What's the best system you've heard?

[Marco]

Not exactly. Objectively you can only say what is better in theory, and indeed active speakers and passive pre amps are better in theory, i.e they are technically superior. What an individual subjectively prefers is another matter entirely.

Indeed, but in audio, theories (which are all good and well) often fall down when applied in practice! The latter is ALL that matters to me, and what my ears tell me in the real world. And if that contradicts the theories, then that's what becomes *my* reality. Simples!

Also, often what is claimed as being 'technically superior' only applies in isolation, i.e. out with the context of a working system, where other variables come into play that can (and do) skew matters. After all, a system or component is only as good as its weakest link.

For example, in the case of active speakers. They may be a 'technically superior' solution, *on paper*, but in actuality, how much of a hindrance are the on-board amp packs, compared with when a much more capable external amplifier is used, in a passive context?

Does the absence of a crossover automatically guarantee a better sound, or does the sonic superiority of a more capable external amplifier negate the detrimental effects of the crossover?

Much of course depends on how well the crossover concerned has been designed and how many components are in the signal path (and how good the amp packs in question are), but these are things that can ONLY be assessed by LISTENING - not simply by relying on theories.

Marco.

[Marco]

I have become far more opinionated about the fact that there are no definites in audio.

Feel free to be opinionated about what is an undeniable fact (or rather that there are very few definites), no matter how much the 'measurists' and number-crunchers insist otherwise!

Marco.

[paulf-2007]

As a species, we tend to hark back to halcyon days; Pink Floyd wouldn't be the audiophile darlings they are if that wasn't the case!

Was the best system I have ever heard really the first high-end system I encountered, up on the top floor of 'The Music Room' in Manchester? Probably not, but it's the one that sticks because I'd not heard anything like it before.

I have become far more opinionated about the fact that there are no definites in audio. I'm not sure how a strong opinion about that works though!

Dave gilmour is a very average guitar player

[oldius]

Dave gilmour is a very average guitar player

I don't get him or Pink Floyd, but I whisper it around these parts!

[Macca]

For example, in the case of active speakers. They may be a 'technically superior' solution, on paper, but in actuality, how much of a hindrance are the on-board amp packs, compared with when a much more capable external amplifier is used, in a passive context?

Does the absence of a crossover automatically guarantee a better sound, or does the sonic superiority of the more capable external amplifier negate the detrimental effects of the crossover? Much of course depends on how well the crossover concerned has been designed and how many components are in the signal path (and how good the amp packs in question are), but these are things that can ONLY be assessed by LISTENING - not simply by relying on theories.

Marco.

'Active' doesn't mean the amps have to be inside the speaker. With active you are applying bandwidth limiting to the signal before it reaches the amp instead of doing it after the amp as in a passive system. Amp can be in or out of the speakers. You could have an active system using your TD valve amp, or multiples of them, if you wanted to.

Beyond that it is all subjective - some people prefer passive ATC, some prefer the active version. There is no way to quantify that, it is just down to the individual's expectations and preferences.

The fact that what is superior on paper is not necessarily superior in reality is just an indicator of how many variables there are in an audio system and how hard it is to quantify them when trying to assess them by subjective impression alone.

In other words what you think is making the sound to your liking is not necessarily what actually is making the sound to your liking. Likewise if you don't like it, how do you know it is, for example, the amplifier that is the problem? Listening alone will not enable you to deduce this.

The only way to determine that is by objective measurement. Trying to work it out by listening alone will lead to all sorts of incorrect conclusions being drawn. And potentially a lot of money wasted.

For example you are suggesting that active ATC are held back by the quality of the amplifiers within them. But to come to that conclusion by listening alone you are rejecting the influence of the source, pre-amp and the room. And unless you listen to a wide variety of programme the music you use for your listening test will also be a factor.

The hardened subjectivist will say that if they like it then they like it and that is all that matters, which is fair enough. It is when they go on to draw technical conclusions as to why they like it, solely from listening, that errors begin to occur.

[Pharos]

Although tending to being an objectivist, I do not deny my ears, or assert that everything is determined by good numbers; to me that is just another form of rather silly subjectivism. I see no conflict between the two camps, the objective measurables are universally true, but do not define everything because we have a limited knowledge only, and there must be so much more to discover.

They do however underlie all that we know in audio, and it is desirable to get them as right as possible, and in the case of actives there are about 26 benefits in principle over the passive approach. The theories are right, but incomplete as an audio account.

