Basing on how operational amplifiers work, with feedback, it woult lead to a fair comparison : if the Op amp works by comparing its output by connecting it to its differential input, the result is that the job made by the Op amp is to
make useful output of the error that is internally elaborated.
Which is also the job of any electronic device meant to operate in stabilty.
Also the loudspeakers are inherently band limited and operate in a defined pass
band🙄
make useful output of the error that is internally elaborated.
Which is also the job of any electronic device meant to operate in stabilty.
Also the loudspeakers are inherently band limited and operate in a defined pass
band🙄
Actually I'm not trying to use anyone's definition. I'm trying to use terminology that I think has close meaning to what I want to express. For me "clinical" is "clean" but not good.
I don't have enough vocabulary (I don't understand what "pristine" is, in the true sense or even in the not-so-true sense of the word. But I think I have quite listening experience.
Like I said, there are a lot of types of measurable distortions. And that's not all about it.
So now what do you think about opamp sound 😀
Opamp sound is fine ... some of my best listening experiences have been through opamps, 😛 😀 ...
But, they force you, the person who owns the audio setup to be more fussy about everything, sloppiness in setup will be penalised ... 🙂
For a start, true "invisible speakers" are not a problem to achieve when driven by power ampliers based on opamps ... 😉
I share these prejudices. In my imagination, op amps thicken the sound, whereas discrete circuitry is lean and clean - maybe it's to do with picturing the sound being squeezed through a physically small circuit while the discrete circuit is spread out and gives the sound 'room to breathe'. Regulated supplies for power amps are contributing their own audible characteristics by 'fighting' the amp - and they're kind of like amplifiers anyway - while unregulated supplies are 'loose' but slow moving, so the power amp can easily outfox them. What other prejudices do I have? Plenty, but mainly they're superstitions that assume that the physical form of the hardware is reflected in the sound it produces. I don't think I would ever have been infected with these superstitions without reading the words of otherwise sensible intelligent people who talk about these things as though they are incontrovertible fact. So a plastic op amp is going to sound plasticky and cheap while a ceramic one will sound cool and clean - but be careful it doesn't go brittle under stress!
Subjectivists are sometimes surprised by the hostility they encounter from objectivists, but I think I understand where that hostility comes from: objectivists crave to read about their kind of audio, but everywhere they turn they come across 'New Age' superstition.
So objectivists get antsy because subjectivists won't supply them with their particular drug of choice. Yep makes sense but doesn't explain why objectivists became junkies in the first place.
Tip: You can save a lot of energy in the summer by standing here. With all the handwaving, there's a nice breeze and little need for air conditioning.
Sorry. I'll just stick to talking in an authoritative manner about the night and day differences between cables. Single Ended Triodes sound more realistic than solid state with a strength and solidity that belies their power - it's just a fact. 24/192 is night and day better than 16/44.1. None oversampled DACs are better than those new fangled ones. Surface mount components rob the music of its vitality.
Normal service is resumed. Sorry to have upset the apple cart!
Surely nothing can be more realistic than a Direct Cut LP played on an acoustic gramophone? Snag is you can only play it once as the required tracking force distorts the groove. Still, a small price to pay for authentic sound. The best electronics is no electronics! Cryo-treatment of the clockwork spring means you only have to wind it 10 times during an LP side, instead of the usual 12.
SET is so 1930's; for good sound you have to go back to the roots of recording.
SET is so 1930's; for good sound you have to go back to the roots of recording.
Let's see ... there was a thread around, oooh, started over 10 years ago: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/6224-subjectivist-vs-objectivist.html - have we moved one tiny fraction of an iota forward in mutual understanding since then .... ?
one pattern constantly emerging here on diyaudio goes like this.
'subjectivist' (I'm using quotes because I don't agree with the dichotomy which is Jihad-making) says measurements don't explain everything. fine. no problem with that at all. but then subjectivist comes with an objective explanation which contradicts the most easily observable reality.
since somehow this simple pattern is not so obvious (I don't understand why), I'll resort to the car analogy again.
say that car A is faster than car B. then someone, ignoring all the other construction details says "it's because car A has has square pistons". but when the cylinder head is taken off, regular round pistons are exposed.
being right is one thing. being right for the wrong reasons is quite different.
take the Accuphase example. the false assertion about them not using op amps.
