Agree about the Shure v15 , was never a fan of it's laid back sound , tried Ortofon in the 70's but never had any luck with them in my setup (hum/noise) so I would have to say AT is what worked for me until I
Moved into grado stuff in the 80's , then Denon ...
The best sounding cartridge TT setup from that era (70's) for we was LP- 12/ Koetsu. Cartridge .....
Still with Denon and grado today, TT's LP12/ AR/Micro-Seiki
Hi,
The Inverse RIAA in the AP is actually a table of relative level with frequency. The generator is quite accurate.
I also have a iRIAA network build in hardware using many paralleled 0.5% tolerance east german mil spec polystyrene cap's, so this results quite horrorshow tolerances for the cap's, plus exact value resistor combo's to 0.01%.
It agrees with AP2.
Depends, for MC the 25 Ohm generator impedance is on the high side, for MM 600 Ohm is not a bad model, except we miss the inductance of the cart.
So if anything, it is likely to overestimate this type of distortion at least for MC.
Yup. The problem is that there are two Churches and Religeons here and not just the Subjectivists as some claim. The Holy Church of the "Meter-readers and Double-Blinders" is at least as bad and as, aehhhm, double-blind (pun intended).
We rarely even see multitone measurements on the AP published, even if they can reveal a lot more in the noisefloor than traditional FFT. Most users don't even know what this box CAN do (never mind what it CANNOT).
Ciao T
The Inverse RIAA in the AP is actually a table of relative level with frequency. The generator is quite accurate.
I also have a iRIAA network build in hardware using many paralleled 0.5% tolerance east german mil spec polystyrene cap's, so this results quite horrorshow tolerances for the cap's, plus exact value resistor combo's to 0.01%.
It agrees with AP2.
Depends, for MC the 25 Ohm generator impedance is on the high side, for MM 600 Ohm is not a bad model, except we miss the inductance of the cart.
So if anything, it is likely to overestimate this type of distortion at least for MC.
I know people who so completely trust Audio Precision that measurements made any other way are prima facie disbelieved. I told one friend that a DSP-based EQ box from Ashly had highish output noise, which would dominate the noise out of the loudspeakers in a prototype system--- and he flat-out didn't believe me, because it hadn't been measured with an Ap!
Yup. The problem is that there are two Churches and Religeons here and not just the Subjectivists as some claim. The Holy Church of the "Meter-readers and Double-Blinders" is at least as bad and as, aehhhm, double-blind (pun intended).
We rarely even see multitone measurements on the AP published, even if they can reveal a lot more in the noisefloor than traditional FFT. Most users don't even know what this box CAN do (never mind what it CANNOT).
Ciao T
It is hard for me to consider a world view that utilizes falsifiable, testable evidences as even remotely the same category as a subjectivist. Calling those that try to use actual facts a "religion" is disingenuous at best. Especially since any good objectivist (for lack of a better word) will happily be corrected and change viewpoints when new evidence is presented (or old evidence is falsified). There is no dogma here.
*shrug*
Last edited:
I never understood what half the fight was about ...
Ultimetely, it all boils down to the subjective, no matter what. Say you want a cartridge - you have a choice between one which has great reviews, and one which is almost unnoticed by the audio press, and in one or two reviews measures just so-so, but which sounds way better to you - which one will you buy?
Do you really care what it's made of, even if it's a wild beryllium+bamboo+silk mix, with yoghurt cooling?
Personally, I don't give a hoot what anyone else thinks of it, so long as I'm happy listening to it.
Ultimetely, it all boils down to the subjective, no matter what. Say you want a cartridge - you have a choice between one which has great reviews, and one which is almost unnoticed by the audio press, and in one or two reviews measures just so-so, but which sounds way better to you - which one will you buy?
Do you really care what it's made of, even if it's a wild beryllium+bamboo+silk mix, with yoghurt cooling?
Personally, I don't give a hoot what anyone else thinks of it, so long as I'm happy listening to it.
Hi,
They do nothing such. There is no evidence for example that the common measurements have any correlation with sound quality.
As to the criticism of the ABX Tests and the ABX Mafia (the most vocal and high profile double blinders), we have been over this so often, I'll spare the re-run.
If you want to continue to believe in the face of contrary proof, well, that is your religion and I'll not try to dissuade you.
