At least the Benchmark guys are actually engineers. BTW I can't share some test results with certain signals on ESS DAC's that definitely do not look OK. Some of these things might have been corrected by now.
That's perfectly fine with me you can get up there with Jimmy too. The fact remains that I know people who are totally passionate about music and don't hear these things.
More importantly why dwell on this trivia, the whole "design by measurement" thing becomes moot when someone chooses a signal path with easily measurable aberrations (some of which are gross)? If someone likes an equalizer whose frequency response varies +-3 dB dynamically with level you are going to say I'm out of line with making a critical measurement?
The same goes for 5W DHT amps and full range horns, the lovers just ignore the obvious colorations.
I would not say you are anymore wron than you are right. But the fact is whether it is good or bad engineering, the manufacturer is not prying the money from people's hands when they so willingly shovel it in their direction.
But I would say you are wrong about "trying to show off". I have yet to meet any audiophiles spending mega bucks that are that way. The only one I have met is literally mentally off to start and he can at most maybe break $10k on occasion.
You simply assume that the preferance for something that doesnt measure well is negative by association. The reality is that they will pay anything if a device gives a quality they want. It boils down to some interesting questions like, does it sound more like music when you erase the sound of the studio or the instrument sounds more accurate even though it had a harsh studio enviroment sound? Subjectivity.
Define accurate in a listening sense... Accurate to the medium may sound bad and inaccurate to a live show. The studios are responisble for that, and they basically all do it. Dire Straits Brothers in Arms might be a very well recorded album, but it sure ad hell wasnt made in such a way it would sound like real live music.
So state your goals, I guess. Audiophiles mostly just want it to sound like live music. To a lot of them that seems to mean soundstage vs. studio character. They like no feedback and lots of RF because it can make a realistic sized soundstage and instruments. For me it kills too many other attributes, but fact is those ques are extremely popular, and not accurate in a measurement sense, but more accurate for them in a reproduction sense.
No problem with their ability to pay whatever it costs. Economically speaking, it is good when the rich ******* are swindled by a High End Audio shop, the money keeps spinning.
But the remaining questions are:
- What is the relationship between the capacity to pay whatever it costs and the sound quality?
- Is the sound quality attracting thick wallets, or thick wallets are creating the sound quality?
- Are the sound preferences changing with the wallet size?
- If Mr. Marsh would donate me 1 million dollars, would I start understanding why the 200k$ Wavac power amplifier sounds so good, or would I keep saying it’s a piece of junk designed with the precise purpose to rip off those who can afford it?
I already did. Accuracy ---> Pay attention now ----> Live recordings direct from Master recordings without any manipulation (deliberately) added to the sound. No EQ, No compression, no editing. Nothing. Recordings of acoustic instruments played in a natural space... like a church etc. Being there during the recording as well aids to know what it ought to sound like on playback.
-RNM
Last edited:
I believe you. There must be a reason other than the obvious one ------ like some RFI ... and large value C have high Ls also... so those are not good at removing HF. And, it matters where the .01 is placed... across the 1000 or at the circuit etc. But try a .1 or larger and see if the benefit is larger .
But, in my circuits I have never needed or benefited -- that i could detect - any changes.
THx-RNMarsh
Yes, apparently knowing what it should sound like can also help our brains psychoacoustically imagine the original event.
If one is serious about having an accurate system..... you can have a spouse or person you live with or know thier voice well. have them stand between the 2 speakers with a microphone (flat, low dist and noise) and record their voice(s).... spoken or singing. Does the playback sound exactly like the person talking without the microphone but still between the speakers? You can do same with an acoustic instrument. Piano or violin etc. Then you are in the same recorded acoustic room and play back in same acoustic room. And, you know what the voice should sound like. Its a harder test for accuracy than one might think.
Thx-RNMarsh
Thx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Depends a lot on the microphone. What directional characteristics? Proximity effect? etc.
Usually, a good estimate of what a mic will pick up can be gotten by sticking a finger in one ear and putting the other ear where the mic would be. From there it depends a lot on the exact mic.
Usually, a good estimate of what a mic will pick up can be gotten by sticking a finger in one ear and putting the other ear where the mic would be. From there it depends a lot on the exact mic.
Last edited:
Despite my defense of people's right to subjectivity... I'm more aligned with how you want things to sound. However, how many recordings do you have or will ever have that meet the criteria you laid out? I think I've accepted not too many, so I'm certainly willing to entertain things that are not as "accurate" as maybe you would require, but sound better (and may improve other measurements).
Maybe that isn't a fully accurate statement. I guess maybe I should say the lack of perfect recordings makes me work harder at improving sound, including exploring things that vary in respectability among some people.
Last edited:
The better trick for me is to hire best San Francisco Patent Law firm to get a patent. Its all in the wording I believe. The first claim sets up all the rest.
Get up there and listen with JF? Sure, why not. Cant hurt my career.
THx-RNMarsh
Of course, I rarely hear an accurate music recording. They do exist on a few labels. I want my system to be accurate so i know what i am hearing is nothing except the recorded music. warts and all.
Most of the time I listen to what appeals to me musically and not how crappy it was recorded. But, that is another issue.
If one doesn't like the music quality, go out and make some of it yourself. Recording is fun and learn a lot as well.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Hi Richard,
Thanks for your last post. That's basically what I've been trying to say for years, but didn't suggest the test you just have.
I find young children are very good at telling whether something sounds real or not. The best part of your test is that it doesn't matter what your hearing is like. If recorded sounds like the live sound, the system is accurate and should be for anyone else who compares the sound like the test example you gave. Mind you, if it passes the young child test, you have a winner.
-Chris
Edit: your post # 2350 is what I was referring to.
Thanks for your last post. That's basically what I've been trying to say for years, but didn't suggest the test you just have.
I find young children are very good at telling whether something sounds real or not. The best part of your test is that it doesn't matter what your hearing is like. If recorded sounds like the live sound, the system is accurate and should be for anyone else who compares the sound like the test example you gave. Mind you, if it passes the young child test, you have a winner.
-Chris
Edit: your post # 2350 is what I was referring to.
IMO the only music to be taken serious in tests of "accuracy in a listening sense" is a well recorded classical music. No rock, please. No Dire Straits, no Grateful Dead. No artificial, electronic and amplified music. This is only about tastes, then. Take a well recorded, complex classical music and the "magic" of SE tubes or no GNFB is almost for sure gone.
That's interesting, I wonder why, better hearing, less bias, less psychoacoustic learning?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.