Principles

[anon_bb]

What next ... holistic hifi treatments? Homeopathy and needles to remove karmic blockages in relating spiritually to audio kit whilst listening to recordings of buddhist monks chanting "om". Lord help us all! Audio equipment is engineering nothing more nothing less. Experience of music is biology whatever anyone deludes themselves otherwise. We are lumps of insignificant organic putty on this greasy mudball of a world.

Tenson - you are on the right path. Study is always good however, but is only part of the solution. I dont think any of your posts have been unintenionally humourous - you know more than you think and you have a good instinct and an open mind. Thats just as important. Your posts are a very valuable contribution! Dont let anyone put you down - however well meaning (yet slightly patronising). Often the person in question is just as likely to make posts based on dubious understanding (and has done ).

Measurements CAN be made but our knowledge is incomplete. Hence the "art" (experimentation, instinct and blind luck). The problem isnt the concept of measurement - it is our incomplete understanding.

Objectivism rules! The day of the technological singularioty is approaching...

 

[murray johnson]

Measurements CAN be made but our knowledge is incomplete. Hence the "art" (experimentation, instinct and blind luck). The problem isnt the concept of measurement - it is our incomplete understanding.

Well said that man!

and while this situation exists objectivism can't rule.

BBV I'm impressed. You're coming round.

 

[ShinOBIWAN]

Hi Tenson,

Are you saying that we should pick whichever measurements suit our particular sensibilities or tastes? In other words the (perhaps relevant, perhaps not) measurements of the items we like the sound of, those are the ones we should use.
We might as well just listen to the stuff!
Of course the measurements you consider important are likely to be different to the ones I or anyone else does. Using measurements as any sort of yardstick is only helpful if everyone agrees on what they should be. We all have an idea what a centimeter or a Kg is so they are useful units of measurement. I'd disagree that such useful measurements of 'quality' exist in electronics or loudspeakers yet. Certainly we can measure impedance or sensitivity but they aren't really useful quality marks. I'd agree with some of your requirements re speakers but I imagine several other speaker designers might disagree with them or have other priorities. If it was as straightforward as using the criteria you mention the world would be flooded with marvellous loudspeakers by now but it isn't and we aren't.

But isn't a loudspeakers job to mimick the way sounds are generated in reality? These sounds aren't produce by paper or metal cones, these sounds don't have 3 drivers with phase and frequency differences each doing its own thing but amalgamating the results into some kind of presentation and because of this, sounds also don't have set directivity. Sounds aren't constrained into one listening space. And so on.

There's no wonder there isn't a general concensus on what the baseline should be. There's so many variables and holes in the technology that we can't even begin to understand why, that's before we consider individual taste. All we have is something to strive for - mimick reality.

 

[anon_bb]

Incomplete understanding doesnt preclude objectivism - it is part of it and part of the process of scientific enquiry. So in fact objectivism still rules. As the understanding increases the art will decrease. For instance look at the study of artificial intelligence - it is a science yet art is still involved as our understanding is so tentative. It is still ruled by objectivism and so are audio engineering and human biology.

 

[RobHolt]

I did not mean to misquote you.

And no, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that by looking at the right specs, I could tell you which amp or speaker I am most likely to find musical.

....and from looking at the specs of those amps it would be a simple matter to split those that were poor from those that were good. Having dispensed with the bad performers you could then go on to look closely at the individual specs and choose the amp best suited to your particular set of priorities.

Simon, there is nothing wrong with your understanding of basic electronics and thank the lord that your thinking has not become clouded by your head being stuffed full by the rantings of the more extreme subjectivists.

Many on here wouldn't know an LM317 from a tin of beans - don't be patronised. As for your work on acoustics, crossovers and room treatments your work is light years ahead of many here.

 

[anon_bb]

Well said!

 

[Tenson]

Simon, there is nothing wrong with your understanding of basic electronics and thank the lord that your thinking has not become clouded by your head being stuffed full by the rantings of the more extreme subjectivists.

Many on here wouldn't know an LM317 from a tin of beans - don't be patronised. As for your work on acoustics, crossovers and room treatments your work is light years ahead of many here.