I happen to have looked in some of their service manuals. even in their best preamps, op amps are all over the place. hope I don't break any law by writing this, but I'll give you something. the AAVA volume control is based on 16 current sources which are implemented as modified Howland topology. each current source has two compound arrangements (op amp + transistor buffer), the positive FB loop containing one of the two op amps. so 32 op amps per each side in the 'signal path' (using quotes because this 'signal path' abstraction does not have a correspondence in reality in my opinion, everything is in the signal path even if it isn't in the signal path). like I previously said, I'm assuming (maybe I'm wrong and they somehow decided to cut on quality so that buyers buy preamps from other brands) that these preamps are matching their top of the line amps in quality, because those amps don't have volume controls so they must be deigned to work with preamps of some sort. yes, the op amps are low noise types but they're not even among the usual suspects. and they're VFB types.
and this is only the volume control section. I'll count the total number of op amps if someone is curious.
it's funny that no subjectivist ever notices some of the issues I've described. I guess they have their own drug too, and maybe that is vague speculation.
PS: I'm having a lot of fun using the ignore feature of this forum.
umm, no. and it definitely doesn't have anything to do with the tendency of some people to throw random false assertions that they think to be inherently correct. no, definitely not related. and definitely not related with an obvious talent for ego-boosting one liners which some users constantly show.
Last edited:
I'm glad I am not the only one to notice this phenomenon. It can be particularly seen in some advertising. Snake oil vendors might expand their market to include some who know a bit of science, if only they dropped all pseudo-science from their ads as that acts as a clear warning sign to scientists that they should steer well clear. Better to stay silent and be thought a fool, than open your mouth and confirm it!mr_push_pull said:
Some of the issues raised by the true believers might have some substance to them, but their silly and clearly false explanations put thinking people off thus widening the gap.
But that isn't fine if their justification is "Measurements don't explain everything because I can hear a night and day difference between two pieces of equipment where measurements show no difference." Because right from the off, there's a very real question over their (or anyone's) ability to overcome their prejudices or 'experimental errors' (which is putting it kindly because there's usually no form of experiment involved in the scientific sense of the word). I am very open minded about the deficiencies of measurements but the debate can go nowhere unless the debators acknowledge that their ears and imaginations are fallible. I'm half-convinced that my need to tweak (as described at the start of this thread) is 'all in the mind' but on the other hand... I think my lack of emphaticness is quite rare around here.
PS What is the ignore feature of this forum, and why is it fun?
I absolutely agree.
IMO imagination is only a minor part of the issue. I can accept that many reported differences are not imagined. IMO the major part of the issue is that many times they start from a self appointed superior position. the 'objectivists' are constantly accused of acting like know-it-alls, while some of the 'subjectivists' do it even more often.
regarding the fallible ears...
one example. I'm not an absolute adept of DBT testing. I think it's partially flawed, even if only in procedure. but at the same time, I'm constantly reminded in real life that the loudest system actually seems to sound better. while it's very seductive to think that level difference alone can't explain it, well... maybe just try it and see. funniest thing is that many times I myself don't do it, because I'm too convinced my ears can't fool me. maybe so, maybe not. while I do hear rather large difference between amps, at the same time I know I'm too subjected to bias and it mustn't be ignored only because it's part of a creed I don't absolutely follow.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that nothing is black and white but most of the time we seem to forget it.
Last edited:
Coppertop:
Need to tweak is that you do use science, you do see improvements, and your guests express refinement in your results. Reflection on natural question of further improvement is inevitable. This is amplified by analytical training your ears have received in pursuit of what starts as a hobby.
A little bit more thought fodder:
Above is spectrogram from impulse response measurement made at 23cm of Pluto Clone implemented with DCX2496 as active crossover providing only 1kHz Linkwitz-Riley 48dB/oct filters.
Intensity of reflections as horizontal bands is clearly seen. A complex temporal situation.
The impulse response is inverted, and is likewise a complex temporal situation:
No form of smoothing is applied in generation of the inverse. It is convolved with sweep used for making corrected measurement:
Some might say the reflections are gone. Better is that reflections of room correlated to source, at source.
So I would not assume anything about treating your room prior to a tweak that will put a smile on your face.
Need to tweak is that you do use science, you do see improvements, and your guests express refinement in your results. Reflection on natural question of further improvement is inevitable. This is amplified by analytical training your ears have received in pursuit of what starts as a hobby.
A little bit more thought fodder:
Above is spectrogram from impulse response measurement made at 23cm of Pluto Clone implemented with DCX2496 as active crossover providing only 1kHz Linkwitz-Riley 48dB/oct filters.
Intensity of reflections as horizontal bands is clearly seen. A complex temporal situation.
The impulse response is inverted, and is likewise a complex temporal situation:
No form of smoothing is applied in generation of the inverse. It is convolved with sweep used for making corrected measurement:
Some might say the reflections are gone. Better is that reflections of room correlated to source, at source.
