But how can you be sure that you don't have prejudice?
Of course you cannot expect those who do not know Ohm Law to use adavanced measurement tools.
You sure understand that those who owns expensive/accurate tools will have the tendency to show off and tell others that they don't do what is mandatory.
You sure understand that those who act as meter men in one population, bullying others who do not understand Ohm Law, could be bullied also in a different population.
Everyone can be a subjectivist or objectivist depends on the population!
BUT understand this: no matter how advanced your measurement practice, you also need your ears. Which one is more important to you, your ears or your tools, is not only determined by how good you can use the tools, but also how good your ears are.
And I'm not surprised if those with good ears, even tho their measurement tools and skills are advanced too, will have the tendency to rely on their ears.
In term of "detailed" calculation, the ears are weak, but in term of "gross" calculation, ears are strong (I will not call it ears but brain).
Just like simulator versus real time analyzer. No matter how expensive your analog tools, from certain pov it can not be as accurate as digital software/simulator.
I am still in awe that you can hear what the power amp is doing between 2 rooms with different source, different speakers and different music playing.
Since this is DIYaudio there's no substitute for training yourself. Load down the output of the THAT1200 with a 1k resistor to 0V and see if you notice anything. If not, lower the resistor to 560ohms. If you still hear no difference then maybe your source isn't clean enough so investigate if there are opamps upstream with objectivist-designed power supplies.
Usually yes, but then the difference is so small that someone like you will consider inaudible, yes?
Or the difference is not in parameter that you expect to determine the subjective quality/performance.
If you understand that there is trade-off of variables then you should understand that there is no single agreed formula for quality as a function of these variables.
I'm listening to systems, first and foremost - I think most people are willing to admit that the complete ensemble will have a certain sound, though many here would say it's due to the speakers and room, etc. So, in addition to that that I'm listening for certain characteristics that from experience are due to a particular component - amplifiers in particular show their colours when pushed a bit, the TAD room was giving the volume a bit of a go, and it had that classic, on the edge of compressing, deadening the treble sparkle, aspect to the sound - there was a sweaty pub feel to the experience. This was something completely absent from the Bryston system, and it could go markedly louder than the TAD setup, while retaining transient impact.
Last edited:
There is no single formula, but a lot of research into what is audible and what is not. Whilst I can improve things that have been shown in peer reviewed papers to be audible I will not sweat things below the limit of my hearing.
This I tried a brain-altering wearable that allows users to change their moods on demand – Quartz would have more effect on your perception that the capacitor. You should try it. After upgrading the cables of course.
Matching Tie And Handkerchief....
But seriously folks.....Stuart, you have always been emphatic on demanding measurement/statistical proofs for subjective observations and claims, and fair enough up to a point.
However, this direction can be taken too far, and this direction from you much too often serves to quench and derail (valuable) input from various members attempting to relate their subjective observations/evaluations.
Recognise that throughout history, subjective observations have led to scientific examinations and scientific measurements/explanations.
Yes, there is much BS involved in the audio world, BUT not all subjective observations are 'bovine pure'.
To be sure there is indeed much nonsense/products peddled by eediots, and also to be sure there are sensible observations related by those practised in the art and not explained by typical industry standard measurement methodologies.
I do not recall that you have given subjective evaluations of your designs OR the designs of others.
When I say subjective evaluations, I do not mean glowing flowery essays.
Subjective evaluation to me means looking for and identifying/relating sonic faults that detract from acceptable realism in the reproduced in room soundscape (illusion).
I understand if you, like me take little notice if the typical printed/online equipment reviews...far too many times I have repaired and then auditioned gear that is hitherto well regarded but to my ear found desperately wanting.
Are your ears good enough to engage in critical mode of listening, or do you exclusively rely on measurements ?.
Dan.
Excuse me the record's stuck, the record's stuck, the record's stuck, the record's stuck, the record's stuck, the record's stuck... (the sound of the needle being scratched across the record)
But seriously folks.....Stuart, you have always been emphatic on demanding measurement/statistical proofs for subjective observations and claims, and fair enough up to a point.
However, this direction can be taken too far, and this direction from you much too often serves to quench and derail (valuable) input from various members attempting to relate their subjective observations/evaluations.
Recognise that throughout history, subjective observations have led to scientific examinations and scientific measurements/explanations.
Yes, there is much BS involved in the audio world, BUT not all subjective observations are 'bovine pure'.
To be sure there is indeed much nonsense/products peddled by eediots, and also to be sure there are sensible observations related by those practised in the art and not explained by typical industry standard measurement methodologies.
I do not recall that you have given subjective evaluations of your designs OR the designs of others.
When I say subjective evaluations, I do not mean glowing flowery essays.
Subjective evaluation to me means looking for and identifying/relating sonic faults that detract from acceptable realism in the reproduced in room soundscape (illusion).
I understand if you, like me take little notice if the typical printed/online equipment reviews...far too many times I have repaired and then auditioned gear that is hitherto well regarded but to my ear found desperately wanting.
Are your ears good enough to engage in critical mode of listening, or do you exclusively rely on measurements ?.
Dan.
I don't know which one you think is my believe. The word "TEND" was used to exclude or to say that it was NOT ALL of us (tho yes, it means many). If you refer to the number ($200), it was just an arbitrary number, randomly picked because I thought that this variable couldn't be the same from person to person.
So I don't know if I have made generalization or prejudice here. If it really about the number, then you must already know that I'm not a person that tend to use precised words for communication, may be because I decode information also mostly in a non-verbal way (e.g. reading between the lines, and think that the number is not important at all, as it is not my point)
SY is fine with ears only testing, but in a controlled environment as he has said many many many times. One person sighted subjective observations are at best personal preference, at worst delusion. Yet people want to believe.
Yes, ad infinitum indeed (see MP quotation).
Bovine pure.
Which particular people ?.
Dan.
Insert the word "extraordinary" before "subjective" and include "ears only" somewhere in there and that is, I think, an accurate representation of my view. For example, if a tweeter is 3dB up and someone says it sounds bright, neither I nor any other rationalist would expect a 12 trial ABX test. That's not extraordinary. But if, for example, someone claims that there's a difference in a box of gain that is not captured by known audible variables (clipping, stability, frequency response, source impedance, distortion, overload recovery, noise, level...), then yes, the claim is extraordinary and needs evidence for it to be taken more seriously than claims of fairies in the garden or UFO abductions with anal probing.
The big problem here is achieving "sufficiently controlled " AND "sufficiently flexible" environments - the reality is that nearly all so-called controlled experiments have holes in them that the proverbial truck has no trouble navigating, so the results hold little sway for many people. In the real world one can get a long way by being careful, and intelligently repeating procedures - this achieves real progress, which is the main aim of the game.
Much of this debate could be reduced if enough people learnt to recognise flaws in reproduction, rather than have silly "pick a number from 1 to 10 for how nice you think the sound is" gumph ...
Since the design was mine, I can confidently say that they were. I could get the same result with IC or discrete opamps, if that's what I wanted to do. I did tubes because I like tubes, they're fun and have a whiff of nostalgia. That's the difference between sound and experience- there's no difference in the sound between a good IC opamp design and a good tube design ("good" being defined as "designed to have no sonic signature"), but the overall experience with tubes is more satisfying to me.
Sure, works for me, and plenty of others.
The key is extended listening with a wide variety of music/genres.
Depending on hearing discrimination/experience/criticality, quickly or eventually sonic faults will be heard and noted.
Depending on the nature of sonic faults, the long term result is subjective approval or subjective disapproval.
This is not a difficult to grasp concept.
Boy sees girl.
Boy meets girl.
Boy experiences girl.
Boy falls in love with girl.
Boy finds faults with girl.
Boy despises girl.
Boy divorces girl.
Simple enough for you ?.
Dan.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.