Thanks Rob. While WM's post was a little patronising, I do believe he intended it genuinely. Obviously he found the course he went on helped him a lot and I'm sure such a course could help me as well! On the other hand, by the time I get round to doing it (do not have time at the moment) I may know everything a simple course covers anyway...

Shin, while the speaker is used to reproduce music for pleasure I don't think mimicking reality will necessarily give maximum enjoyment. Still, I believe the specs can help tell you what it will sound like. I mean if they didn't, people would not have a clue how to design a speaker to sound a certain way.

 

[ShinOBIWAN]

Incomplete understanding doesnt preclude objectivism - it is part of it and part of the process of scientific enquiry. So in fact objectivism still rules. As the understanding increases the art will decrease. For instance look at the study of artificial intelligence - it is a science yet art is still involved as our understanding is so tentative. It is still ruled by objectivism and so are audio engineering and human biology.

Exactly, every driver on this planet that is worth *anything* was born out of scientific principles and very little subjectivity. They get the drivers to measure or mimick as close to what we understand as accurate.

I find it funny that some of the philosophy what made the driver should suddenly go out the window just because its placed in a cabinet. If its about art and science then why not design the drivers that way too? And why do the same folks still enjoy these drivers which are wholey objective in design, yet consider sound as this art and science.

I hate subjectivism because it can mean anything to any number of people. I know where I am with objectivism.

All this is a bit like asking someone to accurately describe the colour red by using emotions or memories. Sod that, give me the data that defines red and then allow me to recreate red from that.

 

[anon_bb]

Even "art" is a scientific process - but one for which sufficently defining framework doesnt currently exist so the rules are empirical - but scientific mehtodology still applies.

Only objectivist fields of enquiry progress - like technology. Subjectivist ones dont - i.e. religion, homeopathy, valves and horns etc.

 

[Stereo Mic]

Christ anyone would think you guys were groundbreaking or something.

I must congratulate the objectivism brigade on their dogged perseverence in reproducing the distorted mess that comes off a recording desk as faithfully as possible.

This conversation has been done to death on forae the world over - to re read it on ZG amidst a mutual w*nkerthon is rather tiresome. I'm off out.

 

[Tenson]

Only objectivist fields of enquiry progress - like technology. Subjectivist ones dont - i.e valves and horns etc.

 

[ShinOBIWAN]

I'm off out.

Thank god for that.

 

[anon_bb]

Its party night at "The Dungeon"

 

[JonR]

I'm not advocating that people absolutely disregard specifications or measurements either. I just feel that what makes loudspeakers or electronics sound 'musical' or otherwise is far more complex than that which can readily be quantified. I've listened to many loudspeakers with apparently excellent technical specification which render music (for me) into a relentless dirge. Ditto amplifiers. The only area where I've experienced some correlation is in the field of digital electronics and particularly cd players which can sound 'noisy' and uninvolving as a result. The artefacts in their measured performance can sometimes account for this perceived untidiness. I don't believe the measurement techniques required to analyse analogue electronics or loudspeakers satisfactorily actually exist yet.

I'd just like to congratulate myself for actually understanding the above post!

 

[murray johnson]

BBV,

I agree that in theory all audio equipment and people's reactions to it should be measurable and therefore quantifiable objectively. However while these things can't yet be measured adequately there will always be a large subjective element involved in choosing equipment.

The criteria that you can use to arrive at consistent assessments is a subject for an entirely separate discussion.

I have listened to a system which, from what I can, tell bore a strong resemblance to what you use. (maybe different pre & volume control) In my opinion it bore little resemblance to what I hear when I go to a live acoustic concert or even a live amplified concert. It certainly didn't transmit the thrill you can experience hearing great music or great virtuosity at first hand and that is one of the reasons I use hifi. The system I use at home gets me much closer and can give me that stimulus. This doesn't surprise me though. I'm using simpler amplification with fewer gain stages, more linear amplifying devices and far less (ie no) negative feedback. I'm also using speakers which convert a far higher percentage of what's fed to them into sound rather than heat. The drive units don't have to move as far to develop the same SPL's so their operation stays more linear. The speakers place less of a strain on the amplification aswell, so no, it doesn't surprise me at all that it sounds far more lifelike to my ears. You might not agree, that's your prerogative but don't try to claim that by some objective means you've arrived at a somehow proveably better end result than other people because I've heard it, it isn't imho and you can't prove it anyway.

