I agree with both of you. When it is 'right' you 'know' it. While it happened to me several times over the many decades, one time was about 30 years ago at a CES and I heard a Wilson Audio WAMM playing a 'Ragtime piano' vinyl recording. Dave Wilson was there and I told him that it was the closest to 'real' sound that I had heard since my sojourn at the Institute for Advanced Musical Studies, a few years before. It was that amazing! Over the years, I have both liked and disliked the Wilson offerings, but that day will always stick out in my mind.
For years, I had a 'significant other' living with me. She had run her own hi end hi fi store called Natural Sound, and her ears are better than mine, at least they were. At the time, in the '80's, we could knock people's socks off, with our home sound reproduction. After the firestorm, I have never gotten back to that level, partly because I could not afford to replace everything that I lost, but also because it takes 'fine tuning' as well, and I am ill equipped to do that well enough.
For years, I had a 'significant other' living with me. She had run her own hi end hi fi store called Natural Sound, and her ears are better than mine, at least they were. At the time, in the '80's, we could knock people's socks off, with our home sound reproduction. After the firestorm, I have never gotten back to that level, partly because I could not afford to replace everything that I lost, but also because it takes 'fine tuning' as well, and I am ill equipped to do that well enough.
Another thread pointed out that audiophiles' musical tastes are somewhat... conservative, shall we say. When one of them swears that a certain type of distortion sounds good, what exactly are we to make of it? I'm quite sure that Billie Holiday sounds even better played on an old radiogram than a mega-system, but I wouldn't want to waste valuable listening time using it for anything more 'dynamic'. Without 'testing' (subjectively listening to-) some equipment with all types of music, how can anyone state what sounds 'best'?
True, but...
And to make matters worse, a gentleman I met who had done a lot of mastering work says a lot of recordings are a tad boosted in the 4K range. If it were so easy. I did play with that a tad with no luck. Depressing the region would only delay the onset. I will follow with a separate comment about my theory of environmental learning.
I see several additional comments on how low the distortion in modern amps AS WE CAN MEASURE IT is. Absolutely agree. My entire comment is that there is something else we do not understand and are not measuring. There are a tremendoudus number of factors that do not contribute to steady state distortion figures that have been addressed. Just ask Mr. Curl.
There is another one lurking out there. I have a hunch it is something aggravated by the complexity and dynamics of some musical instruments. Trumpets produce unbelievable inter-modulation and phase artifacts compared to a stringed instrument. They are also quite powerful. Hence my suspicion it is a dynamic issue. The only simple dividing line I have is I know of no really cheap lo-fi amp that will pass. Only amps that are at the top of mid-fi and up can pass. All are designed by very smart people who if discover what this last issue is, would jump all over it. This is the price range I can play in. If I could afford to go buy all new uber-over the top, billet copper case whatever, I probably would have no complaints and even if they did fail, one's ego would probably not admit it. Human nature makes the world fun. I would not mind if someone just dropped off a spare Naim they had lying around.
My most next test, as soon as the parts get here, is a simple replacement of all the electrolytics in my DH 120. No "magic" caps, just modern low ESR and the fact that they are new as we all I hope know electrolytic degrade as they dry out and just about all of them are seriously trashed in about 7 years normal life. Much shorter if it was stored in an attic. This is the amp I use on my workbench for my real hobby, speakers. Basically a very good amp, easy to work on, and I paid almost nothing for it. In my wife's listening test, it was about mid-pack.
THeory on environmental learning:
All out ears are different. All or what clues convince us what is pleasing varies. We know this. We can easily demonstrate that very small differences in linear distortion can be heard in blind A-B testing. I contend it does not matter that much. Our brains "learn" an environment, and as long as what we see does not confuse us too much, we will build in a subconscious correction filter. This is why when I go from room to room in my house ( 5 stereo systems) I do not hear big changes in character. I did when I set each one up. If you were to come over, you would probably detect my guest tool is a but light in the 80 Hz region, and my bedroom is a bit mid heavy and so on. Of course, big problems, even narrow band humps do sound bad. My theory. Your mileage may vary.
All out ears are different. All or what clues convince us what is pleasing varies. We know this. We can easily demonstrate that very small differences in linear distortion can be heard in blind A-B testing. I contend it does not matter that much. Our brains "learn" an environment, and as long as what we see does not confuse us too much, we will build in a subconscious correction filter. This is why when I go from room to room in my house ( 5 stereo systems) I do not hear big changes in character. I did when I set each one up. If you were to come over, you would probably detect my guest tool is a but light in the 80 Hz region, and my bedroom is a bit mid heavy and so on. Of course, big problems, even narrow band humps do sound bad. My theory. Your mileage may vary.
Have to admit, the one demo of Wilsons I heard did not have the same effect on me. Mine came much earlier with a studio half-track recording of a solo upright bass played back on a Revox through Levinsons into the first generation B&W 801. It actually sounded real. Probably the only reproduction I have ever heard as real.
I didn't know if there exist anybody who likes the frequency roll-off and distortion of a 4" boombox driver
Anyhow, 4" boombox speakers are usually crossoverless, hence very responsive and sonically can be more enjoyable than many flat, LR-4 high end speakers with notch filters here and there.
Everything can be random and subjective to a group of people, but many things can be in order and objective to another group of people
I think they are in the unidirectional cryogenic AC cables. The easiest upgrade path is to take whatever is at the hardware store, add two zeros to the price, and repackage it as audio quality. Don't forget the foil triangles, natural wood brick, and Fibonacci sequence stranding. It is only a guess as I am an atheist so the God bits probably deserted me.
I didn't know if there exist anybody who likes the frequency roll-off and distortion of a 4" boombox driver
Anyhow, 4" boombox speakers are usually crossoverless, hence very responsive and sonically can be more enjoyable than many flat, LR-4 high end speakers with notch filters here and there.
Everything can be random and subjective to a group of people, but many things can be in order and objective to another group of people
Of course, boom boxes, typically have massive EQ applied. I had a Panasonic many years ago that actually was pretty clean. If the EQ is applied to balance the perception, and not try and push the pooor 50 cent driver where it should no go, they can serve their purpose.
About two projects in the future is a Foxtex single driver to see what the hype is about. As I get older and the fluid in my ears thickens, I can already no longer hear a pure 20K tone (yes, I was tested) so a 70 to 12K may be fine for background listening. My plan is to use some of the more advanced digital processing for equalization so I can preserve the phase. Of course, nothing else in the entire recording process preserved the phase, so I am skeptical it will be any better than a well designed multi-driver system.
Tvgeek, please be careful with your assertions, UNLESS they have been cleared through your wife! Tweaks often work, but they may not make any sense to the 'sensible'.
Also, I doubt that changing out the power caps will do much, unless you replace them with REALLY EXPENSIVE CAPS like the finest Japanese or especially BLACK GATE. As we age, we do become more forgiving, BUT the 20KHz treble peak in my WATT 1's still require a sock over the tweeter to tame it down, just like it did, 15 years ago.
Also, I doubt that changing out the power caps will do much, unless you replace them with REALLY EXPENSIVE CAPS like the finest Japanese or especially BLACK GATE. As we age, we do become more forgiving, BUT the 20KHz treble peak in my WATT 1's still require a sock over the tweeter to tame it down, just like it did, 15 years ago.
This stuff gets old really quick.
The only purpose it serves that I can see is is to give a few people the opportunity to invite themselves into the elite class of the 'golden eared'. Paradoxically it seems that the older you all get and the worse your hearing the less capacity you have to resist the temptation to see yourselves as the true arbiters of quality.
The really disappointing aspect is the propensity for those with genuine engineering capacity to jump from side to side of the objective/subjective fence, presumably in the hope of presenting a moving target and avoiding the ignominy of having a hit scored against you, which would undoubtedly tarnish your exaggerated sense of self-importance.
What are you? Engineers or mystics?
I'm both, BUT NOT IN THE SAME BREATH.
If I was responsible for some of the stuff I've seen written here I'd gag on my own vomit.
The only purpose it serves that I can see is is to give a few people the opportunity to invite themselves into the elite class of the 'golden eared'. Paradoxically it seems that the older you all get and the worse your hearing the less capacity you have to resist the temptation to see yourselves as the true arbiters of quality.
The really disappointing aspect is the propensity for those with genuine engineering capacity to jump from side to side of the objective/subjective fence, presumably in the hope of presenting a moving target and avoiding the ignominy of having a hit scored against you, which would undoubtedly tarnish your exaggerated sense of self-importance.
What are you? Engineers or mystics?
I'm both, BUT NOT IN THE SAME BREATH.
If I was responsible for some of the stuff I've seen written here I'd gag on my own vomit.
Hi,
The thing you fail to realise, is that the "fence" is only in your mind. In reality there is no fence. And because this fence is just in your mind it may look straight to you, yet in fact it zigzags badly, just in a way that from your perspective is not visible...
So what looks to you like I am appearing on both sides of the fence (which you rationalise as me jumping hither and thither, as you cannot accept that I actually walked straight through the fence) is just me walking in a straight line across an open country side and enjoying my stroll... There is no fence where I walk, even if you keep seeing it.
Oh. And I find most engineers are actually mystics, have to be believe into some of the preposterous notions routinely advanced (Atoms? Pshaw - no such thing... Light, well it cannot be a wave and a particle at the same time... and so on).
Ciao T
The thing you fail to realise, is that the "fence" is only in your mind. In reality there is no fence. And because this fence is just in your mind it may look straight to you, yet in fact it zigzags badly, just in a way that from your perspective is not visible...
So what looks to you like I am appearing on both sides of the fence (which you rationalise as me jumping hither and thither, as you cannot accept that I actually walked straight through the fence) is just me walking in a straight line across an open country side and enjoying my stroll... There is no fence where I walk, even if you keep seeing it.
Oh. And I find most engineers are actually mystics, have to be believe into some of the preposterous notions routinely advanced (Atoms? Pshaw - no such thing... Light, well it cannot be a wave and a particle at the same time... and so on).
Ciao T
"There is no fence." TL
Where have I heard something like that before... oh well.
I have no problem going from micro to macro analysis. Does that make me a mystic, please say it does, I always wanted to be unknowable.
Wait, does this mean I have to honor Demeter and Persephone, cause if it does, I'm out.
Where have I heard something like that before... oh well.
I have no problem going from micro to macro analysis. Does that make me a mystic, please say it does, I always wanted to be unknowable.
Wait, does this mean I have to honor Demeter and Persephone, cause if it does, I'm out.
Peter Walker of Quad claimed never to have listened to his amplifiers, merely to have checked that they worked properly by measuring them. Yet they sold by the hundreds of thousands in various topologies to enthusiastic customers, including audiophiles, musicians, recording studios, the BBC etc. Was it all just a fluke*? A triumph of marketing?
*No, not his multimeter.
*No, not his multimeter.
No expectations of magic with new caps. Wet electrolytic caps dry out. You can kill one in only a month in on the top rack of a high bay in a warehouse in Colorado in the summer. (My first career was doing failure analysis for a major computer firm) Their leakage goes up and capacitance goes down. New commercial grade low ESR caps have about half the ESR and three times the C in the same physical size. This is maintenance to return a 30 year old unit to like new. Only my scope and spectrum analyzer will prove if it is of any value. Looking at the data sheets, this problem has not gotten much better. Around ten years of normal use is about what should be expected out of one.
Hafler was quite famous for not over engineering his units, but hitting dead on exactly what made them work and no more. Whenever we think we are "improving" something, we should be asking ourselves why we think we know more than the person who designed it. Sometimes it is easy, cost. Sometimes technology. (u741 to a NE5534 to a LM4562). Most of the time, the designer knew better.
Hafler was quite famous for not over engineering his units, but hitting dead on exactly what made them work and no more. Whenever we think we are "improving" something, we should be asking ourselves why we think we know more than the person who designed it. Sometimes it is easy, cost. Sometimes technology. (u741 to a NE5534 to a LM4562). Most of the time, the designer knew better.
I assume Peter had well calibrated perceptions. Like, I don't need to listen during hours to the thingy that I design in order to tell what is wrong. You know, when you have some experience it is called "Subconscious Competence", when looking at the topology draft you imagine how it sounds.
CC, it may seem like jumping, but consider my original premise. Some, my wife for one, hear things subjectively but repeatably that I do not know how to measure. I hear some subjective things I can't answer to either. So, an engineer has a choice: Deny the evidence, or look at what we don't know. The jest of this thread is to open the discussion on what we have as evidence that we do not yet understand. I see some subjective evidence, and have noticed an anomaly in a measurement. Are the related? I don't know. That is why I am playing with it.
I offer a premise: If two amps sound different, at least one of them is wrong.
I offer a premise: If two amps sound different, at least one of them is wrong.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.