Archive through December 15, 2004
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 24 Registered: Sep-04 | Anyone care to define the so-called 'British' Sound and how it would compare to a 'Japanese' or 'American' sound'? V |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | British - Midrange accuracy above all else American - Known for boom and sizzle, does not take into account the East Coast sound as much as the West Coast sound Japanese - Specs above all else |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 27 Registered: Sep-04 | Just as I suspected. D'you think it's taking a turn for the worse when you find British makes being manufactured in China, Taiwan, etc? Or perhaps they send the core electronic design out there along with the contracts, so nothing really changes? Huh, well, I dunno. Cheers, V |
|
Silver Member Username: HawkHighlands Ranch, CO USA Post Number: 619 Registered: Dec-03 | Varney: I think I would disagree somewhat with J. Vigne's charecterization. The British do love a warm sounding system, and have designed their products with that in mind, it is true. They have emphasized the concept of "air" as enhancing the musical experience and making it more realistic and involving. To the Japanese companies, however, this is often viewed as an introduction of distortion (a no-no). J. Vigne is also correct that the Japanese makers look to specs above all else, and this leads to a somewhat colder, more clinical sound that is usually devoid of a sense of space. Unfailingly accurate, it lacks the sense of "air" that most audiophiles deem necessary to make the music involving. However, they will find a sense of space if you are willing to pay enough (the yamaha ZR-9 receiver, for example). However, I would really disagree with his charecterization of American equipment makers. I would argue the American makers definitely look for a more full-bodied sound, which does not equate to "boom and sizzle" except in the lower end equipment. As almost all surviving American audio companies tend to be higher end (Parasound, B & K, Adcom, Krell, etc.), the only mass market US company is Harman International (H/K, JBL, and Infinity brands), and only JBL tends to be boom and sizzle, IMO. Instead, companies like B & K have tended to define the US sound as being much richer sounding than the other two, attempting to balance a sense of space and "air" while retaining tighter specs than the British makers, and also providing am even richer sound than the British makers promote. As for whether moving production off-shore affects the sound, I think it really depends who designs the equipment. Certainly, output transistors do not reflect where they are made or installed, but circuit topology and the specification of certain parts is going to make a difference in the sound. So, a Cambridge Audio (designed in Britain but made in China to CA's specs) has been pretty consistent in its sound for quite some time and I think it still sounds very British. However, Rotel, thought of by many people as a British mark, was bought out by Chinese interests some time ago and the sound has tended to morph into a leaner sound for sometime. It does not sound typically British anymore. KEF was recently bought out by Chinese interests, so it will be interesting to see if it retains its current sonic charecter. So, the answer to your question is that it all depends. BTW, both my Rotel stereo receiver and NAD A/V receiver were made in China, but they have a very different sonic charecter, IMO. The NAD sounds much warmer, and bass is fuller and richer sounding (more American, I think) than the leaner sounding Rotel. Nevertheless, both produce a great soundstage, with a lot of depth and good "air", so I can enjoy the music from both very much. On the other hand, my slightly older Denon AVR was also made in China and it sounded like a typical Japanese made receiver, with absolutely no depth to the soundstage and no "air." I found it very fatiguing to listen to for any period of time. Thus, I am not concerned about where the electronics are assembled. It seems to me that the designers are the ones that matter. I can certainly attest to the fact that the build quality of all three of my receivers is first rate, so "Made in China" is not a red flag for me. |
|
nout Unregistered guest | British sound WAS mellow, warm and forgiving. Nowadays it depends on brand, price etc. Arcam for instance still has that "British sound", Musical Fidelity majors on clean and accurate sound. Japanese makers look to specs above all else? Nonsens, Accuphase, Marantz, Denon and Rotel are companies with an excellent range of products. Yes you'll find tone controls on the most expensive Accuphase, but it doesn't compromise the sound in any way. Japenese products sound cold? It depends on brand, the same with British products. The Denon products are known (perhaps were known?) for their warm sound, often critisized by British magazines for its overly smooth sound - it seems that the British have a different idea about the characteristics of their own (British) sound, which is about clarity and detail, not about wamth and sweetness. But as said it mainly depends on brand and more important about system matching. |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 29 Registered: Sep-04 | Hawk - thankyou for the above. A very enjoyable read. Nout - But arn't Marantz the upper end of the Philips Brand, as Technics are to Panansonic? Therefore Marantz, although manufactured all over the world, might still retain it's original North European design and flavour? Thanks for your input, guys. V |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | I tried to give an overall impression of the "sounds" in a brief phrase. Brevity is not my strong suit at times. I would agree that every one of the stereotypes I gave can have many exceptions. That is the fault with stereotypes, they don't hold up to scrutiny very well. When I described the British sound I was thinking of the classic equipment that has come to represent, to me, what the English prefer in their audio. The Spendor BC1 and the Quad gear are the best examples I can give. (The LS3/5a is still held in high regard in England.) Those companies are still committed to that sound. But as the British companies wanted to expand their market to appeal to the Americans, companies like B&W and KEF went from traditional "British Sound" that emphasized the mids and a laid back sound that suited small apartments to the concept I gave of "American Sound". They increased output in the lows and highs and made a punchier sound. Listen to a KEF 105 and then a later KEF 107. For B&W it has made them quite successful in this market. It is not a traditional British sound, I don't feel. The Japanese sound also has its variations. Yamaha was an untraditional sound when it first hit the American market. Warm and detailed, slightly laid back it was carried by McIntosh and original Advent dealers across the country. It also morphed into a thinner, brighter sound that, if you were Rumpelstilskin, you would not recognize as traditional Yamaha sound. It has become an Americanized product because we have the money to expand markets. Thus it has a boom and sizzle quality with a distortion of 0.000001%. So many Japanese companies that entered the American market with a story to tell about why they knew what music sounded like have a similar history once they had to compete for $$$. The American sound of boom and sizzle is a stereotype. But it is the prevailing stereotype of what Americans want to hear. It came about because of the way Americans buy and sell audio. Just as Mitsubishi increased the brightness of their TV's to make them jump out at the customer in a store with TV's lining three walls, Japanese mass market audio has adopted the same "make it jump" approach to selling in America. With bells and whistles attached. Traditional American sound still is divided between the warmth of a McIntosh MC275 or Joe Marantz Model 8b and the brighter sound of a Crown 300 and JBL L100. As there are no American companies other than HK competing in the mass market the sound of American electronics can be described by the sound of the High End companies. But there is still a bipolar (not talking transistors here) sound that Americans like. Those that think detail is the mark of a good component will be buying one product while those who wish not to have a headache after 30 minutes of listening will pick another. But since most of the world aims their marketing at American dollars can't we say that "American Sound" is the sound of $$$ that every company, worldwide is trying to find. Does the sound suffer when the product is designed in one country and built in another? Well, you'd have to ask NAD. They were the first country that I am aware of (other than old designs of California Marantz that was built by Japanese Superscope) where the product was built specifically with third world country manufacture in mind. This is another example of which piece of equipment you are discussing. The NAD's and Arcams are consistent with a "British Sound" (?) that has been similar piece to piece over the years. As Hawk stated the sound of Rotel has changed and probably not for the better. But many of the companies that are in the so called "value" market are shopping for the best deal on manufacturing. So there are NAD's that are built wherever the best deal can be cut. I think design is more important than where a product is made. If the right parts are used and the design is good, the product will turn out well. What has always been more of an issue is the reliability of those products built in the decending order of economic development. Those Japanese Marantz recievers of the 70's were the units that nearly cost Marantz it's reputation. When Marantz was purchased by B&O they were still made in third world plants and the reliability came up many notches and Marantz is now held in good regard. What should be more troubling is the idea that so many products Americans, and any market that has enjoyed good economic fortunes, are buying are being made in third world countries. |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 831 Registered: Aug-04 | Excellent views on the subject, but please, can someone correct me if I'm wrong: I thought Harman International was a French company who had bought out JBL and some other audio brands and that their head office is still situated in France. And might that also be the reason that some of the JBL speakers for example, are not sold in America, but only in Europe and Australia, because they have been made to appeal the "sound" preferences of those countries and might not appeal to those in North America? |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Harman is an international company that has divisions in several parts of the world and they do tailor their products to different markets. Harman Kardon, the original company, started in the U.S.A.in the fifties. Go back to "old dogs" and you will find the link I had to the HK ad from the 50's. They were a golden age company that has to their credit many firsts in consumer audio including the first reciever. Citation became their high end amp line in the late 50's with a pre amp and power amp, both tube of course, that are still well regarded today. Citation was for years regarded as the poor man's McIntosh. |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 833 Registered: Aug-04 | Thanks. I was going through their website and found that the ownership of the company seemed obscure. I know my XTi-60's were designed by Floyd E Toole, formerly a speaker researcher with Canada's National Research Council, in the US, have French made drivers and cabinets fabricated in their Denmark factory. I have often wondered why this speaker range was not listed on the US JBL website but was on the international site, and the topic of this thread in a sense, I believe, must be the reason. |
|
nout Unregistered guest | Nout - But arn't Marantz the upper end of the Philips Brand, as Technics are to Panansonic? Therefore Marantz, although manufactured all over the world, might still retain it's original North European design and flavour? Well Varney, to be honest I lost track. From origin an American company, to a Japanese, then Philips got a big share of it and finally they merged with Denon. (for instance: Denon DVD1400 and Marantz DV6400 are identical, apart from the looks) But which section of Denon, the European or Asian? Frankly I don't care. And I don't really know if Europeans have their own different taste when it comes to sound. I'm from the Netherlands and I don't like a lean and bright sound either. In every country each individual has different tastes and when reading audio forums (American, British, German and Dutch) I can't find a so called "sound identity" which applies to a certain country. But maybe there is, who knows. Certainly audio companies seem to believe it, regarding the special tuned versions of their products. |
|
