Yet another bold claim...

OK I give up

We've got another preacher who fails to listen or debate

I thought we just lost of one of those. He was far more entertaining.

 

Its all just a heartbreak hotel Merlin, time to check out I feel

 

Nah!

You can check out but you can never leave

 

BD, I think you may not have read my post...

If you sing into a microphone you DO NOT want a faithful representation of it. Not with a music recording. What you want is something that makes your singing sound good.

So.. unless you are using your Hi-Fi to monitor when doing EQ and mixing etc, there is nothing wrong with a in-accurate system that could well make it sound 'nicer'

I do have to agree though that accurate systems tend to sound 'better'.

 

guys, before we all go off to our own absolutist little boxes. pehaps we should clarify what we are all talking about.
here's what my interpretation is:
1) when we are talking about accurate reproduction we are talking about accurately reproducing what is on the media not what was recorded at the recording session (as this is only the start of the musical process in most cases).

2) an amp that measures well is a good thing.

3) even given #2 it may not neccessarily sound 'better' to an individual due to partnering equipment, rooms or physical conditions such as tinitus.

4) absolutes could have your eye out so don;t throw them arround carelessly.
cheers


julian

 

You're right. I would be surprised however if there wasn't a fairly good correlation between accuracy and subjective enjoyment for most people. Afterall, if a system could create the "you are there" experience, which, by definition is an accurate one, then wouldn't that be the holy grail of hifi?

And merlin is right about TacT. In theory at least it has the potential to give you that "you are there" experience, 100% accuracy, since it is in essence a big global feedback loop that encompasses the entire system, speakers and room included.

On that note, perhaps it deserves a separate thread, I've got a question about TacT RCS2.2x: does it require multiple subs to work well or can it still work its magic with just a normal pair of stereo speakers?

Michael.

 

Accuracy is not easy to define.

Is an amplifier with 0.01% THD at 1kHz, 25W rms and 0.001% IMD more accurate than an amp which has them the other way around?

How do you rate the flatness of the frequency response curve against the distortion?

Is an amp that is -1dB at 12kHz and 50W rms better, worse or the same as an amp that's -1dB at 1kHz, 50W?

I could go on but I think you get my drift. I'm not commenting here on the issue of whether accurate is necessarily better.

 

But that's alright as thre is plenty of room

 

A TacT system with a 2 watt/channel power amp and computer speakers wouldn't give me 100% accuracy or a "you are there" experience.

From phase response across a crossover network to headroom, there are many aspects of the sound that are outside of the TacT loop.

 

Steve, I said that TacT has the potential, in theory at least to give you the "you are there" experience. Clearly it cannot bend the laws of physics.

Michael.

 

Look pretty good on their promo material though!

 

There are varing forms of accuracy, in civil engineering they use +/- a strentched badgers arse over a very long distance, In areospace tolerances can be achieved of 10th's of thousands of an inch, although these are usually done in a temp controlled room with mass air gauging and a renishaw trace-measure machine.
The question is, there are no absolutes, does EVERY measured NULL TEST amp thats clocks as good, sound Good ?
Test samples starting in the hundreds not odd one and 2 would provide an indication of weather the test was a revelent one to be used in assertaining a 'benchmark test'
That could be relaiable used as an industry standard possibly?
But to tell some one that because they don't feel the same way about a result, then there must be a problem up stream, is quite frankly limited in facts and wholey guesstimated IE Bollox

 

But that's the beauty of the null test (for amplifiers). It takes all those variables into consideration simultaneously. An amp that has a smaller residual signal on a null test is indisputably more accurate than one that has a greater residual.

Whether it's a better sounding amp may well be a different matter.

Michael.

 

Quite true. But if BD wants accuracy in a "you are there" sense he needs better speakers.

-- Ian

 

Harbeths all round then

 

Not necessarily... but not a bad suggestion.

-- Ian

 

Ian,

I quite like them really, they certain things extremely well, not quite for me, but damn fine non the less

 

There's hope for you yet then.

How are the new speakers coming along?

-- Ian

 

Michael, it will apply it's filtering to whatever you use, but it won't extend the roll off of speakers that have limited bass extension.

I'll let you know anyway, I've got another one coming next week

 

Not too bad thanks Ian, they had apprantley had 1200 on them. Last week they had some proper watts travelling through them for 120 hours that woke them up(I hooked up the big mono's we have hear as well) and the surrounding rabbits that inhabbit the carpark I left them on 3/4 power over nite at work.
Actually just soldering the last connections on the x/over as I post Ian, should be ready for the weekend, I already 'cooked the bybee's prior to installation'
Got to say, very nice internal cabinet construction & quality build, I done a picture shoot, will post later. T