Syn08 wrote in GPP - Great Phono Preamp:
So much for analog signal sources
Joshua, I would suggest you replace the term high-end with "state-of-the-art", meaning how good is a piece of equipment / audio chain with respect to the maximum achievable level of performance. This would include all DIY equipment and one-offs, and is not always related to price (though some correlation might exist). Otherwise I find the question perfectly valid. How do you for example rate the difference between digital and analog sources? You can either do that relating to your own system, or try to relate it to a SOA system that you would need to define, off course.
janneman said:
Don't feel too bad, you're not alone. I carefully explained how to set up a proper blind test, outlined the procedures and the data analysis (this is the sort of thing I usually get paid for), and was dismissed, "Oh, I'm not going to do that, I'm perfectly happy doing it the way I've always done."
Samuel Johnson once made a wonderful observation, which is apropos: "I can give you an answer; I cannot give you an understanding."
Apparently, Joshua doesn't bother using the "www" buttons nor googling to see things like your background and publishing history. Too much trouble when he can have fun playing audiophile. There's a closed-minded anti-intellectualism that runs through much of the pseudo-science culture, and I'm afraid that it is regnant in much of hobbyist audio. It's a pity, because it's a field that could use serious input from bright young guys like Joshua, but they are being ruined by the cultural influences around them.
Then we have another fellow who condemned serious auditory research as having poor controls, poor repeatability, and poor descriptions of methodology- and it turns out that he's never actually read any of the papers. And he doesn't even have the excuse that he can't do literature searching himself- I had given him cites for quite a few fundamental papers some time ago and he dismissed them without reading because the work had been done 20 years ago (and has still never been refuted by actual publishable experiments- apparently, he wouldn't accept Einstein's papers because they're a hundred years old).
So it gets down to "you're deaf and your speakers suck." Round and round it goes. Ourobouros.
So, I guess none of you guys will be exchanging Christmas cards then? At least there is honor amongst thieves, nothing like that here......
FWIW, I believe John has done some seminal work, and worked hard on the sound of his products. So be it. There is a psychoacoustic dimension after all, manifesting as a design skill. He has it.
FWIW, I believe John has done some seminal work, and worked hard on the sound of his products. So be it. There is a psychoacoustic dimension after all, manifesting as a design skill. He has it.
jacco vermeulen said:
OK, then, change that to "crusty old guys."
😀
Since Joshua and I are members of the same tribe, Christmas is a non-issue.😉
No-one, least of all me, has said anything to the contrary. And to John's credit, he's at least bothered to read the literature.
AKSA said:
On the contrary, I would like to wish each and every diy-er here a very festive Holiday Season and a great 2009. No exceptions.
May 2009 bring you happiness, health, prosperity and great-sounding cables 😉
Jan Didden
john curl said:
Thank you, John.
I know they are only playing, even if some of them may not be aware of it.
Andre Visser said:
I fully agree that price alone can never be a measure for sound quality of audio gear. Also, some DIY gear sound better than very expansive commercial gear. So, I agree with the suggestion by Martin Rupp to replace "high-end" with "SOTA".
My question have a very simple end – to see what makes some people argue that different cables, for instance, don't sound differently.
It seems to that there may be 4 main reasons for such argument (that different cables don't sound differently):
1. Those people have audio setups which don't have detailed enough sound, hence, such differences are inaudible.
2. Those people never tried listening to differences between cables.
3. Their hearing is incapable of distinguishing fine details in sound.
4. They know that there are differences, but they only mean to provoke.
Can you even entertain the possibility of:
5. There are no audible differences between cables when very basic engineering parameters are followed, and the reported differences under poorly controlled comparisons are illusions of the human mind.
or is your mind totally closed to this?
5. There are no audible differences between cables when very basic engineering parameters are followed, and the reported differences under poorly controlled comparisons are illusions of the human mind.
or is your mind totally closed to this?
janneman said:
Jan, obviously you are well read. However, so far we have no idea what is your actual experience in distinguishing fine details of sound in sound systems.
If all you know about sound is based on reading – that's one thing.
If you also have an experience in distinguishing fine details of sound in sound systems – that's another thing.
why did you omit:
5. Have never heard differences in cables in ANY system under controlled conditions where no measured difference could be detected.
Yes, I used to test and listen but not any longer. The music performance is much more important than chasing rainbows.
5. Have never heard differences in cables in ANY system under controlled conditions where no measured difference could be detected.
Yes, I used to test and listen but not any longer. The music performance is much more important than chasing rainbows.
Look folks, we're devolving here... shape up, backs straight, eyes front!!
Sy, again please cite a paper or two that are good examples?
What is a "High End System"?
Money is not the issue. In general terms some sort of quality or metric that has nothing to do with the usual parameters is required, in addition to the usual parameters!!
We can simplify it like this: to qualify as a high-end system it has to equal and preferably exceed the capabilities of a system whose output transducer was made in the 1950s!
Eh??
Right, unless your speakers can equal or exceed the Quad 57s you don't have a high end system. How they are fed and backed up is a broad and difficult question that includes such nuances as the signal source and jneutron's grunge currents - I mean ground currents, sorry ...
Here's the rub - unless and until one gets past this (imaginary as it is) threshold, there are a ton of things that are simply not perceptible no matter what gyrations or gear you use. Once one gets past this threshold - and often you get past it in some areas and not in others - you can only determine some sonic clues and not others.
Problem, simply stated, there ain't no way to parameterize or measure it directly with test equipment. None, zero, nil, zip, nada.
Keep in mind that the venerable Quad 57s are a compromise in all regards! Keep in mind that everything in audio is a compromise that works less well than the ideal, and less well than it models in SPICE. One wants fewer compromises than the Quad 57, or compromises of a lesser degree - IF you can get it!
Can you?
Unless and until one's system, or the system ur listening to at the time - and this includes the ABX/DBT boys - has reduced those compromises sufficiently, in effect one is blind, or confused.
Put it another way.
When a race car driver pulls into the pits and wants his left rear suspension tweaked slightly, they do it. You don't ever do the same thing with your daily driver. Makes no difference.
John Dunlavy and I used to argue in another forum about his claims and his speakers - he refused to consider the IM and non-linear with power distortions of his tweeters! In other words, at real world levels they had problems...
Anyhow, bottom line is simple enough from where I sit, I would love to measure and parameterize all and any of these things. I am suspicious of the tests that claim that these differences are imagined - and would welcome the opportunity to do high resolution electronic tests - because it seems like most of the tests I have read about don't have speakers that are equal or better than 1950's Quads, so I doubt what can or can not be heard in the first place...
It would me much easier for me if I had no clear perceptions about wire having any "sound" at all. Much easier, neater, nicer, simpler. In fact at one time I would have argued vociferously at one time that such things are fiction, fantasy, and delusion!! What came in the way was being confounded by it once my own system exceeded that invisible threshold I mentioned... otherwise none of it would have made any difference at all...
Indeed, a certain ribbon tweeter with ~100db/1w/1m capabilites and a <0.1% distortion level at 128db spl caused me to realize just how crappy (to be blunt) almost every other tweeter is, and how much they mask.
Everyone is free to have their own experiences and beliefs of course... be they personal or "scientific" in basis.
_-_-bear
Sy, again please cite a paper or two that are good examples?
What is a "High End System"?
Money is not the issue. In general terms some sort of quality or metric that has nothing to do with the usual parameters is required, in addition to the usual parameters!!
We can simplify it like this: to qualify as a high-end system it has to equal and preferably exceed the capabilities of a system whose output transducer was made in the 1950s!
Eh??
Right, unless your speakers can equal or exceed the Quad 57s you don't have a high end system. How they are fed and backed up is a broad and difficult question that includes such nuances as the signal source and jneutron's grunge currents - I mean ground currents, sorry ...
Here's the rub - unless and until one gets past this (imaginary as it is) threshold, there are a ton of things that are simply not perceptible no matter what gyrations or gear you use. Once one gets past this threshold - and often you get past it in some areas and not in others - you can only determine some sonic clues and not others.
Problem, simply stated, there ain't no way to parameterize or measure it directly with test equipment. None, zero, nil, zip, nada.
Keep in mind that the venerable Quad 57s are a compromise in all regards! Keep in mind that everything in audio is a compromise that works less well than the ideal, and less well than it models in SPICE. One wants fewer compromises than the Quad 57, or compromises of a lesser degree - IF you can get it!
Can you?
Unless and until one's system, or the system ur listening to at the time - and this includes the ABX/DBT boys - has reduced those compromises sufficiently, in effect one is blind, or confused.
Put it another way.
When a race car driver pulls into the pits and wants his left rear suspension tweaked slightly, they do it. You don't ever do the same thing with your daily driver. Makes no difference.
John Dunlavy and I used to argue in another forum about his claims and his speakers - he refused to consider the IM and non-linear with power distortions of his tweeters! In other words, at real world levels they had problems...
Anyhow, bottom line is simple enough from where I sit, I would love to measure and parameterize all and any of these things. I am suspicious of the tests that claim that these differences are imagined - and would welcome the opportunity to do high resolution electronic tests - because it seems like most of the tests I have read about don't have speakers that are equal or better than 1950's Quads, so I doubt what can or can not be heard in the first place...
It would me much easier for me if I had no clear perceptions about wire having any "sound" at all. Much easier, neater, nicer, simpler. In fact at one time I would have argued vociferously at one time that such things are fiction, fantasy, and delusion!! What came in the way was being confounded by it once my own system exceeded that invisible threshold I mentioned... otherwise none of it would have made any difference at all...
Indeed, a certain ribbon tweeter with ~100db/1w/1m capabilites and a <0.1% distortion level at 128db spl caused me to realize just how crappy (to be blunt) almost every other tweeter is, and how much they mask.
Everyone is free to have their own experiences and beliefs of course... be they personal or "scientific" in basis.
_-_-bear
Joshua_G said:
It is an English expression of "standing", meaning (loosely) how others here will view you and your opinions.
At this point you are just trolling and being offensive through ignorance.
IME.
Originally posted by MRupp
Syn08 wrote in GPP - Great Phono Preamp:
So much for analog signal sources
However, syn08 declared here that he doesn't hear differences between different CD players. If this is so indeed, no wonder he doesn't hear differences between different cables. Which suggests that either:
1. He has audio setups which don't have detailed enough sound, hence, such differences are inaudible.
2. He never tried listening to differences between CD players and cables.
3. His hearing is incapable of distinguishing fine details in sound.
All the above is, of course, if his report (of not distinguishing between CDPs) is a true report.
Agreed.
SY said:
There are unverified assumptions on your part concerning me.
Please let me ask you this:
1. Do you choose interconnect(s) to your sound setup?
2. If yes, how do you do it?
AKSA said:
Indeed, and not only design skill – it entails everything concerning the sound quality of the finished amplifier, including the case, layout and choosing components, including wires.
SY said:
So, my only fault is not reading certain literature?
1. How do you know what I read and what I didn't?
2. When in certain aspects I got at the same conclusions John did, what negates, or invalidates, my conclusions?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.