demogorgon said:
I don't know why such an anger on your posts, Marius.
The spaks come from you on every post of yours, have you noticed?
But hey, you are deam right, I'm a master of mind games, I control the minds of everyone who picks a resistor and a cap, I point a gun to their heads so that they report positive results, and I cash in 1,000,000 € for every positive feedback.
And oh, I now drive an Aston Martin.
PS: of course, my 'clients' are all deaf.
carlosfm said:
I don't know why such an anger on your posts, Marius.
The spaks come from you on every post of yours, have you noticed?
But hey, you are deam right, I'm a master of mind games, I control the minds of everyone who picks a resistor and a cap, I point a gun to their heads so that they report positive results, and I cash in 1,000,000 € for every positive feedback.
And oh, I now drive an Aston Martin.
PS: of course, my 'clients' are all deaf.
Carlos, no such is intended, though i didn't like the replys i got from you at the start of the thread, and that set the tone for me at least.
master of mind games? i dont think you are, not conciously anyways.
the reason i belived the snubber in the first place was reading your posts and threads, you were so convinced and shure of your findings, blending just enough science and subjectivity into the mix for me to eat it raw.
well, whatever. i'v had my say on the subject.
for all it's worth, those late nights fideling with different caps, different resistors ect at least gave me a good bit of soldering exrecise, and was damn good fun.
demogorgon said:
I have some good Shure cartridges. They sound different from my Rega Elys, more closed in the midband and treble.
Know what? With a simple change of the input cap on my phono pre the Shures sound very similar to the Rega.
Oh no... my fertile imagination again.
Can't be true, I'm not hearing anything, I just think I am, because I WANT to.
Whatever, happy ears! (c) Franz.
I once said that the snubber makes difference....
Since I am always skeptic about this comments, I thought, let's give it a try.
I have started with the first version that Carlos presented.
I made the changes in two amps that I have and in both I notice differences.
In the two I got better resolution and better treble(without noise).
After a while of testing, I left the snubber and moved forward .
I no longer use the snubber, I prefer the make a downgrade of capacitance and install a lot of 100nF capacitors.
(I have a fast and detailed bass and a treble of crying for )
But I am the crazy guy that connects the mute directly to -Vcc . LOL hahahaha
Resuming, the snubber makes difference, that's for sure!
If it's for better or worst, that's up to the DIYer taste.
Since I am always skeptic about this comments, I thought, let's give it a try.
I have started with the first version that Carlos presented.
I made the changes in two amps that I have and in both I notice differences.
In the two I got better resolution and better treble(without noise).
After a while of testing, I left the snubber and moved forward .
I no longer use the snubber, I prefer the make a downgrade of capacitance and install a lot of 100nF capacitors.
(I have a fast and detailed bass and a treble of crying for
)But I am the crazy guy that connects the mute directly to -Vcc . LOL
hahahahaResuming, the snubber makes difference, that's for sure!
If it's for better or worst, that's up to the DIYer taste.
snubbers
XLEB you are absolutely right it up to the ears of the DIY's. Snubbers have been used for ages in power supplys they are nothing new.
Oh and by the way you are not crazy, you did what can be done if you look at the internal schematic and faq sheet. The only reason National shows the resistor and cap value is for the slow start, the resistor charges the cap at a given rate. All you do by connecting to the V- is possibley removing some noise.
XLEB you are absolutely right it up to the ears of the DIY's. Snubbers have been used for ages in power supplys they are nothing new.
Oh and by the way you are not crazy, you did what can be done if you look at the internal schematic and faq sheet. The only reason National shows the resistor and cap value is for the slow start, the resistor charges the cap at a given rate. All you do by connecting to the V- is possibley removing some noise.
carlosfm said:
I have some good Shure cartridges. They sound different from my Rega Elys, more closed in the midband and treble.
Know what? With a simple change of the input cap on my phono pre the Shures sound very similar to the Rega.
Oh no... my fertile imagination again.
Can't be true, I'm not hearing anything, I just think I am, because I WANT to.
Whatever, happy ears! (c) Franz.
It's always the same. Could you tell us which pick-up are you listening to without previously knowing it?
I love that game. The most funny part is when you show them what they have been actually listening to, despite they agreed when I told it was something else.
Hearing is the last sense in which I would rely.
Ok so there's a debate about if there are audible differences between amps, fair enough. I believe there can be.
But I didn't know there was a person alive who thought all electromagnetic components were the same!!! The differences between different cartridges or audio transformers are many orders of magnitude bigger than between amps! How about loudspeakers? All sound the same? Here's something to try - tell a studio or pro-audio guy that all microphones sound the same!
But I didn't know there was a person alive who thought all electromagnetic components were the same!!! The differences between different cartridges or audio transformers are many orders of magnitude bigger than between amps! How about loudspeakers? All sound the same? Here's something to try - tell a studio or pro-audio guy that all microphones sound the same!
thejohn:
Dont misunderstand me.
Practice shows that most people is not even able to reliably identify differences in a repeatable way when you swap speakers or change driver polarities to make them cancel-out in some frequency range (quite dramatical changes!), so how come are we expected to know by ear if a diode has a suitable RC network in paralell with it?
Maybe if we could hear the electrons jumping...
Hearing is certainly not the best tool to know if there is something in paralell with the diode and if it is working as expected (when some kind of objective "working" is expected).
Dont misunderstand me.
Practice shows that most people is not even able to reliably identify differences in a repeatable way when you swap speakers or change driver polarities to make them cancel-out in some frequency range (quite dramatical changes!), so how come are we expected to know by ear if a diode has a suitable RC network in paralell with it?
Maybe if we could hear the electrons jumping...
Hearing is certainly not the best tool to know if there is something in paralell with the diode and if it is working as expected (when some kind of objective "working" is expected).
thejohn said:Ok so there's a debate about if there are audible differences between amps, fair enough. I believe there can be.
But I didn't know there was a person alive who thought all electromagnetic components were the same!!! The differences between different cartridges or audio transformers are many orders of magnitude bigger than between amps! How about loudspeakers? All sound the same? Here's something to try - tell a studio or pro-audio guy that all microphones sound the same!
I'm not the person, i can tell you for a fact that there are differences on electromagnetic components. but can you hear the difference of amp a with the snubber, and amp b without it, given they both are well buildt and hold an good level of design and build quality?
i do hear differences between speakers, to a large degree, thats whi i find myself directing most of my freetime and money in that direction. what's 0.0002% THD compared to whatever it is a normal speaker press out? not very much, i'l tell you that.
Quote:
"Practice shows that most people is not even able to reliably identify differences in a repeatable way...."
Quote:
"Hearing is certainly not the best tool to know if there is something in paralell with the diode...."
Hi,
Whilst I agree entirely with the second comment here, in that hearing may not be *the best tool* for this purpose, it is still possible to identify differences by using one's ears, and repeatedly so.
The first quote is what I find a little amusing, in that it is precisely due to a *lack of* "practice" (in many cases) which prevents most listeners from appreciating these subtle differences which can be heard, both repeatably and consistently, IMHO.
My own audio electronics 'initiation' was over 40 yrs. ago, but I still remember most things quite well. The very first time I (or any trainee engineer, I guess) looked at some 'scope waveforms, I did not fully appreciate the quite tiny differences to be seen, perhaps on the leading edge of a squarewave, or whatever.
However, with some dedication, practice and experience, together with some help from more-experienced folk who had done this before and showed me what to look out for, I began to appreciate some very subtle changes in these shapes, and maybe what effect they would be likely to have on the sound as well.
This is known as "training", in this case training one's eyes until one is more adept at this particular discipline, and becoming familiar with the correct settings of the 'scopes various controls to use under various different circumstances etc.
The difference between myself and I guess most others is that some few years later, I also persevered with an alternative aspect relating to audio, i.e. using one's ears, as this alternative methodology seemed rather relevant to the situation, to my way of thinking. After some 35 yrs. of exploring this avenue, I am getting the hang of things, and I have needed to develop my own methods of doing this to ensure repeatability, and to avoid any unwitting self-deceit, which is the enemy of all such subjective trials.
I haven't abandoned objective measurements, and my array of test gear has improved considerably over the intervening years, but so has my ability to hear significant changes brought about by circuit topology and component changes, too. I consider myself to be in the happy position of having a foot in both camps, having begun as a staunch objectivist, but later realising that there are many worthwhile benefits to be gained by exploiting *both* methods of assessing audio circuits.
