the record is not a reproduction of anything at all but is the work itself. Like a print or film it has been created to be duplicated in multiple copies." (From the record jacket).
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
> > AS
"Multichannel is just stereo with more channels. It essentially works the same way. It still is an attempt at creating an aural illusion and it is still limited to a singular perspective.So the goal remains the same, unless it is being missused of course."> Well, not according to Wes Philips:
"It didn't matter how much we squirmed or moved our heads, the sound was spread evenly across the front of the room, and the spatial cues were coming not from behind us, but from all around us. And, it didn't seem to matter where we were sitting, the soundstage remain centered and huge, even well away from the sweet spot."
http://www.onhifi.com/features/20010615.htm
Just because the sweet spot is wide doesn't mean the basic design goals are totally different from conventional multi-channel/stereo. It's still an aural illusion and it is still from a single perspective.
> One could certainly say that this is creating an "aural illusion" but then mono does that, too. I've heard some pretty remarkable stereo: for example, the Ethera Vitae speakers project a good stereo image even if you stand further left or right than the speakers are--I wouldn't say it didn't change, though. But Wes Philips description does not read like "stereo with more channels," and the hardware and software required doesn't sound like it, either. No, it doesn't seem to work just like stereo.
that is your opinion and you are entitled to it even though you are plainly wrong.
> You also don't seem to have shown why any of the goals KlausR mentioned are meaningless, either, as it would seem one could work towards them.
Sure I did. I suggest you reread my post on the matter.
> "Besides, if I put on Eric Salzman's "The Nude Paper Sermon" (Nonesuch H-71231), "the record is not a reproduction of anything at all but is the work itself. Like a print or film it has been created to be duplicated in multiple copies." (From the record jacket)."
There are any number of studio recordings that make no attempt to create an illusion of an original *live acoustic* event in playback. what is your point?
AS
"There are any number of studio recordings that make no attempt to create an illusion of an original *live acoustic* event in playback. what is your point?"I'll deal with this first. When one plays a recording such as Salzman's Nude Paper Sermon, there is, as you say, "no attempt to create an illusion of an original *live acoustic* event in playback." That is part of the point, as each time I or someone else plays The Nude Paper Sermon, it is not an illusion of anything. There is no original performance to reproduce. I should have thought you would have noticed that this is not compatible with your own statement of the goal of recording and playback, which I will quote more fully.
AS
"It is not a meaningful goal since stereo or even multi-channel recording and playback are not designed to do that. Again they are designed to create an "illusion" of an original event "from a single perspective."If I understand Salzman's conception correctly, when I play The Nude Paper Sermon that is a performance of the work--the only type of performance possible for it. So you own conception of the goal of stereo recording and playback is only partially applicable since it doesn't cover all the cases.
You still try to contend that the system jj developed at AT & T is basiclly just stereo.
AS
"Just because the sweet spot is wide doesn't mean the basic design goals are totally different from conventional multi-channel/stereo. It's still an aural illusion and it is still from a single perspective."That covers some cases but not all, by any means.
You are attempting to define stereo and multi-channel simply by the goal to be attained--goals which are quite obviously different, BTW, even though you try to cover them under the common terms of "creating an aural illusion," since stereo is more limited in what it can accomplish than is multi-channel. You admit as much by saying they are "not totally different," but that is also to adimit that they are partially different. But if you define solely by using a generalized goal, then a bicycle, automobile, helicopter, fixed wing aircraft, and rocket ship are basically the same because they can move people from one place to another!
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
> Now in all these different recording studios different people with different ears use different gear resulting, quite obviously, in different errors being made. How can one hope to compensate for all those different errors? <I'm actually looking into equalization as we speak.
> And what about those recordings that are actually accurate to the event? <
Such as? :)
There are recording engineers who use direct mike feed to compare the actual event directly to what comes out of the speakers. They then choose those speakers/gear that come closest. Recordings from such engineers look like good candidates for "accurate to the event".Names and examples I don't have, but there are pro-forums for that.
Klaus,While agreeing with your general point--that the notion of assembling a system that's consistently true to the original event makes no sense--I would take it even further. To me, "purist" recordings are often the LEAST transparent in that, in a way I can't quite explain, the make me even more aware of the positions and characteristics of the microphones. Somehow, putting a two-mic array separated, like ears, by a few inches at a position where someone might sit just doesn't sound the same as if you were sitting in that same location. Maybe it's the fact that there are now two sets of "ears" involved--yours and the mics--along, maybe, with the fact that mics and ears have quite different characteristics. In any case, the fact remains that in my experience the recordings that come closest to "live" are those that do the most convincing job of faking it (specifically, these are usually relatively simple, but nonetheless multi-mic'ed--setups).
Jim
I think that once people are convinced that the best you can get at home is a bad copy of the event, for plenty of reasons, and that the absolute sound is a goal that cannot be reached, things will be much easier for those people. It certainly made things easier for me!Do serious audiophiles use EQ? If not, why not? Why do they prefer a system with a fixed sonic characteristic whereas flexibility is what is required?
German public broadcast corporations usually have quite tough technical criteria for pre-selecting their speakers. The selected speakers are then subjected to listening tests, by trained listeners, using selected program material such as EBU SQAM CD. Neutrality and faithfulness are most important. I would guess that speakers that get past these tests are reasonable candidates for recording studios. Klein+Hummel and Geithain are speakers that successfully get past these tests. Look out for recording studios that use either and chances might be great that the recordings are accurate to the event.
TG,After watching so many of these posts, please allow me to offer that the following statement is a strawman in the great subjectivist/objectivist debate:
'If they did then the component that measured best would always sound the best.'
Measurements can predict the performance of audio equipment, but cannot predict what people SUBJECTIVELY prefer.
Personal preference rules in choosing equipment. There is no best 'one size fits all' in audio, so there will never be a measurement that can determine 'best' for everyone. Some like a warmer mellow sound, others in your face drama, and still others a more analytical presentation.
If you know what you like, measured performance can provide guidelines that can narrow your search. If you look at enough measurements, and you listen to enough equipment, patterns emerge that can help you predict how something will sound, but not if you will like it.
Hi Lynn,You stated: Measurements can predict the performance of audio equipment, but cannot predict what people SUBJECTIVELY prefer.
I believe that measurements can determine certain aspects of the performance of a given piece of audio equipment. But what I don't believe is that today's accepted audio measurements reveal how realistically an amplifier will replicate the original live acoustic event. What I mean by this is not some vague subjective preference such as one person prefering a warmer mellow sound, another prefering in your face drama, or another prefering a more analytical presentation. That's all subjective preferences!
What I'm talking about is the inability to determine via todays accepted audio measurements, which amplifier will sound the most like a specific instrument, played in a specific place. For Example: If I played (and recorded) my guitar in my audio room, there's absolutely no way reading any of today's accepted audio measurements would reveal to me which amplifier would replicate that specific event the most accurately. Fact is often times it's the amplifier that measures worst that replicates the original event the most accurately. "If" we describe most accurate as sounding the most like the original event did.
I believe a day will come when scientists and/or audio manufacturers will discover which traits in live music the human ear/brain uses to determine it's live and not recorded music. As I stated in my original post these are the measurements that will correlate with what we hear! These are the measurements that once discovered and implemented, rational subjectivists can embrace and use. These are the measurements that will help to close the gap between the rational subjectivists and rational objectivists who honestly want to know the truth about whats actually happening in audio.
