(apart from forgetting to take your medication, it's also likely that neither one of you had to take latin in school : non est)
Amazing how often we get a flame on for a few pages because people confuse 'I prefer' with 'better'.
People that actually can contribute are bullied away. Manufactures are without proof and by 20 year stories told being rediculed said and labeled as frauds. The tone is bad, even moderators are making posts that not even close to being OK. The value of this forum is deminishing day say day. What could have been a good discussion about performance in music systems becomes an endless fight between those who listens and believe in what they hear and those who finds truth in numbers only. One can't live without the other and both need respect, calling SET's effect box, when in fact they are capable of conwaying the emotional part of the music better than most anything else. Something I have expienced on several occasions , yet people here say it's because I hoped for that outcome and iam biased or I don't know what I am listening to or for or.... Good engineering would look into the SET's and examine the how and whys. There's a 1000 questions the could be asked, examined and understood, but here it's chased away and put to shame. Only believing in numbers is as ignorant as believing the moon is made from green cheese. The mind is like a parachute, it only works if it's open.
Last edited:
Which makes my point perfectly. If you say ' I prefer SET for my listening pleasure'. No on will complain. If you say 'SET are better' you will get challenged.
Good engineering would look at the SET, shrug and say ' people like high second and third harmonic. No Sh*t.'
The JGH used to say something along the lines that neutrality was what people said they wanted, until they had it!
Good engineering would look at the SET, shrug and say ' people like high second and third harmonic. No Sh*t.'
The JGH used to say something along the lines that neutrality was what people said they wanted, until they had it!
When People say just they tend to miss a lot. Just is like saying I know better and you are nothing but short of ridiculous. Simple answers to complex matters are flawed and coarse. Why is the likes of Krell and ML out of the market...? Because they sound good and can create musical excitement or are the dull sterile and boring..?. I don't know
Maybe all the potential customers moved to effect boxes because they out of ignorance don't know better or bought something they actually like to listen to..? What is the use of technical perfect if it chases clients away.
Maybe all the potential customers moved to effect boxes because they out of ignorance don't know better or bought something they actually like to listen to..? What is the use of technical perfect if it chases clients away.
Last edited:
Wow the delusion is high in this one today. I think you will find the Single ended market is tiny even in boutique audio terms.
You skipped the point... But ok that's nothing but expected. If products considered top of the game fails to impress, then you either try to understand why or or become a part of the past.
Last edited:
Make a potential divider using a perfect resistor and a perfect square law device wired in series - take the output from their junction. Now we know that a perfect square law device only produces second-order distortion, yet you will find all orders of distortion in the output. This is because, in effect, the square-law device is being fed its own output simply by putting a resistance in series with it. Most people would not call two components wired in series an example of feedback - we wire things in series all the time and usually require more than this before we admit feedback is happening. Yet this is all you need to get re-entrant distortion. No 'delays', no 'global feedback', nothing 'nasty' - yet all orders of distortion products from a pure square-law device plus a perfect resistor.Chris Hornbeck said:
But the discussion keeps getting dragged away from performance into personal preference, so beauty (in the eye of the beholder) is confused with truth.MiiB said:
But that is the whole point: the role of a system is not to "impress" but to merely reproduce. The musicians job is to impress (or, in the case of much classical music, to merely convey the composer's ideas so it is the composer who "impresses"). We do understand why, but you reject our understanding.
listening is a personal preference, but when that is refused as a valid point, then all you have is numbers.
There could easily be room for lees ego and more open mind.
I have an OPS where I in a matter of minutes simply can attach different IPS.
I find great differences in things that virtually measures the same.
Like a huge difference in how music is played through Lin-Leach-and CFA types of IPS. If this difference was just down to simple numbers then all would be easy, but its not. Things are by far more complex than what measurement numbers gives you. Trouble here is my point's rendered invalid as it "Not" numbers but something personally experienced.
There could easily be room for lees ego and more open mind.
I have an OPS where I in a matter of minutes simply can attach different IPS.
I find great differences in things that virtually measures the same.
Like a huge difference in how music is played through Lin-Leach-and CFA types of IPS. If this difference was just down to simple numbers then all would be easy, but its not. Things are by far more complex than what measurement numbers gives you. Trouble here is my point's rendered invalid as it "Not" numbers but something personally experienced.
Last edited:
why not put up some plots for people to see then? Then we could try and correlate what you think you hear to what you measure. That would be useful.
you have little excuse by now with long participation here for not having read the minimums needed for quality listening tests
make another, switch with a blinding protocol, 1%, 0.1 dB level matching, - account for output Z/load interaction...
or use a "prosumer" level soundcard, Audacity, Visual Studio, Audio DiffMaker to align, trim, compare, EQ
then foobar2000 ABX plugin using whatever "revealing source" material you want to play
make another, switch with a blinding protocol, 1%, 0.1 dB level matching, - account for output Z/load interaction...
or use a "prosumer" level soundcard, Audacity, Visual Studio, Audio DiffMaker to align, trim, compare, EQ
then foobar2000 ABX plugin using whatever "revealing source" material you want to play
Last edited:
If there is a genuine difference then it certainly relates to numbers. Perhaps not "simple" numbers, perhaps not the numbers (if any) you are measuring/calculating but certainly numbers.MiiB said:
I am reminded of what I (as a physicist) sometimes heard engineers say "theory says this, but reality is different". What they really mean is "my naive oversimplified (and possibly overextrapolated) theory says this but what I perceive (or naively 'measure' i.e. what my meter tells me) is different". When theory and practice appear to differ then you need more theory, not less.
OK here is the catch with numbers. While its quite easy to select between the different IPS in a listening shootout, then making choices on behalf of numbers is way more complex.
listening is easy, if you feel like it's (the music) expanding you move in the right direction when it contracts and gets smaller, collapsing you move the wrong way.
Where do you find this attribute in numbers..??
For me numbers is nothing but at verification that your design is solid. performs as intended, simply a control tool. Then all qualitative evaluation is in listening. sometimes you move forward sometimes not.
I said it before products for audio are a very personal things, your choices reflects your results.
listening is easy, if you feel like it's (the music) expanding you move in the right direction when it contracts and gets smaller, collapsing you move the wrong way.
Where do you find this attribute in numbers..??
For me numbers is nothing but at verification that your design is solid. performs as intended, simply a control tool. Then all qualitative evaluation is in listening. sometimes you move forward sometimes not.
I said it before products for audio are a very personal things, your choices reflects your results.
except you sketched out a classic invalid "listening test" - sighted, long delay, no exploration/correction of the "numbers" that we know are audible - simple level and frequency response
for serious thought about audio listening evaluation try http://www.delta.dk/imported/senselab/AES125_Tutorial_T4_Perceptual_Audio_Evaluation_Tutorial.pdf
Last edited:
Huh. I (usually the one playing the engineer role) rarely hear people saying that in such a simplified manner. Generally it's that the simpler model (generally the most parsimonious path) that we largely work from are breaking down for known or unknown reasons and the model must be refined. Same thing, but definitely not denying the validity of the theories at play, just acknowledging something else has come into play.
And it's a little frustrating people's perception of advancing the state of our understanding. By and large it's a long, slow, tortuous path that leads to more null conclusions than either positive or negative. (Edit, I was simultaneously reading the Blowtorch thread and muddled the two)
Last edited:
Thank you for your help. It's both another piece of the puzzle and an extension of my puzzlement. Perfect!
Thanks again, as always,
Chris