John, why go retail when I can go wholesale?
I think my first epiphany about audiophoolery happened some years ago after spending some time with a guy who (at the time) was probably the biggest name in audio reviewing. Companies were made and broken at his whim. Very nice fellow, but... he was quite ignorant and proudly so. Didn't faze his readers even a little bit.
As he pontificated on the design flaws of a preamp we were listening to, it struck me that he couldn't even design an RCA jack.
That was the first step in my recovery.
I think my first epiphany about audiophoolery happened some years ago after spending some time with a guy who (at the time) was probably the biggest name in audio reviewing. Companies were made and broken at his whim. Very nice fellow, but... he was quite ignorant and proudly so. Didn't faze his readers even a little bit.
As he pontificated on the design flaws of a preamp we were listening to, it struck me that he couldn't even design an RCA jack.
That was the first step in my recovery.
Because a "reviwer"could not "design an RCA jack"does not mean that music fans are divided to either diy'ers or "phools".
Who claimed that there are "big names in reviewing"?Like them ("reviewers")are IMO only those who blindly buy whatever these "reviewers" say is good.We all know such people.
I am sure you can be reasonably flexible,but I believe you just don't want to,which is perfectly respected.Not everything is black and white you know.
Who claimed that there are "big names in reviewing"?Like them ("reviewers")are IMO only those who blindly buy whatever these "reviewers" say is good.We all know such people.
I am sure you can be reasonably flexible,but I believe you just don't want to,which is perfectly respected.Not everything is black and white you know.
Where did music fans come into this? Most audiophiles I've dealt with (definitely not all, but most) were not particularly music fans. Most music fans I've dealt with (definitely not all, but most) were not particularly audiophiles.
If one believes that (for example) wire has audible "direction" or that a jar full of rocks has magic audible properties, then one is a plain old fool, no odd spelling needed.
Your post has a tiny shade of grey colour at last (not just black or white) and that's good.Maybe the percentages are not the same as yours,but most music fans I know are also trying to improve their audio system's sound too.For me these are healthy audiophiles,and a good number among them are also diy'ers,musicians and engineers.
SY said:
Can wine critics design a cork? Yesterday I was reading an interesting analysis in the National Interest on American policy errors in Pakistan and noticed the author is Anthony Cordesman, know to most here as a subjective audio reviewer. Painting the field as the domain of superstitious idiots supports jlsem's complaint.
No, and it's hilarious how many of them, with absolutely zero experience or training, are happy to tell winemakers how they should have done stuff differently. "If he had extended the cuvaison for two more days...."
BTW, competence and intelligence in one field does not make one immune to being a superstitious fool in another. I would cite Crookes and Conan Doyle as two prominent examples.
SY said:
I was using a familiar example to question whether it was a requirement in a critic. Off the top of my head I can't think of a field where the ability 'to do' is mandatory. For what it's worth, I agree the technical expositions not authored by guests writers are generally train wrecks in those magazines. Maybe working in media for a generation+ lowers the threshold of outrage.
It's not a requirement in a critic, but it's a requirement in a critic who ventures to tell practitioners what to do- at least if that critic is to be taken seriously.
Evenharmonics said:
Wow, you saved me, I was about to buy vintage leaky oil/paper caps
and a single Mullard tube for $100's, now I've decided to get the Holy Stone !!! Ha...
Mom never recovered when I brought those beans home when we sold the cow,,, Ha
Those types of ads have the whole "High End" end user markets
totally pegged.
Moooo
Actually,to be fair with most reviewers,they don't really say to their readers what to do,mostly they end the review expressing their opinion.
The room is a large part of your sound. how can a real audiophile ignore it. In an average room once you get 6 to 10 feet away from the source, the reflections, room modes and reverberations acount for as much of the sound energy reaching your ears as the the direct sound. And so have a lot more influence than the power cord! And other than room modes theres nothing you can do about the room with your system other than moving the speakers and thats usually limited by other factors. Basic room treatment is not that expensive (if you DIY), but it takes some education.
And by the way, you can get rid of the 150hz room resonance with a jar. Its called a Helmholtz resonater, and the rocks adjust the volume which adjusts the frequency it absorbs.
And by the way, you can get rid of the 150hz room resonance with a jar. Its called a Helmholtz resonater, and the rocks adjust the volume which adjusts the frequency it absorbs.
"The original glass bottles for Brilliant Pebbles have been replaced by clear zip lock bags, which have a more linear response than glass."
😀
😀
SY said:
Not able to put that more succinctly, perhaps just to add: .... and wears his ignorance like a protective screen, because he cannot handle others who think they know more than he thinks he knows - especially in the presence of the very real threat that they do actually know more than he actually does.
