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

[Macca]

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.

.

I recall that thread and my recollection is that the objection to your claim was that your listening tests on the cables were not done under controlled conditions. Which I think is a perfectly valid objection. It is, after all, a science and engineering forum where unsubstantiated claims are rejected out of hand.

At the very least you would need to provide details of your study, controls implemented, percentage of correct identifications etc. No point even raising the subject there if you don't have that.

[Macca]

I agree - no measurement I can thick of can 'quantify' the ability, or not, of a pair of speakers to present a clear soundstage: one where you feel you can walk in amongst and around the performers. Indeed how can you measure perceived depth - again a simple measurement of crosstalk is not enough. I'm sure the measurement of phase comes into it somehow, but I can't think exactly how.
.

'We can't measure soundstage' is a strawman argument. Soundstage is a collection of various factors. Firstly how the recording is made. If it has no soundstage you can't re-create it later. If it does then how well it is reproduced will depend on factors that are entirely quantifiable:

How much the electronics distort the signal, noise levels obscuring sonic 'clues', distortion from the loudspeakers, position of the loudspeakers relative to the listener, frequency response of the loudspeaker (i.e how 'accurate' is it?) the behaviour of primary and secondary reflections (i,e 'the room') and so forth. We can measure all these things.

[Macca]

Lol, indeed!

Now, could you please try and get Macca on the same page (as he rates your views), because I suspect I'm right in presuming that when you build equipment, it's not simply measured as being 'right' on your test bench, left at that and subsequently demonstrated to your clients, but rather 'voiced' first, using your ears and some suitable music, in the context of your system, where any final adjustments to the circuit are made, so that you're happy with the end sonic result?

My argument is that not every audio designer puts their equipment through that last stage of assessment before it's deemed as fit for sale, and you can easily hear the difference between it and equipment that has had discerning ears applied to the process at the final stage of its development.

Would you agree?

Marco.

You have a QUAD 306 amplifier, which you rate, but no listening tests of the sort you describe were used in its design, in fact the designer is quite famous for stating that such a process is completely unnecessary.

The problem with using music as a verification is what music to use? We have all heard systems that sound fine with the first ten albums and them album 11 reveals some terrible flaw not shown up by the music on the previous ten. Back to the drawing board!

[Macca]

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.

.

Says the man using loudspeakers designed in the 1950s....

[Firebottle]

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.

The 'accuracy' of my measurements is moot as I don't possess accurate measuring equipment. All tests performed could best be described as checks rather than measurements.
The only real measurement I do is the gain figure so it can be included on the instructions.

I would disagree that not listening would likely lead to achieving a poorer sonic result. The circuit design is key rather than stuffing boutique components into a cookbook circuit.
I would rather put lipstick on a princess than a pig.

[Firebottle]

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

No, phase differences are a measure of the phase response which is different. Tonality can be affected by a non linear frequency characteristic of a capacitor, particularly electrolytic. Timing is affected by the slew rate of an amplifier.

[Marco]

I recall that thread and my recollection is that the objection to your claim was that your listening tests on the cables were not done under controlled conditions. Which I think is a perfectly valid objection. It is, after all, a science and engineering forum where unsubstantiated claims are rejected out of hand.

At the very least you would need to provide details of your study, controls implemented, percentage of correct identifications etc. No point even raising the subject there if you don't have that.

Still no excuse though for the way he was treated, unless you condone the gang mentality?

You can debate with someone and disagree without subjecting them to bullying and speaking to them as if they were stupid. I don't live in a world where that sort of behaviour is considered as acceptable, and I'm sure Dennis doesn't either, so you simply don't put up with it. What's wrong with being polite?

These people aren't normal and clearly display mental health issues. As far as I'm concerned, if you're willing to deny your own perceptions, simply because they're not measurable, then you're not right in the head!

From the sound of them too, they're also disrespectful, cheeky wankers, who wouldn't dare speak to anyone in that manner in real life, without getting a well-deserved slap!!

Marco.

[Marco]

You have a QUAD 306 amplifier, which you rate, but no listening tests of the sort you describe were used in its design, in fact the designer is quite famous for stating that such a process is completely unnecessary.

I didn't say that you couldn't build a decent sounding amplifier without employing the use of listening tests, but rather that the BEST ones are born from such having taken place in the final analysis.

Does the 306 sound good? Yes. Does it sound anywhere near as good as my Copper amp? No, that blows it into the weeds. Does the 306 sound as good as any amp I've heard, at any price, which has been built by a talented designer who believes in using his ears? No.

The Quad is good, but not great. IME, to get great you have to voice stuff by ear at the final stage of it's design, as outlined by Anthony, Alan and others who know what they're talking about and back it up with producing superb sounding kit

The problem with using music as a verification is what music to use? We have all heard systems that sound fine with the first ten albums and them album 11 reveals some terrible flaw not shown up by the music on the previous ten. Back to the drawing board!

Nah, that's not how it's generally done. Normally a selection of familiar test tracks are used, which the designer knows inside out, and thus whether the equipment in question is reproducing them correctly as expected, just like you'll do when assessing a new piece of equipment in your system.

I'm sure that you have a selection of similar tracks you use to evaluate gear, which you'll usually reach for, and which comprise of a suitably wide array of music, in order to form accurate conclusions in terms of how that equipment is performing? Well, it's the same for an EE when 'voicing' his equipment.

The only difference is that if any or all of those tracks don't sound quite right (or as good as they should), he'll do something about it to make it so, and if he's any good, the end result will of course be notably better than what he heard previously, despite him having been satisfied that the equipment measured ok. That, IMO, is how you create truly great sounding gear, as opposed to merely the mediocre.

'Good' isn't good enough; I want great!

Marco.

[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.

Yes, scared of entertaining the thought that their rigid and inflexible scientific belief system might be fatally flawed!

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"

Indeed, and the sheer hypocrisy is laughable in the extreme! So it's all right for them to accept and embrace their perceptions, when performing a task, but not for others to do the same on other tasks? You couldn't make it up! But they're so BLIND to reality, by having lived inside their false little bubbles for so long, that they can't see it

As you say, a total 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.

Indeed, and exactly as I've always found REAL scientists, not wannabe 'measurists', driven by arrogance and ego, who couldn't lace a scientist's shoes!!

Marco.

[anthonyTD]

To be honest, where some are concerned, i think your flogging a dead horse, lets just say; measurements are key in getting a circuit to perform, and behave in a certain way ie; most importantly is the circuit stable at all perceivable loads and conditions it will be expected to work in, secondly, is the circuit free [as feasably posible within the design criteria] of noise and osccilations at all and beyond its expected range, once those elements have been established, there should be room for further adjustments within the circuit design to acheive a performance that is not only acceptable on test equipment.