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

[Marco]

Indeed, but the EARS stage at the end is crucial!

Btw, I may be flogging a dead horse, but you simply can't allow those blinkered cretins to behave that way without taking them to task. Plus, it makes me feel better!

Marco.

[Pharos]

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.

The conditions were similar, except that levels were not controlled to any great extent, but were probably similar, and it is a valid objection only if I was making assertions which were greater than about what we had heard; we made no claim to any rigour, which would, if pursued, follow. Of course to validate/invalidate further the perception would as you say require further work, but it was just a statement of a perception and nothing more, which is perhaps the start of further enquiry and adhesion to testing and measuring procedures.

Would it be acceptable to apply the ASR responses to my asserting; "Last night I thought there were lightning flashes in the sky", which is only a subjective and anecdotal statement? To then denigrate this because of a lack of measurement or quantification is IMO also ridiculous.

A scientist would then construct some supposed means of detection and measurement, wait for similar circumstances, and then hope to be able to derive more info on the situation, rather than ridiculing me.

[Pharos]

From Marco;
" 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"

I would like to see the long and involved process of taking a good amplifier, and one by one, changing each component for what are deemed to be better or boutique components, and to have a group blind AB the results.

I don't think that the "flogging a dead horse" comment was directed at you Marco re ASR, but about the technical versus subjective ear debate.

Regardless it is much more moral than flogging a live one.

[Marco]

From Marco;
" 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"

I would like to see the long and involved process of taking a good amplifier, and one by one, changing each component for what are deemed to be better or boutique components, and to have a group blind AB the results.

Indeed, but IME that's not what happens, nor am I saying that 'boutique components' must be used in order to create a great amp - definitely not!

In summary, what generally happens is that a designer will build a circuit using good quality, reliable components he knows and has used many times before, and which are cost effective, then the completed circuit is measured on his test bench, ensuring that all relevant parameters have met the required standards. after which at some point the amp is tested [listened to with familiar music] on his system.

If at that stage the sound needs some further subtle adjustment [wholesale changes shouldn't be required unless the circuit is crap!] he'll do so by employing many different methods, some of which may involve changing the value of one or two components (generally no more), or fitting what he considers are better ones in key areas of the signal path, where the greatest sonic difference is likely to be heard.

That's normally how it goes. It's not about changing each component and replacing it with a 'boutique' one. However, I do have experience of upgrading numerous key components in an already good sounding amp (e.g my Croft preamp), by fitting better and rather more expensive ones that I'd tried and considered as notably improving SQ, and which turned out to be so.

At the end of the day, you must remember that everything is built to a price, so with some judicious fettling to what is basically a good piece of gear (if you know what you're doing), you can successfully release some latent potential in the circuit, by fitting better components - and I've had great success with doing that throughout my system, as listed below. NONE of it is standard!

Therefore, if it was impossible to improve the sound of any of the equipment I use, in its standard form, because it already measured well (which it would've done when it was originally built, and still does now), then I wouldn't have been successfully able to improve its performance further, would I?

Marco.

[Barry]

'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.

Maybe, but you won't be able to pool all of these measurements to predict the perceived sound stage.

[Barry]

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

I use speakers designed in the 1950s as well.

[Opti-cal]

I use speakers designed in the 1950s as well.

I mean . . . they are the same speakers.

[Barry]

I mean . . . they are the same speakers.

Oh - was Martin referring to your speakers? Quad 57 (sic)?

[Opti-cal]

Oh - was Martin referring to your speakers? Quad 57 (sic)?

No Alan's, (although I have had 4 pairs of 57's myself and still plan on repairing a current pair sat behind my sofa!) I wasn't sure if you knew you were referencing the very same "50's design" speaker!

A yardstick never beaten (or even equaled) in my and many other's opinion . . . just wish I had a pair that didn't develop faults likely to aggravate my OCD need for speakers to be 'perfect'!! (Mechanically).

[Barry]

No Alan's, (although I have had 4 pairs of 57's myself and still plan on repairing a current pair sat behind my sofa!) I wasn't sure if you knew you were referencing the very same "50's design" speaker!

A yardstick never beaten (or even equaled) in my and many other's opinion . . . just wish I had a pair that didn't develop faults likely to aggravate my OCD need for speakers to be 'perfect'!! (Mechanically).

What is wrong with your Quads - what needs repairing/replacing? Mine have been in constant use for the last 45 years and are still working well; though I'm sure that ideally they could do with an overhaul.