Thus my question from a few pages back.
Why do threads like these, and the cable threads, attract so much attention?Pano; said:
Because it pure discussion, and that's all. You don't need to design anything, build anything, tweak anything, burn your fingers, smash your thumb, hurt your ears.
All you need for this thread is an opinion.
And you know what they say, "Opinions are like speakers, everybody has at least two." 😀
The other big problem with any Internet audio forum is that we rarely get to hear what the other forum members are building. So we can only guess if it sounds good or not.
I consider myself lucky to have heard the work of a dozen or more forum members. And some have heard mine. Thus I'm able to judge and filter some of what guys here are saying by what I've heard them do. There is a lot of nice work out there. It seems that many of the active forum members are doing really nice work. As for those I have not heard, I can only imagine. It's tough.
So we end up in threads like this trying to get others to judge our words, our opinions and beliefs, rather than our work.
Oh, sorry. That turned out fairly ponderous, didn't it?
I think thats a big part of it.
There is nothing like sitting on a couch listening to music with someone. Once you have done that you really can get a much better understanding of what they post.
I think some people stay away from some project threads for the simple reason they don't have anything to add or contribute and simply don't want to dump on them.
Rob🙂
It's being psychoanalyzed by ersatz experts with relevant qualifications no better than the clerk handing me coffee in the morning. Maybe worse. Add to that the act of doing so without evidence or training is a direct violation of their proclaimed principles, and who can resist? Someone has to defend science from that abuse.
rdf,
Because some people, engineers included, do hear differences, they are not qualified to express their opinions? The only issue as I see it, is that a few are trying to tell the majority that they are wrong. Why is that? This is DIY and I build stuff as I want to attain the very best musically satisfy equipment that I possibly can. What is the purpose if not for that?
No one is condemning anyone for their designs that I can see or have seen posted here. The only issue that I see being brought up and torn apart is the sonic merit of any circuit design. It seems that some of those that design, do not want the listening audience to form any type of opinion of the sonic results gained from actually listening to something. Why is that? Are they afraid that their designs will not meet public approval? Would that not be taken as the possibility to learn what might be a problem and try to address it somehow? I am just trying to grasp the issue behind the put downs to those that hear differences and know what they like and dislike.
I am currently building an amplifier that I did not design, but I have high hopes for its sonic signature based upon the individual that did design it. It may not turn out to be as good as I hoped, but I want to build it anyway. I love to DIY. I do hope that if it does not turn out to my liking that I will gain some knowledge about the topology, so that I can try to use that to my advantage on a future build. If it turns out to be great, I will be ecstatic! That is my ultimate goal.
Why is this such a hard principal to understand? Do many of the members still think that all amplifier/preamplifier topologies all sound the same? If so why do you continue to come up with new and different topologies to build? I am curious what these new designs are intended to do if it is not to hopefully sound better when playing music. Why continue to build new stuff if nothing ever changes sonically with each new iteration? Is it just to build something new each time? Is the build process what they enjoy more than the listening process? I am trying to understand why the amount of animosity is directed towards listeners, DIYer's or otherwise.
Last edited:
I've often been accused of writing in a sparse shorthand prone to generating confusion, but never have my words been so stood on their head. 🙂 Curly, I'm not criticizing reports of audible differences on principle, I'm taking shots at 'objectivists' thinking they defend science when using those reports as a jumping-off point to make completely unwarranted conclusions about the author's mental capacity and motives.
IMHO, there's almost nothing we don't understand about electronic design. Psychoacoustics is also reasonably advanced, though not to the degree of electronics for obvious reasons. What we don't seem to have is any way to join the two. My experience is that flawlessly accurate signal processing doesn't usually sound good. The more technically accurate you make it, the less you want to listen to it. OTOH, LPs, which are really pretty lousy reproducers of signal in a technical sense, can sound absolutely great. Yet, you'll never confuse the output of an LP with the output of a signal generator. People try to say that our measurements are flawed. Rubbish. We can measure pretty much anything down to part per million levels. The problem is that we're aiming at the wrong target- perfect signal reproduction. We're also starting with a source, be it analog or digital, that's been processed in an unknown manner, referenced to an unknown system, by people with unknown tastes. Finally, we tend to test the individual pieces, not understanding the whole system and how the parts interact. Thus, the great divide between the technically weak subjectivists, who can do nothing but listen, and the science based objectivists, often deafened by their own measurements, will probably go on forever. I'm in the objective camp because I have no choice in the matter. I believe science, and nothing else, will at least let us understand the problem, but progress of late has been hard to find. The world in general is losing most appreciation of quality; it's unlikely that any big resources will be brought to bear on the issue because very few people are dissatisfied with the sound they already have.
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"
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"
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.
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
Cool! 🙂
See.. progress can be made (or agreed with/confirmed), in a thread as ridiculous as this one. 😀
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
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.
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
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.
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.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.