View Full Version : Using our aural ability with stereo hearing, to assess equipment.
Light Dependant Resistor
18-04-2016, 08:33
Hi
A obvious, but as far as I know little used way of
assessing one piece of equipment vs the other, is
to use our excellent aural ability with hearing from
stereo sources.
From a source with same type of level control and that level
control providing ability separately for each channel, have
one channel run directly to one channel of a power amp.
Now from the other channel route it through a piece of equipment-
that you think is a straight wire. Match each channel for equal balance from
the source level control.
It then becomes fairly easy to hear the ability, or in
most cases inability for the other longer path piece of
equipment to match the source. However if it gets
close or even better identical – you can very quickly assess
and smile knowing that piece of equipment as having minimal
or no loss particularly in the areas of phase and tonality.
Hope this is of interest.
Cheers / Chris
If you have done it, give us details of how, what you used Source components, Cables, Amps, Level Matching etc and what your conclusions were. I have a feeling this thread will either run and run or ?.........:popcorn:
StanleyB
18-04-2016, 08:59
Why does one need to do level matching of the sound output of the equipment? What is the purpose of that? I see it brought up more often than not, but with no explanation why that is required.
Light Dependant Resistor
18-04-2016, 09:12
If you have done it, give us details of how, what you used Source components, Cables, Amps, Level Matching etc and what your conclusions were. I have a feeling this thread will either run and run or ?.........:popcorn:
Hi Rob
Source component was a marantz CD7300 running via a DBX DDP, the short path channel
running to a quad 306. The longer path from other channel of DBX DDP via LDR then on to
another Quad 306. speakers were gale GS401a.
The source component semi disappears from the result as it applies - no matter what it is,
to each channel. Rather the long path will show up straight away or in the case of what I am listening to
at this very minute, it sounds the same as the other channel particularly in the areas of
maintaining sound staging. It is as though the long path IS no different to the short path. .
Why does one need to do level matching of the sound output of the equipment? What is the purpose of that? I see it brought up more often than not, but with no explanation why that is required.
Because the long path is usually attenuated or amplified, depending on what the long path
piece of equipment actually is. Having the source component capable of level matching
allows little discrepancy . Of course there are many impedances in between, but it is
a very interesting test where the source sets correct stereo balance allowing the long
channel to reveal itself as to if it can or cannot maintain tonality and sound staging.
The desired result being that the long path gets close or the same as the short path.
Why does one need to do level matching of the sound output of the equipment? What is the purpose of that? I see it brought up more often than not, but with no explanation why that is required.
People often equate the slightly louder sound as more dynamic/clearer.
Light Dependant Resistor
18-04-2016, 09:25
People often equate the slightly louder sound as more dynamic/clearer.
In this case if the shorter or longer path was more dynamic / clearer /louder it would show up as a less than ideal stereo balance.
StanleyB
18-04-2016, 09:33
People often equate the slightly louder sound as more dynamic/clearer.Poor lot. If someone needs the sound to be the same in level, it will likely only be so at the frequency range selected by the tester.
People often equate the slightly louder sound as more dynamic/clearer.
Indeed, but they tend to be somewhat superficial 'binary', or one could say, rather undiscerning listeners - or perhaps those with a rigidly defined 'measurist' view of audio.
Whilst it's good practice to ensure accurate level matching, whenever comparing components, there's a lot more to what genuinely constitutes as a 'good sound' (read as realistic/believable) than simply that which is loudest... If one is easily fooled by that, then one is obviously not paying close enough attention to what one is supposed to be listening for.
Or maybe one doesn't even know what that is?
Honestly, sonic and musical subtleties (and rather important ones at that), in audio, seem to be lost on some folk! ;)
Marco.
StanleyB
18-04-2016, 10:01
Whilst it's good practice to ensure accurate level matching, whenever comparing components, there's a lot more to what genuinely constitutes as a 'good sound' (read as realistic/believable) than simply that which is loudest... If you're so easily fooled by that, then you're obviously not paying close enough attention to what it is you're supposed to be listening for.
Honestly, sonic and musical subtleties (and rather important ones at that), in audio, seem to be lost on some folk!
