Will this eventually lead to a "why" answer?
a side note: Reference recordings are certainly a necessity, but listening to questionable music simply because it is recorded well is like reading a book simply because you appreciate the font and binding. IMO.
Well, I did try ... I presume SY meant the material mentioned here, http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/lounge/200865-sound-quality-vs-measurements-112.html#post2869256, and here, http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/lounge/200865-sound-quality-vs-measurements-113.html#post2869410. Of course, these do have a very, very slight problem ... they don't quite meet this condition ...
Hi,
+1000 if you mean by "reference recordings" those that are indeed carefully recorded using musicians of dubious talent playing music of some obscure genre. De gustibus et coloribus notwithstanding.
The reference recordings in my collections are often older jazz and classical music, some of which less well known but interesting musically nonetheless.
To my ears the simpler the recording technique the better the sound provided the sound engineer is up to it.
I admit to sometimes buying more from a certain label than I should just because I like the way the engineer works though....
I've rarely been disappointed by a simple Blumlein configuration for instance and remain convinced that the more mics used the harder it becomes to recreate a believable stereo image.
Cheers,
+1000 if you mean by "reference recordings" those that are indeed carefully recorded using musicians of dubious talent playing music of some obscure genre. De gustibus et coloribus notwithstanding.
The reference recordings in my collections are often older jazz and classical music, some of which less well known but interesting musically nonetheless.
To my ears the simpler the recording technique the better the sound provided the sound engineer is up to it.
I admit to sometimes buying more from a certain label than I should just because I like the way the engineer works though....
I've rarely been disappointed by a simple Blumlein configuration for instance and remain convinced that the more mics used the harder it becomes to recreate a believable stereo image.
Cheers,
In other words, important information should be kept away from the great unwashed - one needs to enter the inner sanctum, to be privy to the good stuff. I have to say, I'm amazed that most people have a sense of where, say, fundamental physics is going, by doing something as simple as looking at Wikipedia - surely all that knowledge, those ideas are too dangerous to be let loose so easily, for ordinary people to peruse, and think about ...
The more studio mixing and "mangling" takes place the more critical it is that the remaining acoustic clues are reproduced cleanly, so that the mind can filter and make sense of it all. That said, pop "mixing desk orchestrations" can be amazing things to experience, when all the threads are clearly untangled - it's like "watching" a musical circus where, say, 20 acts are going simultaneously, each occurring in their own "ring", and each act makes complete sense in itself - very satisfying to listen to ...I've rarely been disappointed by a simple Blumlein configuration for instance and remain convinced that the more mics used the harder it becomes to recreate a believable stereo image.
Cheers,
Now, something like this, mentioned in a thread here, is vastly more interesting as something to look at, dissect:Since the response is textbook deflection you can take it as a 'yes'
Observations of a controlled Cable Test - AVS Forum
This test was only double blind, not DBX, but interesting nonetheless. It was discussed briefly in a thread, http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/113521-speaker-cables-sound-same-still.html. One of the aspects that strikes one, as reported, is that doing this type of thing is highly fatiguing; the exercise degenerates into a guessing game fairly rapidly, as one's mental "interest" in the procedure steadily evaporates.
Jakob2 makes a salient point:
This listening, without "listening", I find very useful as a tool ...
Jakob2 makes a salient point:
followed by Nordic's comment:
This is something I would agree with - if my mind "gunks" up trying to "hear something" I very deliberately completely turn away mentally from the sound, I switch off internally; the music becomes background noise, just part of the overall sound landscape of wherever I am. Then, if the sound has positive qualities it automatically draws me in, makes me want to listen more closely, instinctively. Conversely, if negative qualities dominate then it starts to irritate, bug me - I will be thinking about hitting the "Off" switch.
This listening, without "listening", I find very useful as a tool ...
Last edited:
I'm waiting not for the op amp data sheet, but for the NAD 565 service manual. which should tell me a thing or two about how it was all done.
In my mind, this is an impasse situation.
I do not agree with the part of the subjectivist camp which denies any meaning in measurements. That is just plain ridiculous, any one who has ever designed anything knows how useful, nay, indespensible they were in ironing the device out in purely electrical terms. They point out quite a few caveats and/or imbalances and poor trade-offs.
On the other hand, the objectivists AFAIK cannot at this time provide any coherent measurement of sound stage rendition, detail rendition, spatial information transfer and so forth.
More importantly, they cannot explain the phenomenon of comparing two amps, where one has excellent measured specs, better than the other, yet the other is consistently preferred even in panel testing. I remember one, a famous brand product, which had most of its specs, verified by measurements, below 0.01% or less, while the other had a THD spec of 0.08% under the same conditions, also verified by measurements. Yet, in panel testing, the second one beat the first by a very convincing majority of panel votes, with comments like "better spatial clues and cues", "more space", etc. According to the objectivist dogma, this shoud not have happened. Yet it did.
So, either our thrseholds of hearing are not as advertised and need to be corrected, or our measurements do not yet provide sufficient information pertaining to sound quality. If there's a third possibility, please point it out to me.
What I think John is saying is that he does the whole measurement act as a matter of routine, determines that his circuits are electrically sound and that nothing untoward is happening anywhere. Then he sits and listens to it, and given his long experience, I imagine he has developed over time his own ways of how to do it. This probably causes him to tinker with the circuits, trying this and that, until he comes to a point where he feels that it now not only performs well electircally, but also sounds the way he thinks it should sound. I believe everybody who does designs has a similar routine they have developed over time.
As I see it, this is a step beyond measurements, at least those we have at this time, which will naturally evolve over time, providing us with newly discovered ways to quantify things. Before Otala, we didn't "have" TIM; the truth is of course that we had it all the time, we just didn't know how to measure it, so Otala didn't invent TIM, he invented only the first of many possible tests which would bring it out into the light, and using that knowledge, enable us to get rid of it.
Therefore, when somebody says he hears differences which do not show up in measurements, or worse, that he sonically prefers an amp which measures poorer than another amp, calling that superhuman hearing and demanding proof is really not being very constructive, much less intelelctually curios. To me, being intellectually curios would be to ask oneself what are we still missing, what can we still do to improve out battery of tests which would bring it nearer to reality as confirmed by listening test panels, the same panels which prefer the poorer measuring amp to the better measuring amp.
In that sense, Frank (fas42) is more than half right. I have personally witnessed the evolution of relatively simple circuits, which with a few fine touches turned from good measuring but dull circuits to still good measuring but much better sounding circuits. Small things, like changing the value of a resistor which the maths say should be say 4.7k to 5.6k, or changing two resistors from standard quality to better quality (e.g. from a measurably confirmed no name metal film to Dale metal film of the same value, where both are well within the nominal 1% tolerance). This clearly demonstrates that differences do exist even within the same measuring froup.
Saying "prove it" is really saying now get out there and take a large sample, test them all, and if you go deep enough, eventually you will get it. It's ridiculous to expect a designer to do things like that because he simply does not have the time and the funding to do things like that, and, ultimately, that's not his job, that's one for the scientific community.
I do not agree with the part of the subjectivist camp which denies any meaning in measurements. That is just plain ridiculous, any one who has ever designed anything knows how useful, nay, indespensible they were in ironing the device out in purely electrical terms. They point out quite a few caveats and/or imbalances and poor trade-offs.
On the other hand, the objectivists AFAIK cannot at this time provide any coherent measurement of sound stage rendition, detail rendition, spatial information transfer and so forth.
More importantly, they cannot explain the phenomenon of comparing two amps, where one has excellent measured specs, better than the other, yet the other is consistently preferred even in panel testing. I remember one, a famous brand product, which had most of its specs, verified by measurements, below 0.01% or less, while the other had a THD spec of 0.08% under the same conditions, also verified by measurements. Yet, in panel testing, the second one beat the first by a very convincing majority of panel votes, with comments like "better spatial clues and cues", "more space", etc. According to the objectivist dogma, this shoud not have happened. Yet it did.
So, either our thrseholds of hearing are not as advertised and need to be corrected, or our measurements do not yet provide sufficient information pertaining to sound quality. If there's a third possibility, please point it out to me.
What I think John is saying is that he does the whole measurement act as a matter of routine, determines that his circuits are electrically sound and that nothing untoward is happening anywhere. Then he sits and listens to it, and given his long experience, I imagine he has developed over time his own ways of how to do it. This probably causes him to tinker with the circuits, trying this and that, until he comes to a point where he feels that it now not only performs well electircally, but also sounds the way he thinks it should sound. I believe everybody who does designs has a similar routine they have developed over time.
As I see it, this is a step beyond measurements, at least those we have at this time, which will naturally evolve over time, providing us with newly discovered ways to quantify things. Before Otala, we didn't "have" TIM; the truth is of course that we had it all the time, we just didn't know how to measure it, so Otala didn't invent TIM, he invented only the first of many possible tests which would bring it out into the light, and using that knowledge, enable us to get rid of it.
Therefore, when somebody says he hears differences which do not show up in measurements, or worse, that he sonically prefers an amp which measures poorer than another amp, calling that superhuman hearing and demanding proof is really not being very constructive, much less intelelctually curios. To me, being intellectually curios would be to ask oneself what are we still missing, what can we still do to improve out battery of tests which would bring it nearer to reality as confirmed by listening test panels, the same panels which prefer the poorer measuring amp to the better measuring amp.
In that sense, Frank (fas42) is more than half right. I have personally witnessed the evolution of relatively simple circuits, which with a few fine touches turned from good measuring but dull circuits to still good measuring but much better sounding circuits. Small things, like changing the value of a resistor which the maths say should be say 4.7k to 5.6k, or changing two resistors from standard quality to better quality (e.g. from a measurably confirmed no name metal film to Dale metal film of the same value, where both are well within the nominal 1% tolerance). This clearly demonstrates that differences do exist even within the same measuring froup.
Saying "prove it" is really saying now get out there and take a large sample, test them all, and if you go deep enough, eventually you will get it. It's ridiculous to expect a designer to do things like that because he simply does not have the time and the funding to do things like that, and, ultimately, that's not his job, that's one for the scientific community.
Hopefully a bit more than half, ...
Elsewhere, a piece by JA in Stereophile entitled "God Lives in the Details" has been pointed to - and I realised that "truth" 30 years ago. All my efforts have been to try and understand, control, those Details - miles from being a trivial exercise, let me assure you. But ... the fun has been, when I get it right, is knowing that all the countering blabber is precisely that ...
...Elsewhere, a piece by JA in Stereophile entitled "God Lives in the Details" has been pointed to - and I realised that "truth" 30 years ago. All my efforts have been to try and understand, control, those Details - miles from being a trivial exercise, let me assure you. But ... the fun has been, when I get it right, is knowing that all the countering blabber is precisely that ...
I'd love to see you try to make two recordings with two amps, preamps, tuners and TTs.
Oh, the joy of it all.
Go on, involve as many variables as you can and keep claiming that's a valid test, when you have no idea what that CD will bring into the frey. Make the CD recorder, presumably in a computer, world reknown for their ultimate fidelity, introduce everything it's got.
If that's how you "objectively" test, good luck to you.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.