We say it THAT way, because decorum generally prohibits us from saying it any other way. Sometimes, when dealing with a stock mindset, its best to offer a stock response.
The real problem here is that there ARE so many snake oil salesman out there, and so many products that seem to offer diminishing returns to those who do not know better. Its far easier to call something ridiculous than it is to actually attempt to find the truth. The moon landing conspiracy theorists are a prime example: They have no real knowledge of the physical realities involved, a narrow set of experiences, and little to no real evidence, so they attempt to debunk the event with their incredibly limited knowledge, and the fact that the majority of the public has no real education or observational skills.
One the arguments plays something like this: "If you are standing on the moon, and looked up, you would see stars. Yet, there are no stars visible in the moon photographs. They are obviously taken in a studio, with black ceilings." No, jacktard, they were taken on the moon. There are no stars visible in the photographs because they are OUT OF THE EXPOSURE RANGE of the CAMERA. The stars are invisible to the camera, because the subject, in this case the astronaut, is about 20 stops brighter than the stars! I could go on and on over these idiots…
The audio conspiracy theorists raise my hackles only slightly less. They claim, because they cannot hear something, and that no one has found a way to QUANTIFY the unquantifiable, that it must not be. History is filled with examples of the majority of society believing ridiculous things, and even more often, disbelieving things which we hold to be naturally evident today. Our children cannot imagine a world without portable supercomputers, but surely you can remember a time not long ago when the idea was simply ridiculous. The technologies and science we rely upon to live today didn't even exist 25 years ago. Its good we stopped burning those witches and wizards, eh?
I suppose you believe that audio will never evolve as well? Do you believe that science can explain everything, especially the pattern recognition abilities of the human brain? Do you really think everything has been explained to the satisfaction of the Universe, and we can pack it all away? I'm not giving up until I get those Godlike powers, myself. All I have to do is avoid the knuckle draggers along the way… though I find myself beset of late, I shall persevere…
The real problem here is that there ARE so many snake oil salesman out there, and so many products that seem to offer diminishing returns to those who do not know better. Its far easier to call something ridiculous than it is to actually attempt to find the truth. The moon landing conspiracy theorists are a prime example: They have no real knowledge of the physical realities involved, a narrow set of experiences, and little to no real evidence, so they attempt to debunk the event with their incredibly limited knowledge, and the fact that the majority of the public has no real education or observational skills.
One the arguments plays something like this: "If you are standing on the moon, and looked up, you would see stars. Yet, there are no stars visible in the moon photographs. They are obviously taken in a studio, with black ceilings." No, jacktard, they were taken on the moon. There are no stars visible in the photographs because they are OUT OF THE EXPOSURE RANGE of the CAMERA. The stars are invisible to the camera, because the subject, in this case the astronaut, is about 20 stops brighter than the stars! I could go on and on over these idiots…
The audio conspiracy theorists raise my hackles only slightly less. They claim, because they cannot hear something, and that no one has found a way to QUANTIFY the unquantifiable, that it must not be. History is filled with examples of the majority of society believing ridiculous things, and even more often, disbelieving things which we hold to be naturally evident today. Our children cannot imagine a world without portable supercomputers, but surely you can remember a time not long ago when the idea was simply ridiculous. The technologies and science we rely upon to live today didn't even exist 25 years ago. Its good we stopped burning those witches and wizards, eh?
I suppose you believe that audio will never evolve as well? Do you believe that science can explain everything, especially the pattern recognition abilities of the human brain? Do you really think everything has been explained to the satisfaction of the Universe, and we can pack it all away? I'm not giving up until I get those Godlike powers, myself. All I have to do is avoid the knuckle draggers along the way… though I find myself beset of late, I shall persevere…
scott wurcer said:
I agree very much. IMO the best amp and LS (Joshua I'm talking about amplifier and Loud Speaker) would be "invisible". I prefer to listen to the music, not the electronics.
