Of course, one could go so wrong just sitting at one end or the other 😎
I got the feeling that at the weekend I spoke to people at varying points along the aforementioned spectrum. And it was nice to see them playing so well together. People were very humble about what they'd made and that was fantastic to see. I don't actually see where science comes into DIY audio as a hobby. My subwoofer will never be used as a bass-cannon by the US military and my preamplifier will never be used by NASA to help calibrate a space ship... It just makes me happy 🙂
I got the feeling that at the weekend I spoke to people at varying points along the aforementioned spectrum. And it was nice to see them playing so well together. People were very humble about what they'd made and that was fantastic to see. I don't actually see where science comes into DIY audio as a hobby. My subwoofer will never be used as a bass-cannon by the US military and my preamplifier will never be used by NASA to help calibrate a space ship... It just makes me happy 🙂
SimontY said:I'm saddened to see even this thread get swept away by "subjectivism vs objectivism" as does every other thread on this otherwise great forum.
Is every mod posting on this thread now too??
I'll bring my non-measured CD player to the next meet and the scientists can do a double blind test (maybe when I'm off having a beer or something) and see if they can tell the difference between onboard laptop sound and excellent CD player. I wonder if they can 🙄
Of course the answer to that is an easy one. 😉
What would be more interesting is taking upper echelon CDP such as yours and pitting it against a PC/Mac with a sturdy soundcard connected to external DAC's and maybe a masterclock thrown in. Basically something similar to that what we were talking about at the meet.
I suspect the lines of distinction between the two would be rather more blurred. It would certainly bring into contrast the viability of the PC as a good or bad source for higher end reproduction.
Also did anyone hear the Tent Labs CDP? We mentioned about the sources not being optimal and I know this was at the meet but never saw or heard it in action.
ShinOBIWAN said:
I saw it being taken into the little hall on Saturday when Vik had his Orions in there, but never got chance to pop in and hear it.
Hi all
All I know as I said at the meet was I can listen to my LP's all day (as i used to when i had no CD player) and yet probably no more than 2-3 cd's at a time.
I know for certain my marantz will measure better than my Rega - but to my ears the turntable sounds more musical, you could even say the CD produces more people with instruments than my turntable, but the later players know how to play these instruments.
Regards
John
All I know as I said at the meet was I can listen to my LP's all day (as i used to when i had no CD player) and yet probably no more than 2-3 cd's at a time.
I know for certain my marantz will measure better than my Rega - but to my ears the turntable sounds more musical, you could even say the CD produces more people with instruments than my turntable, but the later players know how to play these instruments.
Regards
John
SimontY said:
The science is the measurement and design side or at least it can be.
I was surprised how many people at the meet said they tweaked or designed by ear and intuition. I'm not sufficiently learned or experienced enough to do that myself. I know what sounds good but I find I struggle to get there without the measurements.
I, and I think most of the other people who do measure, follow a pattern of tweak, measure, re-tweak and re-measure until the accuracy of the system follows closely the text book wisedom. Then from there they listen and expand upon that by going with their ears/heart and exploring the subjective knowing they're working from a good base. So in essence its a fairly equal dose of subjective and objective - your using two powerful tools to get one result.
But designing using just one ideology likely yields lesser resuls. Having said that I do think its possible to create a good sounding speaker using entirely subjective measurement (at least in the eye of the beholder) however I'm not convinced doing the same but with an objective approach would offer as good results. The better designs seem to have that objective grounding but are subjectively tuned for further gains.
Very good points Shin and I'd also like to hear your outboard DAC in the same setup as a decent CD player.
As you're only in Chez-vegas, why don't you pop round to mine and listen to my "upper echelon" (I wish) CD player? I'd love to know what you think!
John,
The CD63 is (strictly in my opinion) not a very good CD player until it has been modified. You know the thread to go to when you're ready mate.... 😀
Before I hit the hay I'd love to point out how deliciously ironic I find it that such a great sounding pre-amp was designed by someone who comes across as an outspoken measurements person. And furthermore it has a valve in it!! Terrific stuff.
