jacco vermeulen said:
They are very similar, alright.
What's missing is lots of LOLs.
Mmmm...
A sockpuppet? 😀
moamps said:
That's not a citation, it's an Urban Legend.
edit: Kelvin was a one-man source of hilarity.
http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/quotes.html
As this has gone so far off topic anyway...
I think the big probem with "audiophilia" in general is that a lot of people are looking for big advances/changes/happenings in the wrong places, this of course is great for/is being propagated by some people, Shakti, C37 etc etc .
For example, amplifiers should just be looked upon as pure gain stages only(although, we all know they aren't), if you want a certain sound(which is fair enough), get an eq for gawds sake.
The moral of the story being "you can only go so far forward, until you start going backwards".
There's no problem with improving your amplifier/s, but there comes a point where you're doing more damage than good, diminishing returns...(this of course carrys across to all other aspects of your system)
Biggest potential problems as far as I can see are (in order of importance):
Stereo source
Loudspeakers
Components
Now, a few people engineer their speakers to a high enough level not to be a problem when reproducing the source, but how correct is the source?
Do any of you really think a "Stereo" recording technique, even with "no processing" is going to come anywhere close to accurately being able to capture, then reproduce a soundfield within your own living room?
I sure hope not. Alan Blumlein knew it wouldn't as early as the 1930's, he settled on Stereo as a format with "enough" of the cues of live music, whilst still being convenient(two speakers). Please note this means a stereo mic set up, not panpotted mono masquerading as stereo!(i.e anything that's been through a mixing desk)
Please keep in mind when you're fiddling with your system for that last ounce of something, just how many flaws are present in the stereo recording on your discs(not to mention the mastering mincer a lot of discs get pushed through!)
Stereo reproduction will NEVER sound like real unamplified music/sounds, you cannot beat the source. Please bare this in mind and try to treat the problems of your system on a hierachical basis, there can be a logical progression.
Infact as much as people talk about amplifiers/speaker cable/components etc, no-one ever talks about Stereo, it's almost as if it's some fantastical thing that is without question. Unless Stereo is questioned by more people, audio reproduction will remain in stasis, as it is the ultimate limiting factor of all our systems.
I think the big probem with "audiophilia" in general is that a lot of people are looking for big advances/changes/happenings in the wrong places, this of course is great for/is being propagated by some people, Shakti, C37 etc etc .
For example, amplifiers should just be looked upon as pure gain stages only(although, we all know they aren't), if you want a certain sound(which is fair enough), get an eq for gawds sake.
The moral of the story being "you can only go so far forward, until you start going backwards".
There's no problem with improving your amplifier/s, but there comes a point where you're doing more damage than good, diminishing returns...(this of course carrys across to all other aspects of your system)
Biggest potential problems as far as I can see are (in order of importance):
Stereo source
Loudspeakers
Components
Now, a few people engineer their speakers to a high enough level not to be a problem when reproducing the source, but how correct is the source?
Do any of you really think a "Stereo" recording technique, even with "no processing" is going to come anywhere close to accurately being able to capture, then reproduce a soundfield within your own living room?
I sure hope not. Alan Blumlein knew it wouldn't as early as the 1930's, he settled on Stereo as a format with "enough" of the cues of live music, whilst still being convenient(two speakers). Please note this means a stereo mic set up, not panpotted mono masquerading as stereo!(i.e anything that's been through a mixing desk)
Please keep in mind when you're fiddling with your system for that last ounce of something, just how many flaws are present in the stereo recording on your discs(not to mention the mastering mincer a lot of discs get pushed through!)
Stereo reproduction will NEVER sound like real unamplified music/sounds, you cannot beat the source. Please bare this in mind and try to treat the problems of your system on a hierachical basis, there can be a logical progression.
Infact as much as people talk about amplifiers/speaker cable/components etc, no-one ever talks about Stereo, it's almost as if it's some fantastical thing that is without question. Unless Stereo is questioned by more people, audio reproduction will remain in stasis, as it is the ultimate limiting factor of all our systems.