If designers are so stupid that they think people put on a CD ( or maybe it has to be a record) and sit there listening to the electronics’, I think they are so far out that I have no word for it.
Joshua_G said:
Joshua, do you have any respect at all, do you think its complete idiots you are talking to?
I see that you are acting like a guard or something, but I think you do JC a big favor if you don’t interfere all the time,
Stinius
Uh Huh… I have to ask you, then; Have you ever listened to a recording immediately after it has been made? Before the engineer has had a chance to equalize, boost, limit, mixdown, and correct the OBVIOUS distortion and imaging problems INHERENT in the recoding process?
What you hear on that disc is the hard work of another artist, the engineer. The idea that you are listening to the event untouched is laughable, to say the least.
What you hear on that disc is the hard work of another artist, the engineer. The idea that you are listening to the event untouched is laughable, to say the least.
john curl said:
Brilliant idea. Here's my new second tier system. A customer sent me a pair of Sennheiser HD-600's as a gift. To my surprise uncompressed wav's on the IPOD shuffle sound OK and that little 3.7V amp drives them fairly loud. I'll bet it's mostly complementary symmetry (MOS)FET fully differential in the signal path too. Sort of the tail wagging the dog.
Attachments
Corvus corax said:
I agree in that, but I prefer to listen to the music anyway and not the electronics.
Stinius
Corvus corax said:
Somtin went wrong i my previous post so one more time:
YES I have, a lot of times.
Stinius
Corvus corax said:
So far so good, this matches the description http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1688181#post1688181 but certainly suggest a few more details.
The Gifted People are instinctively trying to compensate their lack of basic understanding of electrical and electronics engineering fundamentals, and confusion regarding the process of electronic design, with their special abilities. This provides a very comfortable platform for rejecting anything that is outside their understanding and/or interest, and to promote the image of a kitchen and a genius chef, spelling over a cooking pot full of electrons.
If a measurement does not confirm what they Hear, then that measurement Must be wrong.
If a measurement confirms what they Hear, then that measurement Must be correct.
In the rare occasions they do some measurements, this is only to confirm what they already Hear. If Their measurement fails to reveal anything, then Einstein, Maxwell, Shannon are blamed, for not providing the required support.
But the most convenient approach is: if it measures good, most likely it will sound like crap.
Education is not worth a dime; rather then studying, the ignorant crowd should learn to Listen.
Thermodynamics has principles only for the naive. Quantum mechanics and Planck constant could be occasionally responsible for the grainy sound of their amps, while a blurred sound is usually due to the Heisenberg incertitude principle (no joke, I've read something like this on this forum). Claude Shannon is just another ignorant, not willing to Listen and Learn from their experience.
They usually speak about We, Us, Ours, to clearly make a separation between the Gifted People and the rest of the world. "In my opinion...", "I think..." are definitely to be avoided. They don't have any doubts or incertitudes, in fact they secretly believe doubts are for wusses. And so is the concept of Proof.
😉
syn08 said:
I certainly recognize that one, syn08 😉
There is a strong negative correlation between good measurement and good sound quality.
The better data you can back up your circuit with, the more doubt it could be any good
Now, we can certainly not blame John Curl for not being interested in measurements and best possible eletronical performance.
Only at times I can put a little questionmark when Curl tells what he is able to hear.
But who am I to say I know somebody can not hear?
Until some good evidence in either direction is at hand.
Lineup
What an insult. Many audio designers in hi end have degrees in physics. Including Jack Bybee, me, Chas Hansen, and I think, Nelson Pass. I am a LIFE MEMBER of the IEEE. How did I get that without paying my dues?
Just because we think that the ear comes first, does not mean that we throw measurements out the window. I have limited means, but over the years I have accumulated perhaps $50,000 in test equipment that I actually own, and can use when I want. I can measure 1 part in a million fairly easily, both IM or THD, and signal average as well. That should account for something. IF ONLY the measurements directly correlated with the listening, then it would be easy. I NEVER deliberately add distortion to a circuit, as well.
