I remember that the german "Stereoplay" mag published an article (late 80s,beginning of 90s), revealing their shocking finding that the Sondek (choosen as their so-called reference TT) benefits from kind of sympathetic vibration evoked by microphonic effects.
Placed in another room the advantage in comparison to other TTs vanished but back in the listening room it was again the winner.
Best in combination with a tiny lightweight "IKEA" table (rumours, that it was quickly sold out after the mag came out
)Iirc they presented some measurements that provided corrobation for their hypothesis....
As they usually say, not everything you hear can be measured.
You seem to have a different definition of transparent amp. In such case, communication won't be possible.
It's a basic concept you would think that everyone would get it but it appears not to have gotten through to some reviewers. That is unless they do it on purpose.
I remember that the german "Stereoplay" mag published an article (late 80s,beginning of 90s), revealing their shocking finding that the Sondek (choosen as their so-called reference TT) benefits from kind of sympathetic vibration evoked by microphonic effects.
Placed in another room the advantage in comparison to other TTs vanished but back in the listening room it was again the winner.
Best in combination with a tiny lightweight "IKEA" table (rumours, that it was quickly sold out after the mag came out
Iirc they presented some measurements that provided corrobation for their hypothesis....
Every spring/mass system will resonate at some frequency, and IIRC, the LP-12 has little damping. With that in mind, I can easily imagine situations where it could be acoustically excited and add that series of resonances to the sound...but in general use it was good in that respect for it's day (1980's), especially compared to a lot of other TTs of the time.
I do not own a Linn, largely because I disliked the tonearms and cartridges Linn pushed onto it. In particular (I hope I remember this correctly) they had an arm called the Ittok and a very low compliance cart which sounded OK with some material, but was so poor at tracking it broke up with loud drum sounds and with large groove excursions would pop right out of the groove and skid to the label....but I'm sure things have changed a lot in 30 years.
My solution to TT feedback at the last two homes I have owned is to build a concrete block pylon in the crawlspace directly under the stereo rack location and drive tapered wood shims between the top and the floor joists. This effectively decouples the rack from floor vibrations.
Cheers,
Howie
There surely is scientific evidence that covers situations like the one at hand?
I can only encourage you (and others) to conduct some listening tests with other people to find out what works in which way in reality. Use different methods (don't forget the qualitative method I've mentioned quite regularly) and use different test approaches. Chances are high that you'll be in for some surprises.
Sound events (and the evaluation of) are not so different than all the other judgements we face in every day life. Reasonable people around me don't sit in restaurants neither one really likes because they are generally "agreeable" humans, nor do they all pretend to like the same books, to like the same music, the same artists and so on....
The concept does not work perfectly (we are still humans) but reasonable well, and so it does (most likely I've to add
) for judgement about sound quality in every day life.If one really needs more robust evidence, then surely the rigorous scientific approach is the right one to choose.
It most probably will not help in forums discussions, though; did I mentioned that before?
@ Markw4,
As it is not my intention to insult, I choose the cargo-cult-science descriptor as it implies no bad faith, but just an incomplete understanding of a concept.
In that sense, dismissing/neglecting scientific evidence just because the content is not to ones liking - often even without reading it - or constantly applying double standards, shows imo exactly that.
I really tend to think that from all possible explanations the "cargo-cult-science" one could be seen as the least offensive.
Last edited:
Why not, I have explained clearly, haven't I?
In term of THD it's low enough that can be considered similar sounding with any other good amps. So people may ignore everything I said if they think all (good) amps sound the same.
I have formulated some subjective sound quality aspects. 'Transparency' is 'resolution' with 'accuracy'. Dan and Merrill I believe can relate with "resolution without accuracy'' claimed by some as transparent amps, but with annoying sound character.
I suspect that the hot debate about good DAC sounding different is based on similar phenomenon.
You raise a good point, one deserving of a response.
First, agreeableness is a personality trait. There is a well known 'Big 5' personality profile. There is an acronym to help remember what the big 5 personality traits are, and that acronym is OCEAN. The A is for agreeableness.
Some of us here are probably aware that not all forum members likely score the same on that particular attribute, with perhaps some being on the more disagreeable end of the spectrum.
In any case, I do try to be agreeable and perhaps it also comes naturally. So, the exact concern you raise occurred to me as Richard and I were listening. I made a particular point to consciously try to suppress bias from that influence, and I think at least for me it is a bias that is amenable to considerable suppression so long as I remember to try to minimize its effects.
Also, despite the brief telling of our listening time, it was more complicated and time consuming to do than we wrote about as there is a need to keep forum posts more on the pithy side. In particular, I did not find that Richard and I listened exactly the same way. As I said, we agreed that each others observations were both correct after we exchanged listening impressions and listened once more to see what the other person described. It is true that we both could hear all the same effects once they were pointed out and we focused attention on listening for additional effects. But, the key thing is that before comparing impressions we both noticed different symptoms of the same underlying reproduction system problems. Distortion in vocals, or distortion in cymbals, indistinct details, lack of space and depth, etc. One reason we don't have different measurements for all those perceptual differences is because they are only caused by a more limited number of engineering shortcomings. Jitter, noise, power supply performance, amplifier distortion, etc. If you hear one perceptual symptom, there are usually other symptoms produced by the same underlying engineering causes.
