Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 248

Thread: Different Definitions of Quality

  1. #181
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Athens, GA
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Widget View Post
    I really tried, but ened up not having the time to thoroughly explain why your opinions and mine are completely out of phase.


    To be clear, I am not expressing 'my opinions' as to "sonics" of audio electronics, though other parts of my posts are opinion. But on that subject, I am merely the stating observed reality, as demonstrated by every single controlled listening test, that only incompetently designed or broken audio electronics sound different. You are going more on blind faith and pecuniary interest in the mythology of "high end" audio.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Widget View Post
    I also agree that proper room correction can be a great tool. But I do not agree that it is such a universally powerful tool that it will make up for an otherwise poor sounding piece of gear.
    Which is great, because we actually seem to agree on the utility, and limits, of room correction.

    I never wrote anything that would reasonably lead to your "I don't agree" statement, and frankly your "I don't agree" rhetoric is intellectually dishonest. (Though I will assume by "gear" you mean the loudspeaker/room interaction, because to ascribe "sound" to competently designed and built electronic parts is to be nonsensical.) My claim, if you read it carefully, was much narrower than the caricature you drew: the electronics themselves sound the same (I'm talking about competently designed and built electronics, not proven crappy stuff like that $7000+ Pass integrated amp, mind), so logically the part with the extra degree of freedom (room correction) is superior.

    I certainly never claimed that the "order of operations" is anything but, first, get the basics right - controlled directivity speakers with reasonably smooth response and a pattern that is well-suited to the surfaces of the room (i.e. narrower if the room is more reflective, so as to avoid the need for unsightly "room treatments"), placed to maximize one's desired sonic qualities (apparent source width, image focus, spaciousness, etc), multiple subwoofers calibrated to smooth out the impact of the room in the modal region, sufficient power on tap for all loudspeakers in the system to hit one's desired SPL, etc., - and only then go to stuff like room correction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Widget View Post
    As for my being biased by my pecuniary interest in audio sales?
    Yes, you are biased against the reality that has time and time again been demonstrated in controlled listening tests (which is, frankly, that electronics don't matter) because to do so would be simple business suicide for an audio parts vender. Self-interest has over the years led a lot of otherwise smart and well-meaning people into black holes of reality-denial. I'm sure there are still some execs in North Carolina who are otherwise sharp as can be but who honestly believe that any links "scientists" have found between cigarette smoking and lung cancer are speculative and ill-founded...

    But what matters to a salesman is different from what matters to a music lover with no pecuniary interest in the audio business.
    What matters to a "pure" music lover is, to put it simply, the stuff with moving parts (analog sources, loudspeakers), the room, and the electronic signal processing. Everything else just needs to not suck. (Which means, for instance, no crappy Pass labs integrated amps.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Widget View Post
    I am trying to decide if you are sincere or are simply trying to get attention.
    Well, I did point out two instances of gear (a Pass Labs integrated oddly touted by you as a superior part, and a Theta multichannel amp) that objective testing by Stereophile, as well as subjective comments, revealed to be absolute low-fidelity garbage not worth being mentioned in the same breath as a typical base-model major brand AVR. So obviously unless you consider calling attention to the obvious flaws in "Emperor's New Clothes" gear like that crappy Pass integrated to be "trying to get attention," that is not the case.

    That said, my latest audio purchase was a used Meridian 551, for the bedroom, to replace a pint-sized KEF Picoforte iPod Class D amp. I bought it because it has a more compact footprint than most integrateds, and I find it attractively styled. I also needed a piece of kit with multiple inputs and a built-in MM phono preamp, because I moved my TT from the main rig to the bedroom. The thought was the TT might get more use in the bedroom for background/mood music music, because my main system is simply too revealing of vinyl's flaws. However, the primary source for bedroom background music is still my old AppleTV2, feeding through a $40 DAC from Monoprice. (A new AppleTV3 replaced it in the main system.) Yes, a Monoprice DAC feeding into a Meridian integrated!


    Truth be told, I would've much preferred something new. But the current remote-controlled integrateds with my needed I/O (an MM phono stage, a line-level input, and either stereo preouts or a mono subwoofer output), such as models from Cambridge Audio , Rotel, Music Hall, and NAD, were all too wide and/or deep and/or tall to not stick out in the bedroom. (The Rega Brio-r not only lacked preouts, but also as a half-baked remote that is very insensitive to commands, and isn't even set up to power down the part into standby mode!) So I was happy to find a used Meridian 551 with the MM phono pre option installed.

