The 10k hour thing to reach expertise is only applicable in the presence of constant, prompt, useful feedback, and continuous new learning, not just repeating the same old thing over and over. If the people you mentioned met all the necessary conditions, the a conclusion that some kind of expertise was arrived at is probably not unreasonable.
In the case of musicians, to maintain the necessary conditions, it's necessary to keep being accepted by more and more expert teachers as one progresses. If stuck with a mediocre teacher, learning will stop there.
You talk about the quality of feedback shortly after citing that rubbish Benchmark feedback here? 🙄 🙄 🙄
I did say 'professional musicians'. Generally you won't get a gig with an orchestra with a mediocre teacher. BTW who gives the "constant, prompt, useful feedback" to mastering engineers? In interviews they usually do nothing but complain about busybody producers and record company execs who have nothing to add. Not aware of a professional mentoring body that hones their skills.*
Note: this is not to mean that hairy mcstrum in a grunge band should not be considered a 'professional musician', just a slightly different profession, although the LPO on speed might be an entertaining evening. 🙂
* you may have spotted that I do not hold mixing and mastering engineers in as high regard as you do. Certain recording engineers such as Keith O Johnson and John Eargle ( and all the Decca boys from the good old days) I consider to be righfully lauded for their achievements. That is my bias and I accept I have not walked a mile in their shoes. But you do seem to project superhuman abilities on them.
Note: this is not to mean that hairy mcstrum in a grunge band should not be considered a 'professional musician', just a slightly different profession, although the LPO on speed might be an entertaining evening. 🙂
* you may have spotted that I do not hold mixing and mastering engineers in as high regard as you do. Certain recording engineers such as Keith O Johnson and John Eargle ( and all the Decca boys from the good old days) I consider to be righfully lauded for their achievements. That is my bias and I accept I have not walked a mile in their shoes. But you do seem to project superhuman abilities on them.
Listening method?
I didn't discover anything that isn't known to anyone who listens to a lot of different amplifiers in the same system with the same music as comparison music.
Any more I just do this with amps that I make that are small modifications of the same design.
Bill, agreed about musicians that get good enough to play with a serious orchestra. Also, top session players are often about as good as it gets. Some of them also perform with orchestras.
Regarding mix and mastering engineers, it's not that I hold all of them in equally high esteem. I don't. Some are much more skilled and talented than others.
Mostly what I object to, and I talk about, is in response to people who don't know much about what it takes to mix and master well, and who may therefore assume they are nothing more than employed audiophiles who still suffer from very ungrounded imaginations about what they hear. You may know enough to know better, but some people don't.
Since the forum seems to be mostly populated with old men who are disposed to think largely in terms of measurable specifications, there seems to be a need for some moderating voice. Not that I don't like specifications, I do. But I really can't understand the fixation on one number, THD, that we sometimes see an excess of around here.
Recently, I took my 92 year old mother shoe shopping. All she could think of was in terms of shoe sizes, not aspects of shoe shapes not associated with that one special number. In her case, the shape of a shoe beyond just the size number matters. When I hear people talk about THD as the only thing that matters, it reminds me of shopping for shoes!
When I hear people stating that professional mixing and mastering engineers must be imagining all kinds of crazy things exactly the same as some audiophiles, I get a similar feeling.
We have a wide collection of people here with different experiences and different levels and scopes of education. But, people are naturally inclined to feel confident they are expert at things they actually don't have all that much expertise with. I don't know if it's worth trying to counter some of that or not. Since its hard to read some of it without wanting to balance the record, maybe the best course of action is to leave and let people have at it as they will.
How did you and "anyone who listens to a lot of different amplifier" conduct the listening comparison to know that "small circuit modification can result in slightly different sound" of amp? Would you mind sharing some details please?
Fairy nuff. I cannot argue with that as stated.
I have to take exception here tho. Whilst the average age here may not be 30, there are plenty of younger people, and I'm a long way from old. There is a mix and that should be encouraged.
Secondly, and in the same way that the coal mine has been burning for 100 years, Jupiters spot is at least 150 year old and people have been scrapping over what is now called Israel for all of recorded history this is the lounge. People come here for a bit of the Craic and will naturally take a position that will get a response. What is interesting is that the fixated ones are generally the people who believe in cable directionality, bybees, alien probing and tuning dots. Anyone with even a modicum of Physics or Engineering education will realise that we are dealing with a complex system and single parameters are just a bait trap.
Thirdly you talk about moderation yet immediately pour petrol on the fire with your 'old and THD' comment. A cynic might thing you are trying to stir things up 😛
Has anyone actually said this? I've missed it if they have.
