Famous engineer name dropping, whom we all are familiar with, aside. It seems that you should clarify, then, exactly what you meant by having your own taste. Because it sounds like you’re suggesting that, while you more enjoy a particular character of music reproduction, you don’t listen to such playback because the specifications dictate that it must be inferior. In other words, you are enjoying reproduced music less than you could, in order to accept playback which your intellect says must be superior, despite your ears informing you otherwise. Is this what you are doing?
Last edited:
As Ken said "moves me emotionally" to me thats what music is all about, and I'm thinking this build is going in right direction to reach that goal for me, so looking foward to up dates on ones building this WOTS and sound impressions.
Not sure how a plain vanilla triode gain stage,we have seen millions of them in the last 60 or 70 years, can elicit such overblown and frankly ridiculous comments such as :
Hyperbole, self praising and chest thumping, no wonder why this thread scratched me the wrong way from the first post.
Oh, and don´t say the word "boy", one of your friends starts foaming out of the mouth when he hears it 😉
Hyperbole, self praising and chest thumping, no wonder why this thread scratched me the wrong way from the first post.
Oh, and don´t say the word "boy", one of your friends starts foaming out of the mouth when he hears it 😉
Perhaps, your problem is that you are trying to hear through your eyes. Why not build and listen for yourself, before you ridicule a subjective description of it’s sound? You can’t feel emotional impact via intellectual contemplation. If you don’t feel that it’s worth building to find out, that's fine. But then, you have no basis from which to keep flinging poo on the designer’s subjective description.
Last edited:
You state this as if being an 'effects-box' is necessarily undesirable. Here's a simple thought experiment. If some effects-box, somehow, changes an input signal, to render in-home playback as sounding indistinguishable from the original live event, had you been there to hear it, is that effect undesirable because it alters the input signal?
Last edited:
If added distorsion improves SQ, its a compensation for an other fault. Its a system game.
Or, if there was no other fault, you must not like reality.
This is what plain logic would dictate.
//
Or, if there was no other fault, you must not like reality.
This is what plain logic would dictate.
//
You are worse than some radical vegan attacking BBQ party. 😉
Everyone is free to enjoy what they like. I do belong to objectivists. However, there are no good reasons to attack members because of their audiophile preferences, in example as preferring some specific distortion spectrum.
Enjoy your tofu and let others enjoy their steak.
So, by your logic, if the WOT design improves SQ, it is either compensating for fault elsewhere, or else it cannot produce a more perceptually real sounding reproduction. Except, in my thought experiment, the effects-box renders a playback that's perceptually indistinguishable from reality. As such, If there's no system fault elsewhere, yet the effects-box produces perceptual reality, which you would seem to object to, then, the logical conclusion is that it's actually you who doesn't prefer the sound of reality. Isn't it?
Last edited:
Whether it’s possible or impossibe in practice is irrelevant to the thought experiment. However, I’ll re-word the choice so that it seems more plausible.
If some effects-box, somehow, changes an input signal to render playback as sounding significantly closer to the original live event, had you been there to hear it, is that effect undesirable because it alters the input signal?
Could it be a fault being compensated for is the way distortion is being measured in the first place? That is to say, is it that minimizing averaged steady-state harmonic distortion should be the overriding goal, say, as opposed to minimizing time-domain transient distortion (including among other things so-called linear distortions and or any type of signal-correlated noise phenomena)?
Shouldn't we be considering some of the points made in the post at: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...ve-non-linear-distortions.379592/post-7083165
Last edited:
I don't think this is a measurement discussion at all. This is involves subjective SQ in one part.
//
//
No, because that effect has made a compensation for an other fault in the system.
Only system performance matter. Boxes, and their (clinical) performance are irrelevant. Mostly, it depends a bit min the system archicture - if one goes for "all boxes" to be of instrumental quality - boxes do matter as if one fails, the system fails. But if more than one effect box is present, there must be yet one in order to make a transparent system. (or you like distorsion)
//
Some things are easier for humans to hear than they are to measure. Look at how long it to understand how to measure ESS hump distortion and how it might sound like 'glare' and or be fatiguing, etc.: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-hump-revisited-khadas-tone-board-v1-3.30136/ ...Its taken years. People reporting hearing such effects were ridiculed by guys who thought they knew how to measure any possible type of audible distortion.
If KSTR had not made any measurements and just listened we still would not be any closer to understanding the issue.