The continual classifying of all 'other- than-100%' objectivists together, is, with respect, quite ridiculous simply because we all have different inherent natural skills, experiences, inclinations, abilities, determination, patience, training etc. and the list could go on for ever. To classify all true objectivists together, is similarly unimaginative, for exactly the same reasons.
Regrettably, because some 'subjective' folk have become over-excited about some discovery which has been reported by them as being a "massive change in sonics", this will inevitably result in a lack of confidence in what they say, but, as I said, we are not all the same, here, fortunately. Some audible changes can be quite obvious right from the start, but most are quite subtle and very small 'in the whole scheme of things', but they are cumulative and can, and do, add up to contribute noticeably to overall better-sounding audio equipment.
For those who unconditionally state that no such changes can possibly exist, maybe because they cannot (presently) measure them, or perhaps where these differences do not fit in with conventional wisdom, they will most likely never experience this phenomen for themselves. This is no surprise at all, as how can they expect to if they don't even make the effort which I (for example) have done? IMO, any such expectation is simply naively optimistic, at the very least.
Doubtless the first time the current Olympic Ice-Skating Champions stepped on to the ice in their home-town skating rinks, they wouldn't have been up to Gold-Medal standards then either, and this is just the same as any novice looking at a 'scope or a distortion meter, or alternatively using his ears to assess anything worthwhile. With the right inclination, and a lot of practice, the position changes, though.
Similarly, I used to be a city dweller, and I could not tell a Robin's song from a Blackbird's, but since moving to the country, and *gaining some very relevant experience*, I can do nowadays.
I could hear perfectly well before (in fact better, in view of my advancing years!) but I didn't know quite how to use my ears for this purpose, or precisely what to listen for, due to a lack of relevant experience.
If there is any consolation in any of this, almost every worthwhile improvement I have noticed initially through listening trials, and when it has been possible to measure anything relevant (albeit sometimes at a very much later time) it has most frequently been measurably better, as well, and there have been very few real 'conflicts' which I can think of here.
Regards,
"Practice shows that most people is not even able to reliably identify differences in a repeatable way...."
Quote:
"Hearing is certainly not the best tool to know if there is something in paralell with the diode...."
Hi,
Whilst I agree entirely with the second comment here, in that hearing may not be *the best tool* for this purpose, it is still possible to identify differences by using one's ears, and repeatedly so.
The first quote is what I find a little amusing, in that it is precisely due to a *lack of* "practice" (in many cases) which prevents most listeners from appreciating these subtle differences which can be heard, both repeatably and consistently, IMHO.
My own audio electronics 'initiation' was over 40 yrs. ago, but I still remember most things quite well. The very first time I (or any trainee engineer, I guess) looked at some 'scope waveforms, I did not fully appreciate the quite tiny differences to be seen, perhaps on the leading edge of a squarewave, or whatever.
However, with some dedication, practice and experience, together with some help from more-experienced folk who had done this before and showed me what to look out for, I began to appreciate some very subtle changes in these shapes, and maybe what effect they would be likely to have on the sound as well.
This is known as "training", in this case training one's eyes until one is more adept at this particular discipline, and becoming familiar with the correct settings of the 'scopes various controls to use under various different circumstances etc.
The difference between myself and I guess most others is that some few years later, I also persevered with an alternative aspect relating to audio, i.e. using one's ears, as this alternative methodology seemed rather relevant to the situation, to my way of thinking. After some 35 yrs. of exploring this avenue, I am getting the hang of things, and I have needed to develop my own methods of doing this to ensure repeatability, and to avoid any unwitting self-deceit, which is the enemy of all such subjective trials.
I haven't abandoned objective measurements, and my array of test gear has improved considerably over the intervening years, but so has my ability to hear significant changes brought about by circuit topology and component changes, too. I consider myself to be in the happy position of having a foot in both camps, having begun as a staunch objectivist, but later realising that there are many worthwhile benefits to be gained by exploiting *both* methods of assessing audio circuits.
The continual classifying of all 'other- than-100%' objectivists together, is, with respect, quite ridiculous simply because we all have different inherent natural skills, experiences, inclinations, abilities, determination, patience, training etc. and the list could go on for ever. To classify all true objectivists together, is similarly unimaginative, for exactly the same reasons.
