3 terminal Jung Super Regulator Kit

[Fred Dieckmann]

"So the ear as transducer is HORRIBLE BEYOND BELIEVE. If the Ear where a Microphone it would be utterly unusable even in a telephone."

Yet it can detect sound pressure levels that move the ear drum the diameter of a hydrogen atom. The ear obviously can't be examined without considering the role of the brain in signal processing. We can usually recognize someone's voice over an extremely bandwidth and dynamically compressed telephone signal and pick out one conversation in the presence of several at a crowded party. Try that with DSP on a computer...... I don't think so.

I really think most people would agree that we can hear things we can measure as often we can measure things we can't hear.
Careful listening as a learned skill just as good engineering is. I will never understand why people seem to believe it has to be one or the other. Aren't there any engineers that can also hear? I feel perfectly comfortable using both skills but maybe that is because I am an engineer and my wife is a classical musician. I worked on a redesign conference bridge circuit a couple of years ago with a young lady who was a new engineer. She was very surpassed when the technicians reported to her how much better it sounded than the old circuit. No audiophile parts or design techniques were involved, just good solid engineering design. I never even listened to it during the design phase. Engineers that can't listen critically won't design the best audio equipment. Those who rely on listening only won't know how to get beyond a certain point without the technical skills. That's why people ask technical questions on the forum. If they could do it all by ear the wouldn't need to read any of this stuff.

Why is such a hard proposition for people to except? Keith Johnson is one of the sharpest engineers I've met but he also hears like a bat. I was there for part of a session recording the Dallas Wind Symphony. It was a very educational experience.

[ThorstenL]

Koinichiwa Weekes San,

Originally posted by ALW


Which is why a listening method that bypasses the technical issues and focusses on the emotional response is a more consistent assessment method. Especially as this is the sole reason I listen to music.

I get the feeling some people over-analyse things - if our ears were so flawed, we may as well not bother - fortunately this is not the case.

I've yet to see a definition and explanation of the science behind a humans emotional response to music.

I agree completely with your remarks. I generally reject "Numbers of Merit" figures (bandwidth, noise levels, output impedance etc.) as having a direct and repeatable link to percieved sound quality. And my observation with the older Jung Regs (pre AD797) where as I previously described them.

As to "if our ears are so flawed", if you look ONLY at the ears, yes, they ARE so flawed. As part of the Ear/Brain/Perception system they operate to give in the system with the other compents exceptional powers of discrimination and perception (some of which we still have problems repeating with mechanical/electronical/informational means), yet a large part of this is LEARNED response to stimuli.

Sayonara

[fmak]

Part of the trick is to try and turn it off - over analysis always, in my experience, leads to flawed results.

This is where the 'tune' test and others really do work (ignoring the dogma of those promoting them). It's usually a method that is criticised by those whose systems don't do it

------------------------------------------------------------

How is the first point consistent with your remarks about testing large no of circuits with power supplies. You can't just use the tune test and analysis, 'over' analysis must come in.

The tune test is a test of acceptability of music, not excellence. I have 3 systems that pass the test and have had many others that did but they differ in degree of goodness (analysis, timbre, accurracy, enjoyment, extention etc.).

The tune test is often used as an excuse to sell systems with some defects; it's a physcological technique to hide weaknesses and get the masses to agree on a tangential view of performance.

[fdegrove]

Hi,

The tune test is often used as an excuse to sell systems with some defects; it's a physcological technique to hide weaknesses and get the masses to agree on a tangential view of performance.

Well...the Linn TT was definetely flawed, at least it could play a tune and could beat most contenders when set up correctly...
Something not even 9/10 Linn dealers could...

Nonetheless I'd rather have some gear playing a tune and be flawed tonally than having it the other way around.

Catch 33 I tell you...better brace yourself,

[ThorstenL]

Koinichiwa,

Originally posted by fdegrove
Hi,

Well...the Linn TT was definetely flawed, at least it could play a tune and could beat most contenders when set up correctly...

Or sumphing like that.

At the "greater linn times" the place I come from had turntables whose "service" instrucions included a medical sthetoscope as "tool".

BWTFDIK.

Sayonara

[fmak]

Nonetheless I'd rather have some gear playing a tune and be flawed tonally than having it the other way around.

