Dont get stressed if you think your system isn't "Good Enough"...

[Barry]

The early Naim power amps (the NAP200 and NAP250 models) were based on an RCA data sheet. Despite that, they garnered good, if not fanatical reputation for SQ.

[Pharos]

Groupthink is a relatively recent phrase used in the media, but it roots lie I think in our insecurity formed in our early years.
We are bombarded from birth with cajoling and criticism, and given directives by many authority figures, such that IMO we are in a state of anxiety and insecurity about our relative value and performance, and this continues.

Asch's work shows the degree to which we look around at the performance of those surrounding us in order to compare our own performance, to see if 'we are OK', and 60% will reject their own perceptions in favour of those of the group, even when the whole group is wrong.

In the sociology of employment this often can result in lesser people adhering to a supposed 'truth', and rejecting the real truth, and then in out casting of the believer in the real truth, and maybe even worse sanctioning. They, the group, feel secure not in their own perceptions, but in the support of many peers having the same view.

I was never confident early on, largely because my Father has a narcissistic personality disorder which resulted in my natural abilities being severely disabled and disrupted, and my development severely impeded. As a result I was not ontologically secure, and subconsciously deferred to my Father's dominance, even though I came first repeatedly at school.

However, my rebellion resulted in my becoming a juvenile delinquent, I and used to burgle Crystal Palace Park Café on a regular basis, but was never caught because I was bright. Gradually I became more confident in my abilities, but became an active rebel, a heretic on many issues, and one example in particular was that whilst at the BBC, I was given by my girlfriend a Parker ball point which had a transparent window on its side. Through this the refill showed conversion units from Imperial to Metric as it revolved, but I put a tape spool label on it showing at each stop; "Get high", "On some", "Truth", "Man", a complete revolution being needed to show the whole message. This caused consternation in my team, and a certain degree of out casting. I have recently purchased a similar one and will replicate that message on it.

In the book i earlier recommended the author states that we can either have power and tell a story to others, or tell the truth and have no power, this is frightening to me, and the next chapter is called "Post Truth". God help us.

I am an objectivist, but this does not dismiss the ear as a final criterion for evaluation of equipment. The well established criteria are a way of eliminating inadequate equipment, but they do not define all aspects of performance. No science is complete, it is an evolving process of discovery which yields useful tools. Where there is an unlikely claimed difference, I support AB testing.

I have been posting on Audio Science Review, and described how when I rebuilt my ESS speakers, I went through a series of cables; 4PR, 4TC, and 8TC. Improvements were made until the 8TC, at which point the bass seemed to be boosted by about 6dB, and the top became fragmented, lacking in focus, and dull. This was actually pointed out first by my audiologist friend, we agreeing that it was so.

The ASR forum is based I presume on a love of the philosophy of science, but I did post a critique of much of the argument and poor English which had impeded clear reasoning and clarity. When I posted the anecdotal cable experience, the group, like a pack of hyenas, pounced on me with derision and denigration, trashing everything I had said. I then stated that all science uses perceptions at its first inception, but to no avail, and I was so bullied that I stopped responding after pointing out numerously the flaws in their arguments; it went on for four pages.

They were in another sense being extremely subjective, by using the philosophy of science to deny the reality of a subjective perception, just because it could not be measured. Many were professionals with up to PhD qualifications, so I am disillusioned now with the forum, and also to an extent academia.

This also illustrates another situation in which pure reasoning was dropped in favour of group bonding, and the group really should know better.

[struth]

i think people over think things... im not sure hyper intelligence is healthy. From a film..." stupidity has saved many a man from going mad" i think this is very true.

[anthonyTD]

Quite agree,
If you start off with a circuit your happy with ie; as far as ticking all or most of the boxes you initialy require, then after testing using known and familiar test measurements, the final test should always be ones ears, Audio equipment should be able to portray musical information in a way that connects deep within ones senses, if not, what's the point ?

It's quite possible that different resistive materials were used as the resistive element: compressed carbon; carbon film; metal oxide; metal film; wirewound tantalum, nichrome etc. Different materials will have different noise properties (both Johnson and 'shot' noise). Was the inductance measured and been shown to be the same between the resistors, and what about the temperature coefficient (how the resistance value changes with temperature)?

I doubt if the various resistor manufacturers quote any of the above (or even measures it). No, the only way is to design the circuit using established and proven circuit theory, build a prototype using good quality (but standard components), make measurements to show the design has met the the objectives (such as low distortion, intermodulation distortion, low noise, frequency and phase linearity etc.0. THEN listen to the performance, and at this stage, assuming it sounds OK, try changing the type and manufacture of some components in key areas (such as at the input stage and in the feedback loops) and listen again each time you make a change.

Laborious, but there is no other way. Computer aided design and analysis programs are becoming more and more sophisticated, but nothing, as yet, beats a good pair of ears. Well respected violin and viola designs by Stradivari or by Guarneri have been 'measured' against lesser examples, and nothing in the measurements shown why the Stradivari and Guarneri sound better than modern products. Some speculate it might be due the varnish used.

