How could we ? I was reading this ... Luxman M-800A power amplifier Page 2 | Stereophile.com
(for laughs and giggles) , and just could not get over the overuse of verbs to describe a single inanimate piece of audio gear. You would think the amp is "alive" !! Of course I pilfered this amp's schema to see what (if any) "groundbreaking" examples of engineering might bring a reviewer into such ecstasy.
As far as recognition , I recognize that the above reviewer was most likely paid and or was given a free amp to blather so proficiently. I bet he does not even talk or describe his girl/ wife in such a manner $$$$$.
" warm, velvety side of the great sonic divide"... OMG !!!
Well we all know that's marketing speak and only very few naive people would consider this seriously.
What I am getting sick of is again and again being labeled with things I (and almost everybody here) has never said. "Measurements say it all" just made-up horse manure, nobody ever said this. "Refuse to recognise the subjective factors in audio"- hell, audio itself is subjective, how can you refuse that?
OK, you can make a mistake and misread something once, mabe even three times. After that, it becomes just dishonest delibered lying to turn the facts for your own purpose. I hate that.
jan didden
There are many of those people participating in this thread.
Sometimes I wonder how some people can be so blind.
Do you actually know for a fact that in this specific case it was marketing and not a genuine subjective impression?
Blind people confuse their assumption with facts.
No they are not. Just give me one quote where someone says: "measurements say it all" or "I refuse to accept the subjective nature of audio". Not the same words required; just someone who displays that opinion.
Show me that it is me who is blind.
jan didden
Oh, I readily accept that it may be a genuinely subjective impression. That's the issue: it' *only* is a subjective impression. An impression where no attemp has been made to control some of the misleading variables, which makes the impressions pretty irrelevant for the actual audible performance.
jan didden
Last edited:
John,
You are a shining example of one in audio who has a very solid appreciation and ability for both measurements and listening. For that I applaud you. However, it is unbelievable that you don't realize that there are many others out there who maintain a similar respect for both measurements and listening, I among them. Don't you realize that most of us can walk and chew gum at the same time?
As I have said before, your characterizarion of the AES publication process is complete nonsense. I was there. I was and am a reviewer. Good stuff was given a very wide berth, and that goes for Matti as well. He was his own worst enemy in getting published.
Cheers,
Bob
Yes, each of these statements used as a sole reasoning would be completely wrong.
This is in the assumption that without controlled blind tests an experienced audiophile cannot know that he actually hears what he hears. Experienced audiophiles do now how to eliminate all the variables that aren't the actual and genuine audible experience.
Anyhow, you declared outright that the quoted impression was a marketing.
My point is that you probably don't have any factual ground to make such a statement.
No they can't. This has been shown again and again. This is where we certainly disagree.
It's not just audiophiles. It's a basic human condition. Since you have stated that you are not interested in it anyhow, I don't think you are in a position to comment on it.
jan didden
Joshua, you know well the problem.
The 'problem' is that when we subjective audiophiles have a listening test, we don't protect ourselves from some sort of 'error' that MIGHT make us prefer one component over another. Instead, we are SUPPOSED to do it the way the Dr. Lipshitz, et al advised more than 30 years ago, to use a randomly controlled switchbox, and a significant amount of trials so that a 95 confidence result is obtained. Anything less is ignored.
Yes, ignored, by Dr. Lipshitz, himself, and everybody who follows him. Yet, the audio differences still exist, and serious audio designers can build on these 'differences' to build a better future audio product. You know, avoid some things, and use others. Try a different block diagram or topology, Use lots of feedback or no feedback, etc. Many people here do not appear to have as much audio design EXPERIENCE as several professional designers who contribute here, do, yet we professional designers are accused of saying all kinds of things that are not our personal experience. If, your personal belief is that we are 'wrong' in some way, so be it, but why do you participate on THIS thread then?
The 'problem' is that when we subjective audiophiles have a listening test, we don't protect ourselves from some sort of 'error' that MIGHT make us prefer one component over another. Instead, we are SUPPOSED to do it the way the Dr. Lipshitz, et al advised more than 30 years ago, to use a randomly controlled switchbox, and a significant amount of trials so that a 95 confidence result is obtained. Anything less is ignored.
Yes, ignored, by Dr. Lipshitz, himself, and everybody who follows him. Yet, the audio differences still exist, and serious audio designers can build on these 'differences' to build a better future audio product. You know, avoid some things, and use others. Try a different block diagram or topology, Use lots of feedback or no feedback, etc. Many people here do not appear to have as much audio design EXPERIENCE as several professional designers who contribute here, do, yet we professional designers are accused of saying all kinds of things that are not our personal experience. If, your personal belief is that we are 'wrong' in some way, so be it, but why do you participate on THIS thread then?
Last edited:
Yes, they use two primary techniques for this. Vanity and ego.
Of course the side effect is that it makes them too vain and egotistical to recognize that vanity and ego do not eliminate all the variables that aren't the actual and genuine audible effect.
They truly believe themselves to be superhuman, immune to weaknesses of the rest of the mere mortals around them.
However ultimately they are nothing more than the emperor parading naked before his subjects, showing off his fine new clothes.
se
Yet, no one has been able to actually demonstrate their existence.
You're the Linus in the pumpkin patch waiting for the Great Pumpkin to arrive.
se
Johan,
It's very simple.
When someone, anyone, tells that I don't actually hear what I hear, that the audible qualities I hear aren't real ones – without him knowing how I discern audible changes – that person, or those people are blinded by their beliefs. I'm not a designer, I'm barely an amateur hobbyist, yet, I know that I hear what I hear and I don't need others' approval to know it.
I assume that the above declaration of yours is based on factual scientific knowledge.
Good for you.
I don't have such solid opinions without knowing the actual facts.
There is no need for me to demonstrate to others that I hear what I hear.
Only people who don't hear subtle differences in sound need that someone else will demonstrate it to them.
I'd love to see the factual scientific ground on which you declare that the differences in sound I hear are based on ego and arrogance.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.