What you were anticipiating great expectations from a system only to find its just a collection of screeching electronics with some transducers thrown in for fun?
Actually, I've found it a good mental approach to have "Great Expectations" when I'm about to listen to an unknown system, of someone else - I "want it" to perform well, but as I listen I'm usually forced to backtrack from that position - I feel this is a more reliable method of gauging its performance.
Fair enough - the reason why a simple ingredients list won't tell you much is that it is all about the backroom work, the "devil's in the details" efforts that made it really happen.
That said, the system that kicked this journey off for me was: a Yamaha CDX1100 player, Perreaux 2150B power amp, B&W DM10 bookshelf speakers. That's it ... no preamp, the CD player had digital volume control, no switching of sources - simplicity ruled. It had plenty of problems, the 150mph performance was very fragile, it was hard work having it remain up to speed - but it gave me the taste of what was possible, so I could never go back to normal sound ...
Edit: you are an impatient chap, aren't you ...
That said, the system that kicked this journey off for me was: a Yamaha CDX1100 player, Perreaux 2150B power amp, B&W DM10 bookshelf speakers. That's it ... no preamp, the CD player had digital volume control, no switching of sources - simplicity ruled. It had plenty of problems, the 150mph performance was very fragile, it was hard work having it remain up to speed - but it gave me the taste of what was possible, so I could never go back to normal sound ...
Edit: you are an impatient chap, aren't you ...
Wasn't into Bjork at the time, in fact she hadn't started her run, I believe - a few that told me the story were Status Quo, Peter Gabriel, Led Zeppelin I, Kate Bush, Neil Diamond.
Led Zeppelin I in particular was an amazing experience, quite staggering depths of sound, when I found out later that this was supposed to be an atrocious CD I was really scratching my head ...
Led Zeppelin I in particular was an amazing experience, quite staggering depths of sound, when I found out later that this was supposed to be an atrocious CD I was really scratching my head ...
Your drill should have a third prong to prevent that. The rebar should not be at a potential other than ground, apparently it is becoming energized somewhere in the structure.
The next time it happens, take a dvm and measure the potential. Anything over 50 volts is a direct osha violation.
Yes. But it is not the source of your jolts.
Rebar and building internal beams and girders can carry currents, depending on the local environment. That makes using audio equipment that is single ended a problem.
jn
Make a wall nuttin but hexagonal pistons with 20khz BW linear drive behind each one, get a coupla teraflops of DSP, and form the boundaries any way you want. With multichannel source, you could even put the instruments anywhere in physical space in front, behind, left, right..
Rotate it horizontal, it'd make a heck of a massage table..
jn
Garbage in, gold out?
Just now wondering, we all have blind spots due to the nerve endings interrupting the eyes' retinas, and possibly other damages.
Our brain decodes the raw data, assembles an image, and fills in the missing pieces so we don't notice the blind spots.
Can our processing of heard sound filter or interpolate best guesses as to what we hear(or wish to hear)?
Or is this what you meant as a by the way sort of thing?
As an aside, Psycho Acoustik would be a great name for a kable company.
Just now wondering, we all have blind spots due to the nerve endings interrupting the eyes' retinas, and possibly other damages.
Our brain decodes the raw data, assembles an image, and fills in the missing pieces so we don't notice the blind spots.
Can our processing of heard sound filter or interpolate best guesses as to what we hear(or wish to hear)?
Or is this what you meant as a by the way sort of thing?
As an aside, Psycho Acoustik would be a great name for a kable company.
@MITsound
That was the general thing I was going for, our brain fills in so much for us. Our ears are pretty crap really, definitely a weak link in the hearing chain, and that if our brains are filling in all this for us, then i is going to fill in things when for example we want to hear a difference in something, if we are listening out for a difference, our brain will give us one
That was the general thing I was going for, our brain fills in so much for us. Our ears are pretty crap really, definitely a weak link in the hearing chain, and that if our brains are filling in all this for us, then i is going to fill in things when for example we want to hear a difference in something, if we are listening out for a difference, our brain will give us one
@MITsound
That was the general thing I was going for, our brain fills in so much for us. Our ears are pretty crap really, definitely a weak link in the hearing chain, and that if our brains are filling in all this for us, then i is going to fill in things when for example we want to hear a difference in something, if we are listening out for a difference, our brain will give us one
Yes that is true. And actually, our ears are not that bad, it's the interpretation that's manipulated.
Analogy: often you write a post here with a certain intention, and then from the reply from someone you realise that this person read something totally different, something that you didn't write at all! Yet you were both looking at the same words on the screen!
A big part of that difference comes from the predisposition of both the writer and the reader. For instance, if i think someone is pretty stupid, I will tend to read something stupid in his post.
If it is someone I respect because he has shown that he knows his stuff, I will tend to assume that his post has a deep meaning that I don't understand yet. And all of this is of course completely under the concious radar.
All this stuff is so obvious, and that's part of the problem: not seeing the blindingly obvious just because it is part of our human condition and nobody really notices it. Except for a few curious ones.
Jan
No, it's been repeated at various times, over the years - it's never been perfect, meaning that the quality level remains stable indefinitely at that high level, I didn't have enough understanding, expertise to fully capture the right conditions. In fact, there was a very long hiatus in the 90's from audio altogether, the frustration in not being able to lock in all the necessary conditions wore me down; if I couldn't get the sound I was after consistently I preferred just to forget about it, I lapsed into treating listening to music as if it were on a car radio - just background filler.
These days, I have a much, much better handle on it ...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.