    Quote Originally Posted by timc View Post
    DS-21

    I find a few faults in your logic.
    Perhaps you do, and perhaps there are some, but the rest of your text was merely your unsupported opinion and the not the uncovering of any flaw in my logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by timc View Post
    When it comes to mechanical hum in a Pass Labs:
    I have built a few Alephs, and they were all dead silent. I have also listened to a few of the commercial ones, with the same result. Mechanical hum in a transformer can have several reasons. Most hum is caused by some error on the powerlines. Of course some PSU's are more resistant to such things than others, but i have a hard time calling the "non resistent" ones faulty, or bad designed. It shouldn't be necessarry to fix a problem that shouldn't be there.
    In his review of that crappy Pass part, supra, Stereophile's Erick Lichte commented that he's had many integrated amps come through his home. He also made idiotic and snotty comments about people who think amps all sound the same being brainwashed, etc.

    Please point out one point in that review where Mr. Lichte commented that amp noise is a common problem with different amps in his home. Or another review of an amp where he discusses its hum or noise. (I've looked in a few, and saw no such mention.)

    Also, please point out a review of a competent part in which John Atkinson's discovers significant line noise in his bench tests.

    Quote Originally Posted by timc View Post
    When it comes to difference in amplifiers I find your view a bit strange. You claim there is no difference between most, and claiming this to be an objective view.
    It's a reality-based view, yes. If you wish to substantively disagree with that, please point me to a single controlled subjective same/different listening test, in which the listeners were able to reliably distinguish two competently designed, non-broken amplifiers. I will be happy to be proven wrong. But that is the only proof that a thinking person can accept for the claim that competently designed and non-broken amps sound different from one another.

    Most amps, from "mid-fi" AVR's to the Bryston/McIntosh/Levinson/Anthem Statement/Burmeister level "high end" stuff, are competently designed.

    There are a few amps on the extreme low and high ends that are incompetently designed to begin with, or constructed with insufficient attention to quality control. Nobody is claiming that those lower-fidelity devices won't sound different from a high-fidelity device.

    Quote Originally Posted by timc View Post
    On the other hand there is quite a large difference to be seen when the amplifiers are asked to drive a dynamic load.
    No, there really isn't. Look closely at Stereophile's simulated (NHT?) loudspeaker load curves. The variance in them is captured entirely by one variable: output impedance.

    Yes, to be sonically transparent an amp needs to have extremely low output impedance. Competently designed ones have that. Incompetently designed ones (see the Theta multichannel, supra) do not have very low output impedance, and those can have response errors severe enough to be audible with some speakers, depending on the speaker's impedance curve.

    Yes, it's true, some may prefer the sound of an amp that is poorly designed. One can, however, get the same response errors by putting a resistor on the output of a competently designed amp. That's what Sideshow Bob did on his "soul of a 9-watt triode" or whatever Sunfire models.

    Quote Originally Posted by BMWCCA View Post
    DS-21 Always was an odd duck: Attachment 55070
    My Goddess was the first car I owned, and she will be the last car I own. There have been, and will be, lesser cars used as daily drivers. But they are disposable, not enduring like the DS.

    Thanks for posting a pic of the more attractive (IMO) quad-lamp refresh, instead of the earlier shark nose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
    How can you validate your claims using only the Tannoys in your own listening space?
    Did you read my posts?

    I'm basing them on data from all over the world dating back to David L. Clark's 1983 JAES article. That dataset includes a well-known case where a Miami-area audio dealer was unable to distinguish his own Pass amps from a cheap Yamaha integrated in his own system, in his own home, using music he personally selected as being revealing of his Pass amps so-called sonic character.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
    Some history of prior audio equipment and usage would be useful.
    Not really, because every time the so-called golden ears actually man up and compare gear without relying on their eyes and level differences, they learn what flights of fancy they had believed in. Or, they become science-deniers, and make mental contortions to find loopholes that excuse their inability to hear things that seem oh so obvious when one knows what fancy part is in the signal chain.

    As for my own hearing acuity, suffice it to say that I can be driven out of a room by a CRT television's transformer. Have YOU had YOUR hearing checked by a medical professional? You must have, I presume, if you felt comfortable making such a smarmy insult.