Silver Member Username: HawkHighlands Ranch, CO USA Post Number: 623 Registered: Dec-03 | Rantz and nout: Harman International Industries is a world-wide concern, but is a regerstered U.S. company, listed on the NYSE, as I recall (symbol is HAR). It has been one of the favorites of Investors Business Daily for some time as it has been listed in the IBD 100 for the last six months or so. As the stock sells at a P/E multiple of 28.75 times earnings, it seems to be a well run company with excellent future prospects in the view of Wall Street. Interesting history as the Harman/Kardon brand was sold some 25 years ago to a Japanese company (I have forgotten the name) who wanted to use it as an entry into the US market. They used it for about 15 years without making any real progress in the market and finally had to sell the name when the bottom dropped out of the Japanese stock market. About 12 years or so, a group of investors and audio types re-acquired the name under the auspices of a new company named Harman International Industries, and began collecting venerable US audio brands, including JBL and Infinity. It also recently (within the past year) purchased high end brands Revel and Mark Levinson and also owns Soundcraft, makers of higher quality in wall speakers. I have not audiotioned H/K equipment outside of the USA, but when I have auditioned it here it certainly supports my belief that the US sound is a much richer, fuller sound than comparable Japanese designed equipment. As for Marantz, I have long ago lost the link to the press release announcing it, but Phillips contributed the Marantz brand to a new joint venture run by Denon about December of 2002. Phillips now owns about 17.5% of the JV, with Denon owning about 76% and the balance owned by venture capital interests. The combined Denon/Marantz about 9 months later bought McIntosh from Clarion. According to Denon reps, the Marantz brand is to become the entry level budget brand of the combined company, Denon is the flagship brand, and McIntosh is obviously the high end standard. While Denon is mucking around with the Marantz equipment to make it a budget Denon brand (not a good thing, IMO), they have so far had the good sense to leave McIntosh alone, so McIntosh retains that incredible rich, gorgeous sound for which it is so famous. I hope this helps. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | I hope McIntosh remains McIntosh. Everyone was concerned when Clarion bought it in the early 90's but they had the good sense to leave Mac alone and, if anything, Mac regained its reputation as a top line company. It is the last remaining American icon to not be sold out to being just a name. |
|
Silver Member Username: HawkHighlands Ranch, CO USA Post Number: 629 Registered: Dec-03 | I was reading a review of an Arcam CD player from a [periodical from Indonesia and came across this info that I thought was very pertinent to this discussion. I hope this is of interest to everyone in light of the topic of this string: "British sound? Well, believe it or not, there's such a thing. From very early on, audio enthusiasts have remarked that hi-fi has a "national" sound and they can detect whether a unit is from a Japanese or European or American audio house -- or a British one. This might have been obvious two decades ago, but of late hi-fi has gone international and the different sound characters have become somewhat blurred. The emphasis today is on accuracy and musicality and in striving towards this goal, audio houses are beginning to sound more and more alike. Still, thanks to the numerous CD players that have passed through my hands, I can say that British sound is still distinct from Scandinavian sound. The difference is not so much in accuracy or musicality, but in emphasis -- British sound tends to be a bit more restrained (some would call it genteel)." "In this regard, the Arcam CD82 is typically British. In fact, it is typically Arcam, as distinct from, say, Meridian. Certainly it is not as brash sounding as a Danish CD player of the same price range can sometimes be, and by the same token not as clinical. Neither is it as in-your-face with certain recordings. It is more relaxed, offering a sound that makes one sit back and listen instead of sitting up and at attention. And yet nothing is diminished, there is no sonic imbalance and there is none of the rounded effect some German players produce." "This British brand of musicality goes down well with lovers of classical music (and I am one) but may be a bit too tame for rock fans or, for that matter, hi-fi nuts who look for the minutest detail in a recording. For them, the aggressive and analytical powers of something like the Copland CDA 822 should fit the bill. But with the Arcam I found I could listen to Nigel Kennedy without cringing and could tolerate the mewling quality of Sarah Brightman's voice and in fact, enjoy them." |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 103 Registered: Sep-04 | Interesting observations... As a UK dealer, I'd say the most important aspect in UK sound is timing. Makes such as Naim Audio, Linn and Arcam really major on timing cues - the sense that a band is playing off each other, reacting to each other's contribution. This lends a sense of true performance. Therefore, I would disagree with the assertion above that UK kit is better with classical and could be classed as genteel. There is nothing genteel about a Naim system playing the Who, Led Zep or Pink Floyd. That said, there are other makes in the UK where air, soundstage or the technical aspects of the recording are prevalent, such as Myryad, Musical Fidelity, Meridian and, to a certain extent, Cyrus. These makes really major on soundstage reproduction, resolution and the like - what I call the technical aspects of the recording. It seems to me that these makes are chasing the Japanese way, bringing out the detail and making the sound as technically perfect as they can for the money. To me the Americans such as Krell and Mark Levinson are all about scale, with broad vistas, huge soundstage and very wide frequency response. However, Audio Research and conrad johnson follow a somewhat different tack, as you'd expect given that they're aiming at similar markets. AR and c-j seem to be chasing more of the timing aspects while trying to maintain some of the American bombast. That's my view anyway.... Regards, Frank. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 104 Registered: Sep-04 | By the way, the Chinese angle: most Britich kit built in China is designed here in the UK. Since the philosophy of design is British, the results are going to be British sounding kit. It's interesting to nme that the Arcam AVR100 was based on the same mule as one of the NAD recieivers. There were differences though - the Arcam had a toroidal transformer to the NAD's frame transformer. The Arcam had different components in various parts of the amp too. The result was a quite different sound to the NAD. The new AVR250 and AVR300 are completely designed in the UK and built in China. They sound like Arcams, as does the CD192 which is the only other Arcam product built in China. Regards, Frank. |
|
Silver Member Username: Black_mathPost Number: 176 Registered: Dec-03 | Is that British sound like "That thin wild mercury sound"? |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 30 Registered: Sep-04 | This thread is working well. You see, by talking about national flavours of sound, we also get some interesting comparisons between brands concerning their sound characteristics. Better than a hi-fi mag subscription, this  V |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2259 Registered: Dec-03 | Really interesting thread. There were some additional viewpoints on Speakers made in china. Yes, better than any hifi magazine. It is very difficult to generalise about national or regional preferences in sound reproduction. Denmark, Netherlands and Canada have their share of sound quality perfectionists, and there are many others. I really doubt if anyone could tell from sound characteristics alone where an audio component had been designed or manufactured. Nevertheless some components are targeted first to the manufacturer's domestic markets, and that could be a factor. |
|
Unregistered guest | When I bought my stereo-only system several years ago, I listened to everything that was in town (Austin, TX). I did not bother with the Japanese mass market stuff and nobody carried the high-end which I could not afford anyway ($5K system). British sound of Linn, Naim, Arcam seem to emphasize the music and not perceptions. It may just be me, but I do "see" (perceive?) a holographic soundstage. The British equipment is about rhythm and pace and making the emotional statement of the music. The American sound places emphasis on perceptions. Big amps can make difference but in the end, my ears bled. The Thule setup I heard was flat. Just nothing there. I ended up with Linn (over Naim) because I liked the upgrade path and implementation of the "Aktiv" system. However, I have never upgraded as planned and I always wonder if I should have gone Naim even though I really like what I have. I went back to the Linn shop not to long ago and listened to high-end Japanese/US system (Accuphase & Martin-Logan) and I preferred the 1/3 price Linn system in the other room. I know what I like and to me, that is what the hobby is about. |
|
Unregistered guest | Sorry, but change the second paragraph of my first post to the following. "British sound of Linn, Naim, Arcam seem to emphasize the music and not perceptions. It may just be me, but I do not "see" (perceive?) a holographic soundstage with some width, depth, or height. Must be lack of imagination on my part. The British equipment is about rhythm and pace and blending of instruments into music and making the emotional statement of the music. " |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 109 Registered: Sep-04 | cbenten Naim changed their whole line up about 2 years ago. Have you heard the new Naim sound? It's got all the old hallmarks of Pace Rhythm and Timing but it now adds some of that soundstaging, transparency and resolution so beloved of most American systems. It's very good indeed. Oh - and Naim have always had Active options - they're just pretty expensive! Personally, I think Linn have lost their way, the only really musical piece of kit they make being the LP12 and Kolector preamp. Regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2275 Registered: Dec-03 | Just in support of the idea of national preferences in sound qualities, my long-term mostly classical collection of recordings are fairly clearly separated. DG and Telefunken (now part of Teldec) always seemed to be presented at about twice the level of, say, Decca or EMI, and, even with the volume turned down a notch, the sound always seem strident, to me. That went on being true in the transition from LP to CD, so it was not a reflection of the medium, obviously something to do with perceived tastes. DG has always had The English Concert, a laid-back and very proficient Early Music group, whose actual performances are quite unlike what comes off the discs. I think "national" characters were less obvious in the smaller, independent labels; difficult to tell which Harmonia Mundi you were listening to, for example. And, in the end, human ears are all much the same, and absence of colouration etc are goals which one might expect would produce convergence at the quality end of the recording and audio industries, I think. Naim is back on my "one day" wish list, Frank - thanks. Mind, their "entry level" DVD5 player starts at £2350... |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | I know this is didactic but if there is a new sound for Naim; does that mean their old sound isn't correct anymore? That is something I have always enjoyed about so few companies; that over the course of decades their sense of what music should sound like through their equipment has always been the same. Through the improvements over the years there was never a "new" sound to these few companies products. "New" sound reminds me of Yamaha. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | John - There is definitely a "sound" to Russian recordings. Particularly when you can hear the KGB in the hall ready to shoot (or make disappear) anyone who plays something other that socialist realism. |
|
nout Unregistered guest | I have some Melodya records and the sound is somewhat unpolished and raw, but at the same time a bit dark and mystik. It suits Mussorgskys "pictures at an expedition" very much. Never heard a better recording of this work |
|
nout Unregistered guest | Oh my goodness: pictures at an expedition??? hahaha I mean exhibition of course!! and the label isn't Melodya but Melodiya Shame on me. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | best say good bye to the family tonight, nout. |
|
nout Unregistered guest | Yes and hang myself on the largest tree. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Walt_hTustin, CA USA Post Number: 27 Registered: Jun-04 | don't do anything drastic nout! |
|
