 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.106.240.93
In Reply to: Sorry But You're Wrong... posted by thetubeguy1954 on March 30, 2007 at 07:18:33:
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.
Follow Ups:
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.
Klaus
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.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
