Yes, I read up on the ideas behind it, and it sounds a good concept -- but, in the end, it's all about the implementation, and how easy it is to unravel the efforts of the designers by misdirected fiddlings by the user. So, it could have been that the retailer fooling with the settings, trying to make it sound more impressive, that was at fault. Luckily, at the other end of the room was a full Gryphon electronics setup, running through Wilson Sasha speakers, and that at least demonstrated that the demo recordings were quite reasonable, that the tracks hadn't been overly doctored.
At the audio show, Brystons through Dynaudios showed that at least a couple of people know what it is all about,
...
At the audio show, Brystons through Dynaudios showed that at least a couple of people know what it is all about,
...
I'm pleased to note that some people appear to only believe in pure measurement to verify everything - perhaps they should go the full Van Gogh treatment on their ears, and finish off with a nice Matrix direct injection socket on the top of their backs; bypass that annoying subjective mechanism in their heads ...
If I understand what that's saying... that if placebo effects play a major part in the experience, then the literal, physical performance of the audio system is secondary, if not irrelevant?
Actually there is no PURE subjectivist as there is no PURE objectivist. Measurement is a must, and so is subjective listening. But ears alone can never beat measurement alone. The best imo is measurement enforced with listening, because measurement cannot measure everything or we don't know exactly what to measure. And sometimes there is inaccuracy in measurement and simulation, while ears are pretty accurate (of course, only trained ears).
IMO it's secondary at the moment, because insufficient data is easily available to correctly identify what a system is doing "wrong" a lot of the time. I am very partial to certain qualities in the sound being present or not; others may be completely oblivious to these elements, and those people in turn may be intensely irritated by aspects that mean nothing to me.
My wife is easily irritated by certain types of real life violin playing, and many female operatic voices; I, in contrast, get pleasure from the texture of those musical sounds, and have no similar problems ...
The performance of the audio system is always relevant, because that's the foundation for getting the "sound" that makes you happy ... in an ideal world the system would be so 'good' that one could dial in very easily the precise qualities that are personally satisfying: exactly the FR that suits, zero audible distortion or a smidgin of honey, precisely the pattern of reflection in the listening area that you feel is right for the performance, and so on ...
I do believe that the subjective aspect of listening is very strong, and good looking audio components are a help in that - I wish my home built speakers had piano lacquered finish and beautiful detailing. They would sound even better. But there are other forms of this subjective bias: like believing that more expensive = better, which we would do well to educate ourselves out of.
I'm not entirely convinced by measurements. I can conceive of pathologies (good word - I think it was yours, SY) that would evade a few simple measurements. On the other hand, I think that digital sources and cheap amps are pretty good already, and that speakers are where the interesting gains can be made.
I'm not entirely convinced by measurements. I can conceive of pathologies (good word - I think it was yours, SY) that would evade a few simple measurements. On the other hand, I think that digital sources and cheap amps are pretty good already, and that speakers are where the interesting gains can be made.
There was no denying that the Lyngdorf looked the goods -- so it was a bit of a shock to hear how poorly it performed in the dealer's room: grossly overemphasised bass, and an almost invisible treble. Had on a typical jazz demo track, the bass instrument completely overwhelmed the presentation, and the right hand of the piano was almost impossible to pick up, to hear the notes.
My current fooling around with the TV demonstrates that, the speakers there are certainly holding things back ...
Do you believe that the current regime of equipment tests, the ones that are always quoted, are sufficient to always accurately assess fidelity in all areas relevant to hearing?
Not FULLY. I have long tried to understand what makes an enjoyable sound. First is "sonic", a parameter related to transconductance. I like mosfet, but mosfet has problems with capacitance such that it requires considerable amount of current that is difficult to deliver in a design. Many mosfet designs failed to deliver enough current through the VAS. It can be seen from simulation, and relate very well with listening.
This sonic/transconductance behaviour can also be seen in speaker where complex crossover is used. An L-Pad for example, will kill the sonic, such that I have never used any L-Pad, only series resistor, usually in the input.
Active crossover and bi-amping is another solution for such issue.
Phase is the most under-estimated cause of this problem.
Cone breakups is of course another distortion that will kill enjoyment.
But may be the most dangerous one is some kind of intermodulation.
It is also known how spectrum of distortion affect this enjoyment. Second order distortion for example, not as bad as higher order odd order distortion. This is subject to debate about high fidelity I know.
There is no rule saying that we have to comply to any science. Hi-fi is about reproducing signal that isn't the exact real sound.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.