Sound Quality Vs. Measurements

Status
Not open for further replies.
You think of yourself as an audio engineer, Mr. Krueger ?

Among other faults, Mr Kruger has a propensity to quote out of context. His modus operandi appears to be to belittle others. It is clearly important to him - so let it be.

It is a great loss to the forum that he operates in this antagonistic manner as he has clearly got a lot of knowledge to impart on a variety of subjects.

But, wherever he posts he provokes response such as this.
 
Thanks for that.

I sometimes have to use the equipement that is to hand. The first thing I do is workout how best to use it from my idea of how it might fail. That always seems to be 50/50 hearing the reality and 50% finding it better or worse than thought.

Often with a few pennies of parts it can be made to work. I will give an example. My friend Pippa is ex BBC and a very proud lady. If I gave her some junk speakers done up a bit she would accept them. Some JPW Sonata's were given to me. First mod was harvesting all the dead cans of black paint from the workshop. Just enogh to cover up the horrible life the speakers had had.

The sound was dreadful which was hard to understand as mostly they were a safe bet design with excellent boxes. They were a clone of some MS speakers.

First I removed a resistor from the tweeter. It just about started to sound as if the tweeter was working after that. Next I reversed the phase of the tweeter which seemed better.

Finally I used up all my fancy damping stuff. Bits too small to be useful which I was too mean to throw away. Thus three types used including the original. I became mildly happy with the speakers after that. It was only when giving them away that I realised they had been transformed and somehow were not so much worse than the BBC LS3/5A. If I am honest I think they were in some ways better. Space in the music was better than average. They were my kitchen speakers for a while. They were to replace AR-7, Pippa's ones had foam rot.

Rather say something is good or bad I try to make it work.
 
@arnyk


We all know that even the best (in the view of reviewers and/ EEs) can never get close to the original despite the concerted efforts of everyone in the chain of recording events applying their really finest efforts at every stage of the process.


For me the above is more than ample to accept the inevitable conclusion that recordings be they in print, on tape/digital media etc are each and all imperfect and will never be capable of re-capturing the original..
 
Among other faults, Mr Kruger has a propensity to quote out of context.

If that were really true you could put the context back in, and show that I was construing your words to mean something else.

Seeing that you have never done such a thing...

His modus operandi appears to be to belittle others. It is clearly important to him - so let it be.


Reality is that people who can't handle different thoughts and beliefs than theirs often see things that way.

It is a great loss to the forum that he operates in this antagonistic manner

Friendly advice - Quit making technical mistakes. Learn how to deal with people that don't believe identically the same as you.

as he has clearly got a lot of knowledge to impart on a variety of subjects.

That goes hand and hand with what I just said.

But, wherever he posts he provokes response such as this.

Simply not true, and oh by the way yet another personal attack. It shows far more about you than I.

Obviously you are unaware of the fact that their are forums where my viewpoint is the generally accepted viewpoint, period.

You would seem to need to get out more...


Or, this forum could be more accepting of alternative viewpoints.
 
The difference between the perceived original (in this case landscapes) and the best re-mixed digital screen image capture is even greater...and we know that the original 'take' can never be more than an image...not a facsimile of the original scene.
Much of my spare evenings were spent listening to live music in about as broad a variety of locations, performers and genre as can be imagined. Luck has had it that I also have been lucky to have been able to borrow for extended periods some of the then best audio equipment available; many pieces being prototype equipment.

We all know that even the best (in the view of reviewers and/ EEs) can never get close to the original despite the concerted efforts of everyone in the chain of recording events applying their really finest efforts at every stage of the process.


For me the above is more than ample to accept the inevitable conclusion that recordings be they in print, on tape/digital media etc are each and all imperfect and will never be capable of re-capturing the original.

That is known to be true.

Rather than take any existing form of equipment testing as a reference to human perception of that equipment it would be far more interesting - and useful - to take a representative cross section of music lovers to three or four totally differing live performances given in a variety of locations and to then interview these same people on their perceptions, and most of all, on what elements of the live performances were most important to them.

Such a test, repeated with varying groups of listeners, would give the audio designers, and maybe the studio people, quite a different set of targets to hit than would even the best test equipment and EE (as known) skills.

The self-deceit is the clear belief the people doing the work and well-informed EEs don't listen to live music, can't hear the problem, and don't know all about the inherent imperfections in our current recording technology.

