PDA

View Full Version : Do audiophiles know better than scientists when it comes to hi-fi?



Marco
19-06-2008, 17:32
Nick Arran (CEeng MIET) makes the point here:

http://www2.theiet.org/oncomms/Sector/magazine.cfm?issueID=258&articleID=2DA6F082-074C-4018-2C35C8065D59ACD4

I would hesitate to use the word "audiophiles" and would replace it with 'experienced listeners' or in fact anyone with better hearing acuity than someone else be it a scientist or whomever. In fact, sometimes non-audiophile, non-professional people have better ears than anyone with hi-fi (I'm thinking wife's, partners and such like here). I certainly don't feel that scientists automatically or necessarily have more discerning ears than others!

Russ Andrews addresses the issue and Mr Arran's assertions (in the latest copy of his company's booklet 'Connected'):


This is a way of thinking that prevents progress and improvement. In its most extreme expression it says "if we can't measure it - it can't exist". The assumption being that we can measure everything of any importance. I believe, in fact, that we can measure very little of importance to the realistic reproduction of music.

At its root, conventional measurement is based on simple, steady state signals to quantify frequency response, harmonic distortion, signal-to-noise ratios, etc. On the face of it, this approach produces quantifiable, repeatable measurements of a range of important parameters. In reality all they do is tell you whether the device under test is working or faulty. They tell you nothing about how well the device handles music signals to deliver enjoyable and realistic music. In other words, they are not predictive and if they cannot describe exactly how something will sound, they are useless for that purpose.

I own and use lots of test equipment, but I don't try and use it to tell me how good or bad something sounds. I use my ears for that. They are educated, trained and very discerning. They are consistent, predictable and I trust them.

Until we have a measurements system, based on dynamic, complex, real-world, real-time signals (like music!), we have no choice but to base our assessments on listening tests. To do that, we must must trust our senses and know that what we hear is real world and not imaginary.


I find myself nodding in total agreement with Mr Andrews, particularly the bits I've highlighted in bold as they represent my own judgement methodology with hi-fi. It also neatly ties in with another discussion currently taking place about speaker cables.

Personally, I think it's a fallacy to believe that measurement apparatus alone can determine the efficacy of hi-fi equipment, particularly when the human brain deciphers musical signals in a totally different way to a computer. Listening to music is largely an emotional, not a cerebral experience, and so applying science to hi-fi in terms of it being the sole arbiter of what is deemed as 'correct' and 'incorrect' I believe is an exercise in futility. Understanding how we as human beings derive pleasure from music, and ascertaining how hi-fi equipment is best designed to accurately facilitate that experience through the processing of recorded music signals, I feel is far more complex than known science can fully explain or quantify.

So, guys, what do you think about the assertions of Mr Arran, the subject in general, and about what Russ wrote above?

<Discuss>

Marco.

anthonyTD
19-06-2008, 20:28
Nick Arran (CEeng MIET) makes the point here:

http://www2.theiet.org/oncomms/Sector/magazine.cfm?issueID=258&articleID=2DA6F082-074C-4018-2C35C8065D59ACD4

I would hesitate to use the word "audiophiles" and would replace it with 'experienced listeners' or in fact anyone with better hearing acuity than someone else be it a scientist or whomever. In fact, sometimes non-audiophile, non-professional people have better ears than anyone with hi-fi (I'm thinking wife's, partners and such like here). I certainly don't feel that scientists automatically or necessarily have more discerning ears than others!

Russ Andrews addresses the issue and Mr Arran's assertions (in the latest copy of his company's booklet 'Connected'):



I find myself nodding in total agreement with Mr Andrews, particularly the bits I've highlighted in bold as they represent my own judgement methodology with hi-fi. It also neatly ties in with another discussion currently taking place about speaker cables.

Personally, I think it's a fallacy to believe that measurement apparatus alone can determine the efficacy of hi-fi equipment, particularly when the human brain deciphers musical signals in a totally different way to a computer. Listening to music is largely an emotional, not a cerebral experience, and so applying science to hi-fi in terms of it being the sole arbiter of what is deemed as 'correct' and 'incorrect' I believe is an exercise in futility. Understanding how we as human beings derive pleasure from music, and ascertaining how hi-fi equipment is best designed to accurately facilitate that experience through the processing of recorded music signals I feel is far more complex than known science can fully explain or quantify.

So, guys, what do you think about the assertions of Mr Arran, the subject in general, and about what Russ wrote above?

<Discuss>

Marco.
hi marco,
i am in agreement with mr andrews on this one, [but then you already know that] and have always stated that test measurements are a must when designing, and fault finding, but the finale test: as far as audio replay equipment is concerned is and must be down to what we actually hear!:)

Beechwoods
19-06-2008, 20:53
Hi-Fi is in the ear of the beholder. The enjoyment derived from audio playback is entirely subjective and often derived from equipment that would never win any hi-fi awards. Colouration, vinyl surface noise, room acoustics can all contrive to make a sound more enjoyable than that from the best source, amp and speakers in an anechoic chamber...

Marco
19-06-2008, 21:03
Anthony,

Yep, I know exactly where you stand on this matter. Nick (Lurcher) and you are very open-minded in that respect - much more so than some other engineers I could mention who post on audio forums!

