That’s a logical, but potentially faulty, assumption on your part, but, okay. Let’s grant that the input signal to the effects-box is absolutely perfect according to the standard audio measurements, THD, noise, FR, etc. - I’ll leave aside for the moment, the fact that the objective performance of electronics has long since surpassed human hearing acuity. So, by definition, the effects-box is altering the measured objective perfection of the input signal in order to produce a playback which sounds significantly closer to the original live performance. Would you accept such playback, or would you reject it because it altered the input signal to achieve that?
We come full circle. Which type of system performance is the most important? What is the ultimate purpose of a music reproduction system? Is it to satisfy spectrum analyzer measurement, or is it to reproduce music which humans find perceptually indistinguishable from original live event? Once you come to grips with answering that question to yourself, you can let go of the intellectual trap of concluding that a perfect signal transfer path is the most which can, or should, be aspired to for a playback system. Yet, as I point out above, the signal transfer path (short of the speakers) is effectively already perfect because it well exceeds human hearing acuity? Achieving THD that’s double-digit zeros to the right of the decimal point will not move the music as sounding any closer to the original live event.
Last edited:
Dunno. Looks to be about like what I expected. Modulator noise aggravating the opamps. Easy enough figure that out with some hardware experiments and listening tests. That said, the distortion residual Scott Wurcer posted some time ago was also a pretty good clue.
I'm a right to beleive that you think that electronics are about perfect (tend to agree!) byt speakers are still problematic?
So when you add an amp with a lot of 2nd and you think it sounds better - isnt that then a speaker fault compensation?
But here is an other situation for you... so now the perfect speaker appears on the scene - do you switch out your effect box?
Or do you stick with it and discard the perfect speaker as being too "warm" - and get stuck under a glass roof because of an effect box amp "that will stay forever".... ?
Effect boxes hinders development as I see it.
And this is why they are necessarily undesirable.
Avancez!
- - - - - -
Still, if you keep the effect box even with a perfect speaker - the logical conclusion is that you don't like reality. You want something else. This is logic that must follow... no?
//
Last edited:
Agreed.
Complementary distortions certainly could result in a lower net distortion, and which could sound audibly cleaner. However, that’s not an example of an ‘effects-box’ as presented in the thought experiment. The purpose of the thought experiment is to force a binary choice between having an objectively perfect signal transfer that sounds obviously electronically reproduced, and an altered signal (call it distortion, if you like) which, for some reason, sounds much closer to the original live acoustic event.
Good question. It would depend on whether perfect speakers rendered the sound as more like the original live event than does the effects-box. Assuming, that, together, they don’t move the sound even closer to the live experience.
This notion often comes up. To which, I ask, how convincingly like a live event does your system sound presently with an essentially perfect signal transfer path, short of the speakers, of course? Does it even sound anywhere close? Would adding perfect speakers make the system chain then sound much closer to the live event? There’s no way to be certain, lacking perfect speakers to subjectively evaluate the sound experience of.
I would only keep the effects-box with perfect speakers, should the pair produce sound which together was closer to the live performance event than can either separately. The ultimate system goal, for me, is to convincingly reproduce the the auditory experience of the live performance event. My point all along has been, what’s wrong with whatever box may move you closer to that goal? Whether that means adding, OR subtracting some system component.
Last edited:
Its a shame that the last 50 posts have nothing to do with the OP’s preamp design, but all about sniping back and forth about a topic that has no answer. Shouldn’t this be the stuff thats bantered about in the Lounge forum? It’s equivalent to listening to opposite political parties throwing insults, not compromising and not listening to what the other side has to say.
Isn’t this forum supposed to be for enjoyment and hobby time? Not for listening to more bickering like in everyday “real” life.
Come on Fellas! Please bring this fight to a different ring that welcomes this topic with willing combatants.
Cheers!
Isn’t this forum supposed to be for enjoyment and hobby time? Not for listening to more bickering like in everyday “real” life.
