I'm fine with "good enough", particularly in the absence of golden ears bragging about funding their systems with Richard Clark's $10k
Nothing to take issue with now it transpires that 'audibly transparent in the earlier claim really means 'good enough for jcx'.
all Scientific Theories, their tests, "proofs" are just that - "good enough" for now with current evidence, knowledge, hopefully fitting in the current understanding of the world when viewed multiple ways
whatever version of Rational Materialism, Scientific Rationalism we do think there are limits to any "information channel", including human hearing, sound transducers, and electronic signal conditioning, we even have a fair handle on some of the numbers
if you aren't working within that framework then yes we aren't going to often agree
whatever version of Rational Materialism, Scientific Rationalism we do think there are limits to any "information channel", including human hearing, sound transducers, and electronic signal conditioning, we even have a fair handle on some of the numbers
if you aren't working within that framework then yes we aren't going to often agree
Last edited:
Who here listens to music and forgets about the electronics involved?, that's when you know you have designed "your" perfect audio chain 😉. Topology, Thd, GNfB or not, Music is universal, gear isn't! :/.
I agree - DBT is the only way to make scientifically backed claims on audio equipment. However, I am not making scientifically backed claims - just stating what I prefer. The speaker guy liked to Ovation 250, my one son likes the sx-Amp, the other the nx-Amp.
I'm not a subjectivist and not an objectivist, preferring to label myself a pragmatist.
I don't know why they 'appear' sound different, or in fact if they do sound different - a DBT may indicate that its all nonsense and they sound exactly the same. Personal and expectation bias no doubt play a role. I could postulate on the reasons for the different sonics, but for every argument put forward, there'd be 50 counter arguments. The problem with audio is that there are many variables and isolating them is extremely difficult.
As a DIY group thre is much out there to conflict our views and ears, but at the end of the day I put a lot more reliance on the people who have no clue about the numbers or scientific facts, but tell me what they prefer sonically. I have done my best work due to the number challenged friends around me, they lay it down like it is with no BS, either it's good or it sucks 🙂
Colin
Maybe that's the first thing you ought to do before starting to "postulate on the reasons for the different sonics." 😀
It seems odd that a successful designer is not permitted to proffer his thoughts on 'sonics'.
Stuart, your suggestion that many SS amps are an 'effects box' is hilarious!! Of course you are absolutely correct.
Stuart, your suggestion that many SS amps are an 'effects box' is hilarious!! Of course you are absolutely correct.
But is this limited to SS amps? I don't mind effects boxes at all, but I think they contradict the term HIFI (That is if HIFI still means that the product attempts to be true to the music signal).
On my bass I play a 300W tube monster, because it is an effects box.
I think the point of music is to bring joy, what ever that takes is OK IMO.
The quest for ppm THD is an intellectual one, the extra benefit is that it that the technical knowledge gained in the process can later be used to make "effects boxes"..... that may sound better 🙂
\\\Jens
Hi Fidelity is a misnomer, since this recorded signal is passed through so much are we attempting to be true to the original signal"event", or the output of the source, with this in mind it makes it clear how much room there truly can be for thd abbérations of a power amplifier, vs preamp. Considering every studio, every mastering house uses their own standard for sound you would essentially need to know the whole chain to make a true objective decision on what to go for.
Colin
Colin
Colin, no matter what some here say. We have to believe in what we do and make, design, build products that satisfies ourself, Listening to our creations is the only valid evaluation.
PPM distortions is only the tiniest part of the equation, it's a measure with no relevance as it's taken in a non system setup. Like horsepower tells you nothing about how a car drives.
PPM distortions is only the tiniest part of the equation, it's a measure with no relevance as it's taken in a non system setup. Like horsepower tells you nothing about how a car drives.
I guess you are talking about modern electronic music, which has no real acoustic version. For orchestral music, and other genuinely 'unplugged' genres, hi-fi has real meaning; there is an original sound which the recording chain is attempting to reproduce as best it can in the listener's home.vynuhl.addict said:
but even all acoustic performances, traditional venues the mix is usually made with multiple mics
often a flying mic or several for "ambience" with less audience noise contribution
even without individual performer's each miced there likely are multiples used, different directivities, locations
not many commercial music releases recorded with a binaural dummy head in the audience
often a flying mic or several for "ambience" with less audience noise contribution
even without individual performer's each miced there likely are multiples used, different directivities, locations
not many commercial music releases recorded with a binaural dummy head in the audience
Last edited:
I've not anything against 'effect boxes' but I think it's frustrating when the amplifier is one.
Because I have no control over it! The situation is absurd: What if the amp doesn't provide the right effects? Am I supposed to get another amp? Suppose I do find an amp providing the right 'effects' and then have to move house to a new room where the 'effects' are no longer, ...ahem..., effective?
Effects should be at the preamp stage controlled by switches and knobs with cut out circuits.
I have the same beef about speakers. I don't want a speaker that gives a "lively presentation of the music." I want a speaker that produces a fairly faithful presentation of the signal sent to it radiated with reasonable conformity with psychoacoustic requirements. If I'm not happy with that, then I want to dial in some "liveliness, or whatever, MYSELF, dammit!
It's come to a pretty pass when, for less than $1000, a person can buy decent little speakers, (not quite enough dynamic capability), fairly clean amplification, and DEQ, all from Behringer [!!!], dig up a couple or three small used subs, and get better audio presentation than folk spending HUGE money on so called high end audio gear.
Amplifier as effects box, speaker as effects box, are the great self inflicted disasters of the non-pro audio business.
In the present context, I think the only way "high-fidelity" makes sense is relative to the playback source.
Digital music can be created and put to CD without anyone having heard it until the CD is played.
For acoustic instruments, as stated if the microphones are moved they sense a different sound. So one can't say there is an "original sound," singular.
Digital music can be created and put to CD without anyone having heard it until the CD is played.
For acoustic instruments, as stated if the microphones are moved they sense a different sound. So one can't say there is an "original sound," singular.