The essence of what I'm trying to get at though is why scientific/measurement types seem to think that professional people are better judges of hi-fi than your average hi-fi enthusiast and music lover.

Yes, in their particular specialist field they will know more than an average punter but out with of that area I would contend that 'experts' are no more able to judge how good hi-fi equipment is than anyone else - in fact in many instances I believe their obsession with science and measurements being the be-all-and-end-all and shunning of what their ears tell them often clouds their better judgement. The fact is the reproduction of music is not a perfect science so prioritising the applying of scientific principles over subjective listening when assessing hi-fi equipment will not provide all the answers and will lead I believe in some cases to inaccurate conclusions.

To give you an idea what I'm referring to, this is something I once received from Ashley in response to me commenting on him sending me a link to some professional person making a comment about ADM9s and me pointing out that he doesn't necessarily know more about what constitutes as a good sound than anyone else.


He's a member of the Royal Institution, a genius, a brilliant writer, a friend of Leonard Setright and a noted Consultant Anaesthetist, so would obviously have far less idea than you, you being, well I don't know what, but I do know it's not going to improve, because you've shut down the learn centre.

There's no so blind as them that will not see, as they say.


Now call me daft, but what does a consultant anaesthetist necessarily know about hi-fi? If you're in hospital about to go in for an important operation and want knocked out safely he's *da man*, but I'm not sure I'd be seeking his opinion when looking to upgrade my system! :lol:

Marco.

P.S And who the hell is Leonard Setright? :scratch:

Prince of Darkness
19-06-2008, 22:19
Anthony,


P.S And who the hell is Leonard Setright? :scratch:

That would be the late L.K.J. Setright, a highly respected Motoring and Hi-Fi journalist (he used to write for Hi-Fi World), musician and all round good egg.:)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/sep/19/guardianobituaries.pressandpublishing

P.S.
I wouldn't think that being his friend would necessarily make someone an expert on anything.

Marco
19-06-2008, 22:36
Ah, thanks Kevin. I know who it is now. If I remember correctly he's quite an unusual looking character with a long beard?

I'm sure he knows a thing or two about hi-fi but I'm not sure about his anaesthetist friend!

LOL. I've just read your edit :lol:

Marco.

Steve Toy
20-06-2008, 02:27
I think real scientists as opposed to the pseudo-scientific techie types are open minded enough to accept that not everything can yet be measured and that there still exist phenomena awaiting explanation.

I don't think we can throw our arms up in the air and say it is all in the ear of the individual beholder either. I believe that perceptual differences are frequently common to all who may be listening and that it is only the preferences that vary.

Consider perceived tonal differences between valves, for example, when the measurements show a consistent flat response. There is more to tonality than the output/frequency curve and I have my theories as to what else may explain these tonal inconsistencies...

tfarney
20-06-2008, 02:48
I think audiophiles are much more qualified to judge audio equipment because the human ear, and perhaps more importantly, the human brain responds to things that can't be measured with man-made instruments.

And I think audiophiles are the least qualified to judge audio equipment because as a group, they show absolutely no penchant for objectivity. An internet discussion group full of audiophiles is more filled with fantasy and wish-fulfillment than a roomful of 13-year-old girls with a scrapbook of pop idols.

Actually, there is a scientific method capable of measuring the immeasurable in audio. It's called the ABX test. But audiophiles even manage to reject those results when they don't agree with what they must hear. No logic, no methodology, no data will stand between the audiophile and his unfettered desire to spend money on that which he must hear to justify spending money.

It's a very strange crowd. ;)

Tim

Togil
20-06-2008, 06:38
The cost and looks of an item affect brain functions ( feeling of pleasure ), this was recently proved with bottles of wine.

lurcher
20-06-2008, 07:10
Actually, there is a scientific method capable of measuring the immeasurable in audio. It's called the ABX test. But audiophiles even manage to reject those results when they don't agree with what they must hear. No logic, no methodology, no data will stand between the audiophile and his unfettered desire to spend money on that which he must hear to justify spending money.


While I worry about opening this can of worms...

The problem is there are significant problems with using ABX when its used with audio, it looks like a nice piece of science, but unfortunatly its not.

Its main problem is it makes the assumption that the subject returns to the same condition after each sample is heard, and thats not the case. So the test will consistently fail to show a difference, even in cases where there is a clearly measurable difference.

The comparison is often given to the double blind testing that is used (not as often as you might think) in the pharmacutical industry. But to be a direct comparison, you would take a subject. Give him the drug/placibo see if he got better. Then gave him the drug/placibo again, see if he got better, then continued to repeat. as you can see this won't measure exactly what you might want, and tend to show negatives in most cases (or kill the patient).

Prince of Darkness
20-06-2008, 09:30
Ah, thanks Kevin. I know who it is now. If I remember correctly he's quite an unusual looking character with a long beard?



Yes, that's him. I used to enjoy his articles in Hi-Fi World. He allways came across as someone who regarded himself as an enthusiast rather than an expert.:)

Marco
20-06-2008, 09:59
Steve,


I think real scientists as opposed to the pseudo-scientific techie types are open minded enough to accept that not everything can yet be measured and that there still exist phenomena awaiting explanation.