[Marco]

It's quite possible that different resistive materials were used as the resistive element: compressed carbon; carbon film; metal oxide; metal film; wirewound tantalum, nichrome etc. Different materials will have different noise properties (both Johnson and 'shot' noise). Was the inductance measured and been shown to be the same between the resistors, and what about the temperature coefficient (how the resistance value changes with temperature)?

Exactly, and yes there were different materials used as outlined, but objectivists would have you believe that such things make no difference, and if any are perceived, they're simply 'imagined'!

In terms of the highlighted part, yes to the first bit, but I don't recall the second part as having taken place.

No, the only way is to design the circuit using established and proven circuit theory, build a prototype using good quality (but standard components), make measurements to show the design has met the the objectives (such as low distortion, intermodulation distortion, low noise, frequency and phase linearity etc.0. THEN listen to the performance, and at this stage, assuming it sounds OK, try changing the type and manufacture of some components in key areas (such as at the input stage and in the feedback loops) and listen again each time you make a change.

Laborious, but there is no other way. Computer aided design and analysis programs are becoming more and more sophisticated, but nothing, as yet, beats a good pair of ears.

Spot on (on all counts)! And I note that (as expected) Anthony agrees

Well respected violin and viola designs by Stradivari or by Guarneri have been 'measured' against lesser examples, and nothing in the measurements shown why the Stradivari and Guarneri sound better than modern products. Some speculate it might be due the varnish used.

Yes, that's an interesting one, isn't it? For me, all of this proves that there's still an awful lot of stuff we can genuinely hear that *currently* can't be measured. However, that doesn't mean in future we won't find some way of measuring it. For the moment though, ears rule!

Marco.

[Firebottle]

Lol, why is he a lost cause? Surely everyone should be suitably openminded and receptive enough to accept the possibility that their stance on any given matter may not be as correct as they'd first thought?

If not, that just smacks of closedminded arrogance, and I didn't think he was like that...



Indeed, and quite frankly I find that lazy engineering and a disgrace. However, clearly given the above, and what you've said previously, you believe that ears matter in the final analysis, more than measurements alone, and that by employing better circuitry than that which simply measures accurately or 'does the job' and no more, you can build better sounding equipment?



Sure, and I completely agree. There's nothing to beat a good circuit (often born from the K.I.S.S approach) than any old circuit, pimped with boutique components, However, that doesn't mean that a good circuit, fitted with the best sounding boutique components (presuming that cost was no issue) wouldn't sound EVEN better!

Marco.

Martin isn't arrogant in my view, he is intelligent and I find good company. However I think he is stuck in a bygone era of (admittedly) good equipment.

Better circuitry definitely gives better performance. 'Better circuitry' is making the active devices work in a much more linear fashion that lowers distortion of all kinds, improves headroom, improves longevity etc.

The real buzz I used to get from my years as a designer was the 'blank sheet of paper' approach, thinking up solutions to the required function.
This spills over to improving 'traditional' approaches to circuit design, for example how to switch between MM and MC input with a small signal relay without the direct cartridge signal passing though the relay? It can and has been done.
In fact I use the minimum of measurements when developing a circuit:

Is there a signal at the output?
Is the gain in the right ballpark?
Does the response look accurate?
Are the frequency extremes as expected? And that's it, believe it or not. Everything else is 'how does it sound?', done by ear.

The best circuit with good parts will get you 98%, the best parts will get you the other 2% but at the same cost that got you to 98% IMO.

[Marco]

Another brilliant post, Dennis! For the sake of brevity, allow me to highlight what I consider are the most salient and pertinent points:

We are bombarded from birth with cajoling and criticism, and given directives by many authority figures, such that IMO we are in a state of anxiety and insecurity about our relative value and performance, and this continues.

Asch's work shows the degree to which we look around at the performance of those surrounding us in order to compare our own performance, to see if 'we are OK', and 60% will reject their own perceptions in favour of those of the group, even when the whole group is wrong.

Interesting and no doubt true. Perhaps as a child, I may have fallen into that 60%, simply as a result of naivety and/or immaturity, but now I'm older, I'm confident I'd be firmly in the other 40%, as without very good reason I *never* reject my own perceptions.

Gut instincts act as the basis for many of my decisions, which often later lead to the forming of my opinions. I'm very much in touch with my instincts, as indeed is any other perceptive human being. I don't need books or some 'expert' to tell me what to do!

In the sociology of employment this often can result in lesser people adhering to a supposed 'truth', and rejecting the real truth, and then in out casting of the believer in the real truth, and maybe even worse sanctioning. They, the group, feel secure not in their own perceptions, but in the support of many peers having the same view.

That for me is one of the most pertinent and valid observations you've made on human behaviourism, or for that matter I've ever seen expressed online.

Furthermore, I can totally relate to it, as I've often been subjected to such myself, especially on forums, simply because I often have rather forthright subjective opinions, which I express confidently because I believe I'm right, and which often irks my rather dogmatic objectivist detractors

I'm not the type though to sit back and take it, so if I'm confident I'm right, I'll defend my views to the death and bugger the consequences [at least that's what I used to do before I started up this place], so usually ended up being banned!

However, my rebellion resulted in my becoming a juvenile delinquent, I and used to burgle Crystal Palace Park Café on a regular basis, but was never caught because I was bright..

Lol, well the best burglars always are! You're a very bad boy, do you know that?

In the book i earlier recommended the author states that we can either have power and tell a story to others, or tell the truth and have no power, this is frightening to me, and the next chapter is called "Post Truth". God help us.

Indeed... I would always seek to tell the truth (or what I believed as such) in the hope that someone might listen and investigate my claims for themselves. I've also always never been concerned about being disliked because certain people didn't like what I was saying. My view? Too bad - deal with it!!

I am an objectivist, but this does not dismiss the ear as a final criterion for evaluation of equipment. The well established criteria are a way of eliminating inadequate equipment, but they do not define all aspects of performance. No science is complete, it is an evolving process of discovery which yields useful tools.

Exactly my view, and indeed some objectivists who consider themselves as being faithful to the scientific process, and who believe in the opposite (all there is to know is already known), are in fact doing a gross disservice to the scientific process!

The ASR forum is based I presume on a love of the philosophy of science, but I did post a critique of much of the argument and poor English which had impeded clear reasoning and clarity. When I posted the anecdotal cable experience, the group, like a pack of hyenas, pounced on me with derision and denigration, trashing everything I had said. I then stated that all science uses perceptions at its first inception, but to no avail, and I was so bullied that I stopped responding after pointing out numerously the flaws in their arguments; it went on for four pages.

That doesn't surprise me at all (as again in the past I've been subjected to the same), and why I steer well clear of such places. Indeed, if anyone were subjected to such disgraceful behaviour here, the perpetrator(s) would be instantly banned, as we operate a zero-tolerance policy towards that type of gang mentality.

Lastly, this for me is simply incomprehensible...

They were in another sense being extremely subjective, by using the philosophy of science to deny the reality of a subjective perception, just because it could not be measured.

Come again..? REALLY??

WTF is it with these people - are they THAT scared of anything that dares to challenge their rigidly inflexible dogma, that they have to seek to reject one of the very things that makes us human??

For me, not only are they total idiots, but mentally ILL!!

Marco.

[Marco]

Martin isn't arrogant in my view, he is intelligent and I find good company. However I think he is stuck in a bygone era of (admittedly) good equipment.

I completely agree [oh and Martin, where are you mate - guess you've had a busy day at work?] However... Why stay stuck in a bygone era? That makes no sense for someone who prides himself on being logical

Better circuitry definitely gives better performance. 'Better circuitry' is making the active devices work in a much more linear fashion that lowers distortion of all kinds, improves headroom, improves longevity etc.

The real buzz I used to get from my years as a designer was the 'blank sheet of paper' approach, thinking up solutions to the required function.
This spills over to improving 'traditional' approaches to circuit design, for example how to switch between MM and MC input with a small signal relay without the direct cartridge signal passing though the relay? It can and has been done.
In fact I use the minimum of measurements when developing a circuit:

Is there a signal at the output?
Is the gain in the right ballpark?
Does the response look accurate?
Are the frequency extremes as expected? And that's it, believe it or not. Everything else is 'how does it sound?', done by ear.

Yup, I completely agree. However, what if the last bit of that process were omitted, simply because the accuracy of the measurements taken was considered as sufficient, thus listening was deemed as unnecessary... Would you agree that that would likely lead to achieving a poorer sonic result?

Marco.

[Pharos]

From Marco;

"Lastly, this for me is simply incomprehensible...

They were in another sense being extremely subjective, by using the philosophy of science to deny the reality of a subjective perception, just because it could not be measured.
Come again..? REALLY??

WTF is it with these people - are they THAT scared of anything that dares to challenge their rigidly inflexible dogma, that they have to seek to reject one of the very things that makes us human??

For me, not only are they total idiots, but mentally ILL!!

Marco."

I was not challenging them, but merely asserting that I heard a difference with the last cables, as would all on this forum IMO. Yes they were scared.

The real crux of this stupidity for me, is that perception is an intrinsic part of all science. We could assert that their perception when reading a voltmeter and providing a reading is invalid because it is subjective and anecdotal"

But the behaviour of those whose whole stance, with a Banner based on and espousing science, then getting so lost in argument, and contradicting the principles of scientifically reasoned argument is an absurdity.

True discoverers spend hours in devoted testing and verification; they are self effacing, very humble, egotism getting in the way of feeling fine nuances, as does arrogance, and it involves perception at every stage.

BTW I was in my teens and it was only chocolate I stole.

[Macca]

Be it phase changes, tonality aspects or timing artefacts, ears are best until electronic kit can do the same. Shall we give it a millennium to catch up?

But are these not all functions of frequency response? And frequency response is pretty trivial to measure.