    For example one member here who will remain nameless knowling bashed his ears for years in the college dorm with JBL 100s and thought they were the holy grail until he heard the JBL 4345.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
    I have not been following this thread until quite recently but in review of the in initial post I feel the definition used "fidelity" is presumptious and in the context here is inappropriate and leads to only willful abuse of the term.
    No, it's actually quite simple, and accurate. Fidelity means that the output equals the input, excepting deliberate manipulation (increased gain, an EQ curve, etc.).

    Noise, hum, etc., make a device fundamentally low-fidelity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
    IMoreover what is the real intent of Audyssey MultEQ XT32 or similar inbuilt systems in home entertainment multi channel amplifiers?
    To smooth out the frequency response at the listening room and fit it to their target curve (there's also propaganda about time, but it boils down to frequency response), based on in situ measurements. Audyssey also has a couple other goals.

    One thing I dislike about Audyssey (that is not present in other and IMO better room correction systems, such as Anthem's ARC) is a "crappy speaker compensation notch" at ~2kHz. The reason they do that is because speakers with a 6-7" woofer and a flush-mounted tweeter will have an excess of energy in that region, due to the uncontrolled directivity of the tweeter. But if one starts with competently designed speakers, such compensation is obviously not needed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
    In what instances is there real benefit from a premium two channel amplification system?
    Considering that there's zero benefit to "premium two channel amplification," the advantage is that one has a tool that may be useful. It may not be, of course, and if misused (poor attention to detail during the measurements phase, etc.) can result in far more problems than solutions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
    If you look at the application of both the above mentioned equipment categories and take the time to understand the design concepts of each a direct comparison in the manner used above is absurd.
    How do you reach that silly conclusion? There's no fundamental difference between the purpose of multichannel and 2-channel gear. Read Prof. Rubinson's "Music in the Round" column sometime! Audio gear is about reproducing music.

    Quote Originally Posted by richluvsound View Post
    The beauty of digital processing is that it makes any room and any gear sound passable to any ear .
    That's not been my experience.

    Some of the worst-sounding systems are those where someone takes crappy speakers, places them haphazardly, and then expects the magic box to clean things up.

    What good digital processing can do is compensate for a few issues, such as tubby bass from having mains too close to the wall behind them.

    It cannot compensate for speakers with poor power response (EQ can only work at one point with such speakers, after all).

    It cannot compensate for negligent placement.

    It cannot, except in a very small area, compensate for other points of negligence in system design, such as failing to use multiple subwoofers to smooth out upper bass response.


    Quote Originally Posted by richluvsound View Post
    Your speech reads more like an affirmation performed daily in front of a mirror to reverse some deep insecurity .... not saying thats the case ,it just reads that way . Like the kid that shows up first day of term not wearing the right trainers
    Projection, much?

    It is amusing the lengths religious zealots will go to assassinate the character of people who actually understand things on a deeper, level.

    As for shoes, though, for casual wear I generally favor adult shoes - e.g. JM Weston 180s, RM Williams wholecut chelsea boots, and Alden chukkas in unlined suede in the summer or no. 8 shell cordovan in the winter, that sort of thing - to trainers. And pretty much always have. Though I have since I was a teenager always kept a pair of "Austrian flag" (rot-weiss-rot logo stripe) Bally trainers in my rotation.

    Quote Originally Posted by richluvsound View Post
    BTW , what was your point ? Tannoy has its own forum !

    I only made an aside about Tannoy. My point was and is about a reality-based understanding of the role of audio electronics. Blind faith has many important roles to play in life, in answering the Big Questions. But the "sound" of an amp or DAC or whatever is not something a person capable of rational thought will take on faith. Rather, it is a falsifiable claim. The way a civilized person tests a falsifiable claim it is to control every other variable, and test for variance along the one isolated variable of interest. (In audio terms, that means matching levels and listening blind.) The data from such tests thus far is entirely on the side of audio kit that's not loudspeakers, analog sources, or signal processors only mattering when they're crappy to begin with (see, e.g. that low-fi Pass integrated), or when user error/incompetence creates a problem (improper gain structure, etc.).

    One JBL thing I'm looking forward to hearing, as soon as the cabinets I commissioned for them are finished, are a pair of SUB 1500's I recently scored. I've thus far tested them for mechanical integrity and to measure their small-signal parameters, but haven't listened to them beyond that They're getting cabinets with a removable back panel. That way, I can not only compare them to my reference Aurasound-based subs, but also compare them as both monopoles and quasi-cardoids. I've played with commercial (Gradient, Audio Artistry) and DIY (Linkwitz-inspired) bass dipoles before, but not cardoids. There's some interesting theory behind them, but nobody to my knowledge has compared cardoids to a monopole multisub system. Only to that horrible-sounding hack of two "full range" speakers, or even worse two speakers highpassed in the modal region to a single subwoofer, which is itself low-passed. Pretty much anything can improve upon those two horrid options.