As you're only in Chez-vegas, why don't you pop round to mine and listen to my "upper echelon" (I wish) CD player? I'd love to know what you think!
John,
The CD63 is (strictly in my opinion) not a very good CD player until it has been modified. You know the thread to go to when you're ready mate.... 😀
Before I hit the hay I'd love to point out how deliciously ironic I find it that such a great sounding pre-amp was designed by someone who comes across as an outspoken measurements person. And furthermore it has a valve in it!! Terrific stuff.
SimontY said:I'm saddened to see even this thread get swept away by "subjectivism vs objectivism" as does every other thread on this otherwise great forum.
Me too.
SimontY said:
I'd like to see an non-modified version of the player tested as well 🙂
sploo said:
Not exactly a measure but related... the saga of the supraBaffle on the RonHorn A126...
Ron designed it 1st with enuff midrange gain so that the horn action filled in the baffle-step. This meant a small CC so that the horn would go high enuff.
When Chris & i built this we communicated to him that the speaker has a cupped sound in the midrange & that hogging out the CC improved things no end.
Ron then went back and actually found what we heard in the simulation math & fixed it.
dave
In your example I'm pretty sure that 0.001% THD will sound better than 50% THD.
But depending on the distribution of the harmonics. A particular amp with 9% THD can sound better than an amp with 1% THD.
Apparently your experience is somewhat limited. Not only is it aguable, it is competely wrong. The CD playback system cannot, and probably will never, match the quality of playback that a modern first-rate vinyl front end is capable of providing. The main drawback of such an analogue system is that it is pricey, so there is a certain amount of jealousy among people who are stuck with relatively cheap digital hardware and software. Of course, these types are in the majority. Read Stuart's signature and you can see where this leads.
Obviously, the statements I've just made of subjective, but they are are based on a consensus of subjective opinions.
When Sony released the SACD, their claim was that "digital is now as good as analogue". SACD is now dead and new remastered vinyl is still being reissued and sold out.
There is really no reason for a Hi-Fi publication to test their review samples because they have already been tested by the maufacturer. The accusations flying about this thread and in this forum touting objectivity over subjectivity only amount to polemic.
I can't wait until until some scientist is able to develop a system whereby he can objectively analyze the performance of a pianist or orchestra so we will all know which ones to buy. Then we will have no use for those artsy fartsy music reviewers and their ridiculousy languaged reviews.
John
Test done by the manufacturer are worthless because they are not objective, and you don't know the conditions.
Every audio publications should test their samples, it is very important. For me, a magazine that only listen to components without any measurements and technical analysis of the products is not serious.
Measurement do not tell all the story, but measurement can tell a lot.
Analog distortion vs digital recording distortion
Some vinyl playback does sound different , and better, than the equivalent digital CD recording . It's not just frequency response or the mix. It sounds better to the ear . The vinyl playback must have more distortion than the CD playback and I do not think that the vinyl distortion is the cause of the difference.
( Unfortunately there are poor vinyl transfers too! )
For this one you need to hear it yourself before you come to any conclusion. Get a CD and vinyl copy of the same album and compare. So this will prove that more distortion is not necessarily a criteria for poorer sound.
Vinyl does have it limitations but .....................listen and then make a statement. You do not need a multi thousand dollar analog set up to hear the difference.
I can see flames in the distance but then that's inevitable .😀
Some vinyl playback does sound different , and better, than the equivalent digital CD recording . It's not just frequency response or the mix. It sounds better to the ear . The vinyl playback must have more distortion than the CD playback and I do not think that the vinyl distortion is the cause of the difference.
( Unfortunately there are poor vinyl transfers too! )
For this one you need to hear it yourself before you come to any conclusion. Get a CD and vinyl copy of the same album and compare. So this will prove that more distortion is not necessarily a criteria for poorer sound.