Of course the source is the most important component on any system.
If it's junk, everything will sound like junk, no matter what miraculous amp(s), preamp and speakers follow it.
It can get to a point where even an equalizer won't solve the problem.
Btw, stereo is good.
I know what you mean and what comes next, but I don't buy it, sorry...
If it's junk, everything will sound like junk, no matter what miraculous amp(s), preamp and speakers follow it.
It can get to a point where even an equalizer won't solve the problem.
Btw, stereo is good.
I know what you mean and what comes next, but I don't buy it, sorry...
I don't see the problems with modern recordings being limited by being stereo so much as the way they're produced. Most are mixed from several mono sources after being edited to death.
And there's the everpresent compression and signal processing to make music grab people's attention more when it's played on the radio.
If you want any sort of realism, the only way to do it is with live stereo recordings.
I don't see a lot of modern music recorded that way.
And there's the everpresent compression and signal processing to make music grab people's attention more when it's played on the radio.
If you want any sort of realism, the only way to do it is with live stereo recordings.
I don't see a lot of modern music recorded that way.
Good is subjective, what's good for some, isn't good for others.
But accuracy will always be accuracy. The fact remains a lot of people are trying to draw/garner/voodoo more out of Stereo than is really possible, usually with big amounts of misguided money involved. Which, personally I think is a rather sad situation, if I and others can help these people avoid illogical choices, all the better for everyone, no?.
The information is there for those who want it. Don't worry, I don't intend to orate on the point too much.
Any sort of realism from Stereo, that is. There are better forms of recorded realism. Although, as you say, the way modern music is messed with, most usually don't get Stereo right, even though the knowledge of how to do so has been there for decades. A lot of the lessons learned as early as the 30's are readily dismissed, even forgotten by some that call themselves engineers.
But accuracy will always be accuracy. The fact remains a lot of people are trying to draw/garner/voodoo more out of Stereo than is really possible, usually with big amounts of misguided money involved. Which, personally I think is a rather sad situation, if I and others can help these people avoid illogical choices, all the better for everyone, no?.
The information is there for those who want it. Don't worry, I don't intend to orate on the point too much.
Any sort of realism from Stereo, that is. There are better forms of recorded realism. Although, as you say, the way modern music is messed with, most usually don't get Stereo right, even though the knowledge of how to do so has been there for decades. A lot of the lessons learned as early as the 30's are readily dismissed, even forgotten by some that call themselves engineers.
Guys, don't blame the recording engineers. They are just doing what the band/producer/listening public tell them to. "More is better".
Anyone who is also looking for a replacement for stereo, will, unfortunately be dissappointed. Yes, there will be a tiny specialist market, but it's much cheaper and easier to close mic then "pan" things around for multichannel in the studio. True ambient recordings are just too prone to error to make them viable for a consumer that wants more and more music for a cheaper and cheaper price. "More is Better"
It's all OUR fault.
Anyone who is also looking for a replacement for stereo, will, unfortunately be dissappointed. Yes, there will be a tiny specialist market, but it's much cheaper and easier to close mic then "pan" things around for multichannel in the studio. True ambient recordings are just too prone to error to make them viable for a consumer that wants more and more music for a cheaper and cheaper price. "More is Better"
It's all OUR fault.
True, but as engineers, shouldn't they at least try to educate these people about the capture/recording of sound?
Pinkmouse, I'm not really talking about a "panned" system, I'm talking about capturing an event "as it is". But you're right, it is and will likely continue to be a specialist market, regardless of performance.
Isn't most of what so called "audiophiles" do then, just self delusion?. Trying to garner too much from too little...
derf said:
I've been there, there's absolutely no point. Punters/producers/bands don't want accurate sound, it's boring.
Too expensive and too much trouble. Why have an orchestra and a hall for a week, when with multi mic-ing and an inexpensive remix studio you can do it in two takes.