Subjective opinion is alive and kicking and can produce mighty fine results if the person making the choices has a consistent and considered way of doing it.

Making design choices based on which approach gives the best results subjectively is a perfectly valid way to progress provided there is some method in the decision making process. The method is the key.

rgs,

Murray

 

[RobHolt]

Subjectivist ones dont - i.e. religion, homeopathy, valves and horns etc.

Cheaky sod. Nothing subjectivist about liking horns or valves. Horns and valves riddled with euphonic distortion yes - 'proper' ones - no

 

[Tenson]

BBV,



I have listened to a system which, from what I can, tell bore a strong resemblance to what you use. (maybe different pre & volume control) In my opinion it bore little resemblance to what I hear when I go to a live acoustic concert or even a live amplified concert. It certainly didn't transmit the thrill you can experience hearing great music or great virtuosity at first hand and that is one of the reasons I use hifi. The system I use at home gets me much closer and can give me that stimulus. This doesn't surprise me though. I'm using simpler amplification with fewer gain stages, more linear amplifying devices and far less (ie no) negative feedback. I'm also using speakers which convert a far higher percentage of what's fed to them into sound rather than heat. The drive units don't have to move as far to develop the same SPL's so their operation stays more linear. The speakers place less of a strain on the amplification aswell, so no, it doesn't surprise me at all that it sounds far more lifelike to my ears. You might not agree, that's your prerogative but don't try to claim that by some objective means you've arrived at a somehow proveably better end result than other people because I've heard it, it isn't imho and you can't prove it anyway.

Murray

Come on Murray, I don't think BBV has mentioned his system at all in this thread or that his is better or anything. Lets not drag that one up again please, it has its own thread lol You realise that as long as you or anyone else brings the subject up, Nick will reply?

 

[anon_bb]

Well different pre phono arm cartridge turntable etc - and presumeably you were unable to isolate the effects of every single component in the system you did hear so it was a composite affair. I have heard systems based on bryston and pmc sound sterile too - usually when the bryston pre is involved. By taking a rigourous approach to tracking down the contribution of each component I awas able to isolate this factor and remove it. Something subjectivity would not have encompassed.

The problem with existing measurement metrics is their origination in simple linear steady state signal analysis and reductionist thinking - rather than complex broad band, time varying and nonlinear signals in the contect of inter-dependence which would be more realistic. This arises because all engineering courses provide training based on linear reductionist analysis - because it is established and very accessible. Nonlinear signal theory is extremely hard and in the main only mathematicans can tackle it.

I wont tackle some of your specific points as it is a topic for another thread - but as discussed previously "hefty" isnt necessarily a problem - its all about the EM, slew, bandwidth etc - as also pointed out by shin. Some of what you say has merit but some is audio old wives tales. And if your valves are putting out a lot of HD then they are hardly that linear .

However it can be done.

The point of hifi is "straight wire with gain" ultimately. This can be assessed objectively. I am willing to grant that some distortions are currently being overlooked and might even favour such systems as you espouse - however with a better metric and sufficient effort it should be possible to also include this and strive objectively to get the best of both worlds.

Only objectivity leads to progress and that is evidenced by the fact that valve based audio amplifiers exist at all.

 

[ShinOBIWAN]

I have listened to a system which, from what I can, tell bore a strong resemblance to what you use. (maybe different pre & volume control) In my opinion it bore little resemblance to what I hear when I go to a live acoustic concert or even a live amplified concert.

Murray

Hi Murray,

How does your system deal with high energy music(dance, breaks, progressive, hard etc.) and the like? Is it funky and is it clean?

What about home theater?

These things can general destroy a small horn setup. I remember taking the Hype remix of 'Smack my Bitch Up' into MG Acoustics and thinking where did the fun go?

I say all this because that's a big part of what I like amongst other things. Sometimes a well rounded setup that does everything competantly and maybe only one thing spectacularly is the only way to go. We're discussing system but not their application.

 

[ShinOBIWAN]

Only objectivity leads to progress and that is evidenced by the fact that valve based audio amplifiers exist at all.

Good job its Friday night and everyone else is out partying.

Quick! Edit it or t'will be smack down in the morning