I would like to make an editorial comment about the direction(s) that audio is heading:
I think that the quality audio that I have known and loved for the last 45 years, is splitting into 2 separate directions of 'development'. These are: good sound, mostly, and good looks, mostly.
Looking at the pictures of the Munich Audio event in May, shows me absolutely beautiful displays, rows of turntables with shining chrome and clear plastic, huge loudspeaker arrays, and external finishes 'to die for'. BUT what is 'under the hood'? Are each and every one of these designs built with the highest audio quality, or is it just an 'ego statement' of a well to do, audio producer? I wasn't there, so I cannot say, BUT the amount of treasure invested in the LOOK of the designs seems out of balance, to me.
On the other side, there are people, both amateur and professional who are still trying their best to give the best sound possible, with a healthy nod to an attractive case, to overcome the WAF, at the very least. However, these people are attacked by many, even on this website, as being foolish 'subjectivists', who actually trust their ears, when 'everybody with a scientific bent' KNOWS that the ear can barely tell the difference between anything and can be easily fooled, as is often shown in scientific tests.
These people don't seem to easily talk to each other, even here.
I attribute this to the takeover of the AES by the 'objectivists' back in about 1980, forbidding publication of many 'advanced' concepts, that may have kept us on track in audio design, and continue maintaining an environment where the 'obs' like Dr's Lipshitz and Doi, could interact with 'subs' like Doug Sax, or me, for example.
This 'objectivity' has taken over a major segment of discussion, yet can we not just LISTEN and decide for ourselves? I don't mean just 'personally' fawning over our latest construction project, like a proud papa, but with the help of others in the industry, as well, to further instruct us as to what we did 'well' and what is lacking. This, coupled by more advanced measurement techniques, looking for what we have overlooked, would get us to make better products AT ANY PRICE POINT, because we could learn what to AVOID, as well as what to improve.
This separation in audio today, puts one group in the purely subjective, throw money at it, camp, that is sometimes very successful, but mostly so so, and the purely objective, if I can't measure it, AND its distortion is not more than Dr. Lipshitz thinks is important, then everybody who finds it lacking is just being foolish.
What good it that?
In has been my experience that there are differences in audio components that are not always easily measured. Without listening, unfettered, to these audio components, making direct comparisons to other designs, both old and new, leaves virtually no direction to go in audio design. Yet, I still hear the differences, almost as easily as when I first started 45 years ago. There is still lots to do.
I think that the quality audio that I have known and loved for the last 45 years, is splitting into 2 separate directions of 'development'. These are: good sound, mostly, and good looks, mostly.
Looking at the pictures of the Munich Audio event in May, shows me absolutely beautiful displays, rows of turntables with shining chrome and clear plastic, huge loudspeaker arrays, and external finishes 'to die for'. BUT what is 'under the hood'? Are each and every one of these designs built with the highest audio quality, or is it just an 'ego statement' of a well to do, audio producer? I wasn't there, so I cannot say, BUT the amount of treasure invested in the LOOK of the designs seems out of balance, to me.
On the other side, there are people, both amateur and professional who are still trying their best to give the best sound possible, with a healthy nod to an attractive case, to overcome the WAF, at the very least. However, these people are attacked by many, even on this website, as being foolish 'subjectivists', who actually trust their ears, when 'everybody with a scientific bent' KNOWS that the ear can barely tell the difference between anything and can be easily fooled, as is often shown in scientific tests.
These people don't seem to easily talk to each other, even here.
I attribute this to the takeover of the AES by the 'objectivists' back in about 1980, forbidding publication of many 'advanced' concepts, that may have kept us on track in audio design, and continue maintaining an environment where the 'obs' like Dr's Lipshitz and Doi, could interact with 'subs' like Doug Sax, or me, for example.
This 'objectivity' has taken over a major segment of discussion, yet can we not just LISTEN and decide for ourselves? I don't mean just 'personally' fawning over our latest construction project, like a proud papa, but with the help of others in the industry, as well, to further instruct us as to what we did 'well' and what is lacking. This, coupled by more advanced measurement techniques, looking for what we have overlooked, would get us to make better products AT ANY PRICE POINT, because we could learn what to AVOID, as well as what to improve.
This separation in audio today, puts one group in the purely subjective, throw money at it, camp, that is sometimes very successful, but mostly so so, and the purely objective, if I can't measure it, AND its distortion is not more than Dr. Lipshitz thinks is important, then everybody who finds it lacking is just being foolish.
What good it that?
In has been my experience that there are differences in audio components that are not always easily measured. Without listening, unfettered, to these audio components, making direct comparisons to other designs, both old and new, leaves virtually no direction to go in audio design. Yet, I still hear the differences, almost as easily as when I first started 45 years ago. There is still lots to do.
It seems to me that you don't get that sometimes there are audible differences, or audible qualities, that are noted only by subjective experience and not by measurements.
For $30 for 10 matched pairs, I'm not going to go bankrupt either way. Possibly he sold in the past fake 2SJ74, he told me he has lots of those, but I'll get the genuine ones.
I find that those people who refuse to recognize the subjective aspects of audio are people who are locked in their beliefs that measurements alone can tell all there is to know about audio gear.