I know of a few people, some posting on AoS at times, who have told me that this or that item of mine is very clear, detailed, and that they can hear more in the music than what they already have. But the reason that they are happier with what they got is because it has more bass :doh:. I have observed the same kind of A/B testing discussions on other forums being reduced to how much more bass intensive equipment A is over equipment B. That's the only thing that seems to matter with quite a few people. The rest is irrelevant.
I know, folk are obsessed with bass! Either that, or merely only seem able, when comparing pieces of equipment or cables, to listen for changes in tonality, when that's really only a small part of what it's about :rolleyes:
You need to tune your head into appreciating musical differences, not just sonic/'sound'-related ones!
Marco.
Ive found that if the bass is not prevalent then you hear the music and get the vibe. Worst thing for me is bass blasting at you but i appreciate thats just me maybe. My system has bass but its not gonna knock you into you chair.
Absolutely, Grant.
However, when assessing equipment and cables, and using your 'aural ability' in the process, you have to look beyond rather prosaic (and obvious) sound-related aspects of the presentation, such as bass, treble, midrange, soundstaging and 'clarity' (the meaning of which is grossly open to an individual's interpretation), and instead to more subtle things, which combine to convince the listener that what he or she is hearing represents something that's musically believable, and 'connects' with them on that basis, and not merely that which represents an 'impressive sound'.
Plenty of equipment is capable of the latter, but only the best, IME, truly excels at the former.
It's a difficult thing to define in words, but from experience it's clear that some folk 'get' it instantly, and some never, no matter how hard your try to 'educate' them....
Marco.
I don't think there's a right and wrong here. You either like the sound of a system, or you don't, and that liking/disliking may well change as you get older and your hearing deteriorates. The idea that you can or should 'educate' someone in this respect is, frankly, laughable.
Absolutely, but it doesn't devalue or discredit the basic point I was making, which is that there's a lot more to consider, when assessing the efficacy or 'talents' of a piece of audio equipment, than the somewhat superficial consideration of 'How much bass or treble does it have?'
Marco.
StanleyB
18-04-2016, 12:21
You either like the sound of a system, or you don't, and that liking/disliking may well change as you get older and your hearing deteriorates.
What has age got to do with any of this? You need educating on this matter :).
Indeed. Listening experience, in that respect (and one's ability to discern and identify that which is outside of the obvious), is often more important that outright hearing acuity! ;)
Marco.
Rothchild
18-04-2016, 12:52
You need to tune your head into appreciating musical differences, not just sonic/'sound'-related ones!
Marco.
Surely one would need the score to determine that? :scratch: Maybe we'd be better of with a printer than speakers ;)
How does a sound reproduction system communicate 'information' that's not sonic?
How does a sound reproduction system communicate 'information' that's not sonic?
Possibly in the same way an optical reproduction system like a computer monitor can communicate information thats not visual?
I was lost from the first post and the subsequent ones have not improved that situation. Although I get the point about level-matching not being that important if you are an experienced listener.
Surely one would need the score to determine that? :scratch: Maybe we'd be better of with a printer than speakers ;)
How does a sound reproduction system communicate 'information' that's not sonic?
Well, perhaps if you saw it more as a MUSIC reproduction system (which it is), you'd get it, unless you own a hi-fi system simply to listen to test tones... ;)
The point I'm making, Marc, is that when judging how 'good' or otherwise a piece of equipment is, you should be assessing it along the lines of 'does it make a piano sound like a piano', or a guitar sound like a guitar (based on your educated or experienced perception of such), not simply how much bass or treble it has.
The former are musical considerations, and the latter simply sonic ones, which ultimately only tell a small part of the story.
Marco.
StanleyB
18-04-2016, 13:36
Well, perhaps if you saw it more as a MUSIC reproduction system (which it is), you'd get it, unless you own a hi-fi system simply to listen to test tones... ;)
I got loads of test tones and do listen to them :D.
Lol... And good luck to you! As a designer of equipment, you may need to do that (or involve yourself with such in some way). That's unlikely to be the case for solely a music lover.
The enjoyment of listening to recorded music is (or should be) the whole point of owning a hi-fi system :)
Marco.
StanleyB
18-04-2016, 13:55
The one good thing about threads like this is that you get to find out what some people want to hear, irrespective of what there is to be heard. A lot of bass means very little to a violin player, and not so much to a guitar player. But it matters to a piano or tuba player. But when it comes to students or games players, the requirements are more often than not completely different.