Indeed. The pseudo-scientific techie types you're referring to perform a severe disservice to audio forums as their resolute dismissal of subjective assessment with hi-fi, and the nature of their bias, I believe precludes their ability to offer genuine and impartial advice to others. This is something we wouldn't tolerate on AOS, and of course is why ultimately Ashley and JC were banned.


I don't think we can throw our arms up in the air and say it is all in the ear of the individual beholder either. I believe that perceptual differences are frequently common to all who may be listening and that it is only the preferences that vary.


That's an interesting thought and I think you're right. You will also of course get the stubborn minded, dyed-in-the-wool, pseudo-scientific techie types who despite hearing subjective differences would deny their existence purely because admitting to hearing them forces them to leave their comfort zone and flies in the face of their age-old belief mechanism.


Consider perceived tonal differences between valves, for example, when the measurements show a consistent flat response.


That's another excellent point (I've also clearly heard tonal differences with valves) which shows that many measurements in audio are largely meaningless, unless you're a stats freak. As Russ says, they certainly are as far as predicting how something will actually sound.


There is more to tonality than the output/frequency curve and I have my theories as to what else may explain these tonal inconsistencies...

Let's hear them, then. It's about time you engaged your brain more on here and put some effort into writing thought provoking threads and posts. You were once very good at it! ;)

Marco.

Marco
20-06-2008, 10:39
Hi Tim,


I think audiophiles are much more qualified to judge audio equipment because the human ear, and perhaps more importantly, the human brain responds to things that can't be measured with man-made instruments.


I of course agree and it's what I've been saying all along :)


And I think audiophiles are the least qualified to judge audio equipment because as a group, they show absolutely no penchant for objectivity. An internet discussion group full of audiophiles is more filled with fantasy and wish-fulfillment than a roomful of 13-year-old girls with a scrapbook of pop idols.


LOL!

I think in general you're right, and there's certainly plenty of such behaviour in evidence on various audio forums. I like to think we're a bit more open-minded and discerning here, though ;)

I guess it largely depends on how your mind works. If you're from a scientific background then you are naturally predisposed to experimenting and wanting to know what causes things to happen. I have no problem with that whatsoever and it's also healthy to be sceptical as the brain despite being complex and clever is all too easily fooled by a number of factors.

However it's when scepticism turns to cynicism that it becomes a problem and something which is unhealthy and counterproductive. Unfortunately I've encountered many objectivists on audio forums who display this unfortunate trait and seek to ridicule others who don't share their way of thinking. It's the perception of these people that we're all idiots that I find so abhorrent simply because it isn't true. To that end it's been most refreshing to meet 'techie types' such as Anthony, Nick and Guy Sergeant who aren't like that. Whilst they embrace scientific methods of evaluation they also are aware that measurements don't tell the whole story. They are also the most pleasant of people to deal with on-line and in real life and are never so arrogant as to portray their opinion as fact. I just wish others of their ilk could be the same and I don't understand why that isn't the case :confused:

Me?

I'm all for experimenting, objectively (if possible) and subjectively. I certainly don't just accept things because of what some magazine or hi-fi company says. Before coming to a definitive conclusion about anything in hi-fi I always test things in my own system whether it is cables, stands, equipment or anything else. Only when I have thoroughly assessed something and found it to be beneficial do I believe in its effect and this process can sometimes take months or even longer.

However the only measurement apparatus I need for this is my ears. Sure, if someone could lend me some test equipment and show me how to use it I would find it very interesting to confirm my subjective analysis of equipment or cables with objective measurements - this if nothing else would provide real proof that my hearing is good! However if the opposite happened I wouldn't necessarily dismiss what I heard. There are too many anomalies to consider.

Therefore I certainly don't need measurements to believe that an effect I'm hearing in hi-fi exists. I simply use my ears. Like Russ says about his:


They are educated, trained and very discerning. They are consistent, predictable and I trust them.


Hear, hear! (No pun intended, ha-ha.) - Ditto regarding my own. I'm sure other people feel similarly about theirs. Have faith in your senses; they might be more reliable than you think...

Marco.

Steve Toy
20-06-2008, 10:39
You were once very good at it!


I still am. :p The review of the Tube Distinctions AOS classic series amp is coming very soon and will include some of my thoughts on tonality.

Steve Toy
20-06-2008, 11:00
And I think audiophiles are the least qualified to judge audio equipment because as a group, they show absolutely no penchant for objectivity. An internet discussion group full of audiophiles is more filled with fantasy and wish-fulfillment than a roomful of 13-year-old girls with a scrapbook of pop idols.

Beware of that sneering disdain for those you term audiophiles for it can seriously be an obstacle to rational thought required to evaluate kit in a musical sense.


Actually, there is a scientific method capable of measuring the immeasurable in audio. It's called the ABX test. But audiophiles even manage to reject those results when they don't agree with what they must hear. No logic, no methodology, no data will stand between the audiophile and his unfettered desire to spend money on that which he must hear to justify spending money.


I'm quite happy to use the ABX test when evaluating kit. It is a useful method for camparative purposes but not without its flaws as has already been outlined above in this thread rather well. Logic, methodology and data are all very good until they simply become a process of throwing the baby out with the bathwater for they only give part of the overall picture. Of course, there will always be fools who will allow the powers of suggestion and expectation bias to part them from their money burning a hole in their pocket, but being truly discerning is a quality that occurs naturally for some, can be acquired or learnt by others and there will always be a rump remainder who'll never get it no matter what.

There is also a fourth category of cynics who clearly lack discerning abilities but won't allow themselves to be fooled, not any more at least. Once bitten and all that, or perhaps even more than once... :D I can think of one such specimen posting elsewhere naming himself after vermin who lives not far over the Scottish border...

The third category are often seen follow the two before it like pathetic sycophantic sheep, faking good taste along the way. The wealthier amongst them will think their wallets are the perfect substitute for good/ears and brain. For the oily marketeers its like taking candy from a baby with these types especially if the kit is, on the surface, relatively inexpensive... I'd like to think that everyone on the Art of Sound is better than that. This is a forum for discerning people who can share genuine personal experience.

Alan
20-06-2008, 11:23
And I think audiophiles are the least qualified to judge audio equipment because as a group, they show absolutely no penchant for objectivity. An internet discussion group full of audiophiles is more filled with fantasy and wish-fulfillment than a roomful of 13-year-old girls with a scrapbook of pop idols.



Tim

Damn good point, surely beyond refute! :)

Actually it is entirely human to get too close to a subject or a conclusion one has invested oneself in, which leads to criticism & ridicule; in fact a devaluing of what is precious to that individual in the first place.

To illustrate (please don't open these cans any further - they are just to make a point):

creationist vs evolutionist (the clue is in the ist - as in fundamentalist)

Both attack each other mercilessly for the gaping contradictions in both arguments. Both are close - minded to each other. Both have done more damage to their own respective fields by their own conduct - far more than any damage inflicted on each other by each other.

At the end of the day, no - one can really convince anyone else they are right - unless the recipient is agreeable. An exchange of views should therefore always be balanced and respectful.

I do agree that hi fi and music can co exist, but in my case the balance is tricky one: It is just too easy to obsess over stuff that ultimately really does not matter.

That's why I am happy to not hear too many other systems that likely will be 'better' in some corner of my mind.

Forums, especially friendly ones, are a tremendous resource of knowledge and experience, much of it hard won ( at a cost I would not be willing to pay ). I am able to keep sufficiently at a distance to be selective over what I become enthusiastic over, and perhaps to maintain view of a wider picture than I otherwise would.

Therefore I can say with confidence: I am enjoying music of all kinds as much as anyone here. I hope ( and believe ) everyone else can say the same.

And: Thank you all. For the experience and opinion that you all express and which will no doubt guide me to my next improvements, whatever they are, with minimal error and superfluous outlay. Actually, as things stand this morning, I'm not sure there will be many more meaningful upgrades.
Except perhaps some new cabling - now thats an idea....Damn! :ner:


Oh - the answer to the thread title: Who cares.....:cool:

Filterlab
20-06-2008, 11:40
Hi-Fi is in the ear of the beholder. The enjoyment derived from audio playback is entirely subjective and often derived from equipment that would never win any hi-fi awards. Colouration, vinyl surface noise, room acoustics can all contrive to make a sound more enjoyable than that from the best source, amp and speakers in an anechoic chamber...

Bravo to that Beechy! An award winning component is no guarantee that it will necessarily be a component that suits everyone - or anyone in fact, certainly many traditional "audiophiles" would frown or perhaps laugh at my system - but it does music plain and simple. And any valve enthusiast would certainly agree that colouration makes music enjoyable, colouration taken to mean in this instance harmonic distortion - harmonic being the operative word.

Great article Marco, I'm in 100% agreement. :)

Steve Toy
20-06-2008, 12:14
Rob,

An award winning component is no guarantee that it'll work in any system.

Filterlab
20-06-2008, 13:59
As I said (in a way).

However, someone must have liked it at some point. :)

Mike
20-06-2008, 16:46
Hmmm... some very interesting points/arguments above. :)

In many ways none of these arguments are valid really, non of them can be won or lost and it doesn't matter. At the end of the day who actually gives a toss about being right or wrong? As long as we all enjoy what we get out of our systems that's all that matters as far as I'm concerned.

If a different valve, or piece of wire or anything else for that matter, improves my enjoyment that's all I care about. If others disagree with me thats absolutely fine. :)

Go forth and enjoy whatever floats your boat!

:peace:

All just MHO of course. :)

Mike
20-06-2008, 16:55
Yes, that's him. I used to enjoy his articles in Hi-Fi World. He allways came across as someone who regarded himself as an enthusiast rather than an expert.:)

I remember reading his column in 'Car Magazine' as a boy!

He was a fan of Bristol cars and later Honda. I found myself rather upset at the news of his passing a few years ago. :(

tfarney
20-06-2008, 19:26
Beware of that sneering disdain for those you term audiophiles for it can seriously be an obstacle to rational thought required to evaluate kit in a musical sense.

It wasn't sneering disdain, my friend, it was humor. Here: :lolsign:

There may be a bit of truth in it, but that's always the case with good humor. Regarding ABX, I think it's a pretty reliable methodology for determining if people can hear a difference between things over the short-term. Which is a pretty reliable methodology for determining if the differences are significant. Subtle differences, though, often reveal themselves over time, even in my humble "kit," as the Brits like to say. If I have a problem with internet audio enthusiasts, it is not their luxurious share of fantasy and wish-fulfillment (:lolsign:), but their penchant for great exaggeration. I've seen people over on head-fi, the headphone forum, describe a new acquisition is massively glowing terms, like night and day, like lifting a veil, nay, a soaked blanket from the sound. Then when someone comes on later, saying they bought the same piece and really can't hear any improvement, they'll suggest that the new owner should listen to it for a couple of weeks....

It's one or the other.


Tim

Iain Sinclair
21-06-2008, 12:57
There is also a fourth category of cynics who clearly lack discerning abilities but won't allow themselves to be fooled, not any more at least. Once bitten and all that, or perhaps even more than once... :D I can think of one such specimen posting elsewhere naming himself after vermin who lives not far over the Scottish border...


Wee Jock McSquirrel?

My own view, hard-won through years of chucking money at the wrong problem, is that speakers, or more precisely the room/speaker interface, is a good two-thirds of what makes a system 'work' or not, which is of course why home dems are a must.

Iain Sinclair
21-06-2008, 13:02
If I have a problem with internet audio enthusiasts, it is not their luxurious share of fantasy and wish-fulfillment (:lolsign:), but their penchant for great exaggeration. I've seen people over on head-fi, the headphone forum, describe a new acquisition is massively glowing terms, like night and day, like lifting a veil, nay, a soaked blanket from the sound. Then when someone comes on later, saying they bought the same piece and really can't hear any improvement, they'll suggest that the new owner should listen to it for a couple of weeks....


Indeed, and the hifi rags feed this tendency by only ever printing hyper-praise. They need to learn how to express opinions, favourable or otherwise, in measured terms. As it is, saying something is 'quite good' is seen as slagging it off mercilessly.

Marco
22-06-2008, 18:18
Wee Jock McSquirrel?


No it rhymes with "box", and that's also two thirds of his name ;)


My own view, hard-won through years of chucking money at the wrong problem, is that speakers, or more precisely the room/speaker interface, is a good two-thirds of what makes a system 'work' or not, which is of course why home dems are a must.


I agree 100%, and the room doesn't necessarily have to be huge either.

What did you think of the comments of Mr Arran and the reply from Russ Andrews, Iain?

Marco.

Marco
23-06-2008, 09:12
I'm just picking up again on the issue that designing hi-fi equipment and speakers isn't a perfect science and so can't effectively be designed solely around scientific principles. On that subject, I was flicking through some magazines last night and came across a couple of interesting observations from two well-known and highly respected manufacturers...

Lars Worre of Dali loudspeakers wrote in Hi-fi News:


We are an audiophile company that tries to adapt to the modern world, but we don't want to change the basics of loudspeaker design. We take it very seriously that it's an experience based science. It's not an accurate science. I think the engineers I have known that tried to turn it into an accurate science either lost interest in loudspeakers, because they couldn't squeeze their accurate models into the inaccurate world of audio, or they optimised one or two parameters to extreme perfection, but you didn't want to listen to their speakers.


"I think the engineers I have known that tried to turn it into an accurate science either lost interest in loudspeakers, because they couldn't squeeze their accurate models into the inaccurate world of audio..."

Very interesting. It's what I've thought all along and what measurements fanatics need to get into their stubborn heads! This is why subjective listening and assessment with hifi is so vital and why the ear picks up on things that test apparatus doesn't. It's also interesting that he said "but you didn't want to listen to their speakers" because that's exactly how I feel about some sterile sounding equipment where the manufacturer is obsessed with objective measurements! ADM9s anyone? ;)

Philip Swift of Spendor also wrote in Hi-fi News:


A loudspeaker has got to have a little bit of personality and character. If you wring that totally out of the product it's not very interesting, and that applies to electronics also. But it's not something you ought to be immediately able to put your finger on, because that would be a problem coloration.


Again, very interesting. I liken that observation to what I hear with valves and vinyl - both are arguably not as 'accurate' sounding as solid-state electronics and digital, but both give music some "personality" and "character", which is not something you can immediately put your finger on because it's not a problematic coloration...

It's simply the sound of real music.

Marco.

Peter Stockwell
23-06-2008, 10:50
I liken that observation to what I hear with valves and vinyl - both are arguably not as 'accurate' sounding as solid-state electronics and digital, but both give music some "personality" and "character", which is not something you can immediately put your finger on because it's not a problematic coloration...

It's simply the sound of real music.

Marco.

Sound of real Music, Mary Poppins, anyone ?

Seriously, I'm not so sure that solid-state and digital is more accurate than tubes'n'LPs. I had some tubes for a while, but gave up because of the inconvenience, and also because of my not so hot handy work. Perfect sound forever, I suppose that's not want we want.

Regards

Peter

Marco
23-06-2008, 11:51
Seriously, I'm not so sure that solid-state and digital is more accurate than tubes'n'LPs.


Neither am I, Peter! It's why I use and champion the use of valves and vinyl.

The way I see it, having listened very carefully to the difference between solid-state and valves for quite a while and owning examples of both types of equipment, is that the former is the least accurate in terms of reproducing music, although seemingly more accurate based on measurements.

Solid-state equipment appears to 'miss' vital musical information on recordings as a result of its limited dynamic range compared to valves. The 'coloration' that's often associated with valve equipment is actually in my opinion missing harmonic detail vital to the accurate reproduction of music which is not there in the presentation of solid-state gear. The distortion that valves measure is simply what's naturally present in the sound of real voices and instruments, which solid-state equipment fails to faithfully capture.

It's a somewhat simplistic subjective analysis of what's happening, and there are other things going on, but it's my theory, and based on extended listening appears to be accurate.

However this is a discussion for another time and place. I intend to write a separate thread on this subject if I get time.

Marco.

anthonyTD
23-06-2008, 13:57
Neither am I, Peter! It's why I use and champion the use of valves and vinyl.

The way I see it, having listened very carefully to the difference between solid-state and valves for quite a while and owning examples of both types of equipment, is that the former is the least accurate in terms of reproducing music, although seemingly more accurate based on measurements.

Solid-state equipment appears to 'miss' vital musical information on recordings as a result of its limited dynamic range compared to valves. The 'coloration' that's often associated with valve equipment is actually in my opinion missing harmonic detail vital to the accurate reproduction of music which is not there in the presentation of solid-state gear. The distortion that valves measure is simply what's naturally present in the sound of real voices and instruments, which solid-state equipment fails to faithfully capture.

It's a somewhat simplistic subjective analysis of what's happening, and there are other things going on, but it's my theory, and based on extended listening appears to be accurate.

However this is a discussion for another time and place. I intend to write a separate thread on this subject if I get time.

Marco.

very well put, especialy for a non techie, well done mate!
:):):)

Peter Stockwell
23-06-2008, 14:29
The way I see it, having listened very carefully to the difference between solid-state ... is that the former is the least accurate in terms of reproducing music, although seemingly more accurate based on measurements.

Solid-state equipment appears to 'miss' vital musical information on recordings as a result of its limited dynamic range compared to valves. The 'coloration' that's often associated with valve equipment is actually in my opinion missing harmonic detail vital to the accurate reproduction of music which is not there in the presentation of solid-state gear. The distortion that valves measure is simply what's naturally present in the sound of real voices and instruments, which solid-state equipment fails to faithfully capture.

It's a somewhat simplistic subjective analysis of what's happening, and there are other things going on, but it's my theory, and based on extended listening appears to be accurate.



I think I might as well take up a role as resident SolidState defender ;) , The KEL34 I had, when it worked, did have that ironfist in a velvelt glove feeling, it could be very forceful. I switched from it to a nait5, which in naim lore is pretty much the most pissed on of their amps, call me cloth ears if you want but I know that I much prefered the overall sound of that amp over more time than the KEL34. I also preferred my rig (nait5/HiCap/CDX) at the time to my mates system which had a valve pre-amp.

As I understand it valve amps "add" nice harmonics to the distortion, whilst SS amps add "nasty" harmonics. It's true that the glowing bottles are nice in the dark too, but it makes listening dificult on summer days. How do you know that SS gear doesn't not faithfully capture the sound ?

I've also got to a point where I've spent more than is decent to obtain the sound I like, I was thinking of going higher up the Naim ladder, but the last dem I had stopped me in my tracks! £8000 to get a noticeable, err, wothwhile improvement. I can have a great holiday with a goddess for that kind of money:lol: . Which makes the buy of the SL1210 even more amusing.

regards

Peter

tfarney
23-06-2008, 14:41
While I agree that subjective listening is probably more important than scientific testing, I'll throw in a defense of the scientist in the audio world -- he has no idea what your room is going to sound like. Designing a DAC or amp or speaker system for tone is dangerous, because what works in his shop and in your living room could be two completely different things. So he designs for flat response under controlled conditions (and probably tests in a few real listening environments) hoping, I assume, that will translate well into a large number of listening rooms. He leaves it up to us to treat our rooms for glaring problems, rather than keep swapping/upgrading speakers until we find something that works with that brick fireplace and glass wall (I exaggerate for effect...perhaps). I also have to disagree that analog is more accurate than digital. It may be more pleasant. We may like it better, that's OK. But the coloration is not missing detail that SS and digital misses, not in my experience anyway. When listening to playback of instruments and voices on remarkable monitor systems in perfectly controlled environments, I've heard analog systems that sound wonderful -- smoother, richer, more "present," arguably better than the real thing. Well-recorded digital just sounds exactly like the voice or instrument, through the same mic, through the same monitoring system, played back in the same control room. There is no doubt in my mind that it is the more transparent of the two.

Tim

Marco
23-06-2008, 14:54
Hi Peter,


How do you know that SS gear doesn't not faithfully capture the sound ?


I don't *know* - it's only what I've heard based on extended listening. It's simply my opinion though so you're quite right to disagree when your own experience tells you differently.

For me it's the case that very familiar recordings sound flat and two-dimensional when played through my £6000 ECS monoblocks compared to my £300 Yaqin valve amp. I recently switched back to the ECS amps just to test that I wasn't imagining what I was hearing and I had to switch back to the Yaqin because I couldn't listen to the monoblocks.

Now before I discovered valves the ECS amps pissed all over my Naim 135s and almost any other solid-state amps I've heard so make no mistake they're very capable amplifiers - they just don't have the dynamic range and harmonic detail of the Yaqin, and it's not necessarily because the Yaqin itself is amazing; it's simply the valve factor.

There are all sorts of variables with hi-fi so I've got no idea why you preferred the Nait 5 to the KEL34 you had, although one thing I would say is that as far as push-pull design is concerned the KT88 amps I've heard have more 'balls' and a generally bigger more powerful sound than amps which use smaller output valves such as EL34s, etc. The Yaqin is a dual-mono KT88 60W design (mostly in Class A) and I kid you not it sounds every bit as powerful (in fact probably more so) than my 200W solid-state ECS monoblocks!

I think you should revisit valves again at some point, this time with a more powerful push-pull design. Next time you might arrive at a different conclusion ;)

Marco.

Marco
23-06-2008, 15:00
There is no doubt in my mind that it is the more transparent of the two.


Good post, Tim. But I completely disagree for reasons already mentioned. I find the exact opposite in that valves (sorry toobs!) are more transparent and I've tested this pretty extensively in a variety of situations and set-ups. I also prefer good analogue recordings to good digital ones and feel they are more faithful to the sound of real voices and instruments, but hey, it would be a boring world if we all thought the same! :smoking:

Marco.

Togil
23-06-2008, 15:15
Certainly hearing a good valve system is like sitting in front of an aquarium full of tropical fish - there are no black gaps on the soundstage but personally I've only experienced this with the very powerful Jadis amps, now far too expensive.

tfarney
23-06-2008, 17:35
Good post, Tim. But I completely disagree for reasons already mentioned. I find the exact opposite in that valves (sorry toobs!) are more transparent and I've tested this pretty extensively in a variety of situations and set-ups. I also prefer good analogue recordings to good digital ones and feel they are more faithful to the sound of real voices and instruments, but hey, it would be a boring world if we all thought the same! :smoking:

Marco.

Yeah, big world. Lots of opinions. To be clear, though, I really wasn't talking about valves, but analog recording in solid state systems vs digital recording. I'm old enough to remember cutting popping "P's" out of tape with a razor, the mating call of the brachiosaur and a few other bits of ancient history, but I'm not quite old enough to have worked in studios powered by valve amps. And bear in mind, with opinions and all of that, while I may not think tubes/valves are more accurate, I do want to try them. Accuracy is highly overrated.

Tim

Mike
23-06-2008, 17:54
Accuracy is highly overrated.

Tim

Well said sir!

What happened to 'enjoyment', eh? :)

tfarney
23-06-2008, 18:02
Well said sir!

What happened to 'enjoyment', eh? :)

Exactly. My own small comparison is headphones. I have a pair of Sennheisers and a pair of Etymotics. There is no question that the Etys reveal more detail. And there is no question that the Senns sound better.

Now, regarding these Yaqin amps. I looked for them on the internet, ended up at ebay and found about 400 different models and no consistent pricing at all, with "buy it now" prices from $80 to $9,999.

Where does on find a scorecard?

Tim

Iain Sinclair
23-06-2008, 20:08
What did you think of the comments of Mr Arran and the reply from Russ Andrews, Iain?

Marco.

I think both of them are partly right, and partly wrong. As Oscar Wilde said, the truth is rarely pure and never simple. Factor in the many variables of room shape/size, solid vs suspended floor, listener's hearing ability or lack thereof, quality of mains supply, and preference for one type of sound over another, and the idea that there is a single correct answer to any audio question becomes clearly absurd.

However, one crucial point to bear in mind is that Russ Andrews is trying to sell stuff (in which context expensive cables = good cables), and Mr Arran (AFAIK) is not.

Marco
24-06-2008, 08:38
Exactly. My own small comparison is headphones. I have a pair of Sennheisers and a pair of Etymotics. There is no question that the Etys reveal more detail. And there is no question that the Senns sound better.

Now, regarding these Yaqin amps. I looked for them on the internet, ended up at ebay and found about 400 different models and no consistent pricing at all, with "buy it now" prices from $80 to $9,999.

Where does on find a scorecard?


Tim, are your Senns also in-ear the same as the Etys? If not, that might explain why the Etys reveal more detail.

Regarding the Yaqin, here's where I got mine from. The chap, Michael, is very helpful, efficient and good to deal with:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/KT88-High-End-Vacuum-Valve-Tube-Intergraded-Amplifier_W0QQitemZ220248325679QQihZ012QQcategoryZ 3280QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l1262

Marco.

Marco
24-06-2008, 08:53
Iain,


I think both of them are partly right, and partly wrong. As Oscar Wilde said, the truth is rarely pure and never simple. Factor in the many variables of room shape/size, solid vs suspended floor, listener's hearing ability or lack thereof, quality of mains supply, and preference for one type of sound over another, and the idea that there is a single correct answer to any audio question becomes clearly absurd.


I completely agree, and it's exactly why audio design is not an accurate science, as I alluded to earlier despite some belligerent objectivists, all too often present on other forums, thinking differently.


However, one crucial point to bear in mind is that Russ Andrews is trying to sell stuff (in which context expensive cables = good cables), and Mr Arran (AFAIK) is not.

True. I don't always agree with Mr Andrews, or rate all of his products, but in this instance I think he makes a good point. He also, IMO, gets an unfairly rough ride by people with an agenda against his hi-fi principles (optimising set-up before upgrading boxes), which is an approach I heartily endorse myself.

Some of his products are expensive for what they are, but he is running a business not a charity and he's far from alone in the prices he charges for hi-fi accessories. He also clearly has lots of experience in hi-fi and in the industry so one can always learn from people of his ilk, I feel.

Mr Arran, although amusing in an ironic sense, is IMO typical of the cynical 'techie types' I referred to earlier - a waste of space as far as I'm concerned, although out with of this debate I'm sure he's a pleasant enough chap.

Marco.

tfarney
24-06-2008, 10:25
Tim, are your Senns also in-ear the same as the Etys? If not, that might explain why the Etys reveal more detail.

Regarding the Yaqin, here's where I got mine from. The chap, Michael, is very helpful, efficient and good to deal with:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/KT88-High-End-Vacuum-Valve-Tube-Intergraded-Amplifier_W0QQitemZ220248325679QQihZ012QQcategoryZ 3280QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l1262

Marco.

No the Senns are HD580s, not in-ear. And yes, that does explain some of the detail in the Etys. But the Senns are also a bit rolled-off up high. They have a warm, laid-back voice, not a bright, forward one.

Tim

Marco
24-06-2008, 10:29
I suspected that might be the case - no worries :)

Let me know how you get on with your Yaqin enquiries.

Marco.

Peter Stockwell
24-06-2008, 11:19
There are all sorts of variables with hi-fi so I've got no idea why you preferred the Nait 5 to the KEL34 you had, although one thing I would say is that as far as push-pull design is concerned the KT88 amps I've heard have more 'balls' and a generally bigger more powerful sound than amps which use smaller output valves such as EL34s, etc.

...

I think you should revisit valves again at some point, this time with a more powerful push-pull design. Next time you might arrive at a different conclusion ;)



I've been pondering the upgrade urge, and all that. In fact I'm curious and it's nice to hear other gear to what we have at home. But, somewhere along the way, I feel I have to learn how to be satisfied. I spent a fair some over the last year to raise the level of the Naim stack I run, and I find it galling, to say the least, to imagine that a £300 valve integrated is going make the rest seem like crap. So for the moment I'm doing the Ostritch thing;) . I'm already digesting the demise of the Bastin 401 from it's throne.

regards

Peter

Steve Toy
24-06-2008, 11:40
Peter,

You may like to consider the prospect of putting money in your pocket. I wonder how much your Naim amps would fetch on the s/h market. I imagine quite a lot because Naim gear always does and no doubt yours is in excellent condition.

I like the Naim sound and what I have now does not detract from its virtues at all. It builds on them. If you think the bass is going to be flabby, the dynamics limp and the timing all over the place, forget it because there's no way I'd put up with that.

What I'm getting is PR&T coupled with more depth, even better dynamics and resolution, timbre and texture.

A transformer volume control which is completely passive costs around £700 built from Glasshouse.

A fully fettled Chinese valve amp like the Yaqin, Bewitch or Puresound will cost around £1800.

So for around £2500 you'll get a pre/power combo that should feel confident in the company of a Nac 552/Nap 500 (imho).

Marco
24-06-2008, 11:56
I've been pondering the upgrade urge, and all that. In fact I'm curious and it's nice to hear other gear to what we have at home. But, somewhere along the way, I feel I have to learn how to be satisfied. I spent a fair some over the last year to raise the level of the Naim stack I run, and I find it galling, to say the least, to imagine that a £300 valve integrated is going make the rest seem like crap.


Lol. Peter, it's not quite as simple as that.

I am by no means saying for you to dump your Naim gear and buy a Yaqin - far from it. If you're genuinely enjoying your Naim equipment don't even think of going down the valve route. The most important thing is that when you sit down to listen to music that you enjoy what comes out the speakers and it makes you want to listen again and again - that's what hi-fi is all about when your system is working properly.

All I've done is outline the difference I feel there is between valves and solid-state. I enjoyed my CDS2/XPS2/52/135s for years, but I just fancied a change, initially going for the ECS monos, which were fantastic, along with other bits and pieces, and then latterly settling for valves. The musical presentation of both the system I run now and my old Naim system is different and enjoyable in its own way.

The thing is though, if you want, trying a Yaqin or Bewiched would only cost £300 or so on Ebay direct from China, and perhaps a further £60 for a step-down transformer (if you need it with French voltage) so it's affordable enough to 'speculate to accumulate' without even touching your Naim system. If you don't like it you can sell it on and you probably won't lose a penny.

It's something to think about but if I were you I would just enjoy your 1210 for just now and get used to what it's doing before mucking around elsewhere. You know that if you need any advice in future about Yaqins or whatever that I will always help when I can :)

Marco.

johnrtd
24-06-2008, 16:54
Nice discussion so far. The only remark I might make is that a music loving technician could predict the character of a circuit just by looking at the schematics.
And, when discussing the differences between solid state and tubes, I know some "nasty" ones from both types.

John

tfarney
24-06-2008, 17:41
I suspected that might be the case - no worries :)

Let me know how you get on with your Yaqin enquiries.

Marco.

I'm totally flummoxed. It seems that the best source of information is ebay, where there seem to be a hundred different models at a ridiculous range of prices. If I had cash in my hand right now, I would have no idea what to order. If it helps, I need about 10 - 15 watts. I need a quality headphone out (the main amps stepped down), and if I ended up with something excessively warm and "tubey," I'd be a very unhappy camper.

(un)Fortunately, the job opportunity I thought was going to put me in a position to pull the trigger slipped through my hands yesterday. I have more time.

Tim