I suspect you're right! But hey, it keeps us off the streets...😉
SY,
I'm disappointed that you weren't familiar with that quote. Thanks, moamps, for answering in my absence.
The idea that Lord Kelvin, who was quite influential in his day (to those who haven't heard of him, think 'degrees Kelvin') could say something so patently silly and short-sighted is proof that celebrity in and of itself does not guarantee veracity.
...Julian Hirsch, anyone?
In Kelvin's defense, it's always easier to criticize things in hindsight. There's another quote to the effect that if a man was to go faster than he could ride on the back of a running horse he would die. I seem to recall that this argument was used in an attempt to discourage people from developing fast trains. In a day and time when the space shuttle regularly swoops around the Earth at 17,000 mph, it sounds preposterous that anyone would have even thought such a thing. But, viewed in the context of the time, many statements make more sense. The rationale for the faster-than-a-horse-can-run statement was that man could not breathe above a certain speed. Ever tried to catch your breath in a really strong wind? Keep in mind that they didn't have wind tunnels and that medical science was more limited then, too. Not quite so ludicrous once you quit sneering and try to understand their point of view. They were wrong. Fine. But give them a little credit for doing what they could with what they had.
tlf9999,
Bravo! Bravo! Well, done! You have managed, with near 100% efficiency, to evade my point entirely.
Or perhaps you simply missed it.
Part of the problem is this absolutist mindset that has taken hold of the world. You absolutely must be either a goose-stepping, Bible-thumping conservative, or a weak-minded, ivory-tower liberal. Either a true-blue American patriot or a bomb-toting Muslim terrorist.
In many peoples' eyes, you are either a tin-eared meter-reader or a soft-headed, gullible audiofool.
My response to this is not printable on this website. It would come out as strings of asterisks.
Distortion figures are somewhat interesting in that anything much over .5 to 1% tells me that there's something pathologically wrong with the circuit and that I'd better go back through and see what's broken. On the other hand, THD readings have virtually no correlation to the sound of an amp. This is trivial to demonstrate. Take two amps that have the same THD spec. Listen to them. If you can't heard a difference, then buy the cheaper one and be happy. If you can hear a difference, then you have food for thought.
Markers to color the edges of CDs, wooden knobs, adhesive dots, weights, wooden stands to hold speaker cables off the floor? Unquestionably there are 'snake oil' products out there. But don't be so quick to assume that any product that doesn't come with a THD spec is BS. Some work. Others are simply clever ways to separate folks from excess cash. To condemn all, though, is to risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Don't believe it? Go back and read some of the scornful comments heaped upon those who dared say out loud that passive components made a difference in the sound. Then read Marsh & Jung's paper on capacitors. Oops! Naysayers wrong again. Did they bother to apologize? Huh! Of course not. Nor did they learn their lesson. You'd think after five or six cycles of this that people would take a more open-minded approach to claims made by people who actually listen to their systems, but human nature doesn't change and the ridicule continues.
I took the THD religion on faith for years and dropped tens of thousands of dollars chasing the wrong things. My system now costs less and sounds much, much better than it ever did.
Was the carpenter at fault? Surely. I bought saws thinking they would help me hammer out problems with the sound. I invested unwisely in screwdrivers to try to cut through the haze obscuring my albums.
All I really needed was a simple tape so that I could take proper measure of the music.
Grey
I'm disappointed that you weren't familiar with that quote. Thanks, moamps, for answering in my absence.
The idea that Lord Kelvin, who was quite influential in his day (to those who haven't heard of him, think 'degrees Kelvin') could say something so patently silly and short-sighted is proof that celebrity in and of itself does not guarantee veracity.
...Julian Hirsch, anyone?
In Kelvin's defense, it's always easier to criticize things in hindsight. There's another quote to the effect that if a man was to go faster than he could ride on the back of a running horse he would die. I seem to recall that this argument was used in an attempt to discourage people from developing fast trains. In a day and time when the space shuttle regularly swoops around the Earth at 17,000 mph, it sounds preposterous that anyone would have even thought such a thing. But, viewed in the context of the time, many statements make more sense. The rationale for the faster-than-a-horse-can-run statement was that man could not breathe above a certain speed. Ever tried to catch your breath in a really strong wind? Keep in mind that they didn't have wind tunnels and that medical science was more limited then, too. Not quite so ludicrous once you quit sneering and try to understand their point of view. They were wrong. Fine. But give them a little credit for doing what they could with what they had.
tlf9999,
Bravo! Bravo! Well, done! You have managed, with near 100% efficiency, to evade my point entirely.
Or perhaps you simply missed it.
Part of the problem is this absolutist mindset that has taken hold of the world. You absolutely must be either a goose-stepping, Bible-thumping conservative, or a weak-minded, ivory-tower liberal. Either a true-blue American patriot or a bomb-toting Muslim terrorist.
In many peoples' eyes, you are either a tin-eared meter-reader or a soft-headed, gullible audiofool.
My response to this is not printable on this website. It would come out as strings of asterisks.
Distortion figures are somewhat interesting in that anything much over .5 to 1% tells me that there's something pathologically wrong with the circuit and that I'd better go back through and see what's broken. On the other hand, THD readings have virtually no correlation to the sound of an amp. This is trivial to demonstrate. Take two amps that have the same THD spec. Listen to them. If you can't heard a difference, then buy the cheaper one and be happy. If you can hear a difference, then you have food for thought.
Markers to color the edges of CDs, wooden knobs, adhesive dots, weights, wooden stands to hold speaker cables off the floor? Unquestionably there are 'snake oil' products out there. But don't be so quick to assume that any product that doesn't come with a THD spec is BS. Some work. Others are simply clever ways to separate folks from excess cash. To condemn all, though, is to risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Don't believe it? Go back and read some of the scornful comments heaped upon those who dared say out loud that passive components made a difference in the sound. Then read Marsh & Jung's paper on capacitors. Oops! Naysayers wrong again. Did they bother to apologize? Huh! Of course not. Nor did they learn their lesson. You'd think after five or six cycles of this that people would take a more open-minded approach to claims made by people who actually listen to their systems, but human nature doesn't change and the ridicule continues.
I took the THD religion on faith for years and dropped tens of thousands of dollars chasing the wrong things. My system now costs less and sounds much, much better than it ever did.
Was the carpenter at fault? Surely. I bought saws thinking they would help me hammer out problems with the sound. I invested unwisely in screwdrivers to try to cut through the haze obscuring my albums.
All I really needed was a simple tape so that I could take proper measure of the music.
Grey
Sir Brian Josephson, once a great scientist, has said some hilariously stupid things too, but that has nothing to do with physics as it's practiced.
At the turn of the 20th century, the dotty Kelvin notwithstanding, there were major problems which were unresolved and well-known to be so. For example, Maxwell's equations, which had been shown to work beautifully, were well known to be incompatible with Newton's laws, which were also quite solid. Lorenz had already stumbled across relativistic transformations; what was that all about? Radiation had been recently discovered and everyone was quite mystified as to its nature. The black body divergence problem seemed to be a huge flaw in thermodynamic models that otherwise worked flawlessly.
Any reading of the journals at that time will convince you that if physics was believed to be over, most physicists didn't believe it. Einstein was that rare convergence of ability and opportunity; after all, Planck gave the major clues about the quantum nature of matter some years earlier. The field was fertile and in great ferment.
No one seriously believes it's over today, but I think it's a good bet that if a revolution in the way we look at the universe occurs, it will probably not be done by a guy selling magic hifi gadgets.
At the turn of the 20th century, the dotty Kelvin notwithstanding, there were major problems which were unresolved and well-known to be so. For example, Maxwell's equations, which had been shown to work beautifully, were well known to be incompatible with Newton's laws, which were also quite solid. Lorenz had already stumbled across relativistic transformations; what was that all about? Radiation had been recently discovered and everyone was quite mystified as to its nature. The black body divergence problem seemed to be a huge flaw in thermodynamic models that otherwise worked flawlessly.