The problem is generally quite clear in the output of the mic preamp(s), if one is needed.

It can be shown that good mic preamps are sonically transparent, so that means that the problem would be equally clear at the output terminals of the microphone if the signal were large enough to directly drive headphones or speakers.

One of the common audiophile myths is that the audible flaws in good amps and preamps is the cause or at least a strong contributor to the lack of realism that we all perceive.

The problem is far more pervasive then that, and is being actively attacked from a number of far more productive directions than obsessing over minute failings of amps and preamps.
 
If that were really true you could put the context back in, and show that I was construing your words to mean something else.

Seeing that you have never done such a thing...

post no. 17,803 applies!


As for your further post.........if it makes you happy I concur;) There is a discernible mellowing from the position taken in your previous post. Keep up the good work.
 
Seems reasonable to me. Hifi is not exact science, we don't have to make a rocket landing on a comet at milions of kilometers from our planet. It is for the unique pleasure of our ears. Or, sometimes, for some of us, for our job.
So choosing what we "prefer" is the only goal.
That's not the definition of hi-fi in sound reproduction world. "No-fi" or "self-fi" would be more fitting to your description.
 
I was told and I take it to be true some hi fi revieiwers marked real music as not very good and the hi fi better on a blind test. That isn't as bonkers as it sounds. As Andrew pointed out simple hi fi with expert microphone set up can sound very real ( Andrew, take it you did ). If the hi fi was louder which might because the measuring microphone wrongly calibrated this could happen. The hi fi could be brighter and sound more open. What I think really happened was that people loose confidence when blind testing. I was told the real musicians was a secret.

I would agree about Audiophile myths. I would say one thing. Most average gear sounds poor to average. It can very often be transformed into something that sounds very good. How many people in the world could do that? Not many. Audiophile gear often works well over a wide spectrum. The dealer can sell it without fear of it not working. They also take more money. Status comes into it.

I have always been able to get Audiophile sound from the NAD 3020. This is because it is an Audiophile product ( 92 watts dynamic 2R ). 2 x NAD 3020 even more so. One as pre, other as power. If you can't make one sound good go away and learn how. I repaired a 3020, my son has stollen it. I didn't have the NAD caps so had to use Audiophile types ( cheap ones like Panasonic FC ). This wasn't an upgrade, it was repair. It is wonderful and I am told not coming back.

The Dynaco ST70 is not so different. Blind test that and I think you will find it true. Wide sound stage and slightly dull. Many would not accept that. Sorry guys they are similar. Both are wonderful. A NAD makes a good ST70 preamp if needs must. The fact ST 70's works at all is a delight. Dejan, it's more simple than even I dream possible and it uses junk tubes like 7199 ( TV tube with hum shield, highly parabolic without feedback ). The pentode could have more gain. Hafler didn't do that !!!! It has the best sounding capacitors in the world. That is mostly it has none. As in the RCA 7199 circuit the pentode is DC coupled to the phase spitter. From memory the RCA had Schade feedback from EL34's. The stanger part of this is RCA never gets a mention. The Dynaco obviously is an RCA or Hafler did it for RCA. The Schade circuit is 1938 used on 807. The RCA uses UL also. I suspect the RCA had a gain stage.

Good speakers are very rare. Spendor Prelude is good, an exciting BC1. Lenco 75 works ( Kills most turntables including SP10, I mean that ). CD, goodness knows.
 
Just saying...

1 : 'audio engineers (don't) listen to live music and use their listening experiences for a reference in their work'

2 : 'take for example engineers that also have years of experience recording live music, such as myself...

1 + 2 is elementary.

(aka you display lack of rational thinking, and posted a 2nd offence of insinuation plus provocation. Just saying, as far as diyA members go, you have nothing to offer, though quite a few of your 1214 posts were highly amusing)
 
Last edited:
1 : 'audio engineers (don't) listen to live music and use their listening experiences for a reference in their work'

2 : 'take for example engineers that also have years of experience recording live music, such as myself...

1 + 2 is elementary.

(aka you display lack of rational thinking, and posted a 2nd offence of insinuation plus provocation. Just saying, as far as diyA members go, you have nothing to offer, though quite a few of your 1214 posts were highly amusing)

Taking most of your recent postings as examples of what you presumably think constitutes rational thinking, I thank you very much for the gratuitous insults in this post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.