Regrettably, because some 'subjective' folk have become over-excited about some discovery which has been reported by them as being a "massive change in sonics", this will inevitably result in a lack of confidence in what they say, but, as I said, we are not all the same, here, fortunately. Some audible changes can be quite obvious right from the start, but most are quite subtle and very small 'in the whole scheme of things', but they are cumulative and can, and do, add up to contribute noticeably to overall better-sounding audio equipment.
For those who unconditionally state that no such changes can possibly exist, maybe because they cannot (presently) measure them, or perhaps where these differences do not fit in with conventional wisdom, they will most likely never experience this phenomen for themselves. This is no surprise at all, as how can they expect to if they don't even make the effort which I (for example) have done? IMO, any such expectation is simply naively optimistic, at the very least.
Doubtless the first time the current Olympic Ice-Skating Champions stepped on to the ice in their home-town skating rinks, they wouldn't have been up to Gold-Medal standards then either, and this is just the same as any novice looking at a 'scope or a distortion meter, or alternatively using his ears to assess anything worthwhile. With the right inclination, and a lot of practice, the position changes, though.
Similarly, I used to be a city dweller, and I could not tell a Robin's song from a Blackbird's, but since moving to the country, and *gaining some very relevant experience*, I can do nowadays.
I could hear perfectly well before (in fact better, in view of my advancing years!) but I didn't know quite how to use my ears for this purpose, or precisely what to listen for, due to a lack of relevant experience.
If there is any consolation in any of this, almost every worthwhile improvement I have noticed initially through listening trials, and when it has been possible to measure anything relevant (albeit sometimes at a very much later time) it has most frequently been measurably better, as well, and there have been very few real 'conflicts' which I can think of here.
Regards,
Learn how to listen, you are not born with that
What?
Eva, I have several cartridges, mounted on SME headshells. Changing and adjusting ALL the arm settings for each of them (I have all in my head) is for me a breeze. Too many years of experience, you know...
The reason why I'm trying them again is because I'm on the final stage of a new discrete preamp design, and I want to settle on one cartridge that I prefer.
I'm not going into details of why you NEED to adjust input parameters on your phono pre for YOUR specific cartridge, if you want to extract the best of it, you should know this (do you?).
Now, probably you have a special vinyl test record with the signals you need for the measurements of your phono pre with YOUR cartdrige, or are you measuring Neil Young?
No, don't tell me... you mean you 'burn' your vinyl test records on your PC?
Oh no, even worse, you use a line source and a reverse RIAA circuit? Pffffffffff...
All this to get to the same conclusion over and over again, you don't know what your are talking about, but you post all the same, just to create the confusion.
This forum is yours, I have been adopting a different tactics: more work and less talk. It works much better.
It's a loss of time here.
If you can't rely on your hearing abilities, that's your problem. Just don't generalize your problem.
Eva es la mejor!
I give you the forum.
Eva said:
What?
Eva, I have several cartridges, mounted on SME headshells. Changing and adjusting ALL the arm settings for each of them (I have all in my head) is for me a breeze. Too many years of experience, you know...
The reason why I'm trying them again is because I'm on the final stage of a new discrete preamp design, and I want to settle on one cartridge that I prefer.
I'm not going into details of why you NEED to adjust input parameters on your phono pre for YOUR specific cartridge, if you want to extract the best of it, you should know this (do you?).
Now, probably you have a special vinyl test record with the signals you need for the measurements of your phono pre with YOUR cartdrige, or are you measuring Neil Young?
No, don't tell me... you mean you 'burn' your vinyl test records on your PC?
Oh no, even worse, you use a line source and a reverse RIAA circuit? Pffffffffff...
All this to get to the same conclusion over and over again, you don't know what your are talking about, but you post all the same, just to create the confusion.
This forum is yours, I have been adopting a different tactics: more work and less talk. It works much better.
It's a loss of time here.
Eva said:
If you can't rely on your hearing abilities, that's your problem. Just don't generalize your problem.
Eva es la mejor!
I give you the forum.
Bobken said:
Overall an excellent post, thank you!
Now, with such less-than-perfect specs, specially when compared to the so-called-so-advertized perfect sound forever (CD) how can vinyl sound good?
It does, oh yes.
It's playin' now, and it sounds wonderful.
The problem is, 'they' will never go on and listen to good vinyl, because they don't believe those specs can sound good.
Attachments
Bobken said:
For those who unconditionally state that no such changes can possibly exist, maybe because they cannot (presently) measure them, or perhaps where these differences do not fit in with conventional wisdom, they will most likely never experience this phenomen for themselves. This is no surprise at all, as how can they expect to if they don't even make the effort which I (for example) have done? IMO, any such expectation is simply naively optimistic, at the very least.
Regards,
Hi there bobken.
naivly optimistic? your shurly not refering to me?
i'v spend time fideling around with "improvements" on a subjective basis, in the area of 2 years, active years. and come to the conclution i was wrong. teflon caps and silver wires, magic interconnects with micro diodes and braided speakercables in all sizes and shapes.
neither have i said that all audio gear decently made sound the same as an absolute. i suspect it.
perhaps i'l be proven wrong one day.
vinyl can sound exelent btw carlos, i know, i'v heard
the human ear is quite error tolerant
but seriously, i consider both vinyl and cd to be two formats close enough to perfect to make due. would like to see dvd-audio tak the market though. not happening.
demogorgon said:
Hi demogorgon,
I deliberately avoided referring to anyone, specifically, and that was why I made the quotes I used 'anonymous', as I have no wish to encourage any more apparent ill-feeling here.
I merely tried to point out that these two 'camps' are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and that it is possible to use both methodologies to one's benefit. i.e. Objectivism, & Subjectivism.
As I discovered (quite by accident) many years ago, there are some differences 'sonically' caused by different components in use in audio circuits, and it is foolish to ignore something which can be demonstrated repeatedly and consistently, just because it is inconvenient or doesn't appear to be intuitive.
Instead of simply dismissing this uncomfortable 'discovery', I made a lot of effort to understand this phenomenon better, and to a large extent I succeeded in doing this. I am certainly not alone in doing this, I am sure, and I don't consider I have 'Golden Ears', either. I may have been fortunate in being blessed with better hearing than most, but it is mainly down to my attitude and perseverance in conducting extensive and careful listening trials which has got me to where I am today.
With respect, just because one is interested or even heavily involved in this (or any other) walk of life, it doesn't follow that one has automatically been given the 'tools' to be good at this particular subject, and there is no reason to suppose that *any* purely objective audio engineer has better or more acute hearing abilities than any other person.
The head of a prominent Formula-One racing car outfit, is unfortunately wheelchair bound. His whole life is motor racing, and I guess his wish to be able to personally assess his own designs 'at their limits', must be extremely high, but he simply does not have the ability to do this for himself. Instead, when he wishes to assess whether a minor change in camber, castor, toe-in, roll-centre heights etc., on one of his cars is better or not (or even if it makes any difference), he needs to ask his test drivers to do this.
They, having some rather extraordinary natural ability in this field, together with some years of practice, will doubtless be able to tell if any extremely minor change has been effective or not, which you or I would have no idea about. Attention to relatively small details, can make all the difference in winning races.
Similarly, 50 yrs ago Roger Bannister lived 3 houses away from myself, and you may recall that he was the first person in the world to run a mile in under 4 minutes. He ran tirelessly every day, mornings and night-times, and for a long while it was thought that this 'time barrier' of 4 minutes was unachievable. Eventually, he succeeded, because he practiced and 'honed' his running skills and techniques, although it took a long time before any of his running-partners equalled this amazing achievement. Some never did, even though they tried extremely hard as well.
I couldn't even see him after a couple of minutes, if I was to run along side of him to start off with, because I never had the ability to run very fast, even though I hated to admit this obvious lesser ability on my part. However, I was never stupid enough to say that it could not be done by *anyone*, merely because I couldn't achieve the same incredible speeds, myself, and this is precisely what I keep on reading in these threads about listening tests, much to my dismay.
We are all different, as I tried to point out, and keeping an open mind on these matters inevitably will be to one's advantage, in my experience.
I have been involved with (and am passionately interested in) all forms of engineering for a working lifetime, and have some 40yrs experience with electronics, and I still learn something of benefit to me every day. But, if I were to expect to be extremely adept at all disciplines, or be the fastest runner, or a 'sensitive' test-driver, or whatever else, this would (IMHO) be incredibly "naively optimistic", and that was why I used that particular expression.
Regards,
EDIT: Just seen XELB's comments. Here I agree entirely, subjectively there is no contest, and I do have a fancy TT, and fancy CD replay equipment, too. Its just the 'ticks' & 'pops', I don't like so much!
"Hi demogorgon"
hello.
"I deliberately avoided referring to anyone, specifically, and that was why I made the quotes I used 'anonymous', as I have no wish to encourage any more apparent ill-feeling here."
smart move
"I merely tried to point out that these two 'camps' are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and that it is possible to use both methodologies to one's benefit. i.e. Objectivism, & Subjectivism."
"As I discovered (quite by accident) many years ago, there are some differences 'sonically' caused by different components in use in audio circuits, and it is foolish to ignore something which can be demonstrated repeatedly and consistently, just because it is inconvenient or doesn't appear to be intuitive."
while i agree with you to a certain degree, i havent found the difference to be apparent, neiter sonically or by measurements i have seen, not to a degree that makes practical difference anyway.
there was different reading with and without offcource.
and i altso listened with a critical ear after i became aware of how easy it is to be fooled by your own ears. didn't hear jack s*** worth of difference. not that i use that against the snubber, i use that as a confirmation not to trust my own ears that tel me there's huge improment one day, and non the next.
and those facts are what i base my stance on the subject on.
"We are all different, as I tried to point out, and keeping an open mind on these matters inevitably will be to one's advantage, in my experience. "
offcource, but then we'r back to psychoacustics, are you REALLY HEARING those subtle litle differences? only a propper blindtest will tell. i needs something more than a perhaps a slight subtle difference like when you test your stuff alone, before and after.
just is'nt concrete enough to base something on.
-Marius
hello.
"I deliberately avoided referring to anyone, specifically, and that was why I made the quotes I used 'anonymous', as I have no wish to encourage any more apparent ill-feeling here."
smart move
"I merely tried to point out that these two 'camps' are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and that it is possible to use both methodologies to one's benefit. i.e. Objectivism, & Subjectivism."
"As I discovered (quite by accident) many years ago, there are some differences 'sonically' caused by different components in use in audio circuits, and it is foolish to ignore something which can be demonstrated repeatedly and consistently, just because it is inconvenient or doesn't appear to be intuitive."
while i agree with you to a certain degree, i havent found the difference to be apparent, neiter sonically or by measurements i have seen, not to a degree that makes practical difference anyway.
there was different reading with and without offcource.
and i altso listened with a critical ear after i became aware of how easy it is to be fooled by your own ears. didn't hear jack s*** worth of difference. not that i use that against the snubber, i use that as a confirmation not to trust my own ears that tel me there's huge improment one day, and non the next.
and those facts are what i base my stance on the subject on.
"We are all different, as I tried to point out, and keeping an open mind on these matters inevitably will be to one's advantage, in my experience. "
offcource, but then we'r back to psychoacustics, are you REALLY HEARING those subtle litle differences? only a propper blindtest will tell. i needs something more than a perhaps a slight subtle difference like when you test your stuff alone, before and after.
just is'nt concrete enough to base something on.
-Marius
Running is something that has to be carefully measured, both in time and distance, otherwise any record claim is worthless.
That's a very bad example in our discussion, because in sound terms people here is claiming to run "a lot of miles" in "a few minutes" with neither having measured the distance nor the time, and they get quite angry when someone wants to measure them.
Actually they claim to run very very fast in a fourth or sixth (or something) dimension that can't be measured with current instruments....
Don't you agree?... or can you measure diode and snubber effects in VOLTS and AMPERES at the output of the amplifier like distance and time is measured when somebody runs.
What would you all think about a runner that does not rely on distances and chronometers because he claims to run faster and longer than the measurements? (poor mad man)
p.s.: Not to mention those that sell exotic magic chronometers that measure running times in new dimensions.
That's a very bad example in our discussion, because in sound terms people here is claiming to run "a lot of miles" in "a few minutes" with neither having measured the distance nor the time, and they get quite angry when someone wants to measure them.
Actually they claim to run very very fast in a fourth or sixth (or something) dimension that can't be measured with current instruments....
Don't you agree?... or can you measure diode and snubber effects in VOLTS and AMPERES at the output of the amplifier like distance and time is measured when somebody runs.
What would you all think about a runner that does not rely on distances and chronometers because he claims to run faster and longer than the measurements? (poor mad man)
p.s.: Not to mention those that sell exotic magic chronometers that measure running times in new dimensions.
Bobken said:
The "ticks & pops" are a question of taste and tolerance
In some records they give a special "color" to the music, and I can't imagine a old record of Luis Armstrong without the "ticks & pops". hehehe
But even in new records, such as Patricia Barber - Companion (1999), I prefer the sound of the vinyl instead of the CD.
And as I told you, I don't have any fancy TT. ( Rega P3 + Cartridge Benz Gold + 2ºHand Preamp Rega )
But as always, our taste have the final word.....
Just because I don't like, I can't say it's rubbish!
I like Vinyl, but I have the perfect knowledge that this format have some weak points. But I also know that the treble is lovely
We must be impartial when it comes to judge this or that....
As I told before, the snubber makes the sound different. If I don't like it, that's a different "dilemma"
But please, don't say it doesn't do anything just because you don't like it
Regards.
Hi Eva,
I am not going to get involved in any argument with you here.
The example I gave was not a "very bad example" at all, in spite of what you suggest.
Regrettably, you just missed the point of it for reasons best known to yourself.
The example illustrated very well what I was trying to get over, in that even a very experienced/adept person in a particular field, usually needs to practice and improve his/her techniques etc. in order to achieve a *certain level of competence* or experience, in that field.
Also, no matter how much anyone might *wish* to become adept at any discipline, because of the inborn natural differences in our physical makeup, quite apart from other matters like a possible lack of suitable training/ relevant experience etc., it is not always possible that they will *ever* become very good at that particular discipline.
It does not follow automatically, that a good 'meter-reader' (of which I also consider myself to be one) is also a good and adept 'listener', and listening (at the end of the day) is how most of us do appreciate or 'quantify' reproduced music, so this is possibly rather more relevant here than just meter-reading.
The next time I buy a new car, I will (as always) initially look at its top-speed and acceleration figures etc. However, before making any hasty judgements and signing up for it, I will also test-drive it to find out what it is really like to drive on the road, because this is what matters to me in any car. Exactly as in the case with audio gear, measurements *alone* are simply not adequate to tell anyone how a car will perform in its intended use.
As I have said on this Forum before, you have suggested many times that *in your opinion* listening tests are a waste of time, so why on earth do you waste your time in commenting on threads which are related to listening tests?
Why not leave us totally misguided fools (who prefer to measure *and* carry out listening tests) to our misconceptions?
Regards,
I am not going to get involved in any argument with you here.
The example I gave was not a "very bad example" at all, in spite of what you suggest.
Regrettably, you just missed the point of it for reasons best known to yourself.
The example illustrated very well what I was trying to get over, in that even a very experienced/adept person in a particular field, usually needs to practice and improve his/her techniques etc. in order to achieve a *certain level of competence* or experience, in that field.
Also, no matter how much anyone might *wish* to become adept at any discipline, because of the inborn natural differences in our physical makeup, quite apart from other matters like a possible lack of suitable training/ relevant experience etc., it is not always possible that they will *ever* become very good at that particular discipline.
It does not follow automatically, that a good 'meter-reader' (of which I also consider myself to be one) is also a good and adept 'listener', and listening (at the end of the day) is how most of us do appreciate or 'quantify' reproduced music, so this is possibly rather more relevant here than just meter-reading.
The next time I buy a new car, I will (as always) initially look at its top-speed and acceleration figures etc. However, before making any hasty judgements and signing up for it, I will also test-drive it to find out what it is really like to drive on the road, because this is what matters to me in any car. Exactly as in the case with audio gear, measurements *alone* are simply not adequate to tell anyone how a car will perform in its intended use.
As I have said on this Forum before, you have suggested many times that *in your opinion* listening tests are a waste of time, so why on earth do you waste your time in commenting on threads which are related to listening tests?
Why not leave us totally misguided fools (who prefer to measure *and* carry out listening tests) to our misconceptions?
Regards,
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.