Half-a-brain loonies and internet geeks

[Mike]

If the sound of vinyl or horns or even old-school "tubey" tubes pleases you and increases your listening pleasure, that's all that matters. The pursuit of "live in my living room" may as well be the search for the holy grail, anyway. Microphones don't hear like ears. Studios don't sound like clubs and concert halls, and multi track recording is an inherently flawed, nearly impossible methodology for simulating the sound of a live performance.

IE: It's going to sound like a recording anyway. Forget transparency. Forget resolution. If it sounds good it is good.

I really like that bit.

[DSJR]

I find myself agreeing with all of you here....... (duh!)

I used to love the test reports of anciant times, where listening tests were barely mentioned and the first HiFi Choice issue where Angus MacKenzie slaughtered a few sacred speaker cows (there were reasons why some of the speakers were bad - overdriving in the prior technical tests apparently, but the Martin Colloms authored "Choices" that followed were far more careful in their wording).

In the eighties, "perceived" sound quality with no established audio or musical reference became the norm and all sorts of rubbish product got w@nked over. Interested consumers didn't know what was going on (and the few left still don't IMO) yet still need an opinion to help their choice I think.

I rarely read mags these days, so haven't seen the article referred to, but as in all hobby areas, there are the "ego's" who really believe what they believe. Some of these own Naim, others Linn, yet more have Quad for example. The best of these people like to have a yarn about different products online and I for one have learned much from reading various discussions on different products. The others just want a fight and this is where it falls down...

I have to say that the interesting thing recently for me has been a B&O forum I occasionally post on. The people there are more than ready to say when they think B&O have gone wrong with certain products and there's more than one suggestion for adding a thin felt style mat to some of their turntables (and not from me either!) to improve the sound (often it does, but that's for another time). Cap kits are available apparently for their better 1970's receivers like the 3000, 4000 and 4400 (and they're very much better than the Jap Crap we often sold) and the number of recommendations to replace the crossover caps in their speakers astounds me. yet when this kind of thing is suggested for equally old Naim gear the "noise" is so loud it raises the roof!

Anyway, I've had my say. I hope it's not totally off the track...

[tfarney]

How absolutely true, Dave! The fact is not everything in hi-fi genuinely heard by our ears can currently be measured, as ably demonstrated by your point above. This is the mistake objectivists make and won't admit.

If we accept this fact then how can our available measurement parameters for hi-fi (and partnering apparatus) possibly tell the whole story?

Tim (and others) I'll get back you later. I must attend to dinner

Marco.

OK, let's forget measurement for a moment. It doesn't serve the discussion anyway. Let's talk only about what we hear which is, of course, what matters. This....

Yet there are monumental differences in amplifier performance so there has to be something in there that can not be measured...

...is completely contrary to my listening experience. Perhaps, as another friend on another board as suggested, it is that once you hear the difference, it is all you hear, and it looms much larger than life. Perhaps. But if I hear monumental or, for that matter, anything more than subtle differences between well designed and implemented electronics, I assume something is broken. I've had opportunities to A/B solid state, digital and valve amplification, driving the same, pretty revealing transducers (Sennehiser HD580s, Vienna Acoustics Mozarts). They sounded different. But the differences were very subtle, not monumental. I'm sure any of us would have found ourselves describing the differences in subtle, subjective terms. One seemed a bit leaner. The other had an lower midrange warmth, an upper midrange smoothness. The third seemed to reveal a bit more inner detail as the noise floor dropped away...that kind of thing.

Subtle, by any definition. Swap the Senns for a pair of AKGs, the Viennas for Klispchorns? Now we can, perhaps, start using words like monumental, day and night, dramatic....I sometimes think more than half of the audiophile debate is a matter of semantics .

Wasn't it Wilson Audio that once made a huge impression on a trade show full of audiophiles, vendors and dealers with their flagship speaker, only to reveal at the end that the source was an iPod? If no one could walk into that booth and spot that one blind...

Tim

[Colin]

being slagged off for holding differing views is nothing new, neither is the manufacturing and supply side of consumer products making 'iffy' claims about the product being supplied. For all I know anti ageing creams and I/C cables fall into the same category, as in it seems to be down to the consumer to prove they don't, rather than the maker to prove they do, or don't.

Computer audio is in the middle of a re-birth at the moment, partially I assume because the sound has improved, partially because of the popularity of the Ipod and its ilk, and I would think partially because it can. By that I mean that computers, networking and Hi Fi all pretty much fall into the boys toys box, and if the boys can find a challenge then they will. The improvement, and change to computer stored and generated audio is managing to divide itself into camps though, Windoze v Mac appearing to be the main ones at the mo.

