View Full Version : A controversial article!
Arkless Electronics
07-12-2015, 21:14
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/myths.html :eyebrows:
I don't agree with everything said in the article myself... but most of it yes...
This is the only kind of person interested in that guff:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/911/XSLI94.jpg
Say hello to 'Arnold'.
On Tuesdays, he wears nothing but a blindfold and a pair of his sister's panties, but gets much more excited at the thought of giving his mains cables a right good DBX-ing... :eyebrows:
Marco.
Ali Tait
07-12-2015, 22:14
Nice school picture Marco!
Ha - those were the types I used to like to slap! ;)
{Kidding}.
Marco.
Oldpinkman
08-12-2015, 06:24
Ha - those were the types I used to like to slap! ;)
{Kidding}.
Marco.
I bet the one that grew up to be bill Gates wished he'd been playground cool instead ;)
Oldpinkman
08-12-2015, 06:32
And jez
We both know, whatever else was read or ignored, Marco is not going to be able to resist trying listening to his system with his wedding tackle dipped in olive oil. I am opening a book on how long before we get a thread opened arguing over which extra virgin olive oil produces the best sonic effect
I bet it's a bloody Italian oil
:lol:
Filippo Berio provides the nicest 'thrust'!
:lolsign:
Marco.
narabdela
08-12-2015, 07:16
A controversial article!
I don't understand. What's controversial about it? :scratch:
Oldpinkman
08-12-2015, 07:32
I don't understand. What's controversial about it? :scratch:
Welcome to AOS. :)
Hugh, it's because most of us here are diehard subjectivists, who trust our ears (but certainly don't 'hate' science), and the article linked to makes some heavily objectivist statements that many of us would disagree with :)
It's also an old article, which I've seen many times before.
The problem is that on hi-fi forums there are too many resident nerds/geeks, as the technical aspects of this hobby, together with computers, attracts them, and computers are what we use to communicate with each other on the Internet. Nerds/geeks also tend to be 'sciencey types', who more often than not, possess an objectivist mindset.
Those types of people, whilst no doubt mostly very nice guys, think completely differently, certainly from how I do, and consequently hold diametrically opposed views on hi-fi. It also explains the personality clashes that inevitably occur between various proponents from either 'camp', when 'art' and science are, or appear to be, mutually incompatible.
That's why these types of threads crop up regularly (often, as in this instance, when links are posted that appear to confirm the views of a proponent from one 'camp', seeking to gain the intellectual high ground) and why, no matter how much debate takes place, about who is 'right' or 'wrong', there will NEVER be any consensus between those who occupy both sides of the divide.
All it creates is a nice archive of circular arguments, and sometimes the odd death threat ;)
Marco.
jandl100
08-12-2015, 08:37
It's one of those :fence: things on AOS.
As Marco so rightly says, two sides, irrevocably split and will never see eye to eye.
Why they keep on at it quite defeats me, but if it makes 'em happy .... carry on! :lol:
cloth-ears
08-12-2015, 08:54
At last a bit of reason, and not posted by me but Marco. Surprised to say the least
I’ve been saying the same or similar for years. I never could understand the people that can only hear a difference with their eyes. Blind testing is fool proof. If there really is a difference in sound then it will be obvious to anyone. After all, wine tasters who have a highly developed sense of taste (in a way this could be compared to a seasoned audiophiles hearing) can tell what wine is what without seeing the label. The reason is there really is a difference and they can prove it time and time again. Could you imagine a wine taster who could not tell the difference unless he could see the label and price of a bottle of wine.
Bring on the haters
Well, Bob, it's interesting that you should bring up the subject of wine, as I myself am somewhat of a connoisseur.
I wouldn't call myself an expert, because to deserve that title really would involve a capacity for anal levels of knowledge, but I can certainly (as has been proven in various blind tastings) consistently identify different types of wine, by country of origin, grape variety and (sometimes vintage). Identifying individual producers of wines, is a much more difficult task, and that skill rests firmly in the domain of true experts.
As however, let's call it, an amateur wine connoisseur, I can tell you that 90% of what you learn (and the skills you develop in that respect) is down to experience, and the practical knowledge, gained over many years, of sampling a huge variety of wines, 'honing' the discernment of your palate in the process - not what you read in text books, or necessarily what has been proven by science.
Therefore, if I can successfully (and repeatedly) tell the difference between an Australian Shiraz and an Italian Chianti/Sangiovese, or such like, BLIND, the taste difference between which, to my knowledge, can't currently be measured, who's to say that I can't also successfully identify genuine sonic differences between various types of mains leads?
After all, if science can't currently prove the taste differences between Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon (i.e. to it, they are simply two red grape varieties), perhaps in that respect, it also can't currently prove the sonic differences between an 'audiophile power cable' and a kettle lead? :)
Marco.
Oldpinkman
08-12-2015, 09:44
I think the point is Marco that the objectivists would happily accept blind testing as proof that you can hear a difference. Nobody needs to use a machine to measure it
Its the same as with drugs (pharmaceuticals) and placebo and double blind trials (My parents met in the research labs at Boroughs Welcome, now part of Smithkliene Beecham - we did a lot of pharma at our place). Nobody decides if a drug works by measuring the chemical composition of the drug. They use it and see what it does
But when it comes to shakti stones and mains cables nobody DOES blind test.
And maybe coming back to the subject of wine - that's because most of the amateur connoiseurs who insist on being able to see the label - like you - are interested in drinking for pleasure and not buying stock for a restaurant, or a supermarket, wine merchant etc. I really rate and enjoy Barefoot Merlot, which I can get from the Coop for 6 quid, and is my favourite regular "cocktail" wine. I have only ever bought the stuff off the shelf, and enjoyed it - never blind tested it to be sure I was right and not kidding myself just because of the label - and feel no need to, because I have no professional (or even forum) interest in the subject - I'm just drinking for me
And there are problems with proper scientific testing, even if you want to do them. How do you build a computer controlled ABX box to lift off and replace a shakti stone?
Actually, whilst a double blind test would be the criteria for scientific proof of the fact that a mains cable makes an audio system sound different - I think simple blind testing is enough to prove to individuals that something doesn't work. That was my experience at PT (very painful personal experience). Tests where I didn't know which component I was listening to, but the tester did were enough to demonstrate to me that things I thought I could hear - and tell only with my ears, no sight or knowledge, actually made no difference to the sound at all - and I couldn't hear them without the cues.
A simple blind test is hard to pass. So whilst a proper double blind would strictly be necessary to properly scientifically PROVE a phenomena, simple regular ordinary blind testing, which is far easier to achieve, would be strongly persuasive. But is invariably not carried out - because only someone who believes (as I did at PT) can attempt the test, and they never want to (for the Barefoot Merlot reason)
And it doesnt matter. I'm not making and selling the stuff any more, so I have no moral obligation to check its for real and I am not conning people. At PT, being a left wing, ethical, cooperative sort of place, we did feel that obligation. :cool:
cloth-ears
08-12-2015, 09:45
Well, Bob, it's interesting that you should bring up the subject of wine, as I myself am somewhat of a connoisseur.
I wouldn't call myself an expert, because to deserve that title really would involve a capacity for anal levels of knowledge, but I can certainly (as has been proven in various blind tastings) consistently identify different types of wine, by country of origin, grape variety and (sometimes vintage). Identifying individual producers of wines, is a much more difficult task, and that skill rests firmly in the domain of true experts.
As however, let's call it, an amateur wine connoisseur, I can tell you that 90% of what you learn (and the skills you develop in that respect) is down to experience, and the practical knowledge, gained over many years, of sampling a huge variety of wines, 'honing' the discernment of your palate in the process - not what you read in text books, or necessarily what has been proven by science.
Therefore, if I can successfully (and repeatedly) tell the difference between an Australian Shiraz and an Italian Chianti/Sangiovese, BLIND, the taste difference between which, to my knowledge, can't currently be measured, who's to say that I can't also successfully identify genuine sonic differences between various types of mains leads?
After all, if science can't currently prove the taste differences between Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon (i.e. to it, they are simply two red grape varieties), perhaps in that respect, it also can't currently prove the sonic differences between an 'audiophile power cable' and a kettle lead? :)
Marco.
Well Marco, to say that science can’t tell the difference between two different wines is simply not true. Current commercially available laboratory instruments can resolve down to a single molecule with ease. At the atomic level it is slightly more difficult but still possible.
But as always you missed the point. You say you can blindly tell the difference between various wines (and I’ve no reason to doubt you) but you failed to say if you can do the same with mains leads. Unless you can your argument has little or no merit
Oldpinkman
08-12-2015, 09:46
Well Marco, to say that science can’t tell the difference between two different wines is simply not true. Current commercially available laboratory instruments can resolve down to a single molecule with ease. At the atomic level it is slightly more difficult but still possible.
But as always you missed the point. You say you can blindly tell the difference between various wines (and I’ve no reason to doubt you) but you failed to say if you can do the same with mains leads. Unless you can your argument has little or no merit
That was a much more succinct version! :D
I think the point is Marco that the objectivists would happily accept blind testing as proof that you can hear a difference. Nobody needs to use a machine to measure it.
Precisely - and thus neither do I need a 'machine' to prove that I *know* I can genuinely hear differences between mains leads, by employing the same skills when listening to cables, as I do when tasting wine blindly! *That* is the point......
The 'proof' is only needed for objectivists to accept that I can do what I claim! ;)
F*ck that, they can think what they like.
Marco.
Well Marco, to say that science can’t tell the difference between two different wines is simply not true. Current commercially available laboratory instruments can resolve down to a single molecule with ease. At the atomic level it is slightly more difficult but still possible.
Ha - now that's classic 'black and white' binary-thinking at work, typical of an objectivist mindset! :D
It's the taste variance that can't currently be identified/proven by science, Bob, not how molecularly dissimilar two different grapes are, which is where the wine connoisseurs come in.
But as always you missed the point. You say you can blindly tell the difference between various wines (and I’ve no reason to doubt you) but you failed to say if you can do the same with mains leads. Unless you can your argument has little or no merit
I have no interest whatsoever in doing that (as life's too short, and these days I'm into hi-fi much more for the music, than anything else), therefore my viewpoint will forever remain at a subjectivist level. However, that doesn't change what I *know* I can hear with mains leads, just the same as I *know* (because I've proved it) that I can taste the difference between a Beaujolais and Bardolino! ;)
Knowing that within myself is satisfaction enough, without having to prove it to anyone on a forum - and I'm sure many other subjectivists here feel exactly the same with whatever views they hold in audio :cool:
Marco.
Beobloke
08-12-2015, 10:15
As Marco so rightly says, two sides, irrevocably split and will never see eye to eye.
It's funny really - I am never sent the Lab Report from Hi-Fi News of anything I review until right at the very end of the process when the review is being laid out on the page, so until that point, I never know if the item in question measures well or not. Thinking back to the items I have been the most impressed with during my time at the magazine, all of them have turned in an exemplary set of measurements.
I guess I just must be very special... :D
cloth-ears
08-12-2015, 10:15
Ha - now that's classic 'black and white' binary-thinking at work, typical of an objectivist mindset! :D
It's the taste variance that can't currently be identified/proven by science, Bob, not how molecularly dissimilar two different grapes are, which is where the wine connoisseurs come in.
I have no interest whatsoever in doing that (as life's too short, and these days I'm into hi-fi much more for the music, than anything else), therefore my viewpoint will forever remain at a subjectivist level. However, that doesn't change what I *know* I can hear with mains leads, just the same as I *know* that I can taste the difference between a Beaujolais and Bardolino! ;)
Knowing that within myself is satisfaction enough, without having to prove it to anyone - and I'm sure many other subjectivists here feel exactly the same with whatever views they hold in audio :cool:
Marco.
Well Mr Marco you are nothing if not entertaining, you always brighten up my day. To be honest I am somewhat of a wine expert myself. I can tell the difference between any bottle of wine, even down to the maker. I can’t do it blindfolded of course as I need to look at the label; but as long as I can see it I can tell you what it is. It doesn’t matter to me if you believe it or not, I know I can do it.
It's funny really - I am never sent the Lab Report from Hi-Fi News of anything I review until right at the very end of the process when the review is being laid out on the page, so until that point, I never know if the item in question measures well or not. Thinking back to the items I have been the most impressed with during my time at the magazine, all of them have turned in an exemplary set of measurements.
I guess I just must be very special... :D
Of course you are, but that's beside the point :D
The fact is, equipment that measures well (providing the correct parameters have been used for testing, which impact directly on audio performance), almost always sounds good. I have never doubted that FACT :)
Marco.
Well Mr Marco you are nothing if not entertaining, you always brighten up my day. To be honest I am somewhat of a wine expert myself. I can tell the difference between any bottle of wine, even down to the maker. I can’t do it blindfolded of course as I need to look at the label; but as long as I can see it I can tell you what it is. It doesn’t matter to me if you believe it or not, I know I can do it.