So I would not assume anything about treating your room prior to a tweak that will put a smile on your face.
this is one of my favorite 'subjectivist' claims. I read it on a local forum and I'm quoting from memory. guy wrote:
"I don't believe FLACs are really lossless. and I'll tell you why. on my PC it takes just a bit more time to make a FLAC compared to mp3s. how can that be?"
and he also felt he needed to end it in the typical superior 'subjectivist' manner:
"and you tech guys, please refrain from telling me it's not so because I don't care what you think".
I believe it perfectly illustrates what I wrote above: he comes with a gratuitous objective explanation (no matter how oversimplified it is, it is still objective). and refuses any other explanation. makes a lot of sense. it's ok to say "to me FLACs sound worse, compared to WAvs but I don't have an explanation". really no problem with that, I'm not even saying it's impossible. tossing coins in order to choose an explanation is not ok.
I think 'subjectivism' comes from a genetic or acquired need to believe. believe in this context meaning that one chooses the explanation that best resonates with oneself on an emotional level. the 'subjectivists' I actually know in real life have an obvious passion for the esoteric and the occult, preferring the most spectacular explanation, and I'm not referring to audio only. many times they reject the most plausible explanation only because it's not spectacular enough.
want another example for this too?
had a conversation with a friend about amplifier 'driving' ability. at one point he tells me that he happens to know that the speaker impedance plots seen online are smoothed and hide many nasty peaks and vallyes. at this point it should be noted that he never measured the impedance of a speaker, which I did many times. I also happen to know that when doing at at low signal levels I need to close the window because the microphonic behavior of the drivers becomes and issue and bird's song starts to show in the impedance plot 🙂 as peaks and valleys. so, no, really no 'hidden' smoothing feature in the SW. wanna know how the conversation ended? he said "your explanation seems plausible but I still believe I'm right and you are wrong." note the emphasis 🙂
and some still keep wondering how come there's no foreseeable reconciliation.
"I don't believe FLACs are really lossless. and I'll tell you why. on my PC it takes just a bit more time to make a FLAC compared to mp3s. how can that be?"
and he also felt he needed to end it in the typical superior 'subjectivist' manner:
"and you tech guys, please refrain from telling me it's not so because I don't care what you think".
I believe it perfectly illustrates what I wrote above: he comes with a gratuitous objective explanation (no matter how oversimplified it is, it is still objective). and refuses any other explanation. makes a lot of sense. it's ok to say "to me FLACs sound worse, compared to WAvs but I don't have an explanation". really no problem with that, I'm not even saying it's impossible. tossing coins in order to choose an explanation is not ok.
I think 'subjectivism' comes from a genetic or acquired need to believe. believe in this context meaning that one chooses the explanation that best resonates with oneself on an emotional level. the 'subjectivists' I actually know in real life have an obvious passion for the esoteric and the occult, preferring the most spectacular explanation, and I'm not referring to audio only. many times they reject the most plausible explanation only because it's not spectacular enough.
want another example for this too?
had a conversation with a friend about amplifier 'driving' ability. at one point he tells me that he happens to know that the speaker impedance plots seen online are smoothed and hide many nasty peaks and vallyes. at this point it should be noted that he never measured the impedance of a speaker, which I did many times. I also happen to know that when doing at at low signal levels I need to close the window because the microphonic behavior of the drivers becomes and issue and bird's song starts to show in the impedance plot 🙂 as peaks and valleys. so, no, really no 'hidden' smoothing feature in the SW. wanna know how the conversation ended? he said "your explanation seems plausible but I still believe I'm right and you are wrong." note the emphasis 🙂
and some still keep wondering how come there's no foreseeable reconciliation.
Last edited:
Hi mr_push_pull
I agree with much that you say.
However, in your latest post you say:
But earlier you said:
Is there a significant difference between these two positions? On what basis do you simply "accept" other people's (and your own) reported differences?
In the past I have been shocked by my own ability to mentally fabricate audible differences that did not actually exist (e.g. I later found my headphones were plugged into the wrong socket). I have no reason to doubt that other people also have this imaginative talent, so I simply cannot accept their anecdotal reports of 'night and day' differences between cables etc.
I agree with much that you say.
However, in your latest post you say:
But earlier you said:
Is there a significant difference between these two positions? On what basis do you simply "accept" other people's (and your own) reported differences?
In the past I have been shocked by my own ability to mentally fabricate audible differences that did not actually exist (e.g. I later found my headphones were plugged into the wrong socket). I have no reason to doubt that other people also have this imaginative talent, so I simply cannot accept their anecdotal reports of 'night and day' differences between cables etc.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.