Top 10 AUDIO LIES
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page| Thread | Last Poster | Posts | Last Post | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Archive through April 09, 2005 | John A. | 100 |
|
bumblebeee Unregistered guest | #11 is a fact. |
|
mauimusicman Unregistered guest | John, i'll agree that it may be a matter of personal TASTE, but there is a definate right and wrong when it comes to audio. I'm not saying it's not ok to like whats wrong.....i'm saying don't try to tell me wrong is better. Take speakers for example. The vast majority of home audio speakers smear the time/phase of the original signal so badly that if they were any other audio component, they would be considered defective. Yet people shout purple prowse about them daily. I haven't a clue why....but they do. I read all the Paradigm pride here and the Von Schweikert props on A/A and Wilson this and that; but NONE of those speakers gets time/phase remotely close to right. Amazing. When you hear a speaker that DOES get it right, it's pretty obvious what the others are doing wrong and missing the boat on from that point forward. The same holds true for amps, pre-amps, turntables, cd players etc. So.....getitng back to the audio lies....if your playback system is smearing the audio signal something terrible, how then can ANYONE be expected to hear differences in cables, amps or anything else? And, if one DOES hear differences on an incoherant system, how can one be certian what they are hearing is better, worse or just sypathetically working for or against the phase errors the system is producing? If you don't have all the pieces to work with....the puzzle becomes nearly inpossible to solve. Believe what you will..... |
|
Silver Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 185 Registered: Feb-05 | We all will! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 2988 Registered: Dec-03 | mauimusicman, I agree with all you write in that last post. And strongly. Thanks. Numbers 11 and 12 are offered as more "lies" to add to the list of ten in the article linked by Edster922 in the first post, here. About number 12. It is more common than any of the others. Look around the forum. I was trying to raise an issue which keeps coming up on other threads. I have had many discussions with people on this forum, and learned much from them. But, sometimes, diagreements can get to a point where someone says, effectively, "I believe what I believe: if I like the sound, it makes me feel good, and that is all that matters. Who are you to tell me there might be something better? That's just your opinion, too. There is no 'good' and 'bad' if hifi, and you are being intolerant if you say otherwise." Then, often as not, if one attempts to get back to the point, people get angry. For anyone to be able to judge for themselves, and compare with what other people find, we have to agree about what we are trying to achieve, with hifi, in the first place. "This makes me feel good" is not enough, just because we are all different. Personally, I share the Quad objective "The closest approach to the original sound". If anyone agrees, then we can begin to discuss how to get there. If, however, someone does not want "the closest approach" then that's OK, but there is not much point in discussing anything unless we can be clear what what else it is that we are trying to do. And, yes, time and phase coherence is a huge factor, in speakers, I completely agree, because coherence is required to re-create the original sound accurately, which is what I happen to want. In my view this quality in speakers totally overshadows questions such as frequency response and sensitivity, in most situations, But coherence is rarely discussed, and does not show up in specifications - you have to listen. There is a lot of heat on the subject of "What use are specs?" on the thread Frequency range and frequency response?. I should think one can measure coherence, but would probably have take a small electronics lab to the demo (or take the speakers to it), so it is simpler just to listen, and this is the whole point, anyway - if the "closest approach" is what we want. |
|
Silver Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 187 Registered: Feb-05 | I'll be sure to tell Dave Holland tonight when I see him, to not bother to perform unless his speakers are time/phase coherent. I'm sure that he would agree that it is fruitless for him to perform if he is not going to sound like the real thing. Please! I've heard time/phase coferent speakers they are nice and so are alot of other designs. Maui, you and I do agree on one thing. I have no problem hearing the differences in many cables. I believe that if you don't, it probably doesn't make any sense to shop for amplifiers, sources, or speakers. Just buy the first thing you run across, as it will all sound fairly similar to you anyway. |
|
Bronze Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 51 Registered: Dec-04 | and lie #13, your mailin rebate check is in the mail. uh-huh. The salesperson thing got in this thread somewhere, and I like that topic. Hmmm new thread? Jan, Frank? |
|
mauimusicman Unregistered guest | Arthur.....well, thats a start, huh? To be painfully honest though, many...if not most speakers that claim to be time/phase coherant have a crossover that consists of a plethora of parts....hardly my idea of time/phase coherant. Thats what makes my plight all the more difficult, yet when I say "Listen to the GMA line" because I KNOW they are doing it right, people accuse me of working for the company. I do not. I have hope for you Arthur....your willing to listen, read and form your own conclusions. These things will go far in helping you in your audio journey. John, I guess waterfall plots do show coherance to a certain degree. Wish there was a test that revealed everything. Closest thing we have currently is our ears, huh? I completely agree with your "Closest to the original sound" theory. Any deviation from that changes the musical intent and can only be called distortion of some sort. You sir, are one of the few voices of reason in this forum. Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it very much. |
|
Unregistered guest | As an absolute, folly, whim and psycho-acoustics are nonexistent in the audio realm. Curiously, however, my audio system discernably appreciates with "Kind of Blue", Lafite-Rothschild and Salma Hayek present in my listening room. http://celebrity-exchange.com/celebs/photos51/selmahayek3.jpg |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 2993 Registered: Dec-03 | Thank you maui. That is a real compliment. Well, I try... Let me flag here my thread Quad Electrostatic Loudspeaker 63. Thanks for the comment there, too. Reading your opinions, you could consider ESLs, if you are ever in the speaker market again. They have no crossover at all. BTW, I have no conflicting interest or hidden agenda in making that suggestion. They don't make them any more, and I don't care about the resale price; I am keeping mine!. Arthur; don't you want to hear the real Dave Holland, whatever the aligment of his speakers, or as close as you can get...? If his speakers have dodgey phasing, that is still "the original sound", and what we want. No...? |
|
mauimusicman Unregistered guest | Jaw, Your talking phycho-accoustics. I'm talking very real and even more audable phase distorting. Do some research....or better yet, listen. John, the Quad 63's are one incredible speaker. No doubt about that. |
|
Silver Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 189 Registered: Feb-05 | 2 more sets of GMA Europa's for sale on Audiogon, both sets for under $700. Another pair sold a cople of days ago after the price was reduced.....hmm. Dave Holland was fantastic...Chris Potter blows a mean tenor. |
|
Silver Member Username: GmanMt. Pleasant, SC Post Number: 657 Registered: Dec-03 | There is a rule (however fallacious)in purchasing audio equipment: The more you pay, the better it must sound. The customer is often as guilty of rationalizing an expensive purchase (as having better sound)as those that would sell them. Take a look at Stereophiles recommended component list. It rarely varies from the above statement. Below is a recent review by Peter Aczel (who has changed his Audio Critic mag to a webzine), and who with Tom Nousaine is responsible for the 10 audio lies. 02 Mar, 2005 "Benchmark DAC1" 2-channel 24 bit/192 khz digital to analog converter Benchmark Media Systems, Inc., 5925 Court Street Road, Syracuse, NY 13206-1707. Voice: (315) 437-6300. Fax: (315) 437-8119. E-mail: sales@benchmarkmedia.com. Web: www.benchmarkmedia.com. DAC1 2-channel 24-bit 192-kHz digital-to-analog converter, $975.00 (direct from factory). Tested sample on loan from manufacturer. Standalone digital-to-analog converters make sense only if they are significantly better than the DACs built into typical integrated players. This one is. It is made by professionals for professionals, for reference-quality playback in studio control rooms and mastering rooms, although it is perfectly suitable for audiophile use. What it clearly does not aspire to is audiophile bragging rights based on price and tweako/weirdo features. The cloud-cuckoo-land high-end DACs at ten times and fifteen times the Benchmark's price are no better and in most cases not as good. Their owners may delude themselves with fantasies of ineffable sonic superiority, but in reality the only fact-based brag they are entitled to is that they paid more than the poor peasants with Benchmark DAC1's. Why can I confidently make that statement? Because I measured the DAC1 up and down and sideways with the Audio Precision SYS-2722, possibly the most sensitive and accurate audio-test instrument in the world, and found it to be as nearly perfect as a digital-to-analog converter can get at the present state of the art. Totally perfect 24-bit converters, with the theoretical noise floor of --146.24 dBFS and a perfect monotonicity "staircase" waveform at the ten lowest LSBs, do not yet exist, at any price, and probably never will. Still, the DAC1 yielded the best measurement figures that I have ever obtained out of a digital processor on my test bench, nor have I ever seen better measurements on other units in other publications. Of course, those who believe that the best-sounding electronic components are not the ones that measure best will pooh-pooh the Benchmark. At this point I'm too old to get upset by these audio cultists, any more than I am by the advocates of crystal power or creationism. The fact is that Benchmark designed the DAC1 on the Audio Precision, as witnessed by the 15 AP graphs in the instruction manual; the whole design is obviously measurement-driven. That the audible performance tracks the measurable performance is a given. The Design No circuit schematic was available for the DAC1, and in view of the stunning measurements none was really necessary for evaluation. What I do know, from various sources, is that the basic architecture of the circuit is very similar to the one described by Robert W. Adams of Analog Devices in his article on clock jitter in Issue No. 21 of The Audio Critic, published more than ten years ago. The heart of the circuit is a second-generation asynchronous sample-rate converter, a refinement of the original ASRC discussed in the article, followed by a stereo 24-bit/192-kHz multibit-sigma-delta DAC. These Analog Devices chips are the latest-and-greatest, state-of-the-art ICs. Further discussion of the DAC1's technology would get me into deeper technical waters than I wish to wade through (is that a mixed metaphor?), but I must mention that the unit incorporates Benchmark's ultralow-distortion HPA2 headphone amplifier. No separate analog input is provided for the HPA2, so I did not test it separately, since its performance would have been conflated with that of the D-to-A circuit itself. Basically, it makes no difference which output of the DAC1 you measure; the results will be virtually the same. The chassis of the DAC1 is a very elegant little black box, no bigger than a smallish book and weighing only 3½ pounds. The front panel has various indicator lights, a switch for the digital inputs, two identical headphone jacks, and a gain control that makes it possible to feed a stereo power amplifier directly, without the need for a preamplifier--most unusual and very useful. The rear panel has three digital inputs--coaxial, optical, and XLR (professional)--and two pairs of analog outputs--balanced (XLR) and unbalanced (RCA). An output level switch toggles between calibrated, off, and variable settings. In the calibrated setting, two 10-turn trimmer pots are accessible through tiny holes for fixing the left and right output levels. They have a range of 20 dB. The complement of inputs, outputs, and controls covers the requirements of the most advanced professional applications, as well as just about any audiophile hookup. The Measurements The Benchmark DAC1 accepts any digital input up to 24 bits word length and 192 kHz sampling rate. For these measurements, my Audio Precision settings, insofar as they had any influence on the readings, were 24 bits and 96 kHz, unless otherwise specified. Most measurement protocols start with the frequency response, which in the case of the DAC1 is so flat that I won't even bother to reproduce the graph. The response in both channels is ±0.01 dB from 10 Hz to 6 kHz, --0.2 dB at 20 kHz, --0.5 dB at 30 kHz, --0.9 dB at 40 kHz, and --4.5 dB at 48 kHz. That's easy to visualize. Perhaps the most revealing measurement of a digital-to-analog converter is THD + N across the frequency spectrum, shown in Fig. 1. Most publications don't show this curve because it is in the majority of cases a little embarrassing. Above 7 kHz or so the curves aren't particularly meaningful because of the 22 kHz measurement filter, but below that frequency the --105.5 to --107 dB readings are astonishing, especially since they were taken at --3 dBFS to duplicate the graph in the instruction manual and can therefore be extrapolated to --108.5/--110 dB for the full-scale output. (That 3 dB below full scale is a kind of safety guard band, which is actually unnecessary in the case of the DAC1.) The graph in the instruction manual is even a couple of dB better, perhaps because I wasn't terribly careful about cabling, fluorescent lights, etc. As it is, --110 dB is equivalent to 0.0003% and that's far below anything I've ever measured or even heard of. Fig. 1: THD + N @ --3 dBFS, left channel blue, right channel red. Perhaps the most sensitive distortion/noise test is what I used to call the Rob Watts Test (named after Rob Watts, a U.K. engineer), consisting of the FFT spectrum of a dithered 1 kHz tone at --60 dBFS. This is shown for one channel of the DAC1 in Fig. 2. The largest blip sticking out of a bin-by-bin noise floor of --146 dB is no taller than --134 dB. (Is that clean enough for you?) Fig. 2: Spectrum of a dithered 1 kHz tone @ --60 dBFS in one channel. I also measured the single-point noise figure, which came to --112.4 dB in both channels. The SNR of a theoretical 19-bit digital system is 116.14 dB, so according to this measurement the DAC1 is about "18½ bits clean." Even 16-bits-clean equipment is rare. Intermodulation distortion at full scale, with the most punishing test frequencies of 19 kHz and 20 kHz, is shown in Fig. 3. The sidebands are below --105 dB; all other spurious frequencies are below --114 dB. Fig. 3: IMD at full scale, 19 kHz + 20 kHz, in one channel. Crosstalk at full scale is shown in Fig. 4. The graph speaks for itself; I have never seen better channel separation in any piece of audio equipment. Fig. 4: Crosstalk @ 0 dBFS, left channel blue, right channel red. Gain linearity error is --0.15 dB at the --90 dB level and --0.5 dB at the --100 dB level, reaching a maximum of --1.25 dB at --108 dB. Errors that small would be hardly visible on a graph with lower resolution than Fig. 5. Fig. 5: Gain linearity (blue) and deviation from linearity (red) in one channel. As for low-level linearity pushed to the ragged edge, there's the dreaded monotonicity waveform, available as a special setting of the digital generator on the Audio Precision SYS-2722. I specified 24 bits, 192 kHz sampling, and 10 samples/step for the monotonicity test. Thus the square-wave half-period was 10/192,000 seconds, or 52.1 microseconds (corresponding to a full square wave frequency of 9.6 kHz); each equal-amplitude section was ten half-periods long, or 0.521 ms; and each eleven-step repetition occurred at a rate of 11×0.521 ms, or every 5.21 ms. As Fig. 6 shows, no 24-bit DAC in the world is perfect, not even the Benchmark, but the envelope still narrows gradually from left to right and there is still the suggestion of a staircase. (I must admit it took a lot of averaging to get even that far.) Fig. 6: Monotonicity waveform, 24-bit resolution, 10 samples/step, 192 kHz sample rate. A word about jitter. Some high-end reviewers flap their wings very vigorously on the subject, but as Bob Adams pointed out more than ten years ago in the abovementioned article, there is no reason to single out distortion components caused by jitter as distinct from those caused by other circuit mechanisms. Distortion is distortion, no matter where it comes from, and the tests above cover that ground in sufficient detail. To isolate and measure jitter, one would have to remove the cover and go inside the Benchmark DAC1, because it doesn't have a digital output (nor does it need one). The instruction manual goes into great detail about jitter, with four different graphs to prove the DAC1's immunity to it. Just for the hell of it, without much hope of significant results, I ran a hi-rez FFT of a full-scale 20 kHz tone to see if there were any noise sidebands in its vicinity that would indirectly indicate the presence of jitter. As Fig. 7 shows, there weren't any, at least not under the conditions of my quickie test. And that's all, folks. Fig. 7: Spectrum of a full-scale 20 kHz tone, 8 kHz to 32 kHz, one channel. The Sound It should be obvious from the above discussion, at least to those familiar with The Audio Critic, that the Benchmark DAC1 has no sound of its own, transparently passing on to its output the quality of its input. Whatever sonic peculiarities may perchance be audible are due to the input signal, not the DAC1 circuit. Even if the circuit were a lot less perfect, that would still be the case. Absolute sonic transparency is a concept innocent audiophiles are uncomfortable with, believing that all audio components--CD players, preamplifiers, amplifiers, tuners, all of them--exhibit varying degrees of soundstaging, fr-nt to b-ck depth, grain, air, etc. That it isn't so, except in the case of loudspeakers, is a fact calmly accepted by professional engineers but not by the high-end pundits and high-end manufacturers, who would be out of business if the truth were to sink in universally. I am by now a little tired of harping on this subject but was still amused by John Atkinson's comments on the Benchmark DAC1 in the May 2004 issue of Stereophile. John made sure to tell his readers that the Mark Levinson No. 30.6, which cost $17,500 before it was discontinued, still sounds better than the Benchmark, despite the latter's perfect measurements. In a December 2004 followup ("2004 Editor's Choice," namely the Benchmark!) he adds the Theta Generation VIII ($10,000) and the Wadia 27ix ($9959) to the of-course-sounds-better list. I wonder what quality the Mark Levinson, Theta, and Wadia engineers dial into their products--above and beyond flat frequency response, low distortion, low noise, and the other usual suspects--that mysteriously makes them sound better. Maybe I should stop wondering after 28 years as an audio journalist and 57 years as an audiophile. Now that I got that off my chest I need to add that I actually listened (yes!) to the DAC1 in a no-preamplifier hookup. The digital output of my CD player was plugged directly into the DAC1's coaxial input and its unbalanced outputs were plugged directly into the electronic crossover of the Linkwitz Lab "Orion" speakers. The sound, needless to say, was mind-blowing (for lack of a better word), but mostly because of the quality of the speakers, though admittedly aided by the total absence of electronic distortion. I would gladly have set up a double-blind listening comparison of the CD player's analog outputs versus the DAC1, but then I realized that it would be an apples-and-oranges situation. Red-book 16-bit/44.1-kHz PCM against a 24-bit/192-kHz converter? It's not very meaningful. I'd have to scare up a late-model DVD-Audio player for a valid ABX test. I'll do it, soon, but you know something? I don't think I'll hear a difference. Even so, I'll take electronic perfection, any day of the week, if it costs $975 instead of $17,500. ---Peter Aczel |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3433 Registered: May-04 | "There is a rule (however fallacious)in purchasing audio equipment: The more you pay, the better it must sound. The customer is often as guilty of rationalizing an expensive purchase (as having better sound)as those that would sell them. Take a look at Stereophiles recommended component list. It rarely varies from the above statement." Take a look at the prices of cars, cameras, clothes, shoes, wine, real estate, medical care. Somethings cost more because of their quality and value. There are bargains to be had, but a higher price is not always the work of devious retailers and manufacturers. Gregory, I understand you decided you cannot hear any improvement in audio components and pick by virtue of warranties and remotes as you have admitted to me. In your case it would be a shame to spend money for the better product since you cannot appreciate the improvement. But why tell others they can't hear any better than you? |
|
Bronze Member Username: EramseySouth carolina United States Post Number: 61 Registered: Feb-05 | I think you may be a little presumptious this time Jan in saying that a higher price always reflects better quality. Sure with audio in most cases the more you spend generally the better you get, at least in terms of build quality. This however, is not applicable "universally" as you seem to suggest. For example a $15K Honda Civic certainly costs less than a Lincoln sedan but given the great reliability,low maintainence costs of the Honda over the Lincoln does this make the Honda "less" of a vehicle in terms of quality? The answer is a resounding no. Another example is a simple purchase I made last night. I fired up the grill for dinner for the wifey and myself and realized that we didn't have any aluminum foil to cook the shrimp in so I raced to the grocery store to pick some up. Any way to make a long story short I bought the cheapest foil which about 30 cents cheaper than the Reynolds brand foil. Ok so what! I of course was not concearned with saving a measely 30 cents, I knew however that foil is foil and the cheaper foil is exactly the same as the higher priced brand, hell they are probably from the same supplier! Again no difference in quality by paying more money. The Yellowtail brand of wine from Australia is rated highly by some critics as an inexpensive bottle of wine at $12.99/1.5L over many costing $20 a bottle. I tend to buy name brand shoes but have gotten just as much wear occasionally from lesser brands. So I agree with you somewhat at least in terms of audio. When making a purchase a consumer should by the highest quality gear that they can possibly afford but you simply cannot apply this to all goods and services. E.Ramsey |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3438 Registered: May-04 | Ramsey - I don't think I said a higher price "always" will reflect higher quality. Having driven Hondas for the past thirty years I fully understand the value they represent. Having sold Hondas at one time I understand what many people never seem to catch on to. No matter how much you get off a Ford, after four years the Honda will have retained a higher percentage of its SELLING price. You get more on your investment not to mention the lower repair costs. But I know an Acura RL is much more car than an Accord sedan and the difference is reflected in the price. I know an NSX is more car than a (very good) 2000 and the price reflects that improvement. Whether someone needs the RL or the NSX is a matter of their choice. There are points of diminishing return where price increases expotentially to the improvement. A Canon Rebel is a very good camera for not much money. But it is not a 4x5 range finder. Audio has always had its share of excellent values. That is not to say you don't get what you pay for in most cases. |
|
Unregistered guest | MM, Phase Distortion: A sophomoircally simple perspective- http://www.mywiseowl.com/articles/Audio_system_measurements >The human ear is actually largely insensitive to phase distortion, and so for many this figure lacks importance; however, there are always those who will argue the opposite. A high-brow viewpoint- http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/Phase_audibility.htm It depends. A high-brow viewpoint continued- http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/audio/phase/phaseaud2.htm It depends. Inconclusive. Psycho-acoustics: The study of the relationship between physical sounds and the brain's interpretation of them (including any emotional links to those sounds). For any 2 documents of substance I dredge up, assuredly, another 3 exist to the contrary. Stealing a quote, "Many test parameters which are helpful in design and evaluation still show only a relatively poor correlation with perceived sound quality." M.Colloms Thusly, Folly: any foolish and fruitless but expensive undertaking and Whim: a sudden fancy and passing notion. My sound system markedly depreciates with Rick Braun, Southern Comfort and Drew Barrymore present in my listening room. |
|
Silver Member Username: GmanMt. Pleasant, SC Post Number: 661 Registered: Dec-03 | "Can anyone explain to me why the respondents on this forum that claim no difference exists between amplifiers, or cables, or what have you, will always have a "better" product they got because they received such a tremendous "deal" on its purchase. If they truly believed in their convictions, wouldn't they reject anything but the most basic products despite the cost? Wouldn't they all own JVC's and no name speakers?" There is a huge emotional component in most purchases--particularly audio electronics. The Rolex doesn't "tell" time any better than the $75 Timex--but who wouldn't rather have a Rolex on their wrist? I have nice 12 gauge inexpensive Radio Shack wire. The more expensive receivers will often have more power and particularly more features---and better remotes:-) Us guys (and some gals)often like the latest and greatest features--and one ends up paying for that. And you can never escape the emotional impact a component has on the purchaser. From the manufacturer, the audio magazine, the retailer, the word on the street--the effect on the consumer psyche is huge. Most people want these things because they live in a society that is awash in the hype and the audio field is awash in hyper-hype. So most people make purchases that attempt to fulfill their perceived notion of what they should get. The amount of people that buy medium to expensive equipment without ever hearing it, particularly in their own home, is astronomical. It is difficult to Rage against the Machine. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3443 Registered: May-04 | "The Rolex doesn't "tell" time any better than the $75 Timex--but who wouldn't rather have a Rolex on their wrist?" Somebody who thinks wearing a Rolex doesn't mean you know what time it is. If you wear a Rolex because it has some emotional significance to you, then it makes a difference. And you probably feel different about yourself when that watch is on your wrist. It "improves" your image. And though someone else may not think much of wearing a Rolex, they won't dispute why you feel it's a "better" product. If you feel the audio equipment you buy is better, then why does anyone want to tell you that you're wrong and usually that you are stupid for buying that product? It seems the ability to convince oneself that somethings are an improvement because we percieve them as such is endemic to life. If we allow ourself that amount of hubris, why insist someone else should not enjoy what they see as an improvement? Whether you feel it is or not. "The amount of people that buy medium to expensive equipment without ever hearing it, particularly in their own home, is astronomical." I guess you're going to have to give me a source for your research. |
|
Silver Member Username: GmanMt. Pleasant, SC Post Number: 662 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan-- I doubt that my hearing is what it was at 20 years old, but as an amateur cello player that made New York all-state orchestra, what I may have lost in some high frequency hearing, I feel is more than compensated for by my greater degree of musicality since my early years. Yes, I can hear the differences between solid state and tube amplifiers (particularly when the differences are measureable). But I hear no difference in "matched output" 100 watt solid state amplifiers, unless someone is altering the signal by DSP or otherwise. Any acoustical and electrical engineer will tell you that your speakers and your room are by far the two most important components in effecting the sound you hear. What is in third place is very distant. Other than features and remote ergonomics on comparably powered solid state receivers, (as long as the sound is not altered through DSP's or other ways), it sounds the same to me and in ABX tests sounds the same to others. The good manufacturers almost all use the same (or comparable) chipsets. They have become like computers--and are just as measureable. Unless the signal emanating from two different amps or receivers is measureably different, the sound will be the same. And with matched outputs and with most equal-powered receivers and amps having insignificant distortion the signals are basically identical. Cars are measureable and the auto magazines generally reward the cars with the best measurements. They comment on the more subjective ergonomic and comfort aspects. Thankfully these are able to be tested by the individual before a purchase, to see if it meets their approval. The same is true of cameras--the best measurements that obtain the clearest pictures generally get the rave reviews by the photo publications. Again, the more subjective comfort and ergonomic aspects of the camera are commented on and can be tested by the individual before a purchase. As far as the subjectivity of wine, except for oenophiles and the very wealthy, most people won't spend more than $10-$30 for a bottle of wine (except for the rare celebratory occassion). If they make a poor purchase they won't have to live with it for long. Happily, the subjective muddle of high end audio magazines has had little effect on the importance of measurement in the video field. But I am sure they are working on it:-) There is probably a good reason why video has not succumbed to the subjective subterfuge. It is far easier to remember an image than it is to remember a sound. You can look at two HDTV's simultaneously, but you can't listen to audio simultaneously. It is very easy for a retailer to persuade someone that receiver "a" sounds better than "b"--even if played through the same speakers with matched outputs. The power of authority is enormous, particularly when put against a newbie or someone that is easily suggestible (quite a few people). The above being said, this is not to say that if someone gave me a 200 watt Mark Levinson amplifier that I would not trade my 200 watt Aragon even-up. But I certainly wouldn't expect it to sound any different and I would bet $1,000 that in a matched output ABX test there would be no statistical significance in people differentiating the two. As I said before, as a Rolex doesn't "tell" time any better than a Timex, it still doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer having the Rolex on my wrist. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3447 Registered: May-04 | Gregory - Sleep well with that information planted firmly in your brain. No one will dislodge any idea you have and I will not try. You should be well aware you and I disagree on almost everything. I have no need to spend more time when neither of us will see the other's point of view. By the way, congratulations on that all-state orchestra thing. How long ago? My time flies when you full of yourself. And way to go on owning the Rolex. What model Mercedes? |
|
Anonymous | Jan: accusing somebody else of being full of themself?! You really are a dickens! Were I as full of myself as you are, I'd say that God put you on earth to amuse me. Stay gold, Janny. Don't ever change! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3448 Registered: May-04 | Sorry, Gregory. I was rude to you in that last paragraph. I've asked people to discuss ideas and not get into personal attacks. I violated my own rule. You have my apology. I still think you're wrong on just about everything else you wrote above. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 1700 Registered: Aug-04 | Jan, If I may chime in here, I am pleased to see that apology to Gregory, I didn't think that was warranted - it was not like you - a small brain phart maybe; we all have those from time to time. Anyhow, you say you think just about everything Gregory wrote in his above post was wrong. I beg to differ somewhat so could you expand on that for the benefit of the rest of us? |
|
Bronze Member Username: EramseySouth carolina United States Post Number: 62 Registered: Feb-05 | Excellent post Gregory! Yes enlighten us Jan how Gregory is so wrong. E.Ramsey |
|
Bronze Member Username: EramseySouth carolina United States Post Number: 63 Registered: Feb-05 | I would also like to add to Anonymous: please go away! While I disagree sometimes with Mr. Vigne I do not insult him and argue in a gentlemanly fashion. Reveal you identity and have something worhtwhile to listen to or GO AWAY! E.Ramsey |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3450 Registered: May-04 | A large portion of what Gregory has stated can be taken as either hyperbole or such generalized opinion that it's hard to do justice to where I disagree. Gregory and I have been down this road before. We will never see eye to eye on many (most) things audio. To decompose what I find less than accurate in his post can only be addressed with other generalizations. Generalizations seldom hold up under scrutiny. "I hear no difference in "matched output" 100 watt solid state amplifiers" The qualifier here is always, as Gregory said, differences that are measurable. This goes to what is "measurable"? How far do we look to determine a difference? Do we stop after T.H.D. and signal to noise? Or can we assume that most amplifiers will have measurable differences if we look at enough measurements. If so, then the chances of having two amplifiers of identical quality would be one in several hundred if not thousand. And does hearing no difference mean there is no difference? We have agreed that everyone listens for different qualities in live and reproduced music. The idea that someone doesn't hear the difference doesn't mean someone else will not easily pick the alteration. As Rick and I have posted: "If it measures good and sounds bad, -- it is bad. If it sounds good and measures bad, -- you've measured the wrong thing." - Daniel von Recklinghausen (Chief Engineer H.H. Scott) I take Mr. von Recklinghausen to be as much an authority on the subject as Mr. Linkwitz. "Any acoustical and electrical engineer will tell you that your speakers and your room are by far the two most important components in effecting the sound you hear." I think it's obvious that the term "any" is a stretch equivalent to "they all do it". I would say the generalization being made would find many engineers in disagreement. The idea that a speaker as a transducer will affect the tonal balance is not in dispute. But is mere tonal balance the only quality we want to use to judge a system? If so, then I concede the point with one exception. If someone is using a LP based system, the transducer at the end of the tonearm will, by its position in the system, have a greater effect on the sound of the system than any transducer downstream unless the speaker has gross errors in its frequency response. I believe any acoustic or eletrical engineer would agree to that statement. If on the other hand, there are other qualities that we want to consider as important to our enjoyment of music over and above tonal balance, those properties will more than likely be affected by the system in front of the speakers. I agree the room will trump everything if left untreated. The fact that any other qualities than a speaker's balance are beyond the ability of Gregory to hear is something I cannot argue. I have no idea what or how Gregory hears or does not hear. His insistence on ABX testing is well beyond what I want to discuss here. As I have said before, test audio like you use it. ABX testing has nothing to do with listening to music. "The good manufacturers almost all use the same (or comparable) chipsets." Once again Gregory wants us to think that his claim that "the good" manufacturers use comparable components is a gross generalization that has little to do with reality other than in Greogory's imagination. It most obviously ignores topology of a design as a factor in sound quality. I think if the statement were true there would be far fewer manufacturers on the market. The old adage of if we knew the correct way to do this, everybody would be doing it that way seems applicable. They are not doing it the same way and they are not getting the same results. This does not apply to mass market crud that is indistinguishable from one another in its badness. "And with matched outputs and with most equal-powered receivers and amps having insignificant distortion the signals are basically identical." If you believe that, there is no discussion to be had. That, in the high end audio market, is equivalent to belief in the Tooth Fairy. Gregory is free to think that. But to reduce the quality of the signal to "distortion" is not seeing the ocean for the water. "most people won't spend more than $10-$30 for a bottle of wine (except for the rare celebratory occassion). If they make a poor purchase they won't have to live with it for long." I can't argue with that. It unfortunately has nothing to do with the discernment of improvements in better audio components. A $12 bottle of Chianti is not the same as a $120 bottle of Barrollo. "It is far easier to remember an image than it is to remember a sound." Personally, I've not seen any information that would support this idea. If it exists, then that's fine with me. Having sold video products, I would say the point has little to do with the subjective experience of deciding which display has the "best picture". People have a far more dificult time choosing a quality TV than they do choosing their audio system. If you doubt me, stand around a TV display on a Saturday afternoon. Most clients want to know how to pick a "good TV". They have little ability to discern true black or white (or red, blue or green) when it is not available on the screen. This is an area where "informed" consumers rely heavily on magazine ratings and not their own senses. If someone wanted to know which TV had the best picture for themself, they would bring in a disc with standardized test screens and ask to view the display in a darkened room with a 6700 degree Kelvin lamp placed behind the display. This does not happen. If you don't believe me, go stand around a TV display on a Saturday afternoon. And as much as the room affects the sound of a speaker, the room light affects the TV's picture. If you intend to watch TV most often in a darkened room, you cannot choose correctly in a showroom even dimmly lit by other TV's. "You can look at two HDTV's simultaneously" Step back seven feet from two items. Try focusing on two items at the same time with critical judgement. This is hyperbole that doesn't hold up. This is just flat wrong. "It is very easy for a retailer to persuade someone that receiver "a" sounds better than "b"--even if played through the same speakers with matched outputs. The power of authority is enormous, particularly when put against a newbie or someone that is easily suggestible" If I ever sell again I'm going to ask for a name tag with "Svengali" on it. If someone has the ability to think about what they have heard, this statement is useless and plays to the stereotype of the manipulative salesperson. That seems to be a recurrent theme in the world of "any acoustic and electrical engineer" and all those "good manufacturers". There is evil in the world and it is their job to save the world. "The above being said, this is not to say that if someone gave me a 200 watt Mark Levinson amplifier that I would not trade my 200 watt Aragon even-up. But I certainly wouldn't expect it to sound any different" Those kind of statements totally befuddle me. Why would you take it if there is no difference? To say you have it? I've heard all of Gregory's justifications for better build, better remotes and this and that. The statement on its face makes no sense to me. I own my McIntosh amplifiers because they are better built and because, to me, they sound better that anything else I could afford. As to his expectations or lack thereof, I find that a little sad. The two amps do measure differently beyond the most basic points. The idea that the power of authority can be quite powerful to the easily led seems to be at work here. Gregory has, after many years and many dollars of not hearing what others heard, finally decided it is easier to fall in with those who cry "Charlatan" when audio quality is discussed. We all want to find comfirmation of what we want to believe. Fox News has built an industry on it. If you are inclined to discount the improvements in sound qaulity that can be heard by others, there are plenty of sources that will feed that conviction. Gregory finds this viewpoint suits his experience and he has embraced it whole heartedly. That isn't to say I don't have my prejudices. We all do. And we all find reinforcement for those convictions. Unfortunately one group chooses to consider the other group to be of less than the best moral character and mental abilities. The idea that one group can tell the other group they have not just heard what was clearly present is, by some accounts, a matter of how insecure the one group is in their convictions. Those I've met who hear improvements in components seem more willing to let the other side go on with whatever they want to believe. Gregory and I have done this dance before. We know where the other stands. I don't have any problems with Gregory or anyone else having the opinions they choose to hold. Gregory has all the same rights I have to express an opinion. I just don't agree with most of what he has to say. And never will. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3451 Registered: May-04 | Ramsey - Thanks for the comments to anon. I hope the poster gets the message the comments are disruptive. I'm trying to ignore the remarks as others have suggested. It's really too bad, I had a doozy of a comeback this time. |
|
Bronze Member Username: EramseySouth carolina United States Post Number: 65 Registered: Feb-05 | Your welcome Jan! It is starting to get really irritating! Sorry I foiled your comeback. E.Ramsey |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 1705 Registered: Aug-04 | Jan, Now that's much better than just a blanket poo-hoo! Thankyou. A lot of what you stated now makes some sense. As I have said on many occassion, I have still much to learn about things audio. What Gregory stated did not seem that arguable to me, but when the bigger picture is provided one can see how some of his points can be debatable. Personally - I wouldn't wear a Rolex, I think it says something. But I'm not opposed to the concept of being able to acquire such luxuries if one can afford them. As for discerment of audio components - one need not go past a good Aussie wine. That way if everything sounds like crap, at least you'll have a good taste in your mouth. LOL! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3455 Registered: May-04 | Let me spend some time with this statement; "The power of authority is enormous, particularly when put against a newbie or someone that is easily suggestible (quite a few people)." I do not mean to single out Gregory as the only poster guilty of using this ploy to their advantage, but it is obvious Gregory wishes to use it to work for him in his post above. By the continued use of phrases that imply some authority to his statements, Gregory wants to be influential to those unwilling to think for themself or those looking for the reinforcement of their similar convictions. The idea that "any acoustical or electrical engineer" will do what Gregory suggests is less then honest. Gregory relies on vague generalizations backed by the power of the authority of "experts" whom he gets to choose and gets to put words and ideas in their name that have no substantiation. The "good manufacturers" become "all" in agreement about what components to use. We don't know that for certain, but must rely on Gregory's assertion if we are to form an opinion based on the information provided. Or are we? By stating firmly what Gregory wants us to believe, we can either think for ourself or just assume Gregory has the authority to make such a statement even though there is no proof of its validity. "it sounds the same to me and in ABX tests sounds the same to others." Are we to assume Gregory is the arbitter of what we should hear? Do ABX tests reveal what Gregory claims? And even if they do, what does that mean? "You can look at two HDTV's simultaneously". It is false as you can tell if you've tried what I suggested. You cannot have a critical focus on two objects that are any reasonable distance apart when you are standing seven to ten feet away from the items. But it is made as a blanket statement that we should accept because of the authority with which Gregory states the proposition. As I said, I am not singling out Gregory. I'm sure there are comments that I have made that can be shown to be "authoritarian" in their nature. This entire post is an example of authoritarian word speak. My point here is to think about what you read. As they say, believe nothing of what you hear (read) and only half of what you see. Don't lay down and accept the idea that anyone should be the authority that you blindly accept. Think about what you hear. Then put that together with what you have read. Make up your own mind. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 1711 Registered: Aug-04 | Well, I always try to make up my own mind about things, but with the benefit of seeing/hearing other points of view and from my experiences. I certainly didn't take what Gregory said ad hoc just as I don't blindly agree with anyone's views, including yours. If I can make sense of someone's opinion or their defining of the facts then, of course that builds on my view as well. I certainly didn't accept everything Gregory stated - I made the comment that you disagreed with 'most' of what he stated and I disagreed with you in that most of his comments were wrong. Some were and in others he was, imo, merely generalising and that's not necessarily wrong - just incomplete, whereas delving further into the point may produce other considerations. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3456 Registered: May-04 | Rantz - I know you'll weigh the information and make your own decision. I want to make sure no one sees anyone, including me, with "authority" as the last word in what they should believe. The problem with authorities is so often they get lazy and forget to learn new things. Then they take shortcuts to get you to continue to think they what they prefer. Generalizations are the sort of thing where people can go, "Yeah, that's the way it is." But, as I said, generalizations seldom hold up under scrutiny. There seems to be a lot of clutter about a lot of things today, some important and some not so much. For the most part I'm not concerned with the conclusion anyone reaches if it is well thought out. I just want to encourage everyone to think it out for themself. Think critically of everything. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3457 Registered: May-04 | Hey, post number 3-4-5-6. Cool! |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 1713 Registered: Aug-04 | "Think critically of everything." Uh ah! You wouldn't say that if you were married to Mrs Rantz! LOL! |
|
Silver Member Username: GmanMt. Pleasant, SC Post Number: 663 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan- I don't doubt that the tonearm/cartridge combo has a big effect on sound. It is at this point that the consumer is directly involved in the "mechanical" generation of a signal. It is where the rubber meets the road--or the needle meets the record. Amplifiers (IMO) are just supposed to amplify (sorry) the signal and pass it as close to the original as possible. Of course, there are those that believe an amp should make the signal sound different or sweeter. I believe the DSP's or tone controls of a preamp should be used for this function, otherwise you are stuck in a constant flavor that was not in the original engineers design-hence less accurate. Speakers and their interation with the room create depth of soundstage and image. Not the signal from components. The signal is either an analogue wave or in many modern components--a digital stream. There can be no soundstage or image in a bitstream. Greg-"The above being said, this is not to say that if someone gave me a 200 watt Mark Levinson amplifier that I would not trade my 200 watt Aragon even-up. But I certainly wouldn't expect it to sound any different" Jan-"Those kind of statements totally befuddle me. Why would you take it if there is no difference? To say you have it? I've heard all of Gregory's justifications for better build, better remotes and this and that. The statement on its face makes no sense to me." Better build, higher re-sale value, and why not take a gift in a trade of an item with higher perceived value--whether it is true or not? Most people have pride of ownership and one just has to read the many posts to find that. Sure I realize there isn't better performance, but I will take higher "value" most of the time if it doesn't cost me more than what I already own. I doubt that strikes most people as odd. I don't own a Rolex or a Mercedes--in fact I almost never wear a watch. I have a 2001 Acura MDX and it still runs great. The only reason I said I played cello and was in NY All-State orchestra in 1968 was to lay a basis for my opinions in music and that I didn't arrive at this as some neophyte. That in combination with my science background (a chemist that owns a chemical company)no doubt has a strong influence on my reliance on science and objectivity (and ABX testing). I know I wouldn't want to take a medical drug that hadn't gone through some sort of blind testing to prove its safety and efficacy. |
|
Silver Member Username: GmanMt. Pleasant, SC Post Number: 664 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan- I don't doubt that the tonearm/cartridge combo has a big effect on sound. It is at this point that the consumer is directly involved in the choice of device that "mechanically/physically" generates a signal. It is where the rubber meets the road--or the needle/cartridge/tonearm meets the record. Amplifiers (IMO) are just supposed to attenuate the signal and pass it as close to the original as possible. Of course, there are those that believe an amp should make the signal sound different or sweeter. I believe the DSP's or tone controls of a preamp should be used for this function, otherwise you are stuck in a constant flavor that was not in the original engineers design-hence less accurate. Speakers and their interation with the room create depth of soundstage and image. Not the signal from components. The signal is either an analogue wave or in many modern components (particularly when generated by a cd/dvd player)--a digital stream. There can be no soundstage or image in a bitstream. Greg-"The above being said, this is not to say that if someone gave me a 200 watt Mark Levinson amplifier that I would not trade my 200 watt Aragon even-up. But I certainly wouldn't expect it to sound any different" Jan-"Those kind of statements totally befuddle me. Why would you take it if there is no difference? To say you have it? I've heard all of Gregory's justifications for better build, better remotes and this and that. The statement on its face makes no sense to me." Better build, higher re-sale value, and why not take a gift in a trade of an item with higher perceived value and higher actual cost (both new and residual)--whether it effects a difference or not? It makes total financial sense. Plus most people have pride of ownership and one just has to read the many posts on this forum to find that. Sure I realize there isn't better performance from 200 watt solid state amps with outputs matched and not driven to clipping, but I will take higher "value" most of the time if it doesn't cost me more than what I already own. I doubt that strikes most people as odd. I don't own a Rolex or a Mercedes--in fact I almost never wear a watch. I have a 2001 Acura MDX and it still runs great. The only reason I said I played cello and was in NY All-State orchestra in 1968 was to lay a basis for my opinions in music and that I didn't arrive at this as some neophyte. That in combination with my science background (a chemist that owns a chemical company)no doubt has a strong influence on my reliance on science and objectivity (and ABX testing). I know I wouldn't want to take a medical drug that hadn't gone through some sort of blind testing to prove its safety and efficacy. But we all know how blind ABX testing scares the bejeezus out of the high end audio magazines. Fear of the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome. What would they say in their reviews if a $1500 solid state amp was sonically indistinguishable from a $10,000 amp? What would they say if all the speaker cables of 12 gauge were indistinguishable sonically, except those that accidentally or purposefully altered the signal through either higher impedance or an added component on the wire that makes the signal different? Yes, there are reasons to buy more expensive components, but they often aren't the ones stressed in the high end magazines. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3463 Registered: May-04 | "Speakers and their inter[c]ation with the room create depth of soundstage and image. Not the signal from components. The signal is either an analogue wave or in many modern components (particularly when generated by a cd/dvd player)--a digital stream. There can be no soundstage or image in a bitstream." Gregory, we've been through this before. Your line hasn't changed one iota from the last time we went around on this subject. I will give you a gold star for consistency. But on your concept of how a hifi system works, you know I think you're as off course as a bat after a night with Jack Daniels. "Sure I realize there isn't better performance from 200 watt solid state amps with outputs matched and not driven to clipping" Oh, dear! "What would they say if all the speaker cables of 12 gauge were indistinguishable sonically" We're back to the "all" stuff again? Gregory, I know you don't read the same things I read. In what I read they will call attention to exceptional products that bring value to the market. In what you read there are no exceptional products. Only exceptional remotes and warranties. How boring is that?! "The only reason I said I played cello and was in NY All-State orchestra in 1968 was to lay a basis for my opinions in music and that I didn't arrive at this as some neophyte. That in combination with my science background (a chemist that owns a chemical company)" I won't even go there, Gregory. And how the hell did you end up with an Acura? Consumer Reports? |
|
mauimusicman Unregistered guest | ""The good manufacturers almost all use the same (or comparable) chipsets." I'd like to amend that statement to read "The good manufacturers don't use chipsets" Jan.....agree? Integrated circuits, or "chips" are good for computers, but bad for audio. ESPECIALLY anything passing current. I/C's are bandwith limited/ current limiting devices. Put current thru one and watch it explode like popcorn. The better gear uses discrete circuitry. Didn't mean to jump in....just correcting what needed corrected. Sorry. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3476 Registered: May-04 | Maui - Of course, you're right about discrete components. IC's may be used in circuits that do not pass signal, usually early on it the power supply for internal protection. BK used, and I think still uses, an IC in the phono section of their Pro 10 pre amp where minimal voltage and amperage is called for. It worked very well and sounded not too bad for the money. But most separate pre amps and power amps shy away from IC's for the reason you give, certainly in the circuits that pass an audio signal. The use of discrete components also gives the designers the ability to shape the signal to their own taste. An IC is an IC. You get what the IC designer has put into that chip and nothing more. If audio design were reduced to IC chipsets, many audio components would sound very much the same. Some of us would say the use of discrete components is why there is a difference and an improvement that can be discerned between various pieces in the system over and above the ergonomics of the remote control. There are others that are convinced of their opinion to the contrary. To start all over again discussing all the points where I think Gregory has missed the boat would take a long time. More time than I had for that already long post. I was trying to cover as much ground as possible in the fewest words I thought would satisfy those wanting clarification of my position. Thanks for the additonal remarks. I'm sure others caught the same wording from Gregory. |
|
Anonymous | That was a pretty decent article but I don't think I;d go so far as to say each and every one of the things he listed were bald faced lies. Music, or sound, or whatever you want to call it is probably one of the most subjective things around. Even video isn't as subjective as audio. To my ears, digital audio (when done well) sounds better than analog. Even so, there are times when I wax nostalgic when I hear an old analog recording. It does have it's own sound character. I must admit that I enjoy the silent background on CD but even with all the pops and hiss and rumble and so forth, the LP does have a sound that's easy to like (or even love). Tube versus transistor? Well, I'm not old enough to remember the tube era and most (if not all) of the tube stuff these days is well out of my price range. I'd love to get my hands on some of it just to listen for myself though. I'm not gonna just take this guy's word for it that transistors sound better than tubes. Even though most of my audio equipment is junk compared to that of most audiophiles, I have pretty discerning ears and I haven't been all that thrilled with what I've heard coming out of modern transistor-based stuff for quite a long time. Maybe I just need to move up past the $1,000 price range. Or, maybe nothing at any price point could ever completely satisfy my ears. My system isn't that great but I've heard some fairly expensive ones and I still wasn't really completely pleased with the sound. Oh, you can bet that if I had thousands of dollars to sink into this obsession, I'd certainly try. Personally, I believe most electronics manufacturers could do a lot better than they do but they simply don't want to. It's far too profitable for them to have people buying new equipment every couple of years or so. I mean, think about it. If you could buy something that would knock your socks off and keep you completely satisfied for the rest of your life, would you replace it next year? OK, I probably would but like I said, I'm never satisfied. I could spend 20 grand on gear and still not be satisfied with it. I'd find something I didn't like about it just to give me an excuse to buy something "better". Any given industry is going to have step up and specialty items for people who are never quite satisfied. Now days, with the Internet, it's easier than ever before for them to start rumors that this product or that product is so incredible that you really must snatch it up and give it a try. I have to wonder if that isn't how a lot of this stuff gets started. Anyway, my point was that I think people have a right to be happy with their hobby. If spending big bucks on cables, specialty tube amps or custom jobs or whatever is what makes them happy, more power to them. We all work hard for our money. Regardless of whether or not any of the things this guy pointed out in his article are lies, people have a right to make their own choices. Very few purchases are final these days. Most anything can be returned if it doesn't satisfy. I'm satisfied with my Corolla. The guy next door has a Hummer. I think it's a ridiculous waste of money but it puts a big, ear to ear smile on his face. In the end, that's what really matters. If your toys don't make you happy, why bother? |
|
Nathan as he is Unregistered guest | Eric Ramsey, you often contradict what you are saying. I am going to debug a few of your quotes and show you what they mean in real world English. The fact that I haven't seen one person point out your mistakes disturbs me greatly. I think you need to read each of your comments again and to say that any of the points I'm making are taking your words out of context I question your reading comprehension and integrity. Which all has to do with the veracity of your claims and the way you present them in English. If something is being taken out of context it is your lack of ability to fully explain yourself. You might be thinking something and leaving it out maybe? Quote #1: It doesn't matter if the man can hear 20Hz to 20KHz or is tone deaf. There is no sonic difference between cables and speaker wire. The only difference between cables and speaker wire are micro level parameters such as impedance,inductance,and resistance. The only way there could be a difference between wires and cable is if one out a group being compared were poorly designed and did not adhere to fundamental engineering principles. An individuals perception if, "tone deaf" would not be able to tell much difference between two different speakers and much less two different brands of cable. There would not be much if any sonic difference to that individual because of his lack of ability to hear the sonic differences. So I am saying it DOES matter if someone is tone deaf because he is unable to HEAR the sonic differences and does not belong in the, "sonic difference" equation. I know what you were trying to state was that any way you look at it there is no sonic difference in different speaker cables, but someone who is tone deaf doesn't belong in a, "sonic difference" discussion. That would be like saying that it doesn't matter if your blind or not, there is no difference between a standard T.V. and an HDTV. Again, I see you are saying that a fact is a fact. The human race has a LONG way from fully understanding science. Even a scientist can develop irrational ideas as well as fear around something they don't understand. Some scientist thought the world was flat and if you went too far you would fall off the planet long ago. Lack of understanding does crate fear and greater levels of irrational thought and fear is most of the time irrational unless their is a real reason for it. You also stated the whole reason and possibility a cable could sound different, but still deny any difference. The reason why you didn't hear any difference between the monster cable and the zip cord is because there wasn't much difference between the two in the first place. That was just standard Monster cable which is over priced and won't give a broad idea of the sonic differences. I'd would also like to say that Monster cable is a good example of not always getting what you pay for. Bose speakers are another good example of not getting what you pay for. There has always been a general misconception that the more money you pay the higher the quality will be. There is more high price junk than anyone can think of. The Bose saying, "BETTER SOUND THROUGH RESEARCH" is the most dishonest thing I have ever heard. They researched so hard they can't even tell you what their frequency response is on their speakers. They researched so hard you better just take their word for it because they know their crap. Computers are only as smart as people make them. It is also only as smart as the person behind it giving it commands. They need a human to tell them what to do. Nor have computers reached the capacity or level of human understanding. There are variables that are beyond a computers capability to measure what a human can. They are immeasurable. There is no way for any human being to measure on paper what or how the tone deaf guy thought the Bose speakers sounded compared to the Polk Audio speakers. You have have to be inside the guys head to truly understand what he thought he heard. Because he can't hear the difference doesn't mean that there is no difference. He is a tone deaf jackass! To get an amp by only reading the specs is the same as not listening to each speaker before you buy it. How the hell can you know something is better before you hear it? You could have the same specs on two different brands and for anyone that said there is no difference between amps has to put the crack pipe down. That is the same as saying there is no difference in the way speakers sound. All speakers and amps are built with a different level of quality. The level of quality of the parts used makes a huge difference in how a speaker or amp sounds and varies to a great degree. Forgot to mention that some specs are misleading and say 100x5 watts, but neglect to tell you that it was based on 1 channel driven and that wasn't even continuous. I'll have to remind you that I was aware of all of your points, but I'm going over a lot of misconceptions that most people have in general as well as covering others things that you said. For example, you stated that you never said anything about amps not sounding different and you were talking about cables. So you will see when I'm addressing you. Quote #2: The food tastes different because there are chemical disturbances in our sensory organs when we are sick which means that there are real physical factors at work. I think you should have pointed out that our nose being plugged is a big factor. If you are too plugged up to smell you won't be able to taste either. I have to give you crap about that;) Quote #3 No we probably haven't learned all that we can about human hearing but perception of hearing is an altogether different matter as this deals with the brain not the ear canals. This moves into the study of the psychological. Maybe dogs can hear a difference between wire and cables. Just kidding! E. Ramsey AAS industrial electronics Perception of hearing and just hearing are one in the same. Since the tone deaf guy can't hear well his perception of what he heard between two speakers brands will be different from mine. You spoke of peoples egos getting in their way, but yours has over shadowed your thought process. And your making it sound like you believe everything you read like the rest of the people on the Audioholics website. In closing I will make one last point before I go. All of the variables of making speaker wire that you pointed out are exactly what gives a wire its sound. A crap wire with no shielding does make your speakers sound different because of interference. I had a pair of crap pure copper 12 awg speaker cable. I wanted to test to see if wire really made a difference and bought the OG Monster cable 10 awg for $30 and their high end Z series cables. I used the Lord of the rings DVD and the LFE was running to my main speakers because they are capable of bass as low as 20Hz. The volume was kept the same. The Gemini was the crap 12 awg wire I was talking about. The Gemini cable made my speakers sound extremely harsh and the drivers bottomed out and clanked when the bass hit. The 10 awg OG Monster cable was a little less harsh and had no problem when the bass hit. The bass was full and tight. Keep in mind that the volume was only at 25%. Then I tried the Z series cable that was a total of $106 with screw on banana ends. All of the harsh sound disappeared and everything was clear and open. The sound separation was distinct. I was hoping to prove that there would be no difference and was shocked by the level of differences. My brother and his wife were there too and were amazed as well. HUGE difference between the Z series cable and the Gemini. You can't mistake a harsh sound like that along with your drivers bottoming out and clanking. So you need to try a wide number of cables on a high resolution system before you can form your opinion. It would be possible that their is a psychological factor that is keeping you from hearing anything or your ears. Could be your gear too. If you don't agree with any of these points you need to swallow your pride and put a needle in that balloon of an ego you have. You also now have the option to wipe your butt with your industrial electronics degree as it is just another piece of paper. Applying the knowledge you are given makes all the difference in the world. |
|
Nathan as he is Unregistered guest | Eric Ramsey, you often contradict what you are saying. I am going to debug a few of your quotes and show you what they mean in real world English. The fact that I haven't seen one person point out your mistakes disturbs me greatly. I think you need to read each of your comments again and to say that any of the points I'm making are taking your words out of context I question your reading comprehension and integrity. Which all has to do with the veracity of your claims and the way you present them in English. If something is being taken out of context it is your lack of ability to fully explain yourself. You might be thinking something and leaving it out maybe? Quote #1: It doesn't matter if the man can hear 20Hz to 20KHz or is tone deaf. There is no sonic difference between cables and speaker wire. The only difference between cables and speaker wire are micro level parameters such as impedance,inductance,and resistance. The only way there could be a difference between wires and cable is if one out a group being compared were poorly designed and did not adhere to fundamental engineering principles. An individuals perception if, "tone deaf" would not be able to tell much difference between two different speakers and much less two different brands of cable. There would not be much if any sonic difference to that individual because of his lack of ability to hear the sonic differences. So I am saying it DOES matter if someone is tone deaf because he is unable to HEAR the sonic differences and does not belong in the, "sonic difference" equation. I know what you were trying to state was that any way you look at it there is no sonic difference in different speaker cables, but someone who is tone deaf doesn't belong in a, "sonic difference" discussion. That would be like saying that it doesn't matter if your blind or not, there is no difference between a standard T.V. and an HDTV. Again, I see you are saying that a fact is a fact. The human race has a LONG way from fully understanding science. Even a scientist can develop irrational ideas as well as fear around something they don't understand. Some scientist thought the world was flat and if you went too far you would fall off the planet long ago. Lack of understanding does crate fear and greater levels of irrational thought and fear is most of the time irrational unless their is a real reason for it. You also stated the whole reason and possibility a cable could sound different, but still deny any difference. The reason why you didn't hear any difference between the monster cable and the zip cord is because there wasn't much difference between the two in the first place. That was just standard Monster cable which is over priced and won't give a broad idea of the sonic differences. I'd would also like to say that Monster cable is a good example of not always getting what you pay for. Bose speakers are another good example of not getting what you pay for. There has always been a general misconception that the more money you pay the higher the quality will be. There is more high price junk than anyone can think of. The Bose saying, "BETTER SOUND THROUGH RESEARCH" is the most dishonest thing I have ever heard. They researched so hard they can't even tell you what their frequency response is on their speakers. They researched so hard you better just take their word for it because they know their crap. Computers are only as smart as people make them. It is also only as smart as the person behind it giving it commands. They need a human to tell them what to do. Nor have computers reached the capacity or level of human understanding. There are variables that are beyond a computers capability to measure what a human can. They are immeasurable. There is no way for any human being to measure on paper what or how the tone deaf guy thought the Bose speakers sounded compared to the Polk Audio speakers. You have have to be inside the guys head to truly understand what he thought he heard. Because he can't hear the difference doesn't mean that there is no difference. He is a tone deaf jackass! To get an amp by only reading the specs is the same as not listening to each speaker before you buy it. How the hell can you know something is better before you hear it? You could have the same specs on two different brands and for anyone that said there is no difference between amps has to put the crack pipe down. That is the same as saying there is no difference in the way speakers sound. All speakers and amps are built with a different level of quality. The level of quality of the parts used makes a huge difference in how a speaker or amp sounds and varies to a great degree. Forgot to mention that some specs are misleading and say 100x5 watts, but neglect to tell you that it was based on 1 channel driven and that wasn't even continuous. I'll have to remind you that I was aware of all of your points, but I'm going over a lot of misconceptions that most people have in general as well as covering others things that you said. For example, you stated that you never said anything about amps not sounding different and you were talking about cables. So you will see when I'm addressing you. Quote #2: The food tastes different because there are chemical disturbances in our sensory organs when we are sick which means that there are real physical factors at work. I think you should have pointed out that our nose being plugged is a big factor. If you are too plugged up to smell you won't be able to taste either. I have to give you crap about that;) Quote #3 No we probably haven't learned all that we can about human hearing but perception of hearing is an altogether different matter as this deals with the brain not the ear canals. This moves into the study of the psychological. Maybe dogs can hear a difference between wire and cables. Just kidding! E. Ramsey AAS industrial electronics Perception of hearing and just hearing are one in the same. Since the tone deaf guy can't hear well his perception of what he heard between two speakers brands will be different from mine. You spoke of peoples egos getting in their way, but yours has over shadowed your thought process. And your making it sound like you believe everything you read like the rest of the people on the Audioholics website. In closing I will make one last point before I go. All of the variables of making speaker wire that you pointed out are exactly what gives a wire its sound. A crap wire with no shielding does make your speakers sound different because of interference. I had a pair of crap pure copper 12 awg speaker cable. I wanted to test to see if wire really made a difference and bought the OG Monster cable 10 awg for $30 and their high end Z series cables. I used the Lord of the rings DVD and the LFE was running to my main speakers because they are capable of bass as low as 20Hz. The volume was kept the same. The Gemini was the crap 12 awg wire I was talking about. The Gemini cable made my speakers sound extremely harsh and the drivers bottomed out and clanked when the bass hit. The 10 awg OG Monster cable was a little less harsh and had no problem when the bass hit. The bass was full and tight. Keep in mind that the volume was only at 25%. Then I tried the Z series cable that was a total of $106 with screw on banana ends. All of the harsh sound disappeared and everything was clear and open. The sound separation was distinct. I was hoping to prove that there would be no difference and was shocked by the level of differences. My brother and his wife were there too and were amazed as well. HUGE difference between the Z series cable and the Gemini. You can't mistake a harsh sound like that along with your drivers bottoming out and clanking. So you need to try a wide number of cables on a high resolution system before you can form your opinion. It would be possible that their is a psychological factor that is keeping you from hearing anything or your ears. Could be your gear too. If you don't agree with any of these points you need to swallow your pride and put a needle in that balloon of an ego you have. You also now have the option to wipe your butt with your industrial electronics degree as it is just another piece of paper. Applying the knowledge you are given makes all the difference in the world. |
|
Silver Member Username: EramseySouth carolina United States Post Number: 105 Registered: Feb-05 | First and foremost Nathan as HE is, reading through the long winded dribble and bag of hot air you just posted, to have me all figured out you sure missed the boat when I said"tone deaf"-as this was a joke."Perception of hearing and hearing are the same"- well no they are not Nathan. Hearing is simply the action of the bones and various elements of the ear, perception on the other hand is how the brain interprets what it is hearing, not exactly the same. I agree with most of what the Audioholics website has to say. This is my opinion and I believe I am entitled to it,after all that is what this forum is all about. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Nearly all speaker wire does not have shielding for you information, for a wire to have a true RFI,EMI shielding it has to be constructed with a wound metallic mesh over the conductor, as this is the only way to reject interference. If you will read the post again as I discussed this with Jan Vigne. So this is your first misconception. Secondly I do feel that all amps should sound the same,BEFORE THEY SEND A SIGNAL TO A SPEAKER, Because inside an amplifier electrons flow in the various circuitry elements and this is purely an electrical signal as electrons do not have a sound or create it unless they are flowing through the magnet of a speaker. I guess I should know about amplifiers probably more than you because I have built them. What are these magical speakers you have that are capable of response to a 20Hz signal? Speaker specs are mostly meaningless and this has been discussed on the speaker threads a great deal. At one quarter volume your speakers should not be "bottoming out" or have driver slap. If this is the case than their is a problem with the amplifier. As far as your points on the various speaker wire you tried, if you liked the more expensive brand better than I am happy for you. Your last comment I clearly consider as an insult but since my intellegence level is above that I won't insult you back. However, I will say in closing that I am not an audio engineer or an consumer electronics expert, and I never said such, but I'm quite confidant that my knowledge of electricity and electronics is considerably superior to yours so If you want to challenge me by all means go ahead as this is an open forum. If you read many of the posts out there some in particular are filled with insult after insult and I was not a part of that with one small exception. Perhaps you have a vendetta with me Nathan but I am a reasonable man and I have gotten along fine with many of the popular posters on this forum. If you cannot stomach that some people will completely dissagree with you than perhaps this forum is not for you. E.Ramsey |
|
Bronze Member Username: DiabloFylde Coast, England Post Number: 88 Registered: Dec-04 | To 'Nathan as he is' Do I detect that you wish to be reviewer for a major audiophile publication? Possibly Stereophile? If so, then you have a little way to go yet. You have some strengths -- an overbearing sense of your own importance (this is essential, regardless of being unfounded), arrogance and the firm conviction that you are right, along with the ability to dismiss others as worthless. Plus, some knowledge of audio fact, along with an ability to ignore it when it suits. So, you are part way there.  What you lack, in my very humble opinion, is the ability to communicate this with the correct attitude. Your attitude to lesser beings should be implied with subtlety, not rubbed in their faces. In your journalistic career with Stereophile, you will need to lick the advertiser's rear ends more circumspectly. The big push for the 'Z series' should have been on top of a fairly good but condescending review of their basic cable (you should have said 'capable but not as subtle as some'). They pay big money for ads, so they want people who can't afford the expensive stuff to think they've still got something worthwhile. There is also a slight technical problem with your Monster review. They advertise their Z series cable as having BETTER bass response than their ordinary cable, so they would be disappointed to read that it actually CUT bass response in your tests. The speakers should have bottomed out and clanked much more with the Z series. So you didn't do the right tests in order to get the right results -- very shoddy. p.s. I liked the way that you mentioned the importance of specifications being defined strictly but glossed over the actual db response level of your speakers at 20Hz(-12db?). |
|
Nathan NotempolyedbyStereophile Unregistered guest | Eric Ramsey, I was saying that being able to hear and get a complete perspective in the interpretation of what the individual is hearing is very important. For instance, a deaf person could have no perception of sound because they can't hear. A person who is tone deaf insn't going to get the full signal range from his ear therefore is going to perceive the sound as being different. So if you can't hear properly how is your BRAIN GOING TO INTERPRET the sound you hear properly??? I can't believe you don't understand that is how the two are connected! I'll also have to quote MR. D because he totally blew what I said out of context. Quote from MR. D: They advertise their Z series cable as having BETTER bass response than their ordinary cable, so they would be disappointed to read that it actually CUT bass response in your tests. The speakers should have bottomed out and clanked much more with the Z series. So you didn't do the right tests in order to get the right results -- very shoddy I said that the Gemini 12 awg cable made the drivers bottom out and stated the Z series as having no such problem. I am in no way endorsing Monster Cable even though I said the Z series cable made a big difference. I also stated that there is much better cable for the money out there. I would rather own Signal brand Cables. The underLord has a way of twisting everyones words and thoughts;) Sorry about coming off like an arrogant Jr. High kid, but that is the way some of your posts rubbed off on me. (Eric Ramsey) |
|
Silver Member Username: Touche6784Post Number: 271 Registered: Nov-04 | wait, who ever said tone deaf was bad hearing? wouldnt it just be bad hearing and not tone deaf? i always associated tone deaf with the inability to sing musical notes correctly. this is straight from dictionary.com tone-deaf adj. Unable to distinguish differences in musical pitch. if you do searches on tone-deafness you will not find anything about the ear being the source of the problem. watch american idol and you will see a bunch of tone-deaf people. Tone deafness is does not refer to a problem with the ears, but to a lack of training. Tone deafness is easy to fix by training the ears and the vocal muscles. Lancet is a music professor in Boston who is tone-deaf (Lancet 2001). Lancet express, "tone deafness is a term that tends to be applied indiscriminately to a constellation of music processing, perceptual, and production deficits" (Lancet 2001). i got that off of a search on google. here is a link to the "paper". it is an interesting read. you can take it for what its worth but next time do try to do some research before you make your arguements. if i get burned and am completely off base, then i lose. but i am pretty sure that wont be happening. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3023 Registered: Dec-03 | Christopher, That is correct. Well done. Simple misunderstanding. When Eric wrote "It doesn't matter if the man can hear 20Hz to 20KHz or is tone deaf" he may have meant just "deaf" or , more likely, "stone deaf". However, I think Nathan means "stone deaf", too, and the difference of opinion remains. It seems to be resolving around whether cables make much, or any, difference in normal practical situations, which has been a topic of heated argument on other threads. |
|
Silver Member Username: EramseySouth carolina United States Post Number: 106 Registered: Feb-05 | Yes Christopher,you and John are both correct. I should have said "stone deaf" or simply deaf,as this is what I really meant. Now for you Nathan I do,in fact,understand how the process of hearing and the brains interpretation are intertwined. Secondly, I would also like to add that an audio magazine review of an interconnect cable or speaker wire, other than small level measured parameters such as R,L,and C should be considered nothing more than what it largely is, a completely subjective affair. You speak of my ego as a "balloon", but I'd say that yours is comparable to the Goodyear blimp. Rest assured Nathan I can afford more expensive cable than Monster which hardly can be considered "highend",the fact is that I choose not to, because I don't believe it will make a difference in my system or any other for that matter.Like I told another poster the only reason I bought the Monster is because I got such a good deal on it,otherwise I would have bought zipcord. Yes I have heard some systems with highend cables and speaker wire and could not discearn an advantage, at least not an audible one. But if you believe it makes a difference, then this is your opinion and you are entitled to it just the same as I am to mine. What bothers me Nathan is that you seem to have a persecution, and authoritarian complex and address people as though they are inferior beings. I wonder if your portfolio ecompasses any real amount of study of electricity and electronics from an accredited institution. I am certain that you have a broader range of experience with gear and speakers than I have but this is only natural since you listen to audio equipment for a living.Reluctantly, I will accept your half-assed apology for now in an effort to promote more civility, however feel free to challenge me if you feel so compelled. E.Ramsey |
|
Silver Member Username: Touche6784Post Number: 274 Registered: Nov-04 | nathan, just one more example of how your explaination of tone deaf is wrong. since we are going to talk about hearing lets also talk about language. i can assume that we all know english, grew up with english and are most familiar with english. there are many sounds in english as well as other languages that sound similar but are distinct. if we are not completely familiar with a language it becomes hard to discern between the similar sounds. i am korean and am somewhat fluent in korean. i can say that there are quite a few times i have been confused when listening to a conversation in korean where there are two words that are slightly different in sound, but my lack of exposure has not allowed me to discern between the two. the link i gave mentions being tone-deaf is a lack of learning how to interpret and reproduce correctly, that is perception. in my case with not hearing the difference between the two words does not mean i have hearing problems, no less than a tone-deaf person. same goes with people not being able to tell people of certain nationalities apart. lack of exposure and experience in learning differences gives rise to the lack of discerning. as has been pointed out, the problem was a mistake in word choice. if this is the point you were trying to make than i appologize if it seemed like an attack on your writing. i just wanted to give this tidbit as an addition to what i wrote previously. |
|
Anonymous | All three of you have good points and things are much more clear. I am now typing with a smile on me face because I now see that Eric Ramsey understands the discrepancies of hearing and the brains interpretation of it. I was using the term , "tone deaf" so loosely I dropped the ball on that one. Along with E.R. needing to say the words, "stone deaf" which would have cleared things up a bit. We can all agree to disagree about the cable issue which is totally subjective as Mr. Ramsey said. As for the other half of the apology I'm giving it to Mr. Ramsey with a virtual handshake Just to let you know my ego can fit through the front door of my house as it is the size of my skull;)Cheers to the three of you not in any order, Eric Ramsey, Christopher Lee, and Jhon A. Thanks for the comments, Nathan! |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 186 Registered: Dec-03 | Even thought this post is incredibly long I can't resist. 1. The Cable Lie: Yep, amazing. If you have good conductance while controlling excessive impedance, inductance and capacitance you're going to be ok. The big issues are corrosion of the conductor, proper conductance through the terminals, and avoiding RF (which is a no-brainer unless your run is over 100 feet). 2. The Vacuum Tube Lie: Eh..sort of. I don't think you can be this general except that a well-designed amplifier circuit will perform well regardless if it is tube or solid state. Both have advantages and disadvantages. I do agree that a well designed SS circuit can do as well or better than tubes. 3. The Anti-Digital Lie: Sorry, but no. Emperical evidence shows that Analog has superior dynamics to digital, however, with the advent of DSD and SACD it is very, very close. Close enough that I and nobody I know, really cares. Sad to say, it looks like SACD is going to die a slow painful death. 4. The Listening Test Lie: Agreed. A properly conducted listening test works. 5. The Feedback Lie: Agreed. Negative feedback is an integral part of amplifier design as long as it's used correctly and not just to make the THD number look good. More is not always better. 6. The Burn-in Lie: Even though I agree he still gets it wrong. Drivers are mechanical devices yes, but if the suspension loosens up the electrical parameters change to compensate so the output doesn't actually change. 7. The Biwiring Lie: Mostly agree. There are too many speakers out there with dual binding posts that internally do not lead to separate inputs to the crossovers so bi-wiring and bi-amping does nothing. Bi-amping is beneficial if you have active crossovers in front of the amps. 8. The Power Conditioner Lie: Mostly agree. If you can be certain that your home electrical is done properly (you don't have positive voltage on your ground and no ground loop hum for example) and that you have a relatively constant voltage then you probably don't need a conditioner. 9. The CD Treament Lie: Mostly agree. I see too many people that still treat CDs like they are indestructible. Keep them clean and scratch free and you're good to go. 10. The Golden Ear Lie: Agreed. Anyone with normal hearing can tell the difference between good reproduction and bad. They may not have the experience to pick up on it right away but if you do a proper A/B test they will be able to. |
|
New member Username: TweedledPost Number: 4 Registered: Apr-05 | "Id be very interested to see how many people like maui know the integral of e^x or better yet e^x^2." OK, I'll bite. its been a long time but I believe the answers are: 1) e^x + K 2) (e^x^3)/3 + K Am I even close? Last time I did calculus of any type was to figure out the 1/4 mile time of a car with exactly 1 G of acceleration. |
|
Bronze Member Username: MauimusicmanPost Number: 31 Registered: Apr-05 | Im no math genius, but #1 is right. #2 AFAIK cannot be solved by conventional means of integration, eg by parts, trig substitution, etc. |
|
Bronze Member Username: SethmckinessDes Moines Post Number: 14 Registered: May-05 | Two things I want to say. 1.) Tube amps can sound better, but one of the issues that makes tube amps typically better is basically the sum of all the parts, ie. the quality of the Resistors, Caps, transformers, and even the wire itself. Plus the ability to change out tubes :-). If Tube amps weren't better or pleasantly different, then they would not be available. But, then again, a solid state amp built to the same standard as a tube amp usually is not much cheaper.. ie compare the price of amps like an Anthem Amp 1 to a MCA 2... the amp is equal to the sum of it's components and it's design. a few crappy caps will ruin the stew. 2.) Bi-Wiring. Basic electronic theory, resistance in parallel is decreased.. Among other things.. lol. I have never A-B tested Bi-wiring setups.. when given the option I Bi-wire.. it's not going to sound worse... so there you go.. Oh, yeah.. the Digital/Analog thing is a common sense one to anyone that know much about how PCM works.. |
|
New member Username: TweedledPost Number: 5 Registered: Apr-05 | "Im no math genius, but #1 is right. #2 AFAIK cannot be solved by conventional means of integration, eg by parts, trig substitution, etc." Damn trick questions! ;) |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3603 Registered: May-04 | Seth - Your point about the parts quality contained in a typical amplifer making a difference in sound quality is accepted easily. Anyone who has changed out a capacitor or a tube can understand the improvements to be had by a simple operation. The idea tube amps have fewer parts (which will contribute to the "keep it simple, stupid" improvement in sound over a typical transistor amp) has been around for years also. However, the parts cost of a typical tube vs. solid state amplifier is skewed when you consider most transistor amps used for home audio do not need, or use, an output transformer. (That is, if you are to believe the typical reciver manufacturer.) With a decent quality output transformer adding several hundred dollars to the wholesale cost of a tube amplifier, the five times multiplier to retail cost should give the obvious advantage to the solid state design. On a dollar to dollar cost of tube vs. solid state technolgy, the transistor amp should easily defeat the tube product as more money can be spent on the cost of the individual parts quality (minus a transformer) for the silicon product. Anyone familiar with tube power amplifiers will admit readily the transformer is the most important part of a tube amp's sound quality. At wholesale cost the expense of a good output trnasformer can easily provide the solid state design with dozens of even the most expensive capacitors. The cost and weight of a tube amp's transformer have contributed to the acceptance of solid state audio equipment, at least in terms of power amplifiers. Sound quality has little to do with that acceptance as the consumer knows little about the technology they are force fed nor the alternative they would have to seek out. The idea that tubes have an inherent advantage which has continued their manufacture a half century after the introduction of the transistor is the most likely reason for their position in the market place. As the writer points out, notice how many tube products are advertised in the high end magazines. This is hardly because most people have the room for a 35-70 lb. amplifier. The advantage of solid state devices (large scale IC's, not discrete transistors) in the applications of computers and DVD players cannot be argued. However, the benefits of analog vs. digital audio reproduction, as the writer points out, are still largely a matter of debate. The equation the writer has made to tubes and gold teeth for "that Mideastern grin" shows the article was meant to be taken either as a poor attempt at humor or as proof the writer is a cynical @ss. The idea that tube amplifers will need more "repair" in the way of "bias adjustments" indicates his willing lack of understanding about the product he wants to bash. With no attempt made to balance the worksheet for the opposite side of his argument, we should consider the article is best dismissed as the writer's attempt to hit a deadline with a piece that should never have made it past an honest editor's desk. This entire article smacks of an agenda. Articles such as this are frequently used by the those who prefer to hear no differences between equipment. Just as the cable articles that show no difference in loop resistance are dragged out on a regular basis, both can be regarded as victims of small minds producing small ideas. |
|
Anonymous | "Just as the cable articles that show no difference in loop resistance are dragged out on a regular basis, both can be regarded as victims of small minds producing small ideas. " Thats funny coming from a salesman. Then again, I'm sure that calculus question was beneath you, wasnt it Jan? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3606 Registered: May-04 | That makes no sense. But, then again, small minds ... |
|
Anonymous | Perhaps if you weren't a simpleminded salesman whose knowledge consisted only of marketing spiel, we could have a conversation. Maybe you can explain this to me. You dont believe in double blind testing, but you feel that you can hear a significant difference between cables. Why not submit to a double blind test on your terms, and see if you can still hear that significant difference? You complain that you must perform the test in the manner that you use the equipment. So perform the test in that manner and prove that you can hear the difference. The Randi challenge is still out there. |
|
Anonymous | Maybe you could also explain why e^x^2 dx cannot be integrated? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3608 Registered: May-04 | I have no desire to continue this discussion with someone who feels the need to insult me with every post. I suggest you take the advice I gave Edster on another thread. Personal insults and attacks should be left off the forum. They are of no interest to the other readers and only reflect poorly on the writer, not the intended victim. If you will agree to finally put a stop to the personal remarks, I will respond to your post. Otherwise, you have not shown sufficient comity to warrant a reply. |
|
Anonymous | That the best you can do to weasel your way out of a conversation? And of all people you have the gall to tell someone to refrain from personal attacks? You truly are an entertaining character to behold Jan. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3078 Registered: Dec-03 | "That the best you can do to weasel your way out of a conversation?" What have you written, "Anonymous", that amounts to a conversation? Has it been under some identifiable name, perhaps? You express your dislike of a generous and thoughtful contributor, without having anything to say, yourself, on the topic being discussed. Please either state your view, here, on the subject of "top 10 AUDIO LIES" or stop posting. Useful threads have had to be pulled by admin because of such childish and vituperative personal attacks, from which no-one learns anything. If you disagree with anything written by Jan Vigne or anyone else, please state what it is, why you disagree, and what your own position might be. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3613 Registered: May-04 | John - You and others were correct to begin with. Anonymous should be ignored. This person has no opinion on anything other than their obvious dislike for me. It seems an odd position to follow someone around a forum just to insult them. No further attempts to converse should be made. Everyone understands where Anon's head is. |
|
Silver Member Username: GmanMt. Pleasant, SC Post Number: 668 Registered: Dec-03 | Let's let the man whose magazine printed the 10 Lies comment of Tom Nousaine, Peter Aczel of The Audio Critic comment on what he believes is the current state of affairs in the audio world, even though printed 10 years ago. "Paradoxes and Ironies of the Audio World: The Doctor Zaius Syndrome By Peter Aczel Editor (Abbreviated and edited version of a still timely article first published ten years ago.) When the truth is so terrible that admitting it would surely make the whole system crumble, ape logic demands denial and coverup. Have you ever seen that marvelous 1967 science-fiction movie The Planet of the Apes? If you have, you will recall that it depicts a planet of the future where English-speaking anthropoid apes are the rulers and humans are speechless beasts of burden, enslaved by the apes and despised as a totally inferior species. The apes have horses and guns but no real technology. Doctor Zaius, the subtle and highly articulate orangutan who is this society's "Minister of Science and Defender of the Faith" (he is played by the great Maurice Evans), knows something the other apes do not: that humans in a past era possessed not only speech but superior technology, flying machines, powerful weapons, and so forth, all of which served only to bring about their eventual downfall and reduce them to their present condition. Doctor Zaius fervently believes that any knowledge of this truth about humans would totally destabilize the society of apes and result in the end of their world. The ape dogma he fanatically protects, even though he knows better, is a blatant denial and coverup of the actual history of the vanished human civilization and a paean to the eternal superiority of the ape. I won't give away the rest of the plot to those of our readers who haven't seen the movie and may want to, but doesn't Doctor Zaius resemble certain key figures in the high-end audio community? He knows the truth but it's bad for the establishment. The system would come crashing down if the truth were revealed. To pick an obvious example, consider John Atkinson, the subtle and highly articulate editor of Stereophile. Don't you think he knows? Of course he knows. But if he admitted that $3000-a-pair speaker cable is a shameless rip-off or that a $7000 amplifier sounds no different from a $1400 one, the edifice of high-end audio would begin to totter--or so he thinks (and may quite possibly be right). Consequently, he spouts convoluted scriptural arguments and epistemological sophistries, just like Doctor Zaius, in order to p-rvert the obvious, uncomplicated, devastating truth. There is a perfect illustration of this process in the August 1994 issue of Stereophile, where Zaius-Atkinson once again bashes blind listening tests in an "As We See It" editorial. Such tests are of course considered extremely threatening by a publication that reports night-and-day differences in sound which absolutely nobody can hear when the levels are matched and the brand names concealed. He brings up all kinds of intricate flaws and drawbacks that may very well exist in some blind tests but turns his back on the large number of blind tests in which all of his objections have been anticipated and eliminated and which nevertheless yield a no-difference result every time. He knows very well, for example, that no one has ever, ever proved a consistently audible difference between two amplifiers having high input impedance, low output impedance, and low distortion, when operated at matched levels and not clipped--but like Doctor Zaius he conceals that knowledge. He'd rather collect rare case histories of screwed-up blind tests than deal with the vast body of correctly managed blind tests that undermine the Stereophile agenda. (Just for the record, I'll state for the nth time that there are only two unbreakable rules in blind testing: matched levels and no peeking at the nameplates. To eliminate "stress," take a week or a month for each test, send everybody else out of the room, operate the switch yourself at all times, switch only twice a day--whatever. The results will still be the same.) Our columnist Tom Nousaine, in a recent conversation with me, stated his belief that any longtime audio reviewer who has tested hundreds of different audio components over the years knows exactly what the truth is about soundalikes because it is utterly impossible to escape that truth after so much hands-on experience. It asserts itself loud and clear, again and again. Therefore, he argued, the audio journalists who invariably report important sonic differences are most likely a bunch of hypocrites, i.e., exhibit the Doctor Zaius Syndrome. I was strongly inclined to agree with him... Why do I even bother to tell you all this? All of our readers who have been with us for more than just one or two issues are aware of my enormous frustration on the subject of scientific truth in audio. The very idea of a Doctor Zaius Syndrome, even it's only a parody, suggests the existence of antiscience in audio as a tradition, not just a momentary aberration--and a tradition it is, going back to the early 1970s, at the very least. In the late '40s and throughout the '50s and '60s, whatever the most highly qualified and experienced engineers said about audio was the accepted truth. Then came postmodern irrationalism, post-Watergate anomie, fortune tellers in high places, pyramid power, Jesus-haired record-store clerks as self-proclaimed audio experts, untutored high-end journals, pooh-poohing of engineering societies, derision of degreed academics--the B.S. era of audio (and I don't mean Bachelor of Science). Today, the melancholy truth is that tweako cultism has become mainstream audio, at least above a certain price range, and engineering facts are regarded as disturbingly radical or at least eccentric. The scientific audio community has been marginalized. I despair at this point of a journalistic solution. Even if The Audio Critic increased its circulation by a factor of 50 overnight--I'm being deliberately absurd-- it might still be too late for the message. The cultists have been too deeply indoctrinated and too long. The pimply-faced kid in the Bon Jovi T-shirt who tried to sell you AudioQuest Sorbothane Feet (the bigger kind) in your local audio salon is not going to change his belief system. Not in this antirationalist age and culture. I can think of only one effective remedy. Many years ago, long before our younger readers became interested in audio, the Federal Trade Commission put an end to fraudulent power-output claims in amplifiers. Today, the power-output specification must take the form of "200 watts continuous power into 8 ohms from 20 Hz to 20 kHz at less than 0.25% total harmonic distortion." Before then, the same amplifier could have claimed 800 watts because it could produce that for 2 milliseconds at 1 kHz into 2 ohms with 10% distortion. What if the FTC suddenly became interested in audio cable advertising, for example? That chattering sound you hear comes from the teeth of cable vendors at the mere mention of the possibility. And that low, rumbling sound you hear is Doctor Zaius growling, "That's heresy!" Anyone out there whose nephew or brother-in-law is a young, crusading, Ralph-Nader-like employee of the FTC? Get him interested!" The Audio Critic is now a webzine and can be subscribed to--has great speaker reviews and cuts through much of the BS out there. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3619 Registered: May-04 | I repeat: "That isn't to say I don't have my prejudices. We all do. And we all find reinforcement for those convictions. Unfortunately one group chooses to consider the other group to be of less than the best moral character and mental abilities. The idea that one group can tell the other group they have not just heard what was clearly present is, by some accounts, a matter of how insecure the one group is in their convictions. Those I've met who hear improvements in components seem more willing to let the other side go on with whatever they want to believe." Gregory, your argument by way of proxy seems to be yet another attempt to diminish the other side by slander. The new social relevance of science that fits a predetermined opinion. Men (always men, as if that gives some additional omniscience) of science are being abused by those who refuse to follow their dogmatic proclamations. By those who ask more of the scientists. Those who have set the simplistic task of assessing tonal balance (see my comments from Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 08:14 pm) can determine no difference in this or that and declare any attempt to argue otherwise an immoral sham and a hoax. Fine. That really harms no one. Those who set to the task of determinig the purity of a mineral for sale declare their product to be the purest. Fine, unless the remaining percentages are harmful in some way. Those who have the simplistic task of assessing global warming see the temperature below normal in the MidWest and declare it all a huge hoax. That is the leading edge of the ideological divide. It is the tree huggers and the environmental whackos who are behind the move to abolish common sense. By bashing the people that disagree with your opinion not the opinion itself, you are discrediting your own position. Look around you to see the proof. It is the politics of everything today. We are back to the idea of authority as the influence monger. The article you present as argument once again offers the concept of "all" and "everyone" surreptitiously in agreement against the best interests of the masses. The promotion of anyone and everyone at Stereophile as the scheming villian leads me to think of John Atkinson tying a poor wretched audiophile to the railroad tracks as the freight train known as SpeakerCables comes rolling down the track. Worse yet, it makes me think of Holy Crusades to save the innocent ignoramus masses against their own will and against their own interests. Sorry, Gregory, the article in which the writer reiterates his dislike for those who disagree with him is just more people bashing from on high. It is what we are seeing in politics and religion. Villainize the speaker and you can easily discount the ideas. Just saying "No" is the easiest part to play. I can never determine whether you hear a difference or not. Just as you can never honestly tell whether I heard what you did not. Does that make me the pimply faced kid with the Sorbothane feet? Hardly. The argument that this is a antirationalist age and culture is a slam that wants to allieviate the reader of the thought process. By denying the believers of the antirationalist theorem you must yourself first become a rationalist. The problem with that process is by becomming a "rationalist", you become the antirationalist. By denying yourself the thought process to make the decision yourself, you have become what you hate. As I stated before, my only desire is that everyone think the process through and come to their own conclusions. You do not have to agree with me, but do not follow some dogma that is handed down to you without question. Why do so many hear improvements? Why do so many deny they exist? What reason would either have to say what they want me to believe? Gregory, I will say again you and I shall never agree on many items regarding audio. That is fine with me. I have accepted the fact you cannot hear what I can. The questions is; can you accept the same? |
|
Silver Member Username: GmanMt. Pleasant, SC Post Number: 669 Registered: Dec-03 | I will accept any difference that passes muster through a double blind ABX test. With amplifiers or receivers that means matched outputs and driven within their power parameters. No point in matching a 3 watt triode with a 300 watt amp. I am just not willing to accept things on people's belief systems or what they think they hear, or what they think they should hear (or maybe what they want to hear or are told from "on high" that they should hear). Prove it in a blind ABX test and I will be convinced. It is quite simple really. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3620 Registered: May-04 | "what they think they hear" What else is there? Are we really to eliminate all thought from the process? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3621 Registered: May-04 | You and I both know the average power output in many listening sessions is less than 1.5 watts average; why not match an 8-12 watt Class A S.E.T. against a three hundred watt solid state Class AB behemoth? As long as neither amp is driven to clipping, there should be no problem. Is this the latest hedge against loosing? |
|
Silver Member Username: GmanMt. Pleasant, SC Post Number: 670 Registered: Dec-03 | "What else is there? Are we really to eliminate all thought from the process?" If a person thinks they can hear a difference and then submits to a blind ABX test and can't identify the amp or receiver to a statistical significant % --who cares what they think? Whatever they thought was wrong. Sure--I would put a 300 watt behemoth against an 8-10 watt amp in a double blind test as long as the outputs were matched and neither was driven to clipping. And if there was a difference in a double blind test, I would bet dollars to donuts that there were MEASUREABLE distortion or other electrical reasons why that occured. Any amp (particularly done in tubes) can create a less accurate sonic replication of the incoming signal that may strike some as pleasing. But this is definitely measureable. And these measureable differences will be rather dramatic--such as lots of harmonic distortion or incredibly uneven frequency output/clipped high end--or dickering with the impedance. But we can always match the input and output impedances of both amps to remove that problem. As George Bernard Shaw said- "The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that don't have it". |
|
Bronze Member Username: MauimusicmanPost Number: 32 Registered: Apr-05 | Ahh the never ending argument. One side is a bunch of ignorant fools and the other is a bunch of close minded idiots. The joys of audiophiledom. No offense meant to the fools or idiots. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3622 Registered: May-04 | G.B.S., the poster child of cynicism until Truman Capote showed up. I would think your choice of quotations a bit odd since it can cut both ways in this argument. Why not try Oscar Wilde, "Illusion is the first of all pleasures." " ... who cares what they think? Whatever they thought was wrong." Gee, Gregory, your manner of picking an audio system sounds like so much fun. 1) Am I understanding you correctly that there are audible differences that exist between amplifiers, but only if they measure differently? 2) And if the measurements differ we can alter the differences until the amps are the same to prove they will be the same? 3) What measurements do you use to determine two amplifiers are identical? 4) If I find those differences pleasing, what does that mean? That I am wrong? Isn't pleasing what this hobby is about? 5) What exactly constitues "lots of harmonic distort". 6) Please explain the insistence on tubes being more likely to produce "a less accurate sonic replication of the incoming signal". If you rely on the old higher distortion dodge, please discuss the effects of 0.1% even order distortion from tubes vs. the 0.1% odd order harmonics from solid state and how that relates to perception. As a cello player, you must understand the sounds of acoustic instruments are primarily even order harmonics. As a scientist you must surely know the level of distortion produced by either amplifier is considered by "all" authoritative powers to be essentially inaudible unless the amp is overdriven. 7) Please explain: " ... incredibly uneven frequency output/clipped high end--or dickering with the impedance." 8) Do your comments apply to only power amps (and the power amplifier section in receivers and integrated amps) or all audio equipment? |
|
Bronze Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 66 Registered: Dec-04 | yah! What Jan said! Well? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3626 Registered: May-04 | Sorry, please substitute: 5) What exactly constitues "lots of harmonic distortion". |
|
Silver Member Username: GmanMt. Pleasant, SC Post Number: 671 Registered: Dec-03 | "Gee, Gregory, your manner of picking an audio system sounds like so much fun." Fun for me is getting scr-wed by a woman, not by an audio manufacturer, retailer, or audio magazines shilling for the industry. 1) "Am I understanding you correctly that there are audible differences that exist between amplifiers, but only if they measure differently?" Of course. Do you think there are supernatural reasons for differences? Or maybe differences as yet undiscovered, except by those that make very expensive equipment, but haven't printed their discoveries in peer reviewed journals or anywhere else. 2) "And if the measurements differ we can alter the differences until the amps are the same to prove they will be the same?" I believe that is called engineering. Obviously you don't have to alter things if you don't want to. But sure--how do you think the differences got there in the first place? 3) What measurements do you use to determine two amplifiers are identical? There are a number of basic measurements. But let's substitute a term for identical--let's say how do you determine if two amplifiers sound indistinguishable? On this issue I will defer to the people at ABX and those experienced in conducting double blind tests. If the amps are connected by the same wires and connections to the same speakers in the same room with the same seating arrangements and there is no statistical difference in specifying which amp is playing---then you can separate the myth from the reality. This is not to say there won't be amps that are distinguishable--there will be. But any engineer worth his/her salt will be able to tell you why that is and what even could be done to the other amp to make it sound the same in non-clipping mode. 4) If I find those differences pleasing, what does that mean? That I am wrong? Isn't pleasing what this hobby is about? It means in your case--you like alterred signals from those delivered from the disc. It isn't a question of wrong or right. Various religions and their adherents are also about being pleased with themselves and their destination in the "next world". But their thoughts have little to do with reality--only their enjoyment, indoctrination, often birthright, and preference. I have nothing against people spending hundreds, thousands, or millions on their pleasures. I just want them to see what is on the end of the spoon they are eating. 5) What exactly constitues "lots of harmonic distort". Enough HD that is discernible by the average listener through the same speakers. 6) Please explain the insistence on tubes being more likely to produce "a less accurate sonic replication of the incoming signal". If you rely on the old higher distortion dodge, please discuss the effects of 0.1% even order distortion from tubes vs. the 0.1% odd order harmonics from solid state and how that relates to perception. As a cello player, you must understand the sounds of acoustic instruments are primarily even order harmonics. As a scientist you must surely know the level of distortion produced by either amplifier is considered by "all" authoritative powers to be essentially inaudible unless the amp is overdriven. I agree--I think a well-made tube amp will sound almost indistinguishable to a well-made solid state amp as long as the input and output impedances are matched and the tube amp doesn't have inordinate second order harmonic distortion. But it seems that many tube amp manufacturers purposely alter the incoming signal to get whatever effect they want. I can buy a preamp to do that too. The tube amp will undoubtedly clip more euphonically than the solid state amp--but who wants their amp to be clipping in the first place? Get more power or play the music softer. 7) Please explain: " ... incredibly uneven frequency output/clipped high end--or dickering with the impedance." I'll quote Ian McMasters on valve (tube) amps- "The valve sound is one phenomenon that is real. It has been known for a long time that listeners sometimes prefer to have a certain amount of second-harmonic distortion added in, and most valve amplifiers provide just that, due to huge difficulties in providing good linearity with modest feedback factors. While this may well sound nice, hi-fi is supposedly about accuracy, and if the sound is to be modified in this manner, it should be set from the preamp front panel by a control (Douglas Self suggests a 'niceness' knob). Valves offer some advantages - their overload characteristics are smoother than solid state designs, so even when clipping the sound is less harsh. While this is most desirable for a guitar amplifier that will be operating into clipping for much of the time, it is unhelpful for hi-fi, where clipping should be avoided altogether. Valve amps also have much higher output impedance than transistor amps, and this makes some speakers sound better. It also makes other speaker sound worse, so the results are unpredictable. There are few modern transistor amps that will measure worse than any valve amp, regardless of cost. Indeed, the vast majority are so superior in all respects that it is difficult to justify using valves in anything other than guitar amps, where, despite much advertising hype, no transistor amp has ever been able to sound exactly the same as a valve unit. Close - but not the same. The rash of single-ended directly heated triode monoblock amplifiers of late is something that astonishes me. These will typically have a distortion of 1 to 3%, are of low power - typically less than 10W, and have no redeeming features (IMHO). Such an amplifier generates large amounts of second-harmonic distortion, due to the asymmetry of single-ended operation, and needs a very large output transformer because the primary carries the full DC anode current, and core saturation must be avoided. The inherent distortion of an iron cored inductor or transformer is ever-present, and only global feedback can remove it. High values of feedback around a transformer are extremely difficult, because the phase irregularities generally cause the amplifier to oscillate. This may have been the state of the art 50 years ago, but there is no sensible reason to go back. Next we will hear someone extolling the virtues of the wax cylinder as having superior sonics to vinyl or CD (needless to say these superior sonics will be "very subtle" and "only audible with the finest (i.e. most expensive) single ended triode monoblock amplifier"). In one review, a single ended triode amplifier yielded 3% THD at 9 Watts, at a cost of $3400 [4]. This is an appalling result for a very expensive single channel amp. The amplifiers in powered computer speakers are better than that! Despite all of the above, I have no doubt that many of these amps sound delightful. Not exactly my cup of tea, but having used valve amps of many types over the years (including those I designed and built myself), I still like the sound of them. They also don't blow up with difficult loads - they may stress out a little and give less power than normal, but they survive. The majority of valve amps are far less forgiving of open circuits (no speakers connected), and some will fail if pushed hard into an open circuit. The typical failure mode is a high voltage flashover, which either carbonises the valve socket or base (or both), or causes the insulation in the output transformer to fail. Bottom Line on Valves This is one area I shall leave open-ended. There are some valve amps that do sound very good indeed, but are generally very expensive. Valves are also fragile, generate copious amounts of heat, and have a limited life. Correct biasing is essential, and few valve amps provide a simple method of doing this. The trend towards having these hot "bottles" out in full view, and able to be touched (and / or broken) by age challenged persons (the rug-rats) is a definite safety hazard. I would not like anyone's kids to be able to burn and then electrocute themselves in one small mishap. .... However - I do (or did until recently) use a valve preamp in my own system, and I have no idea what that says about me. It does sound nice, but I am probably deluding myself in thinking that it is better than my solid-state preamp. That's fine for me, because I designed and built it, so it didn't cost me a king's ransom. 8) Do your comments apply to only power amps (and the power amplifier section in receivers and integrated amps) or all audio equipment? It doesn't apply to speakers. It mostly applies to cd players--again as long as the measurements are comparable. It applies less to dvd players, because of the complexity of the video circuitry and the various corrective video measures taken or omitted. No doubt a Denon 5810 measures and the video looks better on a good HDTV than most any other player. |
|
Silver Member Username: GmanMt. Pleasant, SC Post Number: 672 Registered: Dec-03 | A great article a couple of years ago by Ian Masters. The Ongoing Debate about Amplifier "Sound" Several years ago, I wrote an article in which I attempted to define the term "audiophile" as it has evolved in the years I have been observing the hi-fi scene. I concluded that, whatever the word may have meant originally, it now had come to refer to members of a group that "tended to ascribe almost magical audio qualities to things that the rest of the world had either abandoned or didn't feel were of much importance to begin with or were just plain crazy . . . . The notion became widespread in this camp that formal measurements were far too coarse to be meaningful, so that two pieces of equipment that measured identically often sounded very different to a critical ear." From early days, one constant point of disagreement between these listeners and more measurement-oriented stereo fans has been the matter of audible characteristics of power amplifiers. The test-bench bunch have always maintained that two components that measured the same would -- and do -- sound the same (assuming, of course, that they have enough power to do the job and are set up properly). The audiophile fringe has always attributed very specific audible characteristics to amplifiers: some are harsh or fatiguing, others are sweet and "musical" and so forth. You can always raise a fine argument among sound people by bringing up this topic. Maybe a definition is in order here. As it snakes its way through a stereo system, an audio signal is very tiny, but in the end, it has to be boosted to a high enough level that it can drive a pair of loudspeakers -- essentially electric motors designed to push air. The last link in the audio chain magnifies the low audio signal to a much higher level for feeding to the speakers. That's the power amplifier and that's its only job. Any control features that might be included, on the same chassis or elsewhere, are actually functions of what is called a "preamplifier" because it comes ahead of the amplifier in the chain. Ideally, a power amplifier should have no effect on an audio signal except magnitude; otherwise, it should be a totally neutral device. But no audio component is perfect, and there are always tiny measurable differences from one device to the next. The question is: can we reliably hear these? And if not, who cares? One side maintains that, beyond a certain level, gains in measured performance may suggest more careful design or meticulous manufacture, but they don't result in audible improvement. Others believe that if the variations exist, really careful listening will reveal them. To shed some light on this, several years ago Stereo Review magazine [now Sound & Vision] commissioned an extensive series of listening tests to determine whether those listeners who claimed to be able to discern tiny nuances from one amp to the next really could. The listeners, about two dozen in all, were equally divided between those who swore there were differences ("believers") and those who doubted it ("skeptics"). Six amplifiers were auditioned, ranging from a $200 cheapo receiver to a $12,000 pair of mono tube amplifiers. They were teamed up in pairs for comparison, and carefully matched as to levels and other parameters, so that any differences heard really were inherent in the different amplifiers. In any given comparison, the listeners were unaware of which they were listening to at any moment, and as they switched back and forth, they might be toggling between the two components or simply switching the same amp in repeatedly. Then a statistical analysis was done to see, when they claimed to hear differences, how often they were listening to one amplifier in both positions. It was a long drawn-out process, and in my story on it at the time, I concluded that ". . . all interpretations of [the results] lead to the conclusion that correct choices were made totally by chance -- there were no audible differences to be heard. . . . The evidence would seem to suggest that distinctive amplifier sounds, if they exist at all, are so minute that they form a poor basis for choosing one amplifier over another." The result didn't surprise me very much because, ten years earlier, I had taken part in a similar exercise mounted by the then-leading Canadian hi-fi mag, AudioScene Canada. In that case, we started out assuming there would be differences; we wanted to analyze and quantify them, but instead reported that we couldn't hear any. I wondered in that report: "So where are all these phantom differences coming from? First, from the imaginations of people who think there should be differences, and so conjure them up in the absence of proper facilities for proving they don't exist -- and egged on by the purple prose of the little super-audiophile magazines . . . who evidently must prove the superiority of their golden ears over others' by hearing faults that don't exist and condemning perfectly good products on their strength." After that issue hit the stands, I had an interesting footnote to it. I visited one of the companies whose amplifier had been included in the test, and found that the president (who was also an engineer and had in fact designed the unit in question) was unperturbed by our findings. He acknowledged that an amplifier doing its job should have no effect on the sound. His marketing manager was less certain, feeling we may have missed something. The product manager was even more adamant. And so forth. In fact, the closer you got to the sales floor, the more outraged the employees of this company became at our assertions. The notion seemed to be that if there weren't audible differences, then they had nothing to sell -- buyers should simply pick the cheapest model and leave it at that. There are lots of reasons not to do that: reliability, warranty, brand reputation, and on and on. But so far no one has proved conclusively -- to me, anyway -- that sound quality should be a factor in buying a power amplifier. ...Ian G. Masters |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3084 Registered: Dec-03 | What matters most - measurements or how it sounds? We have been here before. There are things you can hear that you cannot measure. There are things you can measure that you cannot hear. I do not understand the strength of the adherence to the idea that one of these factors must always over-ride the other. The problem seems to me to be how hard to you try to get them to agree, and is it worth it? Someone said "if two things sound different and measure the same, you are measuring the wrong thing". Finding the right thing to measure may, for all practical purposes, be impossible. That is not mysticism. It is more along the lines of "get a life". BTW, Gregory (and hi, again!), the 2005 BBC proms prospectus has some very up-market hifi ads, including one for a Japanese 22W integrated valve amp for £38,900. In my opinion, having massive quantities of disposable income has no clear relationship with the capacity for self-delusion. One could even argue for a positive correlation. So the ad proves nothing. Kind of interesting, though. |
|
Silver Member Username: GmanMt. Pleasant, SC Post Number: 673 Registered: Dec-03 | John A-- "In my opinion, having massive quantities of disposable income has no clear relationship with the capacity for self-delusion." A persons ability of being a skeptical inquirer has great bearing on their capacity for not being jived or fooled. Education and natural ability, rather than money, probably have more influence on this capability. How do you explain that most people follow the same religion as their parents? Even more statistically true among the underclasses. There are thousands of religions to choose from--or even opting out of religion altogether. Most people have the gene for following authority figures (it probably benefitted them through millenia of evolution in the past before marketting hit) and following the sellers of information and things that benefit the seller. Mix that in with a need for belonging and self-worth--and.....there you have it. As GB Shaw showed in Major Barbara that it is easy for religion to convert the poor and downtrodden with a sandwich in one hand and a bible in the other. Good mass marketters are well versed of what buttons need to be pushed in the middle incomes and the upper incomes to influence their purchasing choices, or even making them want things and morphing those wants into perceived needs. If two things sound different in a double blind ABX test and measure the same--then something is going unmeasured. Kind of like when Pasteur debunked the Four Humors theory and Bad Air theory of disease with Germ Theory. Before Pasteur surgeons didn't wash their hands, the patient, nor sterilize their tools. Sure-they were ignorant and/or incapable without microscopes of what to measure and assess and what effect microbes/bacteria/viruses can have. "Someone said "if two things sound different and measure the same, you are measuring the wrong thing". Finding the right thing to measure may, for all practical purposes, be impossible. That is not mysticism. It is more along the lines of "get a life". I am sure the manufacturers and sellers of expensive equipment would love for everyone to believe that they have designed some unmeasurable phantasm into their equipment. If it is unmeasureable--how can these manufacturers duplicate equipment? How do they have quality control? I am sure if any manufacturer of an amp truly made a superior sounding product it would be reverse engineered by hundreds of other manufacturers-part by part, just as thousands of other products are demystified and copied worldwide. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3628 Registered: May-04 | "How do you explain that most people follow the same religion as their parents? Even more statistically true among the underclasses... Most people have the gene for following authority figures ... Mix that in with a need for belonging and self-worth--and.....there you have it." Gregory, in my opinion, your view of some things is still too black and white. You want to see something that may not be there and more often than not desire the "something" to be working against the interests of the people. Not knowing your political leanings, there may be items on the agenda where you and I would agree about "The Man" and His design for the swarming masses. This is not the place for that discussion. Consider please an alternative option that can exist for your findings on religion. As you point out, it can generally be agreed the lower the economic position the populace finds itself occupying, the more likely they will be to follow the same ideological bent as their parents and their parents before them. Often this can be said of an indivdual's life work also. But, perhaps that is a matter more easily understood than religion. Possibly instead of looking to the authority figure as the prominent cause of this phenomemnon, look instead to the mobility both physically and economically of the populace. It should come as no suprise the lower the economic position, the less likely the individual will be to leave the area where they were born and raised. Whether we are discussing a village in the jungles, a small town in the Southern states of the US or the South Side of Chicago or London, the poor tend to remain where they are for largely economic and societal reasons. If the small community where the individual was raised has a limited number of options in the way of churhes to attend (how many synagogues are there on the South Side of ChiTown?) or businesses to find employment, what option is left other than to opt out entirely or participate in what is available? When "Opportunity knocks" is a good motto. However if Opportuniy never takes the bus route to get to your neighborhood, that is a different matter. I have no research study to back my assertion, but I would guess the number of individuals who follow the same religion as their parents decreases to a noticeable extent when divided between the less well off and the more well off. The same division would probably occur when the division is made between minimally educated groups (since the church often serves as "teacher" and often a vocation in these instances) and the areas where higher formal education is available to the population as a whole. The same would probably be true of societies where the "traditional" family unit still exists and is regarded with merit as opposed to the more mobile, flexible, nuclear families of many Western societies. This might even be negotiated between urban, suburban and rural situations. I do not discount your assertion that a great many people do as their parents do, but, since you asked how it could be explained, I believe your concept of reducing this to a single reason is far too simplistic. And, of course, I have to disagree with your idea that "(m)ost people have the gene for following authority figures". What would account for only a proportion, however large or small, of the populace having this gene? Looking at a past view of the societal changes along with economic growth and population dispersion in the Western world over the last 1,000 years would easily show the trends toward higher mobility, education and economic status to be a phenomenon of the last 75-150 years. Surely evolution can not work so quickly as to eliminate this particular gene from the makeup of a portion of the population in that short an amount of time. Or why would the gene exist in only a certain percentage of the population when following the leader of the pack has been a societal trait for millennia. Again I have no research to back up my statement, but I would be interested in anyone who can point me toward a study that indicates this "authoritarian" bent is genetic or instinctual and not learned behaviour. I think you have again over reached on this one, Gregory, but I will accept any proof otherwise. As to your rebuttal of my points, I would like to thank you. I think you have given a fairly clear description of your side of the discussion for anyone to judge. Not meaning any disrespect, this is one of the few times I have seen you write without wholesale resort to sweeping generalizations which are meant to imply authority where none actually exists. I disagree with many of the the generalizations of your position and strongly disagree with most of the specifics of your statement. (Especially regarding vacuum tube products.) I think my position on most of these items should be well established now and I will refrain from individual comments as I do not wish this to become a back and forth about who can defeat the other. You and I have different opinions about so many things that will never change, there seems little point to rehash this or that. Unless someone needs further clarification, I think it best to leave this at the point where you and I do not see things the same way. I will close this post with one point I would still think anyone considering on what side of the coin they prefer to sit should consider before they become committed to this or that ideology. As with your argument for the authoritarian (religious) gene extant in "most" of mankind, I see the view taken by those who wish to examine every piece of audio gear by ABX testing to be too black and white for my taste. If there is a grey area that I find in this position regarding audio gear, it is that I still am unclear where the line is drawn that will allow a product to "sound" better than another. Is it merely matched outputs? Is it THD? In your post of Monday, April 11, 2005 - 02:10 pm. I find paragraph after paragraph discussing the fine measurements of the DAC in question. I then find one sentence that is essentially about the sound of the product which states it displays no sound of its own (though later the writer suggests the sound was mind blowing?). After yet another swipe at his percieved adversaries, Mr. Aczell concludes once again the world is out to rip off the general public. I clearly remember a position you took on this thread where you stated you would expect no difference sonically between matched output 100 watt solid state amplifiers. I am confused as to whether the famous $200 receiver is really to be taken seriously or not. Obviously the high end audio press has written off this experiment many times over. Do items sound different or not? The $200 receiver post would suggest not, though your previous post in reply would suggest there should be. If they measure different, then they should sound diferent. I truly find it hard to believe that all equipment that measures the same (a $200 receiver vs. a $2000 amplifier) on a handful of tests on a test bench will actually be no different in any appreciable respect than a more expensive, better designed and constructed product when put to the task of driving a real world loudspeaker. (I also find it hard to believe that when more measurements are taken, the differences aren't there to see. The differences certainly appear that way in the articles I read.) If no differences exist then the factors of power supply stability, current delivery, rise time, slew rates and output impedance have no meaning in the real world. The effect of global negative feedback to attain measureably low distortion can have no meaning to the use of an amplfier when facing a difficult load. The difference between Class A products and Class AB products doesn't exist. So on and so on. I find that piece of authoritarian liturgy just a bit too much to follow. I would prefer to more readily believe that by sticking an exotic wooden dot to my speakers I can improve their sound than to accept the incongruity of everything sounds the same unless it doesn't. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3629 Registered: May-04 | For those who have not seen this article I will suggest a quick read: http://www.stereophile.com/thinkpieces/165/index3.html |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3086 Registered: Dec-03 | Really interesting. "Most people have the gene for following authority figures". There is no gene. It is a habit which the people learn from their parents. Each of us has the ability to make up our own minds, instead. If there is a gene for that, then we all carry it. If one is born in a country whose average income is $1/day one has limited opportunities for dissent. If, in contrast, one is "born in the USA" one has every opportunity. But one does not take it, as far as I can see. "Even more statistically true ...." Please, what is being correlated with what? And, please, Gregory, who are "the underclasses"? Are there "overclasses", too? Didn't we get shot of all that 60 years ago....? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3632 Registered: May-04 | Gregory - There is one more thing I would like you to explain, if possible. Having read once again your post in reply, I can see a more perceptible trend in your answers that I'm certain others picked up on more readily. I am unclear in section 7, since I don't see the closed quotation marks in the comments by Mr. McMasters, where his comments end and where, if at all, yours begin. 1) Am I to assume the final line; "(t)hat's fine for me, because I designed and built it, so it didn't cost me a king's ransom" are his words? Or did you design and build the "valve" pre amp? I had assumed the words were McMasters since I don't recall you ever mentioning owning a valve pre amp in recent times. If the entire answer to #7 are the words of McMasters, you may not have the answer to the problem I see. In one paragraph discussing the percieved limitations in S.E.T. designs, the remark is made; "due to the asymmetry of single-ended operation". 2) If these are your words, please explain what is meant by the "asymetry" of single ended operation. In my understanding, a S.E. amplifier can only be a Class A device which has no switching point from positive waveform to negative waveform. Unlike a push-pull design which relies on (at least) two output devices per channel, one to handle the positive side and the second to deal with the negative flow, the single ended design utilizes one output device to handle both sides of the waveform. In the example given, this is being done in a triode tube which will allow the most likely symetrical match (especially since a triode is the simplest amplification device) between the + and - waveform since the same device is doing both sides with no switch to another output device. Whereas, of course, a typical (non Class A) p-p amp will turn off one device as the signal passes to the other device. This requires two output devices (typically if we are discussing bipolar transistors, a PNP and a NPN). 3) Isn't it likely the two devices are more often less "symetrical" in relation to one another than a single output, whether the device is tube or transistor? This also struck me as bit odd as a knock on single ended designs since virtually all contemporary pre amps along with the output stages of CD and DVD players, tape decks and tuners are run in a Class A, single ended operation. I realize the writer, either you or McMasters, had been discussing S.E.T.'s in the previous paragraph, but this comment seems to be specifically about the S.E., a.k.a. Class A, operation. The writer has stated this operation has the following limitation: "(s)uch an amplifier generates large amounts of second-harmonic distortion". 4) Firstly, how can this be when transistors are implemented? The vast majority of bipolar transistors (the type most commonly used in solid state pre amps) I have seen tested will have a stronger odd order (specifically third, fifth and seventh) harmonic distortion component and relatively small amounts of second order, or any real amount of even order harmonics. 5) And, secondly, wouldn't this imply all single ended pre amps (which would include more or less all the current market and hundreds if not thousands of designs from the past) would be flawed in some inherent manner? Maybe this was just a minor mistake in your writing, as often happens on the forum, but it has bothered me as I thought about the consequences of such a statement. I don't know if anyone else had seen the problem your answer presents, but I would suspect others would now also like a clarification. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3087 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks for the reply, Gregory. There is more there to discuss than I can manage on a forum such as this. Wish we had a better medium. "I am sure the manufacturers and sellers of expensive equipment would love for everyone to believe that they have designed some unmeasurable phantasm into their equipment" Yes, they would, but it seems to me that not so many people fall for that as fall for the measurable but inaudible. A clear example seems to me to be pushing the upper frequency limit of recordings and playback systems further and further into the ultrasonic domain, inaudible to humans. B&W 800 series speakers with diamond supertweeters may or may not sound great, but the idea that you need accurate phasing etc in things you cannot hear seems to be crazy, to me. I would rather spend my money on what I CAN hear. Two-channel DVD-A will now give frequencies up to 96 kHz, which is nearly three octaves above the limit of most people's hearing; more than two octaves above anyone's, even the very young. Sure, one can use transducers and measure these things, and then quote specifications, but what have they to do with sound quality? "If two things sound different .... and measure the same--then something is going unmeasured" Yes, agreed. But a lot of things go unmeasured. That does not mean that we cannot experience them, nor that they are not valuable, or desirable, in themselves. "Double blind trials" are a different issue. They can be a useful way of correcting for reports of imaginary experience based solely on preconception. But each of us can do that, with a little thought. If you are left with a repeatable difference in what you experience from A and B, it is irrational to discount the difference because one cannot identify measurable factors that account for it. Human perception is an active process. We have expectations - hypotheses - about what we will see, hear, etc. Some of these are hard-wired and we can do nothing about them. Others are software, and we can modify it: we can learn from our experience. Provided we keep an open mind about the nature of the real world. Other animals can see light that is invisible to us, and hear sounds that are inaudible to us. Our senses are pre-tuned to different spectral bands. That is the hardware, and we can do nothing about it. The main thing, in the this context, about people, is how genetically similar we all are. The self-delusion of eugenicists and their ilk is that certain groups or people have hardwired, different sensibilities. It is nonsense. Different cultural groups use different sorts of software, that's all. Some have a relatively free choice to try something different; for others, it is more difficult. What the world needs so much is tolerance of different views and opinions, coupled with a willingness to learn from experience and from other people's reported perceptions. The idea of an "underclass" seems like a filter one can switch on to eliminate the uncomfortable feeling that one is not always right, and anything contrary can be safely discounted if it originates from certain sorts of people. This is not so different from the nonsensical position of eugenicists, except it allows that it might be the underclasses' software that is defective. It is also not so different from most religeons, which give people the comfortable feeling that the group they happened to be born into has some specially priviliged position in the World, and a more accurate view of it. The other thing to say about income is that there comes a point where people who can afford it buy things to make themselves feel good about the purchase itself, not for what the thing they have bought can do. Then they will feel a little less foolish, or perhaps less guilty, if they can make themselves believe in something which is not actually there. In audio, I will cite certain sorts of concerns with cables (and again, what is measurable is interesting, but may have nothing to do with how the cable performs in an audio system). So self-delusion is not the province of the poor. On the contrary, it may be a vice they are simply unable to afford. If one looks at the distribution of wealth throughout the world, it seems to me that a certain threshold of income is a good thing if people wish to be free to make rational choices, but too much is just as harmful to the sceptical outlook: one starts believing in one's own special importance, and trusting people who tell one what one wishes to hear. People tend to do that, and become inclined to accept "reasons" that are not actually there. Or to discount things because they come from a different way of looking at the world, and they feel threatened by that. We all do it. We can learn, though. That's something to hang on to. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3089 Registered: Dec-03 | Puzzled about "ABX test" I found this post, on another forum. What is a blind ABX test ? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3090 Registered: Dec-03 | It seems to me the ideal "ABX" test would be one where either A or B is the original sound. One could then do it all over again with a different component for the recorded sound; A' and B'. And so on. Eventually one could obtain some idea of whether different components were introducing "distortion" (meaning perceptible departure from the original sound) to a greater or lesser extent. It seems like a slightly obsessive way to choose hifi, "Not much fun" as Jan put it. It also should be borne in mind that the poor musician would never play the same way twice, nor want to, if he was any good. There used to be an audio dealer somewhere in London who had a system with a reel-to-reel tape recorder, I think a Ferrograph, and a clarinettist, both behind a curtain. The audience was asked to try to tell which was which, just from listening. When the audience had voted which they each thought it was, the clarinettist or the recording, someone drew back the curtain during a repeat. I never witnessed one of those sessions. It sounds like fun, though. Surely this would be a good way to audition amps, speakers, etc., even tell whether SACD, say, was more or less like the original than was CD. My scepticism about SACD is founded on the fact that we are not allowed to make our own DSD files; the experiment is forbidden. One could do it with CD vs DVD-A, however. I wonder what the result would be. Probably one would find that DVD-A (with supertweeters etc) is better than CD better at convincing an audience of bats, with their astute sensivity to ultrasound. And surely one really needs a subwoofer to impress a school of whales, which hear infrasound. Of course, a clarinet might not be the best choice of instrument, in the latter case. It should be OK for the bats, though. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3637 Registered: May-04 | John - Only the subjective listeners compare audio equipment to the real sound of music. The other guys compare the measurements of equipment. "So self-delusion is not the province of the poor. On the contrary, it may be a vice they are simply unable to afford." Bravo, John. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3641 Registered: May-04 | The final sentence of the ten lies articles is, "in the end, every culture gets exactly what it deserves." That is the single truth to be found in the article. Subjectivists get expensive products and accessories that defy the laws of diminishing returns and objectivists get cheap amplifiers that measure similarly and sound no more than OK. (Unless we are to believe the item which had no sound of its own had a sound which could only be described as "mindblowing".) John - Correct me if I'm wrong, but I beleive you have made an error in interpretation. You stated, "(t)wo-channel DVD-A will now give frequencies up to 96 kHz ...". Unless I'm mistaken the frequency referenced in 96kHz is the sampling frequency only. While applying Nyqiust's Theorem to the 96kHz would "allow" audio frequencies out to 48kHz, the higher frequencies are not included in the audio output. They are there to move the sampling frequency further from the high frequency cut off of the audio bandwidth. DVD-A and SACD are still bandwidth limited to 20kHz just as CD is by Redbook standards. The sampling frequency is placed at 96kHz (or higher in the case of DSD recordings for SACD) to allow the anti-aliasing benefits of higher sampling frequencies provided at the lower audio frequencies. The result, less spurious noise within the audio frequencies. By shifting the sampling rate to an ever higher frequency, the effects of any digital or analog filter used to eliminate (?) artifacts within the audio bandwidth will be minimized. All this is concerned with is still only the area between 20 and 20kHz. Though the specs may look impressive and might mislead a casual observer into thinking they are getting something they are not, the frequency bandwith on a DVD-A or SACD are still limited to the same two points that were set for CD back in 1975. For those whose memory does not include 1975, it should be noted the digital storage medium had yet, at that point, to produce consumer goods on the order of an Atari 400 and games like "Pong". This would tend, if I am correct, to feed fodder to the issue raised in the third "lie" of the article. Digital will remain bandwidth limited until a totally new format is allowed to emerge which stresses quality over quantity. This seems unlikely to happen since the movers and shakers of the industry seem more interested in how much information they can place on an ever decreasing amount of space. (Their reliance on the Nyquist theorem which was developed in the pre-digital, pre "high fidelity" days of 1928 [and meant for intercontinental telephone transmission] as the backbone of their work will forever keep quality in the rear.) The market shift to DVD-V and away from CD portends poorly for higher quality winning the competition. On the other hand, analog remains a virtual infinite storage medium as far as frequency response is concerned. The limitations are there, primarily in extracting the frequencies once they are presented, but the medium has no artbitrary cut off at 20kHz. The indications are there that analog can also, and still, out do present day digital in dynamic range along with extended frequency response. It cannot, however, equal digital in convenience or storage capacity on both ends of the recording/playback chain. It cannot, when done well, equal digital compared to the lowered expense of recording digitally. This however has given us digital drum machines and flanged vocals - two of my favorites! Your point about extended frequencies is still valid, I believe. Though we can prove on paper that we can always divide the string one more time to produce frequencies that extend into the infinite range, when are the measurements no longer of any real value? That would appear to be a function of our hearing. Your comments about hard wiring and software related to out hearing are most relevant to this discussion. Animals are generally credited with extended frequency response and exceptional sensitivity by the evolutionary process. Theirs is a life that is made up of predator and prey. Their hearing is a survival mechanism that plays to both sides of that equation. Humankind, on the other hand, has developed a diferent mechanism that is less attuned to frequencies and sounds that relate to our survival in the world of predator/prey. As such, we develop hearing meachanisms that work for us in our everyday existence. A person who is making their living doing transcription from a pair of headphones or speakers will align their hearing to the vocal range and may have less sensitvity at the extremes of the frequency range for humans. As the original article points out, referring to the lie of Golden Ears, a mechanic can often hear a problem within an engine that eludes the untrained (unattuned) ear. A physician can detect the murmur of a heartbeat with more accuracy that a carpenter. A hunter can spot the location of his target by the sound in the trees. All this is to say, as you have, John, that simply not hearing a sound or a quality of sound does not eliminate it from existence. If anyone feels the need to test their hearing through ABX principles and procedures, they are certainly free to have at it. As John and I have pointed out - have fun. |
|
Silver Member Username: GmanMt. Pleasant, SC Post Number: 674 Registered: Dec-03 | John A. I agree with you--many measurements are more marketting tools than actual performance indicators. No one is going to hear 50 khz or 96 khz except maybe your dog or bat. It's a measurement they list to try and stress that you won't miss any sonic info and they are putting in the atate of the art. But that is mostly marketting and maybe a bit of over-engineering. Of course, none of this negates that fact that there are very important things to both measure and check. But to think people are capable of listening to two different amps while knowing which one is playing and that one is a Krell and the other an ATI or Outlaw and they will come to an honest and accurate assessment is to be ignorant of human nature. Might work to a degree if the person was totally ignorant of both brands and couldn't see them and no sales person was in the room--no one to give cues or remarks. But even with no sound on, a person looking at a Krell and comparing it visually to an ATI or Outlaw would likely assess the Krell sounds better-for no other reason than it looks expensive and looks like it should sound better. If you were in the market for an amp and you bought your fave cd's or LP's, both systems in an ABX test would be identical, except there would be two amplifiers with matched output and input impedances hooked up to the speakers and the same preamp and the amps would be connected to an operational switch--leaving them on all the time, but varying which one was actually supplying the volume to the speakers. You wouldn't be able to tell which amp was being used, but you would control the A-B switch and click away at will. You could take as long as you want and play the same passages again and again. If you can't arrive at a statistical difference in guessing which amp is in operation (only a disinterested party will truly know) then there is no discernible sonic difference. You may want to buy one amp over the other for various other reasons (warranty, reputation, looks, etc)--you just can't make an honest claim that it sounds better. This is not to say there won't be amps that sound different or better to you and you can differentiate them. One can do the same test with substituting two different cd players and keeping everything else the same. The point is you can only switch out one piece, otherwise how do you know what is or isn't causing a difference? There isn't a reputable audio engineer and audio company that is designing receivers and amps that doesn't do measurements and then perform double blind ABX testing to determine if there is a real difference. The engineers will likely be far more honest if you ask them directly rather than the marketting department and sales people. You ask--But doesn't that take the fun out of it? I am not saying that I would like to perform ABX tests on all components I buy, or for that matter on any. But I would love a group of interested people and audio adherents to do it for everyones benefit. Excuse me--every purchasers benefit. Obviously many retailers, salespeople, and manufacturers may not be very pleased. I can see wire marketters/manufacturers jumping off buildings now. Heck--there is no substitute for a live performance. The best we can do with recorded material is extract as much information as possible from the source as accurately as possible and pray we have speakers matched with room acoustics to deliver the goods. Look at the difference room acoustics make in live performances. Many people will tell you which venues sound great--such as Carnegie Hall-- and others that are unrewarding. Given good amplification (which is easy to get these days) The room and your speakers are really where the rubber meets the road. Ask any acoustic musician. ABX site: http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_pwr.htm |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3642 Registered: May-04 | "The idea of an "underclass" seems like a filter one can switch on to eliminate the uncomfortable feeling that one is not always right, and anything contrary can be safely discounted if it originates from certain sorts of people." Any more of that sort of stuff on the forum, John, and you too will have your own personal anonymous troll following you around the forum. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3643 Registered: May-04 | "There isn't a reputable audio engineer and audio company that is designing receivers and amps that doesn't do measurements and then perform double blind ABX testing to determine if there is a real difference." Please, Gregory, you're treading the waters of "all good manufacturers" hyperbole once again. Please tell me how you arrived at that bit of knowledge. A reference would be nice. "I am not saying that I would like to perform ABX tests on all components I buy, or for that matter on any. But I would love a group of interested people and audio adherents to do it for everyones benefit. Excuse me--every purchasers benefit. Obviously many retailers, salespeople, and manufacturers may not be very pleased. I can see wire marketters/manufacturers jumping off buildings now. I can see the same people rolling on the floor in laughter. Again! "The best we can do with recorded material is extract as much information as possible from the source as accurately as possible and pray we have speakers matched with room acoustics to deliver the goods. You pray to your speakers, I'll listen through mine. "Ask any acoustic musician." What if they own Bose? Or Durabrand? I've been in the homes of many performers, composers and conductors that owned what I thought was some pretty cheap stuff which was set up very poorly. Paragraph two - there's always someone evil out there, eh, Gregory? Paragraph three and four - what the heck are you saying? Either amplifiers sound different or they don't. Help me out here. Do I buy the $200 receiver or not? " ... there would be two amplifiers with matched output and input impedances hooked up to the speakers ... " Is that the criteria or not? I asked and you never answered, you switched to a substitue that had nothing to do with what I asked. I thought it was matched output levels! You are confusing me way more than the guys who want me to lift my speaker cables off the floor with specially made little trees and wires! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3646 Registered: May-04 | "But to think people are capable of listening to two different amps while knowing which one is playing and that one is a Krell and the other an ATI or Outlaw and they will come to an honest and accurate assessment is to be ignorant of human nature." What if one was a Krell and the other a Mark Levinson? Or a Jeff Rowland? Or a McIntosh? The all look pretty impressive but none of them sound like any of the others. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 28 Registered: Apr-05 | Hi all, stumbled on this thread. Greg you might benefit from the following information on digital audio. It can be confusing, but this explains the basics pretty well I think. Basic Digital Audio Theory Let's start with the basic Pulse Coded Modulation (PCM) theory. PCM is a method of converting an audio signal from its native analog format into the digital domain where it is comprised of only zeros and ones. This is done on a Compact Disc (CD) for example, and then the original analog signal is recovered by playing the CD in a CD player. PCM works as follows: The analog signal is defined by a value on two axis, amplitude and time. At the sampling frequency, 44.1kHz for CD audio, the amplitude of the signal is encoded into 16-bits words. This means that every 1/44,100th of a second, the closest numerical value to the amplitude of the original analog signal is stored. Since 16-bit words are used, there are 65,536 possible values (216). When the analog signal is recreated using a digital filter followed by a digital-to-analog converter (DAC), found inside every CD Player, all of these encoded numerical values are restored to their original amplitudes with respect to the time axis, recreating a signal with a staircase shape; each step's limit corresponds to the finite value in time and amplitude of the encoded digital signal. This signal is then sent to a reconstruction filter that "smoothes" out the staircase shaped signal, creating an output signal without all the jagged steps. This result is an analog signal, which should closely resemble that of the original analog signal. What are the limitation of this system? One limitation results from the approximations required to encode the real amplitude of the signal into a discrete value. In reality, the signal always lies between two consecutive levels. This causes noise in the digital domain and the limits dynamic range; with more bits, you have better amplitude precision and an equivalent increase in dynamic range. Another limitation is the sampling frequency. With a higher sampling frequency, you have more samples of the signal in one timeframe. This extends the available bandwidth of the system. Imagine a decrease in the size of the steps as the amplitude resolution (number of bits) increases and/or sampling frequency increases. A finer staircase shape (less jagged appearance) allows the use of a simpler reconstruction filter, which is directly related to sound quality. The less effect the filter needs to have, the less it affects sound quality. In more scientific terms, the sampling frequency dictates the highest possible frequency the system can reproduce. Nyquist has demonstrated the mathematical law which states that a sampling system can reproduce frequencies of up to half the sampling frequency. The system has to filter out all frequencies above half the sampling frequency, which is where unwanted artifacts of the digitized signal (the staircase) reside. The audio CD has a specified bandwidth ceiling of 20kHz, leaving a small gap between that upper frequency and half the sampling rate which is 22.05kHz. The filter must be very steep (high order) to remove information above 22.05kHz but still leaving information under 20kHz. Such a filter was developed at the inception of CD playback and was named the "brickwall filter". This filter had a terrible impact on sound quality. Oversampling The oversampling technique was developed to get away from a "brickwall filter". A digital system interpolates new points between the different original samples to obtain an artificially higher sampling rate. This allows the use of a less aggressive filter because it doesn't have to eliminate frequencies as close to the frequencies it must not affect. It first began as four times (4x) oversampling (i.e. 176.4kHz), then later eight times (8x) oversampling (i.e. 352.8kHz). The digital filter must perform many mathematical calculations to determine the value of the point it must add to the original digital signal. Often, this calculated value may fall between two discrete values, so the oversampling system must round off the value to the closest discrete value. To increase the precision of the resulting calculated value, DACs and digital filters with more than 16-bits of resolution were therefore introduced. We have seen 18-bit, 20-bit and 24-bit digital filters and DACs. It is important to note that oversampling creates an artificially higher sampling frequency, which does not extend the real frequency response of the original media or the system, but simply extends the frequencies that need to be filtered out, allowing for a simpler and better sounding analog filter. Upsampling & Upconversion One of the latest storage mediums is the popular the Digital Versatile Disc (DVD). When developing this new standard, a higher-than-CD resolution PCM format was adopted with a maximum resolution of 24-bits/96kHz. For the professional market, this new format had to be compatible with the CD's 16-bit/44.1kHz resolution. This would allow the conversion of original recordings to the new standard. So a sample-rate converter chip, which is nothing more than an oversampling digital filter, was created to actually convert any digital signal from one standard format to another format. For example, a 16-bit/32kHz signal can then be converted to 24-bit/96kHz and 24-bit/96kHz can also be converted to 16-bit/48kHz. This gave rise to the marketing hype with the concepts of upsampling and upconversion, which claims could upsample or upconvert your 16-bit/44.1kHz CD to a 24-bit/96kHz resolution digital signal prior to the digital to analog conversion, resulting in DVD-audio like quality from CD. While this statement is a great idea for marketing purposes and is surely impressive to most consumers, it is technically only half true, and is not the best way to improve the audio quality that can be derived from CDs. Why? Digital filtering is digital filtering regardless of name assigned to it, and how the interpolation is made still relies solely on the arithmetic calculations implanted in dedicated hardware or software. The main difference is how well the "mechanics" of the mathematics will assist in the signal's reconstruction. When changing the sampling rate, it is better to maintain an integer multiple of the original signal's sample rate, so the processing is kept simple. More importantly, the end result is more accurate, thus enabling a higher fidelity of sound reproduction. A two times (2x) oversampling system will double the sampling rate, by adding one easy to find numerical value in between each actual sample. For example, when a 44.1kHz digital signal is processed, a 88.2kHz digital signal is obtained. It is simple, effective and precise because it is a direct multiple of the original digital signal. For an upsampler to make a 96kHz digital signal from a 44.1kHz signal, it will have to perform awkward mathematical operations to obtain a 96kHz signal. (96kHz / 44.1KHz equals 2.1768707...). This results in a less accurate output from the digital filter, with everything else following (i.e. digital-to-analog conversion and analog filtering) also being less accurate. As well, exactly like oversampling, the artificially higher sampling frequency created by an upsampler doesn't increase the actual frequency response of the system, but simply increases the lower limit of the frequencies that need to be eliminated. What does all this really mean? You can hear the differences between the various types of digital filters, regardless of the marketing names used. Over the past two decades, we have witnessed vast improvements in both digital filters and DACs. It is demonstrably true and there does exist real progress. However, the "latest and greatest" upsampling method is not necessarily better than the classic oversampling method. In fact, and most probably, these latest methods actually deteriorate sound quality if the conversion takes the sampling rate to a frequency that is not a direct integer multiple of the original sampling rate, being 44.1 kHz for audio CD |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3091 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, Short point re paragraph 2 of "Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 12:40 pm: ". "You stated, "(t)wo-channel DVD-A will now give frequencies up to 96 kHz ...". Yes, that is correct. Two-channel DVD-A allows a sampling frequency of up to 192 kHz, which puts a limit on the frequency of sound at 96 kHz. 5.1 DVD-A, in contrast, is limited to sampling at 96 kHz on each a channel, which, indeed, means frequency of sound at not more that 48 kHz. I think the CD sampling frequency was set at 44.1 kHz because 22 kHz is just beyond the limit of human hearing. It seems to me it would be good to do ABX testing on DVD-A sources, with and without a low-pass filter at various untrasonic frequencies, starting with 22 kHz. Surely someone has done this? I think I remember the frequency reponse of KEF's "supertweeters" extend to 80+ kHz. There is more to read. I shall not ignore subsequent posts. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3092 Registered: Dec-03 | Reading further on "Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 12:40 pm: " Yes, there are whole systems now which can reproduce sounds up to 50 or 80 kHz. KEF and B&W, for example, make a great play of this capability in their more expensive ranges of speakers, and boast about the linearity of their supertweeters in reproduding sound no-one can hear. The argument about lifting the Nyqvist ceiling above the 20-22 kHz blocking filter tend to be used in response to the statement, which is correct, that no-one can actually hear sounds at these frequencies. Again, a measurable, but an intangible. Still more to read. Will be back. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3093 Registered: Dec-03 | Paul, Beautifully clear. Thanks! Most likely both Jan and Gregory know these things already, but it is good to read such a lucid explanation of what is going on. In practical terms, Gregory explained to me what DVD-A was all about, on this forum, in late 2003. I obtained a DVD-A player in April 2004, was greatly impressed, even with speakers and an amp limited to 20 kHz, and said so. I also laid into CD and still wish to remind people that we were promised that it gave "Perfect sound that lasts forever". I could also hear a considerable benefit from 24-bit 96 kHz PCM stereo; this is often an option on DVD-V discs, where, incidentally, it is immediately and strikingly so much better than the alternative Dolby Digital 5.1. But most people do not set up their players to give linear PCM. What I am unable to do at present is compare the same stereo recording reproduced from 16/44 and 24/96 (or 192) PCM encoding. It concerns me that "the industry" does not produce simple comparison discs. It seems to prefer throwing specs around to actually demonstrating the benefit of high-resolution digital recording. Perhaps it is hedging its bets. Then SACD comes in and makes the whole thing more complicated, since it is not in PCM in the first place. And yet much of the record industry is going over to SACD, which is apparently winning the "format war" with DVD-A. Just to make everything even more imponderable, there is the "surround vs. stereo" debate, and SACD is now being promoted primarily as a means to surround sound. Most odd, since it was originally (1999) introduced for stereo only. These questions have been discussed on other threads. It is very difficult to see a consensus of informed opinion, based on the simple objective of recording and reproducing sound with a greater degree of fidelity to the original. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3094 Registered: Dec-03 | Plagiarism. Ah, Paul, I see I am indebted not to you, but to the author of an article entitled "Upsampling, Upconversion and Oversampling: A Marketing Synonym Game" on the web site of Moon Audio. http://www.simaudio.com/upsampling.htm Thank you for drawing this article to our attention. It would have been so simple to acknowledge the source. An oversight, perhaps. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3659 Registered: May-04 | Well, John, I'm still unclear on this matter. "You stated, "(t)wo-channel DVD-A will now give frequencies up to 96 kHz ...". "Yes, that is correct. Two-channel DVD-A allows a sampling frequency of up to 192 kHz, which puts a limit on the frequency of sound at 96 kHz. 5.1 DVD-A, in contrast, is limited to sampling at 96 kHz on each a channel, which, indeed, means frequency of sound at not more that 48 kHz. I think the CD sampling frequency was set at 44.1 kHz because 22 kHz is just beyond the limit of human hearing." I believe we may be discussing a Clintonian definition of what "is" is. I can clearly see the "ablility" of DVD-A to "allow" frequencies up to 48kHz for 5.1 and 96kHz with two channel operation. But I have not seen, or cannot remember, any claim the actual frequency response of the audio signal extends to this range. My understanding of the operation of the system still maintains a response limited at the upper frequencies at essentially 20kHz (to possibly no more than 24k assuming Nyquist, i.e. 24/48/96). The gains claimed for DVD-A come largely from the higher bit rate to primarily extend the dynamic range by lowering the noise floor (though this is a bit (no pun) suspect when the actual master recording was done at a bit rate of 16 or lower in the early digital days). Less dither, you know. Lower least significant bit. The sampling rate for DVD-A is a matter of upsampling when presented with material that was mastered at Redbook standards. And any analog material that might contain higher frequencies is obviously first digitized which will limit is response. But even material created specifically for DVD-A will still be bandwidth limited to lower frequencies that 48k. The higher sampling rate is doing nothing more than moving the sampling frequency further away from the audio frequencies to minimize aliasing in the audio bandwidth. It is functioning in the same manner as upsampling in a CD player though doing this at the mastering and playback level not the playback only. If I remember correctly, in an earlier discussion of upsampling on another thread, I came across a discussion of upsampling in high end CD players which referred to the genesis of DVD-V as the progenitor of upsampling in a CD player. I shall attempt to find that article. I would appreciate some help with this if you can, John. Not in finding the article, but in understanding the operation of DVD-A. I've held my pet bats up to the speakers and they claim no extended frequncies are coming from any source I have access to. Of course, there may be other flaws in that experiment. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3660 Registered: May-04 | From Paul's post: "The digital filter must perform many mathematical calculations to determine the value of the point it must add to the original digital signal. Often, this calculated value may fall between two discrete values, so the oversampling system must round off the value to the closest discrete value. To increase the precision of the resulting calculated value, DACs and digital filters with more than 16-bits of resolution were therefore introduced. We have seen 18-bit, 20-bit and 24-bit digital filters and DACs." "It is important to note that oversampling creates an artificially higher sampling frequency, which does not extend the real frequency response of the original media or the system, but simply extends the frequencies that need to be filtered out, allowing for a simpler and better sounding analog filter." "Digital filtering is digital filtering regardless of name assigned to it, and how the interpolation is made still relies solely on the arithmetic calculations implanted in dedicated hardware or software. The main difference is how well the "mechanics" of the mathematics will assist in the signal's reconstruction." " ... exactly like oversampling, the artificially higher sampling frequency created by an upsampler doesn't increase the actual frequency response of the system, but simply increases the lower limit of the frequencies that need to be eliminated." John, if what Paul has given us is to be taken as fact (somewhat specious since it was given without reference and taken from an audio writer not a more "official" guide to digital audio), the last sentence of the quote would seem to support my idea of a constricted frequency response for all present day consumer audio formats. Non e vero? Non importa? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3661 Registered: May-04 | Ladies and gentlemen of the forum, There have now been two examples on this thread of quotations provided with no reference to the original source (other than Gregory gave a name). This happens often on the forum. In neither instance on this thread was it possible to discern whether the poster could back up the claims which where made in their post. With little effort on the internet, I can find a claim the world is endding soon. Should you take that as a warning to call in sick so you can listen to all your favorite albums one last time? Hardly, as the internet has no one to filter the junk from the useful information. If either of these sources were intended to illuminate the conversation, they did a rather poor job, in my opinion. No question can be asked of a writer who is not particpating in the forum. And apparently no answer will be given by the poster who supplied the quoted information. There really is no need to turn the posts into a thesis which will be graded for accuracy, but to not be a bit more honest and helpful about where the information is coming from and where your comments begin and end is doing a disservice to the forum members. Simple quotation marks would be a benefit. A reference so others can see the information that surrounds your source would be most helpful. This is only common courtesy, I think. ********************** Paul - There are points I would like to discuss with you about the information you provided. Are you up to the task, or did you merely find this information and post it as is? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3667 Registered: May-04 | This is from another audio site (which might mean an agenda is present) and I do not know the background of the author (information is provided at the end of the article): "Two main parts of the whole system we are going to consider are upsampling and oversampling. In the purely mathematical context, they are similar operations. When practically implemented though, oversampling refers to using a higher sampling rate than needed to run the A/D or D/A converter thus increasing the rate of the signal. Upsampling is on the other hand a rate conversion from one rate to another arbitrary rate." http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/specsformats/upsamplingvsoversampling1.php "In almost all cases, the upsampling process also includes an interpolation filter to get rid of the images of the original signal." "Oversampling at the DAC and ADC will make the design of all our filters much simpler as we will see." "For each factor of four that we oversample by, we gain 6dB of noise lowering. 6dB represents approximately one bit of information. By oversampling, we can theoretically drop one bit for every 4x increase in sample rate." "The question of number of bits is another thing to consider. Does carrying extra bits increase the amount of information in our signal? Unfortunately, once we have sampled our signal, nothing can be done to increase the amount of information we have to work with. What carrying more bits does is that it prevents the loss of information. DSP algorithms and filters require additions, multiplications, and other math functions. If we are able to carry more bits in the results of these operations, we lose less information by chopping off fewer bits. Every truncation of a result will add noise to our signal. But now we can see that by balancing the number of bits we carry in our computations and by the amount we oversample, we can reduce the effect of this truncation in word length. One thing to note is that many products claim 24-bit word lengths, but yet only process internally at 20 bits." " ... sending such a signal that is not limited in bandwidth could cause stability problems with wide-bandwidth amplifiers that have a high unity-gain crossing. The overall system's signal-to-noise- ratio will be adversely affected as well. The DAC will also introduce frequency spurs all over the place. If we don't filter them at all, what will their presence do to the sound?" |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3668 Registered: May-04 | I have heavily edited this information. To get the full article click on the link: http://www.surroundassociates.com/newformats.html DVD-A And SACD by Bobby Owsinski This article originally appeared in the June 1999 issue of EQ Magazine. Some Background First Before we talk about DVD-A and even SACD (since they're loosely related), some DVD basics are in order. The DVD distinguishes itself from a CD in two ways; storage capacity and file system. Storage Capacity While the storage capacity of a current CD is 650MB, the capacity of a DVD can actually be one of four levels, all far exceeding the CD. This is accomplished by having more and smaller pits on the substrate than that of a CD. Add to this the fact that DVD can have two layers and be double sided, and the power of DVD becomes readily apparent. FIGURE 1 - DVD TYPES AND CAPACITIES DVD-V Basics DVD-Video burst upon the scene two years or so ago primarily as a high quality movie delivery system, but the audio portion of the format is still quite an improvement over the Red Book CD standard. And because there's automatic provisions for multichannel audio and a built-in (but limited) 96/24 option, DVD-V may yet become a major delivery format for audio before all is said and done. Sonics The audio portion of a DVD-V can have up to eight bit streams (audio tracks). These can be 1 to 8 channels of common Linear PCM (LPCM), 1 to six channels (5.1) of Dolby Digital, or 1 to eight channels (5.1 or 7.1) of MPEG-2 audio (FIGURE 2). Also, there are provisions for optional DTS or SDDS encoding as well. The LPCM bit stream, which is the same uncompressed format as today's Red Book CD (which is standardized at 44.1kHz and 16 bit), can use either a 48 or 96kHz sample rate with a bit depth of either 16, 20 or 24 bits. Now on the surface this seems great and makes you wonder why another format for multichannel audio is even considered, but then you realize that the bit rate for the audio data is capped at 6.144Mbps. The bit rate (sample rate X number of bits X number of channels) is equivalent to the size of the pipe that the audio data has to flow through and in this case the pipe isn't big enough to fit 6 channels of 96/24 audio. In fact, all you can squeeze through is 2 channels of 96/24. If you want multichannel, you're back at 48k but at least the bit depth is raised to 20 bits for six channels. (See FIGURE 2) So now we have to go to some sort of data compression scheme to fit all of the channels down the pipe at a higher audio quality. FIGURE 2 - AUDIO PORTION OF A DVD-VIDEO The standard compression scheme for DVD-V is Dolby Digital (or AC-3) which compresses six channels (5.1) of up to 24 bit audio to fit through the DVD-V audio pipe but is limited to only a 48kHz sampling rate. Plus it is a lossy compression algorithm with a maximum bit rate of 448kbps (although 384 is mostly used) which means that some data is thrown away in the encoding process (although the goal is to only throw away the data that you won't miss). Although an optional coding process, DTS encoding can also prove to be an interesting choice since it can potentially encode up to 8 channels of 96/24 with less data compression than either Dolby Digital or MPEG. Just What Is DVD-Audio? The DVD-Audio disc should be in the stores by Christmas and there's a lot to like about it. The main feature and difference between DVD-A and its video cousin is the ability to provide significantly higher audio quality. Just having the ability to do so doesn't necessarily mean that the highest fidelity audio will happen though, because for better or worse, the final decision as to the sonic quality is largely in the hands of the content producer. Sonics DVD-A differs from the audio portion of DVD-V in that the data pipe is a much larger 9.6Mbps compared to DVD-V's 6.144Mbps. Even with the wider audio pipe, six channels of 96/24 LPCM audio still exceeds the allotted bandwidth (multiply 96k by 24 bits x 6 channels to get the resultant 13.824Mbps bandwidth). Therefore, there needs to be some type of data compression to not only fit the required amount of data through the pipe, but increase the playing time as well. For this requirement, MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing) was selected as the standard data compression for DVD-A. MLP, which gives about a 1.85 to 1 compression ratio, is seemingly lossless, meaning that no data is thrown away during the compression process. SACD: The Audio Beta? Thanks to the promise of improved sonic performance as well as backwards and forwards compatibility, the Super Audio CD (SACD) is certainly an intriguing prospect in the multichannel delivery wars. The SACD is a dual layer disc (basically a DVD-9) with one layer dedicated to normal Red Book CD-type audio and the second to a high density layer for a six channel surround mix, a two channel stereo mix, and potentially extra data such as text and graphics. . Sonics SACD touts an improvement in sonic quality due to a new twist in a current recording process known as Direct Stream Digital (DSD). DSD uses essentially the same delta sigma oversampling method used in most modern high-quality analog to digital conversion systems where a single bit measures whether a waveform is rising or falling rather than measuring an analog waveform at discrete points in time. In current systems, this one bit is then decimated into LPCM causing a varying amount (depending upon the system) of quantization error and ringing from the necessary brickwall filter. DSD simplifies the recording chain by recording the one bit directly, thereby reducing the unwanted side effects. Indeed on paper SACD with DSD looks impressive. A sampling rate of 2.8224 MHz (which is 64 times 44.1k in case you're wondering) yields a frequency response from DC to 100kHz with a dynamic range of 120dB. Most of the quantization error is moved out of the audio bandwidth and the Brickwall Filter which haunts current LPCM systems is removed." "SACD ADVANTAGES Sonic Performance - Wide bandwidth goes from DC to 100kHz with a 120dB dynamic range. No adverse filter artifacts thanks to elimination of the brick wall filter." |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3669 Registered: May-04 | http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/specsformats/LPvsCDformats.php |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3670 Registered: May-04 | Very concise, includes information on Nyquist ans aliasing: http://www.soundstage.com/gettingtechnical/gettingtechnical200311.htm |
|
Bronze Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 33 Registered: Apr-05 | Jan, I felt the poster needed a tad of info on digital audio. I didnt reference the author because I forgot where that particular piece came from. I find frequently people are miss-informed when it comes to all audio not just digital. Time did not permit me to type out a lengthy reply so I posted that tidbit of info for him to read. What in specific do you not agree with in that piece? It is an older article, if I recall, but pretty easy to read. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3676 Registered: May-04 | Yes, the article is fairly concise, and that may be my problem with it. It doesn't say enough. I do not so much disagree as find the point made seems to fall on one side of an issue that has received a fair amount of attention lately in certain areas of audio. "When changing the sampling rate, it is better to maintain an integer multiple of the original signal's sample rate, so the processing is kept simple. More importantly, the end result is more accurate, thus enabling a higher fidelity of sound reproduction. A two times (2x) oversampling system will double the sampling rate, by adding one easy to find numerical value in between each actual sample. For example, when a 44.1kHz digital signal is processed, a 88.2kHz digital signal is obtained. It is simple, effective and precise because it is a direct multiple of the original digital signal. For an upsampler to make a 96kHz digital signal from a 44.1kHz signal, it will have to perform awkward mathematical operations to obtain a 96kHz signal. (96kHz / 44.1KHz equals 2.1768707...). This results in a less accurate output from the digital filter, with everything else following (i.e. digital-to-analog conversion and analog filtering) also being less accurate." I dealt with audio from the stand point of a salesperson and there is too much to learn about digital audio that a salesperson doesn't really need to know. However, what I have seen stated by those in favor of upsampling with upconversion as the better solution to digital sound quality is the benefit of upconversion to an integer unlike the original's sampling rate. There seems to be no clear cut answer to this as some prefer to leave all filtration out of the game and let the function of human hearing roll off the frequencies out of the range of our hearing rather than have the filters introduce aliasing and quantization noise into the audible spectrum. Others prefer to do the "best" job of filtering. The argument for upsampling to 96kHz or 192kHz instead of 88kHz or 176kHz (as seems to be recommended by the article you supplied) is the reclocking that has to take place. A major effort has been under way in the audiophile community to reduce jitter since the earliest days of CD playback. Often the method that proved the most effective as the signal left the transport was an outboard DAC with a clocking device to realign the signal to a master clock. My understanding of upconverting is the function of reclocking is automatic when going from 44k to 48k and therefore has the potential for better sound than mere oversampling or upsampling to a multiplier integer. This seems to be a logical conclusion in my mind. The simple upsampling to a multiplier frequency will carry with it some amount of the jitter that is inherent in the original signal. Only so much of this can be removed by the filter after it is introduced into the signal path. The audibility of jitter is continually debated also, but for our purposes, let's assume it is harmful to the audio quality. Naturally the best solution is to not introduce jitter to the signal in the first place. This is a situation that appears to be possible only in the perfect world of digital theory and not in the real world of consumer audio. Jitter to some extent is a fact of life in CD and DVD playback. Better mechanics can reduce it, but it appears it will always be with us. Also, the idea presented that the conversion process from 44k to 48k will deteriorate the signal because of poor mathematics in the conversion process seems to ignore the fact that most all digital recordings are mastered on DAT which operates at a 48k sampling rate. The signal must be down converted to go onto a CD. It has long been a bone of contention among audiophiles that this mathematical error can exist at the very beginning of the CD process. But this article seems to say bringing any digital signal from one sampling frequency to another is going to affect the sound quality. Isn't that essentially saying the whole digital process is, as the article puts it, based on "awkward mathematical operations"? One article on upsampling I remember implied bringing the signal back to 48k was better simply because it returned the signal to its original sampling rate. This claim seemed a bit of a stretch, but that would not be the first time a claim has been exagerated in audio. Do you have any experience with upconversion and upsampling to make any comments? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3677 Registered: May-04 | John - I am confused: http://www.digitalaudioguide.com/faq/dvd-audio/faq_2.htm#What%20are%20the%20DVD- Audio%20Specifications? |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 1826 Registered: Aug-04 | Don't be confused! SACD - explayned in palin egnlsih: Click here |
|
Bronze Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 34 Registered: Apr-05 | Jan, my new cdp upsamples. Can't say I can honestly say it sounds better on redbook cd's than my older player did. However, it also does HDCD. The jury is still out on HDCD here in my home. Some sound fantastic while others seem pretty boring. I have read though that it is possible to lite the HDCD lite without the disc being HD encoded. This might explain the delima. I'm old school....keep oversampling to a multiple of the original 44.1k signal. Just makes more sense and allows for fewer errors. |
|
Silver Member Username: GmanMt. Pleasant, SC Post Number: 675 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan--"There isn't a reputable audio engineer and audio company that is designing receivers and amps that doesn't do measurements and then perform double blind ABX testing to determine if there is a real difference." Please, Gregory, you're treading the waters of "all good manufacturers" hyperbole once again. Please tell me how you arrived at that bit of knowledge. A reference would be nice. Jan--"There isn't a reputable audio engineer and audio company that is designing receivers and amps that doesn't do measurements and then perform double blind ABX testing to determine if there is a real difference." Please, Gregory, you're treading the waters of "all good manufacturers" hyperbole once again. Please tell me how you arrived at that bit of knowledge. A reference would be nice. Okay--go to the Harman International website who are the current owners of such esteemed brands as Revel speakers, Mark Levinson, Lexicon, Infinity, JBL and JBL Pro, and numerous others reputable brands. They talk about how they go through both measurements and ABX testing. Floyd Toole of National Research of Canada (the huge speaker facility that spawned lots of great Canadian speaker companies) is at Harman, along with Kevin Voeck's of Snell speaker fame. They rely on ABX tetsing and talk about the sytems they have devised. There are lots of great white papers available on the site too. Sidney Harman collects the best people he can find--of course, he can afford to. I went to high school with one of his sons on Long Island when he just had HK merchandise. How things have changed. "I am not saying that I would like to perform ABX tests on all components I buy, or for that matter on any. But I would love a group of interested people and audio adherents to do it for everyones benefit. Excuse me--every purchasers benefit. Obviously many retailers, salespeople, and manufacturers may not be very pleased. I can see wire marketters/manufacturers jumping off buildings now. I can see the same people rolling on the floor in laughter. Again! Why laughter? For most shoppers setting up a home ABX test is a damn onerous chore. And you know darn well 99% of retail stores won't do it or help you. How are most people to do an ABX test unless they are lucky enough to borrow a component from a store and then contact ABX and buy their ABX switching equipment, or are industrious on their own to do it themselves. Sure, the same people profiting from consumers ignorance and/or confusion know the difficulties the consumer will have to perform these tests--and will put up as many roadblocks as possible. "What if one was a Krell and the other a Mark Levinson? Or a Jeff Rowland? Or a McIntosh? The all look pretty impressive but none of them sound like any of the others. " Jan--I would love to see each of those manufacturers supply their 200 watt stereo amplifiers and comply with ABX rules to see if there was an audible and statistically significant difference. I would wager $1,000 there wouldn't be a statistical difference. I'm not holding my breath to see if any of these companies will comply. Kind of like the Amazing Randi offering $10,000 to anyone that can prove any type of ESP. So far no winners--and it has been over 10 years. |
|
Silver Member Username: GmanMt. Pleasant, SC Post Number: 676 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan--"Why do so many hear improvements? Why do so many deny they exist? What reason would either have to say what they want me to believe? Wow. Why do so many hear speaker wire and interconnect improvements when it has been shown so many times that there aren't any for any half-decent wire or connector. As John A. said--the miniscule measurements often mean nothing--and in wire (they are often less than miniscule). Why are so many millions convinced that there religion is correct and yours is wrong. And there are many thousands of religions too. They have it on authority. The ear, the mind, and the "heart" are all easily fooled. And as the ear and mind (if both are operating sufficiently) may be considered one and the same--as the mind interprets what comes in the ear--we all know what tricks the mind can play. Add to this the influence on the mind of marketting, brand, and salespeople (boy, you notice the tightness in the bass on that second amp)--most people I know hear what they are "told" to hear from authoritative sources, magazines, and salespeople. Marketting influence is a multi-billion (hundreds of billions) industry. Manufacturers aren't dumb--they know it works and they know how to show there product off to its best advantage (with the help of retailers and salespeople, of course). |
|
Silver Member Username: GmanMt. Pleasant, SC Post Number: 677 Registered: Dec-03 | John A.-- "Most people have the gene for following authority figures". There is no gene. It is a habit which the people learn from their parents. Each of us has the ability to make up our own minds, instead. If there is a gene for that, then we all carry it." Me bad. Everyone has a group of genes for following authority. Look at our simian realtives that follow the alpha chimp, the silverback gorilla---heck, the gene sequence for this is so old it goes back to lizards. Hens have a pecking order, dogs have their alpha male and/or alpha female, etc. Actually, I can't think of a single social mammalian that doesn't express obeisance to authority figures. I watch the animal channel often enough to see the pattern repeated ad nauseum. Just like our closest simian relatives, the only time an alpha chimp is challenged is when the other chimp feels it has a reasonable chance of unseating him. Very little has changed since our less-hairy but equally aggressive relatives took the leap from monkey to man. Heck, Tom DeLay, the Republican House Whip, won't be unseated until one of his opponent colleagues feels he is strong enough to take him--and DeLay is weakened enough by his shenanigans. His colleagues mostly vote as he tells them to. Just as a managing editor or publisher of an audio magazine will send out his/her marching orders. You write things that don't mesh with the party line or risk losing the publishers ad money---you stand a great chance of getting fired. Obviously, solitary creatures don't have a need to follow--they just need to occassionally hook-up to breed. "ifone is born in a country whose average income is $1/day one has limited opportunities for dissent. If, in contrast, one is "born in the USA" one has every opportunity. But one does not take it, as far as I can see. " There is a tendency in most well to do countries to get fat and sassy. But the birth of the US runs counter to your argument. The American Revolution was fomented by those with the most to lose (Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, etc. were doing very well). I don't even recall adressing this issue. I rmeber paraphrasing GB Shaw in Major Barbara that it is easy to put a bible in one hand and a sandwich in the other and get many converts. Most people have their price. For the starving poor of Major Barbara it could have been a sandwich a day--for more affluent people it could be special treatment, money, or goods and services. Few are immune. And, please, Gregory, who are "the underclasses"? Are there "overclasses", too? Didn't we get shot of all that 60 years ago....? John---Being British, you think of the term classes far different than Americans. Money is class in the US. Your folks in the US could be poor as dirt,you get wealthy-you have made theupper class. Class in Britain has generally had more to do with birthright. In the US it has almost nothing to do with birthright. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are royalty here. My comments had zero to do with the nasty eugenics of the past. As one who had relativeswith numbers on their arms/wrists and a number that never made it--it was the furthest thing from my mind. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3682 Registered: May-04 | "I watch the animal channel often enough to see the pattern repeated ad nauseum." * This and ABX tests! What a fun guy you are, Gregory. ***** "Obviously, solitary creatures don't have a need to follow--they just need to occassionally hook-up to breed." * Ooooh! I bet we all know what you gave your wife for Mother's Day? ******************** "There isn't a reputable audio engineer and audio company - yada, yada, yada and your reply, yada, yada, yada ..... " * It's not that I don't think some manufatcurers use these tests. I just don't think sending me to one web site accomplishes the task of showing me --"There isn't a reputable audio engineer and audio company that is designing receivers and amps that doesn't do measurements and then perform double blind ABX testing to determine if there is a real difference." Do your really think it does? Is that your idea of statistical proof? Is it that hard to back off a statement, Greg? ***** "Why laughter? For most shoppers setting up a home ABX test is a damn onerous chore. And you know darn well 99% of retail stores won't do it or help you. How are most people to do an ABX test unless they are lucky enough to borrow a component from a store and then contact ABX and buy their ABX switching equipment, or are industrious on their own to do it themselves." * Why do they have to? You said you don't want to. Why do you insist anyone else has to do it first? Why can't people just buy what they like? If they think it sounds better, how does that harm you in some way, Greg? What is it with you guys that you are such Killjoys? And "99%"? You never back off, do you? Where did you learn this art of exageration? Please give me a reference for this figure. (ya'know, I could have gone along if you had only said 98.050%, but no you had to push it to 99% didn't you?) ***** "I would love to see each of those manufacturers supply their 200 watt stereo amplifiers and comply with ABX rules to see if there was an audible and statistically significant difference. I would wager $1,000 there wouldn't be a statistical difference. I'm not holding my breath to see if any of these companies will comply." * Please do hold your breath. Please, oh, please! Because I'm sure from that courteous invitation all these manufacturers will rush to your door step with amps and switches in hand. Gregory, I'm willing to bet $1 million that the manufacturers will go ahead and do your test. I'll bet $10 million there is a difference. Pretty easy to bet any amount you want when there's no chance of the bet ever happening, isn't it? Get real, guy. OOH,OOH!!! Here's one - I'm willing to bet a quatrillion dollars George Bush and Tony Blair won't come kiss my butt tonight!!!!! Where do I collect? The manufacturers all submit their equipment to reviewers, they all are represented by audio merchants with showrooms, everyone is free to listen and then decide. If some rich guy wants to buy all of them and do ABX or XYZ or 123 testing or toss them in a lake, he can do it. You've made no point about the companies, Greg. Just about your own paranoia. ***** "Why do so many hear speaker wire and interconnect improvements when it has been shown so many times that there aren't any for any half-decent wire or connector." * Why do so many people hear a difference? It has happened so many times. Ping-pong-ping-pong, back and forth we go. What is it about the people who know they hear an improvement when cables are switched that you can't stand? You look at one side only and want to use that argument to bash everyone over the head again and again until they submit to your point of view. I repeat, what is it about you guys that won't let people buy what they like. Not why won't you, but what is it that makes you that way? This goes beyond simple scepticism. ***** "Sidney Harman collects the best people he can find--of course, he can afford to. I went to high school with one of his sons ... " * Really, all six years? ***** " ... the same people profiting from consumers ignorance and/or confusion know the difficulties the consumer will have to perform these tests--and will put up as many roadblocks as possible." " ... we all know what tricks the mind can play. (That's too easy, Gregory. I won't go there.) "Add to this the influence on the mind of marketting, brand, and salespeople (boy, you notice the tightness in the bass on that second amp)--most people I know hear what they are "told" to hear from authoritative sources, magazines, and salespeople. Marketting influence is a multi-billion (hundreds of billions) industry. Manufacturers aren't dumb--they know it works and they know how to show there product off to its best advantage (with the help of retailers and salespeople, of course)." "Obviously many retailers, salespeople, and manufacturers may not be very pleased." " ... where are all these phantom differences coming from? First, from the imaginations of people who think there should be differences, and so conjure them up in the absence of proper facilities for proving they don't exist -- and egged on by the purple prose of the little super-audiophile magazines . . . who evidently must prove the superiority of their golden ears over others' by hearing faults that don't exist and condemning perfectly good products on their strength." "Next we will hear someone extolling the virtues of the wax cylinder as having superior sonics to vinyl or CD (needless to say these superior sonics will be "very subtle" and "only audible with the finest (i.e. most expensive) single ended triode monoblock amplifier")." "The system would come crashing down if the truth were revealed. To pick an obvious example, consider John Atkinson, the subtle and highly articulate editor of Stereophile. Don't you think he knows? Of course he knows." * I could go on, but I think that's enough to make a point. What makes you all so essentially distrustful? What made you decide there always has to be an attack on someone and there always has to be someone "evil" lurking to take people's money and make fools of them? That's what disturbs me the most about the folks on your side of the fence. They always want to "get a rope" and "defend the little lady's honor" and rid the world of people they don't approve of. None of you ever just state your case and let someone decide. You always have to go on the attack. It's always attack the messenger, not the message. What in your mind makes that necessary? Really, Gregory, I want to know. Please be as clear as possible without making yet another attack on someone's morals and ethics. ********************** Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 11:52 am, by Gregory Stern. "I'm not holding my breath to see if any of these companies will comply. Kind of like the Amazing Randi offering $10,000 ... " Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 06:32 pm, by Anonymous: "You complain that you must perform the test in the manner that you use the equipment. So perform the test in that manner and prove that you can hear the difference. The Randi challenge is still out there." Hmm, that's curious, isn't it? Gregory and Anonymous (my personal little troll) both refer to Randi when addressing me. Is that just a conicidence, Greg? I didn't know the Amazing Randi had such a large and devoted following. I noticed anon showed up on the forum about the same time you made a return visit. Is that just a coincidence, Greg? Tell me truly, Gregory, are you my little anonymous troll? Hmmmm? ************* And finally, I'm still waiting for an answer about the asymetry of single ended operation, whether you designed and built a tube pre amp and about what measurements will assure a component sounds the same and what will make it sound different. Don't disappoint me again. I'll let John discuss the issues you raised with his posts. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3684 Registered: May-04 | By the way, Gregory, I still don't buy your idea of that "authority gene". If you watch the Animal Planet network so much, I'm sure you've seen the infant animals testing the authority of their parents and the pack. They get swatted by another, older member. That, in my book, is LEARNED behaviour. Not genetic, or they wouldn't push the limits in the first place. Do this, while you're looking for the reference for that 99% thing, dig up a reference for the genetic coding. I'm getting tired of you just making stuff up that I'm supposed to beleive just because you said it. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3687 Registered: May-04 | Oh, hell, I'll prove my point myself: on page 71: http://web.ask.com/redir?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftm.wc.ask.com%2Fr%3Ft%3Dan%26s%3Da%26sv% 3Dz6f5372c9%26uid%3D00125ACFC82ECBF14%26sid%3D1B2FF9A19C5CEF724%26o%3D0%26qid%3D 7A9B5D28A2D6484CB5C7CEDC2549BF70%26io%3D9%26ask%3Dis%2Bauthority%2Blearned%252c% 2Bgenetic%2Bor%2Binstinctive%26uip%3D445eb21d%26en%3Dte%26eo%3D-100%26pt%3DEvolu tionary%2520psychopathology%26ac%3D24%26qs%3D0%26pg%3D1%26ep%3D1%26te_par%3D226% 26te_id%3D%26u%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fhuman-nature.com%252fdarwin%252fedp.pdf&bpg= http%3A%2F%2Fweb.ask.com%2Fweb%3Fq%3Dis%2Bauthority%2Blearned%252c%2Bgenetic%2Bo r%2Binstinctive%26o%3D0%26page%3D1&q=is%20authority%20learned,%20genetic%20or%20 instinctive&s=a&bu=http%3a%2f%2fhuman-nature.com%2fdarwin%2fedp.pdf&qte=0&o=0&ab s=...biological%20thought%20.%20evolved%2Flearned%2C%20evolved%2Fdeveloped%2C%20 innate%2Flearned%2C%20genetic%20environmental%20...%20such%20as%20.emotional.%2C %20.instinctive.%2C&tit=Evolutionary%20psychopathology&bin=&cat=wb&purl=http%3A% 2F%2Ftm.wc.ask.com%2Fi%2Fb.html%3Ft%3Dan%26s%3Da%26uid%3D00125ACFC82ECBF14%26sid %3D1B2FF9A19C5CEF724%26qid%3D7A9B5D28A2D6484CB5C7CEDC2549BF70%26io%3D%26sv%3Dz6f 5372c9%26o%3D0%26ask%3Dis%2Bauthority%2Blearned%252c%2Bgenetic%2Bor%2Binstinctiv e%26uip%3D445eb21d%26en%3Dbm%26eo%3D-100%26pt%3D%26ac%3D18%26qs%3D0%26pg%3D1%26u %3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fmyjeeves.ask.com%2Faction%2Fsnip&Complete=1 People who by "programmed" mean inevitable and caused only by the genes are forgetting that a computer program does not guarantee an output regardless of input. On the contrary, the more sophisticated the program, the more subtly it responds to its input. A program whose output were completely specified by ("completely controlled by") the program itself would be of limited value. (Oyama, 1985, pages 116-117) and: http://web.ask.com/redir?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftm.wc.ask.com%2Fr%3Ft%3Dan%26s%3Da%26sv% 3Dz6f53720a%26uid%3D00125ACFC82ECBF14%26sid%3D1B2FF9A19C5CEF724%26o%3D0%26qid%3D 345277F19AD8C04BB3DEB3C8FA9E28A1%26io%3D7%26ask%3Dis%2Bauthority%2Blearned%252c% 2Bgenetic%2Bor%2Binstinctive%26uip%3D445eb21d%26en%3Dte%26eo%3D-100%26pt%3DHow%2 520We%2520Got%2520Here%26ac%3D24%26qs%3D0%26pg%3D1%26ep%3D1%26te_par%3D226%26te_ id%3D%26u%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252ffaculty.mdc.edu%252fjmcnair%252fJoepages%252fhow_ we_got_here.htm&bpg=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.ask.com%2Fweb%3Fq%3Dis%2Bauthority%2Blearne d%252c%2Bgenetic%2Bor%2Binstinctive%26o%3D0%26page%3D1&q=is%20authority%20learne d,%20genetic%20or%20instinctive&s=a&bu=http%3a%2f%2ffaculty.mdc.edu%2fjmcnair%2f Joepages%2fhow_we_got_here.htm&qte=0&o=0&abs=Children%20learned%20by%20watching% 20and%20...%20but%20denied%20any%20real%20authority%2C%20where%20...%20on%20our% 20behavior%20as%20our%20instinctive%20...%20It%20makes%20little%20genetic...&tit =How%20We%20Got%20Here&bin=&cat=wb&purl=http%3A%2F%2Ftm.wc.ask.com%2Fi%2Fb.html% 3Ft%3Dan%26s%3Da%26uid%3D00125ACFC82ECBF14%26sid%3D1B2FF9A19C5CEF724%26qid%3D345 277F19AD8C04BB3DEB3C8FA9E28A1%26io%3D%26sv%3Dz6f53720a%26o%3D0%26ask%3Dis%2Bauth ority%2Blearned%252c%2Bgenetic%2Bor%2Binstinctive%26uip%3D445eb21d%26en%3Dbm%26e o%3D-100%26pt%3D%26ac%3D18%26qs%3D0%26pg%3D1%26u%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fmyjeeves.ask.com %2Faction%2Fsnip&Complete=1 |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3688 Registered: May-04 | Gregory - I might have gone along if you had just said it was instinctual, but you just had to make it genetic, didn't you? |
|
bumblebee Unregistered guest | i thought this was a good discussion. i thought too soon. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3690 Registered: May-04 | Well, Mr. bumbledeebee, sir, what's it going to be; learned, instinctual or genetic? We're talking authority here, son, authority with a capital "A". Speak up, don't, I say, don't be afraid of a lil' ol' Authority. Let's hear you say learned. That's my boy! Learned it is!!! |
|
bumblebee Unregistered guest | mr. vigne, i don't quite understand what you ask of me. anyway, this thread have lots of good discussions and it's a pity if it's gonna be deleted again due to personal attacks. we are all guilty of this. being a newbie, i go here to learn about hifi and not be entertained by heated debates. i agree that hifi is about accuracy. we should able to hear exactly what is recorded. forget about live music. tubes will always sound more pleasing. solid state can be more accurate. cables make a difference because the parameters are altered. hifi requires that cables stay as neutral as possible, as all other components. can't we enjoy tubes and accept that it is 'less' accurate than solid state's? can't we enjoy solid state's and accept that the 'less' accurate tubes sound more pleasing? can't we enjoy exotic cables and accept that they have been altered to sound warm or bright? can't we enjoy cheap cables and accept that the more expensive ones can make our gears sound more pleasing? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3691 Registered: May-04 | Bumblebee - Yes, you're in the middle of some personal stuff here. Sorry to put you in an awkward position. There is possibly too much Americanized humor in my reply to your post. If you have never seen a Foghorn Leghorn cartoon, it will mean nothing to you. "i agree that hifi is about accuracy. we should able to hear exactly what is recorded. forget about live music." I'm afraid you have stumbled into something quite odd with this statement. I don't believe the word "accuracy" has been discussed in this thread. Certainly it had nothing to do with the original article. The writer of the article and the quotations that have followed have not mentioned "accuracy" at all to my recollection. That does seem odd for an article about how to get to the truth in audio, doesn't it? I'm afraid you'll have to explain the idea of "forget about live music." How do we know what's accurate if we forget about the only thing we have to compare against? And, in my opinion, the original article is not about why can't we enjoy this or that. It is about thinking only one way. Any departure from that approved course will be deemed "evil". Please do make a contribution and try to steer this thread back onto a better course. You seem to want accuracy but then readily allow inaccuracies to come into the system to make it more pleasing. There would appear to be a bipolar response to what you consider acceptable in audio, bumblebee. It's difficult to see how you can have it both ways. |
|
Silver Member Username: KanoPost Number: 483 Registered: Oct-04 | I believe the reference was to Bose's philosophy that 90% of what you hear in a Live performance is reflected sound, which they try to duplicate with their speakers. |
|
bumblebee Unregistered guest | we play recordings of live music. i believe that if live music is recorded, it should be eliminated from the equation. our gears are not supposed to sound like the original. they are supposed to play what is fed to them. how do we know that we're close to the original? hard to tell. but, assuming that our recordings are faithful reproductions of the original, then the lower the THDs, the closer we get. the flatter the response, the closer we get. i hope i made a valid point here. sorry for the confusion and thank you all for the inputs. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3101 Registered: Dec-03 | I agree with Jan, bumblebee. You make a good, strong point. But the live performance is the reference if we want to know how "Accurate" the recording and playback is. Surely? I can't see what else there is. Gregory, Thanks for the response. Let me just say it does not matter much how one defines "underclass" and "overclass". Certainly some people prefer to follow a leader, rather than take responsibility, themselves, for their own actions. I think the US gained independence, and grew in strength and influence, by rejecting that outlook. By "sixty years ago" I was referring to the end of the mess caused by an entire country being afraid to question a leader. Each person thought his duty was doing what he was told by whoever was "above" him in the chain of loyalty and obedience. At the top of it all was a fanatic, who told them they were born to be the "overclass" as far as the rest of the world was concerned. That made them feel good. I think we should continue to be on our guard against all that. "Class in Britain has generally had more to do with birthright. " I think that was true, once. There is not much left of that view, now, as far as I can see. What worries me more today are the demogogues. But the latest is on his way out, now, after the last election. That's something. He defines his authority by people having voted for him. But they didn't. Some people think their money buys them authority. It doesn't. They can just buy more. What is not demonstrated is that making money has anything to do with leadership, either. I am inclined to think that the link is negative. You seem to think it is positive. That is probably the basis of our different viewpoints. There are always the brokers of other people's skill, ingenuity, and hard work. Look at the world's richest men, for example. Imagine they never existed; it would not have made much difference. They hold things up, mostly. Genes vs environment; nature vs. nurture. It is nature via nurture, really. An individual human is a hopeless, vulnerable animal. It is our ability to communicate and work together that got us where we are. Thanks for the article extract, Jan. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3102 Registered: Dec-03 | bumblebee, My post crossed yours; I had not read your last one. But there you write: "we should able to hear exactly what is recorded. forget about live music. " Live music is what is recorded. Even if it is in a recording studio. I can't see any way around that. So if we want accuracy, the original sound is the reference, it seems to me. Jan, In all this about upsampling, I cannot see why mutiplying by whole numbers is easier or better. It seems to me that electonic processors can multiply by anything we like with equal ease. I will stand corrected of someone knows this is not the case. "I would appreciate some help with this if you can, John. Not in finding the article, but in understanding the operation of DVD-A" You found the article! My understanding of DVD-A comes partly from the technology stuff from "Disctronics", who make discs. See DVD-Audio overview for example. On the right panel there are links to specifics, and a pdf. Essentially, by their definition, "DVD-Audio" is PCM, and includes CD, but is much wider, allowing also 24-bit samples at a range of higher sampling frequencies (up to 192 kHz, two channel) as well as 5.1 (up to 96 kHz). The aim is improved resolution - the "smaller steps" of 24-bit samples, as well as higher rate if sampling to give a closer approach to the original analogue microphone feed. The only approved "compression" is genuinely lossless - MLP - which reduces file size by in the ratio 1 to 1.85, thus getting more information on a disc without compromising resolution. |
|
Silver Member Username: GmanMt. Pleasant, SC Post Number: 678 Registered: Dec-03 | Gregory - I might have gone along if you had just said it was instinctual, but you just had to make it genetic, didn't you? Meat is protein as instinct IS genetic. Learned behavior isn't instinct. Instinctually driven behavior is genetic, otherwise it would be learned behavior. "This and ABX tests! What a fun guy you are, Gregory." We have a choice--play fast and lose or try and be accurate. Fun isn't mutually exclusive to either unless you are a limited person that doesn't get turned on by discovery and learning. "Ooooh! I bet we all know what you gave your wife for Mother's Day? " Amazing the amount of ad hominem attacks parading as humor and/or replies. And you're paranormal too--what a guy. ""There isn't a reputable audio engineer and audio company - yada, yada, yada and your reply, yada, yada, yada ..... " Sorry for the unqualified exaggeration, but how much more reputable than Mark Levinson, Revel, Lexicon, Floyd Toole, Kevin Voeck's can one get in audio? Even Paul Barton of PSB and Siegfried Linkwitz of crossover fame and speaker engineering fame are strict adherents. One of my fave blurbs from Linkwitz --available at his excellent website: Suggestions and hearing by S. Linkwitz It is common practice in promoting audio products to tell a customer what to pay attention to in what he is going to hear, then to follow that with a demonstration, and afterwards to tell him again what he heard. It is the same process, whether it is a manufacturer's representative speaking with a store sales person, or the sales person talking to a prospective buyer. It is almost impossible for the target person not to hear, what has been suggested they will hear. The power of suggestion has been used to perform major surgery without anesthesia, where the patient experiences no pain. It has been shown with CAT scans of the brain that in such cases an information disconnect occurs between the region that responds to pain, and the region of the brain that gives the patient the perception of pain. Thus, the normal perception process has been altered through the verbal, non-physical preparation that the patient received beforehand. The influence of suggestion, especially when frequently repeated, should not be underestimated in the field of hearing. Many listeners have not acquired an auditory reference that is based on un-amplified sounds and are thus easily misled in matters of accuracy. Double-blind and ABX product comparison tests are frowned upon in some audio circles, though they remove any influence of suggestion, self or other generated. I have no problem, if people enjoy their music more, because it has passed through a certain interconnect, has been transformer balanced, amplified without feedback, processed through a reissued WW2 transmitter tube and sent to their speakers on litz wires of specific arrangement and purity, except that the money for these suggestions could have been spent on better speakers, for real improvements in accuracy of dynamic range and resolution. After all, the loudspeakers are by far the weakest link in the chain of components that are needed for sound reproduction. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3695 Registered: May-04 | I don't think I understand any of what you posted as a response, Greg. I understand what is there, but not why you posted it as a response. Are you now trying to argue this authority gene is not genetic? My statement was meant as a joke, Greg. A joke which refers to your constant exageration. A point you still cannot see. The "attacks" are not ad hominem, they are directed specifically at the points you have made. Please do not attempt to elicit sympathy by manufacturing an ad hominem attack on my character! Remember, Gregory, it was you who posted, "Fun for me is getting scr-wed by a woman" as a response to a question. Am I really to take you seriously after the remarks you have made such as that?! It would appear to be a simple situation with which you are faced. Reply directly to my questions or admit you have no relply. I can only surmise you could not find a quote from Linkwitz which mentioned the genetic predisposition in "most" listeners to not test audio by ABX methods. It's not "the unqualified exageration", it is "all" the unqualified exageration. You make things up and we are expected to take you at your word when you say things like "all good manufacturers" do this or that. Or 99% do this. Facts are one thing, opinions another. Pure fabrications become an altogether different issue. Yes, Mark Levinson, Revel, Lexicon, Floyd Toole, Kevin Voeck, Paul Barton of PSB and Siegfried Linkwitz of crossover fame and speaker engineering fame use testing. That was not my issue with what you claimed and then supplied as proof. You are not so stupid as to not know the difference. What makes you assume I am? Linkwitz is a great guy who has contributed much to the audio industry. But apparently has never sold audio. And apparently wishes to continue to promote the "evil salesperson" (substitute retailer, manufacturer or whatever is necessary to allow the horribly immoral intentions to display a product at its best) as the flaw in the logic of an otherwise capable listener. One of the first lessons I received when I got on the sales floor was to never tell anyone what they were "going" to see or hear. In the first place, what you were going to demonstrate just might not work. The cassette may not play, the record may skip or, in those wonderful instances, the speaker may fall off the wall. In the second place, the customer may not be perceptive enough to pick up on what just happened when presented with something they find unfamiliar. (Would you complain if the tour guide did not point out items of interest?) The simplest rule in selling anything is to never tell the customer what they are going to experience, only tell them what they have just experienced. I have no idea once again whether it is you or your source who is making the statements in the final paragraph, but I still have to disagree. How someone spends their money is not for anyone else to dictate. Clients usually have X amount to spend, they should be allowed to spend that X amount in the fashion they find most suitable. If it is you or Linkwitz who claims to have no problem with how someone spends their money, why do you continue to suggest they spend it in another fashion. What makes you object to that? People can and do spend their money the way they want. So what? And besides, the speakers are not THE weakest link; it is the room. Speakers can measure flat response outside of the room, rooms do not measure flat response. And hardly anyone spends enough money on the room. I was hoping you would give me reason to apologize for my brash tone in my earlier post. I remain disappointed. Once again you have avoided so many of my questions and seem to be no more than the proverbial broken record. ABX - evil - ABX - evil - ABX ............. Here's an idea; why don't you tell us about how much wire is inside a speaker? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3701 Registered: May-04 | I am not the scientist that others on this forum can claim to be. Both my degrees were in Theatre Arts. And it has been many years since I had to remember such things as genes and instinct. I do remember genes dictating what color hair and eyes someone has, how tall they might be, how big their feet might grow or what diseases they might inherit. I do not remember a mention of a gene for eating meat. Lots of vegetarians will be disappointed to hear about that, I'm sure. Someone can correct me, if they can provide proof and not just an insistence they are right. But is that what we are here to discuss? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3702 Registered: May-04 | Did this ever occur as odd to anyone else out there? Someone wants to prove the "power of suggestion" by an "authority figure" is detrimental to the process of making a decision based solely on the facts as presented. To prove that assertion, they employ a quote from an "authority figure" (read Mr. Linkwitz) who presents an opinion meant to sway our thinking. To prove "the influence of suggestion, especially when frequently repeated", the same suggestion is repeated over and over again always trying to influence our opinion in one direction. Does this actually make sense to anyone out there? Anyone? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3107 Registered: Dec-03 | I think suggestion predisposes people to see things in certain ways. But people are also critical. Very few people are so simple as to believe that everything is exactly as it seems to be, and at first sight. Anyone who buys hifi equipment because of what someone has told them they ought to be hearing has more money than sense. My own view of "authority figures" is that, if they have such strong convictions, they are most welcome to spend their own money accordingly. The "power of suggestion" does not account for repeated differences one experiences, after taking care to compare like with like. What might do that is prejudice; wanting a conclusion to appear to be one way even if experience indicates another. But it seems to me that prejudice is even more likely to produce the feeling that no difference exists when there actually is one; it is easy to stop paying attention, and not know it. All these sorts of questions are miles away from genes, which are much like the strings of 1s and 0s on a disc. And humans are genetically a surprisingly uniform species, so I read. It is something to do with us all coming from a very small population somewhere in East Africa less than 100,000 years ago. Small genetic differences might account for special abilities between populations, such as potential for endurance running. But very few people commit themselves to things like that, so environmental factors almost always predominate, even there. Gregory's idea, as I understand it, was a gene for gullibility. I think that is extremely unlikely. We should look at environmental influences, especially culture, if we wish to account for some people thinking more critically than others. We are all born with the same hardware. Perhaps "gene" was just meant as some sort of analogy. It is not a good one, in my opinion. |
|
Silver Member Username: GmanMt. Pleasant, SC Post Number: 679 Registered: Dec-03 | John A. Consider the group of genes for authority part of a group of genes for cooperation to achieve a common goal. Being cooperative and responding to authority is quite different than being mindlessly gullible. But in the US we were certainly led to believe many things about Iraq on Authority. Were we gullible or responding to authority or both? If you read books about evolution by Stephen Jay Gould and your own famous and highly honored Brit--Professor Richard Dawkins at Oxford--they all talk about these things. Sure--we all have an advanced cerebral cortex to counteract millions of years of evolution--but that is a very recent occurence in human evolution and remains a tough road for most. People generally want to fit in and believe what their community believes. Culture is something that is superimposed over ancient genetic drives. Heck, if we analyze the various head-butting going on here and in many other topics on this site (almost totally by guys)--you can rest assured it is fired by an unacknowledged need to achieve male dominance (thankfully done in a much safer venue than physically challenging each other over the head in the savannah). This is not to say that many don't have verity or not on their side--but the drive punctuates the whole site. I imagine that most people that read Stereophile believe them. They wrote for years about the audible effects of a whole bevy of speaker wires and interconnects. This has been debunked by so many ABX tests and audio engineers that it is rarely even discussed anymore at meetings of acoustical engineers and electrical engineers. Some people rely on science in conjunction with their experience for verification, others just rely on belief and experience, and some only apply science to those areas that make them comfortable with their belief systems and ignore the rest. So you can have a person that believes in science for cars, MRI scanners, lunar landing vehicles--but somehow thinks that there are very audible differences in hundreds of brands (usually made by one of three major manufacturers) of well-made 12 or 14 gauge coated wire. Jan---Just wondering--what credentialed (or non-credentialed) individuals do you rely on (or respect) for their opinions in audio? Or do you just wing it on individual experience? For me, Electrical and audio engineers such as Linkwitz, Ken Pohlmann, Floyd Toole, Kevin Voeck's, Tom Nousaine, Paul Barton, etc. do account for many of my opinions that reflect my personal experience. I am willing to drop the whole thing at this point, as I assess that most aren't interested in these aspects and they may better be explored in pure science forums. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3704 Registered: May-04 | John - I agree wholeheartedly in your assessment of prejudice. It is a powerful (and often sought out) influence which is learned behaviour. An influence which, dare I say it, "most people" would prefer not to acknowledge in themself. However - "Gregory's idea, as I understand it, was a gene for gullibility." John, I believe you've got it slightly wrong. But let's follow your line of thought. If we take Greg's "authority gene" as a genetic predisposition to follow the suggestions/commandments of a leader, and that particular predisposition amounts to what we can term "gullibility", then: 1) Gregory's idea is for a gullibility gene in only a (naturally selected?) portion of the population. 2) This portion, or a large percentage if you will, would be the "most people" of Greg's claim. (Can this possibly be a function of underclass/overclass? That is a discussion for another time.) 3) Obviously that leads us to the conclusion that "some people", a small percentage, are free from being genetically inclined toward gullibility. In other words, the gene is missing or deficient. 4) The commonly agreed upon (known) assumption can be inserted that dominant genes dictate, with no exception, the trait they control, i.e. blue eyes. 5) Since (in Greg's view) "most people" have inherited the gullibility gene from their parents and more hairy ancestors, we can conclude this gene can and should be considered the dominant characteristic. 5a) Gregory believes "most" audio buyers are gullible. This would result from their dominant genetic makeup. 5b) Greg also believes he is not gullible, only sceptical. 5c) There has been no mention of a sceptical gene. Therefore a scepticism gene cannot be introduced to the equation as a substitute for a gullibility gene. 6) A dominant gene, good or bad, in "most people" would make that the quality we would consider normal among the population. 7) Greg , therefore, wishes to believe he belongs to a small percentage of the population, which should be considered "some people", who are deficient in their genetic construct and cannot be considered normal. If that is the logic we are to follow from Gregory's statement, on that account I have to agree. Though I would never have guessed you'd say that about Greg, John! You constantly suprise me. Once again, I am willing to be corrected since my two degrees (including a Masters of Fine Arts which is considered a terminal degree much like a Doctorate) are in Theatre Arts. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3705 Registered: May-04 | Now it appears we have a group of genes for authority. Sheeeesh! "Jan---Just wondering--what credentialed (or non-credentialed) individuals do you rely on (or respect) for their opinions in audio? Or do you just wing it on individual experience?" I rely on people who strike me as intelligent and open minded. Someone who is willing to share their knowledge, whether they learn from personal experience or from a book, without a predetermined conclusion or a constant insistence that only one conclusion can be made. I prefer not to blindly listen to individuals who seem to have an agenda. And then I take the information they provide and reach my own conclusion. So, yes, Gregory, my knowledge is from my personal experience, though your term "winging it" is obviously meant to imply a lack of sophistication on my part. I have had this conversation before on this forum; most lately with Ramsey. I am not looking to make anyone with a degree feel they should not use their knowledge or not be proud of what they have done to attain that degree. But I find a degree not to mean someone is "smart". I have had the experience of learning as much, if not more, from people who have no "certification". My father, who was fortunate enough to have received a college degree during the Depression and would by most people's standards be considered sceptical of many things, taught me a piece of paper on the wall does not make anyone smarter than someone else. The uncertified shop superintendent in my undergraduate days could teach me more about how to build a platform which would hold 12 people fifteen feet in the air than Doctor Mackey who wanted me to learn about the history of the "long run" in English Theatre between 1642 and 1646. Both issues are important, but having a degree did not make one person more believable nor the other any worse a teacher. Actually, it is those people who insist a piece of paper instills upon them a super intelligence who I distrust the most. And I believe you can only refer to someone who has obtained a degree in physics, electrical engineering, acoustic engineering, etc. I do not recall a degree or certification in hearing being offered by any university. So I have to admit to not quite seeing your point. That any of the "certified" individuals you cite have a knowledge of their subject is not the issue I raise. My issue is with someone who wishes us to believe the power of authority is a strongly influential force that can be used to the detriment of decision making and then quotes figures of authority as an influence. Exactly what am I to make of that? Exactly how much am I to belive from someone who is guilty of constant fabrication? Gregory, I said early on you and I have been down this road before. Neither of us will change the other's opinion on most things audio. I am perfectly willing to drop the subject without receiving the answers to many questions. I am not trying to convert anyone to my position. In my opinion, everyone is free believe as they please and do as they please with the money they have to spend. My problem will remain with those people who insist the world of audio can only work in the order and fashion they find suitable. There is one thing you have refused to answer, Gregory, that I would very much like you to answer. Are you or are you not the "Anonymous" who has been following me around the forum? Fianally, since you make constant reference to Paul Barton and it is impossible to question someone not participating on the forum, I gave Mr. Barton a phone call today. I asked him to join the converstaion on the forum. Hopefully he will find the time to offer some of his knowledge to this suject. |
|
NADMAN Unregistered guest | Ive been reading the forum for a while now, and just started posting a few weeks ago. The forum, and this thread are out of control. How can people argue so intently about things they really don't know that much about? X is so much better than Y. If it wasn't than you obviously wouldn't have bought it would you? Enough about that, now for this particular thread... Most people buy what they buy because they don't know any better - ie. "better" cables mean "better" sound, power conditioners "clean up sound." They agree because their is no concrete evidence disproving it. Yet they don't disagree when their is evidence proving it actually works either (has monster or anyone else published actual scientific measurements of a reduced noise floor from power conditioning? I've blind tested quite a few in my home, and can't hear a difference). I guess people think that if a company says that their product works, than it has to work. They may even convince themselves that it had an impact on their overall sound quality (placebo effect). This isn't only in the audio world, but in every market of every product that you can think of. If you can't tell, 99% of the people out there don't have a clue when it comes to audio. Mainstream advertising is what tells them what is the best stuff. They think that Bose, Monster, and Sony are the best products you can get; McIntosh is a computer; Krell, Bryston, and Mark Levinson are no-name brands. If they're not blinded by this category, and are still uninformed, then they simply don't care enough about it to do any research other than asking the high school kid who works in Best Buy or Circuit City that tells them "all cd players sound the same, the only difference is disc capacity." Then their is the group that most of us think we belong to... the self proclaimed, all knowing and all wise "AUDIOPHILES." In some ways I find us (as a group, not everone individually) even worse than the rest of them, becaues we can claim to hear things that no one else can hear... What a load of crap. The only true "audiophile" I know that loves music and can hear even the most delicate of all delicate details is... My dog. Now if I could only get him to talk like that baked beans dog does, I'd have the best system ever, and never pay a dime for something that makes no difference. How many "audiophiles" fall for the $1000 speaker wire or interconnect sounds better than a well shielded $30 pair? How many people believe that because you have a $1000 pre-amp, $1000 amp, and $1000 source, that anything under $500 is a waste of your time? That's like saying you need a $500 belt to hold up your pants in your $2000 suit, because these pants are specially made, and any inferior belt will not hold them up properly. My point is that just because we know a little more about audio than most people out there doesn't make us any better than them. In all actuallity, it may make us worse, because when we get ripped off, we don't get it for a few bucks, we get it in the form of $1000 speaker cables, interconnects, power cords, or power conditioners. If you think that these things make a difference, do a double blind test the right way (i'm not going to get into how, it's mentioned all over the forum). If they make such a huge difference, than you're a lot smarter than science, probably aren't reading this anyway, or you're my dog. For the record, I'm not disgruntled about buying $1000 speaker cables. I have always known, and common sense should dictate that wire is wire. The only difference is that heavier guages are needed for longer runs, and they need to be sheilded. I'm no "audiophile." I simply love to listen to music, not components, and put my money where it will have the maximium gains. Also, I'm not "tone deaf" or have "tin ears"... my brother is an audiologist, and I've had my hearing checked recently (not for this, but to affectionately substantiate my "i'm not deaf" claim to my wife), and have slightly better than average hearing, if you were wondering... |
|
NADMAN Unregistered guest | Jan Vigne brought up a very interesting point, one that all of us should consider - who do you rely on when you need facts? Can we truly listen to sales people who's job it is to sell us a product? Personally, I rely on my cousin. He has a Master's Degree in electrical engineering from MIT, and is currently employeed as an electrical engineer for IBM, where he is one of the people that designs the "guts" of their computers. He also is an audio enthusiast (made sure not to insult him by calling him an audiophile). When I asked him about all of these issues -ie cables, interconnects, basically everything monster et. al. stands for - he laughed. I'm not a monster basher by any means, I'm just mentioning them because they are one of the loudest and most popular voices. Truth is, the only things that matter in speaker wire are EMI & RFI shielding, and guage (when length becomes an issue); interconnects need to be shielded from EMI & RFI; and most, if not all well designed electronics (not just a/v) already have EMI & RFI filtering built into them. Some high end gear (like McIntosh, which said cousin owns) even have surge protection built in. The only real external issue now becomes voltage regulation. Some electronics protect themselves from over-voltage, and few protect from under voltage (brown-outs). Instead of paying $1500 for Monster's voltage regulator, you can get a good computer battery back-up (UPS) that has voltage regulation (which most of the have) for relatively cheap. I picked up an APS uniterruptible power supply for about $110. It has voltage regulation, EMI & RFI filtering, and battery back up if the power goes out (I only needed the voltage regulation for the reasons stated above). I also double blind tested it to see if there was a difference in sound, whether good, bad or indifferent, and couldn't tell if was or wasn't being used. Savings of $1400, not too bad huh? I know not all of us have someone like this in the family, but most of us know at least one person who is an electrician, tv repair man, handy-man, etc. who knows something about electricity or electronics and isn't trying to sell us a product or doesn't have a hidden agenda. Try asking that person about cables, burn-in, etc, and see what they have to say. Don't be surprised when they look at you like you have three heads. |
|
Silver Member Username: EramseySouth carolina United States Post Number: 121 Registered: Feb-05 | My sentiments exactly NADMAN!, at least with respect to your views on speakerwire and interconnect cables. I'll also agree with you Jan. There is no "authority" gene as this is learned behavior. E.Ramsey |
|
Silver Member Username: GmanMt. Pleasant, SC Post Number: 680 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan- "Gregory's idea, as I understand it, was a gene for gullibility." I wrote-"Consider the group of genes for authority part of a group of genes for cooperation to achieve a common goal. Being cooperative and responding to authority is quite different than being mindlessly gullible". In the early development of the human animal, believing clearly had survival benefits. Babies who believed, or as you may say gullible to their parents that lions should be avoided had a substantial advantage over those who had to find out the hard way. As a result, the tendency to believe what we are told is apparently an inherited genetic factor. In fact, for children, believing what is told to them by an authority figure is still a very useful characteristic (e.g. "Do not touch the fire!"). Unfortunately, a child's power of critical evaluation does not develop as rapidly as its memory, and children readily pick up unproven beliefs from their parents and others. Some of these, such as Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, are readily discarded as the children mature. Others, such as a belief in the religion of their parents, are not so easily rejected. Beliefs are also picked up from books, gurus, friends, and other sources at any stage in life and can be very difficult to discard. The ability to critically evaluate childhood beliefs and avoid accepting new beliefs in unproven doctrines may be an important measure of maturity. If the characteristic of accepting unproven beliefs is genetic, it must have been an important survival tool, because so many people have it. Certainly more people believe in some kind of religion than in none at all. In fact, I would not be surprised if more people believe in astrology than do not. If most people are believers in unproven dogmas, then believing can be considered to be normal and being skeptical not normal, which probably explains any tendency of skeptics to remain in the closet. (Who wants to be considered abnormal?) One can easily see the natural selection benefit for most people to carry these mixtures of genes. A group of individuals is far more likely to achieve a common goal, such as coordinating a hunt to feed the group or coordinate a defense against foes or dangerous animals--even for shelter and gathering. You think these particular naturally selected genes are able to look ahead into a totally different environment where man now shops for audio? It doesn't work that way. Genes and natural selection don't know what the future environment holds in store (literally and figuratively). They can only react to new conditions through the creation of genetic mutations (which can happen quickly or take many generations)--most of which do nothing (potentially causing extinction), some of which are negative and disease provoking, and a few accidentally are beneficial to make the individuals better able to survive and produce progeny. Jan-1) Gregory's idea is for a gullibility gene in only a (naturally selected?) portion of the population." Every gene that everyone has has been naturally selected for the environment they reside in. This doesn't mean all genes for all people are the same--they are similar, but they most assuredly aren't the same. Single cell amoebas that cleave have the same stuff. same species that mate mix and match genes. Many Africans that live in the malarial belts have genes for sickle cell anemia and this is mostly beneficial for them as it greatly decreases the morbidity of the children who get it. The children then survive to procreate and pass on the gene. These sickle cell genes survive because at least the children are more likely to survive to have offspring in the malarial belts. The Malarial pathogen has a hard time binding to a sickle cell to get the hemoglobin it wants--people without sickle cell succomb much more to malaria, particularly children. It was a naturally selected mutation that mostly benefitted the populace in the environment it lived in--at least until they moved out of malarial areas--then it became a liability. And I have no idea who anonymous is and have always had my name printed on all posts. I have zero desire to travel incognito, like a thief in the night. |
|
NADMAN Unregistered guest | Like I said eariler, this is just gettin out of control... Anyone have anything else to say about the "Top 10 Audio Lies" article? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3709 Registered: May-04 | "Most people buy what they buy because they don't know any better" So where does that leave those people who do know better? Anyone who buys something without the least bit of knowledge about the product should be stopped, don't you think? But there are experienced listeners who do know what they consider better products. What about them? Yes, the manufacturers of power conditioners and surge protectors have specs. What they mean in the real world is as open to debate as any other specification. "How many "audiophiles" fall for the $1000 speaker wire or interconnect sounds better than a well shielded $30 pair?" In my experience on the sales floor, not many. Many people may make a leap of faith with $50-200 interconnects, but not many are willing to part with $1000 just on someone else's say so. There has to be the sense they are spending their money where they feel they will get the biggest gains. I think you, like Gregory, may be exagerating your claims to try to prove a point. "How many people believe that because you have a $1000 pre-amp, $1000 amp, and $1000 source, that anything under $500 is a waste of your time?" Once again I would suggest if that is the attitude you are getting in a certain store, you should shop elsewhere. You are implying a degree of snobbishness that shouldn't exist in any field. And besides, to most really serious audio snobs, $1000 for a pre or power amp isn't that much money. $10,000-30,000 now that's a different story. "That's like saying you need a $500 belt to hold up your pants in your $2000 suit, because these pants are specially made, and any inferior belt will not hold them up properly." How about it's like saying you now own a Chevy Corvette that has better performance than your old Chevy Cavalier. Should you buy $25 tires for the Corvette because all tires are the same? Or because your old Cavalier went just fine on cheap tires? I think you're missing the point here. And even if someone buys a $500 belt, are you in a position to tell them that's wrong? You may not see the reason for that purchase, but maybe the other person does. My point is, it's not your money. Why are you passing judgement? "I'm no "audiophile." I simply love to listen to music, not components, and put my money where it will have the maximium gains." Can you get any of us on this forum to say otherwise about themself? We all enjoy a bit of self congratulatory pride every now and then. But where the gains fall is different for every listener. It is not a matter of how far into the upper frequencies you can hear, or how sensitive your hearing is to test tones. I have sold systems to people wearing hearing aids. (I have told the story on the forum of selling a system to a person who was deaf.) It is an issue of how and what you listen for. That requires nothing in the way of superior hearing, average will do just fine; though congratulations on your test results. Anyone who feels different components have a sound will find they listen for different aspects of the reproduction that another listener. That has certainly been my experience in my years on the sales floor. If not, whether amplifiers and cables sound alike or not, wouldn't everyone be buying the same product over and over? They certainly are not. What does that indicate to you? That everyone who doesn't buy what you own is a fool? That can't be your intention. I'm happy for you that you have good hearing; not everyone is blessed with that gift. I'm glad to hear you feel you have made wise expenditures in your audio purchases; not everyone does. And I'm glad you have reached a decision about what is important to you and what isn't; not everyone can do that. However, I doubt you would find many on this forum who wouldn't say they have accomplished the same things and they will not own the same equipment as you. Where does that put them? (I'm not trying to be a smart@ss, but if someone tells you there is a need for shielded speaker cables which they have to sell, don't buy any.) |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3710 Registered: May-04 | I got genes, you got genes, all God's chil'un got genes! OK? Good grief, Charley Brown!!! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3711 Registered: May-04 | "Truth is, the only things that matter in speaker wire are EMI & RFI shielding, and guage (when length becomes an issue ... " I thought I cleared this up with you, Eric. Speaker cables are above the noise floor for what is considered "Necessary" in the way of shielding. Please show me the shield on a speaker cable if you think it is really important. The nylon braid interwoven between the conductors of the Monster Navaho does not qualify as a shield. (Yes, Stealth, I know about the issue with Kimber. But it rejects RFI by cancellation, it does not shield the cables.) But speaker cables do not need shields no matter how thick or how long. Interconnects obviously need shields. Most electronic devices need internal RFI/EMI shielding more than external shielding. If the power supply can deliver the current on demand which your amplifier requires, then all is good. Many computer P.S.'s cannot do this, particularly if the amplifier is capable of more than a few amps. I'm not standing up for what Monster wants to charge for their product, but there may be an advantage in some systems to buying the higher priced product. I have suggested a way to test the efficacy of a RFI/EMI filter when inserted into a system. Here's a repeat for those who missed it. With no filter: With no sources playing (tune the radio to an open frequency and use the FM muting) place the volume control at a typical loud listening position. With your ear a few inches away from the tweeter in your main speakers, listen for any noise. Plug everything into the filter and repeat this procedure. There should be a noticeable drop in ambient system noise. If not, the filter is not doing a proper job. If you heard NO noise in the first instance, congratulations on a good AC line. Such is very rare in this world today. |
|
Silver Member Username: Stealth_cDublin, CA USA Post Number: 205 Registered: Jan-05 | I wasnt going to say anything Jan. I do agree that it is generally accepted that speaker wire needs no shielding. |
|
NADMAN Unregistered guest | Jan - You totally miss understood my point. I was simply commenting on the debate you and others had going about why people buy things. "Most poeple buy what they buy because they don't know any better" in the world of audio. How come brands like Sony and JBL out sell far superior products at relatively the same price with their eyes closed? For the price of some Sony gear, you can get Marantz, Denon, Onkyo, and so on. Without analyzing each and individual one, I would be willing to bet that the quality of the second group will be significantly better than the first. The difference? Advertising. If you don't know much about the subject, are you going to buy a brand that you know, and makes everything under the sun? Or are you going to buy that (relatively) obscure brand that you've never heard of? In the real world, this is how most people think. Take the best marketing company of all time - BOSE - Their acoustamass system's frequency response (found on a independant website, link is somewhere on this forum) has more holes in than a 100 lb brick of swiss cheese (not literraly, but you get the general idea). Yet, people are so fanatic about their speakers. For $1500, you can get a PSB system that will beat the hell out of the BOSE sysem on it's worst day. Poll 1000 people, ask how many know BOSE, and how many know PSB. And PSB is just one of so many great companies out there who put out a great product, publish all of their stats, and still come in around the same price as BOSE. BOSE doesn't publish any specs; when you go into a store that carries BOSE, do you see them next to anything that remotely resembles them? No. Why? So you can't A/B test them. For the price of their top of the line speakers, you can get Paradigm, B&W, Klipsch, and so on. If the majority of the people knew any better, would BOSE be in business today? Do you think that for the same amount of money they can be in the same room as the others? If you think they are equal, then that's another matter. Yet, BOSE has this reputation of being the best speakers on the market. About $1000 cables... This is the (hopefully) worst case scenario. Companies are obviously selling them. Check Monster's website for proof - Retro Sigma Series. Do you really think everyone who bought them knew they were getting the shaft. Obviously those who buy them can most likely afford them, and it isn't any real dent (relatively) to their bank account. Does that make it right? Does it make it right to sell cables for $200 that don't offer any improvement over cables that cost $30? If the buyer knew better, these companies would be out of business. About "shielded" speaker wire - maybe "shielded" wasn't the best way to put it. I meant that they should not allow any EMI or RFI noise into them. If every wire protects from these, then I am wrong. If EMI & RFI are everywhere, then speaker wire should also be succeptible, right? So it's my conclusion that this is something that a speaker wire must reject. Like I said, if they all do, then I'm wrong, won't be the first or last time in my life... I don't have a tuner in my set-up, therefore can't do your test... when I get one, then I'll try it. For now, power conditioners don't make any difference in my system. You said that Monster (or whoever) does publish specs of reduced noise floor, where? I'm not being a wise a$$, I would genuinely like to see them, and if they are credible and audible, I'll buy a power conditioner. I never said nor implied that people have no right to buy or sell whatever they want. People have every right in the world to buy and sell whatever makes tham happy. There is a lot to be said for things like pride of ownership. What would a handmade swiss watch be without it? A Rolex doesn't keep better time than a Timex, in fact, I believe it is less accurate. Doesn't mean that I wouldn't love to own a TAG Heuer. I just wouldn't expect it to keep time 1000x better than a Timex would. I agree with your feelings about hearing. Physiologically, everyone hears pretty much the same way. Bones hitting ear drum, vibration causing electrical impulses along nerve to the brain, and so on (unless someone has hearing loss). What makes everyone's hearing different is preception. They listen for different things in the sound, and that makes it sound bad or good. In closing, I believe that most people are misinformed about what they buy, and audio products are no exception. There are a lot of things that I buy that I don't take the time and energy to fully research and make sure my money couldn't have been spent better. But I am a fanatic when it comes to my stereo. My ponit is that 99% of the people out there don't care as much as we do about it. Many people are very smart about their audio gear, but what percent of the population does that comprise? |
|
Silver Member Username: EramseySouth carolina United States Post Number: 122 Registered: Feb-05 | Take it easy Jan, I know that we had already discussed speaker wire. What I was agreeing with NADMAN on was the part about"Most of us know at least one person who is an electrician,tv repairman,handyman who knows something about electronics and electricity and doesn't have a hidden agenda." This type of person would be me Jan. That is what I agree with. We both know that speaker wire is not shielded,nor such is necessary,and I cannot think of any that has a true braided metallic shield other than the Kimber which resembles some sort of shielding. But copper wire is copper wire. So let me repeat my standpoint on speaker wire one final time so that there is no confusion. I believe that the only things that matter when considering speaker wire is guage, no smaller than 16AWG should be used, length- for runs of more than 50' go with 12AWG or larger. The only other parameters are R,C,and L and since these are on the order of milliOhms,microFarads,and microHenries per foot respectively,these are basically insignificant up to about 1K' of wire. I also agree that most competently and decently designed amplifiers will have some amount of AC filtration built into them. Having a degree in an electronic field does not qualify me as an expert or authority or as superintelligent above all others, and I have never said or suggested this. In fact Jan,earlier in this post, after I was attacked by NathanemployedbyStereophile, a self riteous,self proclaimed "audio expert" who works for Stereophile magazine with no apparent electronics background or formal education in such as he never answered my question. I did however, at least I think, set him straight on his misconception that speaker wire is actually shielded. And to think this guy is a reviewer for a respected audio publication! Jan, In this case a rejection of supposed "authority" would definately be warranted. Don't take this the wrong way Jan,with all due respect, but you and Gregory should stop arguing about genetics as you guys sound like a bunch of old buzzards chomping at the bit at a biological seminar, lets stick to audio. E.Ramsey |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3712 Registered: May-04 | Eric - I too am quite weary of the gene controversy. Surely there is something else in the 24 hour news cycle to spur disagreement. I paid little attention to your spat with the poster who wanted to take you on for something that seemed innocuous. Sorry, I can't comment on that. I wasn't attempting to put you in your place, just making certain the subject had been clarified. I can imagine it appears I'm ready to jump on everyone at this point. No, as long as the exagerations are kept to a minimum and the topic doesn't stray to far, this should go fine. I am only trying to present a point of view that might need to be considered. I'm not sure what you mean exactly by AC filtration in amplifiers, but I don't know that it matters to the discussion at hand. The problem with the discussion at hand, as I see it, is the thread has been directed toward a never ending discussion of one or two aspects that relate to "everything sounds the same" to me. Unless it doesn't. This consitutes a small portion of the original article. To anyone who has read my posts on the forum, it should be no surprise I find a discernable difference in most pieces of audio including most cables. Whether anyone else does or not is not something which bothers me. I said before as long as your position has been reasoned out, as far as I'm concerned, you get to believe whatever you choose about this matter. I would expect most people that have spent a while in the specialty audio market have configured their belief system by now, and I doubt many change course no matter what is presented as indisputable fact. These opinion threads normally go the same way, everyone has an opinion they believe to be fact. It's just seldom do the opinions agree on everything. http://www.csicop.org/si/9505/belief.html NADMAN - Yes, most people will go with a comfortable brand, even over percieved quality. I have referred to a "test" by Consumer Reports which evaluated three brands of audiophile table radios. Bose was awarded best buy because it had presets and a better remote though it scored lowest on sound quality. Obviously quality is a subjective word. If a salesperson should demonstrate the sound quality of a brand different than Bose to someone who only knows Bose and has been recommended Bose by a friend, the Bose will most often get purchased. Maybe not at the store where the demonstration took place, because that salesperson will not be trusted against the strength of the friend's advice. But they will be purchased. Friendly, well intentioned advice is not always the best advice. But, to the "average' buyer who goes home with the Sony or Bose based on advertising, speaker cables do not matter one iota. I have maintained that is not the person I am addressing on this forum. I doubt most people spend time on this forum unless they are interested in the components and how they sound. To that listener, cables might be a big deal. Please explain what I see as a paradox between these two statements: "Obviously those who buy them can most likely afford them, and it isn't any real dent (relatively) to their bank account. Does that make it right? Does it make it right to sell cables for $200 that don't offer any improvement over cables that cost $30? If the buyer knew better, these companies would be out of business." and "I never said nor implied that people have no right to buy or sell whatever they want. People have every right in the world to buy and sell whatever makes tham happy." Just so everyone is clear on what constitutes a "shield" here is a definition: Shield -- Any device used to reduce the effects of spurious electrical or magnetic fields on a signal path or system. SHIELDED CABLE -Any cable in which the conductors are protected by a surrounding braided or foil shielding. Source: http://lp2cd.com/audio_terms/a/index.html As I said, speaker cables are considered above the noise floor to require shielding. Kimber has demonstrated what some people feel is a benefit in rejecting RFI/EMI by a speaker cable. But even that is a specious benefit to many people. Finally, a tuner is not a prerequisite for the noise test. If a tuner is present, the procedure merely assures no stray noise should be heard from that source leaking in. If no tuner is present, which of course it will be if you own a receiver, then you only have to select an open input on the pre amp. |
|
NADMAN Unregistered guest | Jan- People have the right to buy and sell whatever they want - capitalism, free enterprise - My point is that if people were better informed and knew that these things didn't make a difference, then they generally wouldn't buy them, thus killing the demand in the supply-demand relationship. If there is no demand for a company's product, the company either changes things up, or folds. On the other hand, if people are happy to spend $1000 on a product that doesn't outperform a $10 one, than more power to them. Who am I to tell them what makes them happy? Maybe this will convey my message better - If someone told me "I bought a pair of $1000 speaker wires, and I'm happier than a pig in $hit about it" I would be happy for them. My frustration is when people and magazines claim to hear sigificant changes because they used something like Retro Sigma speaker wires and interconnects (was it stereophile that reviewed them and said they were some of the best stuff they've heard?). More people than you think read that article or a similar one to it, thinking that this person is some sort of expert or guru, then go and audition the stuff to confirm it's true (the placebo effect). Meanwhile, their system performs no better or worse than it did $2000 ago. The buyer should be told by someone that there are no published or measured specs to validate or deny the claims of the manufacturer or reviewer. If the person knows all of this and still spends an arm and a leg, and is genuinely happy doing so, I am honestly and whole-heartedly happy for them. ...I have tried the noise floor/EMI/RFI test with my equipment. I cannot hear any noise at any volume level. It's basically like my Amp isn't on. Sources powered on (not playing), off, paused, connected inputs, non connected inputs, etc. I guess I'm pretty lucky. The only problem I have power-wise is that lights dim when things get turned on and off in my new apartment. I've turned things on and off while listening to my stereo to see if their was any audible difference, and their isn't. I haven't seen my cousin in a few months since I've moved away, so maybe you or Eric can answer this - Is this a voltage issue? Is their no difference in sound because my UPS is correcting the under/over voltage issue? Or is this something completely different altogether? I don't have a circuit breaker box in my apartment (I think it's in the landlord's apartment downstairs), so I cant tell how much is on each circuit, what the different circuits control, etc. I'd really appreciate any help on this one. |
|
NADMAN Unregistered guest | In my ranting and raving I forgot to adress on more point (sorry) - Not all people on this site are well informed. Many are just getting started, and are seeking advise like "What kind of speakers should I buy?" How many threads are there like that one? And even worse, how many readers of this forum and many others like this forum fell for the "White Van Speaker Scam" Therefore, not everyone here (dare I say a strong minority?) are as inclined as the rest of us. Just my opinion though |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3718 Registered: May-04 | More times than not I will avoid threads which ask for a recommendation. The way I see it, there's no point in telling someone what I like. Even assuming they might like it (I know my tastes are quite different than most of my clients'), they may not even be able to find it to audition. My comments are normally restricted to threads where the poster seems to have less specific need for assistance. I will try to answer most questions so anyone finding my remarks can get more clarification if they desire. Not to argue your point too much but most people who read Stereophile to find what $1,000 cables to buy have been down the road often enough to have made their decisions about upgrades based on what they hear not just what they read. That's not always true, as there will always be the client who chases every nuance of information a new product is supposed to deliver. For the most part though, my experience has been people just don't throw $1,000 away without some thought. (At least my clients never did.) If they do, they should shop at a store which can better serve their needs. You may be able to find what outlets are connected together in your apartment by trying a dimmer in the outlet. Buy the cheapest dimmer you can find looking for the least amount of RFI/EMI filtration. Make a temporary circuit with the dimmer in line to a small lamp. Plug it into an outlet and then plug a boombox's AC cord into the other outlets in the apartment. If there is buzzing when the dimmer is at half mast, that circuit is likely connected together. Depending on the dimmer and the AC lines you may or may not hear a noise, but it might be worth the $10 investment. Or simply ask the landlord if they know what is hooked to what. If anyone lives in a house where they have access to the main breaker panel, they can buy a circuit tracer for a few dollars and find what outlets are on what circuit breaker. To help with your light dimming problem I need to know what causes the lights to dim. What causes this in terms of appliances, lights, air conditioning, etc.? |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 1126 Registered: Dec-03 | Gentlemen, I still stand by my original quote concerning the author of the 10 Lies. The author has no ear at all. The statement I strongly agree with is the one made by NADMAN. "Not all people on this site are well informed." The sad part is that fact doesn't stop them from giving advice or recommending products to others. Talk about the blind leading the blind. |
|
NADMAN Unregistered guest | Rick - Hearing is all about preception. What sounds good to one sounds like crap to another. It is just like every other sense. I love to drink Guinness, most people think it tastes like $hit. That doesn't make anyone right or wrong. Most people won't argue that, but they will attack each other here when one person says that one speaker, amp, etc. sounds better than another one. How absurd is that? I'd say this forum is the visually impaired leading the blind. Some of us can see very slightly better than others, but not much better (myself included). The more I read here, the more I think this whole thing is stupid. At least it makes me look busy when my boss walks by!!! |
|
NADMAN Unregistered guest | Jan - All of the lights in my apartment are overhead, and none of them have dimmers. I don't have any lamps (yet) to see if this would happen with them as well. The lights dimming happens when I turn just about anything on. It's not an all out dimming like if I had a dimmer switch, the light just kind of dims, or flicks, for a split second. Anything causes this - in my kitchen, my forman grill dims the light, then when the heating element in it clicks on and off, the light dims and brightens with it. When I put my amp into standby mode (NAD C320BEE) in my living room, the light dims for a second. My TV has the same effect in my bedroom. There isn't any one light that is immune to it. I haven't tried turning on things in other rooms to so if it effects lights in non-corresponding rooms though, I just thought of that now. I don't think any of these are super high current that starves the grid of significant power. The only electrical appliance I can think of that would take a lot of power would be the refridgerator. My stove is gas, and heating is radiators. I haven't used AC yet because I just moved into the apartment in February. I'd be willing to bet that it too will cause the same phenomena. This however doesn't effect sound quality or audio quality. If I have my stereo playing, and I turn on my computer, the sound stays the same, even though the light dims (I've tried this many times to see if there is a difference). If I have my TV on and turn the computer on, same thing, light dims, picture is unchanged. Does this make any sense? Like I said, any help would be greatly appreciated. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3720 Registered: May-04 | If even a George Foremen grill makes the lights dim, even temporarily, there could be a serious problem with the wiring that is coming to your apartment. The first thing I would do is get an inexpensive meter to check what the actual voltages are, and then ask other apartment residents if they experience the same problem. If this is a problem over the entire apartment complex or not, you should discuss this with the apartment manager. If they blow you off, I would call the city and ask what the code is for this situation. This could be a potentially life threatening problem. I may be over reacting, but this is not an apartment I would want to sleep in. |
|
NADMAN Unregistered guest | Thanks Jan. I'll definatley get a meter. I don't live in a complex. I live on the second floor of a 2 family house. The owner/landlord lives downstairs with his family. If there is a serious problem, I'm sure he'll take care if it immediately. He has been a friend of the family for years, and wouldn't ever knowingly put his family or me in danger. Maybe he doesn't know about it. Either way, I'll see what's going on when he comes home from work. Thanks again!! |
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