Now you're just being facetious, because you can't come up with a better answer! :ner:
The reason why you've employed that diversionary tactic now (as is classically always the case in these debates) is simply because your obstinance/binary-thinking/deeply-ingrained scientific dogma [delete as applicable] won't allow you to accept that the point I'm making is valid.
Marco.
Have to say ive been impressed with stuff that doesnt measure so well too. Remember someone saying the specs on my monos were crap. I said they sound good! So which standpoint should i be interested in?
walpurgis
08-12-2015, 10:26
Blind testing is fool proof.
Somehow, I doubt that.
It's only 'fool proof' if your mindset considers it as such ;)
Marco.
walpurgis
08-12-2015, 10:31
http://audiophilereview.com/audiophile-news/why-double-blind-testing-cant-work-for-audio.html
I'm not making and selling the stuff any more, so I have no moral obligation to check its for real and I am not conning people. At PT, being a left wing, ethical, cooperative sort of place, we did feel that obligation.
Well, you see that's the mistake you made: superimposing your belief system onto others, your customers. I call it 'Consumer Saviour Syndrome', or trying to protect people from themselves. You should let others be the judge of whether or not they're being "conned'.
It is not your place (effectively) to tell them so, as your beliefs or values are not their arbiter of the truth! ;)
Marco.
just a couple of points marco says he's a connoisseur but by definition that means..... an expert judge in matters of taste. Which he then says he's not So hes probably look for a term like aficionado meaning ..a person who is very knowledgeable and enthusiastic about an activity, subject, or pastime.
To take the article mentioned seriously you need to take a leap of faith in the hope that the author knows what hes talking about......which if you read it carefully could be called into question. I'm not going to point out explicit points ...as its more fun seeing if anyone else can spot them.
What I will say is if you listen to say two cables be it blind or not if they follow the same construction topology and metallurgy....its not a great surprise if they sounded almost the same. In fact I would be astonished if there was a difference. As a guess 95% of all cables are essentially the same ...perhaps the thickness of the conductor changes or the type of insulation ....but what happens if you listen to two cables that have totally different construction topologies and conductor metallurgy ? By heck they sound different .......
So as I've said think of context context context and deliberate[?] omission to make a skewed point to justify a personal prejudiced in an attempt to persuade the less knowledgeable in my opinion.
Of course you are, but that's beside the point :D
The fact is, equipment that measures well (providing the correct parameters have been used for testing, which impact directly on audio performance), almost always sounds good. I have never doubted that FACT :)
Marco.
thats barking mate.........thats definately 70's thinking we are 40 years on now with 40 years of listening experience to know that just because if measures well [allegedly as most people can only go by what the maker claims] ...doesn't mean it sounds any good
Sadly, as much fun as this is, I now have to go out (off to Duncan's to have my Pi tweaked -- Oo-er, missus :eek:), but Pete has it spot on in his last sentence (in post #28)!
Play nice now, peeps..... :eyebrows:
Marco.
thats barking mate.........thats definately 70's thinking we are 40 years on now with 40 years of listening experience to know that just because if measures well [allegedly as most people can only go by what the maker claims] ...doesn't mean it sounds any good
See the bit in brackets, you quoted - it's rather crucial!
Right, I'm off... :hotrod:
Marco.
cloth-ears
08-12-2015, 11:24
Somehow, I doubt that.
If you can tell the difference between two or more mains cables in a blind test you would have a good and valid point. If not your argument is totally meaningless. Even the manufactures of these magic bean cables refuse a blind test. What is everyone so afraid of?
walpurgis
08-12-2015, 11:36
If you can tell the difference between two or more mains cables in a blind test you would have a good and valid point. If not your argument is totally meaningless. Even the manufactures of these magic bean cables refuse a blind test. What is everyone so afraid of?
A doubt is not an argument.
cloth-ears
08-12-2015, 11:55
Now you're just being facetious because you can't come up with a better answer! :ner:
The reason why you've employed that diversionary tactic now (as is classically always the case in these debates) is simply because your obstinance/binary-thinking/deeply-ingrained scientific dogma [delete as applicable] won't allow you to accept that the point I'm making is valid.
Marco.
It’s far from a tactic. You are the one who said you could tell the difference between wines on a blind test but refuse to do the same on a mains cable because it would be pointless. Call me what names you like the facts speak for themselves.
cloth-ears
08-12-2015, 11:59
A doubt is not an argument.
Saying “I doubt that” to an argument as a response is in fact a continuation of the argument and in that context is an argument. Yes, I went to school :)
Might I ask why it is important to anyone if mains cables affect the sound?
I'm happy to admit I am in the sceptical camp on this one but I retain an open mind and it would not matter to me how many failed double blind tests there are. I don't know who the subjects were in these tests, usually they use some poxy students for these things who wouldn't have a clue what to listen for. Don't forget no-one is talking about 'night and day' improvements here, if there are improvements they will be very subtle.
If the improvement was demonstrated to me to my satisfaction that would be all I would need, and that would seem to be the position Marco takes, the difference being it already has been demonstrated to him to his satisfaction.
You don't think these cables have any effect, that they are a waste of money, okay that is fine. But is it really necessary to go around telling those who use them that they are delusional and have wasted their money? I saw a bloke the other day sat in a big B&W 4x4, I was tempted to go up and tell him he paid way over the odds for a crap 4x4 but somehow I resisted.
Ali Tait
08-12-2015, 12:40
So B&W make cars as well as speakers?
Well I never. :-)
At last a bit of reason, and not posted by me but Marco. Surprised to say the least
I’ve been saying the same or similar for years. I never could understand the people that can only hear a difference with their eyes. Blind testing is fool proof. If there really is a difference in sound then it will be obvious to anyone. After all, wine tasters who have a highly developed sense of taste (in a way this could be compared to a seasoned audiophiles hearing) can tell what wine is what without seeing the label. The reason is there really is a difference and they can prove it time and time again. Could you imagine a wine taster who could not tell the difference unless he could see the label and price of a bottle of wine.
Bring on the haters
Your wrong there Bob - some wine tasters cannot tell the difference until they see the label.
And concerning price - many wine tasters would be all at sea tasting blind.
sq225917
08-12-2015, 12:53
To take the article mentioned seriously you need to take a leap of faith in the hope that the author knows what hes talking about......which if you read it carefully could be called into question. I'm not going to point out explicit points ...as its more fun seeing if anyone else can spot them.
Please point out the mistakes in his science. Don't bother with his opinions though, They are like arseholes, we all have them and they are full of 5hit.
It seems to me that what gets missed here is a test of blind testing. Blind (single and double) is always dragged up as proof of the absence of a audible difference. But a better initial test would be to try and measure how good a test for difference blind testing is. Ie. start with a known difference, say a sample with 0.1% distortion and the same sample with 0.01% distortion. Then see if using blind testing a difference can be recorded. If it cant, then we have shown one or both of two things. Either we cant tell the difference between 0.1% and 0.01%distortion, OR/AND blind testing is not sensitive enough to show if we can tell the difference. Then we would need to design further tests to tell which of the two it was.
It seems to me that what gets missed here is a test of blind testing. Blind (single and double) is always dragged up as proof of the absence of a audible difference. But a better initial test would be to try and measure how good a test for difference blind testing is. Ie. start with a known difference, say a sample with 0.1% distortion and the same sample with 0.01% distortion. Then see if using blind testing a difference can be recorded. If it cant, then we have shown one or both of two things. Either we cant tell the difference between 0.1% and 0.01%distortion, OR/AND blind testing is not sensitive enough to show if we can tell the difference. Then we would need to design further tests to tell which of the two it was.
A very good point. Has blind testing ever been subject to blind testing? If not then it just another subjective opinion ;)
anthonyTD
08-12-2015, 13:41
Good post Nick,
The real issue in my opinion, is we often over look the real reason why these things make a diffrence, and therefore, our judgement is clouded from the start, for example, a mains cable may have an affect, not so much for its cable type, and content, but simply because its connectors/plugs have a better, tighter fit etc, also, the same may apply to an interconnect, where the plug and socket may have more or less plastic or metal content,and may connect in multiple paths, or singularly, etc, etc.
It seems to me that what gets missed here is a test of blind testing. Blind (single and double) is always dragged up as proof of the absence of a audible difference. But a better initial test would be to try and measure how good a test for difference blind testing is. Ie. start with a known difference, say a sample with 0.1% distortion and the same sample with 0.01% distortion. Then see if using blind testing a difference can be recorded. If it cant, then we have shown one or both of two things. Either we cant tell the difference between 0.1% and 0.01%distortion, OR/AND blind testing is not sensitive enough to show if we can tell the difference. Then we would need to design further tests to tell which of the two it was.
StanleyB
08-12-2015, 13:44
Has blind testing ever been subject to blind testing? If not then it just another subjective opinion ;)
That's a circular argument without any foundation. Throw away comments like that are what brings audio enjoyment into disrepute.
That's a circular argument without any foundation. Throw away comments like that are what brings audio enjoyment into disrepute.
Yeah.
It was a joke, did you really not perceive that?
cloth-ears
08-12-2015, 13:52
Your wrong there Bob - some wine tasters cannot tell the difference until they see the label.
And concerning price - many wine tasters would be all at sea tasting blind.
If you knew anything about professional wine tasters you would know that they are not allowed to judge wines unless it’s in a blind test. Please research your “facts” before correcting a post
We evaluate a lot of food products at the business I work in but we use a triangle test to analyse differences.
Maybe this would be more useful than just blind listening evaluation?
Just for those who don't know what a triangle test is. You have 2 items the same and one different in a test and give them random codes. You then use one as a reference and then compare the other 2 against this blind.
Soon highlights any differences.
cloth-ears
08-12-2015, 14:04
It seems to me that what gets missed here is a test of blind testing. Blind (single and double) is always dragged up as proof of the absence of a audible difference. But a better initial test would be to try and measure how good a test for difference blind testing is. Ie. start with a known difference, say a sample with 0.1% distortion and the same sample with 0.01% distortion. Then see if using blind testing a difference can be recorded. If it cant, then we have shown one or both of two things. Either we cant tell the difference between 0.1% and 0.01%distortion, OR/AND blind testing is not sensitive enough to show if we can tell the difference. Then we would need to design further tests to tell which of the two it was.
That’s smoke and mirrors. All that matters is whether or not an individual who makes a claim as to the benefits of a particular cable can prove it in a blind test or not. If there is any difference it will be obvious to anyone.
Some folk seem to lack humour today. Lighten it up guys please
If you knew anything about professional wine tasters you would know that they are not allowed to judge wines unless it’s in a blind test. Please research your “facts” before correcting a post
Tasting blind is a given. What I said was even tasting blind some wine tasters cannot tell you the price or the region a wine comes from. They may get the grape variety but as these are very widely used throughout the world price and region can be tricky. I tasted an amazing Argentinian Cabernet Sauvignon last night and I could have sworn it was an expensive Bordeaux. And yes I have been trained in wine tasting!
cloth-ears
08-12-2015, 14:53
Tasting blind is a given. What I said was even tasting blind some wine tasters cannot tell you the price or the region a wine comes from. They may get the grape variety but as these are very widely used throughout the world price and region can be tricky. I tasted an amazing Argentinian Cabernet Sauvignon last night and I could have sworn it was an expensive Bordeaux. And yes I have been trained in wine tasting!
:lol:
After the first glass can you even tell...or care! :)
(I'll get my coat...)
That’s smoke and mirrors. All that matters is whether or not an individual who makes a claim as to the benefits of a particular cable can prove it in a blind test or not. If there is any difference it will be obvious to anyone.
I am very sorry, I have read that several times, and without additional context I cant tell if
1. You are being sarcastic
2. You are being humorous
3. You are incapable of logical thought
4. You are plain stupid
(though 3 and 4 are functionally equivalent).
If you can tell the difference between two or more mains cables in a blind test you would have a good and valid point. If not your argument is totally meaningless. Even the manufactures of these magic bean cables refuse a blind test. What is everyone so afraid of?
Nothing, other than the lost minutes/hours I can't get back, when I could've done something far more exciting or productive instead.... Like, oh I don't know, say, clipping my toenails! :D
The fact is, which you're completely missing/avoiding, is that I *know* I can tell the difference between a mains leads properly designed for hi-fi purposes, and kettle lead, the same as I *know* that I can tell the difference between Beaujolais wine and Bardolino!
I simply don't care whether YOU believe me or not, so I don't need to prove anything to YOU... As long as I *know* that I know, that's ALL that matters to ME :ner:
Have you got that now, or are you planning on continually being obtuse until it outweighs your level of obstinance? ;)
Marco.
The other thing that's being forgotten here amongst all the noise, is this:
If science can't currently measure the difference in flavour between two different varieties of grape, merely separate them on a molecular level, where instead wine connoisseurs have proven (through blind testing) that they can successfully identify the taste variance, which clearly exists between those grape varieties [where science failed], then what other, hitherto undiscovered, phenomena might exist in our world, which our senses can clearly identify but science can't currently prove?