Vinyl does have it limitations but .....................listen and then make a statement. You do not need a multi thousand dollar analog set up to hear the difference.
I can see flames in the distance but then that's inevitable .😀
Eh?jlsem said:
Firstly, since when did we take Sony's marketing claims as gospel, and secondly a new product failing for various reasons does not mean it is worse than an old established products which is still selling.jlsem said:
ok, I must be missing the sarcasm here.jlsem said:
Could it be that you're being more passionate about your pov than objective?jlsem said:
As for the THD talk, we all know, or should do that single number systems have and will always be used to make things simple for those who don't want all the info, or can't understand it. BHP, Watts, MHz etc. etc.
Scientific/Objective approach to designing audio stuff is a means to an end. It's passion from the musician on the input, and hopefully the same on the output. You don't want someone's subjective meddlings in the middle. Who's recording is it anyway?
V
I get the distinct impression from Vik's (amusing) thread name that this isn't going to go anywhere useful... Oh well, here we go...
Could you reference some of those? It was a fairly strong claim, so I'd be interested in reading about these discoveries.
Note: after writing the above I saw your post on the RonHorn A126.
There is a difference between having something in the data, but not spotting it, and not having the capability to measure it. I have no doubt there's tons of information in measurements I've taken that I have neither the experience or skill to adequately decipher.
My point is that I do wonder if there's much else - that would make a major audible difference - that we cannot already measure with available gear. Is it a case that he'd missed something in a measurement, or found something completely new - i.e. some phenomena that would either not have been measured, or would have been measured but wasn't known (by that I mean nobody would have spotted the issue by simply looking at the measurements)?
Whilst it's true that you're not just sitting back and listening to the music, human perception means that doing this isn't a sufficiently controlled way of identifying differences.
If two sources can be tested under blind conditions, and no audible differences can be found, then surely that does answer the question as to whether they would sound different when 'just sitting back and listening'.
It does strike me that there's not much that's scientific or statistical about 'kicking back and absorb the musical gestalt'.
Could you give examples of what apparatus you are referring to that would degrade the samples under test? Bearing in mind the number of parts of electrical and electronic 'stuff' that's usually in the chain of any audio system - such as the many meters of cheap wire usually found in a crossover inductor.
Feel free to take a couple of days to get some examples you think are worthwhile, as I won't be able to get near a PC again until the weekend.
Agreed. Numbers without sufficient context are rarely useful. But then numbers can be useful, whereas I would argue that subjective and perceptive information is almost always not useful.
planet10 said:
Could you reference some of those? It was a fairly strong claim, so I'd be interested in reading about these discoveries.
Note: after writing the above I saw your post on the RonHorn A126.
There is a difference between having something in the data, but not spotting it, and not having the capability to measure it. I have no doubt there's tons of information in measurements I've taken that I have neither the experience or skill to adequately decipher.
My point is that I do wonder if there's much else - that would make a major audible difference - that we cannot already measure with available gear. Is it a case that he'd missed something in a measurement, or found something completely new - i.e. some phenomena that would either not have been measured, or would have been measured but wasn't known (by that I mean nobody would have spotted the issue by simply looking at the measurements)?
planet10 said:
Whilst it's true that you're not just sitting back and listening to the music, human perception means that doing this isn't a sufficiently controlled way of identifying differences.
If two sources can be tested under blind conditions, and no audible differences can be found, then surely that does answer the question as to whether they would sound different when 'just sitting back and listening'.
It does strike me that there's not much that's scientific or statistical about 'kicking back and absorb the musical gestalt'.
Could you give examples of what apparatus you are referring to that would degrade the samples under test? Bearing in mind the number of parts of electrical and electronic 'stuff' that's usually in the chain of any audio system - such as the many meters of cheap wire usually found in a crossover inductor.
