Originally posted by R-K Rønningstad
So, not surprisingly, John has had more than one thought in his head simultaneously: System thinking and care for details.
RK
--------------
Exactly!
The man (John Curl) is no way near to being as stupid as we may think 😀 😀
--------------
Originally posted by Wavebourn
Lineup;
you are welcome to attend one of my home concerts.
-------
As for now, I need good acceleration sensors, up to 300 Hz is enough.
Anyone to contribute?
Wavebourn, you know I will never get close to you 🙁 ... or SY
Acceleration Sensors <= 300 Hz
What is this?
So, not surprisingly, John has had more than one thought in his head simultaneously: System thinking and care for details.
RK
--------------
Exactly!
The man (John Curl) is no way near to being as stupid as we may think 😀 😀
--------------
Originally posted by Wavebourn
Lineup;
you are welcome to attend one of my home concerts.
-------
As for now, I need good acceleration sensors, up to 300 Hz is enough.
Anyone to contribute?
Wavebourn, you know I will never get close to you 🙁 ... or SY
Acceleration Sensors <= 300 Hz
What is this?
Following the purist approach I have for years used a so called passive 'preamp', searching for the perfect pot and finally using two high quality 10k switched attenuators. This was driving tube amps with lo mu triode input stages. I now use SS amps and have just tried a 100k pot feeding a LME49600 buffer open loop. To me it sounds better, even with more junctions in the signal path, not instinctual to a purist.
Of course the CDP is now driving a load 10 times higher, good, and the low output impedance insures the correct signal is at the amp's input despite any non linear capacitances.
Transformers would probably suit the purist better but what a hassle.
Of course the CDP is now driving a load 10 times higher, good, and the low output impedance insures the correct signal is at the amp's input despite any non linear capacitances.
Transformers would probably suit the purist better but what a hassle.
But at least we all can listen to it remotely, Anatoliy has a bunch of recordings of him and other people on his website...lineup said:
- Klaus (currently listening to various tracks from there... pretty good sound and very nice and relaxed music)
Peter Daniel said:
... or with a quality buffered output from a DAC?
Each situation is different. I can imagine that there is quite a difference between a simple pot (even the best quality) or a preamp between a DAC with, say, a tube output stage and the power amp.
But use another good DAC, with a low Zout buffered output, and the situation may be reversed.
The simple statement: "I replaced my pot with a preamp and the sound became better/worse/the same is an empty statement. Useless".
Jan Didden
john curl said:
John,
This makes a lot of sense. It's always a complex of factors that will let you optimize your solution. It also shows that with different situations, another solution may be optimal. Of-the-cuff generalizations are not very valuable for me.
Jan Didden
There is often more theorizing than real experience here. More simple presumptions than deep insight.
PMA said:
Sometimes, simple pre- and assumptions get you to deep insights faster ...😉
Jan Didden
Experience and understanding leads to deep insights, presumptions may never get you there.
Just a thought 🙂
Just a thought 🙂
hermanv said:
My thoughts on such are similar, after playing with about dozen DIY and manufactured passive units, compared to the 50-60 or so SS and tube preamps I've rebuilt and optimized. The matching is never perfect unless it is intelligently done by the individual, each case is different. Different ENOUGH..that is..that general passive fit will be very 'hit and miss'. Thus a well designed and executed active preamp circuit has a good chance of outperforming a passive unit, in the majority of possible install situations.
And the passive/active 'battle' ensues, due a lack of clarity concerning the origins of the situation.
For example, when working with CRT projectors, when right at the edge of the ability of all the hardware to resolve (1080P video and above-but still visible as an effect at lower scan rates) and provide detail, contrast, linearity and db of video signal, only hand adjustments of the loading of hard wired connectivity of the specific cable, circuits, and signal load will provide the needed perfection of image. As well, each RGB channel has to be adjusted on it's own, and wire handling and positioning also counts.
IMHO and experience, doing this with analog video is EASIER than with full spectrum analog audio signals.
For the average person, understanding this effect and consideration with respects to video, is easier..as the visual is provided.
As aural skills are also learned and discerned... but never SEEN....the average person seems to think you are a charlatan or psychotic if one alludes to having such issues with audio. Ignorance obviously has along way to go before it is properly banished to the dustbin of immaturity where it belongs.
janneman said:
this is very true .. at least if we want very hi-fi audio
for medium fidelity we can use some general rules-of-the-thumb
when NASA makes the First Human on Mars Project
they can not use much but very special and situation dependent techniques
they can re-use some of the (general) stuff from First Human on Moon Project
but the top edge, top of the line, stuff,
has to be optimized for Planet MARS Expedition
.... and Returning Humans safely to home Planet Earth !!!!
Until we utilize a warp drive of sorts, there is going to be far too much expense and difficulty with bringing people back. It's almost easier to send multiple probes, find the right soil and mineral ingredients..and then send a rocket fuel factory TO mars--- And make any return fuel there, while (or before) at/on mars itself. As well as 02 and whatnot, in case the time frames are not as expected. And, as a matter of point and fact, send a few shovels and hammers along ..and with the 02-we can just leave them there. Start breeding! Good luck! With current technology, I think it is a waste of time to go to Mars, unless staying.
I generally use the wine tasting analogy, people understand you can increase your skills with practice and training. Why they can't correlate this to "golden ears" is a minor mystery. Especially since golden ears is most commonly used as a dismissive.KBK said:
It took me years of critical listening before I could reasonably express what I heard. My ears didn't actually improve of course, just my ability to separate or distinguish individual parts of the music and express the differences in english.
No mystery at all. Wine tasters routinely work blind, and there's no controversy about it. If taster after taster cannot distinguish (say) wine made from Yeast 1 from wine made from Yeast 2 under blind conditions, even after claiming the difference in uncontrolled tastings, we shrug and say, "Well, there doesn't seem to be any difference." And no-one whines about it (pun, sorry).
I've been pretty scornful of audio reviewers, and I will continue to be until they have to pass the same sort of blind tests that a candidate for an MW, MS, or WSET certification does.
The wine analogy does have serious limitations and some value as a "for instance".SY said:
1. I complain about the idea that if one person can't hear it, no one can. This seems flawed.
2. People's hearing and the ability to discuss it do vary.
3. In my experience an ABX test for one small change requires a full day, this is prohibitive.
4. Since when are there certified reviewers for audio?
5. The fact that you can tell two wines apart in no way correlates with which of the two I'm going to prefer.
6. There is no "correct" wine, they do not strive for accuracy.
SY said:
Maybe audio is a bit more complicated and the true measure of what you're hearing doesn't become clear so readily. My experience with my latest phono circuit is a case in point. My listening starts out with it sounding pretty good overall, then, over a few evenings and a few different moods, I get overly critical and find myself hearing things I'm not sure of as being part of the circuit sound or things in the recordings I'm now noticing (obviously I'm a bit critical wondering if what the root cause is...). A weekend and some relaxed listening including more familiar discs and I start feeling that the differences I'm noting are consistent... A trip to another system and a few other opinions to consider.
I know what my first impression was and it is valid, but for the finer points to reveal themselves and develop my lasting impressions takes time, a range of music and moods.
Maybe wine is like this as well and one misses something through the taste test methodology or it is in-fact possible to assess its complete character in the structure of a blind comparison. With audio I believe time and repeated listening to a variety of favorite music is what cleanses the aural palate and makes the differences reveal themselves. It's the world’s culture that has evolved into people having to make quick assessments of things that in reality demand exposure, thought and concentration.
There are many examples of complex creations where it is not possible to absorb all there is to without careful study and experience to guide .
My criteria for rating an improvement in my system is: any change that improves on what my memory of a favorite piece of music sounded like is a positive change, anything that detracts from the experience stands out like a black eye. The trick is in controlling the variables.
Mike.
Training yourself to hear minute details can be rewarding if that is what you are into. But it can make one restless and this works against experiencing a deeper enjoyment of the music.