nout Unregistered guest | Maybe a confession to a priest will do ;) |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2278 Registered: Dec-03 | The two Melodiya Shostakovich String Qt. LP cycles, I think by the Beethoven Quartet, were rated the best recordings ever by BBC "CD review" a while back, but they are no longer in production. I wonder why that is. Perhaps "nout" was refering to the sorts of ambient sounds on recordings on CBS, Capitol, RCA, etc., especially made in the South. J. Vigne will know better than most here about the quality of the sound recordings being made in Dallas in Nov 1963. Re the remark "October 15, 2004 - 01:19 pm", well, it's fairly easy to make such remarks. Just choose a target country. I am nevertheless optimistic that music can unite people, and even recorded music can help. There have been some American composers, like Leonard Bernstein, who seemed to take that view, too, but, largely, there has been quite a trade gap in humanitarian vision, as far as I can see. Also, you've got to give the KGB credit for understanding the threat posed. And wasn't Bernstein on some sort of CIA list at some time? I think I'd better leave that, there. Except to say it would be great of people would register. I could almost imagine the two identities "Unregistered guest" being those of a single agent provocateur. And I am rising to the bait. Sorry, Varney! Going back to the issue, I have discussed here before with Hawk (good to see you!) and J. Vigne whether there are speakers, amps, etc., that are more suited to one or other type of music. My opinion is that the requirements for accurate reproduction of real sounds are much the same whatever is on the recording. The human voice is probably the most telling of all sounds; we are tuned into all its subtleties and nuances. It probably helps a little if you understand the language being spoken or sung. That's about it, really. Let us ask whether audio gear is any good at reproducing sound and specifically music. "Where is it made?" is not relevant, really. If there is a "US sound" it seems to me there is a need there for exaggerated mid-range bass. That is mostly to compensate for small speakers playing the favoured genre, probably. As I suggested in an earlier post, when you get into "real" hifi playing "real" music (meaning, in this context, something with an acoustic, original performance), these sorts of factors disappear, and no single country does a better or worse job than any other, as far as I can see. |
|
Nigel W. Unregistered guest | J. Vigne Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 01:19 pm: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There is definitely a "sound" to Russian recordings. Particularly when you can hear the KGB in the hall ready to shoot (or make disappear) anyone who plays something other that socialist realism." What a stupid, opinionated remark! Are you a music critic or just another a-r-s-e who can't tell the difference between his right and left ear? |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 894 Registered: Aug-04 | Nigel W stated: "What a stupid, opinionated remark! Are you a music critic or just another a-r-s-e who can't tell the difference between his right and left ear?" If you knew the renown J Vigne, you would know that he is definitely the latter. Stupid, certainly not! Opinionated - well that's the beauty of having similar ears but how did you know about his degree: J Vigne A.R.S.E. (Acoustic Research Specialist Extraordinare) He is one of only a few gifted enough to achieve this remarkable feat. He could even tell you what guns they were using and the calibre of the projectiles if they did happen to shoot someone during the recording. So before casting nasty remarks you should at least research your target. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Thank you, Rantz. As far as a target, that's why I keep moving. Always someone ready to take offense at something. As for Mr. Nigel, I would suggest, instead of just insulting someone needlessly, he make a constructive remark. Sir, what did you find stupid and opinionated about that remark? What ticked you off so much about what I said? As far as being a professional music critic, I am not. But it would appear I have as many qualifications and experience at being a music critic as you have at being an a-r-s-e. Please explain in a decent manner your reaction to my post and possibly we can reach an understanding. What say you, Nigel? |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 31 Registered: Sep-04 | I don't think you are meant to be rising to this one, J.Vigne. I suspect something in the 'Left/Right ears' remark that alludes to something else. Regards, V |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2296 Registered: Dec-03 | I agree with My Rantz, am a great admirer of J. Vigne. But I still think that was an insensitive and ill-judged remark he made. This is an international forum. People don't always get the political systems they deserve. When they can vote, and still get it wrong, they are not well placed to make such remarks.... Perhaps that feeling was behind nout's and Nigel's responses, which I can understand, in spirit if not in the words chosen. If you knew Mr Vigne better, you would see the context of his remark, and it is, from that viewpoint, sharp and fair. It is not your fault, guys, that you didn't know that; nor his that he forgot he was not addressing people who knew him better. That's how I see it. I think we would all agree, if we could talk this one through. An internet forum is not condusive to that. In short, this is all a needless misunderstanding. Peace. |
|
nout Unregistered guest | Perhaps that feeling was behind nout's and Nigel's responses Not in any way John, I was just giving my impression of the sound on some Russian recordings I have: bit dark and mystique to my ears. If you're refering to the post where I state: "and hang myself on the largest tree", here's what happened: first I wrote It suits Mussorgskys "pictures at an expedition" very much. Never heard a better recording of this work than I corrected myself Oh my goodness: pictures at an expedition??? hahaha I mean exhibition of course!! and the label isn't Melodya but Melodiya Shame on me. Jan replied in a funny way (at least I think he meant it in a funny way...) best say good bye to the family tonight, nout. and I replied back: Yes and hang myself on the largest tree. So there you have it, why did you think I was insulted? |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 899 Registered: Aug-04 | Hey Guys, Look obviously my remarks defending J Vigne were tongue in cheek but I hate to see people rushing in quickly with nasty name calling before they really look at the context of things. It may be understandable how a few might find J's comment a little insensitive, but they would have to be ex KGB and know there are certain things they have to live with. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2299 Registered: Dec-03 | nout, Many thanks. So it is down to misunderstanding, and I was part of it. My guess about what you meant was incorrect. Apologies. |
|
nout Unregistered guest | I wouldn't worry about it John |
|
Unregistered guest | Frank Abela, No, unfortunately I have not heard recent Naim equipment. I bought my system in 1998 (I think). The Genki was brand new. I think I bought it within a month of its release, preferring it over the CD3. The last system I have heard is the Ikemi, 2250 Amp, Wakonda, and Ninka speakers. Fabulous and better (obviously :-)) than my Genki, Majik, and Keilidhs. If I had to do it over again knowing I wasn't going to upgrade, I probably would have gone with the Naim CD, integrated amp (Nait 3i ?), and maybe Dynaudio Audience 72 speakers. I like the Linn Aktiv setup over the Naim with an amp for the tweeters, midrange, etc., instead of the amp per speaker. At least that is my simplistic way of thinking about it. In the shop setup, the Linn Aktiv had more impact on me than the Naim. Regards, Chris jcbenten@yahoo.com |
|
Bronze Member Username: OjophileToronto, ON Post Number: 90 Registered: Jun-04 | I was just curious... If a blindfold test were conducted on three similar amps of British, American, and Japanese build, would a seasoned audiophile be able to tell the difference and correctly identify each one? (everything else being equal, e.g., speakers, listening environment, playback material, etc.) |
|
nout Unregistered guest | I wouldn't for sure |
|
Bronze Member Username: Walt_hCA Post Number: 28 Registered: Jun-04 | My all-British system [just 2 months old] doesn't sound at all like what I had earlier thought was the "British sound". It isn't the least bit rolled-off, dark, laid-back or any of those descriptives. It's quite neutral. However, I suspect this is because these are recently developed pieces-particularly the Acoustic Energy AE1 MkIII Reference speakers that have only been for sale in the US for about 15 months. I also notice that some American brand speakers have "new" personalities too. Guess no label sticks forever! |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | If an audiphile was familiar with the brands chosen for the test, the answer is yes. If you just sit someone down and say listen, then there are too many variables. Though certain characteristics of several brands are obvious enough that a seasoned listener could make a pretty good guess as to which was which. Doesn't have anything to do with nationality as much as it does the brand sound. If you are asking could someone just say that is British, that is American and so forth then the answer is still yes, in many cases. Nothing else sounds like Quad, McIntosh or Magnepan. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2308 Registered: Dec-03 | I am slightly puzzled by "rolled-off, dark, laid-back" etc., walt, though I have read such things here many times. "quite neutral" is precisely what many UK makers have said they were aiming for, for many years. Even the names try to conjure up that image. I remember a Goodmans "Achromat" speaker, KEF "Reference" series etc. |
|
cbenten Unregistered guest | Ojophile, I would think so if the rest of the system stays the same. Especially if they had heard the amp before. You would be amazed how quickly you can train your ears and become attuned to the slight differences in equipment. I always thought I was tone-deaf as I cannot sing worth a lick, but a little practice and one can start picking up some of the subtle differences. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Walt_hCA Post Number: 31 Registered: Jun-04 | John A - the "rolled-off, dark, laid-back" descriptives I mentioned mean - in my mind at least - the lack of a forward presence of the highest frequency spectrum. This happens sometimes because the mid-range frequencies are over-emphasized. That effect is considered a "pleasant" or "relaxed" sound and revered by many. That is not to say its bad-just a personal preference thing. That's why so many here advise the consumer to listen to a product before you buy - and decide for yourself. The real-world difficulty of that (for most of us i think) is that equipment often will sound different in your own home environment. That was the case in my recent purchases. Fortunately for me, I perceived the difference to be an improvement. I did notice quite a difference between amplification by NAD, Rotel, Arcam, Classe among the ones I listened to.....and even bigger differences in speakers - Monitor Audio, Paradigm, Meadowlark, PSB, Vandersteen, and Theil. Each has a personality - - sounds like another endeavor in life we all seem to run into! |
|
Silver Member Username: Black_mathPost Number: 178 Registered: Dec-03 | I don't notice as much a "sound" difference with similary built amplifiers. I feel that the critical components are source and pre amplification. Those are the components that will alter the sound the most. |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 39 Registered: Sep-04 | Talking of which, Does anyone know what happened to the 'Dual' brand? I've seen some Dual DVD players going rather cheap and have tried to do some research on their products before I buy. However, it's hell trying to do a search for 'Dual' with the words: 'DVD' and 'CD' (for obvious reasons!). All I seem to find are articles on vintage turntables, in the past-tense - as though the brand died or merged sometime ago....? Can anyone shed any light on 'Dual' and if so, perhaps rate this brand on their digital products? Any help would be very welcome. Thanks, V |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 40 Registered: Sep-04 | P.S. Sorry if my question is a little out of context here - I posted the same question on the 'DVD/SAC forum, but no-one seemed interested  Cheers, V |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2315 Registered: Dec-03 | "Dual" was a well-respected manufacturer of tuntables. I think in Germany. J. Vigne will know. I would be wary of seeing that badge on a DVD player. I might be; it might not. Look deeper. Recently I saw ads for cheap, all-in-one, out-of-the-box Home theater systems, with all the usual hype ("total power 450 W" and all that). I am still saddened by the brand name. It was "Tandberg". |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Oh, John, that hurts! |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 41 Registered: Sep-04 | There you go again - see? Always people talking in the past-tense.... Are Dual still going or not? Hmm, so thankyou for the warning. I'll pop in and have another look with that in mind. The badge, as it happens, is graphically exactly the same as the one found on the turntables I used to admire. It is, however now of the type printed onto the facia, as with many cheaper brands. Being an ex-catalogue/bankrupt stock reseller as they are, it's hard to tell with these things. They offer zero warranty on electrical goods, too. So was 'Tandberg' a once well respected manufacturer? Or a play on 'Tandy' and something else? I think one can buy or use a business name if the company stops trading - but this clearly would be misleading and ought to be stopped. Many thanks, V |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2317 Registered: Dec-03 | V, There was something about Dual turntables in the "phono" category, here. Yes, brand loyalty is a valuable commodity, to be bought and sold, like anything else. People, me included, will buy names whose reputation they know and trust. Sometimes these names are now affixed to cr*p. I am not saying that this is true of "Dual". I do not know. "Tandberg" was a Norwegian manufacturer who made, amongst other things, very well regarded, professional-quality reel-to-reel tape recorders (comparable with Revox etc.) and tape cassette recorders. They also kitted