An axe? To the scientific method? Not in the slightest - but if I perceive that "method" going off the rails to some extent, then I'll call it ...
There are a million experiments to be done, to get a better handle on what contributes to optimum sound - and all of these need the scientific method, working the way it's meant to, to get substantial answers. But if there is stubborn refusal to accept that there is any more to understand, well, that is not a very good start.
There are a million experiments to be done, to get a better handle on what contributes to optimum sound - and all of these need the scientific method, working the way it's meant to, to get substantial answers. But if there is stubborn refusal to accept that there is any more to understand, well, that is not a very good start.
Another erroneous claim. Certainly it was a wacky hypothesis, but science involves putting forward hypotheses which can be struck down by experiment.
Evidence of my 'fear' of data please? No data was presented on sound quality in that thread.
Ah yes, that old trope. "Our ears are the most sensitive measurement devices known to man!" That is just plain wrong. We can measure level and frequency response to resolutions better than 0.001dB. Our ears cannot. One thing we know is that sound level differences of 0.1dB or so will be perceived as qualitative differences rather than level differences(except for Frank, who is immune). Same with FR. We can measure distortion levels that a human ear (at least one attached to a living brain) will not register. Your claim is silly.
OK, so put a meter across a piece of wire while it is exposed to music in the air, see what level of voltage/current is generated. Now try it with a microphone. See the difference?
You wouldn't have a lot of credibility left if you came out and admitted it, so I'm not surprised at your denial. What was it that guy said? "There will be no whitewash at the White House" or was it "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."
Good luck with finding somebody who believes you.
So, if someone plays a real clarinet in front of me - not sure why I picked that instrument, hmmm - and the player repeats the passage, perfectly, but just a tiny bit more intense, that 0.1dB ... then it will sound like a different instrument, or it will seem that it's being better played, or worse played ... that type of thing?
Edit: In fact, I'll make it easier - while listening to the clarinet, I'll move in a smidgeon closer, or a touch further way - to get that 0.1dB variation ... this will change my listening experience, correct?
Last edited:
I agree with your point.
Being able to detect a .1db level difference in broad band (low Q) conditions does not translate into not being able to judge other differences in the sound character.... such a detectable level difference does not invalidate the judgement of the sound's other characteristics (clarinet). Nor would it in an AB comparison of sounds.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
I never said it was perfect. It is however objectively the best 'I' have seen for the cost to build and output power. You are trying to put words into my mouth.
SY, I am not well informed of current market prices, but if memory serves well, Parasound was NOT considered a boutique company, and as far as I know that's where John is most active, perhaps elsewhere as well. I seem to remember that Parasound advertised themselves back in the day as striving for best quality at still reasonable prices. Unless their mission has changed, I don't see how is John engaged in boutique audio. His designs probably do cost more than average, but I believe they are better made than average, and to me, it was never about the price on its own, but about value for money. Give more and charge more, that's all right by me. The crime is in charging more but not giving more.
In another post, you stated that most of what's on the market is all right. That depends on what you mean by "all right". It works, it does not cause fires, all controls are fully functionl, yes, but that's where it stops. Nowhere will you find as large differences as in the mid-Fi segment of the market in how equipment performs. Literally from junk to very good and at a surprising similartity of prices. It is not "all right", it's there that you really need to audition what you're interested in, no less so than in the boutique segment. If you doubt, borrow a latest Marantz mid market integrated amp and listen to it. It boast a lot of things and especially current feedback, but for all that it sounds as dead as a doornail. NO life, no vitality, but it still measured just fine.
As MiiB said, you really need to get out more.
In another post, you stated that most of what's on the market is all right. That depends on what you mean by "all right". It works, it does not cause fires, all controls are fully functionl, yes, but that's where it stops. Nowhere will you find as large differences as in the mid-Fi segment of the market in how equipment performs. Literally from junk to very good and at a surprising similartity of prices. It is not "all right", it's there that you really need to audition what you're interested in, no less so than in the boutique segment. If you doubt, borrow a latest Marantz mid market integrated amp and listen to it. It boast a lot of things and especially current feedback, but for all that it sounds as dead as a doornail. NO life, no vitality, but it still measured just fine.
As MiiB said, you really need to get out more.
Some amazing word twisting. You gird yourself with the shield of 'science' and wield the sword of subjectivity. If you think you can hear harmonics over 40dB below the noise floor that's fine. You should go see Randi for your $1M. 'Sound quality' as stated by you is not data or scientific. I am comfortable accepting that any harmonics produced by the clearly substandard THAT chip are so far below distortions produced by the speakers that there is no need for me to sweat about that. I suspect that researchers into the field of perception will agree with me.
Marce, none of here (as far as I can tell) is responsible for tons of idiocy available via the Internet regarding audio. If anything, the Internet has made the situation worse. Too many people regard Internet content as God's words carved in stone.
And, truth be told, we here have not exactly shined on tolerance, just look at the last 10 pages of this thread. The so-called objectivists far too often do not have open minds, their minds sometims seem shut by reinforced concrete, which is in fact little different from the so-called subjectivists, it's just orientated in the opposite direction. I believe in measurements, they can supply a lot of invaluable information, but I also believe they cannot tell us the whole story. What are the specs a for well sounding whatever?
I find it VERY hard to believe that a glass of water placed on a table can audibly disturb the acoustic performance of a solid system, but I am not willing to swear that's a lot of nonsense. I haven't tried it, but will do so soon enough, and only then make up my mind if that's true or is just talk to fish for new customers.
I do know for a fact I've been observing for the last 45 years or so that far too many people like to second guess the designers. They will then blame the products and the designers for deficiencies they introduced. A while ago, I argued with a local audio buff who claimed that AR94 speakers, same as mine, lack deep bass. Upon coming to his home, I found one speaker placed on a soft matress bed, and the other on a sponge base. He said that controlled their resonances ?!? I asked him for the User manual, he produced it, and I showed him a very clear statement from its makers that they were intended for placing on the floor directly, which is why they gave it its plasic base. And, sure enough, once placed on the floor, the speakers did produce a better balanced sound with a clean and clear bass.
Too many "ideas" and "comments" are based on lack of literacy and sometimes even brains to be taken seriously. Setting that right takes a long time, much patience and persistance. Discarding anyone's comments straight off the bat will only get uglier and uglier over time.
And, truth be told, we here have not exactly shined on tolerance, just look at the last 10 pages of this thread. The so-called objectivists far too often do not have open minds, their minds sometims seem shut by reinforced concrete, which is in fact little different from the so-called subjectivists, it's just orientated in the opposite direction. I believe in measurements, they can supply a lot of invaluable information, but I also believe they cannot tell us the whole story. What are the specs a for well sounding whatever?
I find it VERY hard to believe that a glass of water placed on a table can audibly disturb the acoustic performance of a solid system, but I am not willing to swear that's a lot of nonsense. I haven't tried it, but will do so soon enough, and only then make up my mind if that's true or is just talk to fish for new customers.
I do know for a fact I've been observing for the last 45 years or so that far too many people like to second guess the designers. They will then blame the products and the designers for deficiencies they introduced. A while ago, I argued with a local audio buff who claimed that AR94 speakers, same as mine, lack deep bass. Upon coming to his home, I found one speaker placed on a soft matress bed, and the other on a sponge base. He said that controlled their resonances ?!? I asked him for the User manual, he produced it, and I showed him a very clear statement from its makers that they were intended for placing on the floor directly, which is why they gave it its plasic base. And, sure enough, once placed on the floor, the speakers did produce a better balanced sound with a clean and clear bass.
Too many "ideas" and "comments" are based on lack of literacy and sometimes even brains to be taken seriously. Setting that right takes a long time, much patience and persistance. Discarding anyone's comments straight off the bat will only get uglier and uglier over time.
Last edited:
'I newer said that the industry is free from BS.. BS is everywhere why should audio be an exception. Just like the health area have their own section of dubious alternatives doesn't make all doctors fraud and preachers of snake-oil and quacksalvery.
I believe that most in the audio industry are actually trying very hard to bring outstanding products to the market. If we reduce all to a mere numbers game and relive audio from anything but that, then all products will be Chinese very shortly.
I believe that most in the audio industry are actually trying very hard to bring outstanding products to the market. If we reduce all to a mere numbers game and relive audio from anything but that, then all products will be Chinese very shortly.
Of course SY was not talking about Parasound...
May be SY does not have sensitive ears that it is hard for him to understand that not everybody wants sound system that he himself wants.
In his opinion (it seems), if the stuff is measured well by his procedures then the stuff must be good. If not, then "marketing" must be in place to promote it's success.
I think there is a middle point/solution/opinion. It is that accuracy is not the only important thing. It looks like a sin, but not in my eye. Why not look at it from entrepreneurship pov: you should know what the customers want, then you should know how to deliver what they want. This is not simple as providing second order distortion!
If SY think his stuff is better than other more successful products because the measurement says so, fine. But do not assume that the reason others prefer other stuff is because of marketing or gimmick or extra-ordinary claims.
I think it is a great mission to find out what is important to make an enjoyable system. If the system is found to be not the most accurate or the most hi-fi, so what!??
Look at another successful amplifier, Ayre MX-R. The designer is also very intimate with the subjectivist "voodoo". I don't know whether SY can explain the Physics behind how Charles Hansen did the AC filtering solution, for example.
SY was not necessarily being disparaging when he said 'boutique'. Parasound is high value along the law of diminishing returns. Take for example the JC3 phono at $2350. You can pay 20 times that for a phono stage, but >$2000 for a phono stage is still in 'boutique' territory when you can get a very good phono for under $200.
SY has designed a couple of phono stages. If you look at the JC3 measurements Parasound Halo JC 3 phono preamplifier Measurements | Stereophile.com you will find that, in areas his DIY designs outperform it objectively. Does it sound better? I have no idea and probably never will. Could it be sold for less than the JC-3? possibly not as the 5:1 markup from parts to product is a killer. And it doesn't actually matter in the grand scheme of things.
I have respect for both John and SY.
No, but there is no evidence of any harmonics coming out from your 'theory' so what should I hear if you are right. What does this awful classB IC buffer do to the sound?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.