Anyway to recap, it was only after we cross checked by listening for the specific symptoms each other noticed alone that we agreed that all the symptoms could be heard by each of us if we listened for the sum total of symptoms. Again, it was easy, the differences were obvious enough not hard.
Also, since I know Mr.Harmonics will ask, I will say that we listened at various volume levels to both dacs. There were no differences that sounded like volume differences, or that simply sounded 'better' in some vague way as .1dB level changes do (that particular sound effect should always set off warning bells, IMHO). There was always specifically identifiable distortion that did not change as a function of volume level. When we described the results using the words better or worse, it is not intended to be the literal difference. It is verbal shorthand for a variety of volume level independent symptoms.
Last edited:
If you fellers paid any attention at all you’d have seen that all Richards measuring gear has already shipped to Thailand.
And as much as I’d wonder about dunking a $2k dac in driveway sealer you just really don’t know, and to tell you the truth I’d be inclined to take Richards opinions of ‘sound’ over most anyone’s here.
And as much as I’d wonder about dunking a $2k dac in driveway sealer you just really don’t know, and to tell you the truth I’d be inclined to take Richards opinions of ‘sound’ over most anyone’s here.
A lot of reasons (even though he wouldn’t send me those M2’s)
For one he’s one of the least mouthy people here.......in my experience quiet people have nothing to prove.
After a quick glance of his accomplishments I came away with the impression he’s likely not an idiot.
Although never hearing his amps they seem well received.
He was open to at least try (and pony up for) something most here just dismiss......open minds tend absorb subtlety.
I could keep going
Spidey sense.......etc, but that should do.
Richard's measurement gear is already in Thailand. I brought two large bags of stuff for listening comparisons only. My dac, its remote, a laptop with source material and resampling software, interconnection and power cables, my ultra-low distortion headphone amp, and some very good headphones.
What I was able to do was very dependent on what Richard wanted to do and what his equipment setup allowed. The stereo equipment is in a heavy, tight fitting wooden cabinet. Interconnections cables in the back are very short and moving stuff around to connect up my dac, then his, then mine, etc., then get the lid off his dac to take a pic while it was still half way wired up to everything else was difficult. I would have been there all day trying to get the system working again if I took it too much apart.
Although I know people here prefer to have measurements included in any field report, it was not happening in this case. What you got is what was reasonably doable. I did not know if both dacs would sound the same or if Richard's would sound better than mine. If I couldn't hear a difference I was prepared to say so.
Also, I don't have a reason to dispute Richard's description that his DAC-3 sounded worse before. I can only say in retrospect if considering doing something to one's own dac if it doesn't seem to sound right, maybe better to have it checked by the factory before trying more invasive options. However, Richard had no way of knowing that before we did the listening comparison. Thank you to Richard for trying it first and allowing pictures and listening comparison. I'm sure not everyone would be willing to let the chips fall where they may, for the benefit of the larger community.
yep. and he says he does have and use such equipment.
BTW - I do have near field probes, spect analyzer etal. I have not made any measurements on the DAC-3. If I had made measurements before and after, I am not so certain anyone would be convinced it could be audible. So, I havent bothered. Is it's reduction audible or not was My interest.
That I and Mark hear differences between his DAC3 and this tested/emi/rfi modified one is interesting in itself.
BUT, I am going to wait for the next PnP DAC-4 from someone. Maybe Mark's.
Power amps remained the same ones... Using AD Shark DSP for crossover configured using JBL data down loaded for the M2 speakers.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
What is a working listening test in your view? Let me guess, it's the one that concludes that the component which you were commercially involved with sounds better than the one you weren't.
Yes, you have, about what your definition of transparent amp is.
Last time your guesses placed the works from Zwicker&Fastl and Jacob Cohen in the
compartment, so obviously your "guessing apparatus" needs repair.
The more he speak, the more attacks he will have. It's not good for him (and JC too) as he is not anonymous. Nelson Pass is a different individual. I think it is okay to open up forum in commercial section, or at least to donate to diyaudio. I'm surprised that some rich individuals don't have that 'star' logo below their username.
Only when your mood strikes? Because there have been plenty of good points raised regarding DACs and amps listening comparisons which you didn't respond to.
IOW, there was no procedures taken to match levels within 0.1 db between components under test. As for for visual bias control... Oh, never mind.
Gotcha, thanks, you are probably right on all counts, just wondered if there were other reasons. The thing to always bare in mind though is that his taste may be entirely different to yours, so impressions are fine but there also needs to be some info in a universal language, ie measurements, in order to make an informed remote judgement I would suggest.
There surely is scientific evidence that covers situations like the one at hand?Last time your guesses placed the works from Zwicker&Fastl and Jacob Cohen in the compartment, so obviously your "guessing apparatus" needs repair.
IOW, there was no procedures taken to match levels within 0.1 db between components under test. As for for visual bias control... Oh, never mind.
None what so ever..... we heard the same quality and affects regardless of level. The DAC 'distortion' differences or sounds where not playback level dependent. We are fairly seasoned listeners by now. Sensitized to distortions.
yep,. No interest in hiding which was which. Only listening to them and their each unique sound quality.
Oh, never mind.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.