Of course it's quite possible and even likely that some may choose to use their subjective preference of a warmer mellow sound, in your face drama, or a more analytical presentation. Over these measurements. It's equally possible that diehard believers in today's accepted audio measurements will choose to use them as their standard of accuracy and there's certainly nothing wrong with anyone choosing to use either of those methods. BUT if replicating the original acoustic event as accurately as possible as heard by the human ear/brain is your goal as it is mine, then we'll need to wait until either scientists or audio manufacturers discover which traits in live music the human ear/brain uses to determine it's live and not recorded music. Till then I'll have to trust my own human ear/brain to determine which audio components fulfill those needs for me.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
--
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
It doesn't matter what side of the fence you are on. We can't get away from the fact we hear with our brains not our ears. We may never get a set of measurements that completely corelates with what we "hear".
Robert,You stated that we can't get away from the fact we hear with our brains not our ears. That's why I always say ear/brain when refering to how we hear. I agree that we may never get a set of measurements that completely corelates with what we "hear", but certainly hope that scientists or audio manufacturers will attempt to discover what traits about live music the ear/brain uses to determine it's live and not recorded.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
From Robert Hamel.
> > "It doesn't matter what side of the fence you are on. We can't get away from the fact we hear with our brains not our ears. We may never get a set of measurements that completely corelates with what we "hear". < <From thetubeguy
> > "For Example: I believe it's quite apparent that today's accepted audio measurements do NOT correlate with what we hear." < <From KlausR.
> > "Sorry, but that's rubbish. Human hearing responds to sound pressure." < <No wonder we cannot make progress if we have people like KlausR calling what thetubeguy and Robert Hamel said as "Rubbish". If so called intelligent people cannot realise that sound does NOT stop at the "ear drum" (i.e. Simply picking up air pressure waves like the diaphragm of a microphone) then we will never make progress !!
"Sound Information" is what is carried through the entire hearing mechanism to be eventually identified by the 'working memory' - which, from it's store of acquired information over many years, it then attempts to create a 'sound picture' to present to the brain.In an earlier 'thread' about the Clever Little Clock, someone replied that "if the Clever Little Clock is not affecting the audio signal going through the equipment and is not affecting the acoustic air pressures in the room, then it cannot be doing anything !!"
Obviously, in this person's mind, there is no living, breathing, coughing, sneezing, reacting human being anywhere in his equation !! In this person's mind there is only the audio signal and the room's acoustic air pressure waves. In KlausR's mind there is, yes, a human being, but KlausR's human being just has passive ear drums - which are merely physically reacting to whatever air pressure waves reach them. Even Jim Austin acknowledges that there is a human being involved, and Jim also acknowledges that there could be changes taking place to the 'sound information' inside the head but Jim INSISTS that these changes, inside the head, MUST ONLY occur because of "suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, mood changes, audio faith healing or effective marketing" whereas I strongly suggest that changes to the 'sound information' inside the head are primarily because of external influences. External influences which we are programmed by Nature to take notice of. I.e. What is going on in our environment.I am going to be outrageously simplistic - not to insult people's intelligence but merely to make a point !!
If the working memory has never known what middle C on the piano sounds like, then it cannot identify if someone hits, by mistake, the note next to middle C (i.e. D). If the working memory knows what middle C on the piano sounds like, then it will 'cringe' if someone accidentally hits the D note instead of middle C. In other words, it is what the 'working memory' identifies which is the SOUND. What is happening with the working memory has NOTHING whatsoever to do with "suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, mood changes, or effective marketing" !!! It happens - no con man - no charlatan involved !!Again, simplistically. Say there is information on a CD of Wagner's Tannhauser - and this information contains all the information to do with height information, depth, width, instrument separation and so on. I will use a technique I have used often to illustrate what I mean. Say, there is the information ABC through to XYZ (containing all the information I have just described) on the CD and this information ABC through to XYZ is handled perfectly adequately by the audio system and is presented into the room, quite adequately by the loudspeakers. And, this (now acoustic) information ABC through to XYZ reaches the human ear drum.
This seems to be what KlausR and, (it seems), many other people believe is THE SOUND.
Supposing the information ABC through to XYZ is also handled perfectly OK by the outer ear, the middle and the inner ear and reaches the start of the auditory nerve STILL intact as information ABC through to XYZ. But, supposing now that this information, as it is being transported along the auditory nerve by electro chemicals (positive and negative ions), is 'interferred with' by other (active in the brain) chemicals and only the information ABC through to MNO actually reaches the working memory intact - then THAT information ABC through to MNO is THE SOUND - is now the actual the information which the working memory has to work with - to create a 'sound picture' from !!! It is NO LONGER the original information ABC through to XYZ which was there at the beginning of the journey.
In other words, there is so much more going on regarding what we all recognise as SOUND.
Yes, there could quite easily be enough information for the working memory to identify the music as Wagner's Tannhauser but there may not be sufficient information remaining to identify height, depth, width and instrument separation etc !!!Change the conditions which are causing these (active in the brain) chemicals so that they do not have such an adverse effect on the electro chemicals transporting the information along the auditory nerve, you allow more of the remaining MNO through to XYZ information to reach the working memory, which in turn can then identify more of the height, depth, width and separation of instruments etc information - to create an even BETTER 'sound picture' !!
Co-inciding with people's own experiences yet ????
Now, such as Jim Austin would agree that, yes, there could be active chemicals, in the brain, which can interfere with the electro-chemicals carrying the 'sound' information but he is adamant that these 'active chemicals' can ONLY be created by 'suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, mood changes, audio faith healing or effective marketing" !! Such an argument, if people have had it suggested to them that certain things COULD improve the sound, appears quite feasible. It is when people are NOT aware that any changes in the sound could or should take place, have NOT had it suggested to them, are NOT expecting something to happen is where the difficulty is in believing that it can ONLY be "suggestion etc" at work !! If nothing had been suggested, if nothing was expected to happen, then none of these 'active chemicals', surely, would have been produced ? That is where the explanation regarding "suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, mood changes, effective marketing" falls down. And, if you are without an adequate explanation for something you have observed or the explanation you had before no longer holds water, then you have to SEARCH for another explanation !!
On the subject of a "special lacquer" Jim Austin said that he "would be stunned" if he heard a lacquer, applied to a speaker cabinet, improve the sound !! So, if Jim (or anyone else) after applying a certain lacquer suddenly HEARD the information regarding height, depth, width, separation of instruments when he definitely was NOT expecting it, then the explanation cannot possibly be because of "suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, mood changes, audio faith healing, effective marketing - or the new one which Jim has come up with i.e "Virgin piss" !!!!!!
All the usual arguments regarding circuit design, electronic components, technical this, technical that - all apply. Nothing here has changed. Concerns around acoustic this and acoustic that - all apply. The question is what percentage of importance are we going to place on what ?
If it is better and better 'sound' you are looking for, greater and greater pleasure from listening to music, then you have to consider many possibilities - and the narrow, blinkered "we MUST have measurements as proof, or we MUST have double blind trials as proof, it MUST be 'peer group reviewed' before it can even be considered is far too limiting.
Experimentation is the best way forward and it does not have to be expensive either, it can actually be done at no cost !!
Regards,
May Belt.
Anyone else spotting a trend here? Something really tweeks people.
What about 'snake oil' ? I haven't seen any of that around lately. ;-)
You bring up a particular proposition about that all properly designed amplifiers sound the same operated within their design limits. This has been attributed to Tom Nousaine and Peter Aczel. For the purposes of discussing the proposition, the author is irrelevant, as are your categorizations of rational and unrational (which doesn't seem to be a real word--let me suggest irrational or perhaps nonrational, but they are irrelevant as well).As has been more or less pointed out in previous discussions of said contention, it is rather vague as to what it entails. First of all, there is the question of what a proper design is, and this involves an evaluation, a decision as to what characteristics are desired. In this case, the authors seem to want the amps to be both technically accurate and sound the same. But this is a decision, and someone else may have a different notion of what an amplifier should do (and not all such expectations are realistic). It's not much use arguing over the phrase, "properly designed" without knowing what the parties mean by it, as such discussion is likely to generate more heat than light.