To keep the holding differing views thought, while tapping this on my laptop, in the background I'm ripping CD's to flac, I'm being different though, using *nix software on a intel PC, not apple but SuSe.

We can all do are own thing, experience, thought process, and spare cash normally being the telling factor

[Marco]

I sometimes think more than half of the audiophile debate is a matter of semantics

Indeed, Tim! I also think that in many cases it's down to the hugely varying levels of listening experience of the participants concerned.

Quite simply, although a highly subjective term, "monumental" differences do exist between amplifiers, and indeed between other items of hi-fi equipment (I can cite relevant examples if you wish) but unless your available benchmark from which to judge is suitably diverse and wide-ranging then it's very easy to arrive at the conclusions you've reached

Great discussion this, chaps. Right, I must run. More later!

Marco.

[tfarney]

WE DO NOT HAVE ANY COMPUTER COMPONENTS DESIGNED FOR AUDIO USE OR TESTED AS SUCH. So as far as I am concerned it is all FOO until more robust testing is done.

This is based in misunderstanding, I think. There is only one thing you can do to design computer equipment for audio use: Make it quiet. And there are silent servers being made for this purpose. Beyond that, it is a matter of the software, and that matter is a very simple one of keeping the digital information bit perfect throughout the process. This is built into the Mac operating system through Core Audio -- if you don't believe there are computer systems designed for audio, visit a recording studio (they're called Macs) -- and is easily attainable in XP and Vista. And that's it. Keep the zeros and ones perfectly matched until they reach digital to analog conversion. If anyone tells you that anything else prior to the DAC effects the quality of the audio signal, sit back and patiently await the sales pitch for the bridge. Prior to the DAC there is no audio signal, and matching bits are all that matter. There is nothing else. Bit perfect digital communication is not difficult, new or in need of development. It is a very mature technology, and the very same one that keeps Voodoo from showing up at your end of this communication as ooVodo. Properly implemented, all the computer-as-source approach does is eliminate all the mechanical problems of a rapidly spinning disk and allow you to organize your music collection into a very intuitive database.

Tim

[tfarney]

Quite simply, although a highly subjective term, "monumental" differences do exist between amplifiers, and indeed between other items of hi-fi equipment (I can cite relevant examples if you wish) but unless your available benchmark from which to judge is suitably diverse and wide-ranging then it's very easy to arrive at the conclusions you've reached

Marco.

My benchmarks include more than 30 years as a musician, playing the actual instruments with other musicians and hearing them right in front of me, Marco. They also include working in quite a few recording studios full of top-notch pro gear and listening to tons of consumer audio (phile and otherwise), of varying designs and price levels, for many, many years.

I'm quite sorry to have to say so, Marco, but this kind of condescension is at the heart of my absence from AOS for the past few months. Not that it is unique here. The last defense of the self-appointed audiophile authority is always the lack of experience or the limitations of the systems of those who don't see things his way. Same as it ever was.

Tim

[Marco]

Tim,

You misunderstand me. I'm not questioning your experience as a musician in terms of you using it to judge hi-fi equipment, far from it. I have virtually no real benchmark as far as playing real instruments are concerned, so I would be in no position to question you in that respect.

As you've often mentioned yourself in previous posts (or at least suggested as much) your hi-fi experience isn't quite as extensive as that of your experience of hearing real music played as a musician. I suspect that I have a more wide-ranging and diverse benchmark from which to judge with hi-fi equipment, that's all (although I perhaps wish it were the other way round like with you), and of course that is what we were discussing...

If one wishes to hear "monumental" differences between amplifiers then simply listen to a 2-watt single-ended tube amp versus a 1kw transistor amp through appropriate speakers using otherwise the same system.

I trust that clears up the confusion

Right, can I finish dinner now?



Marco.

[sastusbulbas]

This is based in misunderstanding, I think. There is only one thing you can do to design computer equipment for audio use: Make it quiet. And there are silent servers being made for this purpose. Beyond that, it is a matter of the software, and that matter is a very simple one of keeping the digital information bit perfect throughout the process. This is built into the Mac operating system through Core Audio -- if you don't believe there are computer systems designed for audio, visit a recording studio (they're called Macs) -- and is easily attainable in XP and Vista. And that's it. Keep the zeros and ones perfectly matched until they reach digital to analog conversion. If anyone tells you that anything else prior to the DAC effects the quality of the audio signal, sit back and patiently await the sales pitch for the bridge. Prior to the DAC there is no audio signal, and matching bits are all that matter. There is nothing else. Bit perfect digital communication is not difficult, new or in need of development. It is a very mature technology, and the very same one that keeps Voodoo from showing up at your end of this communication as ooVodo. Properly implemented, all the computer-as-source approach does is eliminate all the mechanical problems of a rapidly spinning disk and allow you to organize your music collection into a very intuitive database.

Tim

Hmm Exactly where problems start.

Make it quiet, yet one of the biggest bug bears regarding computer audio (from Mac and PC) was due to power supplies introducing noise into the mains, and operating systems running tasks in backgrounds. Do you also remember early attempts of computer audio with valve circuits in motherboards? Inside a computer (MAC or PC) used to be regarded as a pretty poor place for audio circuitry in the past.

As for MACs in recording studios, that was not always the case, and there are plenty of software for PC only. MACs have gained popularity and made an effort to address a certain clientèle that is all. My work gets better deals on Apple computers than any PC manufacturer offers, hence why they are popular, student card holders get discount too, and they are by far the best and easiest option for the lifestyle concious teenager with a bedroom band.

Lets not start the MAC shite because it has been well enough proven that both MAC and PC audio quality can be improved on, both have their pro's and con's and MAC I-Tunes is getting worse than Windows updates. I have used MAC and PC since the original beige G3 dawned (a product which had video and audio RCA outputs), where overclocking MACs involved a solder iron. I still remember when digital recording became possible due to companies releasing CD burners for PC, and the first TOAST.

As for nothing before the DAC being important, that is exactly the sort of blind stupidity that makes your above opinion questionable and therefore worthless. Hello, DAC's use PROCESSING and ERROR CORRECTION!

Any idiot knows that not all digital sources are perfect, most studios re-clock for that reason. Jitter was an issue hence DAC manufacturers addressed it!

If there was no variation in digital sources then professional DAC manufacturers and such would not have designed DAC's with enough processing to ensure all input sounded as similar as damn near identical as possible.

Manufacturers would not put effort into matching output impedance cable impedance and input impedance in digital systems.

The very existence of error correction and DAC's designed to perform well regardless of input may well be regarded as PROOF not all digital sources were the same.

Which is why we have two sides, one spouting Voodoo the other DooDoo.

If a DAC is designed to perform well and offer the same level of fidelity regardless of input with judicious processing, how can you tell someone the input is the same? And how well can a product be expected to perform if test bench results are more important and the product is designed to sound the same with a specific quality target regardless of input?

Your sort of patronizing shite and MAC fashion Nazi behaviour is as much to blame as magazine journalism for the attitude you get in response.

Processing DVD to 1080 should be as good as any other 1080 display but of course we can see that is not true, can't we? Pretty sure if it was with ears and a test bench we would have the same babble.

Bugger the signal, we can "MAKE" it sound correct.

And remember it is OK to act like an idiot, my excuse is internet magazines and forum hype.



PS a hard drive is a rapidly spinning disc, and I am sure many are well aware computer audio is the next best thing currently, but still a child under constant improvement and development, I care not if it is a MAC or PC, so far I have not been as satisfied as I would like with both. Nor have I been satisfied with the It's better cause, as there has not been any technical debate regarding whey certain performance parameters exist in computer audio, all we have is claims and people saying "this sounded better" and it is exactly like cables all over again.

[Steve Toy]

I'm quite sorry to have to say so, Marco, but this kind of condescension is at the heart of my absence from AOS for the past few months. Not that it is unique here. The last defense of the self-appointed audiophile authority is always the lack of experience or the limitations of the systems of those who don't see things his way. Same as it ever was.

Tim,

Marco did put a little wink smiley after his post. To me that meant it was a bit of well-intended ribbing. Your more objectivist stance on here is probably the most reasonably argued one from that particular camp I've ever come across. We are poles apart on the issue of amps sounding different (particular when we start changing driver valves in our amps and hearing what we consider to be considerable differences...) but your opinion is as valid as Marco's on this. When we express opinions (and that's all they are) we do so with our Admin hats well-and-truly OFF!

Our own experiences do vary enormously but every one is a truth even with the apparent contradictions. I will say though that when a number of people are present together simultaneously sharing a particular audio demonstration, differences of opinion on what is heard are extremely rare. Any differences that subsequently exist are simply down to preferences.