John is perfectly aware of this, he's just trying to stir things up. And as usual, he posted the same article that he knows full well doesn't say what he claims it does. Don't get trolled.
There is a dictionary definition of one meaning of the word 'measure': "to judge the quality, effect, importance, or value of something" ... that's the sense in which I was using the term.
In my world it's highly effective as a means of evaluation, far more so than, say, a THD number: is 0.01% distortion 'good sound', and 0.06% 'bad sound'?
Hi Frank,
Indeed, a sense of realism in music reproduction can be achieved.
Different reproduction setups attain it to various degrees.
My present reproduction setup does it in a satisfactory degree, yet, there are setups that do it in higher degree. Unfortunately, I don't have the money for a much better setup.
However, my point is that, AFAIK, there is no reproduction setup in the world that will make trained listeners, like musicians, think, entering a room blindfolded, that there is/are live instrument(s) and/or live voice(s) playing and singing in the room.
Anyhow, that 'sense of realism in music reproduction' is highly subjective. In a similar way, enjoying listening to live music is highly subjective. It is my experience that different people have different expectations from sound reproduction setup. Different people 'listen' to different aspects of the reproduction setup. Which is why there is no way that all 'audiophiles' will ever agree on which piece of equipment is better than another one, like out of few CD players, which one is better.
There are people, me included, who look first and foremost for that 'sense of realism'. Even among those who are interested mainly in the sense of realism, there isn't always agreement about which piece of gear is better.
On a side note, AFAIK, at present there is no set of measurements that indicates the degree of the 'sense of realism in music reproduction' - definitely not for all tastes and personal preferences, of all people. Which is why, as a consumer, I have very little interest in how a piece of audio gear I consider purchasing measures - as long as there are no gross malfunctioning results, like too high noise level, or distortion level. Designers and builders of audio gear must perform measurements, not me, as a consumer.
Also, evaluating the 'sense of realism' takes prolonged listening of few listening sessions, over few days, at least. This is why the conventional DBT are inapplicable for evaluating the 'sense of realism in music reproduction'. Those who don't trust their ears, who fear the placebo effect, probably are not interested in the 'sense of realism in music reproduction'. Alternately, they may not recognize that personal bias exist both in listening to live music and reproduced music. Since the 'sense of realism' is subjective and personal, any attempt to remove the subjective aspect contradicts and undermines the tendency to evaluate the degree of the 'sense of realism'.
I never had much interest in 'correct' measuring in audio, because it never seemed to relate very much to what one heard. The message was clear from personal experiences that it was the subtle, obscure influences that made all the difference to the subjective experience, and the usual numbers thrown around were mainly window dressing, red herrings to distract from meatier problems.
A good example was power amplifiers, my first decent one should have been a powerhouse, by the numbers, but it really was a bit of a gutless wonder, subjectively. Then I came across other monsters, with ferociously impressive numbers, that were even worse lame ducks. Nearly every experience with audio gear said that the measuring regimes supposedly used by the designers had very little to do with what you ended up with, from the point of view of one's ears ...
This world was a complete contrast to my usual work environment, the computing world, where one has 100% control: if something doesn't work 'right' there is always a reason, and a logical way of resolving the issue - it was very satisfying to totally nail a situation, and know that a fully sorted out mechanism will remain 'solved', indefinitely ...
A good example was power amplifiers, my first decent one should have been a powerhouse, by the numbers, but it really was a bit of a gutless wonder, subjectively. Then I came across other monsters, with ferociously impressive numbers, that were even worse lame ducks. Nearly every experience with audio gear said that the measuring regimes supposedly used by the designers had very little to do with what you ended up with, from the point of view of one's ears ...
This world was a complete contrast to my usual work environment, the computing world, where one has 100% control: if something doesn't work 'right' there is always a reason, and a logical way of resolving the issue - it was very satisfying to totally nail a situation, and know that a fully sorted out mechanism will remain 'solved', indefinitely ...
Indeed, in engineering measurements are done by measuring equipment, which give numerical results.
In some dictionaries, 'measuring' means also evaluating. Evaluating may well be done with one's ears.
What I find 'worthwhile' is that my experiments have consistently told me that the intrinsic "expense" or "quality" of a system is of relatively lesser significance - vastly most important is the degree to which the insidious weaknesses that most systems have, are eliminated. Of course, if you have to pay someone to do that it still ends up costing big ...
It happens. I've read accounts of other people managing it, or coming across it at times, as well - the key things are intensity, and naturalness, combined. Most systems that go loud enough sound 'unnatural' when doing so - they fool no-one; if a system gives the impression of being stressed as soon as a decent transient peak comes along then the game's over ...
... which is a key problem ...
Interesting ... for me it's straight away - the system is either 'cooking', or it's just another hifi - there are no if's or but's about it ...