In Peter Aczel's case, one may suppose he further explicitates what sort of characteristics he expects in an amplifier.
"As I have pointed out innumerable times, a properly designed amplifier has no sound of its own. It is impossible for two amplifiers to sound different at matched levels if each has high input impedance, low output impedance, flat frequency response, low distortion, low noise floor, and is not clipped. "
http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=31&blogId=1
Now one may agree or disagree, but simply expressing amazement hardly constitutes a refutation. After all, his proposition simply states a null hypothesis, and if it's incorrect
Now, I should point out that typical tube amps with an output impedances well over 1 ohm (I've seen measurements of one with an output impedance of over 10 ohms!) does not meet two of those requirements: the output impedance is not low and the frequency response into the varying impedance smost speaker loads would not be very flat--one might prefer that with some speakers, BTW. I can point out that Peter Aczel never says you can't get good sound using tube equipment.
TG54
"I and I believe most other rational subjectivists believe there should be and there are measureable, verifiable scientific reasons for EVERYTHING we hear. To those of us who hold these beliefs know the reality is today's accepted audio measurements don't correlate sufficiently with what we hear! For Example: Measuring THD reveals as much about how well that amp replicates music, as measuring my weight reveals what the color of my eyes are! Both of these measurements are useful, but neither tells us what we really want to know."First of all, it is the system which replicates music, not an amplifier and how well it does so depends on many factors. And amplifier is just part of the system. As well, I think it is not realistic to expect a stereo system to consistently replicate a live performance. It may well be that certain speakers sound better with tube amps, and some speaker designers make the speakers with tube amps in mind.
Now, of course measuring the THD will not determine how the system sounds, let alone whether it will replicate a live performance. What the THD measurements (if properly weighted--and there are several systems, ask Earl Geddes) usually indicate is that the THD is not high enough to be very audible, if audible at all. Same with noise levels, as many amplifiers have noise low enough to be inaudible in normal listening unless one has very sensitive speakers. One of the chief things that may differentiate the sound of amplifiers is their frequency response into a speaker load. You will find that Stereophile and Soundstage measure the FR into a standard simulated speaker load to give some idea as to the magnitude of the variation from flat.
The posting rules give some excellent suggestions for carrying on good discussions.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat,Try having some fun will you? It must be horrible waiting to be able to disagree with something I post. I cannot believe how obsessed you are with everything I say. I've noticed no matter what I say, you'll disagree with it. Here's an excellent example. Back on March 9th you responded to my of: "There are measurements that correlate to everything we hear in audio components be it amps, wires, etc. However the typical measurements used today in audio don’t correlate with what we hear."
You Pat first responded with: "The trouble is that most rationalists accept that as well. jj said the same thing, for example. So there is nothing peculiar to subjectivists here." So first you agreed and stated Real JJ agreed with it and said that most rationalists accept that as well.
Yet now you claim: "KlausR is right. He is much more knowledgeable than I am, so if what he and I say seem to conflict, it much safer to follow him." So now you support Klaus's diagreement with the statement!
So you first support Real JJ's belief that most rationalists accept my statement as being correct AND yet you also support Klaus's objection to my statement! Talk about being 2-faced and having no real postion on the issue! You are truly an audio politician Pat. Now you know why I call you that. You have no real postion you believe, you just disagree with everything I say and find some authority fiqure to back up your disagreement.
You and POLLYinFLA a certainly two of a kind. Both of you are obsessed with everything I say. Even when I leave you two alone you start up more communicatiions with me. Sadly it's you two who are obsessed, not me... Hey isn't that another thing I said you do, but you denied? Putting your traits on others? What a sad, bitter man. Get a real stereo and perhaps you'll finally enjoy this hobby.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
Do you have anything to say about:-typical magazine results (i.e., THD) vs. ones better suited to evaluate audiblity (i.e., a distortion graph and weighting)? NO.
--measuring one thing doesn't indicate another thing nor indicate the whole? NO
--attributing a characteristic belonging to a whole to a part? NO.
--technical measurements vs. preference? NO.
--name calling? NO.
When you stop worrying about vague generalities such as those you mention you might learn something. You will have to get more specific before you can show there is a contradiction. What are "typical measurements" as opposed to "today's accepted audio measurements?" It seems we'll never find out from you. So you haven't shown any contradiction because you haven't shown the same thing is affirmed and denied.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat,You have NOTHING of value to offer me. I suppose you might actually believe your post was "thoughtful" but what I see is:
1) You agree and disagree with the same statement I make depending on how you feel at that particular time. As you apparently have no firm postion on the subject, how can I trust you mean anything you say? You'll probably contradict yourself like you just did, previously.
2) You berate me and claim I'm obessed with you an POLLYinFLA. So I decide to leave you two alone to show you I'm not obsessed, but then you two start posting to me! It seems quite clear that it's you two who are the obsessed ones.
3) You place your defective traits on me by claiming I'm obessed with you and Polly when the reality is now plain to see that it's you & Polly that are obssesed with me and what I believe, not the other way around.
You offer NOTHING of value to me. I've found through past communications with you to be a waste of my time. I'm attempting to have serious discussion but you just want to disagree and criticise everything and anything I say. I've decided my best course of action will be to just let you go on your merry way. I honestly won't miss your audio politics one iota. Now I expect act in the typical Pat D-Cake manner, make sure you have the last word and then please do us both a favor and make like nature and hide...
You still haven't addressed anything in my carefully thought out post above.TG54
"I'm attempting to have serious discussion but you just want to disagree and criticise everything and anything I say."That that is an exaggeration, Tubey. But disagreements, criticism and misunderstandings happen in serious discussions, Tubey! Sorry you don't understand that.
You have wanted to know how to facilate discussions on this forums. I have suggested that the Rules are a good place to *start*. Here are a couple of quotes.
"No flames, personal attacks or contentious off-topic comments: The idea is to make this a pleasant environment to discuss audio, not a schoolyard, or name-calling and rock-throwing festival."
"Allow for the possibility of misunderstandings, and be patient if someone asks for an explanation of what seems to be obvious."
BTW, you can't take vague statements using differing terminology and show they are contradictory. In particular, you have to give some specific content to vague adjectives like "typical" or "accepted." When I do so and discuss a particular measurement you yourself bring up, you object and complain that I "criticise" or even "disagree" with you!
I have spent a great deal of thought and effort into explaining to you how to pose more meaningful questions and make more meaningful statements. But you don't seem to learn.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat D,I don't consider your post to be well thought out. Personally I think you give yourself way to much credit! After reading many of your posts over these last couple of years I've come to consider you to be a parrot. It seems to me that you don't really have a belief system of your own, instead you simply take on the beliefs of the most prominent or intelligent (in your opinion) objectivist who's posting in PHP. Before it was Real JJ and now it appears to be Klaus who dictates what your beliefs are. It doesn't take a lot of thought to parrot the beliefs of others Pat.
As far as your comment is concerned, I most certainly understand that disagreements, criticism and misunderstandings happen in serious discussions, Pat D-Cake! I'm sorry you feel the need to lower yourself and make statements that aren't true in order to make your postion appear stronger than it is. Truely this is just your method of berating me which you claim you don't do! I've noticed you like to berate me like this, but I guess we all have our faults.
