tinitus said:Might that be brain adjustment...seems that the hearing is very sensitive to any kind of short term changes, where as the brain adjustment works slower and only over time adjusts, and "falls back" to "its normal reference"...whatever that might be
Ever upgrade your computer for a newer, faster one? When I do this, the newer one really seems like a speed demon - but only for about 15 minutes
. Then the new one becomes the "norm".
john curl said:
How could you rationally claim that these 'open' tests are not showing you differences of level, frequency response, clipping or listener bias, rather than some improvement in the amplifiers design?
The silly thing is that listening test have shown that when the above mentioned variables are matched between amps, nobody has yet been able to identify the amps apart - which leads one to conclude that the differences in design have no audible signature.
For the record, I would not identify myself as an objectivist - I am much more interested in exploring the ground between the two camps to see what there is to be learned, if anything. I'm still waiting for a 'subjectivitst' to present an argument that easily fall apart....
john curl said:Many of you will learn, in time, that the rigorous tests do not show much, yet more open tests show plenty. The apparent reason is how the brain works under serious decision making, especially left brain activity. But then, what do I know? I only get good reviews.
John, you are someone with a lot of experience, and I would be honored to learn some of what you have to offer. I have no problem allowing for your claim in the first sentence.
My problem is that the 'left brain/right brain' stuff is pop science, and a great simplification of something that we know very little about. Using it as an explanation does your argument an injustice, as it prevents any further understanding. The only good explanation is one that allows further exploration, and since we have no way of actually knowing what our brain is doing, the explanation is more or less fallacious.
Any answer that prevents further understanding is not an full explanation. I know we can do better than that. How did we get here in the first place?
tinitus said:
Might that be brain adjustment...seems that the hearing is very sensitive to any kind of short term changes, where as the brain adjustment works slower and only over time adjusts, and "falls back" to "its normal reference"...whatever that might be
Andre Visser said:
For myself, I have had to accept that if I cannot compare the first to the second, then any conclusions I draw are on weaker grounds, sad as it may be....
One of the things that seems strange is how 'subjectivists', in most instances, will rely on technical explanations, which are verifiable objectively, and then fail to present any objective evidence for their argument. For instance: masking; or time allowed; or switches.
Why won't any subjectivists take their arguments to truly subjective grounds, like 'Clark offended the Futterman amplifiers by using them alongside the cheap Pioneer amp. The amplifier decided it would not give out the good stuff because it felt the people involved didn't deserve it."
I'm not trying to be facetious - there are arguments that could explain the different sounds of amplifiers that don't rely on objectification, if only someone could articulate them.
For instance, the relationship between partners (man/wife/whatever) is not one based on performance specs - it is based on something else, and that sort of relationship may be at play with amplifiers too.
Anyone?...
Why won't any subjectivists take their arguments to truly subjective grounds, like 'Clark offended the Futterman amplifiers by using them alongside the cheap Pioneer amp. The amplifier decided it would not give out the good stuff because it felt the people involved didn't deserve it."
I'm not trying to be facetious - there are arguments that could explain the different sounds of amplifiers that don't rely on objectification, if only someone could articulate them.
For instance, the relationship between partners (man/wife/whatever) is not one based on performance specs - it is based on something else, and that sort of relationship may be at play with amplifiers too.
Anyone?...
john curl said:
But you don't have to, someone else already did:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
john curl said:Many of you will learn, in time, that the rigorous tests do not show much, yet more open tests show plenty. The apparent reason is how the brain works under serious decision making, especially left brain activity. But then, what do I know? I only get good reviews.
John,
You keep on confusing me bigtime. Just the other day you said that you don't listen to your amps, that you let others do that. Was that just a joke?
Jan Didden
KSTR said:I have read the paper Janneman mentioned, a "Boston Tea Party" event of sorts
One might argue that the result is astonishing, to say the least. I won't tell you which camp I'm in, though.
- Klaus
Come on Klaus, tell us,.... from what I've learnt here is that I must be crazy to believe my ears, then also I must be crazy to believe somebody elses ears, so join the club
john curl said:Many of you will learn, in time, that the rigorous tests do not show much, yet more open tests show plenty. The apparent reason is how the brain works under serious decision making, especially left brain activity. But then, what do I know? I only get good reviews.
My idea is that in the end, rigorous testing works towards showing what we DON'T listen for, when the situation is under rule. That was all I wanted to point out as a gut feeling with my yesterday posts. Thanks John for putting it in a concrete paragraph.
Andre Visser said:
Of course you may - but let me say that I make no claims as to my systems sound, besides that I like it and know it well enough to want to keep building on it, and I adhere to neither objectivist nor subjectivist camps. I am solely interested in understanding why the two camps see differently, and if there is a way to bridge them. For instance - if amplifiers meeting a certain criterion do not sound different, I know what I need to build so as to never worry about my poweramps again. If there are differences between amps with similar specs, than I will continue trying to learn what it takes to make great audio. I am not interested in a ******* contest (I live on the tenth floor, and have a balcony, so I am satisfied
).My current setup uses a PC for audio storage (all music ripped to FLAC), my soundcard is a Delta1010LT, which I have heavily modified (PSU, clock and SPDIF out). SPDIF out from there feeds Peter Daniel's NOS DAC, which I have built into a box with Carlos Filipe's AD815 preamp. This in turn feeds a pair of PD's LM3875 amps running as monoblocks. My speakers are Zaph's bargain aluminum MTM's. I also have Cambridge Audio 640C V2 CD player which I don't use much. My previous source of amplification used to be a pair of 10W 6BM8 monoblocks, designed by a good friend and well know studio gear designer. Before them I used a Creek 5350SE integrated (at one time Stereophile Class A, for what its worth). I also own a pair of SL's Pluto speakers, which are out on loan. All interconnects and cables are Jon Risch's Belden diy recipes.
I am in the process of rebuilding a Lenco TT, and am also building a pair of OB speaker using Visaton B200's and Eminence Alpha 15s. They will be biamped, with XO, FR and time alignment done on the computer.
Interestingly, you didn't ask about my room. I have moved a number of times in the last couple of years, and have had a lot of different rooms to setup in, which has been very educational. I can safely say my current room is not very good, acoustically. Its small, and I share it with my fiancee, so we are cramped. I'll be moving again soon, and will again have a dedicated listening room designed for listening pleasure...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.