It would be, if that was the case.
Really?
No Dogma? Evidence if presented leads to correction of viewpoints?
So why are the double blinders insist on retaining methods that go against any number of recommendations for such evaluation from serious professional bodies, continue to use statistical methods discredited over two decades ago?
And why are the meter readers still go on about THD for example, while routinely ignoring other tests and weightings for results that allow better correlation?
And why are both groups routinely jump and attempt to stamp on anyone who (with good evidence) criticises their ideas and methods?
No Dogma? Evidence if presented leads to correction of viewpoints?
I recognise them according to Matthew 7:20*, not according to their claims...
Ciao T
* Matthew 7:15 toi 20 reads:
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
They do nothing such. There is no evidence for example that the common measurements have any correlation with sound quality.
As to the criticism of the ABX Tests and the ABX Mafia (the most vocal and high profile double blinders), we have been over this so often, I'll spare the re-run.
If you want to continue to believe in the face of contrary proof, well, that is your religion and I'll not try to dissuade you.
It would be, if that was the case.
Really?
No Dogma? Evidence if presented leads to correction of viewpoints?
So why are the double blinders insist on retaining methods that go against any number of recommendations for such evaluation from serious professional bodies, continue to use statistical methods discredited over two decades ago?
And why are the meter readers still go on about THD for example, while routinely ignoring other tests and weightings for results that allow better correlation?
And why are both groups routinely jump and attempt to stamp on anyone who (with good evidence) criticises their ideas and methods?
No Dogma? Evidence if presented leads to correction of viewpoints?
I recognise them according to Matthew 7:20*, not according to their claims...
Ciao T
* Matthew 7:15 toi 20 reads:
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
I'm relatively new to this community, so I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the complaints and ongoing arguments you raise - but I agree, if your description of them is accurate, those are problematic. A science based viewpoint should be self correcting (with new evidence or methods) and truly discredited methods should be discarded. The question of what is considered "good evidence" can get sticky, but if truly good evidences are presented - they should not be dismissed.
Regarding the issue of measurements and sound quality - I disagree that they cannot tell us anything useful about the possible performance of a given piece of equipment. Is that the end all in "sound quality" - no, I don't think there is anything objective that really can tell us that. But we can still learn quite a lot about something from the measurements - and it does give us an "apples to apples" comparison point from which to begin our other evaluations.
e.g. Amp 1 shows more distortion under X condition than Amp 2. Does that tell us much about "sound quality"? maybe, maybe not. But we do know that under X condition, Amp 1 shows more distortion. That is a fact. How useful that fact is in determining the performance of the amp, is where things get messy.
Regarding the issue of measurements and sound quality - I disagree that they cannot tell us anything useful about the possible performance of a given piece of equipment. Is that the end all in "sound quality" - no, I don't think there is anything objective that really can tell us that. But we can still learn quite a lot about something from the measurements - and it does give us an "apples to apples" comparison point from which to begin our other evaluations.
e.g. Amp 1 shows more distortion under X condition than Amp 2. Does that tell us much about "sound quality"? maybe, maybe not. But we do know that under X condition, Amp 1 shows more distortion. That is a fact. How useful that fact is in determining the performance of the amp, is where things get messy.
Last edited:
Hi,
I never understood what ANY of the religious wars where about.
Christians vs. Muslims
Catholics vs. Cathars
Catholics vs. Protestants
Shiites vs. Sunni
Stalinists vs. Troskyists
Maoists vs. Marxists
the list is endless
But I know what is the underlying cause.
One side is so convinced that it is RIGHT (without having actually any evidence sufficiently compelling to the other side would agree) that it will engage in anything it can get away with to suppress the ""WRONG" view and impose it's own view onto everyone.
Ciao T
I never understood what ANY of the religious wars where about.
Christians vs. Muslims
Catholics vs. Cathars
Catholics vs. Protestants
Shiites vs. Sunni
Stalinists vs. Troskyists
Maoists vs. Marxists
the list is endless
But I know what is the underlying cause.
One side is so convinced that it is RIGHT (without having actually any evidence sufficiently compelling to the other side would agree) that it will engage in anything it can get away with to suppress the ""WRONG" view and impose it's own view onto everyone.