The problem with attempting to try and intelligently talk with you, is you have no real opinions of your own, instead you parrot the objectivist that you believe is making the most intelligent arguement at that time, even if that means contradicting something you said just a few days earlier. That's precisely why you agreed then later disagreed with the statement I made. You can attempt to obscure the truth by claiming you simply have had more time to think about my formulation. The truth is in the end you just first parroted Real JJ and now you're parroting Klaus. That sure takes a lot of thinking huh, Pat D-Cake? On 3/09/07 you called on Real JJ as your backup and used what he said, then 21 days later on 3/30/07 you called on Klaus as your backup and used what he said. I guess this is why you and POLLYinFLA get along so well. You both act like birdbrains.
An excellent example of your childish behavior is to criticise my behavior when you act the same way! For Example you stated: "No flames, personal attacks or contentious off-topic comments: The idea is to make this a pleasant environment to discuss audio, not a schoolyard, or name-calling and rock-throwing festival." But then call me tubey. My name is thetubeguy1954, not tubey! Tubey is no less name calling on your part than Pat D-Cake is on mine. But I guess in that warped parrot-mind you feel it's ok for you to call me names, but not ok when I do the same to you, huh? Or you berate me by claiming I don't understand that disagreements, criticism and misunderstandings happen in serious discussions. Pat D-Cake you are a hypocrite at it's finest!
Now if you're too thick to understand that today's accepted measurements are the ones that are typically being used, then that's all the proof I need to realize I simply cannot have an intelligent conversation with you. You're just a waste of my time. Or do you honestly believe today's accepted audio measurements are the ones that are typically not used? Can you imagine that? One scientist looks at another and says "These are today's accepted audio measurements, but typically we don't use them! Typically we use other non-accepted measurements!" Are you really that uneducated? You attempt to seem intelligent with your word semantics but all you do is illuminate to everyone here that your true goal is just obfuscate the topics raised.
The funniest thing about you is how obsessed you are with me and then attempt to convince everyone I'm obsessed with you. You simply cannot refrain from responding to my posts, or having the last word everytime I post. The ONLY baggage I carry is having to deal with a moron like you, even when I'm attempting to raise a topic from a neutral postion, by calling both objectivists & subjectivists unrational or irrational as you prefer. Pat D-Cake you, POLLYinFLA, Clifff and a few others are precisely the irrational objectivists that keep this forum from being what it could be. To me you're a joke with absolutely NOTHING of value to offer anyone here who attempts to have an intelligent conversation. If you're NOT obsessed with me why are you unable to ignore my posts?
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
Quit whining. I don't much mind that you make up your own nickname for me which is vaguely pejorative. I think anyone around can see it just represents your angry spleen. Tubey, on the other hand, is simply a diminutive, which implies nothing pejorative.TG54
"to raise a topic from a neutral postion, by calling both objectivists & subjectivists unrational or irrational as you prefer."Ummm . . . engaging in such name-calling does not conduce to reasonable discussion. Besides, such prejoratives not only don't solve anything, they raise all sort of questions as to just what you mean and how to identify those belonging to each category and you fail to specify. Moreover, it's simply argumentem ad hominem and fail to provide any way of answering any audio questions.
TG54
"Or do you honestly believe today's accepted audio measurements are the ones that are typically not used? Can you imagine that? One scientist looks at another and says "These are today's accepted audio measurements, but typically we don't use them! Typically we use other non-accepted measurements!" "Actually, I have asked for a list of examples of what you think "today's accepted audio measurements" are, at least some examples. I expect sensible scientists would do the same before they attempted to evaluate them. It seems you take this vague, undefined set of words to be meaningful. I've just been hoping you would get down to specifics as discussion went on, a natural enough expectation. Since you have consistently failed to do so, I've asked you to provide examples, to tell us what you mean instead of just giving us a tautology, but so far you haven't mentioned anything but THD, which I did comment on.
"It is a capital mistake to theorize in advance of the facts."----Sherlock Holmes in The Second Stain.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat D-Cake,I believe even you're intelligent enough to realize whether a nickname is good or bad is not up to the person creating the nickname, but that decision lies with the person receiving it! Take the nickname Wop used for Italians for instance. All it stands for is ( W ith O ut P apers) yet to my father who was born in Sicily it's extremely offensive, to me it's not. See Pat D-Cake? Same word yet one person considers it a bad nickname while another person doesn't consider it a bad nickname.
So you cannot decide Tubey is a good nickname and Pat D-Cake is a bad one, sorry. That said you can call me Tubey or whatever else you like. I'm not so easily offended or angered as you and POLLYinFLA like to insinuate. I'm only attempting to show you, you cannot or at least should not complain about something, you yourself do.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
I pointed out that you engaged in name-calling, using terms like "irrational objectivists," "irrational subjectivists," and "lunatic fringe objectivists." I have pointed out that engaging in such name calling is not conducive to rational conversation about facilating discussion.My wife laughed when I told her you compared this to be called "tubey," which is simply a diminutive of your moniker.
For a long time, you have called me by a childish nickname, but I have not complained about it. After all, it is counterproductive because everyone can easily see that you are venting your spleen. You are the one who has complained about being called "tubey," but when you call me by a nickname, you thereby give permission for me to call you by a nickname, and "tubey" is quite inocuous. It's like using a given name.
TG54
"I believe even you're intelligent enough to realize whether a nickname is good or bad is not up to the person creating the nickname, but that decision lies with the person receiving it!"Who says? To leave this solely up to the judgment of the recipient doesn't work: it's a defective principle. Some people are too sensitive and it's open to abuse. For example, an acquaintance politely complimented a colleague on her dress and she filed a sexual harrassment complaint. He was told to attend a sensitivity session. On the other hand, Your father had a good reason to be offended. Colored people have a good reason for objecting to being called the N-word.
In analogous matter, you feel your are insulted by the statement that you think you can hear differences between your different interconnects and speaker cables but have not proved you can. Now, I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's true that you have not proved you can.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat D-Cake,As usual when you cannot outright when a debate with me you resort to twisting reality into your warped view of it. I guess I should expect it by now. So let's look through you're twisting of the truth into what you want it to be, shall we?
===================================================================
Pat D-Cake: I pointed out that you engaged in name-calling, using terms like "irrational objectivists," "irrational subjectivists," and "lunatic fringe objectivists." I have pointed out that engaging in such name calling is not conducive to rational conversation about facilating discussion.TG1954: Just calling it like I see it Pat D-Cake IMHO you're a completely irrational, lunatic-fringe objectivist who cannot think for himself and simply follows what & who you believe is the most intelligently posting objectivist at any given time. It used to be Real JJ, now it appears to be Klaus. Now you can whine about that all you want to but that's my honest opinion of you, period! To me you try to come off as this highly intelligent philosopher and great debater. But the nature of your posts illustrates perfectly you usually resort obfuscation in an effort to obscure the truth, and then hijack the thread to a path you want the arguement to take. This is precisely the type of thing a lunatic-fringe, irrational objectivist would do! This should be the motto for you, Polly and those who cling to your misguided beliefs: "If you can't dazzle them with brillance, baffle them with bullshit."
==================================================================
Pat D-Cake: My wife laughed when I told her you compared this to be called "tubey," which is simply a diminutive of your moniker.TG1954: Pat D-Cake do you honestly think I gave a rat's ass what your wife thinks? Did you know that a nickname is a short, clever, cute, derogatory or otherwise substitute name for a person or thing's real name. A nickname is sometimes considered desirable, symbolising a form of acceptance, but can often be a form of ridicule. "Pat D-Cake" is simply a augmentative of your moniker too! Does your wife pick out your audio equipment and hears night & day differences in her deaf ear as well? I suppose now you can go home and tell your wife that big, mean subjectivist called me lunatic-fringe, irrational objectivist! My wife and I also laugh about you and your lame attempts at always being correct and desperately needing to have the last word too. So what does that mean?