Feel free to take a couple of days to get some examples you think are worthwhile, as I won't be able to get near a PC again until the weekend.
planet10 said:
Agreed. Numbers without sufficient context are rarely useful. But then numbers can be useful, whereas I would argue that subjective and perceptive information is almost always not useful.
I've always worked on the basis that when a human being is involved, then it's all subjective.
That said, good test and measurement protocol and equiptment as well as an open mind makes a huge difference. As does having a minimal emotional stake in the result. If you hear something different, then maybe there is a reason; go looking for it. Our ear/brain interface is an amazing discriminator, when used properly and trusted. It can also lead to incredible delusion.
Ain't being human fun?
That said, good test and measurement protocol and equiptment as well as an open mind makes a huge difference. As does having a minimal emotional stake in the result. If you hear something different, then maybe there is a reason; go looking for it. Our ear/brain interface is an amazing discriminator, when used properly and trusted. It can also lead to incredible delusion.
Ain't being human fun?
Do you think the recording artists and music producers would agree with your claims of CD Vs. vinyl and accuracy of playback? I’d argue that the music producer, who ultimately decides exactly what is sellable and a finished product, can say objectively, which sounds better. The few musicians I know emphatically prefer CD to vinyl and in fact, were disgusted with what had to be done to their music (see below) in order to put it on vinyl. They’ve said a CD is as close as possible to what they listened to in the recording studio.
Do you have any idea of how much EQ’ing, filtering, compression, speed alteration, and bandwidth limitations music must endure to produce vinyl? Because vinyl has a finite amount of “bandwidth” that can be physically cut into it (in the mastering process) the very waveforms of the recorded music must be modified, from the original master tapes, in order to fit. For example, if an orchestral piece is 33 minutes long, it simply won’t fit in the physical medium unless the bass is severely rolled-off or the piece is sped up.
Sure, vinyl may sound “better” which is to say it has a particular EQ’ing that gives it a warm, rich sound unlike a CD that may sound flat and sterile (on some systems) playing the same song.
Personally, I’ll stick to CD with its accuracy, repeatability, and longevity. A $250 CD player will give me near flawless performance for decades and let me hear exactly (99% +) of what famous musicians want their audience to hear. It also lets me focus on the weakest part of most all playback systems: the speakers. I’ll also leave the snake oil and $2,000 power cords to the subjectivists and like MRI machines and aircraft, I’ll stick to science.
Do you have any idea of how much EQ’ing, filtering, compression, speed alteration, and bandwidth limitations music must endure to produce vinyl? Because vinyl has a finite amount of “bandwidth” that can be physically cut into it (in the mastering process) the very waveforms of the recorded music must be modified, from the original master tapes, in order to fit. For example, if an orchestral piece is 33 minutes long, it simply won’t fit in the physical medium unless the bass is severely rolled-off or the piece is sped up.
Sure, vinyl may sound “better” which is to say it has a particular EQ’ing that gives it a warm, rich sound unlike a CD that may sound flat and sterile (on some systems) playing the same song.
Personally, I’ll stick to CD with its accuracy, repeatability, and longevity. A $250 CD player will give me near flawless performance for decades and let me hear exactly (99% +) of what famous musicians want their audience to hear. It also lets me focus on the weakest part of most all playback systems: the speakers. I’ll also leave the snake oil and $2,000 power cords to the subjectivists and like MRI machines and aircraft, I’ll stick to science.
Which manufacturers do you know of who don't scientifically test their product before it goes on the market? A testing-based reviewing process can only lead to a regression in design philosophy where products are designed to meet testing standards set by reviewers. Remember the seventies?
How many times have you read in John Atkinson's equipment-test
sidebars "based on these tests, I don't understand why it sounds as good (or bad) as it does", or words to that effect?
OK, I have a typo there. It should read "...the statements I've just made are subjective, ...". However, I still consider it a valid statement.
Have you a hearing problem?
John
- Status
- Not open for further replies.