Syn08, where do you get your biases from?
Just because we think that the ear comes first, does not mean that we throw measurements out the window. I have limited means, but over the years I have accumulated perhaps $50,000 in test equipment that I actually own, and can use when I want. I can measure 1 part in a million fairly easily, both IM or THD, and signal average as well. That should account for something. IF ONLY the measurements directly correlated with the listening, then it would be easy. I NEVER deliberately add distortion to a circuit, as well.
Syn08, where do you get your biases from?
He gets his biases from a lack of observational principles. If he cannot measure the effect, it does not exist. He knows the physical world through books, and does not truly understand anything tangible for himself. For that he relies on OTHER people to TELL him what to understand, and how to understand it. A typical closed mind.
About High End People.
Do they have the best because it sounds better or does it sound better because they have the best?
I think that audio electronics has advanced to the point that is very hard to make a good case for choosing expensive electronics on the basis of sound quality alone. There are other quite valid reasons for choosing expensive gear and I have no quibble with people that do that. I just don't like them trying to convince me (against all the evidence) that their gear has a better sound than anything else, although I understand why some would want to do this.
They do make life interesting though. 😀
Do they have the best because it sounds better or does it sound better because they have the best?
I think that audio electronics has advanced to the point that is very hard to make a good case for choosing expensive electronics on the basis of sound quality alone. There are other quite valid reasons for choosing expensive gear and I have no quibble with people that do that. I just don't like them trying to convince me (against all the evidence) that their gear has a better sound than anything else, although I understand why some would want to do this.
They do make life interesting though. 😀
john curl said:
But... but... but... John, why taking offense, this was not necessary about you.
As a side comment, last time I've checked physics has very little to do with engineering. However, it looks like there is a distinct possibility that physicist are statistically more prone to use both left and right sides of their brain to Listen.
Obviously, my bias comes from my "ignorance". But I suspect you already know this.
😉
If you can do it cheaper, do it! I make 3 grades of power amp, with about a 10:1 range in price.
I have designed a successful amp that cost $1 in semiconductors to make. Still, it sounds OK, even on good, efficient speakers. How come? Maybe, because I make the right tradeoffs.
I have designed a successful amp that cost $1 in semiconductors to make. Still, it sounds OK, even on good, efficient speakers. How come? Maybe, because I make the right tradeoffs.
In the case of the company I work for, Our equipment sounds better because we take the time (in many cases hundreds, if not thousands of hours) to voice the equipment to sound the way we want it to sound. It is an infuriating, time consuming process, where every single change is weighed, right down to the brand of wire used in certain portions of the circuit. If you change any one of the variables, the sound changes. Sometimes it moves the direction you want it to, the direction you predict. Most of the time it doesn't.
People have looked under the hood of our equipment and asked why we don't use (fill in audiophile brand name here) components, or brand X wire, and why we charge so much when there are Chinese amps out there using brand X wire for 1/3 the price. The short answer is that we do not build our equipment using the most expensive parts we can find. We build our equipment with the mix of components we are familiar with, and know their sonic signature. It makes the arduous process somewhat easier to manage. I can't tell you how many pieces we've received back to the factory over the years to have them returned to their proper trim after someone found out the hard way that we have already found the best sounding components for our amplifiers, and their efforts had only resulted in their wasting money and time.
Every single piece of equipment goes through audition. It measures to spec before it even goes into that listening room. Sometimes it fails audition. Sometimes a given piece of equipment never does pass audition. Sometimes they never leave, and are either disassembled for obvious parts, or used to prop the damn door open to the listening room. We don't do snake oil. We build amplifiers.
People have looked under the hood of our equipment and asked why we don't use (fill in audiophile brand name here) components, or brand X wire, and why we charge so much when there are Chinese amps out there using brand X wire for 1/3 the price. The short answer is that we do not build our equipment using the most expensive parts we can find. We build our equipment with the mix of components we are familiar with, and know their sonic signature. It makes the arduous process somewhat easier to manage. I can't tell you how many pieces we've received back to the factory over the years to have them returned to their proper trim after someone found out the hard way that we have already found the best sounding components for our amplifiers, and their efforts had only resulted in their wasting money and time.