  2. #182
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,942
    To be clear, I am not expressing 'my opinions' as to "sonics" of audio electronics, though other parts of my posts are opinion. But on that subject, I am merely the stating observed reality, as demonstrated by every single controlled listening test, that only incompetently designed or broken audio electronics sound different. You are going more on blind faith and pecuniary interest in the mythology of "high end" audio.
    I dont accept your first paragraph and nor would anyone who read that statement with real world experience and qualifications

    The simple reality is almost all low hifi and hi end brand designers will atest to their brands having a house sound.

    This even applies to pro mixing consoles such the highly esteemed Neve brand.

    World renowned engineers agree there is a Neve sound signature and this equipment is correctly designed.

    Often tube based amplification preamps are used in recordings for their tonal characteristics..

    Some professionally designed studio recording electronics devices are designed specifically to move from a solid state sound characteristic to a warm valve tonal character on the fly.

    Care to add something further regards level matching and blind testing?

    You appear to adopt a singular minority view point towards the entire forum community which is only matched by your apparent narrow interlectual and real world experience.

    Lest you cease insulting the audience with how to think pro quo and take some well meaning advise from those who are in the know.

    As you can see from this post a lot can be said in view few words on that basis best you keep you post short and to the point and resist the habbit of deliberating eternally on what is a dead issue.

    The vexing question is why are you here?

  3. #183
    Senior Member 1audiohack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas Nevada
    Posts
    3,092
    Quote Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post
    It is amusing the lengths religious zealots will go to assassinate the character of people who actually understand things on a deeper, level.
    Have you read what you have written?!?

    Welcome to town Parson, as for me, I'd just as soon not be saved. Thanks just the same.

    Gad I'm going to laugh all day!
    If we knew what the hell we were doing, we wouldn't call it research would we.

  4. #184
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,863
    Quote Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

    It's a reality-based view, yes. If you wish to substantively disagree with that, please point me to a single controlled subjective same/different listening test, in which the listeners were able to reliably distinguish two competently designed, non-broken amplifiers. I will be happy to be proven wrong. But that is the only proof that a thinking person can accept for the claim that competently designed and non-broken amps sound different from one another.
    OK, let's see what Stereophile has to say about some amps from your "approved" list below, that we can rest assured are "competently designed" since you say so.


    If I owned a pair of Bryston 7B SSTs, I'd make sure to find out whether they contained the old or new transformers. The improvement produced by the new transformers was significant. Nonetheless, even the improved version, while sounding pleasant enough - and particularly rich in the midrange - couldn't get my Wilson Audio MAXX 3 speakers to live up to their sonic potential, despite having enough power to do so. It's not a matter of cost - the similarly priced Parasounds did so with ease...

    ...But while the better of the two pairs of Bryston monoblocks always sounded pleasant, they rarely sounded exciting. The original pair elicited this conclusion: "I listened happily to the pair of them for a month, concentrating on the many things they did well. But their presentation was sort of like tofu: nourishing, but in need of spicing up to be truly tasty...

    ...While the second pair of 7B SSTs was clearly an improvement over the first, that conclusion stands. In my experience, it is hard to beat a lot of good, clean power, and the Bryston 7B SST offers that, plus ultra-low distortion, in a superbly built, reliable package at a very reasonable price. But before buying a pair, listen to the competition.
    Sounds like some thinking persons listened to some non-broken (Bryston even upgraded some transformers after the initial review) amps and decided they sounded different. And there were amps other than the Parasounds in the mix, some Musical Fidelity Titans, that also sounded different - and better to the reviewers - than the amps on your "competently designed high-end" list. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you won't be happy about being proven wrong by their conclusions.



    Most amps, from "mid-fi" AVR's to the Bryston/McIntosh/Levinson/Anthem Statement/Burmeister level "high end" stuff, are competently designed...

    ...Did you read my posts?
    Yeah. And you screwed the coding up so bad that it's a real PITA to quote.

    Quote Originally Posted by Erick Lichte

    The main lesson has been that anyone who thinks all amps sound the same is inexperienced, unobservant, philosophically brainwashed, deaf, or crazy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad Hamilton
    Learn it. Know it. Live it.

