Another way of looking at the 'problem' is that objectivists have painted themselves into a corner - they have done "experiments" to assess what is "sufficient" for audio playback, and that's what they keep arguing around. It's as if way back they 'scientifically' determined that a Model T Ford was good enough for transporting people, and a PC with 64K of memory and twin floppy disks was all that was needed for personal computing - a measure was taken at the time, by people with qualifications, and now it's set in stone ...
Absolutely, I'm so game I stink of it. At the moment, that'd be a Marantz 7007 receiver, but I've got a Behringer EP2000 on my subs (which is changing next week) ..if those won't work, I've got boxes I can dig through!
Absolutely, I'm so game I stink of it. At the moment, that'd be a Marantz 7007 receiver, but I've got a Behringer EP2000 on my subs (which is changing next week) ..if those won't work, I've got boxes I can dig through!
Use what you prefer, any serious type of audio gear. Send me via pm the schematics of the amps, and a list of all the other components
that you use with them. I think this will be very interesting. You can solder, right?
Last edited:
I am old enough to remember when salesmen used specifications to sell product - power, distortion and stuff like that.
😎
@rayma - Do start another thread on this documenting the mods you decide to make, I agree it'll be interesting....
Ok, if I can figure out how to do that. Your recent contributions here have been great, much better than I could ever have put into words.
Last edited:
People can be easily fooled. I find that putting cheap wine in fancy bottles can fool a lot of people, perhaps not everybody, but most.
Double blind tests usually confuse people as well. The music is continually changing, so how can you make an easy comparison, along with hiding what you are listening to at the moment. I feel that double blind audio testing for electronics is a waste of time.
Double blind tests usually confuse people as well. The music is continually changing, so how can you make an easy comparison, along with hiding what you are listening to at the moment. I feel that double blind audio testing for electronics is a waste of time.
You are not wrong. It's hopeless. No one is interested in actually learning or teaching. No one is interested in what the subjective impact of real characteristics of amps might be.
Each camp is too intrenched. I suppose this thread is just paying homage to 1914-1918.
I find it helps not to partition people into 'camps' rather they're spread out on a spectrum where the two poles are the extreme positions. There are objectivists who are more open to listening for themselves than others,;there are subjectivists who don't label all minor tweaks to amps as 'night and day'and decry all measurements for instance.
Yes, certainly this is true for design work. Remember the classic Acoustic Research live vs recorded tests (first done by Edison, I hear)?
People couldn't tell the AR3 speakers from a string quartet. Is this good data? The AES has done listening tests at their meetings in a big auditorium.
Is that good data?
Last edited:
Of course a key part of a 'solution' is to develop ways of measuring the finer attributes of sound - but no-one seems to be interested: too hard, not enough accolades at the end, etc. I have noticed how every time a sensible approach to moving in that direction is suggested it is always completely ignored (diplomat's cap on) by those towards the objectivist's end of the spectrum ... 🙂
People can be easily fooled if they haven't been exposed to 'fine wine', and guided into becoming aware of what they should be looking for. Once they have a clear mental grasp of those features then it becomes much easier ...
People can be easily fooled if they haven't been exposed to 'fine wine', and guided into becoming aware of what they should be looking for. Once they have a clear mental grasp of those features then it becomes much easier ...
No, because the system wasn't under stress to reproduce the sound. Try a grand piano thundering away on a Chopin piece, and you might get somewhere using this approach ...
Hellllyes I can, let's see, count em 2...3..err, 4 soldering irons, if you count the station that are within eyesight.
Schematics might be tough, but I'll dig around and see what I can find.
But, now that Nelson Pass is here, I'm actually waiting with baited breath to see what he might have to say about all this jazz.
Measures of what? How were they measured? What do they mean? Again, when you say "soundstage xx%", I have to ask "xx% of what?" Is that just a "score" out of 100 that you have arbitrarily assigned? If so, what does 100% represent? How did you decide on, say, 28% vs any other number?
I would suggest to you that those are not "measures" at all.
Nope, I'm not doing your research for you. Why would I do that? It's not my area of expertise, and it's clearly not yours either. I see no evidence that you have any knowledge of the field, nor any interest in learning about it. When you can demonstrate that you know what you are talking about I'll start taking you seriously.
As always, Cal is right.
Well, Nelson likes to tunes his amplifier circuits for certain small differences in harmonic distortion, all at very low levels regardless, for the sound that he prefers. I think it's safe to say that he thinks he can hear differences in good amplifiers, but maybe he'll discuss this for you.
So, you're essentially saying that you can in fact tell your amplifier apart from one of mine or Nelson's, simply by listening to them?
You're gettin the rock eyebrow right now, mister.
Nelson always reaches for the grey poupon .....
Pardon me, do you have any Pass Aleph?
Certainly.
I say, is that a radio shack outdoor speaker you're applying my Pass Aleph to?
It's not a radio shack outdoor speaker, it's a Realistic All weather Transducer!
*sigh*
- Status
- Not open for further replies.