out many language laboratories and so on in various places with tape cassette machines, mikes, headphones, and control consoles. Nothing to do with "Tandy". And now (in Swedish, but you will catch the drift) Tandberg HT110T Complete AV system, roughly US$ 200 - 5 x 20 W plus 35 W for the sub (my guess was way out). Tandberg DVD2500T player, roughly US$ 100 Sorry, Jan! But beware of sentimentality. These people have to stay in business. As regards the topic, I remember there was a time when the considerable and deserved reputation of Wharfedale was bought up, and the "stubborn craftsmen" who helped found it, and did not wish to compromise, went and started Castle loudspeakers, instead. But I read from independent reviews that the name "Wharfedale" is now on some of the best budget speakers around. I doubt they are still made in Yorkshire, but who knows. Sometimes there is a concealed nationalism in resistence to change. I am not saying that is true of Castle. They are excellent, too, most informed reviewers agree. As regards J. Vigne's cry of pain, if you are American, imagine a McIntosh budget MP3 player and you probably have the measure of it. |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 42 Registered: Sep-04 | Thanks, John, I'll go have a look at: "There was something about Dual turntables in the "phono" category, here" "But beware of sentimentality. These people have to stay in business." They'll stay in business by being honest with us - as far as I concerned. Great makes don't have to cost the earth, if you buy into their budget range. "Sometimes there is a concealed nationalism in resistence to change. I am not saying that is true of Castle. They are excellent, too, most informed reviewers agree." There's nothing wrong with 'nationalism' in my opinion - as long as you ain't gassing and harrassing.... This is home entertainment we are talking about here. The same might apply to 'Wedgewood' pottery for us or 'Harley Davision', in your case. Regards, V |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2319 Registered: Dec-03 | Varney, I agree. I also see my camouflage works. You know, you can tell someone from the Staffordshire Potteries. Seated at a table, they cannot help but pick up the plate, to see what is written underneath. "Wedgewood" is fine. "Doulton" is OK, too. I have this on good authority. Let us not start a motorcycles sub-thread. I already know where my loyalties lie.... |
|
Bronze Member Username: Walt_hCA Post Number: 34 Registered: Jun-04 | . . . . . or. . . . could we segue to surround-sound in MP3 format via satellite on a Harley? Think of it - - sound from all directions at 70mph in your leathers! What a thought... Is it Friday afternoon? |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 130 Registered: Sep-04 | J. Vigne, Sorry to take so long to reply - been on holiday. The new Naim sound is new because Naim spent 6 years developing new transistors in partnership with a chip manufgacturer. The new transistor is faster and can handle more power than pretty much anything else around. In getting to the final product Naim learned a lot about how to make their products a whole lot better. So when they came to revise the range (a once in a blue moon thing with Naim as you may know), they really went to town, updated the casework, introduced new features and redesigned the electgronics. However, it's all backwardly compatible with the old kit and works in harmony. Also, the leading designers at Naim are the same people (apart from the founder who died a couple of years ago) who designed the earlier products so the same philosophies apply. The result is a more cultured refined but still notably Naim sound. Chris The Genki, Mjik, Keilidh system is a well regarded system with strengths and weaknesses just like any other system. I think your system would give better long term satisfaction than a CD3/Nait3/Audience72 since I think that system is too back-end heavy. You have a nicely judged system which should give you years of pleasure. I get what you mean about the aktiv system. Interestingly, with the newest kit, Naim have adopted the same methodology of each amp driving the same frequencies rather than a speaker. The active crossover is a completely revised product which sounds a lot better than the old one. Regards, Frank. |
|
Veli K. Unregistered guest | This an interesting discussion thread to an engineer, who believes that (nearly) everything can be measured. If two amplifiers sound really different it should also be seen from the graphs, IMHO. I just looked at one test of an AV receiver (a British Cambridge Audio Azur 540R). At the listening test it got quite good results, but the measurements showed "much to improve". Now this makes me wonder, why one has to "spoil" the amplifier in order to make recordings sound "music". When I was a student in early 1980's I assisted some research work (on impulse noise...) and I happened to be at the anechoic chamber at the same time when onether student was testing his ideas concerning the quality of speakers. He had been wondering, why speakers sounded so different in listening tests while their free field measurements did not show much difference. So he made this: placed expensive (and presumably good) and cheap (presumably bad) speakers into the anechoic chamber together with a lab microphone and listened them outside using good headphones. The result: the difference was minimal. This lead to the conclusion, that the worst link in the audio reproduction chain is the room; the speakers should be made so that the room has as little effect to the sound as possible. Thus he invented "equally directing horn" for the tweeter. In the audio reproduction chain we have things like recording space, microphone, mixing equipment, recording media, player, cables, amplifier, speakers and the listening room. Now it seems to me after this discussion, that the amplifier should be made in such a way that it fixes the problems of other links in the chain (to make recording sound like "music") - and this means paying a looot of $$$$ for the amplifier. This sounds unfair. Is this the conspiracy of the audio industry - to produce bad recordings so that people are willing to buy expensive audio equipment in order to fix the problems. Or is this just pure elitism - actually you can do the same with $ 200 amplifier than with $ 20.000 amplifier - just invent an "equally reproducing stage" to do some tuning. Veli |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 54 Registered: Sep-04 | Veli K, Yes, it's an interesting discussion - but after reading your post a couple of times, I'm having a hard time making sense of your logic. For a start, listening tests (and I assume you mean a reviewer's test?) are usually carried out by people for whom there may be due an incentive to favourably review a given piece of equipment. That aside, it's always possible that different listeners may have differing perceptions of the sound they are hearing. A lot of it comes down to 'taste' (or the lack of it). I could also add that some types of music may well mask the inabilities of a system to generate the most pure sound. A very 'spacy' composition with lots of bass attack and very little extension in it's notes; perhaps an uncomplicated, or non layering of instruments may well flow straight through with very little audible distortion to the casual listener. I am at a loss to understand why you would think it a useful test to mic up a chamber and listen to speakers through another device which is going to create more potential distortion to that already exhibited by the speakers therein? This, in my opinion, tests nothing. All it proves is that listening to speakers through (presumably good?) headphones (how do you know they were comparible in quality to the speakers used?), from a single microphone - is a bad idea. Whoever contrived this 'test' might have added another mic, in order to maintain the stereo effect - but it doesn't seem like they did. Also, in order to do this, you had to have another amp between you, the headphones and the mic, which can only overcomplicate things and lessen the dynamics of the sound. This is the trouble with people who rely too much on testing. They see graphs and readouts - but they hear nothing. That is because they are not listening properly and have the wrong attitude to home audio in my opinion. Of course one amp will sound different to another. There are those who make good quality audio and those who make mediochre audio. That is a simple fact which runs through everything, from fishing rods to computer processors. And no - I do not think that there is a 'downgrading-of-recording-quality' conspiracy going on in the music industry. That is ridiculous. You only have to listen to the recording through differing equipment to see that the weakest link lies somewhere within the equipment, the cabling and the acoustic properties of the environment. There are so many variables present in a 'good' or bad sound and it is far too easy to put the blame on the source, without changing something to rectify it. Of course, some recordings are better than others. I think this proves my point also. Why don't the 'bad' ones sound brilliant on a good system? Answer: They don't. They just sound a little better than when played through a cheap pile of junk! Regards, V |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2479 Registered: Dec-03 | I find I agree with Varney. Veli, thank you, but it is difficult to see where you are going from .. So he made this: placed expensive (and presumably good) and cheap (presumably bad) speakers into the anechoic chamber together with a lab microphone and listened them outside using good headphones. The result: the difference was minimal. Difference in what respect? Everything will depend on what is being heard over the relay, and what the test programme or signal is. And did your friend carry out a control measurement, which would be to repeat the same measurements in an echoic room? If there was indeed a difference there, but not in the anechoic, that would be interesting, but it still would not not follow that "the worst link in the audio reproduction chain is the room; the speakers should be made so that the room has as little effect to the sound as possible Your friend would have been better off with near-field monitors such as BBC LS3/5A than with headphones. They were designed to give recording and broadcast engineers, usually sitting in a near-anechoic room behind glass panels, exactly the sound that could be heard in the adjacent recording or broadcast studio or venue, which they can see but not hear. The studio itself may be echoic or not, depending on the event being recorded. In either case, with "monitor" speakers, when the engineers do things to the mix or the balance, they can then hear at once what the real effect will be for the listener. Just taking speakers like that and using them at home is one approach, and if there is a "British" speaker sound it could come from that; there were traditionally strong links between hifi and broadcasting and recording. Brit-type names for speakers such as "Studio monitor", "Reference" and so on reflect this. Look on many CDs, including EMI, and you see "recording monitored with B&W loudspeakers". Other speaker makers, Bose, for example, are trying to achieve something completely different. There are so many different speaker manufacturers. This is good for us; they all bring their different ideas of what is important, and we can choose. The idea of an industry "conspiracy" is least tenable with speakers than with any other audio component, I think. They are all in competition with each other. When we get to new digital sources, there is more of a case. That is my opinion. |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 55 Registered: Sep-04 | I might add, that if the "difference was minimal", then this might suggest that there was indeed, SOME difference percieved. Considering there was a relay between the speakers and the listener, to me it says a lot - as the only true test of Hi-Fi is the human ear. It also says a lot that the tester listened to the signal. If these people are so intent on testing everything by the numbers - then why did they not simply send the signal through testing aparatus and take their conclusions from the readouts? Nah. Waste of time. Sorry. Does HTML code work in this forum, btw? I guess I am about to find out. V |
|