I think it is odd that the objectivists are more concerned with the properties of the brain i.e. to what extent can we be fooled, whereas the subjectivists are more concerned with the properties of the equipment and to what extent it affects the sound.
I think it is odd that the objectivists are more concerned with the properties of the brain i.e. to what extent can we be fooled, whereas the subjectivists are more concerned with the properties of the equipment and to what extent it affects the sound.
Mike, you are on the right track. You may not hear any difference at first, but live with it awhile and you will. On an ABX test that I tried 30 years ago, I could not tell the difference between a Dyna Pas3X preamp line stage and a Levinson line stage. It would be pointless to go any further or even give up my Dyna, if there were actually no difference.
First, my listening partner suggested that we remove the ABX equipment itself from the circuit. Then much of the sound quality came back, all by itself, after which I looked into the design compromises of ABX boxes.
Second, there were real differences, but they required longer term listening, and knowing that 'A is A' and 'B is B', even without knowing what A was or B was. This seems to be the fundamental problem with ABX testing. I think it is a psychological problem inherent in this test procedure while listening to changes in music. We seem to shift gears, sonically, and find anything similar, virtually the same, sonically in this circumstance.
This is why I do not use ABX testing, and do not generally recommend it to anyone evaluating audio equipment. The ABX test does not just 'objectify' you, it 'throws the baby out with the bath water' so to speak.
I clearly wrote about this in 1979 to Lipshitz et al in 'The Audio Amateur' almost 30 years ago.
Read up, audiophiles, learn what has already been evaluated about this ABX testing procedure, over the decades.
First, my listening partner suggested that we remove the ABX equipment itself from the circuit. Then much of the sound quality came back, all by itself, after which I looked into the design compromises of ABX boxes.
Second, there were real differences, but they required longer term listening, and knowing that 'A is A' and 'B is B', even without knowing what A was or B was. This seems to be the fundamental problem with ABX testing. I think it is a psychological problem inherent in this test procedure while listening to changes in music. We seem to shift gears, sonically, and find anything similar, virtually the same, sonically in this circumstance.
This is why I do not use ABX testing, and do not generally recommend it to anyone evaluating audio equipment. The ABX test does not just 'objectify' you, it 'throws the baby out with the bath water' so to speak.
I clearly wrote about this in 1979 to Lipshitz et al in 'The Audio Amateur' almost 30 years ago.
Read up, audiophiles, learn what has already been evaluated about this ABX testing procedure, over the decades.
Hi John,
I've been listening and building for many years and found that it's easy to delude myself or hear what I expect or want to hear at first. It’s not until I listen over time and allow my guard to drop, so to speak, that I get a true handle on whatever is changed or new. First impressions are real but not very detailed.
What's the point in this if the results of the efforts are blatant and so black and white. Contributors to this thread are splitting hairs between harmonic contents and their contributions to the noise floor, I fuss over circuit layouts where what goes to where and what goes first. I doubt the average casual or untrained ear would pick out the difference. But it is there if you know what to listen for and have put in the time to learn AND properly controlled the changes so that you're making one change at a time and your reference is solid.
Some people just want the cliff notes version or the high-end for dummy's approach. Then complain that can’t hear a difference or that they wasted their money on that $1K power cord. Do the homework.
Mike.
I've been listening and building for many years and found that it's easy to delude myself or hear what I expect or want to hear at first. It’s not until I listen over time and allow my guard to drop, so to speak, that I get a true handle on whatever is changed or new. First impressions are real but not very detailed.
What's the point in this if the results of the efforts are blatant and so black and white. Contributors to this thread are splitting hairs between harmonic contents and their contributions to the noise floor, I fuss over circuit layouts where what goes to where and what goes first. I doubt the average casual or untrained ear would pick out the difference. But it is there if you know what to listen for and have put in the time to learn AND properly controlled the changes so that you're making one change at a time and your reference is solid.
Some people just want the cliff notes version or the high-end for dummy's approach. Then complain that can’t hear a difference or that they wasted their money on that $1K power cord. Do the homework.
Mike.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.