The computer speakers were in a separate small test system in which they were positioned flanking the acoustical equivalent of monitors, something to approximate in-use conditions, and four systems were rotated thus. It was not the main speaker mover.
Actually it was a fairly challenging test, as all four selections were mediocre---but considering that they probably were sold to OEMs for about 10 bucks for the pair, there is only so much that engineering can accomplish. I did pick the one as my preference which turned out to have measured the best, but it was hardly likely to be mistaken for a really good loudspeaker, if nothing else by having very limited bass extension, as did all of them.
As far as amplifiers for the main speaker mover facility, I suspect Brystons, but I'll ask Sean if I remember to. There is a lingering bias within that group or what's left of it for Canadian products. Also bear in mind that Harman has a fairly limited portfolio of power amplifiers, and I would have remembered if they were Mark Levinsons.
What music got used? Multimedia made me sick of Yello - Oh Yeah, Tracy Chapman - Fast Car and War - Low Rider.
"Lord i was born a travelin' man..."
Hi SY...
So far, so good... 3 mo. scans still NED, so @ 2 years post resection moving to 4 mo. intervals for another year, then hopefully biennial [love the time in the MRI ;-( ]
It's hard to leave this board for awhile and then try to catch up... too busy. Seems much of my audio gear has also been plaqued with old age / planned obsolescence. Denon 3808CI HT receiver blew up a channel... not an easy layout inside THAT beast.
Lots of brittle nylon cogs in various mechanisms cracking, stretching, sagging, all in need of repair. Couple of Nak730's half way through restoration that got interrupted. 2 TEAC X2000R's in need of heavy maintenance. IOW, same old same old
Been traveling a bunch... Tanzania, Colorado / N.Mex / River wine cruise in Germany,.... doing all those retirement things that got postponed.
Now to try and get my audio MOJO back.. and NO MORE SURGERIES!!
How about yourself? I thought you had moved down south but you're in Chicago??
l8tr
John L.
Hi SY...
So far, so good... 3 mo. scans still NED, so @ 2 years post resection moving to 4 mo. intervals for another year, then hopefully biennial [love the time in the MRI ;-( ]
It's hard to leave this board for awhile and then try to catch up... too busy. Seems much of my audio gear has also been plaqued with old age / planned obsolescence. Denon 3808CI HT receiver blew up a channel... not an easy layout inside THAT beast.
Lots of brittle nylon cogs in various mechanisms cracking, stretching, sagging, all in need of repair. Couple of Nak730's half way through restoration that got interrupted. 2 TEAC X2000R's in need of heavy maintenance. IOW, same old same old
Been traveling a bunch... Tanzania, Colorado / N.Mex / River wine cruise in Germany,.... doing all those retirement things that got postponed.
Now to try and get my audio MOJO back.. and NO MORE SURGERIES!!
How about yourself? I thought you had moved down south but you're in Chicago??
l8tr
John L.
The only one I recall was Fast Car, which if I never hear again will be too soon. Nothing against Tracy however, just a track excerpt done over and over and over (repeat ad infinitum)
And not just hearing the tune, but hearing the same excerpt. I think I finally did hear the entire cut but it was much later.
Over and over:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_pRJ_eq8oc
Good thing we're using those 1950s "standards" today.
That means all those early 1970s amps with the horrible TIM type problems are all going to sound "good" today?
And, so, regardless of which standards and criteria or testing method, which two or more amplifiers are going to NOT be distinguishable??
Waiting for that enumeration...
For example, maybe, at Harmon, it did not matter which amplifiers they used?
Of course out of their own, but then why would it matter if it was theirs or another brand?
I must say that on the surface the idea that behind some curtain if little computer speakers could sound indistinguishable from actually good quality speakers that maybe, just maybe it is possible that the best quality achievable in that test situation was on par with the cheap computer speakers?? Surely, that would explain the story told!
That means all those early 1970s amps with the horrible TIM type problems are all going to sound "good" today?
And, so, regardless of which standards and criteria or testing method, which two or more amplifiers are going to NOT be distinguishable??
Waiting for that enumeration...
For example, maybe, at Harmon, it did not matter which amplifiers they used?
Of course out of their own, but then why would it matter if it was theirs or another brand?
I must say that on the surface the idea that behind some curtain if little computer speakers could sound indistinguishable from actually good quality speakers that maybe, just maybe it is possible that the best quality achievable in that test situation was on par with the cheap computer speakers?? Surely, that would explain the story told!
Wow. That was so long ago I dont remember any of it. But this flash-back reminded me of the issue of determining which RIAA preamp sounds best... do a DBLT or ABX test ? But with what source? a phone cartridge/TT/Tone arm... which ones? No. I, basically, played my own master R to R tapes thru an inverse RIAA network of great precision and accuracy and listened to the phono stage that way.
Damn that was a long time ago.
So what's new?
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
I wouldn't be surprised. Probably others also thought of it. I dont know when i thought of it. It is a very good idea IMO and help a lot if you made those recordings yourself.... you know what it is 'supposed' to sound like. You can compare the sound thru the RIAA stage with that source going directly to the line stage/PA.
THx-RNMarsh
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
I think Ed Dell of TAA (who lived across the street from JGH at the time)
set him up with that, built in a little aluminum enclosure.
Last edited:
These days I just compare the phono quality of different preamps from my sonic memory of the previous units that I have lived with. I had to do that with my IC based phono stage. I compared it to the CTC Blowtorch with a Vendetta phono input. If it can compare well enough, then OK. At first, it did not. Later with a change of IC's and some of the steel in the case removed, it came out OK. Not perfect, but OK. I don't need any more than that, myself. I leave the rest to the audio reviews and the customers.
Now, I have not ALWAYS listened to my designs. For example, two amps that I made for Parasound were measured and looked OK, BUT I did not listen to them, myself, before I released them to the outside world. Big mistake. Both amps had to be modified to sound OK. An important learning experience for me.
I don't believe that an ABX test would tell much, however, because it takes a bit of time listening to the amps before you can form an opinion, and you have to have a first class hi fi system in every other way as well, to pick up subtle but important differences.
Now, I have not ALWAYS listened to my designs. For example, two amps that I made for Parasound were measured and looked OK, BUT I did not listen to them, myself, before I released them to the outside world. Big mistake. Both amps had to be modified to sound OK. An important learning experience for me.
I don't believe that an ABX test would tell much, however, because it takes a bit of time listening to the amps before you can form an opinion, and you have to have a first class hi fi system in every other way as well, to pick up subtle but important differences.
Last edited:
Is it really so hard to accept the word of a respected audio professional that he found testing methodologies incorporating a strange environment, a hostile tester and plenty of other confounding factors to be less than useful? How would any of us respond in that circumstance?
Blinding is, of course, necessary for portability, but if the circumstances surrounding it damage judgment or impact normal perception and attention, the test is fatally flawed.
Personally, I'd accept JC's refusal to spend time on somebody else's idea of a _scientific_ test as an honest response based on his considerable experience. Instead of, say, ragging on him for years for not drinking the sweet fluid.
Grumpily yours,
Chris
Blinding is, of course, necessary for portability, but if the circumstances surrounding it damage judgment or impact normal perception and attention, the test is fatally flawed.
Personally, I'd accept JC's refusal to spend time on somebody else's idea of a _scientific_ test as an honest response based on his considerable experience. Instead of, say, ragging on him for years for not drinking the sweet fluid.
Grumpily yours,
Chris
Yes, considering that he rejects the idea of doing ANY testing that doesn't involve peeking. The excuses aren't even creative any more, he's been regurgitating the same lame ones for over 30 years.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.