Marco.
Oldpinkman
08-12-2015, 16:40
Well, you see that's the mistake you made: superimposing your belief system onto others, your customers. I call it 'Consumer Saviour Syndrome', or trying to protect people from themselves. You should let others be the judge of whether or not they're being "conned'.
It is not your place (effectively) to tell them so, as your beliefs or values are not their arbiter of the truth! ;)
Marco.
I think you miss my point. Deliberately selling something you are convinced doesn't make a difference would be snake-oil merchandising. We wanted to be sure any idea we had was genuine. It wasn't for us a question of choosing whether someone elses esoteric idea was kosher. It was more along the lines of blind tasting wine. Is mod A or mod B better. If you know mod A is Richard Dunns and mod B is Jez Arkless's it may colour your judgement compared with simply listening and deciding which is better. If you test them blind - you are just using your ears, not your eyes, prejudice, preconception, and experiences to decide which one to sell.
Oldpinkman
08-12-2015, 16:47
It seems to me that what gets missed here is a test of blind testing. Blind (single and double) is always dragged up as proof of the absence of a audible difference. But a better initial test would be to try and measure how good a test for difference blind testing is. Ie. start with a known difference, say a sample with 0.1% distortion and the same sample with 0.01% distortion. Then see if using blind testing a difference can be recorded. If it cant, then we have shown one or both of two things. Either we cant tell the difference between 0.1% and 0.01%distortion, OR/AND blind testing is not sensitive enough to show if we can tell the difference. Then we would need to design further tests to tell which of the two it was.
Therein lies your problem. If you are not happy with a blind test, and you don't want to rely on the measurements, the only test left is to say "listen to this, it has 0.1% distortion" "now listen to this it has only 0.01% distortion. Which do you like best?"
How do you tell whether their answer is based on what they can hear (cos they couldn't hear the difference blind) and what they know (cos they are apparently going to be able to distinguish now)?
cloth-ears
08-12-2015, 17:27
I am very sorry, I have read that several times, and without additional context I cant tell if
1. You are being sarcastic
2. You are being humorous
3. You are incapable of logical thought
4. You are plain stupid
(though 3 and 4 are functionally equivalent).
You could try getting a grown up to read it for you. Just a thought.....
Well, no, it seems that blind testing in audio is remarkably good at producing negative results (showing no audible difference). So its is a reasonable thing to test at what point it will show a positive result (a audible difference).
If I use my voltmeter set to AC to measure the voltage on a car battery, it will correctly say 0v, but that is not a fault in the test equipment, its a fault of my selection of the test equipment. I am suggesting that any metrologist worth his salt would first test the test equipment, before testing anything with it. It seems the applicability of the blind test to audio has been taken as read with no formal proof. What exactly is the resolving power of the blind test? Maybe its only capable of -20dB of resolution, but our ears in less formal settings can detect -30dB differences. That doesnt mean the missing 10dB doesnt exist, just we need a better measurement protocol to detect it.
You could try getting a grown up to read it for you. Just a thought.....
Please treat your fellow members with the courtesy that they deserve. Any more condescending remarks like that, Bob, and you'll be out for a week.
Marco.
Well, no, it seems that blind testing in audio is remarkably good at producing negative results (showing no audible difference). So its is a reasonable thing to test at what point it will show a positive result (a audible difference).
If I use my voltmeter set to AC to measure the voltage on a car battery, it will correctly say 0v, but that is not a fault in the test equipment, its a fault of my selection of the test equipment. I am suggesting that any metrologist worth his salt would first test the test equipment, before testing anything with it. It seems the applicability of the blind test to audio has been taken as read with no formal proof. What exactly is the resolving power of the blind test? Maybe its only capable of -20dB of resolution, but our ears in less formal settings can detect -30dB differences. That doesnt mean the missing 10dB doesnt exist, just we need a better measurement protocol to detect it.
Spot on [and so it could be with sonic differences between mains leads] :thumbsup:
Marco.
southall-1998
08-12-2015, 17:43
You could try getting a grown up to read it for you. Just a thought.....
:ban:
S.
Therein lies your problem. If you are not happy with a blind test, and you don't want to rely on the measurements
BTW, at no point have i said I dont want to rely on measurements, you may be mistaking me with someone else. I can think of any number of ways I could measure the difference between two mains cables. What I dont know is if that difference will produce a audible result.
Oldpinkman
08-12-2015, 17:51
BTW, at no point have i said I dont want to rely on measurements, you may be mistaking me with someone else. I can think of any number of ways I could measure the difference between two mains cables. What I dont know is if that difference will produce a audible result.
Yes - as you pointed out previously, the wrong measurement won't be helpful. I can measure how long they are.
The measurement you need to carry out is on the output of the amplifier. If you can measure a change in the output of an amplifier based on changing a mains cable somewhere in the system, you have demonstrated that the mains cable changes the audio output, and then we are into a discussion about threshold of hearing. But measuring the mains cable itself (whether length or impedance or any other electrical parameter) achieves nothing in this respect
I can think of any number of ways I could measure the difference between two mains cables. What I dont know is if that difference will produce a audible result.
Or perhaps whether a genuine audible result could be measured? ;)
Marco.
Firebottle
08-12-2015, 17:53
What I dont know is if that difference will produce a audible result.
Excellent observation Nick, as of course the said mains leads are used with something else that may, or may not, be affected by any difference.
:)
cloth-ears
08-12-2015, 18:01
Please treat your fellow members with the courtesy that they deserve. Any more condescending remarks like that, Bob, and you'll be out for a week.
Marco.
I see, calling be stupid is OK though. If that is the case ban me.
I see, calling be stupid is OK though. If that is the case ban me.
No it's not okay. Why is it that we could discuss this perfectly amicably face to face but when it is on the internet the insults suddenly appear?
That's a rhetorical question btw and not aimed at anyone specifically
I see, calling be stupid is OK though. If that is the case ban me.
Here's what Nick wrote:
I am very sorry, I have read that several times, and without additional context I cant tell if
1. You are being sarcastic
2. You are being humorous
3. You are incapable of logical thought
4. You are plain stupid
(though 3 and 4 are functionally equivalent).
There's a difference between entertaining the notion that someone might be stupid, as Nick did, and outrightly calling them that. That's the problem with binary-thinking: it misses such subtleties ;)
However, that does not excuse your response, so consider yourself on a warning. Just be nice, or is that beyond you?
Marco.
Yes - as you pointed out previously, the wrong measurement won't be helpful. I can measure how long they are.
The measurement you need to carry out is on the output of the amplifier. If you can measure a change in the output of an amplifier based on changing a mains cable somewhere in the system, you have demonstrated that the mains cable changes the audio output, and then we are into a discussion about threshold of hearing. But measuring the mains cable itself (whether length or impedance or any other electrical parameter) achieves nothing in this respect
Thats one of the things I could measure, I could also (for example) put it into a EMC testing room and see how the different cable affects the amplifiers susceptibility to RF. I could also look into the conducted emissions of the amplifier to see if there were any changes in that. I would then have to use a selection of amplifiers to see how the different conducted emissions were altered by the mains cable. I could look into how the cable and amplifier system responded to common and differential mode noise. And any number of other tests that I could do that may show a difference. All somewhat more complex than plugging the amp into any old mains socket, playing a 1kHz sine wave and deciding that there was no difference.
Oldpinkman
08-12-2015, 18:17
Here's what Nick wrote:
There's a difference between entertaining the notion that someone might be stupid, as Nick did, and outrightly calling them that. That's the problem with binary-thinking: it misses such subtleties ;)
However, that does not excuse your response, so consider yourself on a warning. Just be nice, or is that beyond you?
Marco.
It is your football Marco, but personally I think that distinction between Nick and Bob has more to do with whose opinions you share, than the degrees of rudeness. I agree with Martins earlier post - but suggest both members could accept no hostility was intended and that the humour was just a touch robust if the other party doesnt appreciate it
And kiss and make up accordingly :)
Sure, but two wrongs, as it were, don't make a right.
Marco.
but suggest both members could accept no hostility was intended and that the humour was just a touch robust if the other party doesnt appreciate it
Yes, happy to say that, Its just words on the net. But I still don’t understand what the phrase in question meant.
Sure, but two wrongs, as it were, don't make a right.
Marco.
No, but three lefts do.
Oldpinkman
08-12-2015, 18:25
Thats one of the things I could measure, I could also (for example) put it into a EMC testing room and see how the different cable affects the amplifiers susceptibility to RF. I could also look into the conducted emissions of the amplifier to see if there were any changes in that. I would then have to use a selection of amplifiers to see how the different conducted emissions were altered by the mains cable. I could look into how the cable and amplifier system responded to common and differential mode noise. And any number of other tests that I could do that may show a difference. All somewhat more complex than plugging the amp into any old mains socket, playing a 1kHz sine wave and deciding that there was no difference.
You don't need to measure what the cable does to RF in the amplifier. What matters for what we hear is what comes out of the amplifier - not what is happening at each stage in the chain.
Well - at least, at first. First measure if whatever you are testing affects the output. Then, if it does, if you want to, go testing for why and where. Whilst I lack the skills personally, that is I believe the way my engineer friend designs the things.
And I can cross camps here a bit. The amplifier I am getting for a moving in present measures too well - or beyond what we should be able to hear. Now, I can't really say whether that "uber measurement" accounts for what I and others like about the way it sounds - but it comes under that heading of "measurement alone can't tell us how an amplifier will sound".
Yes Marco. I did say that, and I'm quite happy to say it again. It's not the same as saying measurements aren't useful.
And I would be happy to pick that AHB2 over my modified Quad 405-2 in a blind test. Like Marco, I don't need to go fannying about blind testing to enjoy the amp I choose. I can just listen to it and buy it if it floats my boat. But, as it happens, if I needed to - I am confident I could.
Yes - as you pointed out previously, the wrong measurement won't be helpful. I can measure how long they are.
The measurement you need to carry out.......
With respect, I think you're trying to teach your granny how to suck eggs... You know Owen, well in Nick, meet his match! ;)
Marco.
Oldpinkman
08-12-2015, 18:29
With respect, I think you're trying to teach your granny how to suck eggs... You know Owen, well in Nick, meet his match! ;)
Marco.
Take an analogy. Neither of us know how to design a car. If we have a "thing" to make it go faster - say magnets strapped to the fuel line - the first measurement is does the car go faster
If the car goes faster, then you start looking at what the magnet does to the alignment of the fuel molecules, how it affects the combustion and their gasses etc
But first measure if the bloody thing goes faster or not ;)
You don't need to measure what the cable does to RF in the amplifier. What matters for what we hear is what comes out of the amplifier - not what is happening at each stage in the chain.
Ok, but (as a example) stuff comes out of a amplifier from one than one place. That stuff may/will affect other bits of kit. You may be surprised at what a RF spectrum analyser and a LISN will show is coming out of that amplifier into your mains ring. And the difference even simple filtering will have on that.
Yes Marco. I did say that, and I'm quite happy to say it again. It's not the same as saying measurements aren't useful.
Sure, and I've never said any differently. Measurements aren't only useful, in certain circumstances they are essential, or indeed mandatory!
That's doesn't guarantee, however, that they're always 100% accurate in measuring all of what they need to measure, in order to successfully prove (or disprove) the existence of a particular phenomenon, which is precisely the point Nick is making.
Marco.
Oldpinkman
08-12-2015, 18:35
Ok, but (as a example) stuff comes out of a amplifier from one than one place. That stuff may/will affect other bits of kit. You may be surprised at what a RF spectrum analyser and a LISN will show is coming out of that amplifier into your mains ring. And the difference even simple filtering will have on that.
Yes
But if the "mess" from my amplifier caused by the mains cable affects a CD player, that is "affected" - the output of that CD player is being fed into the input of the amplifier, and all I am interested in is if that output from the CD player, messed up by the RF from the amplifier, affects the output of the amplifier enough for it to make any difference to what that amplifier is going to do with the speakers I connect to it
I hope that makes sense :cool:
Take an analogy. Neither of us know how to design a car. If we have a "thing" to make it go faster - say magnets strapped to the fuel line - the first measurement is does the car go faster
If the car goes faster, then you start looking at what the magnet does to the alignment of the fuel molecules, how it affects the combustion and their gasses etc
But first measure if the bloody thing goes faster or not ;)
Ok, we are onto car analogies now -).
Thats fine. but in this case "going faster" equates to "sounding better". If we dont have a way of measuring if its sounding better then it all falls down.
To continue your analogy, if we can only run one car at once, and the only timing device we have is a egg timer, we can't tell which car is going faster, so we cant tell if the thing has any effect. This does not mean its not having a effect, just we can't measure it.
If the only method of detecting "better" is the blind test, and that seems to only show negative results unless the differences are gross, we are unable to proceed to the next step.
The thing may or may not be having an effect, but without confidence in the measuring protocol we have no way of reliably telling which.