The one good thing about threads like this is that you get to find out what some people want to hear, irrespective of what there is to be heard.
Good point. It also sifts out those who listen for 'hi-fi effects', and those who listen for music :eyebrows:
Which type would you rather have most as customers? ;)
Marco.
I guess it also depends if you have had your 4 o'clock beer yet or not. I kind of groove better with a beer and in a relaxed state ;)
We seem to me to be getting into a false dichotomy: people who like music versus people who buys hifi on the basis of how much bass and treble it has. I don't know anyone in the latter category; maybe I did way back in student days when all hifi had tone controls and you might 'max out' the bass to get the walls shaking, but that was (gulp) almost 40 years ago. it's far more nuanced than that, and is based on a number of factors beyond a simplistic 'music vs sound' divide.
What these arguments essentially come down to is: 'I like this system, therefore it must be a good, musical, system, because I have impeccable taste. Anyone who likes a different sort of system must be interested in the sound rather than the music'. It's the Linn tune dem bollocks all over again.
Rothchild
18-04-2016, 15:04
Possibly in the same way an optical reproduction system like a computer monitor can communicate information thats not visual?
But it can't communicate that info in any other means but visually, right?
As ever this is likely a language issue (rather than a real point of disagreement)
IMO what Marco has described as musical considerations (the exactitude of the reproduction of acoustic instruments according to a personal metric) are actually sonic (frequency, amplitude and duration), for me 'musical' considerations are notation / score (hence the printer joke) and performance nuances (micro dynamics and timing 'feel' if you will)
I don't think exposing (or understanding) either of these perspectives on the 'truth' in the recording are mutually exclusive.
How dare you cuss test tones, Kraftwerk were flippin' awesome! :eyebrows:
In terms of the OP as well as using different L&R and our ears we could just flip the polarity in on channel, if the room it good enough it should kill the output, if you can hear anything then there's something worth investigating.
walpurgis
18-04-2016, 15:17
I got loads of test tones and do listen to them :D.
Try some random square waves through your speakers with the wick turned up Stan. :D
Or maybe you don't even know what that is?
Honestly, sonic and musical subtleties (and rather important ones at that), in audio, seem to be lost on some folk! ;)
Marco.
Is that aimed at me - because it certainly sounds like it is? I haven't invented this reason for level matching, the reason I gave is the industry accepted one - Stan asked why it may be needed (which I admit rather surprised me) so I told him the reason. Don't shoot the messenger!
Poor lot. If someone needs the sound to be the same in level, it will likely only be so at the frequency range selected by the tester.
Yes, that can be true, it depends on what is being compared. I'm not arguing for or against, I'm just stating the reason level matching is often cited as important.
As you suggest, with some components it's difficult to do exact level matching - for example, if a component genuinely is more dynamic than another they will never be level matched except over a narrow window. Personally I don't feel the need for exact level matching but I do ensure that levels are roughly the same when doing any A/B comparison. It matters less with longer term comparisons.
IMO what Marco has described as musical considerations (the exactitude of the reproduction of acoustic instruments according to a personal metric) are actually sonic (frequency, amplitude and duration), for me 'musical' considerations are notation / score (hence the printer joke) and performance nuances (micro dynamics and timing 'feel' if you will)
I understand where you're coming from, and to all intents and purposes you're right. It's probably more a case here of semantics.
However, the bottom line, however you cut it, is that there's a lot more to judging how 'good' or otherwise a piece of kit is, than how much bass or treble it's got - and if you think otherwise, you shouldn't be into 'proper' hi-fi!
Marco.
Is that aimed at me - because it certainly sounds like it is?
Lol - not in the slightest! How on earth did you come to that ridiculous conclusion, daftee? :D
Marco.
The one good thing about threads like this is that you get to find out what some people want to hear,
What you find out from threads like this is that some people like to read what they want rather than what is actually written!
What these arguments essentially come down to is: 'I like this system, therefore it must be a good, musical, system, because I have impeccable taste. Anyone who likes a different sort of system must be interested in the sound rather than the music'. It's the Linn tune dem bollocks all over again.
Not at all, at least that's not where I'm coming from. The fact is, some people are intrinsically more discerning (perhaps one could say fussy or less easily satisfied) listeners than others, therefore that in turn will be reflected in their choices of equipment and/or how they judge the efficacy of said equipment.
Here's something to ponder, in terms of the 'sound vs. music' thing, and IMO what separates an experienced listener, in that respect, and also someone who fundamentally understands what music is about and the role hi-fi equipment plays in that, from someone who's less discerning or knowledgeable in that area...
Ask ten people, who all consider themselves as hi-fi enthusiasts/music lovers, to describe what it is about the *presentation/performance* of their system, and/or a component within their system, which made them buy it in the first place.
Those who proceed to describe nothing other than that which relates to tonality/sound (bass, treble, clarity, etc), without also describing how what they're hearing relates to MUSIC, for me provides its own clues as to where people's 'heads are at', as it were.
This matter also frequently reveals itself in the equipment reviews posted on forums, where more often than not what's written merely centres around 'sound', rather than describing how successful (or otherwise) a component is at portraying MUSIC.
The fact is, there is a difference! ;)
Marco.
StanleyB
18-04-2016, 16:39
Try some random square waves through your speakers with the wick turned up Stan. :D
I do have most of the JM Jarre albums already :ner:.
walpurgis
18-04-2016, 16:41
I do have most of the JM Jarre albums already :ner:.
Ah. I wondered where they'd all gone. It sure as hell wasn't me buying them. :lol:
Remember my brother bying one of his albums and i instantly knew that it wasnt for me :D. Unheard!
I was lost from the first post and the subsequent ones have not improved that situation. Although I get the point about level-matching not being that important if you are an experienced listener.
Somewhere on the HUG, AS posted two short music files and asked if 'we' could tell the difference. Many of us 'thought' we could and that one was better than the other and that includes me. The ONLY difference between them was that ONE CHANNEL was half to one db louder than another and nothing else. Probably just shows how shit my ears are now :(
What worries me is that I think and genuinely believe that x cable sounds slightly different to y cable, x say, being the preferred one in isolation. When arranged so I can immediately and seamlessly switch between them simply by turning a control, I find it difficult if not impossible to detect any change and I find I can live with either 'sound,' even forgetting after a few days which is which. Again, probably my shitty ears and one reason why I just cannot any longer trust them 'only.'..
Marco, most audiophiles listen with their eyes in my experience, not their ears. Why do you think most expensive gear is blinged up to the eyeballs? It came as a huge shock when I first heard Croft gear after the ARC preamp and posh looking Nakamichi power amp I had at the time. The Croft preamp was at least as good at under half the price, although I do sometimes wonder how the now ancient SP14 would sound with my current system as it certainly looked the part... Sadly, the blingy Tube Technology Genesis power amps only lasted ten months before eating their output valves (I should have realised that four EL34's running 100W was pushing them much too hard). I should have bought the same price (£2.5k, now over £10k :() EAR 509's as I'd possibly still have them :(
Is that aimed at me - because it certainly sounds like it is?
Reading back on the 'offending' post in question (#8), I can see now how you took it that way... I've re-written it, replacing 'you' with 'one', which will now hopefully put across what I had originally intended! ;)
Anyway, rest assured that I wasn't referring to you personally.
Marco.
Just a train of thought; in one of the hifi mags (Hifi News, maybe?) there's a long article about the genesis of BBC loudspeakers, which includes a hilarious photo of AS in the early 1980s sporting a very dodgy moustache.
Marco, most audiophiles listen with their eyes in my experience, not their ears. Why do you think most expensive gear is blinged up to the eyeballs?
Indeed, but I'd like to think that the majority of AoS members were a little more discerning than that, especially as here we so heavily champion the 'SPPV approach'! ;)
Marco.
Indeed, but I'd like to think that the majority of AoS members were a little more discerning than that, especially as here we so heavily champion the 'SPPV approach'! ;)
Marco.
you do :eek: Its nice to have both I guess. :D
Audio Advent
18-04-2016, 19:37
Not at all, at least that's not where I'm coming from. The fact is, some people are intrinsically more discerning (perhaps one could say fussy or less easily satisfied) listeners than others, therefore that in turn will be reflected in their choices of equipment and/or how they judge the efficacy of said equipment.
Here's something to ponder, in terms of the 'sound vs. music' thing, and IMO what separates an experienced listener, in that respect, and also someone who fundamentally understands what music is about and the role hi-fi equipment plays in that, from someone who's less discerning or knowledgeable in that area...
You're dividing people up here on their understanding of "music" on the basis of whether they talk about sound or music in this scenario...
With the greatest of respect, I would class that thinking as that of just a well trained "listener" in one certain school of music, trained in how one "should" think of music. It is perfectly valid to relate to music from the sonic point of view with no regard for cues of a musician's performance or how real a piano sounds to be played etc etc.
But I would go one stage further! If you are truely into the music, perhaps musical yourself, there is NO either/or! It is ALL one. You judge for both in your own system and do so at once without separation of the two... simply because you do not judge them to be seperate.
Even so, on a basic level, everything that comes out of your speakers is sonic. Those cues you may translate as musical cues are first sonic cues before your brain and personality has labelled them, pigeon-holed them as being "musical" cues.
Ask ten people, who all consider themselves as hi-fi enthusiasts/music lovers, to describe what it is about the *presentation/performance* of their system, and/or a component within their system, which made them buy it in the first place.
Those who proceed to describe nothing other than that which relates to tonality/sound (bass, treble, clarity, etc), without also describing how what they're hearing relates to MUSIC, for me provides its own clues as to where people's 'heads are at', as it were.
How can you tell if this again is a problem of semantics or not? Essentially you would be relying on people to express those differences in language that you understand. If they use different terms to mean different things (because they haven't been hanging around in the same hifi social circles or not reading the same reviews over decades) in comparison to you, you will assume they are describing different aspects of the sound to you when they may well not be. In other words, sematics, use of language is cultural, micro-cultural. You'd have to account for that and devise some scientific scheme to attempt to nullify those differences.
This matter also frequently reveals itself in the equipment reviews posted on forums, where more often than not what's written merely centres around 'sound', rather than describing how successful (or otherwise) a component is at portraying MUSIC.
The fact is, there is a difference! ;)
Marco.
I read those which do the opposite where they go on and on about the performance of a pianist blah blah blah.. There is no way of relating those understandings of a musician's performance to one's own experience of the same performance, there is no framework for judging if they even picked out the same aspects of performance as you did let alone translated them in the same emotional feelings, nor whether they're now hearing what you heard on a completely different system, simply because they'd not bothered to listen for that aspect before. In other words, those reviews appear to be pretty useless to me.
Safer then to stick to aspects we have much better chance in relating to, description of the sonics (which are still pointless without common references and comparisons).
It reminds me of astronomy and techniques for determining the distances to stars/galaxies etc. Reviews talking about performance aspects of a musician to determine how good some equipment is, is the equivalent of saying a star must be closer because it's subjectively brighter, inverse square law and all that..
Audio Advent
18-04-2016, 19:47
Somewhere on the HUG, AS posted two short music files and asked if 'we' could tell the difference. Many of us 'thought' we could and that one was better than the other and that includes me. The ONLY difference between them was that ONE CHANNEL was half to one db louder than another and nothing else. Probably just shows how shit my ears are now :(
What worries me is that I think and genuinely believe that x cable sounds slightly different to y cable, x say, being the preferred one in isolation. When arranged so I can immediately and seamlessly switch between them simply by turning a control, I find it difficult if not impossible to detect any change and I find I can live with either 'sound,' even forgetting after a few days which is which. Again, probably my shitty ears and one reason why I just cannot any longer trust them 'only.'..
That Sir is why Eastern cultures consider age to be commensurate with wisdom! It's not your ears failing, it's the belief that is fading so that you now hear closer to the truth.
Marco, most audiophiles listen with their eyes in my experience, not their ears.
Fortunately many manufactures counter this by designing such horribly garish gear to put sensible people off (although in my limited experience, the super rich have absolutely awful aesthetic taste! )
I however do judge products by my eyes because I'm not only looking for sonic perfection, I want gear that's pleasing to look at too. Which is why I'm trying to head down the DIY route to get both but designing gear is difficult...
Audio Advent
18-04-2016, 19:59
Hi
A obvious, but as far as I know little used way of
assessing one piece of equipment vs the other, is
to use our excellent aural ability with hearing from
stereo sources.
From a source with same type of level control and that level
control providing ability separately for each channel, have
one channel run directly to one channel of a power amp.
Now from the other channel route it through a piece of equipment-
that you think is a straight wire. Match each channel for equal balance from
the source level control.
It then becomes fairly easy to hear the ability, or in
most cases inability for the other longer path piece of
equipment to match the source. However if it gets
close or even better identical – you can very quickly assess
and smile knowing that piece of equipment as having minimal
or no loss particularly in the areas of phase and tonality.
Hope this is of interest.
Cheers / Chris
If you're judging differences in transparency, I think it's a great way of doing it.
Differences in gear too if you can match the levels well enough as you say.
In this context, if you're listening for differences between the left and right channels, the soundstage, you need to eliminate those differences being down to a level mismatch. This is a different situation to the usual one where you are switching completely between different gear, completely different to that which people have mentioned in this thread.
It's not the same thing because you're not using your brains ability to acertain stereo depth etc, 3D realism to judge the differences but you can do something similiar with a mono source and hear for the differences or non-mono occurancies cropping up.
I'm guessing this only really works with headphones to eliminate the room.
walpurgis
18-04-2016, 20:07
Fortunately many manufactures counter this by designing such horribly garish gear to put sensible people off (although in my limited experience, the super rich have absolutely awful aesthetic taste! )
These are for "the super rich" and no doubt some would describe the appearance as "garish". I think I could endure the looks if they sound as good as I suspect they may, being from Living Voice (the Vox Olympian). The price is a little steep though at well over a quarter of a million quid a pair.
http://i64.tinypic.com/zn2784.jpg
StanleyB
18-04-2016, 20:16
I however do judge products by my eyes because I'm not only looking for sonic perfection, I want gear that's pleasing to look at too. Which is why I'm trying to head down the DIY route to get both but designing gear is difficult...
Designing is easy. It's being taken serious that's hard. It's not too difficult to accept the limitations of one's own design. But it still has to pass the listening test under scrutiny by fellow music and sound lovers before it can be judged to be a worthy masterpiece.
Audio Advent
18-04-2016, 22:46
Designing is easy. It's being taken serious that's hard. It's not too difficult to accept the limitations of one's own design. But it still has to pass the listening test under scrutiny by fellow music and sound lovers before it can be judged to be a worthy masterpiece.
Oh, the circuit design part is easy peasy!! You find other people's designs, perhaps even a group buy where the boards are made via a pool of money, someone else kindly taking on the leg work.
Err.... yes, my idea of DIY doesn't really extend to the circuits, that part is more Get Someone To Do It On Your Behalf - GSTDIOYB. Current amps being Ncore NC400 modules for example.
The bit I find difficult is designing the casing, front panel layout, speaker cabinets etc etc - when you have a blank page and want it to be perfect so you'll be happy with the aesthetic design for a very long time, it's kind of mind blowing. I guess I need to start by collecting photos of things, shapes etc.
Audio Advent
18-04-2016, 22:50
These are for "the super rich" and no doubt some would describe the appearance as "garish". I think I could endure the looks if they sound as good as I suspect they may, being from Living Voice (the Vox Olympian). The price is a little steep though at well over a quarter of a million quid a pair.
http://i64.tinypic.com/zn2784.jpg
Quality of workmanship can trump the overall design I think, a substitute for aesthetic beauty.
£250,000 though! Sheesh. If I had £10,000 spare, I think I could get most of the way there employing a skilled craftsman to copy the cabinets and for buying the drivers.
walpurgis
18-04-2016, 22:50
What have you built and what are you using?
Honestly Don't know what to make of Manufacturer's crafting Spectacular looking Gizmos.
In MY experiences.. having designed a "few" Mc Mansions for the obscenely rich, during my working career.
All owners/clients have demanded and.. paid for..(typically Well upwards, of 250K $) for home audio, video and to be fair; automation systems.
Every One of these using Seriously expensive gear. Gotta have the 'good stuff'.
Much of which is garishly Blinged .
However this gear is immediately inserted into a climate controlled, dedicated Equip Room.
Where only Service techs ..Ever.. see it again.
Kinda negates the bling aspect... doesn't it :-)
Speakers! I've had to have Wilson Watt speakers inserted into bespoke cabinetry ( which in itself cost a fair percentage of the Wilson's pricings ).
Simply to Hide the things.
WAF with $$$ :-).
Despite that it plays havoc with the sounds generated.
Sooo WHO are these makers actually designing all this Bling for?
Absolutely not for their Typical paying customers... at least not the majority of them.
As cynical guess: for the grovelling of underemployed Magazine hacks.. Free Publicity in a word.
Audio Advent
19-04-2016, 22:01
What have you built and what are you using?
Nothing really other than putting together my ncore nc400 amp into a standard, off the shelf case. Phono stage is DIY but I didn't make it :) Bought it from someone who did - still needs a proper case designing though. Other projects are in the wings too e.g. active speakers : need to design cabinets for the bass units (others are sealed so kind of anything goes with edge defraction and all that in mind).
I don't use any CAD and tried to use pencil and paper too but found the inability to draw almost as large a distraction as having to learn to use aq CAD package - all ideas go out the window as you grapple to make it appear on paper/screen. So for the time being I use imagination because I can rotate stuff, make things fit together, move them about, all rendered in fairly good detail as long as there's quiet and the right atmosphere. :) Once the ideas are more fully formed and decided upon I'll move to cad to get things CNC'd or water cut, whatever is needed and cheapest.
walpurgis
19-04-2016, 22:07
Some photos of ongoing projects would always be of interest.
Audio Advent
19-04-2016, 22:07
Honestly Don't know what to make of Manufacturer's crafting Spectacular looking Gizmos.
In MY experiences.. having designed a "few" Mc Mansions for the obscenely rich, during my working career.
All owners/clients have demanded and.. paid for..(typically Well upwards, of 250K $) for home audio, video and to be fair; automation systems.
Every One of these using Seriously expensive gear. Gotta have the 'good stuff'.
Much of which is garishly Blinged .
However this gear is immediately inserted into a climate controlled, dedicated Equip Room.
Where only Service techs ..Ever.. see it again.
Kinda negates the bling aspect... doesn't it :-)
Speakers! I've had to have Wilson Watt speakers inserted into bespoke cabinetry ( which in itself cost a fair percentage of the Wilson's pricings ).
Simply to Hide the things.
WAF with $$$ :-).
Despite that it plays havoc with the sounds generated.
Sooo WHO are these makers actually designing all this Bling for?
Absolutely not for their Typical paying customers... at least not the majority of them.
As cynical guess: for the grovelling of underemployed Magazine hacks.. Free Publicity in a word.
Depends what they do for their money but I guess many super rich just aren't in the same place long enough to really bother about what systems they have, they just want "a good quality system" so that it's there, leave the specifics to someone else cos that's what they pay them for..
I think the expensive garish gear is more for those who can only just afford it, the aspirational "pretty well-off" hoping to move on to "very rich" when they can.
walpurgis
19-04-2016, 22:17
Speakers! I've had to have Wilson Watt speakers inserted into bespoke cabinetry ( which in itself cost a fair percentage of the Wilson's pricings ).
I haven't even heard them, but I'd sooner have the foregoing Living Voice speakers than anything from Wilson (or Avalon for that matter), having heard several of their very expensive products and not been impressed.
Audio Advent
19-04-2016, 22:27
Some photos of ongoing projects would always be of interest.
I considered that with my amp and started a thread..
However I find I just don't work in that "social media" way - I found the mere idea of logging every step and making a space that allows me to take photos, stepping back to photograph, deleting the photo, eventually setting up better lighting to take a better photo etc etc... just plain put me off building the thing in the first place. I just did it on a whim pretty much in one go just to get it done rather than it becoming a blog, making it chore that never gets done. Thousands of ncore builds out there and 99% are the same (1% are interesting ones with expensive CNC'd-from-a-solid-billet case).
http://i64.tinypic.com/zn2784.jpg
As I understand it, if you push down on the top then silly string comes out of that nozzle.
I called Definitive Audio many years ago (over 20) now for some advice re Lowther and Kevin was really helpful which I've always remembered. So good luck to him with these speakers.
I haven't even heard them, but I'd sooner have the foregoing Living Voice speakers than anything from Wilson (or Avalon for that matter), having heard several of their very expensive products and not been impressed.
We all hear differently.
To my ears these were pretty damned good speakers.. Before.. being boxed... not so much after
A helluva lot better sounding than a pair of B&W Nautilus /Snails actually.. which even the 'impressionable" client .. refused after only a few minutes audition.
Economic status has little to do with it...we all like what we like :)
Would be a dull place indeed if all were Homogenous
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.