Come on Fellas! Please bring this fight to a different ring that welcomes this topic with willing combatants.
Cheers!
Why must it be one or the other? Is there not ancillary gear with the attributes you mention that are objectively accurate? What makes you conclude such are lacking musicality? If they are, you have a beef with the audio engineer, no? No two amps sound alike so it's always a subjective comparison.
Yes, exactly why they are able to cater to the subjectivists, which they do.
You have it...umm..."bloom", "slam", "warm", "fat", "full", "thin", "sizzle", etc. My personal favs.. "boom boom", "gag", and "hurl".
Sorry to read that you feel that way, Vunce. Especially, because, it seems to me, that your observations are largely reflexive, and of the, having-skimmed-the-surface-of-a-few-posts, type of quick reaction, and not indicative of the substantive, and relevant to the WOT design, discussion which took place. I won’t waste effort in attempting to recount all the places that show a different character of discussion than what you describe. Suffice to say, that little of the discussion involved sniping, and much less, if any, involved insults. Perhaps, you would have enjoyed, and learned something from the discussion if you had actually read it, because it sort of appears that you didn’t.
Last edited:
Who said it has to be one, or the other? You’ve made a bunch of similarly inaccurate suppositions about what I’ve suggested. My thought experiment, which you may be conflating, was internationally framed to force a binary choice regarding system end purpose. I’ve repeatedly stated that my ultimate (wishful thinking, as it is) objective is reproduction which is indistinguishable from the original live performance, had I been there to hear it. Not a preference for emotionally moving sound, no matter how inaccurate to the sound of the live performance. The choice you reference was only to make the point that emotionally moving reproduction, is preferable to emotionless reproduction.
At some point in the future, I believe that we will have identified and presented metrics which accurately and reliably serve as a proxy for how a system will subjectively sound to human beings. Experience, however, shows many of us that typical component specifications do not currently serve that purpose. What they do, is to accurately quantify the performance of the signal transfer path. Which has not been sufficient quantification for a system whose end purpose is human music perception.
Last edited:
I wish to make mention to everyone that I retract what I wrote to Vunce, in post #131. We’ve since corresponded off-thread, where he made clear that his post was not directed toward me, which I had mistakenly presumed that it was. Turns out that he’s really a good natured fellow, and I had given him quite the piece of my mind in my post. My apologies, Vunce. 🙄
Last edited:
He is still posting at ASR.
No wonder he disabled his account here. Just look at this very thread. Off topic posts and thread hijacking are more a rule than exception.
Quality of threads is plummeting, with rare exceptions. The same old arguments are being raised again and again with nothing learned in between. Moderation is too gentle and trolls are thriving. Just look at the case of some ‘Evilharmonics’ member who was for years ruining every thread where someone dared to mention any subjective opinion on sound. Justice was served recently and he is banned, what is a huge step forward for this forum. Why it took so long?
Just an observation:
ASR is an rigid objectivity based site. They tolerate little to no subjective viewpoints, based on my own experience with them. Which is perfectly fine if that’s all one believes is relevant to audio. diyAudio accepts a much broader spectrum of viewpoints. As such, it inevitably attracts a much wider audience, with a much wider range of experience. Which means, there will be a greater percentage of trolls, and other n’er do well type personalities. ASR also has it’s ‘objectivity trolls’ and bullies, to be sure. In addition, I believe that the diyAudio site contains a much greater number of building projects. Which cater to the absolute beginner, up to well the seasoned craftsmen. Just my two-cents.
Last edited:
To make very clear. Scott was never any of those things. He was always the gentleman, who knew more than most of us without needing to constantly demonstrate that fact.
IMHO audio is a pursuit that thrives on a mix of objectivity and subjectivity. Any site that excludes either gets boring pretty quickly.
That's exactly why I'm not a member at ASR. 😆IMHO audio is a pursuit that thrives on a mix of objectivity and subjectivity. Any site that excludes either gets boring pretty quickly.