===================================================================
Pat D-Cake: For a long time, you have called me by a childish nickname, but I have not complained about it. After all, it is counterproductive because everyone can easily see that you are venting your spleen.TG1954: Yeah and you're two-faced and talk out your ass, now what? For a long time you've questioned my intelligence, criticed my grammer etc. One is no worse than the other. I call you by childish names because you act like a child. If you continue to act like a child that's how I'll continue to treat you. You're obsessed with me and the need to comment about almost everything I post. You then take your obsession and try to say it's me who's obsessed, when it's clearly YOU & POLLY who are obsessed with me. Besides this you constantly twist the truth, and do almost everything except act like a rational man. I simply have no respect for you or your opinions. Notice how I treat Tom Danley and Jneutron? They're both objectivists who disagree with me, but they act like adults not children, like you and polly do. Hence I don't call them names and communicate intelligently with them. Anything you get you deserve Pat D-Cake. You want different results? Act differently, but I think you're as incapable of acting differently as you're incapable from refraining to have the last word all the time!
===================================================================
Pat D-Cake: You are the one who has complained about being called "tubey," but when you call me by a nickname, you thereby give permission for me to call you by a nickname, and "tubey" is quite inocuous. It's like using a given name.TG1954: GOD you're so lame. Don't you the difference between complaining and talking about a topic, do you? I specifically stated: "That said you can call me Tubey or whatever else you like. I'm not so easily offended or angered as you and POLLYinFLA like to insinuate. I'm only attempting to show you, you cannot or at least should not complain about something, you yourself do." That's not complaining, what you do is whining and complaining. What I did was explain my POV on a different topic you raised within a thread and then told you do what you will. Now go home and cry to your wife about that too!
==================================================================
TG1954 - "I believe even you're intelligent enough to realize whether a nickname is good or bad is not up to the person creating the nickname, but that decision lies with the person receiving it!"Pat D-Cake Who says? To leave this solely up to the judgment of the recipient doesn't work: it's a defective principle. Some people are too sensitive and it's open to abuse.
TG1954 - Who says? I and just about every other rational, intelligent person. It's your judgement that's defective, not my statement. Try walking into a group of African-Americans and shout out the N-word. Now when they get angry tell them they're too senstive! Yet they commonly use that same word amongst themselves. So it should be readily apparent that whether a nickname is good or bad is not up to the person creating the nickname, but that decision lies with the person receiving it! Or take the previous example I gave you and go into a Little Italy and shout out WOP! Then tell them they're too sensitive too. As I told you before All it stands for is (Without Papers) yet to my father who was born in Sicily it's extremely offensive, to me it's not. Besides who are you to determine who's being too sensitive and who isn't?
===================================================================
Pat D-Cake: For example, an acquaintance politely complimented a colleague on her dress and she filed a sexual harrassment complaint. He was told to attend a sensitivity session. On the other hand, Your father had a good reason to be offended. Colored people have a good reason for objecting to being called the N-word.TG1954: Once again who the hell is Pat D-Cake to decide who is and isn't too sensitive? The very fact that you're acquaintance had to take a sensitivity class shows most rational, intelligent people agree with my statement. Even you agree that my father had a good reason to be offended. Why isn't my father being too sensitive when I or some of his older brothers aren't offended? Or what about african-americans ("colored people" is actually quite offensive to most african-americans these days Pat D-Cake) Why do believe they have a good reason for objecting to being called the N-word, especially when they use it quite a bit of the time themselves? Obviously it cannot be just the N-word itself that's offensive to them, otherwise african-americans would be offened when other african-americans used the N-word. Why aren't they just being too sensitive? So you see this illustrates my point that it is NOT up to the person creating the nickname, but that decision lies with the person receiving it to deteremine if it's good or bad.
=================================================================
Pat D-Cake: In analogous matter, you feel your are insulted by the statement that you think you can hear differences between your different interconnects and speaker cables but have not proved you can. Now, I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's true that you have not proved you can.TG1954: Pat D-Cake you're so desperate to appear correct at all costs you're now comparing apples to oranges. This analogy isn't appropriate. Name calling and disagreeing with someone's opinion are completely seperate and different issues! This comes from a man who claims he knows how to intelligent debate/discuss/argue a POV? It's just not even worth addressing it's such an assinine anology.
I will address this though: I did originally find it insulting that you wouldn't accept my word. In my mind that's no different than insinuating I'm lying. That's said I've since learned you're one of the quite vocal, minority of irrational, lunatic-fringe objectivists here at PHP. Up till then I'd never actually met anyone who held such distorted views like you do and then defended them so vehemently. Add to that your obsession with almost everything I say, your need to always be correct (even when you're wrong) and your inability to refrain from having the last word, and now what I once found insulting I now find to be laughable.
I know you want and need to believe that I cannot nor have I proven I can hear differences between your different interconnects and speaker cables. You have to believe that or else you'd be admitting that you deliberately prevent your system from sounding it's best by using that 16 AWG Canadian Tire Corporation Speaker Wire, about 19 feet for the left channel. 12 AWG Angstrom cable , about 23 feet for the right channel, various interconnects, some freebies, some from Radio Shack or Walmart. I've proven more than once I can detect differences in wires, I'm sorry you feel differently, but that's your loss as evidenced by what you use for wires. It's true that I have proved I can and NOTHING you say will change that fact!
I can see that once again we've reached the point where you'll continue on desperately needing to be correct and striving to have the last word. When you get like this there's no possible way to have an intelligent conversation with you. You're next move after this is to start continually twisting the truth and then move on to outright ly#*@, which you'll once again deny doing, but which has been proven more than once to be true. So I'm going to stop wasting my time on this subject with you. As I've stated numerous times you have absolutely NOTHING of value to offer me. So go ahead, have the last word, thump your chest like an ape and feel like you've won the arguement, but at the very least don't lie to yourself. Simply realize you've won nothing, but have succeeded in wearing me down. Talking with you is no different than talking to a head of cabbage. To continue is a waste of my time I have better things to do than repeat the same thing over & over again to you....
Pat D-Cake, Pat D-Cake faker man,
Create an excuse as fast as you can.
Roll it, pat it, mark it with a B (for Bullsh!t)
Post on PHP for Polly and thee.Bye, bye either make like nature & hide or go waste someone else's time.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
with harassment cases, get back to me. The person making a harassment complaint does not get to judge their own case. They must prove it to an authorized third party and it takes rather more than just to say they were offended. The claim must be reasonable.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
"When an unrational objectivist like Peter Aczel preaches his religous dogma via statements like "...a "properly designed" amplifier has no sound of its own."it guarantees that there is no hope in hell of a technical argument.
You're doing it again, Tuby, like a dog with a bone.
Have a nice day Clifffffffff....Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
...at least as long as we deny other's experiences.Just how is your dogmatic rejection of stacking toy blocks about the room different from Aczel's dogmatic rejection of amplifier sounds? Aren't you both simply allowing your belief in your grasp of process to overshadow the possibility that there may be a grain of truth on the other side?
I've solved many a thorny problem by assuming that someone's description of their experience is reliable but that their explanation for it is bogus. While not always the case, it's a great place to start because if they hadn't had the experience or if their explanation for it was accurate, they probably would have resolved it on their own hook!
Rick,FYI the example of the Mappa Wood was something I made up. I did it because I consider Peter Aczel's statement to be that of an unrational objectivist and I needed an example of something I though would represent an unrational subjectivist statement. At the same time I didn't wish to berate or disparage any manufactuer's products without having actually tried them. So I made up a quasi-scientific sounding explinantion of why the Mappa Wood worked that really meant NOTHING!
I've stated many times before here on PHP I am personally skeptical of any tweak that does not have a reasonable explination of why it might work. I believe a rational subjectivist believes there are scientific reasons for what we hear. If you've read any of my previous posts or had you asked me BEFORE assuming what I do or don't believe I would have told you that. I NEVER said a block of wood might not effect how a system sounds, but I am skeptical that it would and therefore will reserve final judgement until it's been proven to me that it works. I'm kind of funny that way. I don't like to spend my hard earned $$$$$ on things that "might" work. I'd rather do something that WILL make a difference like doing some room treatments. You of course can buy all the Mappa Wood you want to, that is, "if" you feel my quasi-scientific explinantion of why it works made sense to you!
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
So...You think I should only buy Mappa blocks if I also buy the explanation? I tend to agree. That's why I was a late adopter of the view that cables can be important, too many bogus explanations. But they can be, far more so than one would think and I rather wish I had become a "believer" sooner.
Do similar amplifiers sound differently? Well I know that they certainly can, which of course doesn't mean that they must. The last time I updated my power amp was about 15 years ago and I tried several similar models. I was shocked at how much obvious variation there was amongst them even though they were all solid state models with similar specifications, power and price. Granted, my speakers in those days had a pretty complex input impedance...
So I know that amplifiers CAN make a substantial difference and that cables CAN make a substantial difference in my home listening enjoyment. But that doesn't mean that they must.
I think the point that you were making in your original post was simply that one can't argue with closed minds of any stripe. Amen. They are, as you put it, "unrational". Which I find a pleasing word by the way, perhaps a synonym would be arational. Not just someone who is not thinking clearly, but rather someone who doesn't believe in it.
...in the money-back guaranty. There's NO substitute for first-hand experience, but even THAT doesn't always guarantee success. Idle hands are the Devil's tools.
> I often wonder how Aczel and those who hold to his beliefs would react if Aczel reviewd an amp that sounded completely different from all his previously accepted "properly designed" amps. <The same way Stevie Wonder would react if a new shade of blue were discovered.
Not to hijack this thread, but I've often wondered if there were any "rational objectivists", to cut and paste your terms. You highlighted the irrational subjectivists and objectivists quite nicely. And then there would be "rational subjectivists" that show a healthy skepticism for a lot of the tweakier items out there but that trust in their ears. So are there "rational objectivists" that believe in measurements but also know that science cannot explain everything? Morricab seems close to that but he also seems to be an island unto himself.
A subset of this query is where does "rational" begin and end? That could be tough to determine!
This kind of goes along with what you posted. Sorry if it seems like a hijack.
Hello Kerr,I don't feel like you hijacked the thread. I believe most objectivists & subjectivists are rational. Unfortunately it's the quite vocal minority of unrational ones in both groups that cause most of the dissention between us. For example: I have to admit I was a bit surprised that rick_m objected to my Mappa Wood as being refered to as an unrational tweak when I completely made it & it's explinantion up! Of course it comes as absolutely no surprise that Clifffff believes ---I'm at it again--- because I said: The unrational objectivist like Peter Aczel preaches his religous dogma via statements like "...a "properly designed" amplifier has no sound of its own. Goes to show even an idiot like Aczel has his devotees. But of course Cliffff is the same guy who recently claimed he doesn't read any of my posts, just my subject heading. Yet here he is somehow able to quote from my post! That's quite interesting, no? Even when I try to ride the middle ground and not take sides I'm criticized!
I think you hit it on the head when you said "rational subjectivists" show a healthy skepticism for a lot of the tweakier items out there but that trust in their ears, while "rational objectivists" believe in measurements but also know that science cannot explain everything.
Thetubeguy1954"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
Let's try to find something to agree with on the Aczel side of things. Let's see...> a "properly designed" amplifier has no sound of its own. <
Literally true. But two different properly designed amplifiers can make the same system sound different. Now before you laugh, consider how many reviews you've read about the same amplifier sounding different by two different reviewers using two different systems. I recall reading about a particular Rotel amp that was called bright, dull, harsh, boring and muddy by different auditioners. Perhaps we're assigning a sound to an amplifier when it's really a system interface issue. Cables even more so have been said to have different traits in different systems. Nordost Valhalla has been called "bright", for example.
Hello Kerr,I have a real problem with Aczel's belief that a "properly designed" amplifier has no sound of its own. An amplifier is just one of many different type audio components. Each and EVERY one of these audio components editorialize the music to a greater or lesser extent.
We all know that once an original acoustic event is recorded something is stripped from the music that makes it readily evident to all but the most inexperienced audiophile/music lover that they're listening to recorded music. To really experience just how much this editorialization effects the music one needs to simply record a live acoustic event. We'll call this first recording #1. Now play recording #1 and record it as it plays. Well call this recording #2. Now play recording #2 and record it as it plays. Well call this recording #3. Now play recording #3 and record it as it plays and continue like that till you have #10. Now compare recording #10 to recording #1. That will show you just how much audio components editorialize music.
I've yet to hear even a linestage that's so transparent it cannot be heard. Think of much more complex an amplifier is and you'll see why I consider Aczel's statement that a "properly designed" amplifier has no sound of its own. EVERY audio component has a sound of it's own, period. Hell there are many DIYers who can even detect differences in caps, resistors and inductors. Yet I'm supposed to believe when all of these are placed together in a circuit they somehow magically become completely transparent? Perhaps an even better example is a crossover. It's a lot less complex than an amplifier, yet place one on a driver and it can be heard as opposed to listening to that same driver without a crossover attached.
Kerr I have no problems with reviews I've read about the same amplifier sounding different by two different reviewers using two different systems. Because how an audio component interacts within a system will influence whether it sounds bright, dull, harsh, boring and muddy by different auditioners. I'll admit that synergy is important. But the fact that the amp sounds different in different systems only proves to me that the amp indeed has a sound of it's own and isn't completely neutral.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
You correct Tubeguy while in the post below you managed to spell "religious" wrong. And Tubeguy did in his post as well.
This just proves what I said before, these lunatic fringe of which Cliffffffffff is an excellent example would rather critic grammer than discuss the topic raised.PS Clifffff I guess you were just lying when you claimed you don't read any of my posts anymore huh? Oh well I guess that fits in perfectly with your comments.
Personally I'd wish you'd make like Pat D and make like nature and hide. You have absolutely NOTHING to offer me in the way of an intelligent discussion on audio.
z
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA I'm Cliffffffffffffffff WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA I don't like thetubeguy1954 calling Aczel assinine statement religous dogma WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa.Stop whining and write something at least reasonably intelligent about the topic I raise or you can do what you lied about and stop reading my posts. I'd really appreciate that....
At least I don't lie, like YOU do! You LIED when you claimed you don't read my posts anymore. This is quite easily provable by showing where you directly quote me from a post I wrote here: "When an unrational objectivist like Peter Aczel preaches his religous dogma via statements like "...a "properly designed" amplifier has no sound of its own."So I'm supposed to accept a liars criticing of my manners? Get real, stop lying and then you'll get more polite responses. I have a hard time being polite to blatant liars like yourself.... mate!
Thetubeguy1954
LOLhttp://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/24689.html
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
POLLYinFLA,You've outdone yourself in stupidity this time. The post wasn't an Objectivist vs Subjectivist post as you'd like to have people believe. Rather it was how irrational people from both groups like you Polly, Pat D and some others make having an intelligent debate virtually impossible.
You're so filled with hate towards anyone who disagrees with your POV that you cannot see the difference. Thus like your parroting friend Pat D you wish to make every subjectivist misable. I've told you many times now, get a real stereo and you'll be a whole lot more happy...
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
--
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
a
--
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
I have a chance to hear the Orion speakers this weekend. Unfortunately, it won't be in my own system. Still, it's a system I'm pretty familiar with so I'm looking forward to it.I seem to recall you bought those after listening to planars for awhile? Or was it 'stats? Anyway, your comments were interesting to this guy who has been hooked on Maggies for years. Sounds like the Orions solved some of the issues you'd found with planars... er... or 'stats... the same issues that I've been able to overcome but wish I didn't have to.
Kerr - I have a chance to hear the Orion speakers this weekend. Unfortunately, it won't be in my own system. Still, it's a system I'm pretty familiar with so I'm looking forward to it.The one variable you can eliminate is the recording. Bring along those CD's that you are intimately familiar with.
Kerr - I seem to recall you bought those after listening to planars for awhile? Or was it 'stats?
That is a gross understatement. I owned good ol' monopoles, went to planars then stats. Loved em but there was always that something missing. The dynamic power of real, live instruments (sucks having a brother in law that is a pretty good drummer). Horns at the time were (and still are, outside of Geddes, Danley and a very few others)much to colored though they had the real life dynamics in spades. Had that dreadful boxiness that was not there in planars/stats.
Went bipole. Close but still not there. Went back to DIY as I had when attending college (EE). Made my own fully active asymmetric bipoles with variable rear radiation via remote. Stumbled across the Orions (friend of a friend with some wacky new speakers).
Laughed that the solution had been in front of my face all along, but I could not see it. The planar/stat boxless openess and see through clarity with power and dynamics from the low distortion piston sources. Controlled directivity like a horn to reduce room masking. The price of course is it must have room to breathe - away from the front wall. Nothing that should stand in the way of a true music lover.
BTW, I want to be clear, being now a die-hard DIYer, my first thought after realizing I must have one - was how to modify it to my specific requirements. Hence the waveguide/ring radiator instead of the Seas Millenium (itself a stellar performer), etc., so mine is not a true Orion.
No matter. Hear it for yourself and decide if it is for you.cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
> The one variable you can eliminate is the recording. Bring along those CD's that you are intimately familiar with. <Yep, bringing my basic three! Thankfully, I don't audition a lot of gear or I'd be sick of those same three CD's and they're three of my favorites! :)
> Loved em but there was always that something missing. <
My thoughts exactly about planars. They're the best I've heard (in my price range) but they're certainly not perfect.
It took the guy who owns the Orions what seemed (to him) to be an inordinately long time to position them but now he thinks he's got them right. And he sold his Maggie 20.1's, my reference speaker. That is what really peaked my interest... this guy has been a Maggiephile for 15 years.
Thanks for the info. Now you can go back to your wrestling match with Tubeguy. :)
Kerr - Yep, bringing my basic three! Thankfully, I don't audition a lot of gear or I'd be sick of those same three CD's and they're three of my favorites! :)I don't know what those are, but hopefully one contains a well recorded, hear the strings being plucked acoustic stand up bass. This is one area where a well designed dynamic driver dipole separates itself from planar or monopole/box in an acoustically small room. One of my faves for demoing is Dave Brubeck's Young Lions & Old Tigers, Telarc CD-83349.
Kerr - It took the guy who owns the Orions what seemed (to him) to be an inordinately long time to position them but now he thinks he's got them right. And he sold his Maggie 20.1's, my reference speaker. That is what really peaked my interest... this guy has been a Maggiephile for 15 years
That is a very natural progression. I forgot to ask what version does he have. Is it an original or the ++?
You are in for a treat either way, but the integration of the Thor subwoofers into the system raises the dynamic capabilities substantially.
I found myself listening without my servosubs about 95% of the time (remember, music only, I had a seperate theater system) at my condo without the feeling I was missing anything.
Since moving to a house that dropped to about 50% :-).cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
> but hopefully one contains a well recorded, hear the strings being plucked acoustic stand up bass <Two, actually. One is a 45 RPM LP of Scott LaFaro's bass with the Bill Evans Trio. The 45 RPM version is sonically the best when matched with the standard LP or various versions of the CD or SACD... the disc is "Saturday Night at the Village Vanguard". The other is Coltrane's "A Love Supreme" which isn't so well recorded (or mastered) but I'm familiar with every nuance of that disc so differences are easy to pick out. The 3rd is Beethoven's Fifth - gotta have some orchestral music in there. One LP, two CD's.
> I forgot to ask what version does he have. Is it an original or the ++? <
He's got the full monty ++ with the Thor subs. He had his own multichannel amp (a Theta, I think). I must be in for a treat as you say because I've known him for many years and I've never seen him this excited about anything. Thankfully for the bias thingy, he and I only see eye to eye (ear to ear) about half the time. It was he, you see, that showed me what the Bedini Ultra Clarifier could do. As far as I could tell, it spun CD's. It was sorta cool to be able to see the CD spinning but it wasn't $140 worth of cool. But he waxed eloquent about the sound while I sat there trying desperately to hear the difference that never appeared. So I'm not at all concerned that his excitement might tamper with my own experience. I have no doubt they're great speakers but I'm curious if they maintain the positives of the Maggies while improving on the idiosyncracies I've learned to live with. I'll let you know how it turns out.
Hi Kerr,I noticed you said: My thoughts exactly about planars. They're the best I've heard (in my price range) but they're certainly not perfect.
I know you know this but no speaker design is perfect, horns, electrocstatics, planars, ribbons, dynamics, monopole, dipole, bipole or omnis. Everyone of these designs has it's pluses and minuses. I've owned some really nice dipoles in the past and to this day my favorite was the original Carver Amazing! Four 12" woofers and a 60" ribbon. The woofers were actually more like subwoofers as they only played from 100Hz and below. These Carvers were completely dipole on both the woofers and the ribbon. Those were really amazing speakers. Their greatest fault was requiring literally 1000's of watts to really play loud. Strangely enough a 100W/ch B&K ST-140 was sufficient enough for me, 99% of the time.
I've also owned Infinity's RS 2.5. These had dipole ribbon tweeters and ribbon midrange drivers with an infinite baffle 12" woofer. Then I owned the Fostex FP-1001 which also had a dipole ribbon tweeter and ribbon midrange with a bass reflex 8" wide-range driver that ran sans crossover, directly attached to the amp! My last dipole, which I still own and use in my home theater is the Monsoon FPF-1000 which like the 2 previous designs used a a dipole ribbon tweeter and ribbon midrange drivers only this time it's with a two 6.5" drivers in a bass reflex design.
Like everything else these had their strengths and weaknesses, but overall I do prefer the dipole sound. Today I'm using the monopole Aliantes which Polly likes to critize so much, they're actually quite outstanding for their design type. As you may or may not know I'm restoring a pair of RCA LC9A speakers, but with my back problems it's a llooonnnnggggg, slow process. What I've hinted at in other parts of Audio Asylum and what I've told RBG personally is I have a DIY dipole speaker I'm planning on building that's still in the design stage at this time. One extremely important factor for me is that it be as efficient as possible!
I'm planning to use a large Heil driver either in an MTM confiquration or with a single driver below the Heil. I haven't decided which is the better approach yet. The Heil is a particularily interesting choice because it can safely be crossed over as low as 700Hz, like it was in some of the ESS designs or as it is todays in the new Oskar Heil Kitharas, so it leaves a lot of room in choicing the crossover point between what would normally be a single fullrange driver and itself. At this time the driver of choice for the midrange is the Audio Nirvana Super 8. It's an 8" single fullrange drivers. But that could change to either Fostex or Lowther depending on further research I'll be doing. Even though it can be safely crossed over at 700Hz I believe the Heil will be used essentially to add that last little sparkle and sheen to the Audio Nirvanas.
Below that will obviously be a woofer -- in this case four 12" dipole woofers like Carver used. The original Carver amazings with it's four 12" dipole woofers had the most awesome bass I have ever heard, so I'm leaning in that direction and recently acquired a source for some very nice dipole woofers like those used in the original Amazings by Carver and which Gilmore audio uses today! For me the hardest part will be designing the crossover. My plans are to run the woofers to 100-150Hz MAX! The Audio Nirvana's from either 100 or 150Hz to about 3.5Khz and the Heils from 3.5Khz and up! These points could also change as I continue with my research. I also plan (at this time) to use a shape very similar to the original Carvers as well.
Thetubeguy1954
This is all too surreal. The closest thing to live unamplified music being 6" plastic cone boxes - has now suddenly decided that this could not possibly be so?
How pathetic you are. At least admit that your fantasy is over, swallow your pride and get rid of all that crap in your living room. For the money you squandered on those overpriced computer speakers, underpowered music sweetener/eq amp and Dilbert CD player, you could have had a vastly superior audio playback system. A $300 CD player that YOU could not tell from the Dilbert in a unsighted test, a decent preamp (sure, even a tube one) and a full Orion set up would have been less money than the junk you chose to buy - and 1000X better sounding, even to someone as deluded as you.
Now Mr. Anti-science/anti-measurement is going to build his own copious eq dipole? ROTFLMAO. I can hardly wait to see this result. Measurements don't correlate to sound waves according to you, so this "design" of yours will be extremely entertaining for me to watch unfold. What happened to the RCA? How is the chronic ailment going to allow you to build a dipole but not finish the RCA?
Been reading Lynn Olson's DIYAudio thread haven't you!! LOL
Tom, you provide me with endless entertainment. Keep it coming, thanx :-).cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
POLLYinFLA: This is all too surreal. The closest thing to live unamplified music being 6" plastic cone boxes - has now suddenly decided that this could not possibly be so?TG1954: GOD Polly the depth of your ignorance seems to know no bounds. Just when I think you cannot possibly say something stupider than you previously did, you do just that by making up a new story to support your warped beliefs! I said the Mastersound was the closest thing to live unamplified music, not the Aliantes. I said the Aliantes are the best 2-way monitors I've heard for $5K and under. My intention was always to replace the Aliantes in the main system. They'll just get downgraded to being used with the Audio Analogue Puccini in the bedroom system.
===================================================================
POLLYinFLA: How pathetic you are. At least admit that your fantasy is over, swallow your pride and get rid of all that crap in your living room. For the money you squandered on those overpriced computer speakers, underpowered music sweetener/eq amp and Dilbert CD player, you could have had a vastly superior audio playback system.TG1954: Pathetic? Pathetic is someone like yourself who believe the lies he tells and the stories he makes up. The Aliantes are still the best 2-way monitors I've heard in their price range. In fact I'd love to hear them vs your butchered Orions from 50Hz up, sans your dipole woofers. And swallow what pride? I've told you, you arrogant SOB, I've owned original Carver Amazings, Infinity RS2.5s, Fostex FP-1001 & Monsoon Monsoon FPF-1000. I've probably owned more dipoles and for longer periods of time than you have, so why act like you're converting me? This idea has been on the drawing board for some time now. But having lived on disability for years, I have very little extra funds to work with. It took me 4 years to save for the Mastersound. As I stated I've spoken with RBG in private email about these DIY speakers, so you can ask him because I know you won't believe me.
=================================================================
POLLYinFLA: A $300 CD player that YOU could not tell from the Dilbert in a unsighted test, a decent preamp (sure, even a tube one) and a full Orion set up would have been less money than the junk you chose to buy - and 1000X better sounding, even to someone as deluded as you.TG1954: As you haven't the foggest idea what I paid for the Aliantes how do you know I squandered any money, you don't! Plus the Mastersound Reference will mop the floor with that QSC crap and even your HK Citation amp. As for my BlueNote Stibbert if you can find a $300 piece of crap CDP that sounds as good I'll buy it, but I know you won't. Polly you're good for providing a laugh everytime you post. PS: YOU'RE the deluded one, so sick in fact you don't realize you are sick and you believe all the lies you tell.
====================================================================
POLLYinFLA: Now Mr. Anti-science/anti-measurement is going to build his own copious eq dipole? ROTFLMAO. I can hardly wait to see this result. Measurements don't correlate to sound waves according to you, so this "design" of yours will be extremely entertaining for me to watch unfold.TG1954: You're a complete idiot. I never said I'm anti-science or anti-measurement YOU did in order to be able to justify your assinine comments. You make up so many stories you're starting to believe your own lies. I don't know how you'll watch my design unfold as you'll never step foot in my home. I very particular with whom I hang out with and trust me it will NEVER be you.
====================================================================
POLLYinFLA: What happened to the RCA? How is the chronic ailment going to allow you to build a dipole but not finish the RCA?TG1954: Obviously being disabled will cause it to take a lot longer for me than someone who doesn't have back problems like mine. The RCA will be completed as planned. It's a no lose situation I have one of only 100-300 pairs ever made, so they'll only increase in value. I also have pair of Paul Butterfield modified TAD 2001 pre-1990! They're quite desirable and used by Dr Bruce Edgar as well as Nelson Pass and some of his engineers. So I can only watch the RCA's increase in value every passing year. Besides I might prefer them after hearing them, who knows?
====================================================================
POLLYinFLA Been reading Lynn Olson's DIYAudio thread haven't you!! LOL. Tom, you provide me with endless entertainment. Keep it coming, thanx :-).TG1954: I've read Lynn Olsen for years. A friend of mine makes his Ariel speakers for others. Me? I've been slowly collecting the pieces to make these proto-type speakers. I'm even checking into trademarking a name for the company that will one day produce them. It's entended to hopefully be a commercial product one day, at least that's the idea. But it will be properly designed dipole and NOT require copious amounts of EQ to sound correct, in and of itself. As I've told you I'm not impressed with the Monsoons which are in my home theater. "IF" my DIY design turns out as good as I hope, then maybe they'll be marketable, if not they'll replace the Monsoons and I'll chalk it up as a learning experience.
Just keep providing more idiotic replies Polly, I can always use another good laugh.
Kerr - I'll let you know how it turns out.Please do. Feel free to post at the top so it does not get lost in the shuffle down here.
Pity you don't have a nice grand piano solo in the demo selection.
You've heard of listening in another room or outside and hearing how "real" it sounds like a live instrument? Try that with the best monopole or planar, then try it with these.
I think even tubeguy might hear that difference :-).
Then there is the solo drum kit track on my Sheffield Labs test disc at "live" volume.....cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
Yeah, tubeguy said he would ignore my posts, too. Not a man of his word!
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
- http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=critics&n=10827&highlight=tubeguy+pat&session= (Open in New Window)
a
You really left your self open on that one, O Tubed One.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
a
When have I complained when you have rethought your position? Well, of course, I don't recall any occasion, but if you actually did rethink your position and modify it, I wouldn't call it lying the way you have.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
--
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
a
--
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
a
"And then there would be "rational subjectivists" that show a healthy skepticism for a lot of the tweakier items out there but that trust in their ears. So are there "rational objectivists" that believe in measurements but also know that science cannot explain everything?"I think there are both. I am one. That is, one of both....well, you know what I mean.:-)
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: