Hi Scott,
Hi Kindhornman,
-Chris
Very carefully.
Hi Kindhornman,
Let's just say that those things are fewer than you might imagine. There is some very small ambiguity, but only when you don't have enough information. We will know how it should sound if there are no major problems with board layout and wiring, and no failures in parts selection. But to say that something technically flawed can produce excellent music is untrue. Those things that people say measure well but sound terrible have one glaring error. That error is to say that those bad sounding things measure well, because they don't measure well using the equipment and techniques that good designers use. That unqualified statement is the only thing I've seen or heard as a comeback. Lame.
-Chris
Last edited:
The whole subjectivist versus objectivist thingy has never really made any sense to me. They go together, try to separate them is to avoid reality.
The obsession with double-blind testing has become a bit of an obsession with me too - that it does not translate well here whereas it can be a useful tool elsewhere.
This is where you mention 'brain' and what does a brain do, what does it process? Only that which it decides to at that particular moment in time, the next time the experience may be the same, the program that needs to be examined may seem the same, but the state of the brain may be different from one moment to the other, and it can be changed almost in milliseconds. It can be an infinite number of variables introduced into a methodology that should exclude variables, but does it really exclude that well?
I want to keep it short, so just give an example or two. Listening to a piece of music/performance, we unconsciously make certain decisions, what aspect, what part, what instrument and more, will get our interest this time. Next time it will be something else, because the mind wants to explore the music, so much so, we never listen to the same music the same way ever. First, you can not take that aspect away from the listener, and even worse is to force the listener. In a double-blind test, is the listener asked to listen to a particular aspect? Perhaps not, but now after A and then playing B, does he now have to discipline himself and try to listen the same way as in A? The whole process becomes unnatural and stressful, perhaps even boring because now we are asked not to enjoy what we listen to? A bored mind is disinterested. So stress, boredom and possible disinterest, are all variables created by the... brain.
In the end, the most likely outcome is sameness - the numbers will favour that. Too many unidentified variables becomes too much noise.
Finally, every audiophile should spend some working time is a recording studio - where you better learn how to listen and make good judgments, that will be tested quite severely, or you are out of a job. Double-blind testing? No such luxury mate.
-
Hi Esperado,
Well, with age there does come wisdom as we do more clearly see our own limitations. However, with this comes a greater understanding of the information amassed in our heads, and a perspective.
As a designer, I do know that you can look at a schematic and the part choices have have a pretty good idea of how it sounds, and why. That would be the best case because the circuit layout can certainly "break" a design. I believe that you can look at the technical information and measurements and have an extremely good idea of how it might sound. Best case of course. By looking at the measurements, I mean the various distortion numbers and spectral response for various stimulus. But you also know that great value is in look at the residual output from a THD analyzer with a spectrum analyzer. With newer equipment you can in fact resolve down to the noise floor. You already know if there are problems, and experience has taught you what these might sound like.
My feeling is any good designer and any good technician would be able to take this information and form a pretty good idea how something sounds. On average of course.
So the claim that we can not tell what something will sound like is maybe a bit pessimistic. You sure can zero in on what you heard that was wrong as well. Yes, all this takes training and experience. Of course, if a design has too many problems, describing how it would sound is fruitless. It will be a sonic mess.
Naturally we also want to have a listen to confirm what we think is true, and most often you confirm what your instruments have showed you. Plus, it's really nice to hear music through a creation that you designed. That affords us real satisfaction and pleasure. This is like having a shared experience, except you do know what is going on behind the curtains.
-Chris
Nice over-all summary and how I perceive the situation as well ...
THx-RNMarsh
a quick prototype of fig. 10
To learn a bit more about how the circuit works, I threw together something with parts I have. The transistor pair is on the back side of the surf board and used a JFET and capacitor for a mic to verify its DC behavior, then took the cap off and used a signal generator to take a quick look at AC. It's a really cool circuit.
.
Scott Wurcer said:
To learn a bit more about how the circuit works, I threw together something with parts I have. The transistor pair is on the back side of the surf board and used a JFET and capacitor for a mic to verify its DC behavior, then took the cap off and used a signal generator to take a quick look at AC. It's a really cool circuit.
.
Attachments
Last edited:
Chris Anatech and Joe Rasmussen, You perfectly resume my personal feelings on the question.
Yes, looking at a simple schematic, we can have an idea of "how" it will sound, more or less. the "signature". And even, sometimes, appreciate the beauty of a design. (And the technically cleverness and aesthetic of a board layout
One thing about our brain influence. I was looking recently on Internet at a lot of those videos where people are recording with a simple camera some high end speakers.
One thing surprised me. It was was the general difference between horns and cone speakers. And that was the contrary of what is in the reputation of the both technologies in the mind of most of us.
Most of the horns were pretty natural, (some with some little HQ peak here or there, but localized ) so close to what we could had if the same camera was recording the real source; while cones were so confused, like if a bad PA in a resonant room was the source. How can it be so horrible, while i remember to had never heard some of those enclosures that way, listening directly to them ? My Brain ? (I think so).
Is directivity the key? That our brain is able to "erase" room reflections that the omni-directional mike of the camera cannot ?
Yes, looking at a simple schematic, we can have an idea of "how" it will sound, more or less. the "signature". And even, sometimes, appreciate the beauty of a design. (And the technically cleverness and aesthetic of a board layout
One thing about our brain influence. I was looking recently on Internet at a lot of those videos where people are recording with a simple camera some high end speakers.
One thing surprised me. It was was the general difference between horns and cone speakers. And that was the contrary of what is in the reputation of the both technologies in the mind of most of us.
Most of the horns were pretty natural, (some with some little HQ peak here or there, but localized ) so close to what we could had if the same camera was recording the real source; while cones were so confused, like if a bad PA in a resonant room was the source. How can it be so horrible, while i remember to had never heard some of those enclosures that way, listening directly to them ? My Brain ? (I think so).
Is directivity the key? That our brain is able to "erase" room reflections that the omni-directional mike of the camera cannot ?
Last edited:
Your last sentence: Toole seems to think so. My agreement is qualified because lateral reflections can mask delayed signals coming directly from the speakers. Where'd I learn that? From the same book, earlier....
https://books.google.ca/books?id=tY...&q=timbre OR coloration "reflections"&f=false
https://books.google.ca/books?id=tY...&q=timbre OR coloration "reflections"&f=false
Chris Anatech and Joe Rasmussen, You perfectly resume my personal feelings on the question.
Yes, looking at a simple schematic, we can have an idea of "how" it will sound, more or less. the "signature". And even, sometimes, appreciate the beauty of a design. (And the technically cleverness and aesthetic of a board layout
One thing about our brain influence. I was looking recently on Internet at a lot of those videos where people are recording with a simple camera some high end speakers.
One thing surprised me. It was was the general difference between horns and cone speakers. And that was the contrary of what is in the reputation of the both technologies in the mind of most of us.
Most of the horns were pretty natural, (some with some little HQ peak here or there, but localized ) so close to what we could had if the same camera was recording the real source; while cones were so confused, like if a bad PA in a resonant room was the source. How can it be so horrible, while i remember to had never heard some of those enclosures that way, listening directly to them ? My Brain ? (I think so).
Is directivity the key? That our brain is able to "erase" room reflections that the omni-directional mike of the camera cannot ?
That would be all well and fine if not for the fact that too many "objectivists" in fact assume as a given that if A measures better than B, it must sound better. In that sense, they are not "subjectivists-objectivists" because the subjectivist aspect is completely lacking.
I asked several time: if A does indeed measure ebtter than B, is it possible that B will nevertheless sound better? Did I ever get a reply? Not on your life. Silence. Because that doesn't fit in with their views. If that was possible, they feel it would negate the whole objectivist theory. Which is not at all so, it simply means we havent dub deep enough, nothing just happens. It happens for a reason and we need to find it.
You are right about total subjectivists, but by the same token, you speak against extremes, and they are equally dangerous and ultimately wrong in both camps. To the best of my knowledge, no extreme ever works, true of both sides.
I admit to trusting my ears better than any battery of tests, but I don't think I could ever design anything on just ears alone. We NEED those measurements to produce actual devices, but it seems obvious to me that the measurements we usually use fall short of telling us all there is to tell. If I get great measurement results but still feel shortchanged by the sound, that means I haven't perormed enough testing or have not gone deep enough. Or have not perofrmed tests which I was unaware if, and possibly the answer was there.
The other aspect which makes test results so relative is that to the best of my knowledge there is no widely accepted standards on far too many things, THD being a typical example. What's our threshold of detecting excess THD? Another question to which I never got an answer to. Is it 0.3%, 0.1%, 0.05% or 0.005%? Just about everybody has their own anwser to that. And that THD into exactly which load, we all know it won't be the same for say 8 Ohms//1uF and 3 Ohms//2 uF. To this day, the ONLY amplifier I have ever come across which makes it perefctly clear on that matter is Andrew's (Bonsai) designs, he quoted 3 Ohms//2uF as a worst case load, and it is a criminally difficult load, but paid the price on not very exciting results in terms of specs for those who have no concept of a truly reactive load and are unable to appreciate what he is really saying.
Straw men are so much easier to argue with.
Rules of the Game:
1. Conflation is key. Make sure you interchange scope freely, even within a sentence. Vagueness can be your friend here.
2. Ignore application.
3. Assume that marketing is engineering, and that engineering is stuck in the mid-20th century.
4. Conflate end use with development.
5. Insist that there's special insight attained by ignoring controls when doing development.
BTW, we have a Burson box (Lycan) on its way here for review. This box allows rapid interchange of different opamps for listening tests. That ought to be fun.
Perhaps because it seems obviously rhetorical ? In any event 'better' needs to be defined, so let's substitute 'different' instead. Then it is revealed as, pretty obviously, a trivial question that doesn't warrant an answer............
Hence no response I'd guess.........
A great method to make ANYTHING relitive. Therefore emaningless. If you need to be explained what sounds better to you between say two contenders, you are beyond hope. Not what IS better, only what appears to be better.
"That would be all well and fine if not for the fact that too many "objectivists" in fact assume as a given that if A measures better than B, it must sound better. In that sense, they are not "subjectivists-objectivists" because the subjectivist aspect is completely lacking."
I don't think this is it dvv.
If I put my objectivist hat on and listen to two pieces of equipment, I can tell you that I do prefer some types of sound over others and it has nothing to do with measurements. And I can tell you most objectivists have preferences (e.g. why do some objectivists build tube gear - if they thought it sounded shite they would be making opamp or discrete stuff, right?). But, objectivists believe things sound different for perfectly explainable reasons. Objectivists also believe there is a limit to human perception. We cannot hear distortion at -120dB, and we certainly cannot hear above 20 kHz, but we may prefer an amp with 0.1% distortion because its euphonic, not because of some unexplainable audiophile phenomena. Objectivists also do not understand blanket statements like 'opamps are bad for audio' or 'only JFET's sound good'.
The issue objectivists have is that completely nonsensical, technically incorrect explanations are put forward to justify personal preferences (i.e. tubes are better than SS, or IC's are no good etc) that do not stand up to scrutiny at any level. Then, we are expected to suck it up and accept it. Example: the war against monolithic opamps from some here. Another is the use of JFET's over IC opamps or bipolar. And, when expediency Cemands, subjectivists quickly adopt the technology they only five minutes earlier proclaimed as verboten. Example: Zane Johnson from Audio Research who said SS was no good for audio it had to be tube - and them promptly launched a product that used a cheap Dallas semiconductor volume control. CH who dismisses IC's and then uses them in his products and so on.
Whether subjectivists like it or not, we have as a civilization an extraordinarily good grip on electromagnetic theory, acoustics, and ALL of the physics and engineering required to build good hi-fi without the need for bs and snake oil. Remember the outcome of Carver's challenge!
However, starting with Martin Colloms infamous 'feedback' and PRAT articles and the gradual shift of the audio press towards subjectivism, we've seen a whole industry subverted. No where else do you see this nonsense - go an any auto, camera, watch or other type of site and people talk about specs, facts etc. Sure, they have their preferences and they express them. But they don't justify their preferences with nonsense, non-scientific claims for the most part.
I suspect a big part of this subjectivist thing is that you have a crowded market with lots of bit players trying to stand out from the crowd - the easiest way to do that is make outrageous claims.
When I hear that on some audio sites you can get thrown out if you state the only way to verify the claimed difference between two pieces of gear is through an ABX or DBT test, I realize how corrupt this whole audio thing is. Its positively mediaeval and as a community we should be thoroughly disgusted with ourselves for allowing it to happen.
Claim your stuff is better than the next guys, claim yours sounds different, or that you use better quality parts, but please leave the alchemy and witchcraft out of it!
I don't think this is it dvv.
If I put my objectivist hat on and listen to two pieces of equipment, I can tell you that I do prefer some types of sound over others and it has nothing to do with measurements. And I can tell you most objectivists have preferences (e.g. why do some objectivists build tube gear - if they thought it sounded shite they would be making opamp or discrete stuff, right?). But, objectivists believe things sound different for perfectly explainable reasons. Objectivists also believe there is a limit to human perception. We cannot hear distortion at -120dB, and we certainly cannot hear above 20 kHz, but we may prefer an amp with 0.1% distortion because its euphonic, not because of some unexplainable audiophile phenomena. Objectivists also do not understand blanket statements like 'opamps are bad for audio' or 'only JFET's sound good'.
The issue objectivists have is that completely nonsensical, technically incorrect explanations are put forward to justify personal preferences (i.e. tubes are better than SS, or IC's are no good etc) that do not stand up to scrutiny at any level. Then, we are expected to suck it up and accept it. Example: the war against monolithic opamps from some here. Another is the use of JFET's over IC opamps or bipolar. And, when expediency Cemands, subjectivists quickly adopt the technology they only five minutes earlier proclaimed as verboten. Example: Zane Johnson from Audio Research who said SS was no good for audio it had to be tube - and them promptly launched a product that used a cheap Dallas semiconductor volume control. CH who dismisses IC's and then uses them in his products and so on.
Whether subjectivists like it or not, we have as a civilization an extraordinarily good grip on electromagnetic theory, acoustics, and ALL of the physics and engineering required to build good hi-fi without the need for bs and snake oil. Remember the outcome of Carver's challenge!
However, starting with Martin Colloms infamous 'feedback' and PRAT articles and the gradual shift of the audio press towards subjectivism, we've seen a whole industry subverted. No where else do you see this nonsense - go an any auto, camera, watch or other type of site and people talk about specs, facts etc. Sure, they have their preferences and they express them. But they don't justify their preferences with nonsense, non-scientific claims for the most part.
I suspect a big part of this subjectivist thing is that you have a crowded market with lots of bit players trying to stand out from the crowd - the easiest way to do that is make outrageous claims.
When I hear that on some audio sites you can get thrown out if you state the only way to verify the claimed difference between two pieces of gear is through an ABX or DBT test, I realize how corrupt this whole audio thing is. Its positively mediaeval and as a community we should be thoroughly disgusted with ourselves for allowing it to happen.
Claim your stuff is better than the next guys, claim yours sounds different, or that you use better quality parts, but please leave the alchemy and witchcraft out of it!
Last edited:
Ditto as above.
To me, "better" means that something sounds to me as being nearer to what I know as real life sound. While not being a professional musician, I have dabbled in it in my own small way in my youth and later on as a pure observer/visitor listening to real life music as it was played for me.
Specifically, I did bang on some drums a long time ago. But I jolly well know how a drum kit sounds like, and if amp A heas the best measurements ever seen but sounds lacking to me, then thank you, but no thank you.
And before anyone asks, yes, I do have a pair os peakers which can do wonders if properly driven even with not terribly high powered amps, even if I normally drive them with nominally 170 wpc power amp. And they will do just as well with a 50 wpc amp so long as I don't ask it to do what it cannot, i.e don't overdive it.
Last edited:
Andrew, I do not claim I know how to pull it off every single time. I know enought to realize that every device is a set of compromises - this only complicates things, as I could have two identically made amps but using different compromises, thus causing them to sound different.
In the end, the last word belongs to my own listening to whatever under conditions which are well known to me. Meaning that they are ultimately subjective, and you for exmple might not agree with my choice and be just as right or wrong as I may be.
To me, measurements are not the goal in themselves, they are a confirmation of what I generally hear. And definitely an invaluable design tool, which might point me towards a problem which might come to life once you start pushing things.
In the end, the last word belongs to my own listening to whatever under conditions which are well known to me. Meaning that they are ultimately subjective, and you for exmple might not agree with my choice and be just as right or wrong as I may be.
To me, measurements are not the goal in themselves, they are a confirmation of what I generally hear. And definitely an invaluable design tool, which might point me towards a problem which might come to life once you start pushing things.
I once shared a joint* with the ceo of marketing for Nike.
Of all corporate folks I've run across, the one who left the longest lasting impression.
(* read as a 3ft size metaphor)
Yes. I'm thoroughly disgusted with what this industry has become. That's why I'm trying to get out of it and design product for what I call the "broader" market. The market that I see that exists between the cheap mass market and the so-called "high end."
These are people who first and foremost love music. They appreciate high quality and sound engineering, have the disposable income to pay for it, but either aren't aware of the "high end" audio industry, or if they were, would not want anything to do with it or what it has to offer, i.e. a bunch of big metal boxes, big ugly speakers, and a tangle of wire and cable hooking it all up.
Just look at the setups at the shows. It's enough to make you puke. Who would want messes like that cluttering up their living room? And women are virtually non-existent. It's guys taking trophy shots of themselves mutually holding donkey dick-size power cords.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
se
There is your real target Stuart, not us:
How many straws could you stuff into that extended sausage?
Make that salami?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
How many straws could you stuff into that extended sausage?
Make that salami?
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.