Ciao T
Hi,
Correct. And if this is not the case we are dealing with something that is in essence a religion, a Cult, no matter what mantle they chose to clothe themselves with in order to deceive. Or as the old Bard once put it:
"And thus I clothe my naked villany. With odd old ends stol'n out of holy writ, And seem a saint, when most I play the devil."
Ciao T
Correct. And if this is not the case we are dealing with something that is in essence a religion, a Cult, no matter what mantle they chose to clothe themselves with in order to deceive. Or as the old Bard once put it:
"And thus I clothe my naked villany. With odd old ends stol'n out of holy writ, And seem a saint, when most I play the devil."
Ciao T
Unfortunately, all too true.
There is only one point on which I am admittedly adamant - if there's anything I really hate, it's when somebody tries to convince me that what I am hearing is all wrong, that my choice is the wrong one for whatever reason and that I should change to his choice.
I just don't know how can people assume they know better what sounds good to me than I do.
I would never presume to event try doping anything like that.
Hi,
Yes, de gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum.
Where I have problems is when people do not express personal preference (I like Apples better than Oranges) but conclude that the only fruit that can be eaten is either apple or orange.
I like Pears incidentally and a nice Perry, but also am partial to "Apfelkorn" [apple vodka] or a littel Cointreu [orange brandy]... So in fact I like all fruits once they have been made into beverages... ;-)
Ciao T
Yes, de gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum.
Where I have problems is when people do not express personal preference (I like Apples better than Oranges) but conclude that the only fruit that can be eaten is either apple or orange.
I like Pears incidentally and a nice Perry, but also am partial to "Apfelkorn" [apple vodka] or a littel Cointreu [orange brandy]... So in fact I like all fruits once they have been made into beverages... ;-)
Ciao T
I think the tone of Thorsten's remarks ought to warn you that there is a tiny chance that he might be be somewhat exaggerating and misrepresenting the views and attitudes of those he disagrees with. For example, I don't know why Thorsten keeps banging on about THD - he mentions it far more often than the people he alleges are bound by it.liamstrain said:
There is, of course, evidence that the common measurements have some correlation with sound quality. This evidence was originally gathered many decades ago. That is when it was found that for most people a frequency range of 20-20kHz was likely to be adequate, and that distortion should be not much more than a few percent. It was even found that some people prefer a little distortion to none, and some people prefer a more restricted frequency range. Produce an amp with 300-3kHz range and 30% THD and you will find that there is some correlation with (lack of) sound quality! Start from a clean wideband amp and add a little second-order: some people will find it 'warm'. Insert a gentle HF rolloff and some people will find it 'smooth'. You might even be able to charge more money for these signal distortions! So, yes, some correlation. The argument is about how much correlation, but Thorsten likes to paint things in black and white terms because it saves him time.
There s indeed total correlation between measurements and sound quality.
If ever listening tests do not agree with measured datas , then the logical
conclusions is that measurements were not done adequatly in respect of the
listening conditions.
As for "delightfull distorsions patterns" highlighted in DF96 post above ,
it makes no doubt that such signals shapings sound indeed nice to many
ears , as aknowledged by the cohorts of all imaginable effects racks
in recording studios , particularly the overused harmonics enhancers...
If ever listening tests do not agree with measured datas , then the logical
conclusions is that measurements were not done adequatly in respect of the
listening conditions.
As for "delightfull distorsions patterns" highlighted in DF96 post above ,
it makes no doubt that such signals shapings sound indeed nice to many
ears , as aknowledged by the cohorts of all imaginable effects racks
in recording studios , particularly the overused harmonics enhancers...
The mikes are nothing great, but if you use your own mikes and mike preamp (assuming this is the model with the XLR line level inputs), it does astonishingly well. If you do minimalist recording like I do (live, two mikes only), the DR-40 will give you the same sound quality but at a bit lower price.
If you're selling something and badly need to be a guru, facts are inconvenient things. If you can't present your own evidence, then one needs to spin stories. Hifi magazines have raised this to an art.
In any case, I no longer lust after an AP2. The toy *I* want is this one:
registration, membership, member, community, EE Times, EET, design engineer, electrical engineer, profile, account, subscriptions, magazine subscriptions, newsletter subscriptions | EE Times Member & Subscriber Login & Register Center
- Status
- Not open for further replies.