What's the best system you've heard?

[walpurgis]

He did like to show off a bit though. Well. if you know him, you'd know lol

I don't know about showing off, but he does like to talk. Not seen Mike for years, but sometimes it was a job to escape his shop!

[southall-1998]

Mike Solomons appears to be lacking in good reputation!

S.

[Lerxst]

Mike Solomons appears to be lacking in good reputation!

S.

You didn't get that impression from me I hope!

[southall-1998]

You didn't get that impression from me I hope!

Nope, online reviews.

S.

[Pharos]

When a statement of this quality is made, it severely undermines the frequent and forceful posts made by the poster.

"I contend that some technical measurements produced are fatally flawed, simply because we can't currently measure all that we can genuinely hear".

A master of the non sequitur.

[Marco]

Sorry, Dennis, I don't understand the point you're making. Could you 'spit it out' a little more plainly?

Marco.

[walpurgis]

When a statement of this quality is made, it severely undermines the frequent and forceful posts made by the poster.

"I contend that some technical measurements produced are fatally flawed, simply because we can't currently measure all that we can genuinely hear".

A master of the non sequitur.

Hmm. Measurements may not be "flawed", but they can certainly be inadequate to define what we hear.

[Marco]

Indeed! However...

The results of measurements are flawed, if the information that they provide does not represent ALL that needs to be known, in respect of the phenomenon being measured, thus in effect only providing 'half of the story'. This is especially true when the measurements in question are being used as evidence to 'prove' the apparent non-existence of said phenomenon.

Therefore, if a measurement taken is only providing us with half of the story, rather than the full story required, then how is that anything other than flawed?

And there are numerous examples of such in hi-fi, where what some of us can genuinely hear (e.g sonic differences between various types of mains leads) apparently aren't currently measurable, and therefore don't exist, I would contend only because what's being measured isn't telling us the full story of what's going on, and therefore is flawed.

It can also lead to possibly flawed further conclusions being reached, such as because those differences are unable to be measured, that they're therefore imagined. Maybe they're not being imagined, but rather simply not revealed, due to a flawed or insufficiently thorough measuring process?

Marco.

[Marco]

Hi Dennis,

Sorry I missed this earlier (I was having my lunch at the time):

Ashley James, lately of AVI slates ATCs on the basis of the lower roll-off of the mid range driver, having propounded their virtues for many years through the 90s and beyond, but I have never heard criticism of the amp packs prior to Marco's. It seems to me hardly likely that ATC would sabotage such a high effort design by knowingly using compromised amplification...

It's not about 'sabotaging' anything; it's the fact that every product is ultimately built to a price, and therefore decisions will have been taken as to where to cut costs and make compromises - and I believe that area is in the amp modules, which although adequate for their intended application, aren't the 'last word' in performance.

Also, the vast majority of ATC's customers are in the recording and broadcast industry, where active speakers are considered the norm, so that's just how they're used to doing things. However, it doesn't mean that the active approach is the universally best solution, simply that it's a solution that best suits a particular environment.

You would probably then Marco, dislike my Betas on the basis of the type of amplification they use...

I don't 'automatically dislike' anything, Dennis. I may be naturally predisposed to preferring certain things, based on what I consider is the best approach, as we all are, but I would never conclusively judge any equipment or speakers without listening to them first.

We mostly have been in this game for a long time, and there is no doubt in my mind that early breakthroughs in listening experience are very deep and profound, and likely to be a result of more major differences that in our later years. This compares well with some other of our early experiences; first wild strawberry, first curry, and many others.

I think that's absolutely correct, and a very good observation.

One last point, all experiences are contextual, much research being done on tis currently, and our very variable psychological preoccupation, is a backdrop to all our experiences, and this may account for the liking of a particular piece of music on one occasion, for it to leave one wondering at a later time what that was all about, it now having little impact.

Try as I might to understand the above, despite reading it over several times, I don't get what you're trying to say. However, I suspect it contains another astute observation, so perhaps you can help me unravel it?

Marco.

[Pharos]

"I contend that some technical measurements produced are fatally flawed, simply because we can't currently measure all that we can genuinely hear".

The fact that we cant measure all that we can 'genuinely hear', does not in any way have a bearing on whether or not some technical measurements are fatally flawed; the two are quite separate, but may indicate their inadequacy to fully explain all.

I accept that I was being presumptive about the your inclination on ICEpower, and meant no offence.

I didn't mean "sabotage" in a literal sense, perhaps "compromise" would have been abetter choice of word.

The last point is that we are not 'objective beings' in any absolute sense. We always have an internal psychological context which is our backdrop to the I/C information we receive, and optical illusions show us how our perceptions are also influenced by other I/C information.

We may think of this internal 'backscape' as fixed, but it is far from that, and it will affect our perceptions as well as how we may filter the content of the I/C information. The internal 'backscape' is always adapting, and shifting its 'selectively chosen' content and focus, within our own vast databases of experience. This could be thought of, and linked to mood variation.

All technical measurements are valid, though their significance may be major, minor, and even questionable.
This is quite separate from our lack of a comprehensive knowledge, ie. limitation in understanding, of audio.

Our understanding is really rather primitive, especially when realising that most of our 'hearing' is processing in the brain, we have a few known and valid variables which we use, but which cannot define the whole reality.

Absolutely right Geoff.