Veli K Unregistered guest | Varney, <veli>Sorry to have wasted your time. I may have been too provocative (and I am also sorry for my bad English) to make me lose the point. <varney>For a start, listening tests (and I assume you mean a reviewer's test?) are usually carried out by people for whom there may be due an incentive to favourably review a given piece of equipment. That aside, it's always possible that different listeners may have differing perceptions of the sound they are hearing. A lot of it comes down to 'taste' (or the lack of it). I could also add that some types of music may well mask the inabilities of a system to generate the most pure sound. A very 'spacy' composition with lots of bass attack and very little extension in it's notes; perhaps an uncomplicated, or non layering of instruments may well flow straight through with very little audible distortion to the casual listener. <veli>Yes, I mean reviwers - and I understand very well the psychological aspect - I also have studied psychoacoustics. I could claim, that the acoustic memory of a human is not more than 10 seconds. After that you will only have implications ("it sounded warm", "it sounded harsh"). The other aspect is the fysiologial status of the reviewer (feel good, feel ill). And the third is the environment. Listening the music with yor eys closed or your eys shut may have a big difference. And of course different people have different tast. But this is basically what makes the listening tests nearly useless - provoking again :-). I am trying to figure out, whether there could be a universal set of measurements that quantify something people call "warm" or "harsh" sound. <varney>I am at a loss to understand why you would think it a useful test to mic up a chamber and listen to speakers through another device which is going to create more potential distortion to that already exhibited by the speakers therein? <varney>This, in my opinion, tests nothing. All it proves is that listening to speakers through (presumably good?) headphones (how do you know they were comparible in quality to the speakers used?), from a single microphone - is a bad idea. Whoever contrived this 'test' might have added another mic, in order to maintain the stereo effect - but it doesn't seem like they did. <varney>Also, in order to do this, you had to have another amp between you, the headphones and the mic, which can only overcomplicate things and lessen the dynamics of the sound. <veli>No, if you use laboratory equipment (Brüel&Kjaer) the added distortion is practically null. All that counts is the acoustic behaviour of the speakers. My point is the question, whether we are doing the right things when tuning the sound reproduction chain. <varney>This is the trouble with people who rely too much on testing. They see graphs and readouts - but they hear nothing. That is because they are not listening properly and have the wrong attitude to home audio in my opinion. <veli>Yes, that is the point: what graphs do matter. I am sure the right graphs exist - if the goal is to fade out the reproducition chain. Of course I know the problems already at the beginning of the chain (microphones in the concert hall, electrical instruments...). <varney>Of course one amp will sound different to another. There are those who make good quality audio and those who make mediochre audio. That is a simple fact which runs through everything, from fishing rods to computer processors. <veli>Yes, the question is, which is good or bad taking into account the whole reproduction chain. <varney>And no - I do not think that there is a 'downgrading-of-recording-quality' conspiracy going on in the music industry. That is ridiculous. You only have to listen to the recording through differing equipment to see that the weakest link lies somewhere within the equipment, the cabling and the acoustic properties of the environment. There are so many variables present in a 'good' or bad sound and it is far too easy to put the blame on the source, without changing something to rectify it. <varney>Of course, some recordings are better than others. I think this proves my point also. Why don't the 'bad' ones sound brilliant on a good system? Answer: They don't. They just sound a little better than when played through a cheap pile of junk! <veli>Sorry, I should have used smileys :-). Conspiracy was a provoking term, but again, the problems start with the recordings. The amplifier has nearly the smallest role in reproducing the sound. Usually good amplifiers do not make bad recordings good but instead will emphasise the difference to good recordings. I wish there was a silver bullet that would fade out the sound reproduction chain... Regards, Veli |
|
Veli K Unregistered guest | <john>Difference in what respect? Everything will depend on what is being heard over the relay, and what the test programme or signal is. And did your friend carry out a control measurement, which would be to repeat the same measurements in an echoic room? If there was indeed a difference there, but not in the anechoic, that would be interesting, <veli>No difference meaning that the room had the most efffect on the sound. This was not a review, the idea was to figure out the reason for that in normal listening room conditions the loudspeakers sounded very different. Doing a listening comparison in an echoic room is not a good idea :-). The headphones were fully adequate for that. I ensure you, that my friend was (and still is) a very good acoustic engineer and a loudspeaker designer. He used to make the official acoustic measurements for the local Research Centre for many years (meaning hundreds of loudspeakers). You can find the article of this study in one of the AES journals, can't remember the issue. <john>Just taking speakers like that and using them at home is one approach, and if there is a "British" speaker sound it could come from that; there were traditionally strong links between hifi and broadcasting and recording. Brit-type names for speakers such as "Studio monitor", "Reference" and so on reflect this. Look on many CDs, including EMI, and you see "recording monitored with B&W loudspeakers". Other speaker makers, Bose, for example, are trying to achieve something completely different. <veli>One of the questions at that time was, why the British loudspeakers that were so praised for their neutral or warm sound in British magazines sounded not so good in our modest Finnish living rooms: the reason was the difference in the room acoustics (small and hard Finnish living rooms and soft and big British living rooms). Sorry, I am still an acoustic engineer in my heart, although I have earned my living from information technologoy for 20 years :-) Not going to waste your time any more, Veli |
|
Veli K Unregistered guest | ...oops, my bad English again: I mixed up echoic and reverberation room. I meant: doing a listening test in a reverberation room is not a good idea. Veli |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 204 Registered: Sep-04 | Veli, If you compare a £35000 Mercedes to a £35000 BMW and a £35000 Lexus, you get three £35000 cars, each of which does things very differently even though each one is largely the same configuration (4-door saloons). Why should speakers be any different? It's very true that different rooms have a significant effect on the musical message. It may be that construction methods in Finland do not alow British speakers to work as well as in Britain. After all, the speaker has to couple to the room's air space and energise it, but the airspace is defined by the walls and therefore their construction affects the speaker's performance. The problem with your friend's test is that he is a subjective listener. The system should have input a prescribed set of signals and the mic transmit those to something like a MLSSA system. MLSSA allows you to see all the differences in both time domain and amplitude for a full frequency sweep. I don't understand it all myself, but the differences are quite obvious to even someone as thick as me (I'm no audio engineer). Having said that, in the UK most designers will use the anechoic chamber for basic compliance testing, but then use the prototype in a variety of domestic rooms to see if they will work in real life with different ancillary electronics and in different rooms. After all, there's no point to a ruler flat response if the speaker does not communicate the musical message. Interesting discussion I think. Regards, Frank. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | This discussion of how drivers that measure flat can have significant differences in their sound once they are installed in a speaker package is ignoring the main factor in speaker design. The "design". When speakers are measured for a specification sheet that are raw drivers. Put that driver into a cabinet and use a X-over of any kind and you will immediately affect the performance and sound of the driver. And it is the rare company (Dynaudio, B&W, KEF and others not withstanding) that uses their own drivers or even the same manufacturers drivers throughout a single speaker design. Then you can deal with the room interaction. But I did chuckle at the "soft and big British living rooms". Compared to American rooms, the English living room is normally quite small and hard surfaced. |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1858 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan has a very valid point. Raw drivers "no cabinet or xover" will for the most part sound very simular. But put them in a cabinet. And the type of materiel itself that the driver is made of can make a difference in sound just from the internal pressure of the cabinet and the rigidness of the material. Not to mention impeadence factors that change with the cabinet and crossover. Also at different frequencies drivers react different. what about dispersion affects? How the driver reacts to amplification? Way to many factors come into play when trying to test "from sound" drivers that are not in a cabinet or properly designed curcuit! Just get any speaker design software and look at different drivers. If you have 3 drivers of simular design sitting on a table and fire them up your probably going to hear some difference but nowhere near the difference you will once there in a cabinet with a crossover! So the above test seems pretty futile to me! |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 59 Registered: Sep-04 | Hi again, Veli. Thankyou for your response. I'll answer it more fully when I have more time. No, you did not waste my time, Veli.... I merely suggest that you and your friend were wasting time with this meaningless experiment, when you could be chillin' on down with a meaningful piece of funk - which is what those speakers are presumably designed to reproduce so well for your pleasure. I mean no disrespect for you or your posts when offering my own opinions and it is in the spirit of healthy debate I do offer them up. I think what it comes down to, is the fact that studying something too analytically can produce hard and cold facts which bear very little resemblance to the actual experience. This brings us to the old question: Do we listen to our music, or our hi-fi...? You have to be careful when posing the possibility that all equipment (within a certain quality and perhaps price bracket) will all sound alike. It doesn't - but then you can't always measure that. Of course, measuring is essential, I would imagine, when designing/building a piece of equipment in the first place. But trying to measure what these things are capable of, post-sale, in my opinion, is a waste of time. The true test of a hi-fi is sitting down and letting yourself go with the music. If you get a blockage, ie: there is a moment which does not sound 'true' or it's muddled, then you know to start making changes to the equipment. Your education in audio-electronics may well offer up some suggested moves, but if you rely on that and ONLY that, you may be in for the odd dissapointment. You are trying to 'measure pleasure' and I'm afraid it can't be done. You can come up with a theoretical bunch of reasons WHY humans get pleasure out of music and HOW their descriptions can be blurry and inconsistent; but let's put it this way: If me and my missus get down on a Sunday afternoon and start discussing how nature has conned us into this situation, in order to ensure the surival of our species, then will we still be in the mood? Well, you can bet your best jockstrap the answer will be no! P.S. How on earth DO YOU KNOW that the human acoustic memory, as you put it, lasts only 10 seconds???? That sounds like complete and utter 'tosh' in my opinion. Sorry to put it that way - but I'd like to know how you come to such a conclusion. Regards, V |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2496 Registered: Dec-03 | Just to say I agree with Varney; the music is the whole point. But it is also useful to enquire into how the hi-fi can reproduce it for you. The various claims of advertisers and manufacturers vary from an honest statement of design philosophy to meaningless hype, and to outright lies. Whether you want the experience of the perfomers in your room, or you being present at the performance, are different objectives. Unless they originally performed in your room. Then, a sizable number of people are not bothered with any performance at all, and many recording sessions, especially in pop and rock, are set up with the recording as the sole objective. How you evaluate equipment with material like that, I have no idea. Probably you can't - "anything goes". |
|
