Yet another bold claim...

I would have thought Ak, one of the best methods of non innvasive earwax removal presently available, short of a dac 64 and B&W 602's

 

roflmao

 

Michael,

When one talks about the null test, you start hearing about submarines, turkeys and "arrogant asses"... people doesn't make a clue what the null test is and why it is a so powerful tool... unfortunately this is not only a British or a Portuguese thing...

But as Tube Dude puted it, HE IS TOO OLD TO CHANGE THE WORLD... and me, I just want to share what makes me happy.

 

Sunday afternoon, yawn factor 11

 

I've just had sunday lunch, think I'm going to sleep it off, yawn ....

 

guys it's struck me just how jaded a lot of us are. we've all been arround the block a few times and when someone comes in with a bit of enthusiasm (and maybe a bit of misplaced zealotry) we treat them like a witch and try to burn them. yes bd may be a bit ott when it comes to objectivism but i don;t think he deserves the reception he's had - i may not agree with his methods of choosing hi-fi (being a devout follower of HOBBY the subjective) but that doesn;t mean i won;t listen to him with respect.
just a thought.
cheers


julian

 

Julian,

If someone tells you that a Yugo is a better car than a Lexus and berates you for not agreeing with him, suggesting you are misguided, would you still listen to his opinions with respect, and not find any reason to disagree?

I'm all for enthusiasm - your speaker build diary was excellent. What we have here is not enthusiasm, but absolutism without sufficient foundation to not cause offence.

We have an amplifier that impressed both Michael and BD and also performed well in TD's test procedure. We then have BD applying a similar test procedure to any amp lying around and declaring the best technical performer. a world beater because of a loose correlation with the results acheived by Tube God.

It's not far off the logic applied by Monty Python's own witchfinder. Would you consider his opinions of great worth?

 

merlin,
to use your analogy - it would depend on what i was after. if i wanted a car to get me froma to b cheaply then the yugo would beat the lex. it depends on your point of view. now don;t get me wrong there is a degree of arogance in bd's posts however i think a lot of this has been engendered by the responses he's had from some here.
now i don;t agree with his methodology in choosing an amp but if it floats his boat then who am i to argue (if i did i would be a hypocrite as i'm a subjectivist so must respect his opinion for his circumstances).
i think bd has had an epiphany and is proselytising about it - much the same as you did with the tact a few years ago. don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with this and imho the forum is a better place when people come along and are enthusiastic about things.
i'm not saying don't call someone if you feel they are spouting bullshit, what i'm saying is do it with a bit of sensitivity as there may be a germ of reason in what they say. in this instance the null test seems like a good idea but saying it should be the sole criteria for chosing your amp is a little foolish, to us, however if this makes bd happy who are we to argue. it is the escalation of the argument to deeply entrenched, back to the wall, finger on the button posturing that i'm opposed to - on both sides.
cheers


julian

 

Yet none of the mob have explained why distortion is a good thing. Or rather why an amplifier that demonstrably doesn't distort in actual operation can be bettered.

If you're not actually interested in hifi, perhaps a disclaimer before any advice would be a sensible move?

Paul

 

That's because it is a subjective judgement Paul and it is hard to explain subjectivity. Why do musicians add distortion on occasion?

 

Because they've used their intelligence and musical judgement to decide that that amount of that kind of distortion added at that time is a Good Thing, presumably.

 

Paul, there lies the crux, some of us subjectives, don't really care the reasons behind why some things do what they do, we are just happy that they do it, If I understood it all, I'd build my own.

As to not interested in hifi, you are correct, my interest lies in music, that's what the hifi is for, I don't really to much about the mechanics, except perhaps the basics, but why should i need to know when my music sounds so good. And all my testing has been subjective using only my ears and brain.

 

In hi-fi, distortion is NOT a good thing. Full stop.

However, the techniques for reducing distortion, such as the liberal application of global negative feedback, often sound worse than the distortion they reduce. Hence an amplifier with low or negligible distortion may sound worse than an amplifier with higher distortion.

It is for this reason that modern amplifiers have higher measured distortion figures than the 'zero distortion masterpieces' of the seventies and eighties.

 

Peter,

as I understand it, the typical addition of distortion involves the use of a tube EQ in the studio. Either that or plug ins designed to mimic the distortion characteristics of some valves.

So they don't like the sound and choose to sweeten it up a bit. What's wrong with us doing the same? After all, the listening room is introducing so much distortion that the artist or engineer could not possibly have allowed accurately for.

 

Dr. Shelley Katz, the inventor of layered sound technology, described the reverberated and reflected sound from a concert hall as being, basically 'dirty' sound.

 

Oooh I like the sound of that

What does he mean BTW and what is the relevence in this context?

 

Mainly the fact that our systems must necessarily apply the same distortion systematically to anything regardless of context or circumstances, because they can't make a judgement call on whether or not it's necessary or desirable in a particular case.

Don't get me wrong though, I don't mind what anyone personally prefers. I think I prefer a totally clean, accurate sound - ie. an exact reproduction of the live musical event, bearing in mind that 99% of the time I'm listening to fully acoustically produced music - but then obviously I've never heard a system that was even nearly 'ideal'.

 

A very fair question for anyone who doesn't follow my warped, convoluted thought processes.

It was in the context of a discussion we were having about his 'Layered Sound' approach. Basically this is where you use NXT-type flat panels alongside conventional moving coil speakers but at about 5dB down.

Dr Katz believes that this gives a more realistic impression of a musical instrument and, as he's a classical pianist of some repute, I felt that I should at least listen to what he said.

I was saying that NXT panels were pretty grotty, mostly in terms of of their frequency response & sound decay characteristics and that I wouldn't want them in the same room as my precious Nonsuch 4s, let alone in the same cabinets. He said (and now we get to the point) that this grottiness didn't matter as the reverberation and reflections were basically dirty. Also, that the non-instantaneous decay in these panels gives a more realistic impression of the live sound.

BTW, if anyone's interested in experimenting, he reckons that the Fane Micro Pro and Mini Pro DML panels are amongst the best.

(Since you asked)

 

If distortion was the only thing that mattered the nut would have been cracked long ago. Many things can go wrong within an amplifier design that reduce the musicality. Some are hard to test for, even using a null test. Micro instabilities can create havoc, but being very small and only occationally present are very hard to measure. If they only occur when a loud symbol is played and then only over a cirtain volume range, it would be hard to detect with electronic measurement devices but the ear can detect the graininess. Although uncalibrated the ear-brain is still a very good measuring instrument.

Hifi is about creating an illusion, the re-performance is never actually in your listening room, the Hifi needs to fool the brain into thinking it is. Good hifi therfore has to be better at convincing you that something unreal is happening. Psychology has a lot to do with it.

Objectivism: Letting ones brain fool the brain.
Subjectivism: Letting ones ears fool the brain.

Psychological profile will probably have a lot to do with wich camp you follow.

For myself I'm just a raving loony so have no strong feelings about it. When I design equipment I use both methods, I do prefere the subjective part most, but who wouldn't enjoy sitting down listening to music more than slaving over a hot oscilloscope.

Enjoy the music, not the hifi.

Chris

 

An accurate amp is like a mirror... not everybody likes what they see...

Distortion is like make-up and breast implants... you may get the WOW factor... but there's nothing like the real thing.

Once you get the real thing everything else seems like breast implants...

Of course, there always will be someone who likes breast implants without knowing they are implants... but as long as you are happy, who cares?!

But please... don't you ever call it the real thing!