I agree with Glen.
There is FAR TOO MUCH airy fairy waffle in audio and the reason is the industry is suffering from a long term 'subjectivism infection' and we need to find a way to treat it.
As a community, we need to develop a set of concise objective listening parameters for equipement and system reviews that say something sensibe about the equipment in sound terms (these measures would be allied to the technical measures already well known).
There is FAR TOO MUCH airy fairy waffle in audio and the reason is the industry is suffering from a long term 'subjectivism infection' and we need to find a way to treat it.
As a community, we need to develop a set of concise objective listening parameters for equipement and system reviews that say something sensibe about the equipment in sound terms (these measures would be allied to the technical measures already well known).
Bonsai said:
Yes.
And have you ever noticed how (amongst some of the audio royalty around here) audio measurements "don’t mean s%^t" ONLY in relation to amplifiers that measure substantially better than theirs?
I mean, they all like to boast forever and a day about how much lower their THD is in their latest designs, over their old ones, or how appealing the harmonic composition of their latest products THD may be.
But then along comes an amplifier that measures in the superior and all of a sudden "measurements don't mean s%^t!" and we're well and truly off into "overstuffed marshmallow" land.
G.Kleinschmidt said:
You've latched on to marshmallow because it's an easy target but many of the descriptors used for audio are easily recognizable by anyone with a history of actually listening to a wide range of equipment. Try smooth, bright, etched, congested, soft, grainy. These (and many more) make perfect sense to me.
Whatever.
I can easily measure to -120dB at 5KHz. I have a 250KHz clock in my HP analyzer, not that cheapo 44.1 or 96K, like some of you have. I also have IM, can do TIM, and Hirata distortion. So what? After a while, after detailed harmonic analysis (I'm big on 7th harmonic distortion) and signal averaging in order to remove residual noise at low operating levels, I find that any better than what I can do now doesn't seem to be the right direction in design to make the amp sound BETTER. This is the problem.
Halcro does good measurements. I know how they do it, and I choose NOT to do it that way. If you want to do it the Halcro way, go for it. It will certainly keep you out of the audio competition that I have with Nelson and Charles. It will just measure good. Wow!
Halcro does good measurements. I know how they do it, and I choose NOT to do it that way. If you want to do it the Halcro way, go for it. It will certainly keep you out of the audio competition that I have with Nelson and Charles. It will just measure good. Wow!
jlsem said:
I am sorry, but it is like it is. I designed a unique audio component (preamp) for a high-end studio who distributed and sold Wilson Audio speakers here (you can find the name in WA web page). We had been testing it more than half a year on Wilson Audio Maxx speakers. The studio compared the preamp to one of the A-rated Stereophile product (and several non A-rated) and decided to use my component at the audio exhibition, though it was a noname component. They were ineterested in best possible sound from WA speakers, rather than in exhibiting the Stereophile A-rated preamplifier.
So what means A-rating then?
Blues said:
What some people need is to have everything described in a checklist fashion so that by following the checklist, perfection is achieved. "See, I followed the recipe so it has to taste like the real thing". If amplifier technology was understood on a much more detailed level this might be possible, I firmly hold that we are nowhere near that now. Anyone who believes that things are that simple doesn't need to communicate subjective opinions, therefore doesn't need overstuffed marshmallows to attempt to communicate with others.
If Glen is at that level of perfection, stop and listen to music. Let the rest continue on to try and play catch up.
I've always thought that measurements were introduced to audio because someone designed a new component and needed a way to prove that it did not sound worse than the one it was supposed to blow away.
Mike.
MikeBettinger said:
I’m not sure whose opinions you are trying to characterise here, but your description doesn’t match my opinion in the least and I never said that subjective opinions do not need to be conveyed.
Really, if you want to erect a straw man to beat you could at least erect a sturdier one. My position lies somewhere between – not with the dogmatists who have no apparent problem with a declaration such as: “measurements don’t mean s^%t”.
Subjective opinion expressed with waffle like “overstuffed marshmallows” is just plain daft - period. I value subjective opinions, just not stupid ones.
The best example/mix of objective and subjective evaluation of HiFi and general audio equipment (IMHO) would have to be the (literally) thousands of individual product reviews conducted by Louis A. Challis and Associates Pty Ltd, conducted over probably a 30+ year period in a multitude of Australian electronics and audio magazines. Definitely no “overstuffed marshmallows” here, but no shortage of emotive prose either.
Most of these journals and their standards have now gone the way of the Dodo, unfortunately.
john curl said:
I have a routine access to several HP and Agilent spectrum analyzers in my job. But, good 24bit sound card + appropriate software gives me better resolution, higher dynamic range and lower distortion than those analyzers. They are perfect for another purposes, like 30kHz THD spectrum analysis.
G.Kleinschmidt said:
Yours, read back through your recent posts and think about how they might be perceived. My comments are also based on a history of reading your posts in other threads. Similar generalizations could be drawn from my presence, which I have no control of.
It's late and I should be sleeping.
Mike.
Here's a few thoughts to ponder . . .
If I listen to my sustem when I am tired its sounds flat. There is no doubt that tiredness affectes the enjoyment of the sound from my system
Here another one. Drink half a bottle of red wide and it sounds freakin wonderful!
so, th e first two points on the audio sound review checklist should be
1. Did you, the reviewer have a good nights sleep (yes/no)
2. Confirm that your blood alchohol level was below 0.05%/ml when you did the review (Yes/no)
Any no automatically gives the equipment a 'C' rating.
If I listen to my sustem when I am tired its sounds flat. There is no doubt that tiredness affectes the enjoyment of the sound from my system
Here another one. Drink half a bottle of red wide and it sounds freakin wonderful!
so, th e first two points on the audio sound review checklist should be
1. Did you, the reviewer have a good nights sleep (yes/no)
2. Confirm that your blood alchohol level was below 0.05%/ml when you did the review (Yes/no)
Any no automatically gives the equipment a 'C' rating.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.