keyser said:
Here's some scientific evidence to the contrary:
http://www.gedlee.com/distortion_perception.htm
Notice how the sample with the lowest THD figure (by 2 orders of magnitude!) sounds much worse. It must mean that THD is a measurement of no significance when it comes to sound quality.
Konnichiwa,
Nope. I merely point out that experts are unreliable, inherently so.
You may have noticed that in my writings in this thread I have not quoted a SINGLE expert to support my position. Now that was not because there are non, but because you can quote a million experts and you still do not have a single fact.
No. He is "wrong" not because he disagrees with me, but because he presents a skewed and prejudiced view of the subject, as does any other expert.
Actually, if you read carefully, you will note that Mr. Russell was not an amplifier designer at MacIntosh. On the first page of his website it says:
Roger Russell
Author, Artist, Engineer, Inventor, Photographer, Collector, and formerly
Director of Acoustic Research
at McIntosh Laboratory, Inc. and the originator of
McIntosh Loudspeakers
His page lists as his accomplishments and products designed at Mac the following:
1 Preamp
a large number of speakers
To use that to classify the Gentleman as "The designer of some of the so called "best sounding" amps ever made" is I believe taking literary licence too far by a good deal.
It certainly would help if I wanted to make an authorative assement of them.
That is your contention.
In my view, B&W just like practically any other maker of HiFi Speakers produces speaker designs that are not capable of providing low distortion and low compression and whose interactions with the room are highly unfavourable, to such a degree in fact that their sound within an acoustically small room that is not anechoinic is determined not by the on axis frequency response but by that off axis where the non-coincident arrangement of drivers and the choosen driver directivity with frequency lead to severe and abrupt changes.
In other words, when it comes to fidelity to the signal the type of speakers of which B&W are representative are not particulary suited to miusic reproduction with any degree of fidelity, under normal domestic conditions.
Now, given that you wanted to play "expert poker", may I present some Trump cards of my own. A significant number of Experts exist that take a position that is the opposite of that represented by Msesser Russel and Elliott (and the ABX Mafia).
I would suggest to consider experts such as Prof. Malcolm O.J. Hawksford, Audio Research Lab Centre Director, Department of Electronic Systems Engineering, University of Essex also a Fellow of the Audio Engineering Society, the Institution of Electrical Engineers and the Institute of Acoustics and widely published author on subjects of Sound & Acoustics.
People Profiles - Malcolm O.J. Hawksford - Centre Director of Audio Research Lab
You may wish to consider his collection of Journal Papers, Conference Papers and other publication on audio, which runs into nearly 200 on quick view.
I would add to the list noted Speaker Designer and Author of one of the standard works on Speakers, "High Performance Loudspeakers", namely Martin Collons, who is also a reviewer for the nothed British Review "HiFi News & Record Review".
High Performance Loudspeakers by Martin Colloms @ Amazon
I would add world reknowned classical recording engineer Tony Faulkner to the list of "Experts" that do not agree with the "audio - objectivist" position.
Green Room Productions headed by Tony Faulkner
To round off a nice list of people, I'll add another recording engineer who also works as Editor of Stereophile, John Atkinson.
Finally, I might list Ben Duncan, author of one of the standard works on Amplifier Design, "High Performance Audio Power Amplifiers" as one who does not agree with the "audio - objectivist" position.
High Performance Audio Power Amplifiers by Ben Duncan @ Amazon
Now, that is FIVE Experts for the "audio - subjectivist" position I can quote to your TWO experts for the "audio - objectivsist" position you have quoted. And one is a Professor!
I guess that that makes ME right and you wrong! Or rather, it would do so, if quoting experts would be of any value in establishing the facts.
But of course, quoting experts is of no value in establishing facts and therefore, why don't you just quit hitching yourself to other peoples sleds to pull it for them.
Why not form your own views and opinions and stick to them, defend them based on facts if you have to, but don't go quoting the same questionable external references over and over again. We can quote others untill the moon turns to green cheese and be no further in understanding reality.