Well amongst those of a scientific bent this is less of the case. We have plenty of piled high on here, including poor DPH who you said would never amount to much! Projecting that natural inclination onto some of the people here is, I think unfair*. Or more petrol. You should tried some threads outside the lounge. There is some really really good stuff being discussed here and some innovative thinking.
maybe the "excess" is in the mind of the reader?
maybe because the two camps have distinctly different uses for "THD", and varies in nuance with the poster's sophistication?
one side wants to use it as a strawman to justify rejecting mesurements by by using the most literal interpretation without any consideration of what anyone with experience in these arguments should minimally know and automatically assume a knowledgeable poster meant when using "THD" as a short form
having to include pages of qualifications about reasonable interpretations of the informed uses of "THD" as a short form for a suite of measurements with psychoacustic weightings stalls the discussion
Unfortunately there are some who don't really want that, and would rather close down a conversation than explore any other ideas. But fortunately anyone trying to use numbers as a barrier, rather than a window, have found themselves coming up against others who are equally comfortable with them.
BTW, I don't include myself among the innovative thinkers, I simply have questions.
Why do I get the feeling that the posters on this thread are mainly Luddites living in the 70's with their record players and big old Japanese boat anchor amplifiers, and dare I say, tubes? They are not able to admit that audio has come a long way in 40 years and those old hifi specs. are available on chips costing a dollar or two.
Okay, I must agree that old and THD-focused are uncorrelated. And, not trying to stir things up.
Regarding poor DPH, I don't think I ever unconditionally said he would never amount to much. What I was trying to say that he seemed to be displaying an attitude that did not correspond closely with open-minded scientific curiosity, detachment, and neutral, minimally biased skepticism. It was not at all intended to be a unalterable prediction of his future. It was intended to get his attention, and to get him thinking about the issues now, early on in his career while there is still time and opportunity to consider the kind of attitudes that make for a good scientist, important things besides just knowing the technical things taught in school. And it's what I would have said to a son or young friend who seemed to have gotten a bit off the path, and who appeared to need honesty more than the avoidance of any discomfort. So, in the end, I hope he will not be poor, but richer for the experience. I wish DPH only the best for his future. Hopefully it will turn out well.
Sorry, that was intended to be humor. I completely missed on that for which I apologise.
I don't see an issue with people being able to turn off whilst on here (especially lounge side). My experience has been that people are often very different in 'work mode' than 'play mode'. this is healthy. If you can't switch off you can go a bit bonkers. This is as good a place as any to do that. And at least I learn new things every day here.
I don't see an issue with people being able to turn off whilst on here (especially lounge side). My experience has been that people are often very different in 'work mode' than 'play mode'. this is healthy. If you can't switch off you can go a bit bonkers. This is as good a place as any to do that. And at least I learn new things every day here.
Okay. I'm willing to try to understand what the "short form" includes and excludes. Weighted verses unweighted measurement? THD at full power only? Into any load impedance? THD+N or THD only? IMD at all?
In other words, I'm not clear on what you think the short form includes and what it leaves out, and if other posters see it the same way you do.
I'm also not clear if the short form does leave out some parameters, how we can be sure the amplifier will be audibly transparent, as seems to be the short form implication.
In particular, I find this unclear because if it has been stated that .1% THD is low enough to be inaudible, and the "short form" would seem to imply a "good enough to for any distortion to be inaudible" level of performance, yet I have A/B tested an amp rated for .1% THD with near field monitors and found it to sound more than slightly distorted. Maybe not THD distorted, and not badly distorted like it was broken, but a distorted in some small-ish, yet clearly audible way. Muddy sounding. Maybe IMD? Too distorted for mixing, for my use anyway. Probably fine for sound reinforcement in a club. Unfortunately no distortion analyzer was available at the time to see exactly what it was that was audible.
Also, the Bryston power amp I use most of the time is rated for pretty low distortion, but it still adds very slight distortion audible under some conditions. Not enough to preclude its use for mixing though.
Last edited:
You might be better saying 'I tested an amplifier purported to be low distortion and something sounded amiss'? In this case you have admitted you have no idea what the issue was, yet want to blame 'THD'.
No, I'm not blaming THD at all. I don't think a vague THD specification alone was adequate for my purposes, is all. Graphs of THD verses frequency and power output might help a lot. So might some other specifications. THD without even saying weighted or unweighted is not very much information. Not enough for my needs.
EDIT: And not saying anything was amiss. What I am saying is that I found the amplifier unsuitable for mixing due to audible distortion, but not too distorted to use as a PA amplifier in a night club.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.