Veli K Unregistered guest | It seeems I opened a Pandora box :-) I think this thread should not go into details of loudspeaker design so I will not comment anything on it except, that I know enough of loudspeaker design not to rely purely on free field measurements (although to an experienced loudspeaker designer like my friend they tell 80 % of the story). I do not know of any scientific study of acoustical memory, but I am convinced, that you really cannot memorise something so complex like music in order to make absolute judgements between two listening situations. A classical British example: a group of experienced listeners were making judgements of the acoustical improvements in Royal Albert Hall (maybe 30 years ago). Once they said: "This time the improvements have been really good for the acoustics!". Only had they made some improvements since the last session - the workmen had been on strike and no construction changes had been made. Only A/B comparison tell the "true story" (unless there exist very noticable differences). I believe many reviewers use for this reason a reference system on-site. Okay, I am sure this will not convince you, folks :-). Finally: it is the music I am hunting for. I thought that HiFi meant faitful reproduction of the sound (i.e. music) as it was originally produced. Or should we aim also for making pearls out of crap :-). Veli |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | "although to an experienced loudspeaker designer like my friend they tell 80 % of the story" There is one more example of the 80/20 rule in effect. And there is always, "the devil is in the details". Or, "don't sweat the small stuff; and, it's all small stuff". The difference between many good loudspeakers, amps or sources is in the last few percent. On the whole, a McIntosh tube amplifier doesn't measure or sound that different from a JVC receiver. It is the amount that is different that interests me. |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 60 Registered: Sep-04 | Veli.K No, I do not know of any 'scientific study of acoustic' memory, either. That's not to say there has never been one - but I doubt it would be possible anyway. And for what purpose, I can hardly imagine. There was a time I inhabited the forums of a paranormal / ghost hunting site. As resident sceptic, you can imagine I was not the most popular contributor there. It is because of this, that I can see what it is you are driving at with these kind of posts, but it is not quite the same thing. I have always maintained that, in order to believe something, you do not need evidence but in order to make a proper scientific evaluation of something, you most certainly do need it. In mind of the above, however, you still need to do better than that to convince many people here that the differences in acoustic situations they are hearing are not purely imaginary. If we know anything about the human mind, then we do know that the entire universe we experience exists only in the conscious mind, the past of which is stored in the long and short term memory. This does not make the universe real, however - but it provides enough evidence for us to assume it exists. If we move the goalposts on that one, we start heading into more imaginative territory and it really does us very little good scientifically, apart from the fact it may may make entertaining reading, if written about in a creative manner. "A classical British example: a group of experienced listeners were making judgements of the acoustical improvements in Royal Albert Hall (maybe 30 years ago). Once they said: "This time the improvements have been really good for the acoustics!". Only had they made some improvements since the last session - the workmen had been on strike and no construction changes had been made. " We need more information on this story to make a proper evaluation of it, I'm afraid. Science tell us that modifications to the acoustic environment will bring about changes to what is heard. Whether you are able to measure it or not, really depends on your skill in setting up the tests, or the lack of it. <veli> "I do not know of any scientific study of acoustical memory," Then why state that the human brain only is capable of ten seconds of it, when you know nothing about this? <veli>"but I am convinced, that you really cannot memorise something so complex like music in order to make absolute judgements between two listening situations." A convincing statement to lead me to believe that you cannot. How can you be convinced I can't? On what scientific evidence do you base these ascertions? Regards, V |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | On what scientific assertions do you believe you exist with a pair of ears to actually hear Mahler? |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 61 Registered: Sep-04 | I don't need to make one in order to believe anything, but I can reap enough evidence to establish a 'fact'. As I said already: There is enough evidence to assume the Universe exists. I also have enough to assert that I'm not listening to Mahler at this time. An established fact is merely something which more than one person can agree on and can be observed with the same result no matter how many times it's tested. If it works consistently enough for someone to establish a set of scientific rules for it, then whether it's happening or not, relative to any other sphere of existance as yet unproved, is irrelevant. Silly question. Posed no doubt to see what reaction it'd get. Regards, V |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2498 Registered: Dec-03 | Actually that was a very good question. Underlying many posts on this thread is the assumption of "solipsism" - that the world, in this case the sounds we hear, are just inventions of our imaginations, and each person's is therefore no better and no worse than anyone else's, unless they have some special status as ubermenschen or some crappy thing like that. There is, in contrast, an Anglo-Saxon thread of empiricism, according to which there is a real world which exists independently of our wishes, desires and expectations. But we can try to understand it, through experience. I have never thought of whether there is any philosophical basis for loudspeaker design. But now you mention it... BTW "science" has nothing to do with it. That is just what happens to people when they assume there really is a world out there, and they set out to eliminate their own and other people's misapprehensions and misconceptions, as far as possible. What we are left with, we call "science" (equals "knowledge"). So to say something is "Scientifically proven" is a mistake. The nearest one can get to that is to say it is the best guess we have. The moment anyone says "therefore there is no point in disputing it" they are not talking science but faith, and we are back in the dark ages, with nothing but competing forms of solipsism. There can always be a better guess. Sorry if this seems off-track, but hifi is riddled with this sort of mistake, in my opinion. Give me "the closest approach to the original sound" any time. I also think what seems to one person to be the closest approach is quite likely to be the same for another. If not, they can at least compare notes, and see where and how they agree and disagree. If they do not even agree that there is an original sound in the first place, there is not much that can be said, and any differences can only be resolved by one view dominating, and suppressing, another. That is what I meant by saying that without the idea of reproducing a performance, "anything goes". BTW Mahler and related composers were allied to guys who thought the latter position was the correct one; "anything goes". It was therefore important for them for their own view to prevail; it was superior just because they held it. Look at the 20th century in Europe and you see where this leads. |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 62 Registered: Sep-04 | I didn't say t was a bad, or useless question - just a silly one. And the reaction it got widens the debate a little along the track of whether we really hear what we think we are hearing. I am fully aware of solipsism and it's implications, as well as the nature of empirical scientific 'knowledge'. The former is what I base my own belief-system on. To find truth, or enlightenment, one must first acknowledge there is no truth other than what you percieve and that everything is really nothing and vice versa. Since the very thought of 'nothing' must occupy space in the brain so it, paradoxically, becomes a 'something' (or does it?). "So to say something is "Scientifically proven" is a mistake. The nearest one can get to that is to say it is the best guess we have. The moment anyone says "therefore there is no point in disputing it" they are not talking science but faith, and we are back in the dark ages, with nothing but competing forms of solipsism. There can always be a better guess." To say that something acts consistently enough for you to prove it works, according to your model - then go on to make a piece of aparatus which behaves, consistently and in accordance with that model, will be enough, for industrial purposes at least, to count it as a successful application of scientific 'knowledge'. The question as to whether the model is really 'correct' (reality-wise) or not must be addressed as and when something else you try provides inconsistent results with your original empirical model. Then, the question must be asked: which side is flawed.... The new experiment, or the model itself? That is, for what it's worth, my definition of science. Also, that whatever you percieve as reality, only becomes studyable through a branch of science when it has a documented model for everyone who uses it, to agree on. Therefore, science can be seen as an agreement between users of the model - but no amount of belief (or agreement) can establish a 'fact', which is why I put the word into 'inverted comas' each time. (Pause for breath there!), Regards, V |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2500 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks, Varney. I appreciate that response. I am fully aware of solipsism and it's implications, as well as the nature of empirical scientific 'knowledge'. The former is what I base my own belief-system on. Now this will sound rude, but it is not intended as such. Is a serious question: why, then, are you wasting time comparing your experiences and viewpoint with those of others, such as on this forum? If we each based our belief systems as you claim to, then there would be nothing to learn, or communicate. And, I repeat, all we could do to resolve differences is go to war or try to suppress other opinions, knowing them to be just as arbitrary as our own. To find truth, or enlightenment, one must first acknowledge there is no truth other than what you percieve No, I disagree. All one can say is that "truth" must not be inconsistent with what one perceives. One cannot perceive atoms, or genes, or propagating waves of air pressure. What one can perceive are apparant transformations of matter, heredity, and sound. This does not deny that there is an underlying reality, hidden from direct perception, but open to description and testing. These are "explanations". It is a really good thing we have them. Otherwise it would be a meaningless and terrifying world. and that everything is really nothing and vice versa. I do not understand that. It seems like a statement, to me, rather than "nothing". Thus disproving itself. Of course, I could be mistaken. The rest, I agree with. I think. BTW From previous experience, I think this exchange will get "flamed" as "off topic". So; give me a pair of BBC LS3/5as or Quad ESLs with a robust sense of reality, and a mission to reproduce it accurately, even if they fall short of the ideal. I leave many other speakers to solipsists who enjoy recreational hallucinogens, while defending their right to make this choice. There is thread "Teaching an old dog new tricks" where the central question is whether surround sound ever adds anything to the experience of listening to real music. J. Vigne (above) says "no"; I say "yes". It turns on this same question, I think, but we are both in a minority, with the majority view being, roughly, "who cares as long as it sounds good, to me?" |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | John A. - Hear, here. |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 64 Registered: Sep-04 | "BTW From previous experience, I think this exchange will get "flamed" as "off topic". Then care to join me on another thread? https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/110404.html |
|
Veli K Unregistered guest | This discussion seems to have expanded outside the capabilities of my brains (and again my capabilities of English language)... I can find the scientific testimonies if needed, but probably it is waste of time...or should I attach one, yes I will (of course I know this will be overuled again :-)): "Some tentative conclusions are possible as to why hifi engineering has reached the pass that it has. I believe one basic reason is the difficulty of defining the quality of an audio experience; you can't draw a diagram to communicate what something sounded like. In the same way, acoustical memory is more evanescent than visual memory. It is far easier to visualize what a London bus looks like than to recall the details of a musical performance. Similarly, it is difficult to 'look more closely'; turning up the volume is more like turning up the brightness of a TV picture; once an optimal level is reached, any further increase becomes annoying, then painful. It has been universally recognised for many years in experimental psychology, particularly in experiments about perception, that people tend to perceive what they want to perceive. This is often called the 'experimenter expectancy' effect; it is more subtle and insidious than it sounds, and the history of science is littered with the wrecked careers of those who failed to guard against it. Such self-deception has most often occurred in fields like biology, where although the raw data may be numerical, there is no real mathematical theory to check it gainst. When the only 'results' are vague subjective impressions, the danger is clearly much greater, no matter how absolute the integrity of the experimenter. Thus in psychological work great care is necessary in the use of impartial observers, double-blind techniques, and rigorous statistical tests for significance. The vast majority of Subjectivist writings wholly ignore these precautions, with predictable results. In a few cases properly controlled listening tests been done, and at the time of writing all have resulted in different amplifiers sounding indistinguishable. I believe the conclusion is inescapable that experimenter expectancy