Yes
But if the "mess" from my amplifier caused by the mains cable affects a CD player, that is "affected" - the output of that CD player is being fed into the input of the amplifier, and all I am interested in is if that output from the CD player, messed up by the RF from the amplifier, affects the output of the amplifier enough for it to make any difference to what that amplifier is going to do with the speakers I connect to it
I hope that makes sense :cool:
It does, and that difference may in fact be detectable in measurement, I was just pointing out how we have to look outside of the simple setup to know if an effect is real or not.
awkwardbydesign
08-12-2015, 18:45
Sure, but two wrongs, as it were, don't make a right.
Marco.
No, but three lefts do.
Are we back where we started yet. Has anyone ever played Dizzy Sticks? Cos that's how I'm feeling at the moment.
I was just pointing out how we have to look outside of the simple setup to know if an effect is real or not.
That's it in a nutshell. The problem is that some folk, due to their entrenched prejudices/dogma, are unable or unwilling to go there! ;)
Long live lateral thinking :hifive:
Marco.
If I ever hear any difference with a cable or something like that, I dont care if there is a scientific reason for it or not. It sounds better to me in this situation and thats all there is too it,; for me. If folk dont want to take it on board then fine, as long as they dont patronise and come away with some of the stuff in this thread .... Its pretty simple . treat folk with respect and you will, hopefully get some back.
I think you miss my point. Deliberately selling something you are convinced doesn't make a difference would be snake-oil merchandising. We wanted to be sure any idea we had was genuine. It wasn't for us a question of choosing whether someone elses esoteric idea was kosher. It was more along the lines of blind tasting wine. Is mod A or mod B better. If you know mod A is Richard Dunns and mod B is Jez Arkless's it may colour your judgement compared with simply listening and deciding which is better. If you test them blind - you are just using your ears, not your eyes, prejudice, preconception, and experiences to decide which one to sell.
Going to go out on a limb here, but feel the need to say something...
Bad form Richard (imo) to throw around names of Traders like that just to make a point.
Subtle comments like the above which cast aspersions on traders can linger in the brain and potentially effect people's business.
I'm just saying, and not picking a fight :), but as an example I'm sure when Arthur K wasn't an established Business, He wouldn't have welcomed sideways comments like that about things that happen outside the industry, which I feel you've just done.
Things like financial blips...or even lifestyle choices, know what I mean?
Came across as a bit personal mentioning two people that way, and you could have made your point without that.
Just sayin' Fella.
walpurgis
08-12-2015, 19:01
Ok, we are onto car analogies now -).
Brrm Brrm!
:wierdthread:
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/myths.html :eyebrows:
I don't agree with everything said in the article myself... but most of it yes...
Fascinating article - thanks for posting ;)
Certainly confirmed some things I've come across that sounded like pure bunkum :lol:
awkwardbydesign
08-12-2015, 20:28
Fascinating article - thanks for posting ;)
Certainly confirmed some things I've come across that sounded like pure bunkum :lol:
Unfortunately he mixes sound sense with nonsense. Particularly regarding capacitors and resistors, maybe others, but I am not qualified to comment there.
Ali Tait
08-12-2015, 21:07
You could try getting a grown up to read it for you. Just a thought.....
Please share with us all the items of hi fi you've designed and built.
I missed this earlier amongst all the 'noise'...
If the improvement was demonstrated to me to my satisfaction that would be all I would need, and that would seem to be the position Marco takes, the difference being it already has been demonstrated to him to his satisfaction.
Spot on. That is *exactly* my position on mains leads.
In terms of testing for the efficacy of any equipment or cables, I adopt the use of my own rigorous judgement criteria (as I have outlined many times before), not one I believe is fundamentally flawed, such as Nick has stated, when it comes to accurately testing for audio effects. Honestly, it's NEVER the case that I just 'automatically believe' something because it suits me! :nono:
*However* if it was successfully demonstrated to me that I was imagining something, using a test process that I considered wasn't fundamentally flawed, for its intended purpose, and instead irrefutably accurate, for that intended purpose, then I would of course admit that I was wrong and alter my views accordingly.
That test process, however, in my view, for audio purposes, unfortunately is yet to be invented.
Nick made a very good point earlier about questioning the efficacy of blind-testing, which was very valid, but sadly shunned by those who's intellectual and emotional investment in the notion of blind-testing being 'fool proof', is such that entertaining the possibility it might not be, would almost be akin to admitting the existence of God! ;)
You don't think these cables have any effect, that they are a waste of money, okay that is fine. But is it really necessary to go around telling those who use them that they are delusional and have wasted their money?
I see it as a sign of gross insecurity, or the fear of uncertainty, as science provides a form of certainty (and security), which objectivists crave in their rather 'black and white' view of the world.
Therefore, for them, there can be no 'grey areas'. It would thus simply be too uncomfortable to accept that a certain phenomenon might exist, if it called into question the accuracy of their scientific belief system.
So, it's far easier to automatically pooh-pooh the existence of such, and feel good about themselves in the process, than to entertain the notion that their entrenched belief system might be flawed!
Marco.
The typical objectivist's stance on this matter is also a rather arrogant one to adopt. One should never lose sight of the fact that it is science that serves MAN, not the other way round!
Marco.
Oldpinkman
09-12-2015, 08:03
It does, and that difference may in fact be detectable in measurement, I was just pointing out how we have to look outside of the simple setup to know if an effect is real or not.
Just to clarify Nick,
Are you saying that you are able to carry out a test on the output of an amplifier which can detect changing a mains cable on any of the components in the chain which affect that output signal?
That would be interesting.
Just to clarify Nick,
Are you saying that you are able to carry out a test on the output of an amplifier which can detect changing a mains cable on any of the components in the chain which affect that output signal?
That would be interesting.
No, its not something I have tried, or to be honest have the kit to try, I outsource my EMC testing. But having had to make changes to both reduce the RF output of equipment and also reduce the sensitivity of others, the combination of the two is not without possibility. unlikely with conforming kit, but not everything does.
cloth-ears
09-12-2015, 08:37
Please share with us all the items of hi fi you've designed and built.
Over the past forty years or so I have worked as a freelance consultant for many different companies, I am bound by confidentially clauses for quite a number of these (common place in this business and fully respected by me). Those I can mention that have had contributions from me (some large, some small) are, Dolby HX Pro, PANDA, NICAM, DAB radio, Analogue Audio Comparator, Digital delay for cinemas. I have also appeared as an expert witness for several patent infringement cases both here in the UK and in Europe.
I’ve worked on new ways of testing audio op-amps as their distortion levels are below that of conventional test equipment; typically six decimal places or more. I’ve tested pretty much everything in my career. I have a reasonably good knowledge base in most audio areas but specialise is few. Over the years I have worked with many different companies, some you would have heard of and some you probably won’t. What about you Don?
Ali Tait
09-12-2015, 08:55
Me? Just an amateur dabbler. :-)
cloth-ears
09-12-2015, 08:55
Oldpinkman;,
Mr Pinkman, just thought I’d say that I had the great pleasure of meeting Arthur some years back. He loaned me a Da-Capo and several plug in filters to have a play with. At the time he was working on his Funk TT project. A thoroughly nice and informed man. I was particularly taken with his bearing design. Unfortunately it was a very busy time for both of us and I did not get the chance to know him better. I can however say that I was the clear winner on those few occasions we did meet up as I learned far more from him than he did from me, happy days
cloth-ears
09-12-2015, 08:57
Me? Just an amateur dabbler. :-)
Thats OK, I hope I answered your question, feel free to ask more. I have nothing to hide
Ali Tait
09-12-2015, 08:58
Didn't think you did.
cloth-ears
09-12-2015, 09:04
Didn't think you did.
Didn’t think I had something to hide or didn’t think I answered your question sufficiently?
Ali Tait
09-12-2015, 09:37
Have something to hide. Why would you think others would have that impression?
I’ve worked on new ways of testing audio op-amps as their distortion levels are below that of conventional test equipment; typically six decimal places or more.
Wow, SIX decimal places or more, eh? That's REALLY AMAZING...!!! Did you get a special badge afterwards for that, from the White Lab-Coat Society? Maybe a brand new, freshly laundered, blindfold, too? Only kidding! ;)
So it's you we blame then, for the production, during the '70s spec wars', of some of the most musically-bland audio equipment (due to obsessing over specs), we've had the unfortunate experience of clapping our ears upon? :D
Marco.
Oldpinkman
09-12-2015, 10:03
Oldpinkman;,
Mr Pinkman, just thought I’d say that I had the great pleasure of meeting Arthur some years back. He loaned me a Da-Capo and several plug in filters to have a play with. At the time he was working on his Funk TT project. A thoroughly nice and informed man. I was particularly taken with his bearing design. Unfortunately it was a very busy time for both of us and I did not get the chance to know him better. I can however say that I was the clear winner on those few occasions we did meet up as I learned far more from him than he did from me, happy days
Another one! The old boy gets about. Glad you enjoyed meeting Arthur, and thank you for commenting. I have always enjoyed his humour, creativeness, kindness and generosity. It was an exciting creative time when I was involved with Pink and AK and the other guys there (Owen, J Westlake, Andrew, and others). I am happy to be just a friend now and not working there. It was a bit stressful as a business - now its only a bloody record player, and HMRC are the stress. ;)
Beobloke
09-12-2015, 10:26
So it's you we blame then, for the production, during the '70s spec wars', of some of the most musically bland audio equipment (due to obsessing over specs), we've had the unfortunate experience of clapping our ears upon? :D
Marco.
Marco, I'd still be keen to have some specific makes and model numbers from you in this respect.
The reason I keep on about it is that there is a particular range of amplifiers I can think of from the 1970s that were criticised for exactly the issues you raise; namely they measured well but sound dull and bland. Well, I happened to have one of the power amplifiers pass through my hands recently and was quite surprised that it was dynamic, detailed, punchy, musical and offered astonishingly good imagery. It's genuinely one of the nicest amplifiers I've clapped my ears upon in a long time and it was only a 'mid-range' model. As a result, I'm quite keen to try out one of the top end ones now.
And no, I'm not telling you what it is (yet) as the prices of the top end versions are still fairly reasonable at the moment... ;) :D
From my earlier reply to Macca:
I see it as a sign of gross insecurity, or the fear of uncertainty, as science provides a form of certainty (and security), which objectivists crave in their rather 'black and white' view of the world.
Therefore, for them, there can be no 'grey areas'. It would thus simply be too uncomfortable to accept that a certain phenomenon might exist, if it called into question the accuracy of their scientific belief system.
So, it's far easier to automatically pooh-pooh the existence of such, and feel good about themselves in the process, than to entertain the notion that their entrenched belief system might be flawed!
I believe that this condition is known as Cognitive Dissonance? It's definitely what I believe hard-core objectivists suffer from! :)
See here: http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html
Marco.
Marco, I'd still be keen to have some specific makes and model numbers from you in this respect.
The reason I keep on about it is that there is a particular range of amplifiers I can think of from the 1970s that were criticised for exactly the issues you raise; namely they measured well but sound dull and bland. Well, I happened to have one of the power amplifiers pass through my hands recently and was quite surprised that it was dynamic, detailed, punchy, musical and offered astonishingly good imagery. It's genuinely one of the nicest amplifiers I've clapped my ears upon in a long time and it was only a 'mid-range' model. As a result, I'm quite keen to try out one of the top end ones now.
And no, I'm not telling you what it is (yet) as the prices of the top end versions are still fairly reasonable at the moment... ;) :D
Lol... Sorry, Adam. I wish I could help, but I was simply too young at the time to remember any exact models, but they would've almost certainly come from the Japanese 'majors', such as Pioneer, Yamaha, Technics, Onkyo, etc.
One in more recent times I can definitely remember is Audiolab - the stuff that was produced by them in the 80s (8000A?) Utterly grey and drab sound, which was musically bereft, but apparently a spec geek's wet dream! :spew:
They were typical examples of amplifiers, born from obsessing over specs and levels of distortion, to the detriment of their ability to accurately reproduce music - and before you start, Bob, that's rather different (and more complex) from measuring their electrical output on some test apparatus, and declaring an amp as 'transparent'....
Marco.
cloth-ears
09-12-2015, 11:40
Wow, SIX decimal places or more, eh? That's REALLY AMAZING...!!! Did you get a special badge afterwards for that, from the White Lab-Coat Society? Maybe a brand new, freshly laundered, blindfold, too? Only kidding! ;)
So it's you we blame then, for the production, during the '70s spec wars', of some of the most musically bland audio equipment (due to obsessing over specs), we've had the unfortunate experience of clapping our ears upon? :D
Marco.