  5. #185
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,942
    HTML Code:
    Yes, you are biased against the reality that has time and time again been demonstrated in controlled listening tests (which is, frankly, that electronics don't matter) because to do so would be simple business suicide for an audio parts vender. Self-interest has over the years led a lot of otherwise smart and well-meaning people into black holes of reality-denial. I'm sure there are still some execs in North Carolina who are otherwise sharp as can be but who honestly believe that any links "scientists" have found between cigarette smoking and lung cancer are speculative and ill-founded...
    I really dont understand your point here?

  6. #186
    Dang. Amateur speakerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    3,734

    Shifting Sands

    It seems to me this attempt to dismiss perception of differences in audio electronics rests entirely on everyone's accepting the idea that there is among electron circuit engineers a universally acknowledged notion of "competently designed", as if there were no art and subtlety in that endeavor, that everything about it is known and formulated, that there is no frontier and nothing over the horizon yet to be noticed and understood. I think that is obviously nonsense.

  7. #187
    Senior Member richluvsound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    london england
    Posts
    2,060
    Please ... close this thread ! FFS

  8. #188
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    sheboygan, wi
    Posts
    116

    don't close it

    ahh come on....don't close this thread. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion...

    you know it's horrific, but you just can't stop watching it.

  9. #189
    Senior Member Ducatista47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Peoria, Illinois
    Posts
    1,886
    Banning the troll would make more sense than locking the thread. Otherwise he will waste more of our bandwidth elsewhere. Face it, like a musician's musician, only in a completely negative way of course, he is a Troll's Troll. I know sock puppets are not allowed here, and lord knows he would be easy to spot.
    Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
    Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears


  10. #190
    Senior Member BMWCCA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    7,743
    Quote Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post
    My Goddess was the first car I owned, and she will be the last car I own. There have been, and will be, lesser cars used as daily drivers. But they are disposable, not enduring like the DS.

    Thanks for posting a pic of the more attractive (IMO) quad-lamp refresh, instead of the earlier shark nose.
    I rest my case!
    ". . . as you have no doubt noticed, no one told the 4345 that it can't work correctly so it does anyway."—Greg Timbers

  11. #191
    Senior Member richluvsound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    london england
    Posts
    2,060

    Sanity injection !

    Quote Originally Posted by Ducatista47 View Post
    Banning the troll would make more sense than locking the thread. Otherwise he will waste more of our bandwidth elsewhere. Face it, like a musician's musician, only in a completely negative way of course, he is a Troll's Troll. I know sock puppets are not allowed here, and lord knows he would be easy to spot.

    Too right ! Sorry ,I wasn't thinking rationally !

  12. #192
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,719
    Quote Originally Posted by Ducatista47 View Post
    Banning the troll would make more sense than locking the thread. Otherwise he will waste more of our bandwidth elsewhere. Face it, like a musician's musician, only in a completely negative way of course, he is a Troll's Troll. I know sock puppets are not allowed here, and lord knows he would be easy to spot.
    Now you know, name calling isn't allowed.

    Personally, when I realize someone would rather provoke than converse, I simply ignore their posts.


    Widget

  13. #193
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,942
    I propose to conduct a simple controlled listening test tomorrow to compare the Pioneer LX 83 with and without room Eq with the Passlabs X250.5
    .

  14. #194
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    49
    Personally i prefer the "simpler is more pleasing approach" to audio. I think in rare occasions (dependent on environment) a $2,000 amp w/room correction "could" sound as good as say a Mac, Audio Research or Pass Labs etc but that is few and far between. There's something about all this processing that just doesn't sound right to me, almost artificial. Vintage amps right up too current amps based on simple old technology sound so much better to me. While measurements are nice and good for a getting a general idea of the gear, i rather go by me ear. Some of the best concerts halls were built w/no computers or room correction equipment. People used their ears with great success. I'm a subjective guy when i comes to audio and would take a Pass Labs, Mac amp over any "digital amp" any day of the week. Thats my idea of quality and one of the big reasons i got tired of multi channel AVR setups.

  15. #195
    Senior Member richluvsound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    london england
    Posts
    2,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Widget View Post
    Now you know, name calling isn't allowed.

    Personally, when I realize someone would rather provoke than converse, I simply ignore their posts.


    Widget

    Even better idea ..... leave him alone , he'll get board and end up 'PLAYING WITH HIMSELF'
    They do say 'it' makes one deaf !

    Rich

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Find of the week!
    By shaansloan in forum Lansing Product General Information
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-30-2008, 12:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •