When you're next sitting on that airplane, Mike, you might ponder where the subjective choices are made, and where the scientific / engineering ones are applied.
Whilst sitting on your subjectively comfortable seat, looking at the subjective decor, eating a subjectively crafted meal, sipping a subjectively created drink, maybe watching a subjectively directed movie you can ponder why the bits about human emotional response and passion have a subjective element and the bits about stopping things falling off are engineering decisions.
Which category does music fall into, I wonder?
Off for a subjectively enjoyable beer.
Andy.
P.S. I have no beef with blind tests either, but don't tell me you can prove anything with them, it's scientifically impossible.
Whilst sitting on your subjectively comfortable seat, looking at the subjective decor, eating a subjectively crafted meal, sipping a subjectively created drink, maybe watching a subjectively directed movie you can ponder why the bits about human emotional response and passion have a subjective element and the bits about stopping things falling off are engineering decisions.
Which category does music fall into, I wonder?
Off for a subjectively enjoyable beer.
Andy.
P.S. I have no beef with blind tests either, but don't tell me you can prove anything with them, it's scientifically impossible.
ALW said:
Engineering decisions:wings & engines...ie fluid mechanics.....finite element analysis...etc.
Subjective decisions: interior decor......exterior colour....etc...etc...audio equipment included here.....
ALW said:
creation of music: art...subjective......spiritual...soulful experiance..........'engineered' music is often contrived.....lacking in spontaneity...etc
To preserve the essence....the spirit of an artists creation...AKA fidelity of reproduction,.....you need the intelligent and judicious application of sound engineering principals....no subjectivism required or welcome here.......
ALW said:
good for you old chap!
....just had me some ..(well several!) pints down the local....(fulwell cross...Barkingside.....
.... )ALW said:
Yes you can....proves that subjectivism is great illusion...with respect to amps.......proves that loudspeakers greatest weakness in signal chain.....including interaction of environment with said transducers.......solution??....low THD loudspeakers...say less than 1% THD across audio band..plus equalisation in DSP plus dual concetric mid-band, and treble drivers plus DSP crossovers plus low THD amps per driver=audio HEAVEN!!..
You and I are on different planets re: music.
First though you unequivocably cannot PROVE objective criteria by subjective results (i.e. listening tests). You need to brush up on your science, I suggest some basic text on scientific procedure form your gargantuan reference library. You can produce null results and evidence to support a view, but not proof - there's a BIG difference.
As for loudspeakers, these make the most difference to the sonics and by far the least effect on the music.
We definitely listen to different things, tonal differences are always the most obvious things to resolve in AB tests, and speakers will stand out as they have the largest gross errors, the source material though has by far the greatest effect on the musical content (GIGO), something an AB dem can only pick out given time as hearing occurs in the brain, not the ears, and quick AB dems remove the ability to differentiate the relevant parts of the music.
At least I now know exactly where you are coming from, and can quite safely ignore your views with regard to music reproduction, thanks for clearing that up, I no longer need to listen to your amp, if the above is representative of your views - thanks.
Andy.
ALW said:
I think 'sonics' is the most abused word in subjectivism.....aKA the subjectivist tendency...
...the quote above is nigh on meaningless........
...isn't audio reproduction about fidelity....faithfull recreation....?
so.....it follows,surely that a comparatively low THD 'speaker system, (all other factors being equal), will produce music that is more faithfull to the program source than a more distortive one....
...this is the philosophy pursued by, (and not widely advertised!),by B&W in their Nautilus series....very popular with cognescenti....i might add.....
Hey professor......
Ever hear of the word perception? Plays an important part in reproduction.
Speaking of perception, I assume you are astute enough to know how you are perceived. Maybe not. But I digress.
Big deal. Not all that popular with us ape-brain types. Must show how truly inferior we are.
You can make low THD speakers with horns, but they are not always perceived as being the most enjoyable to listen to. But then we get into things like polar radiation patterns.....ooops, I digress yet again. Have mecy on us humble inferior beings.
Jocko
Ever hear of the word perception? Plays an important part in reproduction.
Speaking of perception, I assume you are astute enough to know how you are perceived. Maybe not. But I digress.
Big deal. Not all that popular with us ape-brain types. Must show how truly inferior we are.
You can make low THD speakers with horns, but they are not always perceived as being the most enjoyable to listen to. But then we get into things like polar radiation patterns.....ooops, I digress yet again. Have mecy on us humble inferior beings.
Jocko
Re: Hey professor......
Actually ...No...
son·ics [ sónniks ]
noun
study of sound: the study of sound or, more generally, elastic wave motion ( takes a singular verb )
...obviously another subjectivist distortion...
....so....we are now designing 'perception' into amplifiers are we?...
UHHHMMM...let me guess.......He who does not accept the tenets of subjectivisim....AKA voodoo electronics??
Oh.... i wouldn't call you inferior old chap.........just a little....well....how can i put this....
planet10 said:
Actually ...No...
son·ics [ sónniks ]
noun
study of sound: the study of sound or, more generally, elastic wave motion ( takes a singular verb )
...obviously another subjectivist distortion...
Jocko Homo said:
....so....we are now designing 'perception' into amplifiers are we?...
Jocko Homo said:
UHHHMMM...let me guess...
....He who does not accept the tenets of subjectivisim....AKA voodoo electronics??planet10 said:
Oh.... i wouldn't call you inferior old chap.....
....just a little....well....how can i put this....
planet10 said:
Hi Dave,
Please don't let me have the last word....i would rather somebody...ANYBODY....proved me wrong.....
Thats what its all about...proof....poof...well urgued positions...that are rebuted on a point by point basis...
...this of course means forget jocko homo.....there is no hope there...
Somebody...by all means, 'have the last proof'
Another example: Hugh, (AKSA), says 2pole compensation, (which this is all about),...didn't work for him...
But...when i asked for details in respect of how he applied the technique in order that i may properly respond to his assertion, He disappeared without a trace.....
Any wonder then, that i don't take subjectivisim seriously??
Mike,
I'm glad you've received something from my contributions here, how you view my opinions here matters not one jot to me, but I wish for the sake of others reading you would type something of substance and stop this over-riding necessity you seem to have to abuse others in many of your replies. I'm sure people reading the threads to which you have contributed will form their own views, I've seen few people coming to your defence though.
Now maybe you could tell me how you set up and conduct a listening test that can PROVE anything - a subject you have continually avoided addressing since I first asked the question.
I'll repeat that in bold, in case you missed it, it is not possible, in a scientific experiment to PROVE objectivist theories by subjectivist results,. Listening tests involve subjective responses, which can have no place in a PROOF.
The reason I have take a 'subjectivist cop-out' is because I cannot PROVE anything to you, nor you to me, it's fundamentally impossible, a fact that seems lost to you.
I am happy in the knowledge though that my system both measures and MORE IMPORTANTLY sounds great.
Now type some bloody replies containing some SUBSTANCE, rather than this constant abuse of the purposes of this forum, I'm fed up with petty attempts at point scoring.
Andy.
I'm glad you've received something from my contributions here, how you view my opinions here matters not one jot to me, but I wish for the sake of others reading you would type something of substance and stop this over-riding necessity you seem to have to abuse others in many of your replies. I'm sure people reading the threads to which you have contributed will form their own views, I've seen few people coming to your defence though.
Now maybe you could tell me how you set up and conduct a listening test that can PROVE anything - a subject you have continually avoided addressing since I first asked the question.
I'll repeat that in bold, in case you missed it, it is not possible, in a scientific experiment to PROVE objectivist theories by subjectivist results,. Listening tests involve subjective responses, which can have no place in a PROOF.
The reason I have take a 'subjectivist cop-out' is because I cannot PROVE anything to you, nor you to me, it's fundamentally impossible, a fact that seems lost to you.
I am happy in the knowledge though that my system both measures and MORE IMPORTANTLY sounds great.
Now type some bloody replies containing some SUBSTANCE, rather than this constant abuse of the purposes of this forum, I'm fed up with petty attempts at point scoring.
Andy.
Mike,
Over time your comments to Fred and Jocko demonstrate much more a desire to prove others wrong than to clearly demonstrate your own veracity, and this highly compromises your credibility. I did not respond to you concerning two pole compensation because I doubted that you would answer the issues with anything but facile oneupmanship and blatant self-aggrandisement. I'm here to trade knowledge, not show I'm smarter than others. Truth be known, I am fascinated by this technology and have a lot of experience playing with amplifiers. More than that I cannot boast.
The procedure I used was simple enough; Two series connected caps from collector to base on the VAS, and a resistor from the join of the two caps to ground. The schemat used was exactly the same as Russell Breedon's amp, from memory.
I will admit I only tried it once, did not persevere with it, and this superficial approach could well have cost me something useful. Dunno. If you have actually built an amp using this approach, and auditioned it carefully, then I will duly take note.
I'm not saying this to put you down, but merely to illustrate that I'm dreadfully sick of your whole approach. It is not productive for the forum, and merely wastes bandwidth in ******* competitions.
Cheers,
Hugh
Over time your comments to Fred and Jocko demonstrate much more a desire to prove others wrong than to clearly demonstrate your own veracity, and this highly compromises your credibility. I did not respond to you concerning two pole compensation because I doubted that you would answer the issues with anything but facile oneupmanship and blatant self-aggrandisement. I'm here to trade knowledge, not show I'm smarter than others. Truth be known, I am fascinated by this technology and have a lot of experience playing with amplifiers. More than that I cannot boast.
The procedure I used was simple enough; Two series connected caps from collector to base on the VAS, and a resistor from the join of the two caps to ground. The schemat used was exactly the same as Russell Breedon's amp, from memory.
I will admit I only tried it once, did not persevere with it, and this superficial approach could well have cost me something useful. Dunno. If you have actually built an amp using this approach, and auditioned it carefully, then I will duly take note.
I'm not saying this to put you down, but merely to illustrate that I'm dreadfully sick of your whole approach. It is not productive for the forum, and merely wastes bandwidth in ******* competitions.
Cheers,
Hugh
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.