has played a dominant role in the growth of Subjectivism. It is notable that in Subjectivist audio the 'correct' answer is always the more expensive or inconvenient one. Electronics is rarely as simple as that. A major improvement is more likely to be linked with a new circuit topology or new type of semiconductor, than with mindlessly specifying more expensive components of the same type; cars do not go faster with platinum pistons. It might be difficult to produce a rigorous statistical analysis, but it is my view that the reported subjective quality of a piece of equipment correlates far more with the price than with anything else. There is perhaps here an echo of the Protestant Work Ethic; you must suffer now to enjoy yourself later. Another reason for the relatively effortless rise of subjectivism is the 'me-too' effect; many people are reluctant to admit that they cannot detect acoustic subtleties as nobody wants to be labelled as insensitive, outmoded, or just plain deaf. It is also virtually impossible to absolutely disprove any claims, as the claimant can always retreat a fraction and say that there was something special about the combination of hardware in use during the disputed tests, or complain that the phenomena are too delicate for brutal logic to be used on them. In any case, most competent engineers with a taste for rationality probably have better things to do than dispute every comtroversial report. Under these conditions, vague claims tend, by a kind of intellectual inflation, to gradually become regarded as facts. Manufacturers have some incentive to support the Subjectivist camp as they can claim that only they understand a particular non-measurable effect, but this is no guarantee that the dice may not fall badly in a subjective review." by Douglas Self All the best, Veli |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | "A major improvement is more likely to be linked with a new circuit topology or new type of semiconductor, than with mindlessly specifying more expensive components of the same type; cars do not go faster with platinum pistons." This man obviously spent his youth sniffing solder fumes. If he had ever built a car up from stock to the drag strip, he would know that replacing parts with similar but better, and more expensive, parts of the same type is how you get horsepower and torque. It is how you get a car to go faster, further, longer and with greater fuel economy. Factory stock piston rings will not be as efficient as those from the after market. Less friction will result from replacing the stock units with after market items. Less friction makes the original system work more efficiently. Replacing parts is how you gain the most from a given system, not by replacing the system with a new system. Unless, of course, we're going to replace internal combustion with another form of propulsion entirely. "In any case, most competent engineers with a taste for rationality probably have better things to do than dispute every comtroversial report." I have trouble considering someone a "competent" engineer when they have already closed their field of perception to whatever they choose to be unimportant. Look and you shall ... ? A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single ... ? If you continue to do something the same way, you can expect to get the ... ? Where should Edison have stopped when the first 1000 attempts at creating a light bulb failed? 1001? 1002? Sorry, this article is sour grapes from a closed mind. It suffers from a preconcieved notion that has no bearing in any belief system other than the one he has already decided is true. |
|
Dave Dumbrowski Unregistered guest | "Sorry, this article is sour grapes from a closed mind. It suffers from a preconcieved notion that has no bearing in any belief system other than the one he has already decided is true." Are you absolutely sure? "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single ... ? " Thought, the first one you had when the journey was realized! |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Of course I'm not absolutely sure. That's the point, I believe. And,I guess I didn't know the journey could be realized. I was under the impression it is always what lies ahead that is the journey; and, the journey will always lie ahead, not behind. Once you begin to feel you have reached the end of the journey you must realize how much remains. To realize the journey is death of one kind or another. In the writer's case, it is a death of intellectual curiousity. He has his facts, do not disturb him with opinion. He fits well into a society that is devaluing dissent and curiousity more every day. " ... t is my view that the reported subjective quality of a piece of equipment correlates far more with the price than with anything else." He doesn't seem to care about music, only finding fault with what he doesn't care to hear. "many people are reluctant to admit that they cannot detect acoustic subtleties as nobody wants to be labelled as insensitive, outmoded, or just plain deaf." I do applaud him for having the courage to admit he is deaf. So, yes, I'm fairly certain it is sour grapes and even more certain it has been caused by a kind of "intellectual deflation". But then, I "probably have better things to do than dispute every comtroversial report." Do you have an argument with my automotive reference? Is it not accurate? |
|
Dave Dumbrowski Unregistered guest | "Do you have an argument with my automotive reference? Is it not accurate?" Oh no quite the contrary, I completely agree. That is what is called rebuilding an engine, if for speed or out of need! . .. ... It is, therefore it might be! |
|
Dave Dumbrowski Unregistered guest | "And,I guess I didn't know the journey could be realized" It depends on the journey. If the journey is "A journey of a thousand miles" Then it "begins with a single" "thought" The first time you realized or concieved the notion you were taking a journey of a thousand miles, then the journey began with a "thought" about how the journey would be or what to bring on the journey or if you may live through the journey or many other things concerning the journey! But if a journey of a thousand miles was suppose to be coming up for you, then the thinking about the journey is where it begins. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Touche6784Post Number: 38 Registered: Nov-04 | wow this is a really good thread. i agree about that car allusion. i already had my doubts about the article and my eyes popped out of their sockets when i read that. anybody who knows anything about cars or even physics, as all engineers should, lighter means less force means less effor to push objects. in the cars case more energy towards power to drivetrain and not to limply move the pistons. y would anyone use platmium for pistons? veli i agree that u opened a pandoras box but its good to get a debate using all sides of arguements rather than hearing just one regardless of how hopeless it may seem. i give you "props", dont know how else to put it, for being brave enough to post your opinions. |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 93 Registered: Sep-04 | I think perhaps Veli K uses the analogy to show how superficial additions to quality might not make significant improvements to outright performance. I think the analogy is probably badly chosen. To give some credit to this, harder pistons might last longer and weigh less - but do they actually contribute to overall horsepower? Well, not on the bench - only on the track, where it counts. Do gold contacts make a better connection? Yes, allegedly they do - but can the ear tell the difference? I would say no. Dirty connections and dry joints might make a far bigger difference. It is always a combination of things which affect sound quality. I used to frequent a forum where matters of the paranormal were discussed. There, it was very easy to become the most unpopular contributor if you asked for evidence. Not just the asking, but the insistence upon it before a conclusion is reached - that's the one they hate most of all. My argument included the concession that even good scientists must sometimes adjust the model when it's warranted. I'm afraid that even in that field, there still may be a sense of clinging, however small. Perhaps for some, Hi-Fi is more like wine tasting than an actual science. You can know something tastes a certain way - because your tastebuds tell you it does. From a chemical analysis it might be possible to generate a description, but reading a white paper is not the same as tasting, in the same way listening to a review is not the same as listening to sounds. I notice there are many here who's perceptions can be backed up with more than enough knowledge of why and how. By understanding the why's and how's we begin to understand our equipment that little bit better. The problem is, and always has been - that most, if not all of what we percieve is subjective. That is to say: filtered in some way through our expectation - to arrive at a final perception. If this holds for ghosts and flying saucers, then how do we stand with our hi-fi systems? I mentioned earlier that some people torture themselves. Perhaps this forum is hell? I don't know. For myself, the road to Hi-Fi Nirvana is still a long stretch ahead. If the standard is the performance / the natural sound, then we can attempt to test this with a limited set of control studies. If the standard is 'Whatever you want', then it really doesn't matter - go and watch ghost flicks in surround sound. If we have something which aproximates a 'natural' sound in our perception, from what we know or remember live music to sound like, then we could say we've reached the plateux and our money was well spent. Does this mean our system or perception is right? I think we're looking at % truth no matter how much we spend, or how well we match our equipment. Otherwise, why would there be claims in here of subtle differences found between hi-end systems, whose goals all aim at the one standard? The two questions I put to anyone with these goals are: If you reached nirvana, would you know it? If the dead go to a better place, would they bother revisiting? Depends if they're satifisfied with it, I guess. Regards all, V |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Having sold and installed high end adio for the better part of 30 years, I have heard the same components go into numerous systems in various configurations. The same amplifiers with different speakers will not sound the same from system to system. The same speakers, no matter how flat the measured response, will not sound the same in two diiferent rooms. The literally will not sound the same in two different positions within the same room. I have decided there is no accuracy in audio other than that which we choose to call accurate enough for our own memory. But I do hold fast to the concept of a "reality" even if it only satisfies the desire for comparison. Without a base to compare to, all deviation is meaningless, and can, too easily, lead away from reality far more easily than towards that end. Two points that have always bothered me about the objective reviewers; they measure the device which passes music with a static signal, and, they only want the battle waged on their terms. Music is far more complex than any signal generated on a test bench, yet, the equipment is measured with sine waves and intermodulation signals. Neither of which occur in music. Objectivists want to measure equipment instead of listen to music. It once again seems to be a closed mind that seeks the former at the expense of the latter. When the objectivist insists on side by side comparisons, it is always in a "blind" comparison, their ideal, not mine. In my experience, anyone seeking audio Nirvana will never recognize when it occurs. To seek that long and hard for something that cannot be described will usually become an addiction. Once addicted it is very difficult to let go of the idea that there will always be something better around the corner. Far too many loose sight of the music to become addicted to the equipment. If I had found something better, I would want to return to let everyone know what was possible. Ghosts are probably not that different in that respect. |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 97 Registered: Sep-04 | I appreciate the honesty of that reply. Thankyou. Well of course, if ghosts, for the most part, inhabit our imaginations, it follows they can do pretty much what they please. Audiophiles anonymous? It's a thought. So are you saying you are addicted? Or is it that you've already found ways towards satisfaction? Don't feel obliged to answer that - I am sure you've gotten most of the way there with the equipment you've tried in your career. I can think of worse things to be addicted to. It might be akin to fine wine, sex, good food - even music itself. But then, yes, I suppose for many, the equipment can become some sort of monster which does it's own thing, instead of the noble job of extracting the music. That is rather a shame, really. I used to sometimes wonder if it was the equipment I coveted or the music. They tend to become synonymous after a while. I'm going to a live gig this evening to refresh my senses. With all that's been said in mind, I'll be trying a little experiment. I'm going to see how much sonic memory I have. Something tells me it will hold for more than 10 seconds. Regards, V |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Audio and music fall along the same lines as any other product or experience which relies upon a subjective