BigE
there is plenty of arbituaries.
He popped his clogs this easter, at the grand old age of 100
there is plenty of arbituaries.
He popped his clogs this easter, at the grand old age of 100
Said it many times and here again now. Its long term listening that that will present you with the real sound of your system.. Hallucinating will not last a long time... So all we have for certain to understand the complete and real sonic picture is owning the piece of gear for a significant amount of time.. This time gets shorter with more experience..
During blind testing maybe all participants are hallucinating in different ways so wrong way to evaluate for the complete audible understanding..
You can't hallucinate away a negative sonic characteristic, but when you find the issue and resolve it, you will be well aware that it's gone over the long term..
IME🙂
All of topic🙁
During blind testing maybe all participants are hallucinating in different ways so wrong way to evaluate for the complete audible understanding..
You can't hallucinate away a negative sonic characteristic, but when you find the issue and resolve it, you will be well aware that it's gone over the long term..
IME🙂
All of topic🙁
You can measure differences way beyond the audible. If Beethoven had been an EE of comparable talent, he could have designed a Marantz 9 singlehanded, even at the end of his career.
Last edited:
You talking to snup or me?
If me I found that in an old interview with Peter Walker.
In audiophilias never ending objectivist/subjectivist argument Peter Walker would count as a hardcore objectivist.
Sorry, that was directed at snup.
Joel, I disagree with that completely. Long term listening is effective at *cementing* and revealing bias. IMO, it is totally ineffective at actually identifying sonic character.
Here is an example story: I once thought I was listening to a different piece than I was actually listening to -- for weeks. When I discovered that was the case, the sonics changed from a nice deep warm sound to thin and lightweight within about 3 seconds. It sounded as if tone controls were being operated, but the only thing that had changed was my knowledge of the equipment in use.
Since then I do not trust anyone's sighted comments... even my own.
Joel, I disagree with that completely. Long term listening is effective at *cementing* and revealing bias. IMO, it is totally ineffective at actually identifying sonic character.
Here is an example story: I once thought I was listening to a different piece than I was actually listening to -- for weeks. When I discovered that was the case, the sonics changed from a nice deep warm sound to thin and lightweight within about 3 seconds. It sounded as if tone controls were being operated, but the only thing that had changed was my knowledge of the equipment in use.
Since then I do not trust anyone's sighted comments... even my own.
I kinda hear it like I see it through a window:
Digital: Glass window, fresh of the factory line from the tin float. Every mastering imperfection shows through. Kind of like when you see "avatar" on a high def screen for the first time. Sometimes, a little too gritty, too real, or just plain "ouch".
Analog (what have you): Frosted glass, opacity varies by setup. A soft focus lens which makes the mind fill in the blanks a little more, like pointillism in a painting.
Digital: Glass window, fresh of the factory line from the tin float. Every mastering imperfection shows through. Kind of like when you see "avatar" on a high def screen for the first time. Sometimes, a little too gritty, too real, or just plain "ouch".
Analog (what have you): Frosted glass, opacity varies by setup. A soft focus lens which makes the mind fill in the blanks a little more, like pointillism in a painting.
The car dealers would love you ...
"My new car is making a strange noise now, which it didn't do when I first got it!"
"Uh, sir, we've checked your vehicle with our diagnostic gear, and it comes up clean - there is no fault there."
"But it only makes this noise under certain circumstances, which you're not replicating in your workshop!"
"Well, we do our job here, sir - we follow a rule book which says how we find out whether something's wrong ... sir, are you sure you're not imagining this problem, it's possible you've built up a fixation about there being this unusual noise ... my suggestion is that you set a controlled test environment, at great expense to yourself, to confirm whether in fact there is a noise ..."
"That's it, that's it!! I believe in such things - I'll go to a great deal of time and effort, and expense, to get answers - by the time I get any results I'll be so used to the problem that it won't bother me any more; so I won't bother you about it - you'll have saved money ... and everyone's happy ..."
Personally, I do not see that sort of distinction, but that's ok. I have heard plenty of vinyl that falls into the "ouch" category, where the terrible recordings/mixings and masterings have also been revealed.
The original post is directed at people that *love* their turntables -- I did once, far more than the digital side of the world.
But, that changed once I went to a digital crossover and active system. I preferred the digital and generally still do.
Problem: foobar ABX is a test environment which is flawed. Why is it flawed? Because it assumes that the mechanism in which it operates is completely independent of its own functioning. This is Testing Methodology 101 - the test instrument must not itself behave differently, depending upon its environment ...
Easy way to speed that up to real time ... put on recordings that exaggerate any problems. If someone claims that a car has brilliant suspension, go straight away to your favourite pothole - in a couple of seconds you know whether that's BS or not.
There's an amazing concept which I think I might call "stress testing" - since no-one's heard of it, I reckon I should be able to patent the idea ... 😉 .
And yet here Quad 34 preamplifier Sam Tellig | Stereophile.com there is a quote from his son '"At Quad, we listen to music, not product," But Peter was quite good at the sound byte...
Can you translate to english please? What exactly do you think the problem is with repetitively running the same program on the same hardware?
There is more trouble with LP.
Nothing to do with repetitive ... foobar itself makes the reproduction alter from optimum, depending upon the hardware used and what the settings are; and the ABX add-on makes it worse still. I spent some time investigating this, because of the poor quality of reproduction using this mechanism on a machine of ours - poor methodology underlies the software operation, and the result is that the artifacts from the foobar operations mask the very thing you're trying to discriminate.
Similar on the laptop I'm currently using - default setup of foobar delivers poor sound, a lot of fiddling will be needed to see if the software can be made to come up to scratch.
Last edited:
Offcourse that has nothing to do with grammophones and converting anything.
sorry. wayyyyy OT again
sorry. wayyyyy OT again
"Alter from optimum"? How? ie. what is "optimum"... Do you have any references for this comment?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.