Peter Walker said that the principle property of an amplifier was to be a piece of wire with gain. The signal coming out should be the same as the one going in, but bigger. Any distortion supplied by the amplifier detracts from that. Keeping distortion to a minimum is not a bad thing. The fact is you enjoy a particular type of sound. Whether or not that sound comes close to what went in is unimportant as long as you are happy. For me personally I like to get as close to the original as possible as that is what I like, it doesn’t make me a bad person. I would imagine that the sound out of you system would make me cringe and vice versa. I still have the same right to an opinion as you or anyone else on this forum without being called a black and white binary thinker
Peter Walker said that the principle property of an amplifier was to be a piece of wire with gain. The signal coming out should be the same as the one going in, but bigger. Any distortion supplied by the amplifier detracts from that. Keeping distortion to a minimum is not a bad thing. The fact is you enjoy a particular type of sound. Whether or not that sound comes close to what went in is unimportant as long as you are happy. For me personally I like to get as close to the original as possible as that is what I like, it doesn’t make me a bad person. I would imagine that the sound out of you system would make me cringe and vice versa. I still have the same right to an opinion as you or anyone else on this forum without being called a black and white binary thinker
Do you know BOX13?
Peter Walker said that the principle property of an amplifier was to be a piece of wire with gain. The signal coming out should be the same as the one going in, but bigger. Any distortion supplied by the amplifier detracts from that. Keeping distortion to a minimum is not a bad thing. The fact is you enjoy a particular type of sound. Whether or not that sound comes close to what went in is unimportant as long as you are happy. For me personally I like to get as close to the original as possible as that is what I like, it doesn’t make me a bad person. I would imagine that the sound out of you system would make me cringe and vice versa. I still have the same right to an opinion as you or anyone else on this forum without being called a black and white binary thinker
Well, my apologies, but with all due respect, that's how your arguments come across. I can only state as I find. However, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, the same as anyone else, even if I disagree with it, that's for sure! :)
Whilst we could well enjoy a different type of sound (or disagree about how successfully an amplifier emulates the sound of a real musical instrument, when reproducing recorded music of such), I sincerely doubt that either of us would "cringe" at the sonic presentation of our respective systems. It would more likely be the case that they would both have their strengths and weaknesses, and simply reflect the results of our individual priorities.
So there's no need to fall out over the fact that we both have rather forthright views, based on a not inconsiderable amount of experience. On AoS, you have to learn that if you deliberately poke 'the opposition' (as you would have to admit you have done here on more than one occasion), then you'll be poked back accordingly!! ;)
There is no hiding place here for delicate little wallflowers, of which I am sure you are not one....
Anyway, you'd certainly be welcome anytime, if you ever find yourself in North Wales, to pop over for a brew and a listen to some tunes, and I hope that you would happily reciprocate :cool:
Marco.
Shock horror AOS morphs into PFM...:eek:
I'm not siding with anyone, I'll keep my own opinions on the subject (or is that object ;)) to myself...;)
There's never any resolution to these Subjectivist Vs Objectivist arguments, the people who get involved in these 'discussions' usually have a slightly more polarised view either way, and no amount of posts is going to change their already formed opinions either way.
Next the debate will move to cod philosophy and religion...after that just plain abuse :scratch:
Take a step back chaps...;)
Shock horror AOS morphs into PFM...:eek:
I'm not siding with anyone, I'll keep my own opinions on the subject (or is that object ;)) to myself...;)
There's never any resolution to these Subjectivist Vs Objectivist arguments, the people who get involved in these 'discussions' usually have a slightly more polarised view either way, and no amount of posts is going to change their already formed opinions either way.
Next the debate will move to cod philosophy and religion...after that just plane abuse :scratch:
Take a step back chaps...;)
Kelly's boy eh? ;)
Whilst I respect your views, Will, I think you're rather sensationalising things.
You'll have noted my comments at the outset of this thread, which should show that I'm fully aware of how these types of threads usually turn out, however, I'm certainly not going to invoke a censorship clause, and remove them, if someone decides to start one.
Therefore, I chose to let it run, and (hopefully) inject a little light-hearted banter into the whole exercise, so I wouldn't overly worry about AoS, in that respect, turning into pfm, anytime soon ;)
Marco.
walpurgis
09-12-2015, 12:09
plane abuse :scratch:
http://i63.tinypic.com/2ni677t.jpg
I don't think anyone is taking this desperately seriously and if they are then they should probably have a re-think.
I am wondering about these 'bland' 'Seventies amplifiers too. I know there was an Hitachi power amp that supposedly measure as perfect as possible but was allegedly a boring listen but that was back in the 'Flat Earth' days when a UK amp was expected to have a bit of distortion to liven things up. I don't share the general view about the Audiolab 8000A either. The times I have heard them they sounded clean and musical.
It is really the job of the music to excite your senses, you shouldn't really need the amplifier to help out there. if you need the contribution of the amp to make things exciting start listening to some better music. ;)
Whilst I respect your views, Will, I think you're rather sensationalising things.
Hopefully for some comic effect...;)
Sorry, you've lost me there... Is this something else that was before my time? :eyebrows:
Marco.
Ah sorry! It refers initially to John Kelly of Killanne and is now oft recalled as an intent to be looking for a fight...thus kelly's boy.....i believe it even made the Simpsons.lol...
Ps it was a joke
Ah sorry! It refers initially to John Kelly of Killanne and is now oft recalled as an intent to be looking for a fight...thus kelly's boy.....i believe it even made the Simpsons.lol...
Ps it was a joke
;)
It is really the job of the music to excite your senses, you shouldn't really need the amplifier to help out there.
I completely agree. However if an amplifier (to your ears) is impeding that process, by acting as a form of 'bottleneck', then it is, by default, (to you) 'unmusical'.
Marco.
Beobloke
09-12-2015, 12:37
Lol... Sorry, Adam. I wish I could help, but I was simply too young at the time to remember any exact models, but they would've almost certainly come from the Japanese 'majors', such as Pioneer, Yamaha, Technics, Onkyo, etc.
One in more recent times I can definitely remember is Audiolab - the stuff that was produced by them in the 80s (8000A?) Utterly grey and drab sound, which was musically bereft, but apparently a spec geek's wet dream! :spew:
They were typical examples of amplifiers, born from obsessing over specs and levels of distortion, to the detriment of their ability to accurately reproduce music - and before you start, Bob, that's rather different (and more complex) from measuring their electrical output on some test apparatus, and declaring an amp as 'transparent'....
Marco.
Interesting, as the amplifier I mentioned earlier comes from one of those Japanese 'majors'.
For what it's worth, though, I agree completely with you on the original Audiolab 8000A...
Arkless Electronics
09-12-2015, 14:10
I just new that article would keep you lot amused for a while :lol: :eyebrows: :ner: :cool:
Audio Advent
09-12-2015, 15:49
Back to the article:
One of the primary issues with these myths is that they create FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt. Most people do not have the detailed knowledge needed to be able to determine that the latest craze or tweak is nonsense, implausible or just plain wrong. Reviewers who should be truly impartial are often anything but, and instead of dispelling myths they help propagate them. This is unforgivable in my view.
If that's the primary issue then it is easily dealt with! Just don't take things so seriously and don't spend vast amounts of money you don't have on the say so of some marketing guy and suckers on the internet - surely this is the same advice you'd give about street hawkers and Del Boy's selling guff and lotions? Basic consumer advice, let alone fraud prevention advice. Just apply to your hobby too.
Once a primary issue is dealt with then you don't have to write pages and pages on the subject any longer, just get on with your own enjoyment or pro-sound job and get the results in your own way.
walpurgis
09-12-2015, 16:13
One in more recent times I can definitely remember is Audiolab - the stuff that was produced by them in the 80s (8000A?) Utterly grey and drab sound, which was musically bereft, but apparently a spec geek's wet dream! :spew: Marco.
I tried out a couple of those and thought exactly the same. But there again, I had the same opinion of the NAD 3020 and A&R Cambridge A60 amplifiers too and they seem to be a fav with many. Gawd knows why!
(well, actually I suspect it was because they were pretty 'unrevealing' and therefore more forgiving of the horrendous front ends and speakers they were likely to be matched with)
Interesting, as the amplifier I mentioned earlier comes from one of those Japanese 'majors'.
Let me hazard a guess... Yamaha? ;)
For what it's worth, though, I agree completely with you on the original Audiolab 8000A...
Yup, 'musically strangled', would be a good description, if I was being rather unkind. 'Adequate, but utterly uninspiring', is probably nearer the mark.
Musically, it epitomised everything that bad solid-state was about, coining the term 'sorry state'.... And is precisely what happens with any piece of audio equipment, during the design stage, when the measuring vastly outweighs the listening!
Marco.
I just new that article would keep you lot amused for a while....
Yesh, you're a very bad boy... Drop the bomb, then run! :spank: :lol:
Marco.
Arkless Electronics
09-12-2015, 17:20
Yesh, you're a very bad boy... Drop the bomb, then run! :spank: :lol:
Marco.
:D
Now if you could just send the Dr Who totty round to administer that spanking :stalks:
No problem sir, it'll be added to your trade renewal account, under the section of 'Special Services'.... :eyebrows:
Marco.
Arkless Electronics
09-12-2015, 17:27
No problem sir, it'll be added to your trade renewal account under the section of 'Special Services'.... :eyebrows:
Marco.
If only!
Yer phones engaged... I'll bell you again in a short while.
Meanwhile I'm mending light bulbs..... yes really!
Make it after 6.30pm, as I'm just about to have my tea :)
Marco.
PaulStewart
09-12-2015, 19:54
Blind testing is fool proof. If there really is a difference in sound then it will be obvious to anyone.
As someone who is also trained as a scientist, I believed this too Bob. However in 1979, while I was working for JVC, we launched the JAS-22 amp on the market. It being the time of the flat earthers, we struggled to get good reviews on our non Naim amps anyway, but one high profile reviewer gave it a piss poor one and his measurements disagreed with ours. After a bit of argy bargy and legal threats, we arranged for a blind test, conducted by the late, great Angus Mackenzie of Hi Fi News and Angus Mackenzie labs. The test was arranged so the reviewer in question could flick a switch and the signal would be switched between two amp, which had been adjusted so the gain was the same on both.
Several amps were used in comparison with the JAS 22, including our heroes professed favourite, the Quad 22/11 combination. Tested blind he chose the JAS 22 over the Quad several times and at one point Angus wired the switch so that it went from the JAS 22 to the JAS 22 and our warrior still preferred one amp to the other even though they were the same amp. I realised at this point that neither measurements or blind testing really meant a bloody thing. Measurements are good for getting things in the ballpark for designing, then you have to use your ears and brain. In speaker design for instance, Thiel-Small parameters have enabled the manufacture of many OK to good speakers, but the great designs came either before the universal acceptance of the numbers game, or when designers were prepared to take a leap of faith and go beyond the formula.
Measurements are good for getting things in the ballpark for designing, then you have to use your ears and brain. In speaker design for instance, Thiel-Small parameters have enabled the manufacture of many OK to good speakers, but the great designs came either before the universal acceptance of the numbers game, or when designers were prepared to take a leap of faith and go beyond the formula.
Or in other words, 'thinking outside the box'. The free/lateral-thinkers are usually always the true innovators!
:thumbsup: :exactly:
Marco.
Rothchild
09-12-2015, 21:18
at one point Angus wired the switch so that it went from the JAS 22 to the JAS 22 and our warrior still preferred one amp to the other even though they were the same amp.
But he heard a difference and that's what counts, anyone who doesn't trust their ears is just a binary thinking loser, perhaps the switch wasn't put together properly?
Beobloke
10-12-2015, 00:38
Let me hazard a guess... Yamaha? ;)
.
No... ;)
Ah, ok, it's not the one I thought it was... :eyebrows:
Marco.
cloth-ears
10-12-2015, 08:21
As someone who is also trained as a scientist, I believed this too Bob. However in 1979, while I was working for JVC, we launched the JAS-22 amp on the market. It being the time of the flat earthers, we struggled to get good reviews on our non Naim amps anyway, but one high profile reviewer gave it a piss poor one and his measurements disagreed with ours. After a bit of argy bargy and legal threats, we arranged for a blind test, conducted by the late, great Angus Mackenzie of Hi Fi News and Angus Mackenzie labs. The test was arranged so the reviewer in question could flick a switch and the signal would be switched between two amp, which had been adjusted so the gain was the same on both.
Several amps were used in comparison with the JAS 22, including our heroes professed favourite, the Quad 22/11 combination. Tested blind he chose the JAS 22 over the Quad several times and at one point Angus wired the switch so that it went from the JAS 22 to the JAS 22 and our warrior still preferred one amp to the other even though they were the same amp. I realised at this point that neither measurements or blind testing really meant a bloody thing. Measurements are good for getting things in the ballpark for designing, then you have to use your ears and brain. In speaker design for instance, Thiel-Small parameters have enabled the manufacture of many OK to good speakers, but the great designs came either before the universal acceptance of the numbers game, or when designers were prepared to take a leap of faith and go beyond the formula.
For these things to work properly the switching apparatus would need to be calibrated to remove any error. The control subject should be the one using the switch. The test should be carried out over a predetermined time frame. The success of the test would be by what margin the results precluded the possibility of random chance. I wasn’t at that particular test so cannot comment as to whether or not all the criteria were met.
cloth-ears
10-12-2015, 08:42
Let me hazard a guess... Yamaha? ;)
Yup, 'musically strangled', would be a good description, if I was being rather unkind. 'Adequate, but utterly uninspiring', is probably nearer the mark.
Musically, it epitomised everything that bad solid-state was about, coining the term 'sorry state'.... And is precisely what happens with any piece of audio equipment, during the design stage, when the measuring vastly outweighs the listening!
Marco.
Test results published by manufactures have little meaning unless you understand what they mean. With some manufactures they mean even less if you do understand them. Measuring a 1kH sine wave into an 8 Ohm resistor is pointless. Speakers are reactive loads and their impedance changes with frequency. Fortunately there are some responsible manufactures out there who publish meaningful results. Specifications are important; you just need to know how to interpret them.
Specifications are important for those who NEED them, Bob. If you don't need them, or can understand their relevance, they're pointless and can often just complicate matters. In reality, they're far more relevant to those who design audio equipment, than to those who need it simply to play music: the end user.
Sometimes I need to look at specs, for example when buying cartridges, as things like frequency response figures can often provide a reasonable clue as to how the cartridge will sound. As it's virtually impossible these days to demo cartridges, and so taking a punt is necessary when buying one, specs are about the only thing you've got to try and gauge what it is you'll end up with.
Most times, however, those of us who own hi-fi equipment to play music, simply use our ears to judge what sounds best. Therefore, component selection on that basis, more often than not, doesn't need to be any more complicated.
Anyway, did you read my earlier post, with a friendly offer of the opportunity to visit, should you ever be in my neck of the woods, or have you just decided to ignore that?
It seems like you're here just to post stuff that fits in with your world view, ad infinitum, and ignore/dismiss everything else that doesn't. Frankly, that's not much better than trolling. It certainly doesn't make for any kind of constructive or meaningful dialogue with you.
Marco.
There is an interesting interview on the Dave Wilson speaker site where he talks about technical specifications and how ultimately he can only develop his speakers by using exhaustive listening evaluation. Technical measurements can only get you so far.
He goes on to site the example of 2 amplifiers that were both built by different manufacturers but both measured technically exactly the same however one was warm sounding, the other bright and hard.
This guy is one of the most respected manufacturers in the business and goes as far as listening to the effects of different types of solders in the crossover networks. Technically the solders have different metalogical properties which can be measured but it is only by listening the appropriate one can be selected.
StanleyB
10-12-2015, 10:07
There is an interesting interview on the Dave Wilson speaker site where he talks about technical specifications and how ultimately he can only develop his speakers by using exhaustive listening evaluation. Technical measurements can only get you so far.
I have been using that method of R&D for years, and even made it one of my satisfaction guaranteed condition of sale promise. Basically if I can't hear an improvement, no matter what my test equipment tells me, then it is very unlikely that a customer would hear an improvement either.
There is an interesting interview on the Dave Wilson speaker site where he talks about technical specifications and how ultimately he can only develop his speakers by using exhaustive listening evaluation. Technical measurements can only get you so far.
He goes on to site the example of 2 amplifiers that were both built by different manufacturers but both measured technically exactly the same however one was warm sounding, the other bright and hard.
This guy is one of the most respected manufacturers in the business and goes as far as listening to the effects of different types of solders in the crossover networks. Technically the solders have different metalogical properties which can be measured but it is only by listening the appropriate one can be selected.
That's how proper audio engineers behave, certainly those able to make equipment that's worth owning! :)
Marco.
awkwardbydesign
10-12-2015, 10:16
I wonder if a version of "white coat syndrome" can come into play with controlled tests? When my wife goes to the doctor's her blood pressure is always high. At home it isn't, and the home tester has been checked against the doctor's. I hear differences in a relaxed situation with music I like, often music that develops, and sometimes the differences take quite a while to become apparent. I can't imagine how that could work with blind testing.
StanleyB
10-12-2015, 10:18
I have a very devious set of components on a PCB that can clearly demonstrate how more accurate our hearing is compared to even a high end oscilloscope. You can hear the noise from the circuit through an amp and speakers, but you can't measure the noise no matter how hard you try. And I have asked many fellow engineers to give it a go on their own test equipment.
The reason the noise can't be seen on a scope is because it is a current generated noise, not a voltage derived one. And except for the ampere range on my multimeter I don't have or even know of any test kit that measures current noise or distortions. Cables etc can offer improvements that just can't be measured, because the improvements can be related to the I and R parameters, without affecting V. So if you are looking at V on a scope you won't see a difference, even though you can clearly hear it.
PaulStewart
10-12-2015, 10:25
For these things to work properly the switching apparatus would need to be calibrated to remove any error. The control subject should be the one using the switch. The test should be carried out over a predetermined time frame. The success of the test would be by what margin the results precluded the possibility of random chance. I wasn’t at that particular test so cannot comment as to whether or not all the criteria were met.
Bob, now you are just being a provocative :booty: as I said the test was set up by Angus McKenzie MBE, sorry I mis spelled his name earlier. If you don't know who he was, then your lack of knowledge on this subject, from someone who claims to research things is staggering. I'm putting you on my ignore list as in my opinion, you are a waste of bandwidth. Take the bloody blinkers off and enjoy the music.
I have a very devious set of components on a PCB that can clearly demonstrate how more accurate our hearing is compared to even a high end oscilloscope. You can hear the noise from the circuit through an amp and speakers, but you can't measure the noise no matter how hard you try. And I have asked many fellow engineers to give it a go on their own test equipment.
The reason the noise can't be seen on a scope is because it is a current generated noise, not a voltage derived one. And except for the ampere range on my multimeter I don't have or even know of any test kit that measures current noise or distortions. Cables etc can offer improvements that just can't be measured, because the improvements can be related to the I and R parameters, without affecting V. So if you are looking at V on a scope you won't see a difference, even though you can clearly hear it.
I would have expected that this would see it
http://www.keysight.com/en/pd-2229665-pn-N2821A/3-mhz-50ua-high-sensitivity-ac-dc-current-probe-1-ch
I wonder if a version of "white coat syndrome" can come into play with controlled tests? When my wife goes to the doctor's her blood pressure is always high. At home it isn't, and the home tester has been checked against the doctor's. I hear differences in a relaxed situation with music I like, often music that develops, and sometimes the differences take quite a while to become apparent. I can't imagine how that could work with blind testing.
That's precisely what's wrong with it, Richard, and why blind-testing is fundamentally flawed for audio purposes, because the "control subjects", as Bob puts it [that robotic use of language says it all], aren't in a sufficiently relaxed state of mind to make any meaningful comparisons.
The only way to successfully assess the efficacy of any piece of equipment or cable you intend to use in your system, is as you say, to listen to it over a period of time, allowing your ears to become 'attuned' to any difference in sonic presentation, then switch back to your known reference, at which point any REAL differences that exist should become readily apparent.
If at that point you not getting the 'Ah, that's it!' hit, then chances are there is NO real improvement, or it's so subtle as to not be worthwhile having. That is how most normal people buy stuff for their hi-fi systems. They don't sit there strapped to a chair, wearing a blindfold, like some sad bondage fetishist!
Marco.
Bob, now you are just being a provocative :booty: as I said the test was set up by Angus McKenzie MBE, sorry I mis spelled his name earlier. If you don't know who he was, then your lack of knowledge on this subject, from someone who claims to research things is staggering. I'm putting you on my ignore list as in my opinion, you are a waste of bandwidth. Take the bloody blinkers off and enjoy the music.
Precisely, and it will no longer be entertained, as his modus operandi isn't even remotely witty or funny. So, Bob, shape up, or ship out.
Marco.
walpurgis
10-12-2015, 10:39
As Dave Wilson implied. The ears are essential in evaluation of Hi-Fi.
The science and technology come first needless to say (you have to make something in order to listen to it), but measurements will not tell you much about tonal characteristics for instance, but the ears will. Colourations in speakers can be horrible, but not necessarily measurable.
I don't know about today (ears are getting a bit old), but with many speakers, I often used to be able to guess pretty accurately what type of drivers and design were being employed. Paper or plastic cones, soft or hard domes. Ported or not. Two way or three way, etc., just by the sound of the things. In my mind, a good speaker is one where this is either hard to do or impossible.
Measurements may show some of these effects, but certainly should not be your best guide as to the final sound of a product. I'd rely on my ears every time.
StanleyB
10-12-2015, 10:46
I would have expected that this would see it
http://www.keysight.com/en/pd-2229665-pn-N2821A/3-mhz-50ua-high-sensitivity-ac-dc-current-probe-1-ch
The average engineer doesn't keep that sort of probe in his/her toolkit ;).
I've got a nice 'probe' in my toolkit, too... It's called a cattle prod, and it'll be getting metaphorically inserted up the jobby-hole of some folk here who're taking the piss! ;)
Marco.
The average engineer doesn't keep that sort of probe in his/her toolkit ;).
Though to be fair, the average engineer doesn't have a "high end" oscilloscope either. The best I have is a Agilent 54810A, you can tell the age of it from the Windows 95 start up screen. I was just suggesting what could be measured given the funds and incentive.
Have you considered upgrading the mains lead on your high-end oscilloscope?
Marco.
PaulStewart
10-12-2015, 11:53
Have you considered upgrading the mains lead on your high-end oscilloscope?
Marco.
:laugh:
anthonyTD
10-12-2015, 11:54
Now who's taking the wee wee! :eek::lol:
Have you considered upgrading the mains lead on your high-end oscilloscope?
Marco.
Now who's taking the wee wee! :eek::lol:
Don't poo poo the wee wee. :eyebrows:
StanleyB
10-12-2015, 12:17
Though to be fair, the average engineer doesn't have a "high end" oscilloscope either. The best I have is a Agilent 54810A, you can tell the age of it from the Windows 95 start up screen. I was just suggesting what could be measured given the funds and incentive.
You and me know that, but the point I am making is that a lot of folks are quick to put their trust in test equipment measurements without taking into account the limitations of what those measurement are able to show. For one thing, you can't measure satisfaction. You can only experience it.
What, do you not think I'm taking this discussion seriously enough? :D
Marco.
awkwardbydesign
10-12-2015, 12:26
I have a very devious set of components on a PCB that can clearly demonstrate how more accurate our hearing is compared to even a high end oscilloscope. You can hear the noise from the circuit through an amp and speakers, but you can't measure the noise no matter how hard you try. And I have asked many fellow engineers to give it a go on their own test equipment.
The reason the noise can't be seen on a scope is because it is a current generated noise, not a voltage derived one. And except for the ampere range on my multimeter I don't have or even know of any test kit that measures current noise or distortions. Cables etc can offer improvements that just can't be measured, because the improvements can be related to the I and R parameters, without affecting V. So if you are looking at V on a scope you won't see a difference, even though you can clearly hear it.
I've saved that, thanks.
Indeed, an excellent observation there from Stan :)
The other significant thing that, as far as I know can't be measured, yet is easily heard, which will instantly be recognised by you guys who build equipment is, component layout, whether on a PCB or hard-wired circuit.
Where you actually PUT stuff (in terms of minimising on detrimental electrical interaction between components, and keeping signal paths as short as possible), makes a HUGE difference to how the finished product sounds!!
Try measuring for that effect......... ;)
Marco.
Indeed, an excellent observation there from Stan :)
The other significant thing that, as far as I know can't be measured, yet is easily heard, which will instantly be recognised by you guys who build equipment is, component layout, whether on a PCB or hard-wired circuit.
Where you actually PUT stuff (in terms of minimising on detrimental electrical interaction between components, and keeping signal paths as short as possible), makes a HUGE difference to how the finished product sounds!!
Try measuring for that effect......... ;)
Marco.
Again, I think with respect you are making assumptions. Most active device spec sheets will have an Application Information section, which will detail exactly what you describe and make recommendations as to component layout for best results.
You and me know that, but the point I am making is that a lot of folks are quick to put their trust in test equipment measurements without taking into account the limitations of what those measurement are able to show. For one thing, you can't measure satisfaction. You can only experience it.
Agreed, I refer you back to post #40
Again, I think with respect you are making assumptions. Most active device spec sheets will have an Application Information section, which will detail exactly what you describe and make recommendations as to component layout for best results.
Ha - you've forgotten to insert your irony smiley! :D
Or of not, that's certainly not what Anthony has told me, when he's designing, for example, a hard-wired circuit, where fastidious attention to component layout has a significant effect on how the finished product sounds.
Marco.
Arkless Electronics
10-12-2015, 13:34
Indeed, an excellent observation there from Stan :)
The other significant thing that, as far as I know can't be measured, yet is easily heard, which will instantly be recognised by you guys who build equipment is, component layout, whether on a PCB or hard-wired circuit.
Where you actually PUT stuff (in terms of minimising on detrimental electrical interaction between components, and keeping signal paths as short as possible), makes a HUGE difference to how the finished product sounds!!
Try measuring for that effect......... ;)
Marco.
It's very measurable! Too much so at times!
As Dave Wilson implied. The ears are essential in evaluation of Hi-Fi.
The science and technology come first needless to say (you have to make something in order to listen to it), but measurements will not tell you much about tonal characteristics for instance, but the ears will. Colourations in speakers can be horrible, but not necessarily measurable.
I don't know about today (ears are getting a bit old), but with many speakers, I often used to be able to guess pretty accurately what type of drivers and design were being employed. Paper or plastic cones, soft or hard domes. Ported or not. Two way or three way, etc., just by the sound of the things. In my mind, a good speaker is one where this is either hard to do or impossible.
Measurements may show some of these effects, but certainly should not be your best guide as to the final sound of a product. I'd rely on my ears every time.
Actually Geoff, most forms of audible loudspeaker colouration are indeed measurable, be that cabinet resonance, comb filtering effects and phase anomalies. I agree though that ultimately, you have to listen and adjust, and this can take many months in speaker design to get things "just so". You have to start with theory and measurement, because the physics involved is complex and demands that approach. Even Briggs recognised the need for developing more advanced theoretical understanding of the physics back in the 1950s and used listening tests to help with understanding the physics which is more or less how it works today. However, with years comes experience, and experience can tell you (without the need for a calculator) what value component perhaps to try in one place or another (within a ballpark that is) precisely because you understand the likely measured results from knowledge and experience. ie it cannot be done blind without that knowledge or experience. I know for example that Spendor's current designs are arrived at through listening and adjusting but the chap doing the listening and adjusting has very expert knowledge!
In developing speakers, the first iteration usually requires several attempts to get things like phase response correct (in crossover design for example) and you can only really get things like phase response set accurately with measurement as its pretty incontrovertible to see acoustic phase response with the levels of accuracy now possible with simple measurement tools. Usually when you get it right, it sounds right, so no surprises there. You cannot achieve the same result through listening alone with anything like the the same degree of accuracy. There are other aspects though where listening tests are a far more reliable arbiter, for example where you may want to judge the blending of a tweeter's output. You can measure all you like but change the surroundings and the response will change, so ultimately you have to set the level which to your ears will give the best balance between detail, air and presence without sounding too fatiguing or detached. Personally, I draw the line at claiming to hear differences in soldered joints as a few degrees in ambient temperature is likely to have a more marked effect on sound than what binds the wires to their junctions and one does have to be careful about making such claims when there could be a multitude of other reasons for differences in hearing tests.
Ditto with cabinets. There are guidelines and there is very well established science to the cabinets and tuning of speaker systems, but some of the best sounding drive units still in use today can measure like a dogs dinner! There are many approaches to cabinets, and whilst some of the thin walled designs "tuned" for best self damping of problematical lower and mid frequencies sound very good indeed (my favourites today being the Spendor Classic series), in general removing colourations from cabinets is the norm and again, this can be tested by listening without the need for measurement BUT to arrive at the solution, one still needs to understand how the physics works and how best to implement the solutions.
I don't buy into the absolute separation or mutual exclusivity of measurement/science and pure subjectivity. That's bunkum and far too much of it is peddled on audio forums with entrenched camps on either side. The hard truth is that both are important and indeed vital to the successful outcome for any designer and indeed for the end user to benefit purely in a subjective manner. The danger comes when subjectivity alone is touted as the modern day science and that nothing else is needed, when from a design perspective, that's plain nonsense. The other argument extreme would have you believe that ears are for hanging tea towels on as listening isn't telling you anything, and that's equally as absurd. There is also a danger, where assumptions (often very incorrect ones) are draw from listening tests and then wild assumptions are made and reasons for the differences in sound ascribed which then leads to long and tedious arguments. Such reasoning usually just dents the credibility of the person attempting to state as fact their assumptions and this is where we need to be careful to draw the line. Equally, one cannot adequately describe sound reproduction qualities using measurements (even if they can be measured) as this tells the average punter little to nothing at all, so we have to use language that expresses those differences or qualities more humanly and often one can relate how something sounds to technical aspects of the delivery chain where that knowledge does exist.
I can never understand just why more audio forums cannot grow in the maturity to accept the complexities involved and to have a more grown up and friendly debate. For some that will be a "learn-in", for others a useful exchange of information or opinion, and for others still perhaps the chance of explanation. What matters is that we feel that we can contribute in some form or other without the need for rudeness or getting shot down in flames and that we do indeed learn and develop from our individual hifi and music journeys.
Rothchild
10-12-2015, 13:43
I don't buy into the absolute separation or mutual exclusivity of measurement/science and pure subjectivity. That's bunkum and far too much of it is peddled on audio forums with entrenched camps on either side. The hard truth is that both are important and indeed vital to the successful outcome for any designer and indeed for the end user to benefit purely in a subjective manner. The danger comes when subjectivity alone is touted as the modern day science and that nothing else is needed
Chalk me up as a member of this camp, nicely put.
Arkless Electronics
10-12-2015, 13:43
I have a very devious set of components on a PCB that can clearly demonstrate how more accurate our hearing is compared to even a high end oscilloscope. You can hear the noise from the circuit through an amp and speakers, but you can't measure the noise no matter how hard you try. And I have asked many fellow engineers to give it a go on their own test equipment.
The reason the noise can't be seen on a scope is because it is a current generated noise, not a voltage derived one. And except for the ampere range on my multimeter I don't have or even know of any test kit that measures current noise or distortions. Cables etc can offer improvements that just can't be measured, because the improvements can be related to the I and R parameters, without affecting V. So if you are looking at V on a scope you won't see a difference, even though you can clearly hear it.
It will be readily measurable if you have the right equipment and know how to use it. I often design and build my own test gear for awkward measurements that cannot be encompassed by commercial gear to hand.
It's very measurable! Too much so at times!
Mmm... How can you measure the sonic improvement gained by altering the circuit layout in a piece of equipment? That's what I'm talking about being measured here, nothing else! ;)
Marco.
Ha - you've forgotten to insert your irony smiley! :D
Or of not, that's certainly not what Anthony has told me, when he's designing, for example, a hard-wired circuit, where fastidious attention to component layout has a significant effect on how the finished product sounds.
Marco.
Again, my reading standard may be letting me down. You seem to have assumed I was saying that component placement did not matter and the effect was unmeasurable. Far from it, it matters a lot. But its not some secret that only a few know, I was just pointing to the spec sheets of components where the manufactures know full well that layout can be important and make sure they inform the user/designer of how to best use the part.
Hi Paul,
The danger comes when subjectivity alone is touted as the modern day science and that nothing else is needed...
Yes, of course, but I don't believe anyone here has said that, certainly not me. That would be as much a form of binary-thinking as is the contrary! ;)
Marco.
Both hands wash each other
You seem to have assumed I was saying that component placement did not matter and the effect was unmeasurable. Far from it, it matters a lot. But its not some secret that only a few know, I was just pointing to the spec sheets of components where the manufactures know full well that layout can be important and make sure they inform the user/designer of how to best use the part.
Ah - I misunderstood you then, because in fact we are in agreement! :)
Thing is though, as I've said to Jez, how do you measure for the sonic improvement gained, as a result of moving around some caps or transformers?
Marco.
TBH, this measurement v how it sounds thing is just a false dichotomy. No, you may not be able to plug in a measuring device and get a number from 0 to 100 that will tell you how it sounds, but over the years as a designer you find correlations between how something measures and how it sounds. Occasionally you find cases where its not as expected, both good and bad, but those are the cases where you get to learn something new, and I think the handful of designers on this forum if presented with a circuit and some simple but pertinent measurements could probably all come to the same conclusion what the thing will sound like. Its not magic, there is method to the apparent madness.
Trouble is sounds sound different to different people and at different times..and thats the difference
TBH, this measurement v how it sounds thing is just a false dichotomy. No, you may not be able to plug in a measuring device and get a number from 0 to 100 that will tell you how it sounds, but over the years as a designer you find correlations between how something measures and how it sounds.
Yes, and that's called 'voicing' ;)
The point is, that there current exists no individual piece of scientific apparatus that is able to measure 'sound quality', the optimisation of which is ultimately the goal of any good design - and ultimately is entirely subjective!
Marco.
Arkless Electronics
10-12-2015, 14:02
Mmm... How can you measure the sonic improvement gained by altering the circuit layout in a piece of equipment? That's what I'm talking about being measured here, nothing else! ;)
Marco.
It's all measurable to whatever extent... Bad layout and grounding practise can VERY easily cause problems such as oscillation at RF frequencies, peaking and ringing in the step response, extended settling time, crosstalk, increased THD and mains hum (usually 100Hz residual) and can be bad enough to stop something from working at all in extreme cases ("blocking" due to RF spurii) . By minimising all of these layout related effects one maximises sound quality AND measured performance ;)
You're missing the point, Jez. I have to pop out for a bit, but I'll explain later :)
Marco.
Arkless Electronics
10-12-2015, 14:24
You're missing the point, Jez. I have to pop out for a bit, but I'll explain later :)
Marco.
No I'm not! You are! Audible differences due to layout will have their roots in the sort of issues I mentioned above ;) It's a matter of the degree to which any of the layout issues effect things i.e if THD is already 0.05% then some will consider this more than adequately low and not pursue it any further, however it is quite feasible that the amp has the capability to give 0.01% and all the extra THD is due to layout issues... The moot point is then the audibility of 0.05% versus 0.01% THD... more importantly, the spectra of the distortion will almost certainly change dramatically!
Yes, and that's called 'voicing' ;)
The point is, that there current exists no individual piece of scientific apparatus that is able to measure 'sound quality', the optimisation of which is ultimately the goal of any good design - and ultimately is entirely subjective!
Marco.
Well, no, I cant agree with that. I can produce three amplifiers (for example). I can measure them and make predictions about how they will sound, non of that is subjective. If I then give the three amplifiers to 10 people in turn and ask them to arrange the three in order of their preference, then that is entirely subjective, and individual. Each person will order the amps in a way that reflects their choices and preferences. I can then produce a fourth amplifier, and based on measurement, experience and the knowledge of the order the ten people arranged the initial three amplifiers predict how they will each rate the new amplifier in the new list of four. Now you may call that subjective, I wouldn't.
anthonyTD
10-12-2015, 15:34
:doh: Thats the problem with these type of threads, they go round, and round, and...
I have participated with a few others here many times in the past, and have agreed, and also stated on many occasions, every diffrence genuinely perceived can be tested for, and observed, if we know what to test for!
The problem is in many cases, we dont know where to start.
My point is; you can have all the test gear in the world, but if you dont know what it is about one piece of kit over the other, that makes its sonic properties stand out, then where do you start in your test procedure, especialy in the case where you have two identical amplifiers, made to the same spec, however, one sounds obviously better than the other, to the person doing the listening :scratch:
I have been there myself, and deal with those who's opinion i value mostly, Musicians, for example, one very well known Guitarist i service, and renovate equipment for, has two identical amplifiers, which he relates to as his number one, and number two, now i have had both amps on the bench,at the same time, and serviced, and tested both thoroughly, and given the same test conditions, they test the same, however, the number one amp is his favourite for a reason, because to him, it sounds diffrent,better, and therefore, he has a better, closer connection with it, than the number two, now as i have stated above, although using the common test methods i use, i could not find an obvious reason for the diffrence, i am however very sure that the diffrence could be detected, given the correct test procedure.
I dont think any of us here, who are in this industry believe there is some kind of magic at the work here, in my opinion, everything can be accounted for, if we have the correct tools, and a clue as to where to look.
No I'm not! You are! Audible differences due to layout will have their roots in the sort of issues I mentioned above ;) It's a matter of the degree to which any of the layout issues effect things i.e if THD is already 0.05% then some will consider this more than adequately low and not pursue it any further, however it is quite feasible that the amp has the capability to give 0.01% and all the extra THD is due to layout issues... The moot point is then the audibility of 0.05% versus 0.01% THD... more importantly, the spectra of the distortion will almost certainly change dramatically!
Jez,
Adding exclamation marks, after supposedly conclusive statements, doesn't automatically make them so.... You are missing the point because I wasn't talking about any of the above. Here's the scenario:
You've designed an amp, and you're 100% satisfied that it measures just how you want it to measure, so you take it off of your test bench and put it into your system to LISTEN to it. You like it a lot, but something's not *quite* right (it sounds a little bit bright, tonally), which in this instance from experience, you put down to capacitor choice.
You're convinced about that, as you've encountered this problem before and resolved it by changing capacitors... So some final fine-tuning is needed.
Ok, so which single piece of test apparatus would you employ the use of to measure the sonic difference between, say, a Clarity Cap MR and Mundorf Supreme capacitor, of exactly the same electrical value, in order that, without listening, you will know which one to choose, to alter the tonality of the amplifier in the desired way?
And don't tell me that all caps sound the same, as long as they are the same value, because if so, we'll have to vehemently disagree there, too! :ner:
Marco.
Well, no, I cant agree with that. I can produce three amplifiers (for example). I can measure them and make predictions about how they will sound, non of that is subjective. If I then give the three amplifiers to 10 people in turn and ask them to arrange the three in order of their preference, then that is entirely subjective, and individual. Each person will order the amps in a way that reflects their choices and preferences. I can then produce a fourth amplifier, and based on measurement, experience and the knowledge of the order the ten people arranged the initial three amplifiers predict how they will each rate the new amplifier in the new list of four. Now you may call that subjective, I wouldn't.
You're also missing the point, Nick. I'm not disputing any of the above - far from it.
The point is that, in the final analysis, when all the measuring has been done, and you're at the stage of fine-tuning a piece of equipment, so that it sounds right to you, before it goes to the customer, there is NO single piece of test apparatus that can instantly provide you with that answer.
At that point, you have no option other than to use YOUR EARS and EXPERIENCE! ;)
Marco.
Arkless Electronics
10-12-2015, 18:26
Jez,
Adding exclamation marks, after supposedly conclusive statements, doesn't automatically make them so.... You are missing the point because I wasn't talking about any of the above. Here's the scenario:
You've designed an amp, and you're 100% satisfied that it measures just how you want it to measure, so you take it off of your test bench and put it into your system to LISTEN to it. You like it a lot, but something's not *quite* right (it sounds a little bit bright, tonally), which in this instance from experience, you put down to capacitor choice.
You're convinced about that, as you've encountered this problem before and resolved it by changing capacitors... So some final fine-tuning is needed.
Ok, so which single piece of test apparatus would you employ the use of to measure the sonic difference between, say, a Clarity Cap MR and Mundorf Supreme capacitor, of exactly the same electrical value, in order that, without listening, you will know which one to choose, to alter the tonality of the amplifier in the way required?
And don't tell me that all caps sound the same, as long as they are the same value, because if so, we'll have to vehemently disagree there, too! :ner:
Marco.
I certainly don't think all capacitors sound the same no.... but I do think that the differences are often exaggerated. In certain sensitive positions in the circuitry the type of cap is crucial to the sound... in other positions it will have little or no effect.
I don't see how the rest of your reply is at all relevant to my original post though! I posted about real and measurable (and often audible) phenomena to do with layout and you replied with a post on the voicing of an amp with different capacitors :)
Arkless Electronics
10-12-2015, 18:28
You're also missing the point, Nick. I'm not disputing any of the above - far from it.
The point is that, in final analysis, when all the measuring has been done, and you're at the stage of fine-tuning a piece of equipment, so that it sounds right to you, before it goes to the customer, there is NO single piece of test apparatus that can instantly provide you with that answer.
At that point, you have no other option than to use YOUR EARS and EXPERIENCE! ;)
Marco.
On that we totally agree ;)
I certainly don't think all capacitors sound the same no.... but I do think that the differences are often exaggerated. In certain sensitive positions in the circuitry the type of cap is crucial to the sound... in other positions it will have little or no effect.
I don't see how the rest of your reply is at all relevant to my original post though! I posted about real and measurable (and often audible) phenomena to do with layout and you replied with a post on the voicing of an amp with different capacitors :)
Lol.... The point is, I'm giving you an example of something that can't be measured, only LISTENED TO, such as, sonic differences between capacitors! ;)
Marco.
On that we totally agree ;)
Ok, I'm glad, because now we're getting somewhere! :)
So, let's extrapolate what we've just agreed on.....
If there is currently no single piece of test apparatus able to instantly tell you how to 'voice' an amp with different capacitors, but your ears are capable of performing that task with a reliable degree of accuracy (as you've just agreed), what else might your ears be able to identify with a similar degree of accuracy, in some others aspect of audio, which can't currently be measured either?
*Think* about it!
Marco.
Arkless Electronics
10-12-2015, 19:26
Ok, I'm glad, because now we're getting somewhere! :)
So, let's extrapolate what we've just agreed on.....
If there is currently no single piece of test apparatus that can instantly tell you how to 'voice' an amp with different capacitors, but your ears are capable of performing that task with a reliable degree of accuracy (as you've just agreed), what else might your ears be able to identify with a similar degree of accuracy, in some others aspect of audio, which can't be measured either?
Marco.
"Strawman, going straight to the devil" :D
Lol - you know where I'm coming from, though! ;)
The point is, in some areas of audio, science hasn't *yet* caught up with what our human senses are, quite clearly, capable of doing......
Marco.
Arkless Electronics
10-12-2015, 19:43
Our senses/brain combination is very capable of being fooled in ways that instruments aren't though. Optical illusions rely on it. The power of suggestion and expectation bias are also hugely powerful in human perception, but absent in test gear ;)
Yes, and I totally accept that, and indeed have never denied it.
However, there are times, as we've just discussed, when there is no option but to use our senses. And as we've just agreed (such as when voicing an amp with different capacitors is required), they're not always as fallible as claimed, in terms of the reliable results (opposite of that) they're capable of producing ;)
Marco.
Lol - you know where I'm coming from, though! ;)
The point is, in some areas of audio, science hasn't *yet* caught up with what our human senses are, quite clearly, capable of doing......
Marco.
It very likely has - just not in a remotely affordable form for the layman (or cottage industry artisan)
At the base of this is the angst explored in hundreds of sci-fi epics since Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein' - that science will at some point be capable of replacing us with something far more superior and far more effective ...because it is, ultimately, dependably reproducible and ruthlessly objective. And lets face it - in many fields of human endeavour it already has ;)
Fair point, Mike.
Trust me, all of us who *know* we can hear certain effects in audio, which can't currently be measured (within, as you say. the realms of the 'layman'), would dearly LOVE to have our genuine experiences proved as fact, by some form of 'gizmo', as it would finally put to bed debates such as this!
However, I do feel that I've made some progress, in that respect, by drawing attention to at least one aspect of equipment design, such as I've agreed with Jez, where ears are very much needed in the 'voicing' of equipment - and so our old lugholes aren't always as unreliable as they're made out to be... ;)
Marco.
I've got a nice 'probe' in my toolkit, too... It's called a cattle prod, and it'll be getting metaphorically inserted up the jobby-hole of some folk here who're taking the piss! ;)
Marco.
Now THAT's what I call mixing your metaphors...
Hix in stix love chix lix
Is that another one of your (now famous) 'cryptic conundrums'? :eyebrows:
Marco.
cloth-ears
13-12-2015, 12:39
Well, there really is a lot to comment about. Unfortunately I’ve been commuting back and forth to Germany over the past week so haven’t really had the chance. So where do I start?
Let’s start with Paul Stewart’s remarks, calling me an asshole because I wasn’t there at his blind testing thus couldn’t comment on the method used. My fault, I should have been there. And just who was the person taking the blind test? A person who Paul described as “biased”, hardly empirical evidence. How are you supposed to be taken seriously when the person taking the test is by your own admission unreliable? Paul describes himself as having “scientific training”; reading a couple of Ladybird books hardly constitutes a formal education. Complete idiot more like
An on to Marco,he slated me for calling the person taking the test a control subject, as Marco says; “that robotic use of language says it all”. All what exactly? Evidence of a proper education perhaps. What should I have called the man with no name? “The biased and unreliable witness”, “some bloke from a HiFI mag”. NO, the correct term is “Control subject”. If you don’t like the syntax all you have to do is politely ask me to dumb it down a bit for you.
Marco then went on to have a pop at me of not reading his posts fully. Well, he did not actually ask me a question. Not too sure just how you have a go at someone for not answering a question that you never asked in the first place. What a strange world he lives in. If anyone can be accused of not reading posts itsMarco. I have already explained that the purpose of an amplifier is to make small thing big, that’s it. The difference between what goes in and what comes out is called distortion. The lower this distortion the better. Any half decent amplifier does not have a “sound” of its own. If an amplifier has a sound of its own then it is poorly designed. If you are not happy with the sound that comes out then you should be looking at what you are putting in. it’s not the amps job to polish a turd.
Looking your record player Marco may supply some answers. The Techincs SL1210 was designed as a PA deck for the night clubs of Ibiza, not a home HiFi. No matter how you choose to pimp it up it is what it is. Using PA equipment in a home HiFi system is bound to leave you wanting. Spending a fortune on magic bean cables will never make it good. Perhaps if you sell all your leads and buy a PA graphic equaliser you might get closer to the sound you’re looking for, and for a lot less money. It’s no good venting your spleen at me for the shortcomings of a PA system. My best advice to you is start again. Get a good belt drive turntable like Pink Triangle, a Quad amp and some monitor speakers. If that don’t fix it, take the records down the charity shop and go fully digital. You’ll thank me later.
Before you threaten to ban me again I’d just like to say that there are some very good people on this form, a special thanks to the person who pointed me in the direction of another forum. You are right; they do embrace science and are anti foo. I fit in well. Astalavista playmates. Be nice to each other, its nearly Christmas
What a strange chap :scratch:
Ali Tait
13-12-2015, 13:03
Actually, the 1210 was originally released as a consumer high fidelity record player, not a dj deck-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technics_SL-1200
PaulStewart
13-12-2015, 13:04
Fantasti Bob, you have managed to epitomise the famous saying, often attributed to Abraham Lincoln or Mark Twain, but that actually has biblical roots
Mark Twain put it well .. “it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to talk and remove all doubt.”
Your lack of research into the development of the SL-1200 series says all I need to know about you as an alledged scientist :lol:
By the way if you need Ladybird books, I have the ones I read here, The Ladybird book getting a BSc, Let's get our MA and The Ladybird book of Doctorates. On the other hand, the last one required some original thought, way beyond your closed in mindset Sonny Jim :lol:
Arkless Electronics
13-12-2015, 13:41
Now then gentleman.... I started this thread as a wind up knowing it would provoke some erm... lively debate.... lets not have it provoking any more than that.
Audio Advent
13-12-2015, 14:33
By the way if you need Ladybird books, I have the ones I read here, The Ladybird book getting a BSc, Let's get our MA and The Ladybird book of Doctorates. On the other hand, the last one required some original thought, way beyond your closed in mindset Sonny Jim :lol:
:lol:
Audio Advent
13-12-2015, 14:35
I have already explained that the purpose of an amplifier is to make small thing big, that’s it.
Ego... penis... I agree! The bigger, beefier and more expensive the amp, the bigger those things get hurrah!
.... to spoil the joke by being technical, that's not technically necessarily true. Depending on the efficiency of speakers, the amp can just be an impedance interface.
awkwardbydesign
13-12-2015, 14:55
Now then gentleman.... I started this thread as a wind up knowing it would provoke some erm... lively debate.... lets not have it provoking any more than that.
Spoilsport.
Oldpinkman
13-12-2015, 16:17
I have not been following this thread for a while - circular arguments...:(
However, I noticed Bob's post. If that indicates Bob is no longer posting on the forum, I personally feel that's a great shame and will miss him. I realise his comments about the SL1200 were both provocative and ignorant - but he has contributed some good stuff, and seemed a likeable knowledgeable chap.
What is it about HiFi forums that brings out so much nastiness? And so much dogma?
To those who are certain that HiFi design has to be "tuned by ear" - the fact is that THX managed to design the AHB2 I am about to buy without either of its collaborative designers listening to it (working in Suffolk and Canada). They just got it to measure right. Clearly it would have been better still if some enthusiast had popped round and given his opinion of how it sounded, and tweaked a few components, and THX missed a trick on behalf of their client Benchmark. But it seems to have been well received in spite of that, and both organisations appear to be struggling on and eeking out an existence.
Only person responsible for his departure is himself and you ought to know better.
Driven out, Richard? I hardly think so! Bob, was simply here to ram his staunchly objectivist views down the throats of those he thought he could wind up, and when he was given a taste of his own medicine, couldn't hack it.
Clearly, he just didn't fit in. Also, Richard, please do not post personal remarks about other members, as it doesn't help. All it does is inflames matters further. I won't bother replying properly to Bob's extremely rude and condescending post, and his ridiculously ill-informed remarks about the Technics (and my system), as the nonsense contained therein doesn't warrant a response.
All I will say is that, Bob, I asked/referred to (it doesn't really matter which) if you'd like to come round for a listen to some music if you were ever in the North Wales area, to which you didn't reply. Maybe that's not ignorant in your world, but in mine it most certainly is.
As for the rest of your impudent little rant, it just shows what kind of person you are, and also reveals your true colours.
Oh, and you can replace "control subject" with 'person' (or 'person being tested'), quite easily, and in the process make things seem just a tad friendlier and more human! Anyway, enjoy posting on whatever forum you end up on. You certainly won't be welcome back here.
Right, with personal insults flying left right and centre, I think that the thread has run its course, and this forever controversial and troublesome topic of discussion has unfortunately ended up yet again, living up to its reputation.... :rolleyes:
Marco.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.