View Full Version : When and why do 'objectivists' trust their ears?
{The following discussion was moved from The Gallery: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?p=219934#post219934 }
Hi Alan,
Thanks Marco, back in the 80s we were selling the LO7D at £1400 and I think at that time an LP12 was £248...
Lol - that puts things into perspective nicely :eyebrows:
They also made the LO7C pre-amp,(which I sold to buy the Spectral) LO7M power amps and the less powerful but more responsive LO5M amps,( which were the inspiration for the Albarry M408s) then the LO1A integrated amp (I still have) and the matching LO1T tuner which you can see on my pics.
Ah, I hadn't thought of the L-07D as being part of an all-Trio system... That must've been quite something! :eek:
You're right about the engineering, everything on it was designed to cancel out conflicting resonances, It weighs 72 lbs,the arm is a mixture of carbon, beryllium and cobalt if I remember right, even the internal arm wires are silver and glued down to reduce vibrations( technical guys can google it) the arm has a massive clamp to hold it still and 10 revolutions of the little side wheel raises the arm 1mm. some machine eh!
Bloody phenomenal. I may yet treat myself to one! :)
Btw, I was reading the 'warm welcome' you received on Wigwam, particularly after mentioning Gripper-rods (me thinks you've spent too much time with Dave Cattlin, Larry, el al (!) although I've been through the whole ferrous metals thing myself, and know exactly where you're coming from) but what gets me with the rather blinkered and often condescending 'scientific fraternity' is this:
If we all agree that when designing hi-fi equipment, it's not only necessary to measure, but also to listen, after all no specialist audio equipment, as far as I'm aware, is designed solely by measuring, then what exactly is being assessed during the design listening process which can't be measured??
The fact is, whatever *that* may be, is still a valid consideration out with of the above process....
And of course if, as quite clearly is the case, there exists effects we can hear during the listening process, when evaluating (and voicing) equipment for manufacture, which can't be measured, then what else can't we measure that exists when listening is carried out by the consumer in his or her home, such as the sonic effect of stands and cables, or moving Gripper-rods in and out of the listening environment? ;)
The point I'm making is this: we can't just switch on and off the need to use our ears, and trust what they tell us, simply when we consider it justified. It's either a valid and necessary process ALWAYS, in certain situations, or it isn't!
Therefore, why do the most staunch objectivists clearly embrace the need to listen (and trust their ears in the process), as well as measure, when equipment is being designed, yet seemingly abandon any willingness to trust their human senses after that process (or at least not admit to not doing so on forums), when evaluating other aspects of how a hi-fi system reproduces recorded music at home?
It just doesn't make sense! :scratch:
Would anyone care to forward a credible explanation for this phenomenon?
Marco.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
31-05-2011, 11:10
Marco I think you are being naive about manufacturers listening, companies that come from enthusiast who create them listen but companies who are then sold to corporate capitalism don't or just pretend to. Large companies are all about people keeping their jobs and getting the job of their superior, so the levels of bullshit as opposed to reality that exist within the company even exceed that which they foist onto their customers.
A classic example which I lived through in the 1970s was Acoustic Research, started by enthusiasts who measured and listened and produced good product. Sold to Teledyne an example of corporate america, and they just employed executive bullshitters. They had an existing driver range and the marketing men just put them in any box or mix that matched a price point. The guys in the white coats with their anechoic chamber were given the job to make the specs *seem* as good as possible, and people with ears just shut up and said they were wonderful to protect their jobs.
Some were good some were crap as should have been expected, and then the marketing men stacked them all up into a pile and called it the AR Stack and tried to sell it as the way to dem them in shops, all at different angles some on their side just to fit in the stack and sold with a comparator. Well then they all sounded crap as they were all reduced to lowest common denominator as all the cabinets were *speaking* at once no matter what was playing.
They brought this abortion from the States and set it up at Houghton Regis in a big promo to the staff, as we listened all the UK tech guys looked at each other and frowned as we were given the sell and the dem, a lot of shuffling around and false smiles from the audience apart from one person who said it was crap and they should think again, well within a couple of months that guy was out, thankfully as he started his own company after that - me! And that range was the downfall of AR as only a couple of the speakers sold (notably the AR17 which was adopted by the flat earth) and they went from a dominant UK position (even over the like of Kef and B & W) to closing the UK factory within 5 years.
You see this with most of the large companies and you can tell very easily who has the nounce and who hasn't. If it is largely a matter of luck if a speaker or amp in the range has it, and the products don't have a *family sound* then they really haven't got a clue, it is all internal pretence and marketing, and I could name loads of companies like this. This is an enthusiast industry and only works if it stays that way.
Hi Richard,
An interesting account of events, indeed! I take your point, but of course I was referring to specialist, non-mainstream, equipment when mentioning about manufacturers measuring as well as listening.
There are companies, such as AVI, who claim to listen as well as measure, when designing their products, and it was this (and other similar instances) that my questions were directed at.
Ashley James, for example, is notorious for claiming the importance of measurements (and I agree it is essential when designing equipment), but he also claims that they listen to their equipment, and that this influences the final result - so what exactly are they listening for that they can't measure??
By definition, of course, it is then being admitted that there are effects in audio which can be heard, yet not measured, so therefore what else exists in audio that comes under the same category??
And why is the process of trusting one's ears seemingly only considered by objectivists as a valid judgement criterion when equipment is being designed, but not afterwards?? The validity of that assessment procedure cannot simply only apply during the equipment design process.
This is essentially what I'd like an answer to:
Therefore, why do the most staunch objectivists clearly embrace the need to listen (and trust their ears in the process), as well as measure, when equipment is being designed, yet seemingly abandon any willingness to trust their human senses after that process (or at least not admit to not doing so on forums), when evaluating other aspects of how a hi-fi system reproduces recorded music at home?
Would you, or anyone else, care to offer any thoughts on that? :)
Marco.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
31-05-2011, 12:06
It is all brainwash and ego. The ego is that if you buy complex test equipment and learn how to use it then it makes you feel superior to the normal common hi-fi enthusiast, so that is the way you portray yourself - as superior. Brainwash comes from schooling and passing exams. Passing exams makes you think you are an expert and anything that doesn't fit the equations or your teaching is obviously just fantasy.
Also there is a presumption that what we can measure now is all that could be possible to measure. Think about it! how and why do test equipment designers and makers build their gear and for what purpose - to sell them! They are made of the same components my equipment is made from, for them to truly test they would have to be a factor of ten times better than the thing they are measuring, but they can't as the components they use are also available to us - So my little joke is would you give the job of designing and building a cow to another cow, a fatuous and pointless process. Talking amps, test gear should be used in the early circuit design stage to make sure it is fit and safe for purpose, and then it should be used in end of line test rigs to ensure product consistency in the major parameters, and then it should be used by repairer to find what is wrong and check they have fixed it. BUT for making a product sing and play real music the only test gear you need is your ears (and maybe the little hairs on the back of your neck). Music appreciation is an emotional / energetic process not an intellectual process within the human. We go to concerts with our ears and hearts not with test gear.
Sometimes you even have to go against the test gear, if it sounds better no matter what you distortion analyser / scope / whatever says, then it is better - full stop.
Things are changing now with computer modelling, but that still just gives you the same old parameter it just makes the process more predictable. Until they invent new things to measure then designing audio gear purely with test gear is like trying to paint the Mona Lisa with a hammer and chisel.
Also there is a presumption that what we can measure now is all that could be possible to measure. Think about it! how and why do test equipment designers and makers build their gear and for what purpose - to sell them!
They are made of the same components my equipment is made from, for them to truly test they would have to be a factor of ten times better than the thing they are measuring, but they can't as the components they use are also available to us - So my little joke is would you give the job of designing and building a cow to another cow, a fatuous and pointless process.
Until they invent new things to measure then designing audio gear purely with test gear is like trying to paint the Mona Lisa with a hammer and chisel.
Excellent post, Richard. I am of course in full agreement, particularly with the points above.
I shall comment more later after (a likely boozy) lunch outdoors. Del's making Osso Buco, the weather is nice, and we have a rather fine Barolo to devour!
Laters... :cheers:
Marco.
.
BUT for making a product sing and play real music the only test gear you need is your ears (and maybe the little hairs on the back of your neck). Music appreciation is an emotional / energetic process not an intellectual process within the human. We go to concerts with our ears and hearts not with test gear.
Well said Richard
Muisc is an emotional/energetic experience and needs to engage us on this level
HighFidelityGuy
31-05-2011, 12:38
It is all brainwash and ego. The ego is that if you buy complex test equipment and learn how to use it then it makes you feel superior to the normal common hi-fi enthusiast, so that is the way you portray yourself - as superior. Brainwash comes from schooling and passing exams. Passing exams makes you think you are an expert and anything that doesn't fit the equations or your teaching is obviously just fantasy.
Also there is a presumption that what we can measure now is all that could be possible to measure. Think about it! how and why do test equipment designers and makers build their gear and for what purpose - to sell them! They are made of the same components my equipment is made from, for them to truly test they would have to be a factor of ten times better than the thing they are measuring, but they can't as the components they use are also available to us - So my little joke is would you give the job of designing and building a cow to another cow, a fatuous and pointless process. Talking amps, test gear should be used in the early circuit design stage to make sure it is fit and safe for purpose, and then it should be used in end of line test rigs to ensure product consistency in the major parameters, and then it should be used by repairer to find what is wrong and check they have fixed it. BUT for making a product sing and play real music the only test gear you need is your ears (and maybe the little hairs on the back of your neck). Music appreciation is an emotional / energetic process not an intellectual process within the human. We go to concerts with our ears and hearts not with test gear.
Sometimes you even have to go against the test gear, if it sounds better no matter what you distortion analyser / scope / whatever says, then it is better - full stop.
Things are changing now with computer modelling, but that still just gives you the same old parameter it just makes the process more predictable. Until they invent new things to measure then designing audio gear purely with test gear is like trying to paint the Mona Lisa with a hammer and chisel.
That's one of the most sensible things I've ever read. I wish more people/companies had this point of view.
:clapclapclap:
Music appreciation is an emotional / energetic process not an intellectual process within the human. We go to concerts with our ears and hearts not with test gear.
Indeed.
Most of us, I would assume, also manage to audition and select the equipment we use, and assemble a system from it, without the need for test gear and measurements...
So why are the results of measurements considered by some as mandatory to prove that something heard exists, afterwards, out with of that process?
Why wasn't it also mandatory during the equipment selection and system-building process? Did they not take their test gear to the dealer's dem room to assist them in auditioning equipment and 'prove' that what they heard was real? Shame on them!
Or do measurements-obsessed objectivists only NOT trust their ears when it suits them!!??? I suspect that this is somewhat nearer the truth ;)
Right, must dash, as otherwise it'll be burnt offerings for lunch!
Marco.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
31-05-2011, 12:53
so why are the results of measurements considered by some as mandatory to prove that something heard exists, afterwards, out side of that process?
Because they are gonks!
:lolsign:
I couldn't have put it better myself!!
Marco.
Perhaps, on reflection though, it's an insult to gonks?
Marco.
They are made of the same components my equipment is made from, for them to truly test they would have to be a factor of ten times better than the thing they are measuring, but they can't as the components they use are also available to us
While in general I agree with what you are saying, the above is incorrect, as I am sure you are aware. The problem you mention has been solved for that last 90 years through the use of a bridge network to null out the faults in the test kit.
I have a great 1954 paper that describes a very low distortion valve instrumentation amplifier circuit that can achieve 0.0001% distortion figures at 20v RMS signal levels (yes with valves). And the most interesting part of the paper is the design of the test rig to measure distortion at this level.
Incidentally, Richard, never truer words were said than these:
Passing exams makes you think you are an expert and anything that doesn't fit the equations or your teaching is obviously just fantasy.