Panicos K said:
Not pardonable enough, Panikos. If you are accepted by others as a person with a particular ability (because it is their right to by virtue of the positon you are in) your task is no longer individual only. You are obliged, within your ability, to lead by what is true and in the interest of your readership, otherwise you become just one more letter-writer in the magazine.
SY said:
An inability to say "I don't know why" and leave it at that doesn't have anything to do with audio reproduction.
Hi John,
Some comments need to be addressed, and I am not really sure what you are trying to accomplish here. You are simply badgering another member (SY) for no apparent reason. Please, what is your intent?
In post number 466, I defined what it is that makes one tube better than another. This agrees with what SY is doing, and also Morgan Jones. I'm sure many other tube professionals do things in a similar way.
Do you disagree with this at all?
Designing a circuit that operates the tube where it seems to be the most linear (ie: has the lowest distortion) and well within it's ratings is the best design. After all, the refrain I hear most often about high end or great equipment is how close it approaches "a straight wire with gain". I'm not really sure why this mythical wire needs to be straight, but there it is. I imagine a slight bend wouldn't hurt anything as they might be worried about inductance there. A wire with gain with no noise or distortion. Well, the more linear a tubes operation is, the lower the distortion would be. This satisfies the common refrain about really good amplification - yes? In my definition of what makes a good tube, the point was made that consistency from tube to tube is desired (or each tube would have it's own custom circuit, may as well solder them in) and that they produce lower noise and react less to vibration than their brother tubes.
Remember too, a tube with differing characteristics from another will react differently with the surrounding circuitry. This might be audible, but is sure is measurable and reproducible.
He had to put definitions in to keep the challenge to it's original intent. Basically, you have people saying that they can hear things that we cannot measure. Okay, so fine! Take cables that no differences can be measured and tell them apart. What is so outlandish about that? Are these golden eared people so worried that they need two cables that do measure differently to tell the difference?
I can say more, but I'm tired now.
-Chris
Some comments need to be addressed, and I am not really sure what you are trying to accomplish here. You are simply badgering another member (SY) for no apparent reason. Please, what is your intent?
SY answered that. However, another excellent source for comparisons made in a similar manner to what SY has done, that is aside from my own unpublished work, can be found in a book by Morgan Jones, "Valve Amplifiers". In this book, the author embarks on a very similar action in quantifying the differences between tubes of the same or similar construction. His method is scientifically sound and verified through listening tests where the differences can be heard.
In post number 466, I defined what it is that makes one tube better than another. This agrees with what SY is doing, and also Morgan Jones. I'm sure many other tube professionals do things in a similar way.
Do you disagree with this at all?
Designing a circuit that operates the tube where it seems to be the most linear (ie: has the lowest distortion) and well within it's ratings is the best design. After all, the refrain I hear most often about high end or great equipment is how close it approaches "a straight wire with gain". I'm not really sure why this mythical wire needs to be straight, but there it is. I imagine a slight bend wouldn't hurt anything as they might be worried about inductance there. A wire with gain with no noise or distortion. Well, the more linear a tubes operation is, the lower the distortion would be. This satisfies the common refrain about really good amplification - yes? In my definition of what makes a good tube, the point was made that consistency from tube to tube is desired (or each tube would have it's own custom circuit, may as well solder them in) and that they produce lower noise and react less to vibration than their brother tubes.
They may or may not, depending on interaction with the associated equipment. Too many uncontrolled variables to draw any conclusions from. That is the basic problem with "controlled observations" from the audiophile community. The tests are never well controlled, especially the test subjects (judges).
Remember too, a tube with differing characteristics from another will react differently with the surrounding circuitry. This might be audible, but is sure is measurable and reproducible.
John, people are people. Some may be better at certain tasks than others, but no one is perfect like a machine. We do not have a fixed scale to relate things to. In other words, we can only be loosely calibrated, unlike test equipment that can be calibrated to a far lower uncertainty. I am choosing my words here.
Sure it is! Not unless you enjoy being lied to and ripped off. Buyer beware man!
Now that would really kill what's left of the audio market. Truth is a serious adversary to many of the manufacturers out there today.
But John, you're the one who has been attempting to put the onus on anyone but yourself here! You are the one questioning, so I have to assume you have evidence (in the properly accepted definition) to the contrary.
Hardly!
He had to put definitions in to keep the challenge to it's original intent. Basically, you have people saying that they can hear things that we cannot measure. Okay, so fine! Take cables that no differences can be measured and tell them apart. What is so outlandish about that? Are these golden eared people so worried that they need two cables that do measure differently to tell the difference?
I can say more, but I'm tired now.
-Chris
- Status
- Not open for further replies.