Sayonara
keyser said:
Nope. I merely point out that experts are unreliable, inherently so.
You may have noticed that in my writings in this thread I have not quoted a SINGLE expert to support my position. Now that was not because there are non, but because you can quote a million experts and you still do not have a single fact.
keyser said:
No. He is "wrong" not because he disagrees with me, but because he presents a skewed and prejudiced view of the subject, as does any other expert.
keyser said:
Actually, if you read carefully, you will note that Mr. Russell was not an amplifier designer at MacIntosh. On the first page of his website it says:
Roger Russell
Author, Artist, Engineer, Inventor, Photographer, Collector, and formerly
Director of Acoustic Research
at McIntosh Laboratory, Inc. and the originator of
McIntosh Loudspeakers
His page lists as his accomplishments and products designed at Mac the following:
1 Preamp
a large number of speakers
To use that to classify the Gentleman as "The designer of some of the so called "best sounding" amps ever made" is I believe taking literary licence too far by a good deal.
keyser said:
It certainly would help if I wanted to make an authorative assement of them.
keyser said:
That is your contention.
In my view, B&W just like practically any other maker of HiFi Speakers produces speaker designs that are not capable of providing low distortion and low compression and whose interactions with the room are highly unfavourable, to such a degree in fact that their sound within an acoustically small room that is not anechoinic is determined not by the on axis frequency response but by that off axis where the non-coincident arrangement of drivers and the choosen driver directivity with frequency lead to severe and abrupt changes.
In other words, when it comes to fidelity to the signal the type of speakers of which B&W are representative are not particulary suited to miusic reproduction with any degree of fidelity, under normal domestic conditions.
Now, given that you wanted to play "expert poker", may I present some Trump cards of my own. A significant number of Experts exist that take a position that is the opposite of that represented by Msesser Russel and Elliott (and the ABX Mafia).
I would suggest to consider experts such as Prof. Malcolm O.J. Hawksford, Audio Research Lab Centre Director, Department of Electronic Systems Engineering, University of Essex also a Fellow of the Audio Engineering Society, the Institution of Electrical Engineers and the Institute of Acoustics and widely published author on subjects of Sound & Acoustics.
People Profiles - Malcolm O.J. Hawksford - Centre Director of Audio Research Lab
You may wish to consider his collection of Journal Papers, Conference Papers and other publication on audio, which runs into nearly 200 on quick view.
I would add to the list noted Speaker Designer and Author of one of the standard works on Speakers, "High Performance Loudspeakers", namely Martin Collons, who is also a reviewer for the nothed British Review "HiFi News & Record Review".
High Performance Loudspeakers by Martin Colloms @ Amazon
I would add world reknowned classical recording engineer Tony Faulkner to the list of "Experts" that do not agree with the "audio - objectivist" position.
Green Room Productions headed by Tony Faulkner
To round off a nice list of people, I'll add another recording engineer who also works as Editor of Stereophile, John Atkinson.
Finally, I might list Ben Duncan, author of one of the standard works on Amplifier Design, "High Performance Audio Power Amplifiers" as one who does not agree with the "audio - objectivist" position.
High Performance Audio Power Amplifiers by Ben Duncan @ Amazon
Now, that is FIVE Experts for the "audio - subjectivist" position I can quote to your TWO experts for the "audio - objectivsist" position you have quoted. And one is a Professor!
I guess that that makes ME right and you wrong! Or rather, it would do so, if quoting experts would be of any value in establishing the facts.
But of course, quoting experts is of no value in establishing facts and therefore, why don't you just quit hitching yourself to other peoples sleds to pull it for them.
Why not form your own views and opinions and stick to them, defend them based on facts if you have to, but don't go quoting the same questionable external references over and over again. We can quote others untill the moon turns to green cheese and be no further in understanding reality.
Sayonara
Actually maybe I should just take a "positive" shot at the original question: What should we focus on if we want to build a good HiFi system?
I like KYW's list earlier in the thread and agree mostly with it. As I mentioned earlier improving the speakers might hold the key towards better assessment of amps. So in fact, we do implicitly agree that speakers do pose the most fundamental engineering challenge at first glance.
On a more fundamental level, we have to wonder what type of artifacts (because we *will* retain artifacts in our necessarily engineering compromises) will disturb the realism of the playback most, and what artifacts will disturb it the least. Leaving the speakers out for now, we have to consider the mechanisms of human hearing first - how do we hear, what do we hear, which artifacts disturb us most? And here the surprises start. The Geddes research falls into that category: how some types of distortion appear much more noticeable than others. Siegfried Linkwitz has a thoughtful discussion on the trade offs for loudspeakers on his website (besides low THD, low energy storage, power flatness and in general controlled directivity). The people at Jensen transformers have published their points of view on "spectral contamination".
And here we have a shortcoming of "easy access" measurement techniques that one could standardize easily. Low THD, all else remaining equal, who would object to that? But once you apply techniques to lower THD, all else does *not* stay equal. And I believe the experts do also think that current measurement techniques do the problem justice enough.
Speaker measurements easily show how one single measurement datum tells you next to nothing about the speaker's real performance. The speaker could have severe off axis problems, peaks and notches, driver misalignments, massive loss of transparency due to energy storage, muddy resonances, poor transient response, and would still measure perfectly on-axis.
I like KYW's list earlier in the thread and agree mostly with it. As I mentioned earlier improving the speakers might hold the key towards better assessment of amps. So in fact, we do implicitly agree that speakers do pose the most fundamental engineering challenge at first glance.
On a more fundamental level, we have to wonder what type of artifacts (because we *will* retain artifacts in our necessarily engineering compromises) will disturb the realism of the playback most, and what artifacts will disturb it the least. Leaving the speakers out for now, we have to consider the mechanisms of human hearing first - how do we hear, what do we hear, which artifacts disturb us most? And here the surprises start. The Geddes research falls into that category: how some types of distortion appear much more noticeable than others. Siegfried Linkwitz has a thoughtful discussion on the trade offs for loudspeakers on his website (besides low THD, low energy storage, power flatness and in general controlled directivity). The people at Jensen transformers have published their points of view on "spectral contamination".
And here we have a shortcoming of "easy access" measurement techniques that one could standardize easily. Low THD, all else remaining equal, who would object to that? But once you apply techniques to lower THD, all else does *not* stay equal. And I believe the experts do also think that current measurement techniques do the problem justice enough.
Speaker measurements easily show how one single measurement datum tells you next to nothing about the speaker's real performance. The speaker could have severe off axis problems, peaks and notches, driver misalignments, massive loss of transparency due to energy storage, muddy resonances, poor transient response, and would still measure perfectly on-axis.
No.
We can infere that if an amp sounds good, and thus fares well on those factors that actually *do* influence sound quality, that this likely reflects in good measurements as well. Good Sound implies Good Data.
We can't infere that if an amp measures well, that it will sound good. Good Data don't imply Good Sound.
The point of science lies in predicting the likely result of our actions. See SY's tagline.
If your measurements don't predict the parameter you hope to predict (good sound quality), you do poor science. In other words in such a case your measurements are useless.
We can infere that if an amp sounds good, and thus fares well on those factors that actually *do* influence sound quality, that this likely reflects in good measurements as well. Good Sound implies Good Data.
We can't infere that if an amp measures well, that it will sound good. Good Data don't imply Good Sound.
The point of science lies in predicting the likely result of our actions. See SY's tagline.
If your measurements don't predict the parameter you hope to predict (good sound quality), you do poor science. In other words in such a case your measurements are useless.
I must take exception to this statement; I own a pair of the original B&W Matrix sets, driven by a Quad 405-2 and have schlepped this set to 22 countries, 31 different living rooms and many more different playback devices. The Matrix'es have performed admirably and the reference CD I use to establish listening environment corrections has sounded the same great way every time. Small room, big room, soft room, hard room, no problem. I tried a set of Cantons and a set of ESL's in a desparate attempt to get rid of these black boxes, but I've come back to the Matrix'es every time.
In the end, hi-fi is what we like to hear, not what the specs say
Actually from your info we only know that the B&W's perform similarly regardess of room and source. We don't know yet how well they perform regarding the signal
But I don't mean to criticize, the B&W's surely perform great compared to the current state of the art in speakers. As to the question of how well *any* speaker fares, at current state of the art, I found this great article over at www.linkwitzlab.com:
Putting the science back into loudspeakers
Note how the author states that we have a problem judging source and electronics quality because our speakers don't transmit much of the information needed for optimal fidelity to the real sound field. I said something similar above.
Amongst other he proposes to use MP3 recordings to roughly evaluate how precise your speakers render the information: say, use 64, 128, 256 and 320 bitrates, plus original. The point at which you start noticing a degradation, using your speakers, defines the "bitrate" of your speakers: what pecision they can actually render. Linkwitz sells a test CD with such test tracks, besides, anyone can record material to his own liking using a PC and do the test in an afternoon. I only read that article yesterday, and I will try that some time.
But I don't mean to criticize, the B&W's surely perform great compared to the current state of the art in speakers. As to the question of how well *any* speaker fares, at current state of the art, I found this great article over at www.linkwitzlab.com:
Putting the science back into loudspeakers
Note how the author states that we have a problem judging source and electronics quality because our speakers don't transmit much of the information needed for optimal fidelity to the real sound field. I said something similar above.
Amongst other he proposes to use MP3 recordings to roughly evaluate how precise your speakers render the information: say, use 64, 128, 256 and 320 bitrates, plus original. The point at which you start noticing a degradation, using your speakers, defines the "bitrate" of your speakers: what pecision they can actually render. Linkwitz sells a test CD with such test tracks, besides, anyone can record material to his own liking using a PC and do the test in an afternoon. I only read that article yesterday, and I will try that some time.
Konnichiwa,
This does not address my contention that have high levels of distortion and compression plus a poorely controlled directivity. That makes them in view incapable of reproducing music without gross distortion and compression AND leads to an uneven frequency response in a normal room.
I agree and am happy with you liking what makes you happy. However this discussion here is not about what people like and if they should.
Sayonara
Teun said:
This does not address my contention that have high levels of distortion and compression plus a poorely controlled directivity. That makes them in view incapable of reproducing music without gross distortion and compression AND leads to an uneven frequency response in a normal room.
Teun said:
I agree and am happy with you liking what makes you happy. However this discussion here is not about what people like and if they should.
Sayonara
I've never measured it, but considering Jaco Pastorius sounds the same on this system in every room I've had them, I am sure you're talking about microcosmal deviations. I play the base myself and know how it should sound; Jaco plays more technically then I do, and his sound spectrum is all over including some high tones that I've never been able to reproduce on my own instrument. My Matrixes still come the closest to what I have heard him do in a non concert-hall environment and guess what, Jaco himself agrees with me. Maybe musicians can't hear the distortion and compresson you're referring to? Anyway, I appreciate your more technical approach and am learning very day!
"Be creative, but be objective"
"Be creative, but be objective"
Konnichiwa,
Any one that offers low compression, low distortion, controlled dispersion, pulse coherence and even tonal balance. There are certain design issues and features that need to be addressed to achieve such a behaviour.
Generally one might say that these design features are found often in large format (Far Field) Studio Monitors and rarely in "HiFi" Speakers.
Brands etc are actually quite irelevant to the subject.
Sayonara
keyser said:
Any one that offers low compression, low distortion, controlled dispersion, pulse coherence and even tonal balance. There are certain design issues and features that need to be addressed to achieve such a behaviour.
Generally one might say that these design features are found often in large format (Far Field) Studio Monitors and rarely in "HiFi" Speakers.
Brands etc are actually quite irelevant to the subject.
Sayonara
Studio monitors? Do you actually realise that nobody ever cuts a master from the studio monitors? I've been in and out of recording studios all my life and seen more masters cut then I've had chicken for dinner. The final cut is NOT made off those wonderful distortion free, non-compressed, flawless toning monitors but usually off a paid of NEFs on the mixing console. Why is this? So it sounds right on almost all other equipment.
We're talking about building a good HIFI system here; that is something to listen to, not something to spec rate to death.
I can assure you that music you can commercially buy has been mastered on speakers you would probably not even install in your car.
We're talking about building a good HIFI system here; that is something to listen to, not something to spec rate to death.
I can assure you that music you can commercially buy has been mastered on speakers you would probably not even install in your car.
Konnichiowa,
As have been able on occasion to do so myself, yes I do realise that. It does not make the practive either universal or recommendable.
BUT I do not listen to much of the commercial rubbish (Not to audiophile labels either I might add), BUT all else being equal I still find that a suitably speaker brings me closer to what was recorded than the more conventional speakers, at least with recordings that stand the slightest chance to provide "realism".
Sayonara
Teun said:
As have been able on occasion to do so myself, yes I do realise that. It does not make the practive either universal or recommendable.
Teun said:I can assure you that music you can commercially buy has been mastered on speakers you would probably not even install in your car.
BUT I do not listen to much of the commercial rubbish (Not to audiophile labels either I might add), BUT all else being equal I still find that a suitably speaker brings me closer to what was recorded than the more conventional speakers, at least with recordings that stand the slightest chance to provide "realism".
Sayonara
and a buon pommerigio to you to , Oh master of the hopeful specs.
might I ask what you do listen to that has you so interested in these audiophile matters we discuss in this forum?
I take it you hate the ESL-63's as soundly as any other commonly available speaker system? Just out of curiousity; do you actually hear the distortion/compression you mention, or is it only measurable? How much of what you hear could be caused by the recording media and not the speakers? If a CD press is a millionth of a millimetre out of alignment, you will get distortion thru any playback system. Lets help Keyser select a good/excellent hi-hi system OK?
Keyser: 100% certainly focus on the speakers and their placement in your listening room. That makes or breaks everything. Thats really the only focus I can recommend!
might I ask what you do listen to that has you so interested in these audiophile matters we discuss in this forum?
I take it you hate the ESL-63's as soundly as any other commonly available speaker system? Just out of curiousity; do you actually hear the distortion/compression you mention, or is it only measurable? How much of what you hear could be caused by the recording media and not the speakers? If a CD press is a millionth of a millimetre out of alignment, you will get distortion thru any playback system. Lets help Keyser select a good/excellent hi-hi system OK?
Keyser: 100% certainly focus on the speakers and their placement in your listening room. That makes or breaks everything. Thats really the only focus I can recommend!
I take offense to the B&W bashing too. I once owned a pair of the lowly 202's until they had a few too many hours of loud listening. They were undersized for the listening I was using them for. Playing wind instruments myself I found them to be very musical and precise. I would definitely buy another pair of B&W speakers, something a little higher in their line up though.
This thread is full of audio enthusiasts who have innumerable hours of experience auditioning high end equipment. Once you pass a certain level, the differences become extremely minute.Even a modest audiophile setup will prodice astounding sound, and more expensive isn't always better.
I tend to be in the camp that believes distortion is a reliable measure of an amplifier's quality. A low distortion amplifier may have a lonal imbalance, poor damping, or a ring that may impair it's sound. Common sense will tell you that a slightly higher distortion is accaptable to cure those other flaws. All else being equal though, I would choose the lower distortion amplifier.
Anybody who has had their speaker close to the corner, or adjacent to a bay window, or carpeted-vs-wood floor knows what kind of a difference room characteristics can make to the sound.
This thread is full of audio enthusiasts who have innumerable hours of experience auditioning high end equipment. Once you pass a certain level, the differences become extremely minute.Even a modest audiophile setup will prodice astounding sound, and more expensive isn't always better.
I tend to be in the camp that believes distortion is a reliable measure of an amplifier's quality. A low distortion amplifier may have a lonal imbalance, poor damping, or a ring that may impair it's sound. Common sense will tell you that a slightly higher distortion is accaptable to cure those other flaws. All else being equal though, I would choose the lower distortion amplifier.
Anybody who has had their speaker close to the corner, or adjacent to a bay window, or carpeted-vs-wood floor knows what kind of a difference room characteristics can make to the sound.
Hmmm. So, when the musician himself considers the playback eminently faithful to the original, what do we have? Do we have a case of "good enough, hold your horses" or do we have a case of "low expectations"?
I suspect the latter. We hear all our recorded music through some very similar equipment for many years (similar in type, not in absolute performance). We have internalized their faults. So I suspect we implicitly apply different criteria to a sound system, and we judge it "excellent" when compared to *other* sound systems. We don't actually compare it to the real thing.
Why do I say that? Because many of our neighbors play instruments, you can hear them from the street. I have a violinmaker friend so I hear violins up close without the drama and emotional artifice of a concert visit. My wife has an african drum. Etc. Well, and in all these cases, my (or anyone else's) hi fi system *almost never* fools me into the illusion of a real instrument.
Now, my system sounds very, very satisfactorily to me, by hi fi system standards. It sometimes gets me confused for a second with pure tones such as bells, or with voices (that I believe a real person was calling from downstairs when it was a CD). But on average it has something that gives it away. Then again, maybe it comes from the recordings. Few recordings sound really good IMO.
But when I walk on the street I *know* instantly whether the neighbor played a real piano, or a recording (OK the poor technique of amateurs sometimes gives it away ). Or a real trumpet.
I think most musicians automatically deduct a lot from their expectations when listening to a recording, and that's how they come to say that this or that system sounds good. Because they never dream of assuming it could sound like the real thing.
Not that this should detract from the enjoyment. Maybe non musicians such as myself have too many expectations as to realism anyway.
I suspect the latter. We hear all our recorded music through some very similar equipment for many years (similar in type, not in absolute performance). We have internalized their faults. So I suspect we implicitly apply different criteria to a sound system, and we judge it "excellent" when compared to *other* sound systems. We don't actually compare it to the real thing.
Why do I say that? Because many of our neighbors play instruments, you can hear them from the street. I have a violinmaker friend so I hear violins up close without the drama and emotional artifice of a concert visit. My wife has an african drum. Etc. Well, and in all these cases, my (or anyone else's) hi fi system *almost never* fools me into the illusion of a real instrument.
Now, my system sounds very, very satisfactorily to me, by hi fi system standards. It sometimes gets me confused for a second with pure tones such as bells, or with voices (that I believe a real person was calling from downstairs when it was a CD). But on average it has something that gives it away. Then again, maybe it comes from the recordings. Few recordings sound really good IMO.
But when I walk on the street I *know* instantly whether the neighbor played a real piano, or a recording (OK the poor technique of amateurs sometimes gives it away
). Or a real trumpet.I think most musicians automatically deduct a lot from their expectations when listening to a recording, and that's how they come to say that this or that system sounds good. Because they never dream of assuming it could sound like the real thing.
Not that this should detract from the enjoyment. Maybe non musicians such as myself have too many expectations as to realism anyway.
My experience differs. Having high quality, revealing speakers and ignoring everything else is a simple recipe for disaster. I seem to be rather tolerant towards the types of distortion speakers generate and find source/amplifier produced inadequacies to be more fatal for musicality.
Ha, ha, ha. Yes, if you are upgrading from an Edison cylinder. 90% of 'audiophile' setups are less listenable than my car radio.
Konnichiwa,
It is not B&W basing as such, I am merely pointing oiut that because of the basic physics applicable to the matter speaker build on the kind of principles you find among many other Speaker Makers AND B&W MUST reliably lead to certain measurable AND audible problems.
These are simple facts. You may like them or not, but facts remain what they are.
Okay. So distortion is a reliable measure of amplifier quality, but distortion (even if 10 - 1000 times higher than in amplifiers) is not a reliable measure of quality in speakers.
I think that ranks beliefwise with the easter bunny and santa claus, if you ask me.
The above is already a strong indication that the speaker you are using is incompetently designed, incompetent here meaning in such a way that the speakers output to the listener is dominated by the room, which urely is an easily recognised and equally easily remedies problem.
I have over time written quite extensively on speakers, room acoustics, how they fit together and so on. There is a thread in the speaker section I started in which I collated and compacted a lot of this writing:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48247
Another pair of fun threads is here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21971
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29614
Sayonara
hummhoom said:
It is not B&W basing as such, I am merely pointing oiut that because of the basic physics applicable to the matter speaker build on the kind of principles you find among many other Speaker Makers AND B&W MUST reliably lead to certain measurable AND audible problems.
These are simple facts. You may like them or not, but facts remain what they are.
hummhoom said:
Okay. So distortion is a reliable measure of amplifier quality, but distortion (even if 10 - 1000 times higher than in amplifiers) is not a reliable measure of quality in speakers.
I think that ranks beliefwise with the easter bunny and santa claus, if you ask me.
hummhoom said:
The above is already a strong indication that the speaker you are using is incompetently designed, incompetent here meaning in such a way that the speakers output to the listener is dominated by the room, which urely is an easily recognised and equally easily remedies problem.
I have over time written quite extensively on speakers, room acoustics, how they fit together and so on. There is a thread in the speaker section I started in which I collated and compacted a lot of this writing:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48247
Another pair of fun threads is here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21971
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29614
Sayonara
WHAT is so wrong about the applied physics here? Your DIY Wilson's don't seem to make use of any other part of physics, do they?
In my experience musicians very often attribute inadequacies of the playback system to the sloppy play of the musician, or a badly adjusted unstrument.
A few years ago, when I was just starting with hifi, I introduced a friend to listen to my new amplifier. He is the drummer in a rockband. When I put on some Deep Purple - Made In Japan, I turned the volume level up (he just LOVES Deep Purple
). My poor speakers got in distress with so much noise, and the sound wasn't very pleasing anymore. My friend cursed that his own playback system wasn't so revealing he had ever heard the too tightly adjusted toms before.Some time later, the bass player of that same band was at my place, and we listened to music of a local band. My friend said the bass player played really sloppy. The bass was indeed wooly and slow. When I listen to that same music now, I don't think it sounds sloppy anymore
If the above examples could be generalised, musicians would need a lot better playback system to enjoy music. The qualty of the playback would not only get better, but also the play of the musicians.
It probably doesn't always go that way... I am a musician too, and in most cases I think it is the recording, the speaker or the room I could complain about.
This is actually the complete opposite of what I think. In my experience, as you get better and better equipment, you will come to a point that an even more beautifully made amp doesn't sound better anymore. I have compared my NAD 216 poweramp to a few very high end amps (blind), and couldn't hear a difference. Comparing is to the 70's Pioneer receiver that stands in my parents' kitchen, shows that the two sound slightly different. It is actually hard to say what the difference it is exactly. It is not really that the one sounds more wooly, or bright, or open or has a wider image. It is just different.
A friends multi thousand dollar tube amp sounded the same to me though...
There are many people in this thread that believe there DO exist audible differences between good amplifiers. If my blind testing procedure is inadequate, please tell me how I should be able to hear a difference. The day I turned from audio subjectivist into audio objectivist is less than a year ago, so I might still be saved
but really, if there are audible differences between good amps, i would rather find out than keep believing there are none...
even if sometimes ignorance is bliss
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.