Mr Carr
Very enlightening indeed. Of course i made the insensitive remark half joking, but would never have thought that an experienced listener can be easily misled by visual and other non-related cues. Having heard many high-end commercial products, some highly praised in the press, i have usually felt disappointed rather than exalted after a first hand experience. Still, my observations on other's reactions is very limited indeed. Again, an excellent post and another one to enter my collection of JCarr's posts (my favourite is the story about the Riken resistors and cheap opamps in the Sony DAC).
peter
Very enlightening indeed. Of course i made the insensitive remark half joking, but would never have thought that an experienced listener can be easily misled by visual and other non-related cues. Having heard many high-end commercial products, some highly praised in the press, i have usually felt disappointed rather than exalted after a first hand experience. Still, my observations on other's reactions is very limited indeed. Again, an excellent post and another one to enter my collection of JCarr's posts (my favourite is the story about the Riken resistors and cheap opamps in the Sony DAC).
peter
Soft vs hard
I didn't read the 150 or so post on this thread and I don't drop in to actually discuss the subject but I have a view point that could explain the difference in sound of different pads.
The idea is that different pads will stress the chip waffer differently, this is, a soft pad will stress more the waffer than a hard one. Also the heatsink surface flatness where you mount the chip will also play it's roll on this. All this is more evident when you use a simple screw to press the chip against the pad/heatsink.
On the same idea the tork you applay to the screw on a specific combination of pad/heatsink flatness combination will also play its roll.
So, if we come to a conclusion (not saying that this is) that a stressed chip waffer causes a degradation to sound we would have to work with very flat heatsink surface plus a hard pad and clamp the chip with a bar on top of the chip using one srew to each side of the bar.
My
I didn't read the 150 or so post on this thread and I don't drop in to actually discuss the subject but I have a view point that could explain the difference in sound of different pads.
The idea is that different pads will stress the chip waffer differently, this is, a soft pad will stress more the waffer than a hard one. Also the heatsink surface flatness where you mount the chip will also play it's roll on this. All this is more evident when you use a simple screw to press the chip against the pad/heatsink.
On the same idea the tork you applay to the screw on a specific combination of pad/heatsink flatness combination will also play its roll.
So, if we come to a conclusion (not saying that this is) that a stressed chip waffer causes a degradation to sound we would have to work with very flat heatsink surface plus a hard pad and clamp the chip with a bar on top of the chip using one srew to each side of the bar.
My
SY said:
point well taken, SY.
analog_sa said:
Peter, take a look at the tube vs. solid state test posted by Dr. Leach. Very informative.
I've pulled a couple of irrelevant posts at the end (including my own). Let's all try to keep things on topic and away from personalities. Thanks, guys.
Reply to Jonathan Carr (not wanting to repeat his post):
Jonathan, very enlightening. I have a story that may interest you although it concerns vision rather than hearing.
This is a man who, because of some local brain damage is blind, that is he is unaware of visual images. Yet, his eyes, nerves system and brain vision center is OK.
He is shown cards with a line on it and is asked to "guess" the orientation of the line (remember, he is " blind", lives in the dark).
Yet he scores almost 100%. When confronted with this, he gets angry, thinks he is ridiculed, he's blind for pete's sake!
So, he "saw" nothing, but was able to tell what was in front of his eyes.
Moral: you can be completely unaware of any clues or sensory impressions, but your body still recognizes them and acts on them.
Jan Didden
Jonathan, very enlightening. I have a story that may interest you although it concerns vision rather than hearing.
This is a man who, because of some local brain damage is blind, that is he is unaware of visual images. Yet, his eyes, nerves system and brain vision center is OK.
He is shown cards with a line on it and is asked to "guess" the orientation of the line (remember, he is " blind", lives in the dark).
Yet he scores almost 100%. When confronted with this, he gets angry, thinks he is ridiculed, he's blind for pete's sake!
So, he "saw" nothing, but was able to tell what was in front of his eyes.
Moral: you can be completely unaware of any clues or sensory impressions, but your body still recognizes them and acts on them.
Jan Didden
Hi Jan,
Now I may have an interesting analogy for you too:
When walking down a quiet street with buildings on both sides you suddenly here pianomusic coming from an open window on the first floor.
Can you tell within a split second whether this is a real instrument being played or a recording being played back?
To some people water is just that: water.
Other people may have other sensitivities which makes me come to the conclusion that in most cases DBTs are more telling of the nature of the participants than of the DUT.
I won't make any sweeping generalisations on this kind of topic but I can surely tell a Heineken from a Stella.😉
Not that I think either beers are particularly fine brews...far from it.😎
Now I may have an interesting analogy for you too:
When walking down a quiet street with buildings on both sides you suddenly here pianomusic coming from an open window on the first floor.
Can you tell within a split second whether this is a real instrument being played or a recording being played back?
To some people water is just that: water.
Other people may have other sensitivities which makes me come to the conclusion that in most cases DBTs are more telling of the nature of the participants than of the DUT.
I won't make any sweeping generalisations on this kind of topic but I can surely tell a Heineken from a Stella.😉
Not that I think either beers are particularly fine brews...far from it.😎
For me, 99% of the time, yes. Live music doesn't sound brilliant, or liquid, or ethereal, or any of the other flowery reviewer adjectives for electronic devices. It just sounds... live.
Hi,
Precisely.
Now, the question is how on earth does this mechanism work?
Is it the more extended bandwidth, if any, we perceive from the life instrument?
Personally, I don't think so.
Then, by deduction, is it the recognisable harmonic correctness of the instrument that sets it apart from the recording?
That, and other factors, I think are closer to the truth.
I may have opened a can of worms here, I really don't mind, but I'm conviced that what Peter Daniel, Peter..well Analog-SA and many others hear are overtones that remind us of what the real instruments should sound like.
Now, if Peter Daniel would forgive me for speaking from experience: never tune a system for a particular result from a single recording, been there done that....it's a "faux pas".
I can 'splain it if Peter wants me to...
Cheers,😉
Precisely.
Now, the question is how on earth does this mechanism work?
Is it the more extended bandwidth, if any, we perceive from the life instrument?
Personally, I don't think so.
Then, by deduction, is it the recognisable harmonic correctness of the instrument that sets it apart from the recording?
That, and other factors, I think are closer to the truth.
I may have opened a can of worms here, I really don't mind, but I'm conviced that what Peter Daniel, Peter..well Analog-SA and many others hear are overtones that remind us of what the real instruments should sound like.
Now, if Peter Daniel would forgive me for speaking from experience: never tune a system for a particular result from a single recording, been there done that....it's a "faux pas".
I can 'splain it if Peter wants me to...
Cheers,😉
Hi,
I ask.
In the meantime I'm having fun with the Steinway and the Ciney Bleu...😉
I'm all ears Yehudi,😎
I ask.
In the meantime I'm having fun with the Steinway and the Ciney Bleu...😉
I'm all ears Yehudi,😎
fdegrove said:
been there too. It may sound very good on one recording but very bad on something else. Especially when you vary your material from jazz, classical, industrial and punk😉
But there is always a common ground, were all recordings sound pretty good.
Hi,
Good...now, lets bring on the violins.😉 and some Jethro Tull
for good measure.
Everybody knows I'm as thick as a brick already...
Cheers,😉
Living on Aqualungs nowadays....
Good...now, lets bring on the violins.😉 and some Jethro Tull
for good measure.
Everybody knows I'm as thick as a brick already...
Cheers,😉
Living on Aqualungs nowadays....
SY said:
Well I really value the musical satisfaction more than others.
For the same reason, I prefer music of the live record to the studio make-up.
fdegrove said:
Last time I went with my instinct, it wasn't pleasant at all explaining to our LPs that we lost their money.
Unless you show me the money, I am not a believer, to quote "Jerry McQuire".
Millwood, that's your privilege. In matters of life, death, and money, I'm inclined to take a hard skeptical line, too. In this case, we're not curing cancer, we're building hifi equipment, so I can take a "judgement suspended pending evidence" point of view and still be able to sleep at night.
I agree that the probability that this is a "real" effect is low, but it's not zero.
I agree that the probability that this is a "real" effect is low, but it's not zero.
hmmm.
Interesting discussion.
Over the past year or so, I have heard several folks (Jimmy Vaughn, Dave Alvin, Dave Mason) making recordings in a good performance space. Listened to them make it. Vocal and 6 string mostly. Then heard same being played back though a Cost Is Pretty Much No Object reproduction chain.. more than 5 million in cost, including the Sony Oxford desk. I would never be fooled into confusing the two - but in each case the recording was amazing in quality.
So it raises the question to me - is our goal as fanatics to best reproduce what was laid down on those tracks? Or is to make a noise that we enjoy, without regard to what "true"? If it is A that we strive for, then the rigors of a scientific approach seems to me to be the only path. If it is B, the the subjective approach is not only good, but best.
I know the scientific approach is *very* hard in this area. I spent 15 years working in the behavioral health care field. To make a point, if you ask 20 psych's if mutliple personality disorder actually exists - you would get about a 50/50 opinion. Testing and studies, especially for drug therapies, often take many years and many millions of dollars often with confusing results. The systems we are dealing with are identical here - our brains have much more to do with our hearing than our ears.
Now, I have had audio as a hobby for decades and have worked in broadcasting for around 10 years total. In recent years, I have been amazed by some really bright people who work in the perceptual audio field - through them, I have learned that the scientific approach does work - if quite difficult to do right. While this discussion has often come close to going over the edge, it is important to DIY in general. I think it is very important that proponents of any scheme - pads, interconnects, chip amps, take your pick - speak of thier gear correctly. If you make a statement as fact, be prepared to prove it. Every thing else should be clearly marked as opinion in a manner that a newbie could not confuse it as a proven fact.
I know that making it Fact is hard - but is do-able. The preceptual guys have proven it to me. I think it is intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise.
excuse the rambling here. I hope I got my point across
Interesting discussion.
Over the past year or so, I have heard several folks (Jimmy Vaughn, Dave Alvin, Dave Mason) making recordings in a good performance space. Listened to them make it. Vocal and 6 string mostly. Then heard same being played back though a Cost Is Pretty Much No Object reproduction chain.. more than 5 million in cost, including the Sony Oxford desk. I would never be fooled into confusing the two - but in each case the recording was amazing in quality.
So it raises the question to me - is our goal as fanatics to best reproduce what was laid down on those tracks? Or is to make a noise that we enjoy, without regard to what "true"? If it is A that we strive for, then the rigors of a scientific approach seems to me to be the only path. If it is B, the the subjective approach is not only good, but best.
I know the scientific approach is *very* hard in this area. I spent 15 years working in the behavioral health care field. To make a point, if you ask 20 psych's if mutliple personality disorder actually exists - you would get about a 50/50 opinion. Testing and studies, especially for drug therapies, often take many years and many millions of dollars often with confusing results. The systems we are dealing with are identical here - our brains have much more to do with our hearing than our ears.
Now, I have had audio as a hobby for decades and have worked in broadcasting for around 10 years total. In recent years, I have been amazed by some really bright people who work in the perceptual audio field - through them, I have learned that the scientific approach does work - if quite difficult to do right. While this discussion has often come close to going over the edge, it is important to DIY in general. I think it is very important that proponents of any scheme - pads, interconnects, chip amps, take your pick - speak of thier gear correctly. If you make a statement as fact, be prepared to prove it. Every thing else should be clearly marked as opinion in a manner that a newbie could not confuse it as a proven fact.
I know that making it Fact is hard - but is do-able. The preceptual guys have proven it to me. I think it is intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise.
excuse the rambling here. I hope I got my point across
Sawzall
'B' every time for me.
I mean what point is there otherwise?
I've not been to many live concerts, of any genre, that haven't had me captivated, emotional, dancing, tapping feet, singing etc.
If music at home does this, I couldn't give a stuff about accuracy, if accuracy means boredom.
Of course it may be possible to have both, but B comes first!
Cue flames 😉
Andy.
'B' every time for me.
I mean what point is there otherwise?
I've not been to many live concerts, of any genre, that haven't had me captivated, emotional, dancing, tapping feet, singing etc.
If music at home does this, I couldn't give a stuff about accuracy, if accuracy means boredom.
Of course it may be possible to have both, but B comes first!
Cue flames 😉
Andy.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.