I've found that this is a condition which appears to afflict measurement-obessesed 'objectivists', often manifesting itself as stubborn and blinkered closed-mindedness, and an almost pathological unwillingness to step outside of their comfort zone (read as: 'belief set').
Shades of cognitive dissonance, perhaps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Marco.
All very true, but there are also people who call themselves 'subjectivists' but who cannot accept that anyone's auditory experiences differ from their own. Thus, if person B cannot hear the difference that person A hears when, for example, using different cables, then person A will accuse person B of 'having a closed mind' or 'not listening properly'. Dogmatism on either side of the subjective/objective divide should be avoided.
Agree Joe it's a slippery path
Indeed, Joe. However, at least true 'subjectivists' always trust their ears, whereas many 'objectivists' only appear NOT to do so when it suits them!
Wossallthataboutthen? :scratch:
*That* is what this thread is trying to get to the bottom of......
How do measurement-obsessed 'objectivists', in the absence of 'scientific proof', decide when to trust what they hear (because, quite obviously, sometimes they do), when assessing the sonic aspects of audio equipment - and based on what judgement criteria?
If anyone here can offer a cogent answer to that, they'll win a special prize!
Marco.
hifi_dave
31-05-2011, 17:46
I have met/known several objectivist designer/manufacturers in my time and they all treat their products in the same way - they measure and tweak to get all parameters exactly the way they want and then consider them perfect.
When it comes to actually listening, they 'know' that their products are as good as it gets and never feel the need to sit and compare. Products which measure well are never going to sound 'bad' but they might well never sound great.
The objectivist is content with 'good enough'.
By golly, I think he's got it! :eek:
Marco.
P.S Can you name who the "several objectivist designer/manufacturers" were that you've known? If not here, then in a PM would do... I'm curious! :)
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
31-05-2011, 18:21
While in general I agree with what you are saying, the above is incorrect, as I am sure you are aware. The problem you mention has been solved for the last 90 years through the use of a bridge network to null out the faults in the test kit.
Well no I am not aware, nulling is meaningless unless you know the audible effect of the artifact, otherwise it is just another meaningless number. Taking 1 away from 1 leaves you with zero, but tells you nothing about what you had there in the first place. A meaningless artifact is just that, a meaningless artifact. But it gives a nice little number for the marketing men to bullshit with, which is what it is all about.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
31-05-2011, 18:27
All very true, but there are also people who call themselves 'subjectivists' but who cannot accept that anyone's auditory experiences differ from their own. Thus, if person B cannot hear the difference that person A hears when, for example, using different cables, then person A will accuse person B of 'having a closed mind' or 'not listening properly'. Dogmatism on either side of the subjective/objective divide should be avoided.
This is very true and is the trap that reviewers and some forum golden ears fall into - they start to believe their own publicity.
No one has the right to dictate to anyone, or to tell them they cannot hear what they are talking about - some people are fantasists and bullshitters but they all fall over in time and make themselves look silly if just left alone - but just because human nature has some aberrations doesn't deny most peoples take on *their* reality.
interesting....some good points raised
at the risk of saying something stupid... i've never really under stood what 'flat earth' is all about,.. i sort of guessed its about mesurements being a large part of trusting that one is hearing things correctly.. my guess is probably way out...
my basic understanding of measurements.. appears to reveal one or two flaws in what and how things are measured
what i have learnt over the years is that listening is actually quite a skill, and the good listeners tend to focus on aspects that are not always obvious to the less skilled listener until pointed out.
There is the possibility that some manufacturers really do try to get to the root of objective measurement so that they can capture the essence of what it is in their designs that works well, the more to apply this understanding (read: similar measurements) to their next models.
Some then go on down the measurement route and lose sight of the need to remain subjective and actually listen to their products. I can think of KEF as an example where their speakers became more dynamically limited and boring with each generation until they appeared to wake up more recently.
Well no I am not aware, nulling is meaningless unless you know the audible effect of the artifact, otherwise it is just another meaningless number. Taking 1 away from 1 leaves you with zero, but tells you nothing about what you had there in the first place. A meaningless artifact is just that, a meaningless artifact. But it gives a nice little number for the marketing men to bullshit with, which is what it is all about.
Maybe, but that was not the point I was making, I was just calling into question your assertion that measurement was invalid as it was not possible to measure because of inherent limitations in the measuring equipment. I was not (and neither were you originally in the quoted text) connecting this with any audible interpretation of the measurements.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
31-05-2011, 18:44
interesting....some good points raised
at the risk of saying something stupid... i've never really under stood what 'flat earth' is all about,.. i sort of guessed its about mesurements being a large part of trusting that one is hearing things correctly.. my guess is probably way out...
my basic understanding of measurements.. appears to reveal one or two flaws in what and how things are measured
Subjectivism was hi-jacked in the 1980s by the flat earth. Flat earth was an expression coined by Martin Colloms in the late 70's to describe the subjective reviewers who were starting to dominate the magazines (mainly Haymarket rags as fully equiped technical reviewers were more expensive) trouble is they were wet footed kids susceptible to some Glaswegian manipulation, so the flat earth ended up being the the Linn / Naim brainwash that took over the industry at the end of the 70's. The name was entrenched by a magazine produced by the arch flat earther Chris(t) Frankland called The Flat Response, which was a take on the fact that the Linnies and Naimies were calling themselves flat earthers as a reversal of the Martin Collums piss take. It still pollutes the industry now but not as badly as before.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
31-05-2011, 18:49
Maybe, but that was not the point I was making, I was just calling into question your assertion that measurement was invalid as it was not possible to measure because of inherent limitations in the measuring equipment. I was not (and neither were you originally in the quoted text) connecting this with any audible interpretation of the measurements.
So what is the point of measuring unless you can audibly interpret the numbers you produce, what have number got to do with music, if you can't say then they are just meaningless numbers to feed the marketing men with bullshit fuel.
I have met/known several objectivist designer/manufacturers in my time and they all treat their products in the same way - they measure and tweak to get all parameters exactly the way they want and then consider them perfect.
When it comes to actually listening, they 'know' that their products are as good as it gets and never feel the need to sit and compare. Products which measure well are never going to sound 'bad' but they might well never sound great.
The objectivist is content with 'good enough'.
Woah there Dave, I think you're doing great designers a bad service. I appreciate you've said "several," and this may not mean our favourites, but I do feel that in terms of amplifiers, the text-book was written decades ago and that these days, modern devices allow closer approaches to the ideals. I'm thinking Neil Burnett, whom you told me is an electronics lecturer as his main job, but makes the stonkingly good Albarry's as a labour of love. I bet these measure properly and the sonics indicate a deep understanding of power-supply reserves, despite the "mere" 50W output - one of the few solid state amps which seems to have oddles in reserve like a good valve design.
It's speakers which NEED both technical and subjective parameters and I think you'll find that this is what happens, even on cheapies which are constrained by price. Even the likes of Harbeth, where sound computer aided design is then followed through with hours and HOURS of listening before the designs are signed off. the current models may have their roots in BBC thinking, but the easy sonics are way removed from tetchy BC1's and the relative LS3/6 designs.
When it comes to classic FE type speakers, it's a bit more difficult, as the compromises in the (simple) crossover points have to be VERY carefully judged and just cobbling something together just isn't going to work IMO. Some careful driver choice and crossover setup is going to be needed, again with hours of listening and tweaking to get what the designer thinks is a good sound. Believe me, the likes of Rega test thoroughly their designs as well as listen to them and the current RS5 I heard recently shows just how far they've come - loved 'em when I heard them recently.
Just my tuppence worth :)
Hi Steve,
what i have learnt over the years is that listening is actually quite a skill, and the good listeners tend to focus on aspects that are not always obvious to the less skilled listener until pointed out.
I completely agree, and it's also what experience has shown me.
Funnily enough, I don't know many 'objectivists' who are particularly good at this... Perhaps because relying solely on readouts on test equipment encourages lazy, one-dimentional thinking? ;)
Marco.
alfie2902
31-05-2011, 19:15
I have met/known several objectivist designer/manufacturers in my time and they all treat their products in the same way - they measure and tweak to get all parameters exactly the way they want and then consider them perfect.
When it comes to actually listening, they 'know' that their products are as good as it gets and never feel the need to sit and compare. Products which measure well are never going to sound 'bad' but they might well never sound great.
The objectivist is content with 'good enough'.
Pretty much says it all IMO!
Some objectivists will buy kit without listening to it as long as it meets their measurement criteria! If the piece of kit measures 'transparent' i.e. distorsion levels below the audible threshold then their belief is the piece of kit will not have a sonic character & therefore not influence the sound in any way!
They trust measurements more than their ears so therefore the 'transparent' kit must be producing an accurate HiFi reprodution of the recording! So they have no need to demo kit by listening as the kit is more accurate than their fallable hearing! Soundstage in itself shows how easily our ears can be fooled, but even so, I don't think measrements can tell the whole storey but an objectivist believes they do!!
Hi Dave,
Some good points made.
When it comes to classic FE type speakers, it's a bit more difficult, as the compromises in the (simple) crossover points have to be VERY carefully judged and just cobbling something together just isn't going to work IMO. Some careful driver choice and crossover setup is going to be needed, again with hours of listening and tweaking to get what the designer thinks is a good sound.
Serious question, do you honestly think AVI do this with their ADM9s? And if so, what do you think is Mr James is listening for in that process that he cant measure?
Marco.
Just a quickie - how the heck do you think the likes of Peter Walker, Arthur Radford and the BBCResearch Dept got their sublime designs off the ground and into audio legend - divine intervention? I bet they all worked their butts off at the drawing board-test bench before releasing their designs for mass consumption. The BBC also did very much listening to test their theories - all documented if anyone wishes to look.
By the way, "the man" Glenn Croft makes wonderful sounding products which measure well also. I'm sure he uses tried and trusted techniques and puts his spin on them, but the recent review of the Series 7 came up well overall.
Lastly and before Marco ejects me, the new remote control Rega Brio looks like it could be a real giant killer. It can drive cruel Apogee style loads too and I BET it was measured to within an inch of its life at the design stage.....
Hi Dave,
Some good points made.
Serious question, do you honestly think AVI do this with their ADM9s? And if so, what do you think is Mr James is listening for in that process that he cant measure?
Marco.
I haven't spoken to Ash directly for a year or more, but if you can bear to look on HDD, you'll find that there is much listening going on at the moment to different crossover points in the current ADM's. The ADM9 "T" mod was more of a subjective one as removing a discovered unnecessary part of the DAC circuit improved the sonics - Martin may be a great designer (IMO), but he's not in the tiniest bit arrogant enough to realise he knows it all.. Furthermore, the forthcoming floor-standers will have a bass to mid crossover point set very low in an attempt to free off the midrange (most three-way speakers cross the bass over to mid right in the middle of the midrange) and much testing AND LISTENING is going on apparently...
IMO, you need both - get a sound technical design and fine-tune it from there. I don't believe Anthony has commented yet, but I hope he does, as he commands respect from so many here.
Hi Alfie,
Great post!
Some objectivists will buy kit without listening to it as long as it meets their measurement criteria! If the piece of kit measures 'transparent' i.e. distorsion levels below the audible threshold then their belief is the piece of kit will not have a sonic character & therefore not influence the sound in any way!
Aye, I'm thinking here of Sergey-boy over on Wigwam ;)
Steve Toy and I heard his system at Scalford, and the least said about it, the better!! 'An exercise in blandness', just about sums it up....
They trust measurements more than their ears so therefore the 'transparent' kit must be producing an accurate HiFi reprodution of the recording! So they have no need to demo kit by listening as the kit is more accurate than their fallable hearing!
Nail > head > THUMP! :eyebrows:
It's such a depressing attitude to audio, though, isn't it? And one which also misses so much, including any evidence of lateral thinking!
Marco.
hifi_dave
31-05-2011, 19:45
If you are an 'objectivist', surely this means you can't adjust, tweak or otherwise alter your designs by listening ??? That is the mark of a 'subjectivist'....:scratch:
I know many designer/manufacturers who measure AND listen, then tweak their products to suit. They attempt to get the measurements and the sound just right but the sound always takes precedence.
You menion Albarry, Harbeth and Rega - they all measure, then listen and tweak to get their designs to sound as good as they do.
I could mention ( but I won't ), companies who make products based solely on measurements. They obviously do listen but only to confirm that their design is working, not to gauge quality.
Some years ago I visited a manufacturer in their wonderful factory. I saw the drawings, diagrams, assembly area, multi million Pound machinery and the finished product. I asked if I could ' see the listening room ?' ' Oh, we don't do that ' came the reply. ' The ( product) was designed here ' pointing to the drawing boards. The ( product ) was designed and made according to theory and well understood parameters but not listened to until the first one rolled off the assembly line...:doh:
You mention ' amplifiers ' and the ' text book '. Well, I'm pretty certain that a competent amp can be made according to that but to make it a good amp, the designer must also listen and adjust to suit his ear. Same with speakers. Many OK designs arrive by the container load but good ones are made with care and attention by a dedicated designer. IMO
What about turntables ? All reasonable turntables measure similarly but good turntables are designed by ear because the measurements tell us zip all about their sound. IMO
I could go on but I've bored myself rigid..:comatose:
Woah there Dave, I think you're doing great designers a bad service. I appreciate you've said "several," and this may not mean our favourites, but I do feel that in terms of amplifiers, the text-book was written decades ago and that these days, modern devices allow closer approaches to the ideals. I'm thinking Neil Burnett, whom you told me is an electronics lecturer as his main job, but makes the stonkingly good Albarry's as a labour of love. I bet these measure properly and the sonics indicate a deep understanding of power-supply reserves, despite the "mere" 50W output - one of the few solid state amps which seems to have oddles in reserve like a good valve design.
It's speakers which NEED both technical and subjective parameters and I think you'll find that this is what happens, even on cheapies which are constrained by price. Even the likes of Harbeth, where sound computer aided design is then followed through with hours and HOURS of listening before the designs are signed off. the current models may have their roots in BBC thinking, but the easy sonics are way removed from tetchy BC1's and the relative LS3/6 designs.
When it comes to classic FE type speakers, it's a bit more difficult, as the compromises in the (simple) crossover points have to be VERY carefully judged and just cobbling something together just isn't going to work IMO. Some careful driver choice and crossover setup is going to be needed, again with hours of listening and tweaking to get what the designer thinks is a good sound. Believe me, the likes of Rega test thoroughly their designs as well as listen to them and the current RS5 I heard recently shows just how far they've come - loved 'em when I heard them recently.
Just my tuppence worth :)
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
31-05-2011, 19:50
When it comes to classic FE type speakers, it's a bit more difficult, as the compromises in the (simple) crossover points have to be VERY carefully judged and just cobbling something together just isn't going to work IMO. Some careful driver choice and crossover setup is going to be needed, again with hours of listening and tweaking to get what the designer thinks is a good sound. Believe me, the likes of Rega test thoroughly their designs as well as listen to them and the current RS5 I heard recently shows just how far they've come - loved 'em when I heard them recently.
Just my tuppence worth :)
Really :) do you know the origins of the classic FE speaker of all times - the Linn Kan - maybe you do but I will repeat. Linn had the Sara and the Isobarik, dealers were asking for a cheap small speaker as the Linn philosophy of source first made speakers a low cost necessity for people starting out on the brainwash. This happened at the time that a company that had a BBC licence to make the LS3/5a called Chartwell had gone bust, and the company that made their cabinets was stuck with loads of them. Linn bought them for a song and fitted the same Kef drivers but just put a simple 1st order crossover in, Ivor listened once and said that will do and a legend was born :rolleyes:. Now it was nasty, aggressive and uncouth, but Ivor had said it was good and it had the Linn name so who amongst the faithfull was going to call emperors new clothes. Actually for all its faults it does boogy.
EDIT :- Also why do you think Rega had to get Joe Ackroyd to teach them how to make speakers.
hifi_dave
31-05-2011, 19:51
By golly, I think he's got it! :eek:
Marco.
P.S Can you name who the "several objectivist designer/manufacturers" were that you've known? If not here, then in a PM would do... I'm curious! :)
I'd love to but it's more than my job's worth.
Oh, I haven't got a job..:doh:
anthonyTD
31-05-2011, 20:00
hi all,
i have only just caught up with this thread, anyway, some very interesting points from both sides however, IMHO a design must pass certain test criteria before it is even worth taking the time to listen to' and evaluate its merits, Its true that our current understanding of measurments dont tell us everything, That i feel is because we dont fully understand what it is we need to test for, and how to go about it, So untill we do we will have to rely on the those funny but very sensitive devices fixed to the sides of our heads! There is no magic involved in what we hear, if its there and we knew how to test for it'it would show up! anyone who believes diffrenty probably still believes that Uri geler bends spoons with his mind!:rolleyes:
Anyway, my point is this, When designing a piece of audio equipment whether it be a speaker, or an amplifier, the item must first be designed in a way that best meets and aderes to the basic testing requirements we have learnt to accept and trust as a starting point, Then once we are happy with those basic parameters we can then listen and tweak the design, in my opinion and experience, a design that ends up sounding better by tweaking by ear most often actualy tests better, we just need to know what parameters have changed and why, This i feel is the missing part of the jigsaw we dont yet hold.
just my ramblings.
Anthony,TD...
alfie2902
31-05-2011, 20:02
Hi Alfie,
Great post!
Aye, I'm thinking here of Sergey-boy over on Wigwam ;)
Steve Toy and I heard his system at Scalford, and the least said about it, the better!! 'An exercise in blandness', just about sums it up....
Nail > head > THUMP! :eyebrows:
It's such a depressing attitude to audio, though, isn't it? And one which also misses so much, including any evidence of lateral thinking!
Marco.
"It's such a depressing attitude to audio"
is an interesting way of putting things! As Objectivists will claim that anything less than "transparent" i.e. distortion adding valve amp, may be audio but aren't HiFi in the true sense of the definition!
From a trade point of view I think a piece of kit ought to measure very well & sound even better. But as an enthusiast you can pick your journey, ears or measurements to whatever suits your interests! The ideal must though IMO be a mixture of both beliefs!
Really :) do you know the origins of the classic FE speaker of all times - the Linn Kan - maybe you do but I will repeat. Linn had the Sara and the Isobarik, dealers were asking for a cheap small speaker as the Linn philosophy of source first made speakers a low cost necessity for people starting out on the brainwash. This happened at the time that a company that had a BBC licence to make the LS3/5a called Chartwell had gone bust, and the company that made their cabinets was stuck with loads of them. Linn bought them for a song and fitted the same Kef drivers but just put a simple 1st order crossover in, Ivor listened once and said that will do and a legend was born :rolleyes:. Now it was nasty, aggressive and uncouth, but Ivor had said it was good and it had the Linn name so who amongst the faithfull was going to call emperors new clothes. Actually for all its faults it does boogy.
EDIT :- Also why do you think Rega had to get Joe Ackroyd to teach them how to make speakers.
I knew about the Kan and I think that by the time I got to assemble a pair in 1983, the crossover may have been a little more complex, not much, but there were a good few elements on it from ancient memory. the boxes were bitumen underseal lined MDF by this time as well - Linn got through loads and loads of the stuff, spraying and painting it into the boxes like there was no tomorrow.
The Kan certainly did boogie, but everything else was hideously wrong. Didn't stop them selling by the thousand though ;)
I know Rega and Joe Ackroyd teamed up for a while, but don't know the exact details, which were never divulged to a numpty like me. I do know that Rega make all their bass units and are fastidious about it. In my opinion, the current speaker range of theirs is a wonderful bridge between some of the 80's disasters and the overdamped clinically correct mid 70's B&W's (DM6 & 7) and KEF 105's - I'm not bringing the early BBC derivatives into this Richard, since they can involve when driven right IMO, the very early Harbth HL's especially.
This is a laugh! ;)
So, the design of 'an audio component' using purely 'subjective' criteria is possible?
Do me a favour! :lol:
Why is this even a 'debate'? :scratch:
Mike, that's NOT what we're saying... Try not half-reading things, as per usual, and thus jumping to the wrong conclusions, and you might get the point of the discussion! ;)
Marco.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
31-05-2011, 20:16
This is a laugh! ;)
So, the design of 'an audio component' using purely 'subjective' criteria is possible?
Do me a favour! :lol:
Why is this even a 'debate'? :scratch:
With transducers (notably speakers and turntables) it is perfectly possible
We go to concerts with our ears and hearts not with test gear.
I have often read on AoS that some people consider recorded music superior to a 'live' performance, but the above statement is so true for me. A concert is so much more than 'just listening to music being played' . . .
Music to me is not just sounds in my ears/head, it's the emotion stirred by the music itself and the artists lyrics. Music touches us in many ways, but having the chance to experience that together with the artist that created it, elevates that experience to a much higher level IMO. For me there's nothing quite like that connection, it's physical, real and very moving and something even the best system can never duplicate.
Sorry to go off at a tangent, but it's been on my mind for awhile and Richard's quote prompted me to respond :o
Get back on track now I've got that off my chest lads ;)
For me at this time in my life, I need the playback system not to be a clinically clean window into the recording (as in a top notch monitor) and with huge dynamic range, but more a system where i can easily connect with the music and at lowish volumes too. Fortunately for me, I have a reasonably accurate system as well which enables me to "suspend disbelief" quite easily, which is the best we can do with multi-tracked (often) studio recordings.
A clumsy way of putting it I think, but I'm happy, knowing that to better my stereo, or to make the sound "larger," is going to cost me dosh I'll probably never have now. No point losing any sleep in any case, although I think my wife would be happier with some Tannoy Cheviots close to the walls;)
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
31-05-2011, 21:17
I knew about the Kan and I think that by the time I got to assemble a pair in 1983, the crossover may have been a little more complex, not much, but there were a good few elements on it from ancient memory. the boxes were bitumen underseal lined MDF by this time as well - Linn got through loads and loads of the stuff, spraying and painting it into the boxes like there was no tomorrow.
The Kan certainly did boogie, but everything else was hideously wrong. Didn't stop them selling by the thousand though ;)
I know Rega and Joe Ackroyd teamed up for a while, but don't know the exact details, which were never divulged to a numpty like me. I do know that Rega make all their bass units and are fastidious about it. In my opinion, the current speaker range of theirs is a wonderful bridge between some of the 80's disasters and the overdamped clinically correct mid 70's B&W's (DM6 & 7) and KEF 105's - I'm not bringing the early BBC derivatives into this Richard, since they can involve when driven right IMO, the very early Harbth HL's especially.
Over complexity always Ffffs up the music, even if your test rig tells you otherwise. I don't think people understand how simplistic most test gear is and it is not even fed with music, what you are measuring is what is happening with a test tone from a signal gen. It is like using a Janet and John book as a dictionary to help you read War and Peace.
I hate BBC design principles and consider them to be one of the major problems in much UK hi-fi over the past 30 years. The engineers couldn't have given a toss as to what problems they were creating for the amplifiers trying to drive them. There attitude was "if an amp didn't like it then it was a bad amp" they completely misunderstood what you had to do to an amplifier to make it able to drive current up to 180deg out of phase with voltage as their multi multi element crossovers often created. And what you had to do to the amp just messed up the music even more. The whole thing reached its most daft with the Celestion SL6 (even though that was nothing to do with BBC design). They used a nasty metal dome tweeter that had a really nasty resonance at above 30khz. So they used a notch filter to take it out presenting a virtual short circuit to the amp above 30khz. If the amp wasn't slugged then it was "my my this amp is getting hot - BANG!"
People have to think system wide, not just in their own little pocket. There is only synergy in the long term which is why to say a certain way or a certain piece of equipment or method is best or the only way is completely wrong. All you can say is it has synergy in that system and with your needs - nothing more.
Over complexity always Ffffs up the music
Thus my memory of KEF designs circa 20 years ago. I didn't like the SL6 either.
With transducers (notably speakers and turntables) it is perfectly possible
But very unlikely. Or do you not consider selecting a loudspeaker drive unit based on its TS parameters objective? Or do you imagine a crossover can be constructed by winding random number of turns of wire to make a inductor and a random cap from a parts box? No, the moment you select a 1ohm resistor you are using the result of measurement.
So what is the point of measuring unless you can audibly interpret the numbers you produce, what have number got to do with music, if you can't say then they are just meaningless numbers to feed the marketing men with bullshit fuel.
Don't know, don't care. I am questioning your statement that measurement is not possible because the measuring device is constructed from the same parts as the unit under test. Not some other position you keep trying to shift to, to avoid having to admit that your original comment was wrong.
Its a stupid strawman argument anyway. Any designer that didnt listen to his design is a fool. As is one who refuses to use measurement to aid his design. Assuming we want to use equipment designed by "not fools", then the good designer will not fit either artificial category that you seem to be constructing.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
31-05-2011, 21:51
I am questioning your statement that measurement is not possible because the measuring device is constructed from the same parts as the unit under test. Not some other position you keep trying to shift to, to avoid having to admit that your original comment was wrong.
Then this whole exchange has been a waste of time as I didn't say that. Of course you can measure something and get some numbers, but measure effectively and meaningfully, sorry nah! can't do it, unless they invent a way to make test gear so much better than the what it is measuring as to take the problems inherent in the test rig out of the equation. To which you will reply "null" again. And I will say to null is take away any meaningful reality away from what is being read. The null argument is always used by the likes of SQ(whatever) to try to prove that people are hearing things with cable differences, well it proves nothing - it is a cow trying to design a better cow -it can't do it and it tells you nothing about reproducing music and how you perceive it.
Test gear has a purpose, but people elevate it beyond what it is capable of. There is only one thing capable of appreciating good music and that is a human being via his ears and his brain and his heart, nothing more. The only people who need test gear and specs are the designers, the builders and the repairers, for an end user to get involved is daft, and even for them to be given specs is just marketing bullshit and reflects back to the time in the industry when reviewers reviewed gear without even listening to it and manufacturers had spec wars with each other, it is just objectivist bullshit marketing, the same as the flat earth was just subjectivist bullshit marketing.
I don't think it's really subjectivist vs objectivist anyway, more dogmatist vs pragmatist. There can be no absolutes in audio; even if two people have exactly the same system they will have different rooms, different ears and different brains. Thus for example one person's 'unfatiguing' is another person's 'dull'.
I also have doubts about this 'learning to listen' malarkey. There was a Queen documentary on the iPlayer yesterday, and (I think) Brian May pointed out a cymbal sound on one track. I'd never noticed it before; does knowing it's there add to my musical enjoyment? Understanding what a composer was aiming at in a musical piece may well add to one's appreciation of it, but that's about musical structure, not tiny details that only those with Golden Ears can pick up.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
31-05-2011, 22:07
But very unlikely. Or do you not consider selecting a loudspeaker drive unit based on its TS parameters objective? Or do you imagine a crossover can be constructed by winding random number of turns of wire to make a inductor and a random cap from a parts box? No, the moment you select a 1ohm resistor you are using the result of measurement.
Simple maths designs crossovers not test gear or measurement, and then you tune by ear. Plus I am sure if a parts manufacturer says a resistor is 1ohm you can take his word for it. All components are made and marked in value, you don't have to wind inductors, you even don't have to use inductors ;)
Drive units are off the shelf, cabinets you can use the maths as a start point and your ears from then on.
HighFidelityGuy
31-05-2011, 22:22
About the only piece of test equipment I've found a regular use for in my system is the RTA on my EQ. That has allowed me to see the problem frequencies in my room and then apply acoustic treatment and try different system tweaks to more quickly improve the sound. I could hear that I had some dips and peaks in the frequency response that sounded wrong but the RTA allowed me to see these in numbers. If I'd had to rely on my ears to solve that problem I'd have been pissing in the wind trying all sorts of things and spending more money in the process. Other than this example I can't think of any other applications for test equipment that the end user might need. However I would imagine that most end users wouldn't want to get involved with this type of thing and would expect their installer to deal with it. :)
As for designers relying on test equipment to produce products, I completely disagree with this practice. IMO it's all about getting the right balance of objective and subjective testing methods at the right stages of the design process. If your ears tell you it sounds right then balls to what the the test equipment says. ;)
Then this whole exchange has been a waste of time as I didn't say that.
They are made of the same components my equipment is made from, for them to truly test they would have to be a factor of ten times better than the thing they are measuring, but they can't as the components they use are also available to us
Clearly my mistake.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
31-05-2011, 22:35
The important word is "truly" which you have ignored. Of course it tests, but not enough and not in enough parameters and not at levels of subtlety that the human ear offers. It is a gross tool that has uses for me and other involved in producing gear, but for the end user it is as much use as a match in a fog. In fact worse than that if he believes what he is fed in specs from it especially as he is incapable of interpreting the numbers correctly he will almost certainly make the wrong choices of gear for himself his music and his room.
Ashley James, for example, is notorious for claiming the importance of measurements (and I agree it is essential when designing equipment), but he also claims that they listen to their equipment, and that this influences the final result - so what exactly are they listening for that they can't measure??
By definition, of course, it is then being admitted that there are effects in audio which can be heard, yet not measured, so therefore what else exists in audio that comes under the same category??
And why is the process of trusting one's ears seemingly only considered by objectivists as a valid judgement criterion when equipment is being designed, but not afterwards?? The validity of that assessment procedure cannot simply only apply during the equipment design process.
This is essentially what I'd like an answer to:
Therefore, why do the most staunch objectivists clearly embrace the need to listen (and trust their ears in the process), as well as measure, when equipment is being designed, yet seemingly abandon any willingness to trust their human senses after that process (or at least not admit to not doing so on forums), when evaluating other aspects of how a hi-fi system reproduces recorded music at home?
"Are the measurements representative of the behaviour during actual usage?"
For example, a very low THD doesn't necessarily mean there is no intermod. Measuring an audio component using sine waves might not yield results that apply to a typical music signal. Maybe more complex measurements are needed to fully describe a component's sound reproduction.
"Are the measurements fully representative of the perceived sound quality"
We know that certain types of distortion are actually perceived as "warmth", and can result in "better" sound than a more linear system. Human senses are not precision instruments, as illustrated by the grey-illusion below (A and B are the same colour).
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0910/greyillusion_wikipedia.jpg
Ears are no more "reliable" than eyes (cfr. auditive pareidolia). This does not mean they are not functional - merely that one cannot transpose an objective measurement to a subjective experience.
"Measurements are objective, the listening experience isn't"
Listening is an intensely subjective experience, depending on the state of mind of the listener as much as the actual sound. Furthermore, visual stimuli will affect the perception of the sound. Merely listening to a virtuoso passage can be very impressive, but watching the performer gives you goosebumps. We know the colour of food affects its taste; if we had a measure of taste comparable to THD, it is unlikely that cooks would no longer need to taste the food they prepare.
Ultimately, what counts is the individual experience. We don't really care if a Château Pétrus has better test results than plonk, we care about the taste, and the overall experience. Great wines and fine audio equipment have a lot in common -- high prices, fundi waxing lyrically about their superlative qualities, and less than stellar showings in double-blind tests.
To paraphrase Willard Tweedy: "It's all in me mind". I'm happy with that.
Thing Fish
31-05-2011, 23:59
Ultimately, what counts is the individual experience.
At last. Phew...:doh:
The important word is "truly" which you have ignored. Of course it tests, but not enough and not in enough parameters and not at levels of subtlety that the human ear offers. It is a gross tool that has uses for me and other involved in producing gear, but for the end user it is as much use as a match in a fog. In fact worse than that if he believes what he is fed in specs from it especially as he is incapable of interpreting the numbers correctly he will almost certainly make the wrong choices of gear for himself his music and his room.
I never said that they were of use or not to the "end user" again you are trying to move somewhere else. I merely wished to simply correct your assertion that you can only measure to 1% using a meter built using 1% components (to paraphrase what you were saying and to remove the weasel words).
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
01-06-2011, 07:52
I never said that they were of use or not to the "end user" again you are trying to move somewhere else. I merely wished to simply correct your assertion that you can only measure to 1% using a meter built using 1% components (to paraphrase what you were saying and to remove the weasel words).
You are just playing games, why! again I said nothing of the sort.
Its hard for me to imagine any manufacture will only measure and not listen to a product.
But I guess as a consumer I will only purchase a item if it meets my needs, in the end it is inmaterial what approach they will use, it the consumer who will decide if they like it or not.
Then I guess its marketing and branding that worries me more, if we get sucked into this is the only way it can work and dismiss something due to dogma or the latest bandwagon says so. I think that is a far bigger danger
No, I am mearly asking you to recant the small part of your original statement that is factually untrue. It doesn't in any way undermine the main point you are making, but still you try and change the original meaning (that is clear to see), I can only assume to avoid admitting the untruth. To me that is playing a game. As you say why?
You said:
They are made of the same components my equipment is made from, for them to truly test they would have to be a factor of ten times better than the thing they are measuring
I said:
I merely wished to simply correct your assertion that you can only measure to 1% using a meter built using 1% components
You then said:
again I said nothing of the sort
hi all,
i have only just caught up with this thread, anyway, some very interesting points from both sides however, IMHO a design must pass certain test criteria before it is even worth taking the time to listen to' and evaluate its merits, Its true that our current understanding of measurments dont tell us everything, That i feel is because we dont fully understand what it is we need to test for, and how to go about it, So untill we do we will have to rely on the those funny but very sensitive devices fixed to the sides of our heads! There is no magic involved in what we hear, if its there and we knew how to test for it'it would show up! anyone who believes diffrenty probably still believes that Uri geler bends spoons with his mind!:rolleyes:
Anyway, my point is this, When designing a piece of audio equipment whether it be a speaker, or an amplifier, the item must first be designed in a way that best meets and aderes to the basic testing requirements we have learnt to accept and trust as a starting point, Then once we are happy with those basic parameters we can then listen and tweak the design, in my opinion and experience, a design that ends up sounding better by tweaking by ear most often actualy tests better, we just need to know what parameters have changed and why, This i feel is the missing part of the jigsaw we dont yet hold.
just my ramblings.
Anthony,TD...
Wot I said, only better :clap:
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
01-06-2011, 08:47
Nick - You are quoting one sentence out of context as it requires the rest of the post. I think you know exactly what I am talking about. Anyway if your ego requires my compliance before we move on then I deeply and sincerely apologise for confusing you - OK!
Reading through last night's posts makes me feel that we're stuck in the 70's here. Things have moved on hugely in attitude since then I feel and I doubt any audio product worth its salt will "just" have been designed on the bench. maybe certain manufacturers (one UK, one Chinese owned come to mind) are recycling old ideas in new cases and in the latter case, downgrading components to please the bean-counters). Mind you, listening to a certain "cult" speaker recently made me wonder if it had been measured or listened to at all, so horrible was the noise that came out of it. The "BBC" inspired Harbeth HLS5 totally annihilated it - and I don't think these latter have a hugely complex crossover to be honest, as things have developed a long way from the slugged bextrene cones of my Spendors ;)
Nothing to do with ego (mine at least), your argument was weakened by the presense of the false statement within in, I just prefer that that incorrect statement was removed. It would have been much simpiler to do it earlier. No confusion on my part about the original text, only confusion about your subsequent digging in of heels and obscurification.
Let's change the record now, guys, and get back to the main thrust of the discussion - churz! There have been some good replies since I last posted, which I'll comment on later :)
In the meantime, for me, Anthony has nailed it:
Anyway, my point is this, When designing a piece of audio equipment whether it be a speaker, or an amplifier, the item must first be designed in a way that best meets and aderes to the basic testing requirements we have learnt to accept and trust as a starting point, Then once we are happy with those basic parameters we can then listen and tweak the design, in my opinion and experience, a design that ends up sounding better by tweaking by ear most often actualy tests better, we just need to know what parameters have changed and why, This i feel is the missing part of the jigsaw we dont yet hold.
The problem is that most 'objectivists' won't admit that there are still parameters necessary to measure, which current test apparatus doesn't allow for, in order to truly understand what makes audio equipment 'tick'!
They think that all that needs measuring can be measured, so 'job done'. That would be the case, like Anthony says, if we knew precisely what to measure and how (the bits which our ears can clearly hear, yet don't show up on our current test gear).
But I think it's blatantly obvious to any discerning enthusiast, when listening to a piece of equipment (or system) assembled solely using test equipment, that it is most certainly NOT a case of 'job done'.
Marco.
thanks for the good explaination of 'flat earth' richard i was not aware of the history
for me hi fi is full of trade offs, it picking the one that suits you ..but more often that means your space and pocket (and what you want in that space)
measurements can make one feel good about buying a particular peice of kit..
as does a good write up or recomendation... but we all know that
i think measurements are important to a point,
i aways think of amps as filters, removing life and detail, the better the components and the less there is in the signal path.. generally makes a better sounding amplifier ... but not always..
my own view of most speakers is probably best kept to myself...
thanks
steve
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
01-06-2011, 20:03
Hi-Fi always gets in the way of the music, you can only minimise it.
I think that people who insist upon measurements for EVERYTHING they buy in matters hi-fi have a fundamental vein of insecurity running through them that is unlikely to be admitted by the individuals. I like the sound without even looking at a spec sheet and I buy it. Measurements or no measurements, a hi-fi system HAS to satisfy it's specific audience in a purely subjective world.
Perversely, if the sounds were commensurate with their perfect objective measurements, they would (in theory) sound identical and we would have no choices to feed our individual subjective desires. Freaky :eek:
Hi Frank,
I think that people who insist upon measurements for EVERYTHING they buy in matters hi-fi have a fundamental vein of insecurity running through them that is unlikely to be admitted by the individuals.
Those are my thoughts precisely. The problem is that these people like to live in a world where everything is 'black & white', and where discoveries are thus pigeon-holed into neatly established compartments. That makes life easy for them, as then they don’t need to address any grey areas which may call into question the validity of their scientific teaching.
Therefore, they struggle with the concept of lateral thinking ('outside of the box'), which due to its highly subjective and indeterminate nature, is necessary to truly understand the intricacies of how a hi-fi system, and the equipment associated with it, reproduces recorded music; particularly the influence of the ear/brain relationship, out with of constantly citing how they are easily 'fooled', in an attempt to bolster the validity of their often rigid and inflexible objectivist stance, and one which is often way too superficial and simplistic in its thinking to accurately reflect any true notion of reality.
Ultimately, it is this absolutist mentality that is the downfall of the staunch objectivist, and why as hifi dave said earlier, merely "good enough" is all they’ll likely achieve with either the equipment they design, or the hi-fi systems they assemble; when instead by trusting their senses more, and employing some lateral thinking, exceptional could be attainable. For me, "good enough" will never be good enough!
Perversely, if the sounds were commensurate with their perfect objective measurements, they would (in theory) sound identical and we would have no choices to feed our individual subjective desires. Freaky :eek:
That would be very freaky indeed, but I suspect that this form of reality would suit most objectivists to a tee, as it would then remove the need to trust their senses and allow them simply to revel in the comfort zone of their ideal 'black and white' world...
Marco.
Just to point out, it's impossible to have an objective perspective in this universe, with our human senses. Physically impossible.
Why?
Quite simply, everything you see, touch, and in this particular context, hear, is an illusionary experience generated within your consciousness.
In other terms; one does not look/hear something external to it, one generates the sight/sound within their consciousness.
Using the eye as an example, it does not, contrary to the O-Level/GCSE teachings, flip an image which lands on the retina and is 'seen' by the brain. The rods and cones of the retina take the light that hits it, and converts it to biochemical electrical impulses (just like D/A and A/D conversion). These impulses are taken by the brain and interpreted. An image of the outside world is constructed within consciousness.
The same goes for sound; sound waves (invisible information) hit the ear drum and it's component parts, causing tiny vibrations. These vibrations are not heard; they carry no sound. The vibrations are again interpreted by the brain, and you (quite magically, as with all experience) hear the sound.
What does this mean? Essentially, the world you interact with on a daily basis is not some external physical thing that you plod around in. It is constructed within you. Hence, it can only be subjective, and anyone in the audio world who tells you they are being objective, are being as minimally subjective as they possibly can :¬)
While we're here, the same happens with touch. You never asctually touch anything, ever, as the atoms that make up the molecules, that make the proteins, that make the DNA, that make the cells, that make you, are 99.99999% empty space. In fact, the particles within the atoms themselves are not even physical, they are discrete packets of energy. THIS is the energy/information the brain interprets, and generates the 'physical' experience you have within your own consciousness. It's actually not physical at all.
Marvellous isn't it :¬)
hifi_dave
02-06-2011, 09:46
My brain hurts.
Or maybe it doesn't....:scratch:
Who ARE these "objectivists anyway???????"
I can think of one victim possibly, but he's not a designer (the designer actually does listen, very carefully, but stays out of internet fora).
Now *that*, Ross is a quite brilliant post, and succinctly outlines reality... :clap:
What does this mean? Essentially, the world you interact with on a daily basis is not some external physical thing that you plod around in, it is constructed within you. Hence, it can only be subjective, and anyone in the audio world who tells you they are being objective, are being as minimally subjective as they possibly can :¬)
Yup - which is esentially what I said earlier: 'objectivists' simply choose NOT to trust their ears when it suits them!
Marco.
Who ARE these "objectivists anyway???????"
Do you never visit Wigwam, pfm (or Zerogain, when it existed)? Quite a few 'live(d)' there! ;)
Marco.
No, I don't have the time after lazing on here... :lol:
Lol - cool... It was reading this thread on Wigwam, that Howard linked to elsewhere, (and, I'm sorry to say, being shocked at the incredibly rude, unfriendly, condescending and closed-minded remarks from certain 'objectivists'), which prompted me to start this thread (in case any of you were wondering what the purpose of it was), and attempt to highlight what I think is the problem:
http://www.hifiwigwam.com/showthread.php?55862-Farewell-Wammers
When you have half an hour or so spare, have a read, and analyse what you think of the attitude being displayed by the resident 'objectivists', and also how disgracefully, in my opinion, Alan (trio leo) was treated.
Marco.
My brain hurts.
Or maybe it doesn't....:scratch:
LOL! Brilliant :¬)
Now *that*, Ross is a quite brilliant post, and succinctly outlines reality... :clap:
Yup - which is esentially what I said earlier: 'objectivists' simply choose NOT to trust their ears when it suits them!
Marco.
Yes, entirely agree; an objective opinion within the framework of subjective experience (i.e. all experience), is purely the enforcement/promotion of personal opinion.
Person A: "But my viewpoint is objective; it's a perfect match with reality"
Person B: "For you, indeed it is - hence it's subjective"
:¬)
Lol - cool... It was reading this thread on Wigwam, that Howard linked to elsewhere, (and, I'm sorry to say, being shocked at the incredibly rude, unfriendly, condescending and closed-minded remarks from certain 'objectivists'), which prompted me to start this thread (in case any of you were wondering what the purpose of it was) and attempt to highlight what I think is the problem:
http://www.hifiwigwam.com/showthread.php?55862-Farewell-Wammers
When you have half an hour or so spare, have a read, and analyse what you think of the attitude being displayed by the resident 'objectivists', and also how disgracefully Alan (trio leo) was treated.
Marco.
Marco, I'm sorry, but I gave up after halfway.. I can't deal with threads like that nowadays. In my experiences, there are some things which do seem to make a repeatable difference for some reason - and the fun is in finding out why :) and there are others which really do seem to be placebo - in my experience
MUSIC at home is the important thing, but the gear that plays it is the hobby bit, if you see what I mean. Nuff said before I dig myself too deep again :)
MUSIC at home is the important thing, but the gear that plays it is the hobby bit
Well said :¬)
Lol - cool... It was reading this thread on Wigwam, that Howard linked to elsewhere, (and, I'm sorry to say, being shocked at the incredibly rude, unfriendly, condescending and closed-minded remarks from certain 'objectivists'), which prompted me to start this thread (in case any of you were wondering what the purpose of it was) and attempt to highlight what I think is the problem:
http://www.hifiwigwam.com/showthread.php?55862-Farewell-Wammers
When you have half an hour or so spare, have a read, and analyse what you think of the attitude being displayed by the resident 'objectivists', and also how disgracefully Alan (trio leo) was treated.
Marco.
As I recall Marco you too had your rump roasted a few times on WW over your personal choice of equipment supports - disgraceful behaviour from alleged "intelligent" people.
What you see in that thread is a form of pack related mass hysteria that gives them pleasure from going into a series of jingoistic frenzies that gives them increased sense of faux "superiority" and woe betide anyone who dares challenge a member of the pack resulting in them all turning into the aggressors - as poor Leo (and many others too) has found out. Little do they realise they have sown the seeds that will ultimately kill the forum they inhabit, because I have seen forums implode when such a poor attitude prevails.
I think you can draw a line through the word "objectivist" and better describe them as immature bullies who are so deficient in self esteem they NEED to band together in a pack and pick on weaker people for their own gratification. Oddly enough, meet them face to face and they are generally nothing like their forum persona.
Oddly enough, meet them face to face and they are generally nothing like their forum persona.
Back in my days of online gaming, this was generally the case with the most abusive people; when meeting them at LANs (if they went) they were generally quiet people who hid behind the monitor.
Nowt wrong with being an objective IMO. Some of the finest and most endearing audio products were designed by sane sensible people with good and grounded heads on their shoulders..
I have to give a shout for the late Spencer Hughes (SPENdor). I remember a mod coming along for the BC1 to make them "brighter" in balance (a little potted brick with wires coming out which fitted to four points on the crossover board). I remember Spen being perfectly understanding of where this mod was coming from, thinking he knew what they'd done, but saying that at the time, the BC1 design was set in stone and he couldn't change it. With deepest respect to the man, he looked at the basics very carefully and came up with the excellent - IMO - SP1, which took the good bits from both the BC1 and 2 and expertly blended them together into a much respected and classic speaker - IMO. The BC1 was improved basswise too until it's retirement in the late 80's (I believe the BBC retired theirs in 1987), but the SP1 was the domestic Spendor from 1983 I think.
We need BOTH a good grounding and also an open mind I think. It's the ignorant twats in the middle which cause the problem (takes one to know one sadly...)
Nowt wrong with being an objective IMO. Some of the finest and most endearing audio products were designed by sane sensible people with good and grounded heads on their shoulders..
Indeed not - not in the slightest, *providing* that you show some humilty and acknowledge the validity of subjective analysis in what is an undisputably largely subjective hobby! ;)
We need BOTH a good grounding and also an open mind I think. It's the ignorant twats in the middle which cause the problem...
I completely agree. It's the twats you refer to that this thread and its contents are aimed at!
Marco.
One can be objective with regards to planning, design and building. However, the second one engages their senses to experience the music, it becomes subjective.
As with many things, finding the right balance is the key :¬)
Who ARE these "objectivists anyway???????"
I can think of one victim possibly, but he's not a designer (the designer actually does listen, very carefully, but stays out of internet fora).
I can think of one desgner who has stated that he doesn't do any listeneng tests to the models he designs pre-release.
http://ukiro.com/2011/05/12/interview-daniel-weiss/
Slippershod
02-06-2011, 12:10
As I recall Marco you too had your rump roasted a few times on WW over your personal choice of equipment supports - disgraceful behaviour from alleged "intelligent" people.
What you see in that thread is a form of pack related mass hysteria that gives them pleasure from going into a series of jingoistic frenzies that gives them increased sense of faux "superiority" and woe betide anyone who dares challenge a member of the pack resulting in them all turning into the aggressors - as poor Leo (and many others too) has found out. Little do they realise they have sown the seeds that will ultimately kill the forum they inhabit, because I have seen forums implode when such a poor attitude prevails.
I think you can draw a line through the word "objectivist" and better describe them as immature bullies who are so deficient in self esteem they NEED to band together in a pack and pick on weaker people for their own gratification. Oddly enough, meet them face to face and they are generally nothing like their forum persona.
sadly, Frank, from what I can see, and encouraged and condoned generally by our media and 'opinion formers' (seemingly in thrall to the zeitgeist if one wants to cut them any slack), these kind of hateful environments can only thrive as things stand. :(
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
02-06-2011, 12:14
Nowt wrong with being an objective IMO. Some of the finest and most endearing audio products were designed by sane sensible people with good and grounded heads on their shoulders..
I have to give a shout for the late Spencer Hughes (SPENdor). I remember a mod coming along for the BC1 to make them "brighter" in balance (a little potted brick with wires coming out which fitted to four points on the crossover board). I remember Spen being perfectly understanding of where this mod was coming from, thinking he knew what they'd done, but saying that at the time, the BC1 design was set in stone and he couldn't change it. With deepest respect to the man, he looked at the basics very carefully and came up with the excellent - IMO - SP1, which took the good bits from both the BC1 and 2 and expertly blended them together into a much respected and classic speaker - IMO. The BC1 was improved basswise too until it's retirement in the late 80's (I believe the BBC retired theirs in 1987), but the SP1 was the domestic Spendor from 1983 I think.
We need BOTH a good grounding and also an open mind I think. It's the ignorant twats in the middle which cause the problem (takes one to know one sadly...)
Then we live on a different planet to each other. In the 60's we had Tannoys and Lowther and I suppose the Quad ESL for the high end (though it wasn't recognised as such then) we had good Goodmans and Celestions and some reasonable Leaks for normal Hi-Fi - PLUS we had good US gear arriving notably Acoustic Reseach. Other likes B&W were horrible. Then along came the BBC designers and changed the whole thing, just worshiping the sound of the BBC voice and accent was all that was important - sod the music. They were flat boring disgusting things with waffling cabinets that overheated amplifiers due to their ridiculously complex crossovers. I remember comparing a pair of Acoustic Research AR3a to the first BC1 and bursting out laughing, but it was just another bullshit and to have the BBC name to underpin it was enough for some people, and Harbeth still feed on this.
BBC speaker design put UK speakers back a generation, they definitely were about trying to create so called accuracy completely at the expense of the music. I am sure someone can say they found a good Spendor model but every one I heard just left me cold and my amplifiers hot.
Indeed not - not in the slightest, *providing* that you show some humilty and acknowledge the validity of subjective analysis in what is an undisputably largely subjective hobby! ;).
I think 'some' subjectivists could also acknowledge that what they are hearing is valid only for one set of ears (their own) rather than representing some abstract truth that can only be challenged by the deaf or those who are not 'listening properly'.
I agree, Joe. The extremists in both camps give their respective sides a bad name.
It boils down to the appliance of absolutism (subjectivist or objectivist) - it is *that* which is at the root of the real problem. Absolutism is the enemy of learning, and with it, progress.
Some people appear to require being bound by a rigid set of rules ('accepted wisdom'), which stifles any form of free-thinking. I'm totally opposed to that philosophy, with anything in life, not just hi-fi. Where possible, I like to push boundaries and try and create new forms of 'accepted wisdom'!
I also utterly DETEST any form of blinkered dogma in audio, and those who abide by it.
Life (and the pursuit of sonic excellence with audio) is a constant learning curve, and science doesn't currently have ALL the answers. That, I'm afraid, is the reality.
Marco.
I can think of one desgner who has stated that he doesn't do any listeneng tests to the models he designs pre-release.
http://ukiro.com/2011/05/12/interview-daniel-weiss/
Interesting article, thanks.
Rare Bird
02-06-2011, 13:46
What i can't get in my head is people moaning how badly done to they were at the time, don't you have your own brains or summert? you go into a shop, you like a product, you buy it! If you have been talked into buying a product well then thats just hard lines, if they told you to jump off a bridge would you?
In the early 80's i walked into my local Hi-Fi dealer, with the intensions On buying a Logic 'DM101' (Yes the competition was there) i bought it went home, fitted arm & cart & thought it the best TT purchase i ever did, still do now.
Agreed Andr'e, I never regret a purchase as I've done my research beforehand, neither do I care if I see it cheaper afterwards. I considered it good value at the time that I bought it, so why should that change?
Hi Frank,
As I recall Marco you too had your rump roasted a few times on WW over your personal choice of equipment supports - disgraceful behaviour from alleged "intelligent" people.
Indeed, but that's all in the past now.
However, it's precisely why I started AoS, along with Steve Toy and Rob (Filterlab), in order to get away from all that shit, and create our own haven of friendliness and free-thinking, and where everyone is treated with the respect they deserve.
What you see in that thread is a form of pack related mass hysteria that gives them pleasure from going into a series of jingoistic frenzies that gives them increased sense of faux "superiority" and woe betide anyone who dares challenge a member of the pack resulting in them all turning into the aggressors - as poor Leo (and many others too) has found out. Little do they realise they have sown the seeds that will ultimately kill the forum they inhabit, because I have seen forums implode when such a poor attitude prevails.
Without dwelling on this unnecessarily, I do agree. However, Wigwam works quite simply because it caters for those who appear to revel in that sort of activity and consider it simply as 'banter'. And the 'natives' who enjoy this behaviour are numerous enough to keep the place alive. James and his moderators seem perfectly happy with that state of affairs, so that's up to them.
Now, don't get me wrong, I love a bit of FRIENDLY banter, the same as the next chap, and plenty of that happens here, but ONLY when the joke is appreciated by the recipient. When it isn't, then the banter isn't friendly, and thus has no place in a polite environment.
It goes back to the old saying, it's ok to be laughed with, but not laughed at. When people are simply laughing at you, then it's just cruel, and not in any way funny - unless those doing it are suffering from some form of social or intellectual deficiency. Or they're just an out-and-out c*nts.
I think you can draw a line through the word "objectivist" and better describe them as immature bullies who are so deficient in self esteem they NEED to band together in a pack and pick on weaker people for their own gratification.
Oddly enough, meet them face to face and they are generally nothing like their forum persona.
Lol - I totally agree. I find it rather amusing when, during the Scalford show, I can wander into anyone's room from Wigwam, often belonging to those who supposedly have a problem with me (wearing a name-tag, so everyone knows who I am), and no-one says 'boo'; in fact we usually end up having a friendly chat. So why on earth they can't also behave that way when they're behind a keyboard, is anyone's guess.....?
With that in mind, trust me, I'll definitely be making a bee-line for Mibby's room next year and poking fun at his "half-wit" remarks"!! :eyebrows: ;)
One thing I'd like to tackle in all seriousness though, is this ridiculous notion that anything someone reports on a forum, that they can genuinely hear, whether it be the effect of stands or cables, or the sonic effect of moving Gripper-rods in and out of the listening environment (ok, that one does need a little more, erm, 'open-mindedness' to accept than most!) or whatever else, MUST be subject to 'proof'.
BOLLOCKS! *Only* if such observations are being portrayed as undisputable fact should they require to be proven. Otherwise, they're merely the result of someone's valid subjective experiences, which they're perfectly entitled to share on a forum full of supposed enthusiasts, keen to help each other learn.
The fact is, everyone's posts on forums, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, should be viewed under the premise of 'IMHO'. Mere opinions do not require confirming with 'scientific proof'!! If you want to challenge someone's observations, robustly or otherwise, then by all means do so, but do it politely with due respect for them as a fellow human being, otherwise be prepared for the consequences.
And anyway, what else is an audio forum for if you can't share your experiences with other enthusiasts, without sneering cynics treating you like you're a loony? Just because your experiences don't fit in with their rigid and inflexible scientific belief set, doesn't mean that they're any less valid. You don't learn anything new by obeying the same old rigid set of rules forever!
It's the demeaning/ridiculing of people's perfectly valid experiences, and the lack of tolerance for different viewpoints, which raises heckles and causes resentment, and is responsible for 95% of forum 'wars'. Thankfully, no-one will ever be subjected to that sort of behaviour on AoS, or if they are, whoever has caused it will be out on the arse quicker than they can say 'cognitive dissonance'.....
Marco.
Incidentally, a friend who likes hi-fi and music, and sometimes reads the forums, sent me this via email, which he's granted me his permission to post:
You mentioned black and white thinking which was good because that is the problem. However, you may wish to consider the basis for such absolutism. In my view it is a craving for certainty and security.
In the UK over the past ten years or so the need for security and certainty has replaced that for freedom and responsibility for many. The Cold War came to an end which was essentially about defending freedom. It was replaced by the threat of terrorism and greater uncertainty as the balance of power in the world was in a state of flux, i.e. more uncertain. In such a world more people wanted greater security and were quite happy to give up a few freedoms for it.
This mentality pervaded everything right down to consumer level. Objectivism is nothing new but previously it was driven by excitement of new technology that seemed to offer a brighter future. Now it is peddled as the safe and sure alternative to the unknown which is to be feared and treated with suspicion. On Wigwam and other sites plagued with neurotic objectivists if you make a wild claim you are expected to back it up with proof. The true sceptic, as Serge says, takes an agnostic view and sees the shades of grey - it isn't proven either way so curiosity may be maintained.
With the more absolutist mindset there are no shades of grey because that would mean accepting uncertainty. In their view these things are impossible until you prove beyond all doubt to the contrary and even then, there are niggling doubts and suspicion.
They want it to be either one way or the other, completely true or completely untrue. Until we prove it to be true, the existence of the placebo effect is not regarded as a contributory factor in our experiences but the sole explanation. They are happy with this explanation because it is easy to prove its existence. It must therefore be true.
These guys are not true sceptics, they are cynics fearful that someone is going to make them confront uncertainty or make them trust their own instincts instead of being reassured by the certainty of higher authority, i.e. that of the technocrat and his objective proof.
It's no wonder they drive you out of their comfort zone and say good riddance. You are their bogeyman!
Whilst giggling at the last bit, I think he makes some interesting and valid points, especially the bits in bold (and in particular the second last paragraph)...
Marco.
The fact is, everyone's posts on forums, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, should be viewed under the premise of 'IMHO'.
Entirely agree, and would extend that scope to all in life. Myself and Will just had a similar chat in another thread (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11592) :¬)
With the more absolutist mindset there are no shades of grey because that would mean accepting uncertainty. In their view these things are impossible until you prove beyond all doubt to the contrary and even then, there are niggling doubts and suspicion.
I couldn't agree more with your friend, Marco. In fact, science teaches you to be uncertain and a good scientist knows that being uncertain is actually a good state of mind. Non-scientists find this hard to understand.
Indeed, Martin. Real scientists have genuinely inquisitive minds and know that science doesn't currently have all the answers for most things in life, let alone debates surrounding the subject of hi-end audio.
It's the technical 'jobsworths', and cynics, posing as 'scientists', who use science as a crutch to appease their insecurities, and give credence to their ridiculous black and white outlook on life, that are the target of our scorn!
Marco.
chris@panteg
02-06-2011, 19:02
What i can't get in my head is people moaning how badly done to they were at the time, don't you have your own brains or summert? you go into a shop, you like a product, you buy it! If you have been talked into buying a product well then thats just hard lines, if they told you to jump off a bridge would you?
In the early 80's i walked into my local Hi-Fi dealer, with the intensions On buying a Logic 'DM101' (Yes the competition was there) i bought it went home, fitted arm & cart & thought it the best TT purchase i ever did, still do now.
Andre , i loved those old Logic TT's , i had the tempo but so badly wanted the 101 , i ended up with the LP12 of course and no i don't regret it at all :)
All part of the fun , one of my best buy's was the Concordant Excelsior , a real left field purchase into the unknown for me back in 1990 , made by the most eccentric , mad as a hatter cottage industry character's I've ever met .
And how did he (Doug Dunlop) design it ? By listening to each and every capacitor and valve change , in fact pretty much everything that went into it , the problem i had with it was the noise and hum field from the outboard psu , this was instant death to any other kit in the vicinity , he wouldn't get away with it nowadays , some of the components he used were the cheapest and nastiest going , yet it sounded so good :scratch:
Reid Malenfant
02-06-2011, 19:09
I couldn't agree more with your friend, Marco. In fact, science teaches you to be uncertain and a good scientist knows that being uncertain is actually a good state of mind. Non-scientists find this hard to understand.
Scientists should also understand that nothing can ever really be "proven". All they can do is accept the theory that best fits the facts available.
Just as Newton's law of gravity was the accepted norm until it was superseded by Einsteins law of general relativity which showed that gravity bent space/time.
The facts of what we know best fit Einsteins theory, but who can say that that will not be proven to be incorrect given time? :eyebrows:
We already know that Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum dynamics are both flawed as they do not agree with each other. One describes the macro world; the other the nano world. All scientists agree that we have to live with incomplete theories until we can formulate something better (the so-called grand unification theory).
So yes, 'proven' is until better understanding comes along.
Reid Malenfant
02-06-2011, 19:21
Exactly :lolsign: Nothing is ever proven!
We only have theories :eyebrows:
Then we live on a different planet to each other. In the 60's we had Tannoys and Lowther and I suppose the Quad ESL for the high end (though it wasn't recognised as such then) we had good Goodmans and Celestions and some reasonable Leaks for normal Hi-Fi - PLUS we had good US gear arriving notably Acoustic Reseach. Other likes B&W were horrible. Then along came the BBC designers and changed the whole thing, just worshiping the sound of the BBC voice and accent was all that was important - sod the music. They were flat boring disgusting things with waffling cabinets that overheated amplifiers due to their ridiculously complex crossovers. I remember comparing a pair of Acoustic Research AR3a to the first BC1 and bursting out laughing, but it was just another bullshit and to have the BBC name to underpin it was enough for some people, and Harbeth still feed on this.
BBC speaker design put UK speakers back a generation, they definitely were about trying to create so called accuracy completely at the expense of the music. I am sure someone can say they found a good Spendor model but every one I heard just left me cold and my amplifiers hot.
Then we'll have to live on different planets :)
One of the first things I ever did in my new "saturday job" was to compare AR3a's with BC1 and 2's. The 3a's sounded nasal, dead and flat, although this balance did wonders for percussion as I remember (quite vivdly surprisingly). the BC1 was superb on speech and acoustic instruments but bass was lousy (the Beeb used them quite high off the ground as I remember). The big IMF's at the time seemed to have it all and I also remember getting into trouble unboxing some AR LST's and having some huge fun with them. Don't you think that decent reproduction of voice is important?
Lest you think I had it in for AR, I did like the 2ax, 6's and 7's and personally preferred the "improved" AR3a, which had a better balance to me. The later 10 Pi was liked by me too as an update on the 3a.
Sorry Richard, I feel it was Linn and early Royd speakers which put the development of speakers back for decades. At least with the BBC legacy brigade you know exactly what you're getting, like it or not, and at my stage of life experiences, it's such a relief to hear acoustic instruments sound like something like reality. I'd rather have some good working harbeth HL's or Spendor SP1's than any of the "FE" style screamers which "do" drums but little else IMO.
Exactly Nothing is ever proven!
1 + 1 = 2. That's a proven fact, no? ;)
Marco.
1 + 1 = 2. That's a proven fact, no? ;)
Marco.
Only in a number base > 2, in binary 1 + 1 = 10 . :)
I'm glad us sceptics are not really the "scum of the earth".
Lol, indeed. Remember, though, that sceptics are a rather different animal from cynics. Sceptics I have plenty of time for - cynics are truly the scum of the earth!!!
Waste of valuable air, those f*ckers.
Marco.
Lol, indeed. Remember, though, that sceptics are a rather different animal from cynics. Sceptics I have plenty of time for - cynics are truly the scum of the earth!!!
Waste of valuable air, those f*ckers.
Marco.
Phew! ;)
Scientists should also understand that nothing can ever really be "proven". All they can do is accept the theory that best fits the facts available.
Just as Newton's law of gravity was the accepted norm until it was superseded by Einsteins law of general relativity which showed that gravity bent space/time.
The facts of what we know best fit Einsteins theory, but who can say that that will not be proven to be incorrect given time? :eyebrows:
Exactamundo :¬)
Ask a scientist to tell you exactly what electricity is. Gets them every time!
I'm not sure there's much point in me adding my voice to back the BBC inspired designs, but I will anyway! ;) I personally think the Harbeth SHL5's are one of the best speakers I've heard, and have been delighted with my SP1's which follow the same design principals. Plenty of people here and in the hifi world love 'em, but it would be a sad old world if we all had the same tastes. Richard, it is after all just your opinion and not an undisputed fact. :)
Rare Bird
02-06-2011, 20:52
Glad your enjoying the Speakers Alex..
:sofa:
I had my Spendor SP100s for years, before swapping them for the Lockwoods, and on the end of my (then) Naim system, they rocked! :)
Richard and I have been here before with 'music stranglers' ;)
Marco.
Rare Bird
02-06-2011, 20:59
I had my Spendor SP100s for years, before swapping them for the Lockwoods, and on the end of my (then) Naim system
O dear don't tell people your using speakers that old you'll be accused of the rose tinted glasses syndrome (I for one get sick of hearing) :rolleyes:
Never realised Hi-Fi had a sell by date attached did you?
hifi_dave
02-06-2011, 21:04
If anyone here can offer a cogent answer to that, they'll win a special prize!
Marco.
Wot happened then ?..
Never realised Hi-Fi had a sell by date attached did you?
The same as good taste, eh dude? ;)
Marco.
Rare Bird
02-06-2011, 21:12
Aye..Their loss i say.
Wot happened then ?..
It'll be on the way at the same time as your PM telling me who the daftee measurement-obsessed objectivist manufacturers you knew who were too blinkered and pig-headed to bother listening to their gear first before it was introduced onto the marketplace :ner:
;)
Marco.
I am a senior support engineer in an Aerospace company, every day I deal with state of the art electronics and measuring devices plus the software to integrate the two. I work in a test environment yet have never measured the performance of any of my audio equipment, nor am I tempted to.
It may be that I am subconsiously keeping my work and home lives separate, i don't know.
Could it be because you're a normal, well-adjusted human being, Steve, totally relaxed and satisfied with what you have, and not a no-life cynic, unhappy with his lot in life, who takes some perverse pleasure in attempting to piss on other people's bonfires? ;)
Marco.
Reid Malenfant
02-06-2011, 21:25
Could it be because you're a normal, well-adjusted human being, Steve, totally relaxed and satisfied with what you have, and not a no-life cynic, unhappy with his lot in life, who takes some perverse pleasure in attempting to piss on other people's bonfires? ;)
Marco.
Lets make it easier :eyebrows: Someone who accepts what he hears! :)
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
02-06-2011, 21:52
Then we'll have to live on different planets :)
One of the first things I ever did in my new "saturday job" was to compare AR3a's with BC1 and 2's. The 3a's sounded nasal, dead and flat, although this balance did wonders for percussion as I remember (quite vivdly surprisingly). the BC1 was superb on speech and acoustic instruments but bass was lousy (the Beeb used them quite high off the ground as I remember). The big IMF's at the time seemed to have it all and I also remember getting into trouble unboxing some AR LST's and having some huge fun with them. Don't you think that decent reproduction of voice is important?
Lest you think I had it in for AR, I did like the 2ax, 6's and 7's and personally preferred the "improved" AR3a, which had a better balance to me. The later 10 Pi was liked by me too as an update on the 3a.
Sorry Richard, I feel it was Linn and early Royd speakers which put the development of speakers back for decades. At least with the BBC legacy brigade you know exactly what you're getting, like it or not, and at my stage of life experiences, it's such a relief to hear acoustic instruments sound like something like reality. I'd rather have some good working harbeth HL's or Spendor SP1's than any of the "FE" style screamers which "do" drums but little else IMO.
First of all let me say that I don't think that Harbeth adhere to BBC design principles, I think they just use the name for marketing purposes.
So what are BBC design principles. Basically you get the sound you want by creating multiple filters both mechanical (cabinet) and electrical (crossovers). Early BBC designs were voiced for the human voice with a BBC accent reading the news.
Now what do I call good design and how it differs. If you have problem with the drive units or the cabinet, either use better or select more suitable drivers or dope the drivers to create the changes you want. Cabinets, well if they talk at a level or frequency that you don't want then redesign them and look for more effective material. In other words solve the problem at source instead of trying to use electronic components and mechanical filters to try to cure it. So solid undamped or minimally damped cabinets, simple crossovers and voiced drivers. I am not unique in this opinion. You seem to want to insult Joe Ackroyd, well in my opinion Spencer Hughes couldn't wipe his boots. He did *exactly* what I am saying here to create some of the most musical small speakers of all time and an extremely sad loss to the industry when he got hounded out of it by retailers not supporting him and not paying their bills.
People who don't understand seem to think the likes of Spencer Hughes was a genius, far from it, the guys who worked for Electrovoice in the 50's and 60's or early Goodmans and Tannoy designers were far more worthy of that, or stateside with Ed Vilchur and Roy Allison.
For me it is just logical, the more you put in the way of the music the more you lose it. Be that masses of crossover components or masses of cabinet damping, that all (filters) create timing anomalies in the music as they create phase distortion. With the BC1 the tweeter was electrically nearly 180deg out of phase with the bass unit after going through that damn silly crossover due to phase lag in the crossover, and that is not absolute phase so reversing the wiring of the tweeter doesn't solve it. The excessive wadding and panel damping of the cabinet that was almost thin enough to be described as cardboard caused just as much harm.
Regarding the AR3a yes they were a thoroughly tweaked pair incorporating elements that went into the 10pi, but a standard pair of 3a's would have done the job as far as I am concerned. Some of us at AR did these sound check (somewhat unofficially) when new ideas appeared. We did the same with AR tt v Linn LP12 v Pioneer PL-71 (which is why the PL-71 has always been in my mind).
In my opinion as I have said at the top of the post, these abortions didn't last that long or were not so propagated elsewhere, but lots of companies jumped on the marketing bandwagon and linked their design to the BBC because it became just another marketing bullshit.
And for Marco, from what I gather from our old battle your Spendors were completely unlike the breed, so I am quite happy to think they were good, but as I said *I* have never heard a good Spendor, or ever felt my amps were happy driving them, and I never heard or tried your model of speaker.
Per usual, everything I say has an automatic IMO with it. I don't have all the answers I have my ears and my opinions.
EDIT:- though I will be happy to accept that a overly punchy or PA type amp (wink!) could probably shake some life into them.
Rare Bird
02-06-2011, 21:59
Richard since you seem to mention AR a lot maybe you can help? i've been looking for a mint original AR amp ages! seen one?
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
02-06-2011, 22:18
Richard since you seem to mention AR a lot maybe you can help? i've been looking for a mint original AR amp ages! seen one?
They only very occasionally come up on US ebay, very few were ever sold in the UK. I was listening through 1st generation NAD (new acoustic dimension) amps that were distributed in the UK by AR (a *very* different breed to the latter ones, they weren't voiced to make Ivor happy). I did hear an AR amp once but felt it was rather average.
Good luck in your search.
Rare Bird
02-06-2011, 22:29
The New Acoustic Dimension amps were good, i posted a pic of my 'Model 60' earlier this year mint as the day it was manufactured, i think Dave Rance likes these!!..I have a '120' & '160' reciever too...
Never heard the AR, i missed one on auction last years, the matching Tuner would be a bonus..
And for Marco, from what I gather from our old battle your Spendors were completely unlike the breed, so I am quite happy to think they were good, but as I said *I* have never heard a good Spendor, or ever felt my amps were happy driving them, and I never heard or tried your model of speaker.
Thanks for that - you're not wrong! ;)
However, the Lockwood Majors (with 15" Tannoy Monitor Golds) are a different ball game altogether....
I do however like Royds (I believe one of your favourites), as they have 'soul'; that indefinable 'something' which is essential for me in any equipment I use - and I suspect you, too.
These days, after achieving overall musicality, and a level of accuracy which satisfies me, I'm addicted to genuine scale, and that means big (or even huge) speakers, although I'm not necessarily into the extreme low bass, which gets the likes of Mark's rocks off, but I do like to 'feel' the music, as well as hear it.
It's that sense of 'physicality' and sheer visceral intensity, with the right music, when the sound pressurises the room at (controlled) very high SPLs, so that you almost feel queasy, and where bass notes punch you in right the gut, just like happens (to an even greater extent) at live rock gigs, which provides me with huge amusement - and my room lends itself very well to that effect.... :eyebrows:
Therefore, I admire what some quality small speakers can do, but for me, it's rather similar to a well-known saying: once you've had big, you never go back! ;)
Marco.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
02-06-2011, 23:12
i think Dave Rance likes these!!..
Dave who !!
I have fond memories of the original AR amp - transformer coupled transistor design from memory, but have no idea at all how it would sound today, sadly.
I hated early Royds, nasty, spitty little boxes - IMO, but we did have some Abbots with BIG BASS if you weren't careful. The much later Minstrels were exquisite though, with doped cones and all - ahem... but very low power handling. As Harbeth nods to the BBC ideas (I don't feel qualified to discuss just how close modern ones are, but Dudley Harwood was another gentle-man I remember and the current owner is incredibly posessive of the "BBC" heritage), I do feel that Rega has taken the gauntlet left by Joe. At least, that's my take on it, and I doubt many here would find fault with their well-priced speakers these days...
I remember when the NAD 60 amp and related products came into the shop and liked the sonics very much. A friend bought one (I can't remember what he used them with :( ) and it lasted him for years, apart from noisy controls after a while. I'm probably wrong, but I think the original 3030 was a re-cased (in charcoal grey) version, although I don't know how closely related the classic 3020 is or was to this..
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
02-06-2011, 23:43
Well if anyone wants to get a 60's transistor amp with output transformers then get a Rogers Ravensbourne.
Rare Bird
02-06-2011, 23:45
Well i have one so lets see.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
03-06-2011, 00:00
On second thoughts it didn't have output transformers, it had interstage transformer between driver and output stage, quite weird and the only amp I know that did this. So transistor output transformer amps, well I think Harmon Kardon did one, and McIntosh did a couple even fairly recently. I could do one if you really want it but it would be a bit of a waste of time. They were supposed to duplicate some of the characteristics of valve amps, but really they applied the characteristics of output transformers. There is a much cheaper way of largely doing this and that is wire a couple of 4ohm 10w wirewound resistors in series with the speakers. Kills the damping factor, slows the amp down and duplicates the sound of an output transformer :ner:
Rare Bird
03-06-2011, 00:04
If i wanted a shit replication i'd make one myself, i'm a collector i collect & listern to vintage amps.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
03-06-2011, 00:07
A Cadet is a valve amp so it has to have one unless it is a balanced OTL design. (oh dear bitten by the late edit again :o )
I wasn't serious you know, it was a statement of capability that is all.
Rare Bird
03-06-2011, 00:11
i realised :)
Just thinking back to my 'A75' i seem to remember some small transformers on board, maybe it's a pattern all way through the transline!
The A75/Panthera wasn't a good amp at the time I recall, although the A100 was rather better.
Lodgesound
03-06-2011, 15:09
Sorry - meant to post this in this thread - apologies Marco....
My first personal experience of the Rogers LS 5/8 was in a BBC mastering suite when I was 16 - I was completely blown away - 27 years later I now own 2 pairs of my own.
I was fortunate enough in my days at the BBC college to be lectured by one of the men who designed the LS 5/8 - very interesting chap as his lectures were an intriguing insight into Kingswood Warren and how the LS 5/8 came to be after a staggering amount of research and many other designs of speaker.
Almost 35 years after they were introduced bettering these (IMO) is still very tricky until you move towards other large designs such as Lockwoods (naturally Marco) and some of B&W's studio monitors.
Interestingly the SPL that the LS 5/8's are capable of prevented Rogers from launching them on the domestic market as they were deemed too dangerous - they will easily (and I mean without any trouble at all) go to 115 dB without distortion as was in the original design brief. The reason for this was that they had to be able to accurately monitor concert levels at full range for live OB's and mixes.
When the BBC embarked on a project to try and replace them they found that they were unable to find a better equivalent in 1993 and this led to the Chord company being contracted to make replacement amplifiers to drive them (as original they use a pair of Quad 405's with a crossover network on the input side thus providing active feeds to the drivers).
The 5/8 issue Quad 405's were a bit compromised I remember as the crossover boards had to be shoehorned into an already crowded case..
Assuming my trip inland goes ahead tomorrow, I may have the LS5/9's by evening. Not as full bodied as the 5/8's and possibly too clinical in reproduction for home use. We shall see ;)
Reid Malenfant
04-06-2011, 17:35
<snip> These days, after achieving overall musicality, and a level of accuracy which satisfies me, I'm addicted to genuine scale, and that means big (or even huge) speakers, although I'm not necessarily into the extreme low bass, which gets the likes of Mark's rocks off, but I do like to 'feel' the music, as well as hear it.
Marco.
:lolsign: Yes i am to Marco, into scale & accuracy that is. The thing is the type of music i listen to often has bass in the very low 20Hz region if not lower! As i like things as accurate as possible (like yourself) i have no choice than to attemp to reproduce what is on the CD or whatever.
I don't like to compromise if i can afford not to, & if i can't afford it i'll build it myself :cool:
I'm currently (or rather, my son is) listening to Mark's Syn CD. The sub-bass vibrations going around the house are enormous :eek:
I can well believe there are ~20Hz frequencies there.
Reid Malenfant
04-06-2011, 18:15
:lolsign: What system is he listening on Martin?
:lolsign: What system is he listening on Martin?
Mine, of course! :eek:
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
05-06-2011, 11:22
BBC are closing and moving from Kingswood Warren after 60 years. As they say in the clip they are not really interested in testing and producing audio and monitoring equipment anymore.
Anyone want a cheap anechoic chamber :eyebrows: (waste of bloody space) :ner:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/surrey/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8512000/8512559.stm
docfoster
05-06-2011, 16:38
Hi RD!
Fancy them letting you in again! :-D
One of my best mates is one of the team who recently moved out of Kingswood. I visited there a few times in the naughties and it was exactly how one would imagine - full of wires and bits of circuitry and machines going 'bing'. It didn't mean anything to me who knows nothing of such things, but it seemed very cool.
No speaker testing going on that I remember (didn't the Beeb pair up with Dynaudio....?) but my friend was working on hardware for DAB, then freeview then HD freeview.
I've been promised a visit to the new R&D centre this summer. I will demand to see their 'speaker crossovers...
The BBC stopped investigating speaker design a long time ago, which is one reason why Alan Shaw of Harbeth is so proprietorial about the legacy left us in the research papers etc. Whatever "subjectivists" say, designers need a firm footing upon which to build their speaker "artwork," and this has served well over the decades I think.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
05-06-2011, 18:05
How do you know, do you design loudspeakers?
I do and I wouldn't use any of it!
You certainly build speakers which are "different" Richard, I'll give you that.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
05-06-2011, 18:54
'Fraid not, there are far more speaker companies that follow my principles (though I don't claim them to be mine like the BBC does) than those that follow the BBC. All US companies for a start, and plenty of UK companies. Even the companies that claim BBC inheritance do it for marketing purposes. I just take some of the parameters to extremes, because I can.
And none of them turn my amps into bonfires like you claimed on Theo's thread, which you choose not to reply to. In fact the only speakers likely to do that are Spendors.
Perhaps you should hear them before you comment, and the amps as well, before you set yourself up as an expert on them.
Reid Malenfant
05-06-2011, 19:01
And none of them turn my amps into bonfires like you claimed on Theo's thread, which you choose not to reply to. In fact the only speakers likely to do that are Spendors.
Perhaps you should hear them before you comment, and the amps as well, before you set yourself up as an expert on them.
Perhaps the amps turn the speakers into bonfires? (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=10506&page=4) :scratch: Scroll down...
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
05-06-2011, 19:29
They aren't electrostatics are they?
Also on investigation they proved to show signs of a voice coil short.
The design fault was that according to CE and safety regs there should be no possibility of a shorted voice coil burn out setting fire to the wadding in a speaker or the cone as neither should be flammable. So the responsibility is firmly placed in the hands of the loudspeaker. AND you can confirm by contacting the owner as I repaired his amps FOC and the loudspeaker manufacturer refused to accept any responsibility or help the customer at all, in fact he was just bloody rude to him.
Reid Malenfant
05-06-2011, 19:32
Me, i have no idea what happened - i was simply pointing it out.
Voicecoils don't short out without being fed copious amounts of power though. Seeing as they were not being fed a signal it makes me wonder where all this power came from :scratch:
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
05-06-2011, 20:03
Yes they do if the insulation fails or is partial failed on assembly, it become progressive as the voice coil heats up. Are you out to start a fight, if so what is your motive?
If you read my post on your other attempt to create trouble you will see there is proof (which was given to the insurers) of a hot spot on the voice coil where the former was burnt through. If it had been caused by amp failure alone that hot spot wouldn't exist and the damage and burn out would be uniform across the voice coil.
Reid Malenfant
05-06-2011, 20:13
I'm not out to start any fight.
With 0V DC accross the voicecoil there should be no power fed to it. An amp being fed no signal may well have at the most 50mV accross the voicecoil if connected & that is if it has a bad DC offset!
50mV will do nothing current wise & you know it ;)
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
05-06-2011, 20:47
Ditto from the other thread, already answered, either read or stop playing games.
I'm not out to start any fight.
Best avoid an exchange with RD then Mark - he seems to like them ;)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.