Catch 33 I tell you...better brace yourself, [/B][/QUOTE]
-----------------------------------------------------

Shouldn't this be regarded as a starting, and not end point? At last someone who says openely that the Linn is flawed. I have had two and they don't sound as good as the Lux PD300 and even a Garrard 301 which is one of the most tuneful I have. Needs to be sprung, not screwed to 20 kg of wood and lead which makes it more microphonic.

Whay is Catch 33?

[fdegrove]

Hi,

Shouldn't this be regarded as a starting, and not end point?

It should, I agree...but this area is where a lot of so called high-end companies fall short.

Whay is Catch 33?

Catch 22 + another raft of 11 pitfalls.

Cheers,

[ALW]

The tune test is often used as an excuse to sell systems with some defects; it's a physcological technique to hide weaknesses and get the masses to agree on a tangential view of performance.

I have to disagree here - many people focus on the wrong elements when listening to music at first - you only have to hear the tuneless bass that comes from many systems to realise many confuse quantity with quality.

The tune test reveals levels of difference readily - there's no sudden transition between tune / no tune, just degrees.

I know, I've made mistakes recently with some work I'm doing that measured better and initially sounded more impressive in HiFi terms (deeper bass, tighter control, better treble etc.). The measurements were all better too, but after time I found myself watching the TV.

The fundamental elements of music have to come first, but if you can add the hifi elements without degrading the music (and I know you can) then that's fine.

But none are essential to emotional involvement with music. Imaging ,soundstage, air, space etc etc are nothing on their own. It's easy to focus on these elements to the expense of music though.

Every genuine improvement (the ones that keep me up until the early hours in record-playing orgies) have fundamentally improved the tune, the pitch accuracy / and rythmic elements fundamental to music.

Some people do listen to different things, I have no problem with that, but if the system doesn't engage me in a way that encourages me to listen to music, at the expense of almost everything else, it won't do it for me. My music dominates my life, and I spend as much time listening as life will allow. So many people have systems that sit in the corner and are onyl used at parties etc. They listen to the same few recordings, because they're systems haven't opened up the world of music to them. My musical tastes have expanded exponentially with the imprvements to my system.

You may feel the tune test is flawed, but that seems partly based on your opinions of certain brands (I'm not keen on Linn electronics either) but it does work in a way that always leads me to the correct solutions.

But these sort of discussions never go anywhere here, so here's the challenge: -

Describe to me an unambigous system for the assessment of my system and I'll try it out. You need to be able to explain to me how to listen in the way you do.

I look forward to trying it.

Andy.

[fmak]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ALW

Some people do listen to different things, I have no problem with You may feel the tune test is flawed, but that seems partly based on your opinions of certain brands (I'm not keen on Linn electronics either) but it does work in a way that always leads me to the correct solutions.

But these sort of discussions never go anywhere here, so here's the challenge: -

Describe to me an unambigous system for the assessment of my system and I'll try it out. You need to be able to explain to me how to listen in the way you do.

----------------------------------------------------------

My conclusions have come from thirty years of trying to follow the tune brigade. They set up systems that don't sound even tuneful to me, and then use group pyschology to get people to agree that foot tapping and undefined emotional responses are the key, not other things as well.

That's the problem - your undefinable method of gauging the performance of a system. I regard wide acceptance of musical content in a system to be key and difficult to achieve and tunefullness the starting element - never mind that many people can't get the bass right. Actually there probably isn't such a thing as the right bass as it is so room boundary dependent.

I can't describe an unambiguous system, but I can vouch for good
objective performance giving better and better music enjoment as the yardstick.

But then this also depends on the condition of one's 'tubes' and varies from day to day...........

[ALW]

That's the problem - your undefinable method of gauging the performance of a system.

The tune method has nothing to do with foot tapping.

The idea is to hum along to the tune (out loud or in your head). The system that makes it easier to follow (and this works really well with unfamiliar music where you have no pre-defined responses) is the best. It reveals MUCH more than many will give credit for, but at the end of the day, if you feel otherwise, that is your perogative - there's too many dogmatic discussions here.

You see it's clearly defined and obvious when the system is working correctly - the body movement often extends from it, simply because the ability to follow the music's twists and turns becomes so easy - you can be driven to join in, foot tapping, conducting, whatever - it's hard to stop.

So again over to you, tell me how to assess a system, and I'll try it. I am open minded, teach me!

Andy.