judgement and vocabulary to describe to another person. When discussing the experience of a listener at the symphony the objectivist seldom complains when terms such as "sweet", "fast", "dry", etc. are used in an effort to decribe what has been observed by the individual in the audience. All the subjective terms that the same objectivist would hold in contempt when used to describe the experience of listening to music through an amplification system. My concept of sonic memory is what I can describe after the event. As such it is no better or longer than my visual memory. When I think of the colors of autumn that I experienced every year growing up in the Midwest I can see them in my mind. To describe them to someone else relies on an emotional recall that is my personal experience and may not be the same for another person. "Colors ablaze" can mean something different to the person sitting by the hearth compared to the person watching their house burn down. Similarly, recalling music I enjoy makes the sound of the experience quite different than recalling the sound of a preformance which left me with little to enjoy. The sound of the instruments is likely to be similar, if not the same; but, the memory I have of one vs. the other is not similar at all. As to my own addictions, I would refer you to the response I gave to a similar question on the "Tube Talk" thread: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/111344.html Scroll to my post from Dec. 06, 3:50PM. Having sold high end audio for almost thirty years I have heard many systems that are better than mine to some degree. But I decided a while back that I wasn't too interested in degrees. I would explain it as standing at the edge of the forest with a compass wishing to get to the other side of the trees. As I set my compass to a reference North I can enter the forest and by maintaining a more or less constant heading I will arive at the other side within a few degrees of where I intended. That, in this case, is satisfactory to my goal. If, on the other hand, I am determined to maintain a constant heading no matter what impediments are before me, the journey will be much more difficult, if not impossible. A large tree, a valley or mountain or, in the contemporary view of a forest, an eight lane freeway will likely obstruct my path. My goal then becomes the removal of the impediment or a way to surmount the obstacle. This sends me off in the direction of what implement I should choose for the successful completion of the task at hand. The forest is an afterthought at this point. Surrounded by trees I can only see the Caterpillar earth mover and the boulder. If I should arrive at the other side of the forest eventually I will have experienced, as The Grateful Dead speculated, a long, strange trip. I am quite satisfied to arive at my destination sooner though at the end I have to make a mental correction of my goal. Anyone who has set up their own satelite television dish can observe a similar situation. When aiming at an object that is so far removed from my reality that I can only perceive its existence by experience and memory, I set my compass to 110 degrees azimuth. With this setting I can obtain 97% signal strength, quite adequate for my goal. If I instead obsess over the minutes away from 110 degrees the dish is pointed, I'll miss the event I wanted to enjoy on TV. Given that an audio system can replay that event any time I wish I have to decide how much more pleasure I will gain by having invested resources in the last small details of setting the dish . In my experience with clients the motivations are as different as the people but can be grouped into convenient samples for observation and understanding. Some audiophiles are interested in the music and find a path that suits their goal rather quickly and easily. (The idea that many musicians have, to the seasoned audiophile, poor quality hifi systems is true more often than not.) Some audiophiles are interested in the equipment and that becomes the journey with music providing mere sign posts along the way. Some audiophiles are addicted to the process, enjoying both the music and the equipment while never truly joining one to the other. Means and ends become interchangeable. Since it takes all kinds to make the world go around, an outside observer can only wonder where the degrees of differnce are between each group. |
|
Veli K Unregistered guest | I should have stopped writing, but this thread is so tempting... One brief comment to J. Vigne: "Two points that have always bothered me about the objective reviewers; they measure the device which passes music with a static signal, and, they only want the battle waged on their terms. Music is far more complex than any signal generated on a test bench, yet, the equipment is measured with sine waves and intermodulation signals. Neither of which occur in music." This is probably one of the myths. Music is complex but it still consists of sine waves. That is what signal theory says and that is what you see if you analyse the microscopic details of music (e.g. samples of some milliseconds). All musical sounds start with gradually growing vibrations. This is one reason why the room acoustics have more effect on the loudspeaker than one could think: there is no direct sound and reflected sound in practical listening situations in normal listening rooms. All musical sounds that the ear receives (even transients) already have reflected sound included so the sound is changed from original (and the amount of change depends on the the placement of the speakers, the directional properties of the speakers and the surfaces of the room). Veli |
|
Silver Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 105 Registered: Sep-04 | So what's your point, Veli? At the end of the day, would you rather be measuring sine waves, or listening to music? V |
|
Silver Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 106 Registered: Sep-04 | Think about it.... All sound is vibration. All vibration can be measured. All measurement begets data. All data when displayed is, for the most part, visual. Music happens in the mind. V |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2589 Registered: Dec-03 | This is a fascinating thread. I have been criticised before for introducing "Philosophy 101", but this time the thread is already there, so I am not introducing anything. HiFi is concerned with creating an illusion. The question can be addressed: how closely does the illusory performance resemble a real one? I am with J. Vigne, I think, in that the simplest and, ultimately, the most important consideration is whether we can tell the difference, by listening. If we can, then we need a vocabulary in order to be able to describe what we hear. This does not mean there is no use for test equipment that allows us to measure and describe things outside the range of our direct senses: we cannot hear or see an Ohm, or a Watt. We need a vocabulary for that, too. Ultimately the test equipment presents us with yet more subjective experience: the perceived patterns on the oscilloscope or whatever. I think the philosophical problem at the bottom of all this is "reductionism". Yes, sound, including music, can be described as sine waves of air pressure, and can be reproduced by a large collection of them. And, yes, the reproduction can be indistinguishable from the original. But to say music is "just" sine waves is to miss the point and purpose of the music. No-one talks about the atomic composition of food when comparing experiences of eating at a restaurant, or spectral analysis when describing what they saw at an art gallery. People who somehow think that way of describing their experience is in some way superior to reporting on it, honestly and directly, are simply frauds and charlatans, in my opinion. But that is equally true of those who claim they can see things other than light and colours, or taste things that can have no basis in the chemical composition of the food. So, why do people feel the need to defend one way of describing the world, as if other ways of describing it threaten the validity of their experience? I am not sure who these "objectivists" and "subjectivists" are, and what it is that they believe. As with the spin-off thread, which Varney kindly started; as long as we agree that there is a real world, with a real musical performance to act as a point of reference, then I cannot really see the problem. However, if we do not agree with that premise, then I cannot see any basis for discussing anything, since all we are then doing is asserting ourselves and our arbitrary preferences in various ways. |
|
Silver Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 107 Registered: Sep-04 | I think we are all both objectivist and subjectivist, depending on what we talk about. As you say, people who try to describe sound in terms of data analysis probably would never even think to describe food in the same way. The important thing is to keep a balanced view and try to look at it from as many angles as possible. Cookery books would not be much use if they only contained chemical formulas and mineral analysis. Neither would hi-fi reviews be any fun to read. I think we're all agreed there is a world; there is a reality that we can agree on. The 'other side' thread is really for philosophical purposes and might even be considered entertainment. V |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | "This is probably one of the myths. Music is complex but it still consists of sine waves." Veli - No offense meant, but, I don't think any of us on this thread are so ignorant that we are unaware of the relationship between sound and sine waves. That relationship still has little to do with a musical performance. Even though a Synthesizer can recreate the sound of an individual instrument by creating the numerous individual sinewaves that make up the recognizable sound of a violin, science cannot explain, nor adequately recreate, the sound of certain violins nor can it explain why one violin sounds unlike another. You can look at all the microscopic details, captured in milliseconds, that you can find and still not understand music. There is no relationship on a wave generator that truly correlates sine waves to pianissimo or forte. I don't think a sine wave, or any combination of sine waves, on an oscilloscope equates to a recognizable display that adequately defines the difference between the sound of a classical violin and a bluegrass fiddle. And that leaves out all the other instruments that might be playing along. I will repeat a comment I made on this forum a while back; the only simple sine wave that occurs in nature is the movement of a snake in the grass. Beyond that simple form everything else in nature is too complicated to be of use as a measuring tool to adequately describe music as a human creation. ********************* "This is one reason why the room acoustics have more effect on the loudspeaker than one could think: there is no direct sound and reflected sound in practical listening situations in normal listening rooms. All musical sounds that the ear receives (even transients) already have reflected sound included ... " You seem to misunderstand how we hear the sound propagtaed by the speaker within our listening room. If "there is no direct sound and reflected sound in practical listening situations in normal listening rooms" then there is nothing left to hear. There would be no sound. Instead, everything we hear within a typical listening room is direct and reflected sound; and, that represents the largest problem we face in recreating the live experience. It is close to impossible to capture the whole of the sound of the live event because of the numerous reflected sounds that are part of the experience. When we try to replay those wave forms in a much different space, it is once again the reflected sounds that create a problem. But, it is not a matter of "(a)ll musical sounds that the ear receives (even transients) already have reflected sound included ... " rather that we hear the direct sound and all the subsequent reflections as distinct items. If they were miraculously lumped together we would hear a recreation much more akin to the original. It is the various reflections that arrive at different times and at different levels which create the dificulties engineers have attempted to minimize in recreating a "you are there" or "they are here" experience. That has been one of my major complaints about the multichannel formats that have found their way into our homes, coming on the heels of home theater, much like a lost dog follows a school boy home. Minimizing the radiation patterns of a driver can minimize the effect of room reflections in the upper frequencies but will ultimately result in a speaker with a sweet spot where everything works together; but, outside of that small spot everything falls apart. And, of course, recreating any type of reasonable bass response will give up any sense of directionality in a typical room. As I read your statement, you seem at once to be arguing for the simplicity of the musical event while, at the same time, arguing for the complexity of the event. If you would choose one side of the fence to stay on we might be able to further this discussion. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2604 Registered: Dec-03 | Just to say I agree, but thought " there is no direct sound and reflected sound in practical listening situations in normal listening rooms..." etc. perhaps contained some typing mistakes. No offence, Veli; I make these all the tome. |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics