What happened to diyaudio?

[Pano]

Originally Posted by Conrad Hoffman

....very few people are dissatisfied with the sound they already have.

Hasn't that always been the case? Aren't we all here the "nutty fringe?"


.

[ra7]

Someone on this very forum once said, and I quote, "In this forum, is a microcosm of our world...."
I haven't been here for long, but it appears to me that it is headed in much the same direction as our real world. There appears to be more mediocrity all around, and what's worse, it is accepted as the norm. You have to dig really deep to find real excellence.

This is really a rant about the real world than this forum. I love this place. I'm just starting out and this is easily the best resource for finding information, guidance and inspiration.

To finish the quote, "In this forum, is a microcosm of our world, the only difference is, here everyone is equal"

[rdf]

Originally Posted by Conrad Hoffman

The more technically accurate you make it, the less you want to listen to it.

Maybe I'm missing aspects of technical accuracy. My current mule pre-amp, replacing a 10 kohm passive, is a one tube SE transformer coupled design which will drive most amps to clipping with ~.02% 2nd harmonic, ~.003% 3rd and the remaining one or two visible harmonics roughly 110 dB below the fundamental. Does it sound spectacular because of the < 0.01% second harmonic sweetening at typical playback levels, or because the dual floating secondary output windings completely break all current loops with the amp input? What constitutes technical accuracy in this case?

Another aspect of measurements using the same device, my software spectrum analyzer shows a uniform top end noise floor roughly 120 dB below 1 volt out, which doesn't show much visible change with circuit alteration. Putting an ear the tweeter does though, differences between high peak/average noise and soft 'whoooshing' immediately obvious. Obviously nothing about the latter is outside the realms of science but it does speak to trusting your instruments without a deep understanding of the underlying design principles. Is the inability to make the change in noise visually clear a program, GPU, video driver or LCD response limitation? Measurement guys are no less prone than anyone else at stopping at the answer they like.

[planet10]

Originally Posted by Curly Woods

But if the closed minded keep preaching that there are no differences, how will we ever advance the sciences?

All you can do is to ignore them and push forward. Science can explain what is happening, but with lots of research not yet done, it, at this point really is only giving us the broad picture.

The science requires that bias be removed from the experiments to be able to get unconfounded results. This requires well designed blind tests. Not something done casually, and much of what passes as blind tests (ie ABX) do not qualify.

Current measuring technology only hints at what is happening. Proper DBTs are beyond most of us to design & execute.

Only a few have what it takes to push these forward, so what is a diyer to do? Listen, and enjoy the music. Hope that sifting thru the anecdotal information will help guide those who can to carry out useful experiments.

dave

[ScottG]

Originally Posted by Jason

I agree 1000000000000000%. It is coming.

Cool!

See.. progress can be made (or agreed with/confirmed), in a thread as ridiculous as this one.

[planet10]

Originally Posted by Bas Horneman

Maybe we should close all threads with the objective vs subjective discussions.

Bas, should we also close the bars so the guys can't "talk" about the girls, or the girls can't "talk" about the guys (or whatever your persuasion is)

Thread's like this are an outlet. Few will change sides. Those on the fence may be swayed by a good argument on one side or the other. The real truth is not black & white, but grey.

dave

[jacco vermeulen]

As i lay casually on the pavement in this here alley, with my fly routinely undone, and taking a sip from a brown paper bottle i can not but think to myself : different alley, even i have changed since last, but some things will always remain the same.

[45]

Originally Posted by planet10

The science requires that bias be removed from the experiments to be able to get unconfounded results. This requires well designed blind tests. Not something done casually, and much of what passes as blind tests (ie ABX) do not qualify.

Unfortunately it doesn't work because the experiment is not repeatable.
You can do the same experiment on large number of people however the variance of your average result will always be of the same order of magnitude when you take into account all the variables!!
Human mind is time-variant, it's never the same. Easy to verify: listen to a new song for the first time, then listen to it for the second time. It isn't the same and it will never be! There will be something different every time according to your humor, knowledge and experience.
The only science here is the science of musical sounds with its own language and shared values. Just like for live music...

Cheers,
45

[Curly Woods]

Originally Posted by 45

Human mind is time-variant, it's never the same. Easy to verify: listen to a new song for the first time, then listen to it for the second time. It isn't the same and it will never be!

Never notice that songs change over time, but I do get more familiar with them, with each new listening.

[rcw]

What double blind testing also does is that it illustrates that there is no ghost in the machine.
The first thing that the died in the wool subjectivist says of course is that the test must be wrong, because the ghost sings to, (usually), him.

Another case where double blind testing in music is significant is the old one about the zenith of violin making was achieved long ago by Stradivarius.

In double blind tests however these instruments are not picked as best by panels of musicians who swear blind that they can hear the obvious superiority of the Strad.

Lets face it the reproduction of music is a technical exercise, but the playing of it is only partially so, and no there isn't a ghost in the instrument or the equipment, they are exclusive to the players and listeners, and my purpose is emphasize this point as often as seems worthwhile, or bearable by others.

Someone once compared this type of activity to farting against thunder, but as someone observed; I am quite full of wind.
rcw.