It is possible of course to design not utilising many of these benefits, or not doing so well, and also possible to put an enormous amount of work and expenditure into passive design and achieve an excellent result.

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, and their power amps, similar in design principle are IMO very good, (SPA2).

You would probably then Marco, dislike my Betas on the basis of the type of amplification they use, and I must say that having high frequency oscillators as a basis for amplification did at first repel me instinctually, especially after years of dealing with the problem of parasitic oscillations in valve amplifiers. But hey-ho, my ears tell me that my instinct was borne of an inappropriate reaction.

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.

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.

[Marco]

The fact that what is superior on paper is not necessarily superior in reality is just an indicator of how many variables there are in an audio system and how hard it is to quantify them when trying to assess them by subjective impression alone.

Indeed, and the very same applies if trying to assess them by measurement alone. The variables still exist, just in a different area.

In other words what you think is making the sound to your liking is not necessarily what actually is making the sound to your liking. Likewise if you don't like it, how do you know it is, for example, the amplifier that is the problem? Listening alone will not enable you to deduce this.

Indeed, and neither will measurements alone. BOTH are necessary, but for different reasons, unless you care not a jot what the measurements say, and simply trust your ears, regardless [count me in].

The only way to determine that is by objective measurement. Trying to work it out by listening alone will lead to all sorts of incorrect conclusions being drawn. And potentially a lot of money wasted.

And once again, the same applies with working it out by measurement alone. You seem to be under the misapprehension that measurements act some form of indisputable proof, in terms of how good a piece of equipment is at doing its job, when the reality is they only ever tell PART of the story.

Also, in terms of your last bit, and incorrect conclusions being drawn and a lot of money wasted, I seem to have done not too badly with my system, having assembled it almost entirely by paying no attention whatsoever to measurements, and as a result have been using an unchanged system very satisfactorily for years, with almost no box swaps. Hardly then wasting a lot of money!

And where are all the "incorrect conclusions" I've supposedly made, as a result of working things out by listening alone, and as a result having wasted lots of money on my 'mistakes'? The evidence, in my case, doesn't support that particular theory.

So was I just 'lucky' or what?

Marco.

[Yomanze]

Dave gilmour is a very average guitar player

Try to reproduce anywhere near his tone though.

[Macca]

IIndeed, and once again, the same applies with working it out by measurement alone. You seem to be under the misapprehension that measurements act some form of indisputable proof, in terms of how good a piece of equipment is at doing its job, when the reality is they only ever tell PART of the story.

No, at all. I'm saying that only measurements can explain why we are hearing what we hear.

Like hearing a great system and assuming it is because the speakers are a great design. Or hearing a poor system and deciding from that that the speakers are a poor design, when in fact it could be the room, or the amp, or the source that are the problem.

You might think the speakers have a poor bass response, for example, when in fact it is because the amp cannot drive them properly into the low impedance load they present.

Or it might be that they do have a poor bass response regardless of amp used. But how do you know the poor bass is an amp or a speaker problem without measuring? Like Dennis I do not see listening and measuring as being mutually exclusive, in fact they are complimentary. Both are flawed approaches when taken individually which is why I always wince when I see someone saying 'I just need to listen and that tells me everything I need to know.' No, it doesn't!

Read the forums and you see people making these assumptions all the time based on nothing more than listening to a couple of tracks. That may be enough to tell you whether you like or do not like what the system does but it tells you nothing about why you like or don't like it.

[Marco]

No, at all. I'm saying that only measurements can explain why we are hearing what we hear.

Unfortunately, that's where we fundamentally disagree. I contend that some technical measurements produced are fatally flawed, simply because we can't currently measure all that we can genuinely hear, so given that's what I believe, how can they ever act as conclusive proof for explaining what I hear?

You have to get your head around the fact that any measurement taken is only as good as the context in which it's been applied.

It will almost certainly only act as a guideline, in terms of outlining what is actually happening, not indisputable proof - and that's fundamentally where your argument falls down, simply because you believe too much in the correlation between measurements, and the efficacy of the equipment represented by those measurements.

And, I'll ask again, where are all the mistakes and incorrect conclusions I've made with my system, leading to me spending loads of money on 'mistakes', simply because I assess things by listening alone? You asserted that as a fact, so I'd ask you to show some evidence of that in my circumstances, or withdraw your assertion.

Marco.