but does someone who likes red wear colored glasses to the art museum?
do we what him designing the color filters in our LCD, adjusting our monitor for color accuracy while wearing those lens?
Hi,
That's something I really don't understand.
Whenever I've improved my system over the years good records sounded even better, bad records sounded worse...
Ciao,
That is one not often mentioned sign that your system is improving: the differences between recordings stand out more. Fully agree with you Frank.
Jan
I never said nor suggested they don't.
I was simply explaining to Pavel why his work had good acceptance locally, at least in part. The main part however is the simple fact that it gives great sound.
Unfortunately, this works the other way too. For exmaple, the local DIY audio community did not pay much attention, if any, to a couple of very worthwhile project from Romania ("What do Romanians know of audio?"). A great pity and their loss. I suggested a project to a friend, he liked it and built it, and ended up with a truly excellent power amp.
Frank who?
Because, if I got it right, Frank (fas42) claims exactly the opposite, the better your system, the better the sound from those until yesterday poor recordings.
Personally, I'm with Frank (fdegrove) on this, the better your system is, the better you hear whatever's on the source LP or CD. Be it good, or bad.
That's why we need precise definitions.
Asking what is better does not cut it, because better can mean completely different things for different people.
John Curl stated in a previous comment that we need an open mind and I agree completely.
This also means that we must take into account that our assumptions can be wrong. Therefore our testing methods should be constructed in such a way that we can disprove our assumptions rather than prove our assumptions.
A bit like saying Philips gear must be good because one is used to drinking Heineken.
Not exactly a compliment to the audio designer, imo.
Someone else might just look at Pavel's schematic, notice the general parts used, read the measured data, and conclude from there that it's bound to be a good sounding design (for the total cost involved)
Aka the value of Measurements vs Sound Quality.
In science, we can refute a conjecture, but there can be only confirming evidence, not proof. All scientific theories are tentative.
The assumption here that good measurements imply good sound is a conjecture. The assumption that we know all the relevant tests
to get the measurements is a conjecture. The assumption that we know everything about the human perception of sound is a conjecture.
Last edited:
Too bad things don't work out that way in the real world, not en masse.
I liked the idea, but there are not many who will appraoch it like that.
For the last, that we know everything about human perseption, is not conjecture, that's sheer lunacy.
If we did, we would KNOW why man A likes something and man B hates it because we could subject them to tests which show why this is so. And AFAIK we have no such tests, except possibly for the most rudimentary, such as measuring one's ears' frequency response and sensitivity. A good beginning, but that's all it is.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.