Thanks for your thoughts ...
Bravely said Joshua!
For the record, what amazes me is that people here ON THIS THREAD will freely talk about their PERSONAL experiences with tasting wine as if their opinion was to be taken seriously, YET if one of us tries to comment about the SOUND of wires or connectors, we are severely rebuked. I don't see that much difference between openly listening or tasting.
My role, IF it were transported to the 'wine world' would be that I am a successful winemaker, and in my later years, am trying to pass on the 'wisdom' I have acquired about 'wine-making,' and getting severely criticized for doing so.
The absurdity of this is what I am trying to point out.
For the record, what amazes me is that people here ON THIS THREAD will freely talk about their PERSONAL experiences with tasting wine as if their opinion was to be taken seriously, YET if one of us tries to comment about the SOUND of wires or connectors, we are severely rebuked. I don't see that much difference between openly listening or tasting.
My role, IF it were transported to the 'wine world' would be that I am a successful winemaker, and in my later years, am trying to pass on the 'wisdom' I have acquired about 'wine-making,' and getting severely criticized for doing so.
The absurdity of this is what I am trying to point out.
What I find 'worthwhile' is that my experiments have consistently told me that the intrinsic "expense" or "quality" of a system is of relatively lesser significance - vastly most important is the degree to which the insidious weaknesses that most systems have, are eliminated. Of course, if you have to pay someone to do that it still ends up costing big ...
Even building my own gear, like a pre-amp and phono-stage (the ones I have in mind), cost a lot of money (for me and my finances abilities) - though definitely much less than purchasing commercial gear. As for CDP and digital gear, I doubt if can build such, better than what I already have (like the CDP AMR CD-777). Yet I'm open to suggestions.
It isn't a problem at all for me. I found out that I need no measurements to supplement what I hear.
Because one has nothing to do with the other, as you well know. Or have you demonstrated your ability to distinguish connectors or wires in a controlled DBT?
I must disagree with SY, I do not really see that there is much difference, subjectively, between wine tasting and audio equipment evaluation.
I realize that some professors, somewhere, MIGHT try to say that there is an extreme difference, but I just don't find it to be true.
I know, for example, that I can possibly be impressed by a major audio name and the quality of the presentation, but I could be equally impressed by a major wine name and the quality of the presentation.
The reality is: IF I realize that I can be biased by external factors, then I have to train myself to be RUTHLESSLY HONEST and criticize even my own 'best efforts' if others do not like it as well as something else.
For example, Jack Bybee does NOT use any Parasound equipment in his listening set-up. This is not for lack of trying, and I even sold him a set of JC-1 power amps, but he did not keep them. Yet, he has kept the Blowtorch and the Vendetta preamps, even with virtually everything in hi end audio, competing with them. Jack can afford anything that he wants.
What we do, is to make the best that we can, then send it out for evaluation, by reviewers and customers. IF we are lucky, and usually that means that we did everything that we could think of, to make a world class product, then people will almost universally love it.
If we compromise, like all Parasound equipment is, to make a viable and remotely built product by total strangers, then we can only make good, yet still Class A products. This pattern shows itself, over and over, in my world.
Once again, all that I want to give here is HOW I achieve the difference between the Parasound products and the Blowtorch or Vendetta products. Yet, I am always 'shouted down' by SY and others. Oh well.
I realize that some professors, somewhere, MIGHT try to say that there is an extreme difference, but I just don't find it to be true.
I know, for example, that I can possibly be impressed by a major audio name and the quality of the presentation, but I could be equally impressed by a major wine name and the quality of the presentation.
The reality is: IF I realize that I can be biased by external factors, then I have to train myself to be RUTHLESSLY HONEST and criticize even my own 'best efforts' if others do not like it as well as something else.
For example, Jack Bybee does NOT use any Parasound equipment in his listening set-up. This is not for lack of trying, and I even sold him a set of JC-1 power amps, but he did not keep them. Yet, he has kept the Blowtorch and the Vendetta preamps, even with virtually everything in hi end audio, competing with them. Jack can afford anything that he wants.
What we do, is to make the best that we can, then send it out for evaluation, by reviewers and customers. IF we are lucky, and usually that means that we did everything that we could think of, to make a world class product, then people will almost universally love it.
If we compromise, like all Parasound equipment is, to make a viable and remotely built product by total strangers, then we can only make good, yet still Class A products. This pattern shows itself, over and over, in my world.
Once again, all that I want to give here is HOW I achieve the difference between the Parasound products and the Blowtorch or Vendetta products. Yet, I am always 'shouted down' by SY and others. Oh well.
That's because you lack even the slightest experience in it. The day you agree to back up your audio opinions using ears only, no peeking, you might finally be able to draw an honest parallel.
Then don't do it. Try just using your ears. It may not be good for business, but it's honest.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.