Every single piece of equipment goes through audition. It measures to spec before it even goes into that listening room. Sometimes it fails audition. Sometimes a given piece of equipment never does pass audition. Sometimes they never leave, and are either disassembled for obvious parts, or used to prop the damn door open to the listening room. We don't do snake oil. We build amplifiers.
Corvus corax said:
If you knew anything at all about technical education (which you obviously do not), you'd realize it's about questioning and verifying for oneself the veracity (or not) of theories and observations. This must include, by necessity, one's own observations.
If one assumes that one's own observations are correct by definition, and not subject to verification by controlled experiments, then that leaves the door open to any number of erroneous conclusions.
This is exactly the situation that so-called "high end" audio finds itself in. The status quo in this "industry" is that if controlled experiments contradict uncontrolled subjective observation, then the controlled experiment must be in error. It's this idea, and others like it, that have led the high end on a path to stagnation.
Corvus corax said:
Yep. Some "ignorants" call this kind of approach part of the "scientific methodology". In particular, some "ignorant" physicists seem to be keen of this method.
You assume much sir. What I do know of "technical education" is that it seems to turn out more than its fair share of broken minds. Minds that are unable to conceive of anything beyond what fits inside a narrowly defined framework and limited belief system. I do not question the idea that experiments should be performed, rather, I question the meaningfulness of the methods used to express and gather the data.
The problem lies with the dogged adherence to the idea that available measurement equipment is incapable of measuring the phenomena that generates the effect, therefore the phenomena doesn't exist. The precept is as ridiculous as the concept of Schroedinger's cat existing as a tangible reality, and is a perfect example of scientific hubris.
It is my job to question my observations, and assumptions, as well as those of others. I know what I can hear, I know what the boss can hear. And as inconvenient a position as that frequently places me in, and as often as that results in reengineering a "functionally perfect" new design, the truth remains: Something we are incapable of measuring by "normal" means is happening. Unquantifiable, annoyingly pervasive, and difficult to predict.
I would love for that to be an incorrect observation. Unfortunately, it is not.
The problem lies with the dogged adherence to the idea that available measurement equipment is incapable of measuring the phenomena that generates the effect, therefore the phenomena doesn't exist. The precept is as ridiculous as the concept of Schroedinger's cat existing as a tangible reality, and is a perfect example of scientific hubris.
It is my job to question my observations, and assumptions, as well as those of others. I know what I can hear, I know what the boss can hear. And as inconvenient a position as that frequently places me in, and as often as that results in reengineering a "functionally perfect" new design, the truth remains: Something we are incapable of measuring by "normal" means is happening. Unquantifiable, annoyingly pervasive, and difficult to predict.
I would love for that to be an incorrect observation. Unfortunately, it is not.
Although not clear from my post my remarks were not actually aimed at manufacturers of High End products but at the people who buy them. I believe that the non snake oil manufacturers are merely responding to a demand that will always be there, but I stand by my view that today the High End has moved way beyond just sound quality.
When Williamson first presented his amp to the world it was clearly an advancement of the art. The evolution of electronics has been a lot faster than the evolution of our ears and has now over taken it . I would be surprised if there are any clearcut advancements such as the Williamson Amp in the future. But hey someone 'surprise' me. 😀
When Williamson first presented his amp to the world it was clearly an advancement of the art. The evolution of electronics has been a lot faster than the evolution of our ears and has now over taken it . I would be surprised if there are any clearcut advancements such as the Williamson Amp in the future. But hey someone 'surprise' me. 😀
Speaking of snake oil: People, PLEASE stop putting SST or any other conductive fluids on your tube sockets! Tearing down the entire amplifier to replace shorted sockets is not my idea of fun!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.