Stereophile is guilty of using all three and many more but then again they endorse flakey reviewers and let them say the stupidest things when describing what they "hear".
I think 'prat' is more a british than a north american term so for our friends from that side of the pond here is my dictionaries definition:
prat (brit.): an incompetent, stupid or foolish person; an idiot.
PS: I think in the context of audio the phrase was first used by Martin Colloms.
Last edited:
We are trapped. The reviewers push subjective sake oil, and the pure objectivists only look at a few numbers which may or may not be the most important. Now real audio parlor stores are just about gone, we are left buying blind/deaf mail-order.
An amplifier having "pace, rhythem..." are we really all prat? Yet from owners I have met, the Naim is really one of the good amps. Truth or pride? With the kind of BS from the reviewers, I would not know.
Well, I do love my OPPO, the HCA's clearly bested my Rotels, but my old Rotel CD is easier to listen to than my new NAD. What objective measures I haven't a clue.
"Detail" " fatigue" "Air" gasp. Nak C5 is easier to listen to than my Hafler. Now, when I modified the hafler amp, I do know objectively the noise floor is 8dB lower and the high order harmonics fall off where they did not before (changed compensation method)
An amplifier having "pace, rhythem..." are we really all prat? Yet from owners I have met, the Naim is really one of the good amps. Truth or pride? With the kind of BS from the reviewers, I would not know.
Well, I do love my OPPO, the HCA's clearly bested my Rotels, but my old Rotel CD is easier to listen to than my new NAD. What objective measures I haven't a clue.
"Detail" " fatigue" "Air" gasp. Nak C5 is easier to listen to than my Hafler. Now, when I modified the hafler amp, I do know objectively the noise floor is 8dB lower and the high order harmonics fall off where they did not before (changed compensation method)
It is all in he numbers. The rest is Mcgurk.
Only speakers are where we can make personal decisions regarding which form of distortion is a worthy tradoff. The rest is has been and ever will be quantified by numbers. Sometimes, there are no "two opposing sides with the smart "good thoughtful" people in the middle" Sometime there are a bunch of decent smart people doing the right thing opposed by a bunch of dumbutts who are allowing a few smart indecent people feed by getting the dumbutts to make the wrong choice. Harsh? Yep True? Look around you.
Only speakers are where we can make personal decisions regarding which form of distortion is a worthy tradoff. The rest is has been and ever will be quantified by numbers. Sometimes, there are no "two opposing sides with the smart "good thoughtful" people in the middle" Sometime there are a bunch of decent smart people doing the right thing opposed by a bunch of dumbutts who are allowing a few smart indecent people feed by getting the dumbutts to make the wrong choice. Harsh? Yep True? Look around you.
Last edited:
Naim doesn't give numbers other than power output and I've seen other 'audiophile-approved' brands doing the same.
Naim can be bench tested by real people instead of phoney huh? Does not even Stereophile and TAS of Hades publishing and iron works still quietly report reality for sharper people alongside the joke stuff they do for hairy hammerheads? I used to just go there and pick through that mess a bit, before the 2000 power cords made me realise it was evil to open the covers. (-:
Ahhh... Stereophile!
Have you seen this review?
Wavac SH-833 monoblock power amplifier | Stereophile.com
If not I suggest you read the write up before skipping to the measurements.
There appears to be somewhat of a disconnect which leads me to believe that the reviewer has all the aural acuity of a fence post. The frequency response of that thing is...well... fascinating.
Have you seen this review?
Wavac SH-833 monoblock power amplifier | Stereophile.com
If not I suggest you read the write up before skipping to the measurements.
There appears to be somewhat of a disconnect which leads me to believe that the reviewer has all the aural acuity of a fence post. The frequency response of that thing is...well... fascinating.
It's amazing what a pretty face (or big transmitter valve) can do to a man's sense of proportion and sober judgement.
