What's the best system you've heard?

[alphaGT]

Dave gilmour is a very average guitar player

I should be so average.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[alphaGT]

if you were given a lot of paper, that had only the measurements of unnamed equipment, and you were to decide which components you wanted from this information only, to build a system, the only conclusion you could make in advance is that it would all be compatible. You would have no foggy notion what it would sound like.

And if you were to construct three separate systems that all had the exact same measurements, exactly the same on paper, there is no doubt that all three would have distinctly different sounds, there is almost no chance they would all sound just alike.

But, if we built a system that the numbers did not match well, poor impedance mismatch, wrong wattage for the speakers chosen, wrong gain and loading for your cartridge, you could very well have a huge mess! That may melt down soon after you turn it on. So measurements have their place, to be sure we aren’t wiring up a bomb, but it can in no way clue us into how a system will sound. I’ve heard reviewers look at measurements and make claims that this wide freq. response will result in good soundstaging, or the slew rate indicated good bass response, which amounts to a guess at best. Is that deep soundstaging or wide? Good bass or real slam? They have no idea. Once they see and hear a piece of gear, then they suddenly claim that they predicted its behavior, hind sight is 20/20.

And in the end, who really wants to live in a world of Audio where everything sounds exactly the same, and all is predicable?

Russell

[Yomanze]

With regard to amps, I would sooner see instantaneous current delivery measurements over THD measurements. People listen to real music with dynamic peaks, not sine waves.

[Marco]

And in the end, who really wants to live in a world of Audio where everything sounds exactly the same, and all is predicable?

Oh, you'd be surprised, Russell! The type of folk I've referred to, and Dennis has just mentioned, would love it if everything in LIFE, not just hi-fi, was consistent and predictable, 'black or white', governed by the laws which make up their belief system, simply because they have an innate fear of uncertainty.

It's a primitive form of reductionism, and makes life (and hi-fi) as bland as they are!

Marco.

[Barry]

if you were given a lot of paper, that had only the measurements of unnamed equipment, and you were to decide which components you wanted from this information only, to build a system, the only conclusion you could make in advance is that it would all be compatible. You would have no foggy notion what it would sound like.

And if you were to construct three separate systems that all had the exact same measurements, exactly the same on paper, there is no doubt that all three would have distinctly different sounds, there is almost no chance they would all sound just alike.

But, if we built a system that the numbers did not match well, poor impedance mismatch, wrong wattage for the speakers chosen, wrong gain and loading for your cartridge, you could very well have a huge mess! That may melt down soon after you turn it on. So measurements have their place, to be sure we aren’t wiring up a bomb, but it can in no way clue us into how a system will sound. I’ve heard reviewers look at measurements and make claims that this wide freq. response will result in good soundstaging, or the slew rate indicated good bass response, which amounts to a guess at best. Is that deep soundstaging or wide? Good bass or real slam? They have no idea. Once they see and hear a piece of gear, then they suddenly claim that they predicted its behavior, hind sight is 20/20.

And in the end, who really wants to live in a world of Audio where everything sounds exactly the same, and all is predicable?

Russell

Good post Russell!

[alphaGT]

With regard to amps, I would sooner see instantaneous current delivery measurements over THD measurements. People listen to real music with dynamic peaks, not sine waves.

I’ll agree with that. And a good Slew Rate can tell us a few things. Wattage ratings are nearly worthless. I replaced a 450 watt Class D amp with a 300 watt Class A amp, and the later seems 4 times the size of the first. What’s up with that?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jandl100]

It's all about the power supply, I think.
I had a class D Crown 300 or so watter - an easy one handed lift - it was actually a bit of a wimp soundwise.

[Yomanze]

“Heavy is good, heavy is reliable.” :P

- Boris the Blade

[Marco]

I was recently given a book on the psychology of certain personality types - those who are much more able to cope with and deal with the tension from unresolved issues, and it is very enlightening.

"Tension from unresolved issues".

That's exactly it Dennis, and like you say, it all comes down to personality types, in terms of how extreme that tension is, and how it's dealt with. I also believe, linked with that, especially in those who exhibit high degrees of such tension, is a 'fear of uncertainty', and the desire to pigeonhole everything into 'neatly-resolved boxes', so that rigidly held opinions, remain so, thus are shielded from scrutiny.

Uncertainty is uncomfortable and disconcerting for these people. And I see that behaviour all the time in diehard 'objectivists', particularly those from an engineering background who qualify as such. They tend to have very rigidly-held (read as immovable) opinions, together with an arrogance and closed-mindedness that does a gross disservice to scientific learning. In my experience, true scientists do not possess those traits.

The types you list Marco could well fall into the category that is unable to deal with this tension. We all would like life 'watertight and shipshape', but it is not so, and the sooner we come to terms with its variability and the fickle nature of existence, the better we will be at dealing with its issues.

Absolutely, and that's what these folk need to learn, and to embrace uncertainty, see it as a possible learning curve, and therefore a good thing. However, that's the problem with many of them, as they don't seem to think that they have anything new to learn! Apparently, they know it all already...

Of course the internal 'comfort zone', is an attempt at resolving things to a neat and complete understanding, but it is based on illusion, and hence under the constant threat from reality propounders.

Hence my earlier remark about pigeonholing things into "neatly-resolved boxes". Personally, I think it's healthy for your view of reality to be occasionally questioned and exposed to scrutiny, as it will be skewed by natural bias, thus often different to the actuality, simply because we rarely see ourselves as we *really* are...

I have had enormous fights with academics who are of such an arrogant (self) persuasion, that they are really very aggressive, and want to punish anyone who has the balls to oppose their views, even giving them poor marks for their stance, and this could well describe such people.

Haha... Me too!! Especially on forums....

It's those types of people I simply cannot get on with, as their (often unjustified) arrogance grinds my gears like you wouldn't believe. It's not just their arrogance though, but the often fragile ego attached to it, along with a goodly dose of intransigence, combining to produce a heady cocktail of obnoxiousness, which is completely insufferable!!

I think the problem is often academics being wannabe scientists, but not having the ability to hold the title, so instead they create the illusion of one, which they then portray to the outside world, in order to satisfy that frustration! And their ego is huge, in order to make up for their limited talent, but fragile too, because deep down they know it's unjustified, and so needs continual 'stroking'.

"and protecting their scientific belief system from having its fallacies exposed,"
By definition this belief system is not scientific.

Indeed, but they think it is, although as you say, quite the opposite is true. Science is not a closed-minded, rigid entity; it's an innately inquisitive, ever-evolving (and learning) one.

The real problem is that they are actually breaking the rules of science, and if they were to see that, it is possible that their whole personality could collapse. Science requires modesty and humility, and a burning self sacrificing desire to seek truth.

...which is why they provide themselves with an internal comfort zone, to prevent that conflict. How you've defined it above is *exactly* the true nature of science, and how real scientists behave, not the wannabes, posing as academics.

Marco.

[paulf-2007]

Load of nutters