I get a chuckle when I know people are talking about me without using my name.
I don't really consider these forums places of thought and learning because facts tend not to get in the way of opinions. I think if you're really interested in learning, there's better venues. There's a lot of snake oil given credit and a lot of opinions stated as incontravertable fact. Take that horn thread mentioned above. The OP asks why horns are so contraversial, then the crowd attacks anybody who gives a valid reason. And of course they're deathly serious and passionate as if any expressed dissention might sway somebody from their audio religion. It cracks me up. People are too serious here. |
It seems to me there are a variety of basic characters here. There's those who don't know much and want to learn. There are some who know some stuff. There are those who really know nothing and come here to peddle their myths.
I feel I'm somewhere between the first and second type. I don't know everything by a long shot, but I know enough to recognize nonsense when I see it. When I see folks show up boasting myths or claiming they invented the 4 mode of transistor operation or the next frontier in bass reproduction (all things I've actually run across here), I don't think it's out of line to put some pointed questions to those claims.
If somebody can't tolerate their claims being scrutinized like an adult, then those people should refrain from expressing themselves. It would probably help if people could be honest about what they like. It would be cool if people didn't lord their decades of buying gear over people as if that passes for technical knowledge, too. I think a lot of problems would go away if all that stopped.
|
@mrdecibel
Well, my rub with the snake oil is that on more than a couple of occasions I've seen it beer bonged down some unwitting victim's throat in a way to suggest that unless you're drinking the oil, you're not REALLY serious about audio. It was just the other day I came across folks trying to sell a guy on crazy priced cables for his $2000 speakers by making some pretty radical claims about what those cables could do.
So let's say this guy took the radical advice and dumped a quarter or half of the value of his speakers into a pair of cables. He's not going to hear those overtly pronounced alterations in the sound he's being sold on. Is he going to respect this community for letting the radical voices go unchallenged? Maybe he'll sit there and listen until he believes he hears new things because he wants to so badly on account of a rather insane purchase. Is any of that good? Most of us here have restricted means to blow on gear. It makes a lot of sense to be analytical about our choices. Opinions from strangers aren't analytical, objective analysis. That kinda leaves us with science. So.... If analytical decision making is part of the scheme, and it certainly is with me, I'd like a bit of proof when it comes to claims.
|
@mrdecibel
Analogluvr accented my point nicely. We're not typing our thoughts into a word processor here to chronicle our experiences. We're committing thoughts to a crowd. I think it's a very reasonable thing to expect to have your statements scrutinized when proclaiming them to a crowd.
I've mulled this fine line of snake oil over a good bit and I'm pretty clear where I stand. For a long time now we've been able to measure the performance of audio gear with resolution WAY beyond what any human ear can distinguish. That is a fact. Because that is a fact, anything that makes an audible difference to a human ear should logically be observable through a measurement. If there is no observable difference in a measurement, then it's very reasonable to believe that there's no audible difference since a good measurement is orders of magnitude more discriminating than a human ear. That's where I draw the hard line between snake oil and valid products. When I know that $1.50 worth of Panasonic resistors in my amp's power supply will make FAR more difference than a $50 fuse back behind my transformer, I'm calling that jazz snake oil. That's why I have no interest in trying such things. I think folks selling such products are playing off the technical ignorance of a passionate crowd and I think it's disreputable. I look at this stuff with a much more technical curiosity than most seem to or something. I recognize we've all got our tastes. I'd be willing to bet that any one individual's tastes can be described in terms of a particular signature of measurements. I think it would be very useful to the consumer to try to define what that signature looks like because it would greatly reduce the guess work involved in constructing a pleasing system. Maybe it would even promote some people to cater to those particular tastes in a more focused way. I tend to think good engineers are already doing that. |
@geoffkait
As usual, you're completely wrong. How many products are out in the market now that do a somewhat decent job of taking a thin, basic stereo input and manipulating it to give it all kinds of depth and width? The little bluetooth speaker in my daughter's bathroom does that. It would be impossible to accomplish that task if we didn't pretty well understand what gave rise to those phenomenon in an audio signal. Beyond all that, recording engineers have been mixing in all those little tricks for a long, long time, so they must understand what happens with a signal to capture those phenomenon. Why don't you just quit while you're behind? |
Michael, I'm pretty sure I responded to that stupid statement of Geoff's, as well as citing examples of how it's synthesized. It seems to me we must have figured out how to measure those spacial attributes if we're creating devices and techniques that simulate them. My recording/production engineer friend has all kinds of tricks up his sleeve for adding depth, height, and width to mixes.
|
Well, Geoff, you and Mikey are out there just spinning your fictions about how characteristics of perception can't be measured and I just proved you're both just making it up.
And by the way, Mike, you're long winded agreement with Geoff really takes your authority and respect level WAY down. |
Why do I need to do the research myself to prove whats already well understood technology deplyed throughout the recording and reproduction industry? If all these perceptual characteristics can't be measured, how is it that recording engineers have been reproducing and enhancing these phenomenon for decades? Prove it? Go to Best Buy! Buy a CD! Talk to an engineer! You people talk like all a recording engineer does is throw some mics in a room, pick up the sound, balance the levels, and send it out the door. Not even close! The guy who advised me on my room is a Billboard charting producer and engineer. I've seen, heard, and watched what he does. There's no snake oil, myths, or guesswork. The guy knows what you're going to hear because he knows what information he's incorporating into the mix to create the illusions. "Can't measure a soundstage..." Whatever! |
Clearthink, there is NO argument in opposition to what I'm saying except from those who're simply uninformed. The post by mmeysarosh two posts prior to your last further makes my point. Maybe I didn't iterate it eloquently enough to start or something. I don't see Michael really disagreeing. A few others clearly see my point. There's just a couple of you yanking out your hair and screaming "It can't be measured!!!" while there appears to be consensus that spacial attributes can be measured, are measured, and those measurements form the basis of replication. I didn't ask anybody to prove you can't measure spacial effects. That would be ridiculous since you obviously can!
|
Good deal! I'm glad you completely agree with me! I like it when we can all agree on widely understood facts! |
|
The statement Geoff made about spacial cue not being measurable is patently false and we do measure it and replicate it through all manner of trickery at the recording and play back ends.
Where's the argument? I'm not understanding why people persist in the name calling and splitting hairs. |
@geoffkait
Yeah, you did. Anybody can go back and look.
@viridian
I consider that argument a cannard perpetuated by those who like speakers that simply don't image well. And just as you put it, tonal quality is always juxtaposed against imaging as if they're mutually exclusive properties. I don't agree. |
@geoffkait
"That is illogical, Captain. We actually can not (rpt not) measure soundstage height or any other dimension, the sound characteristics of the recording venue, sweetness, warmth, presence, wetness, bass tautness, transparency, glare, things of that nature. As I read your manifesto, the ability to measure anything is pretty much your whole premise.Better luck next time."
There it is, you liar. 2 pages back. |
@viridian
The vast majority of the concerts I've been to have been outside and powerfully amplified. The few events I've attended in an auditorium without amplification aren't something I'd enjoy hearing in my living room. I wouldn't want a recording that sounded 50 to 75 feet away. Trying to capture that essence is of low to no priority to me. Very little of what I listen to is recorded in a live performance setting. It's mostly studio work. Live recordings really don't have much depth or image specificity, generally, unless they're very artfully recorded to capture that in a venue set up specifically to capture that. I know tone chasers are a different bunch. I don't really understand the more extreme of that crowd. I think I and them are using stereos for very different purposes. |
I'd say if your desire is learning, there are better resources. Mr. Carlson's Lab on YouTube. Diyaudio.com. Passdiy.com. The Burning Amp lectures. Just to name a few. Reading people discussing the finer points of gain device characteristics is a much more fascinating endeavor than reading amatures rattling on about exotic fuses. |
This would be about the last place I'd go I'd I was trying to troubleshoot foldback current limiting, crossover slopes, or thermal management. A large segment of this crowd goes batty when you begin talking measurements and formulas. |
@geoffkait
Yep... Those pesky measurements! And the guys who invent the stuff this hobby is made of. Shame on them for actually achieving results! Quite unlike you and your magic rocks and silly spots. |
@timlub
I see it as they're just focused on achieving results. You see different sorts gathering around different things for different results. I've been looking over line stage stuff a little because that's my next project, but I've enjoyed the F7 thread and the speculation going on over there. I don't understand why some people are allergic to numbers and measurements. You can't construct much of anything without taking some measurements somewhere. This allergy to measurements is about as anti-intellectual and counterproductive as you can get. |
@geoffkait
No personal attack. I'm just pointing out you sell magic rocks and colored spots as audiophile gear to contrast your opinion from those who contribute to this hobby existing. |
My opinion on the "failings" of yester-decade's gear is if those characteristics were desirable, why isn't anybody listening to wax cylinders on hand cranked phonographs? After all, the motorized, tube amplified, voice coil driven sound of the 30's was an evolution of that.
@timlub
Nobody is building class A amps without measuring some voltage and current at the very least. I'm not designing circuits over here. Most of the heavy measuring has already been done. If I get my voltages and currents somewhere on the range of where the circuit has been measured at, there's good reason to believe that I'm achieving results consistent with those measurements. The hardest thing I've had to do is learn to listen for what distortion is. That has brought me into strong agreement with the belief that dynamics are closely associated with distortion. It took me a while to figure out I should just put the damn meter down and listen, twist pots, listen more, twist more pots, and just get it right. I'm very eager to measure what I'm listening to. I feel I've achieved good results trying to tune two channels by ear and I'm curious to see what those numbers really look like. Not that I'd change it. The sound is smooth, articulate, wide, tall, deep, and well centered. It's the best amp I've ever heard. |
|
@geoffkait
There mere fact that these snake oil tweaks get nothing but gloating adoration and no criticism for the results by those who try them strongly suggests that it's a psychological phenomenon, not an objective phenomenon. Since you're so fond of wrongly citing rational arguments as "logical fallacy", I'll point out your very real logical fallacy. |
@atmasphere
"Each 2150 uses global feedback (proudly: its manufacturer suggests that manufacturers who don't use feedback simply don't know how to do so properly)" About the Boulder 2150 from Stereophile. Different strokes for different folks.
I've heard noise about SITs coming back a bit on account of them being more efficient at converting and inverting AC and DC back and forth. Who knows. |
Negative feedback is certainly a subject that generated plenty of heated debate. The one thing I don't think anyone can argue about is the importance of optimizing the topoly to behave decently before attempting to correct it's bad behavior. I think that's where the solid state crowd can learn from the tube crowd. Tube guys are obsessed with tuning a circuit to get good behavior from the gain devices because gain in their world is too scarce and too expensive to be throwing away on gobs of feedback. |
@geoffkait
Please, Geoff, enlighten the unwashed masses here as to what this "sufficiently advanced technology" is that appears to us as voodoo. |
@geoffkait
Wow... Ya got me there. School us, oh great and wise Geoff. Show us the errors of our measurement ways! Open our eyes to the 7th dimension and allow us to gaze upon your majestic madness! |
Looks like we're seeing that cult of anti-intellectualism rearing it's ugly head here. I can't believe I'm reading somebody lecture a legit engineer on why he should ignore blatant failures of reason. It doesn't get more obvious than that. |
Cj1965, I'd suggest you actually do the math. You're working very hard to artfully conflate terms |
@fleschler
I think negative feedback is one of those very misunderstood things. Not to say that I understand it. For my purposes, it's a good thing. The F5 I built uses a generous amount of it, and yes, it does complicate the distortion spectrum, but the artifacts are down below -120dB. That seems like a good trade off for lowering the overall distortion a good bit for the power I'm demanding of that thing. On top of that, the amp is completely stable into loads well below what any normal speaker will exhibit.
I always keep an eye out for amp descriptions that suggest "no feedback", "no loop feedback", or "no global feedback". I assume that if they're qualifying the type of feedback, then they're using some kind of negative feedback such as degeneration. |