What's interesting is that people can't let go of the concept that what is normally measured these days is relevant to what the human hearing system picks up on. Engineers love being able to measure things, but they hate the idea that other factors that they don't how to measure, or are not interested in measuring, are just as important, and often are much more so. A Formula One team, and their drivers, would laugh hysterically if their locked in the sheds engineers said, "We've done all the measurements on our test rigs, the car will be perfect on the track, and will win the race - no need for any test driving!" ...
Last edited:
How about a formula 1 team with no engineers, and the drivers tweaking their engines by feel. Realisticly I doubt competitive today.
Surely the real truth is that it is the things which engineers measure, but others are seemingly not interested in measuring, which set the base for good sound reproduction. Those who doubt this need only listen to an amp with 30% distortion, or 150mW maximum output, or 300Hz-3kHz frequency range. They will soon realise that 'engineer's measurements' have a useful role to play in audio engineering.fas42 said:
Engineer's would love to have new measurements, but they would insist that these new measurements have reasonably good correlation with what people actually hear with their ears alone. We know that distortion, signal level and frequency response do correlate with what people actually hear. The fact that some then run off into silly specmanship, while others refuse to learn what is already known, does not negate this.
Last edited:
If you could be so kind as to let us know the correct numbers? We have pretty much meaningless things like DF or single value THD numbers that have very little to do with the listening experience.
Yes, it's the combination of engineering, and then realtime evaluation of the results by those who have to deal with the system, in whatever area of human endeavour, on an ongoing basis, that makes for robust, long-lasting solutions. Unfortunately at the moment there's too much of a divide between these two sides, in the audio game - both see the other side as not "getting it", and are quite cynical about it.
Of course solid engineering is essential, but then it has to confront the real world - does it actually do everything right? The engineers have to be able to translate non-engineering speak, by the user, into meaningful strategies to evolve the mechanism ...
Of course solid engineering is essential, but then it has to confront the real world - does it actually do everything right? The engineers have to be able to translate non-engineering speak, by the user, into meaningful strategies to evolve the mechanism ...
Frank,
"Of course solid engineering is essential, but then it has to confront the real world - does it actually do everything right? The engineers have to be able to translate non-engineering speak, by the user, into meaningful strategies to evolve the mechanism ..."
Is complete nonsense. I.E. it does not make any sense. At all. Meaningless words.
But you have managed to repeat similar over and over again since you have joined.
I am listening to some good music ....
"Of course solid engineering is essential, but then it has to confront the real world - does it actually do everything right? The engineers have to be able to translate non-engineering speak, by the user, into meaningful strategies to evolve the mechanism ..."
Is complete nonsense. I.E. it does not make any sense. At all. Meaningless words.
But you have managed to repeat similar over and over again since you have joined.
I am listening to some good music ....
Meaningless? That the end product doesn't perform as well as it should is meaningless ... interesting concept ... 😕 😕
If a car some days can do 100mph, and other days can barely do 70mph while sounding like it will explode at any moment - if that is the way a product behaves, I don't consider it a sound, technical solution ..
That is an analogy to how I hear albums of music being played on supposedly competent audio systems - I know what the music should sound like, because I've heard it on a sorted out setup, and then I hear it being mangled on relatively expensive, "well measuring" equipment ...
The point, for me, is not to listen to 'good music' - which I often find means music which doesn't emphasise, or highlight a system's issues - but to listen to music, any music, which always sounds good ...
If a car some days can do 100mph, and other days can barely do 70mph while sounding like it will explode at any moment - if that is the way a product behaves, I don't consider it a sound, technical solution ..
That is an analogy to how I hear albums of music being played on supposedly competent audio systems - I know what the music should sound like, because I've heard it on a sorted out setup, and then I hear it being mangled on relatively expensive, "well measuring" equipment ...
The point, for me, is not to listen to 'good music' - which I often find means music which doesn't emphasise, or highlight a system's issues - but to listen to music, any music, which always sounds good ...
Last edited:
One thing about Naim- I went back to tubes for fun, but after purchasing a NAIT 5 and a flatcap for its preamp section, I had no inclination to change them out for almost a decade.
Those who like Naim, like it a lot.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.