All that I talk about is my: Life experience and acquired knowledge. That is ALL! I could care less, IF others don't hear the differences, or don't respect my findings. It is sad, sometimes, but if SE wants to sell a cable that is no different than most others, except that is smells good, looks good, and is well built, that is OK with me. What SE has found is that: It is not easy to make ANY custom cable, well done, well packaged, well distributed. He is not alone with this. ANY cable maker has these challenges. The only difference is that other 'cable makers' might have a cable that really sounds different than many others, due to the 'core' materials and geometry.
Jan,
Another area where we disagree. As an example if I have an amplifier that when it clips... chirps and we compare that to an equal in all other ways amplifier that does not, we probably agree that one will sound better than another. Until we notice the difference in clipping behavior we would believe both amplifiers measure the same and should sound the same. One the transient difference is noted then the measurement difference and the sound quality difference would be rationally explained.
As I think we also agree transient problems can be overlooked. So it is possible to hear differences that are missed by measurements, until we know how to look for them.
ES
I don't know what you mean when you say "those people who refuse to recognize the subjective aspects of audio..."
se
You know perfectly well he means the golden ear approach. I tried that my self, but once the price of gold skyrocketed, they got stolen too often, so I had to go back to tin!
controlled listening with a blinding protocol is "Subjective" - just with far fewer influences from level differences, expectation
Harmon spent megabucks on subjective evaluation in Toole's lab – the required controls for turning subjective listening impressions into usable data are well known, thoroughly validated
for loudspeakers available design approaches involve clearly audibly significant trade offs with even "the optimum" not being agreed on for the basics of frequency response/directivity
for electrical signals, power amplifiers we have a problem of much reduced "dimensionality"
commercially produced, distributed recorded music signals have limited bandwidth and noise floor
electrical signal measurement is one of the "sharpest tools" we have in technology
start providing reliable "Subjective" data from controlled, blinded listening tests and we can "measure" the differences and validate (or reject) theories of how to correlate measured differences with human auditory perception
however much "audiophiles" want to sneer - that process has given us perceptual lossy encoding that can "toss out" 75% of the Shannon-Hartley information of audio signal streams with few being able to hear the loss on a very few selections of music
we can build amplifiers that preserve "five nines" of that information
when "clearly audible", "night and day" differences reported by the “Subjectivist” subset that refuses to use the results of psychoacoustice testing, blinding to structure their listening make claims about electronic circuit's "sound" that can't be found in blinded listening, aren't supported by measurements when hypothesis are asserted (PIM) what can "Scientific Rationalists" say?
No, we wouldn't. Perhaps a cartoon of a rationalist might, but no-one I've ever met would assume that clipping behavior and recovery is the same from amp to amp.
You know perfectly well he means the golden ear approach. I tried that my self, but once the price of gold skyrocketed, they got stolen too often, so I had to go back to tin!
Aw man, that can be a real hit to the ol' self-esteem.
Tell ya what, get you some ears of polished brass with hot dip lacquer coating. No one will ever know the difference and you'll look maaahhhvelous!
se
What is not right in this picture ?
Sure you don't want to invest in something more reliable and with higher resale value : http://www.wyleshardy.com/auctions/u1161_20097911757/2719 wyles hardy A4 Bull.pdf
Attachments
Last edited:
You are wrong. I perfectly know there are audible differences. I agree there are audible differences. I agree that measurements don't tell all.
Can you now please stop making up things that are never said?
jan didden
Interestingly. Have you ever met "people who refuse to recognize the subjective aspects of audio"? Have you ever met people that "are locked in their beliefs that measurements alone can tell all there is to know about audio gear"?
Is this something else you make up?
You know, it has been explained to you so often that these types of people only exist in your imagination, that I wonder why you continue to come up with it again and again?
jan didden
What is not right in this picture ?
Sure you don't want to invest in something more reliable and with higher resale value : http://www.wyleshardy.com/auctions/u1161_20097911757/2719 wyles hardy A4 Bull.pdf
Engines: Twin MTU M92 each
producing 2285hp (1704KW)
@ 2450rpm
LOL
Refuse to recognize ? (subjectivity)
How could we ? I was reading this ... Luxman M-800A power amplifier Page 2 | Stereophile.com
(for laughs and giggles) , and just could not get over the overuse of verbs to describe a single inanimate piece of audio gear. You would think the amp is "alive" !! Of course I pilfered this amp's schema to see what (if any) "groundbreaking" examples of engineering might bring a reviewer into such ecstasy.
As far as recognition , I recognize that the above reviewer was most likely paid and or was given a free amp to blather so proficiently. I bet he does not even talk or describe his girl/ wife in such a manner $$$$$.
" warm, velvety side of the great sonic divide"... OMG !!!
How could we ? I was reading this ... Luxman M-800A power amplifier Page 2 | Stereophile.com
(for laughs and giggles) , and just could not get over the overuse of verbs to describe a single inanimate piece of audio gear. You would think the amp is "alive" !! Of course I pilfered this amp's schema to see what (if any) "groundbreaking" examples of engineering might bring a reviewer into such ecstasy.
As far as recognition , I recognize that the above reviewer was most likely paid and or was given a free amp to blather so proficiently. I bet he does not even talk or describe his girl/ wife in such a manner $$$$$.
" warm, velvety side of the great sonic divide"... OMG !!!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.