Any reading of the journals at that time will convince you that if physics was believed to be over, most physicists didn't believe it. Einstein was that rare convergence of ability and opportunity; after all, Planck gave the major clues about the quantum nature of matter some years earlier. The field was fertile and in great ferment.
No one seriously believes it's over today, but I think it's a good bet that if a revolution in the way we look at the universe occurs, it will probably not be done by a guy selling magic hifi gadgets.
One more great Kelvin quote, especially relevant to the discussions of feedback here:
"The steam engine has given more to science than science has given to the steam engine."
And a prescient gem:
"I accept no theory of gravitation. Present science has no right to attempt to explain gravitation. We know nothing about it. We simply know NOTHING about it."
This said thirty years before General Relativity. He was dead right.
"The steam engine has given more to science than science has given to the steam engine."
And a prescient gem:
"I accept no theory of gravitation. Present science has no right to attempt to explain gravitation. We know nothing about it. We simply know NOTHING about it."
This said thirty years before General Relativity. He was dead right.
Trying to educate the customers can be counterproductive, they will just hire a "less annoying guy" the next time ! They tell the engineer what they want and he has to deliver.
I have heard a famous recording engineer saying that :"One should not make it as good as possible but only as good as the customer wants."
And with customer he means musicians and producers and not the final listener.
And I am sure that his own specifications of sound quality must be very strict.
When asked about the requirements for signal processing - in order to be regarded as being sonically transparent - he answered that he would not regard anything less than the 32-bit 355.2 k/samples/s processing of his consoles as being sonically transparent !!!
Regards
Charles
This thread is fast becoming a war of words.
As remarked by the late JL Hood in one of his many articles, amplifer design is far from an exact science.
But his gift was to be able to articulate and balance a design so that is not only measured well but indeed sounded very good.
Ian
As remarked by the late JL Hood in one of his many articles, amplifer design is far from an exact science.
But his gift was to be able to articulate and balance a design so that is not only measured well but indeed sounded very good.
Ian
Some time ago, a recording engineer told me this. For pop music (not the heavy jazz ones😀), the final sound is judged by playing that recording in a USD50 compo (integrated tape/tuner/amp that can be handheld, powered by 6 batteries).
If the mixing is not good in this USD50 compo, he will remix it again until it sounds good in that compo.
With the same limited bandwith of the compo, usually if the mixing is succes with compo, it will also sounds good in TV audio system. No need for golden ears and 20hz-20khz system to do that.😀
phase_accurate said:
That is very true. Engineers, especially the bad ones, tend to think that being technically great is the #1 priority. A lot of them lost their jobs because they were never able to see the forest but just the trees.
I was once told that having the right technology accounts for just 10% of the success of a project. Understanding where the market is and how to approach your customers will carry you a long way towards being successful.
Since when? Not the 2 companies I worked for... In both cases we built according to what the marketing departments wanted based on our customers wishlist the direction of the market and our budget.
Now you are going to demonize technical greatness and hi acheivement in design and the people who bring high quality to the market place?
Did it ever occur to you the only reason anyone cares about distortion and any other other spec is because it is based on what we can hear... That is the sole purpose of specs... So we know what to expect from a product...
Do you really think that specs are some engineers play toy simply to see who can beat who regardless of all else, like nothing else matters, the equipment can be a real pos as long as the specs are good? You obviously know nothing about engineering and who we have to answer too...
Technically great is in fact the number 1 priority in an engineers eyes and should be in everyones elses as well.... and any design is simply best compromise usually focusing on what ever it is the company wants to have as "claim to fame"... everything in every design is best compromise for whatever product you are trying to build... granted not all engineers are created equal and some do not choose the "best" compromise and over look something that can make the product sound horrible like feedback delay of 1ms for instance which is well in the range of hearing simply because it is not listed on the standard spec sheet... (so they can get away with it)
You are really doing the audio community a disservice by promoting this ignorant thinking as it is so grossly incorrect and totally misrepresents the goals of the typical engineering department...
Specs determine performance... specs are only made as a measure of quality to let us know how close we come to an ideal "whatever"... and so we can choose which spec is most important to us before purchasing...
Specs are a definition of what we "hear", in audio or in many cases what we do not want to hear... Companies that try to "sneak" things under table to claim greatness in one area while forsaking all others speaks poorly for the company not the use of specs...
If you feel that there needs to be more specs written on a spec sheet than are standard today to completely define an amp or anything else then petition AES to recommend it or go direct to the ieee...
The fact of the matter is regardless of """YOUR""" abilities or lack of is that specs do in fact tell you how a piece of equipment will sound, (IF YOU UNDERSTAND THEM), provided the company who created them and it are responsible and honest and as I said not trying to sneak something through.
You and it seems several others out here do not have a clu how to buy an amp on specs and have exactly what you want to hear... You never took the time or were simply to lazy to coordinate what you hear to the specs on the equipment you listened to...
Then again if you have a love affair with distortion like so many others out here then specs are pretty meaningless just go to radio shack...
Engineers get paid to improve products not go backwards and if you have not looked around you tubes and tube sound is a very small minority in the audio world... think about it, most other people do not like distortion either and they have all went to transistor and the market follows what the "majority" wants...
Whatever the case its a shame to demonize specs and the engineers who give you truly high quality because you do not understand how to use them...
So now that I seem to have this little project well under way I have been thinking about what tests to show you all regarding tube and other high resistance amps versus the lo z amps...
I was thinking negative feedback, which of course is a delay issue... I can take a pic of that as well as taking some pics of how well a speaker is controlled with these various source resistances... Here is your change guys... any other tests that you want performed? I wont take the time to do spectral because I would have to do it all by hand and I frankly am not willing to devote that kind of time to this... I am open to suggestions however if there is some spec that you all would like to see illustrated that takes a reasonable amount of time I will include it...
I hear the word sound stage thrown around a lot... I would also like to know exactly what that is if someone would describe that to me... I am intimately familiar with image but soundstage I am not sure "exactly" what that is... Is that the old rather lost concept that you can hear the placement of every instrument in the band sort of thing?
Anyway, anything you folks want tested in this little adventure is up for grabs and as long as I have the equipment to accomplish it and as long as it it not a huge undertaking I will be happy to add them to the adgenda...
One last thing to debug in this program here and I should get this thing installed in the few days, so if all goes well I should be able to start taking a look at this little adventure by the end of this week or beginning of the next...
Lots to comment on out here and I wil get to it later...
I was thinking negative feedback, which of course is a delay issue... I can take a pic of that as well as taking some pics of how well a speaker is controlled with these various source resistances... Here is your change guys... any other tests that you want performed? I wont take the time to do spectral because I would have to do it all by hand and I frankly am not willing to devote that kind of time to this... I am open to suggestions however if there is some spec that you all would like to see illustrated that takes a reasonable amount of time I will include it...
I hear the word sound stage thrown around a lot... I would also like to know exactly what that is if someone would describe that to me... I am intimately familiar with image but soundstage I am not sure "exactly" what that is... Is that the old rather lost concept that you can hear the placement of every instrument in the band sort of thing?
Anyway, anything you folks want tested in this little adventure is up for grabs and as long as I have the equipment to accomplish it and as long as it it not a huge undertaking I will be happy to add them to the adgenda...
One last thing to debug in this program here and I should get this thing installed in the few days, so if all goes well I should be able to start taking a look at this little adventure by the end of this week or beginning of the next...
Lots to comment on out here and I wil get to it later...
This sounds very like a designer intent on delivering his techno-centric perception of what the market needs and be damned with what the customer actually wants........
I would stress that decades of engineering masterpieces and wonderful specs have still not given us measurements which can be predictably and easily relied upon to tell the consumer exactly how it will sound.
Hugh
- Status
- Not open for further replies.