Originally Posted by cannga
Inferior with respect to numbers, or with respect to sound based on listening test? You are obviously very smart and knowledgeable, but IMHO your posts are indeed full of speculations and lack the one most important test, the LISTENING test. Your logic is at least as loose as what your perception about other people's designs is.
Also, please step back and re-read some of your posts, you do come across as a somewhat arrogant person who could use some humility; please cut back with the "teaching" tone. Your knowledge is excellent for an audio hobbyist and I've learned from you in the past, but truly your work in high-end audio is more or less amateur level DIY work and most importantly has endured no peer or professional review. No one knows what your DIY system, admirable as it is, sounds like; all we hear is the supposed technically perfect numbers (and the tube amps that eat tubes, indicating to me something is grossly wrong). Be humble and be careful with your criticism of professional audio engineers, without any listening test to back yourself up.
The threat in the post above about if both BD and you being kicked out, it is something he "cherishes," but you don't care about? Truly sad
. IMHO, it is you who is the troublemaker here and at risk of being asked to leave if you keep it up. You are probably here because you crave the attention of this popular thread but probably a good time to take a little break now I think.
I made a comment that digitally controlled volume controls made from discrete parts are inferior to the popular chips today. Theta does in fact use these chips in later designs. So where is my criticism. These parts were not as good when Theta designed the older board so they did the best they could with discrete parts. I don't have to listen to know the noise floor is lower in the IC version. My background and continuing education already tells me that. Do you get the IEEE journal? This is not a speculation. You see it as such because you don't have an engineering background and cannot understand how the engineering guys can predict this stuff. It's called knowing your job. This is not a hobby for some of us, it's a career backed by years of experience and education.
Your knowledge is excellent for an audio hobbyist and I've learned from you in the past, but truly your work in high-end audio is more or less amateur level DIY work
Really, and what about the tens of millions of dollars of pro AV gear I work with daily and for over the past 25 years? That's not high end gear? I have no high end experience?
You call me a hobbiest just as Bulldog did. Well that's true that electronics as it related to HT is a hobby of mine you also discount my career designing broadcast / mastering equipment and facilities. Now are you saying that broadcast AV gear does not require at least the same level of engineering excellence that high end consumer gear does. My work does have peer review, just not in "Stereo Review". You guys often conveniently fail to realize that your software does not fall out of the sky from the audiophile gods. If we in the broadcast and mastering business don't maintain the highest standards how can your systems be so good? You think your ultra high end gear can magically undo poor mastering or distribution technology. Some of you are clearly living in lala land. You really do believe this is all magic versus science and engineering.
This lack of listening is always thrown at the engineering types. What makes you and other non technical audiophiles think we don't look or listen? Where does this idea come from? Of course we look and listen. But it's silly to think an audio product can be designed by listening alone. Perhaps a speaker if you're lucky but surely not an amplifier or processor. Why do you audiophile hobby guys always discount the science and physics that makes this stuff work. How are you exempt from those laws of nature? You worship these high end audio designers, some of which are not even degreed engineers. Just because something sounds good does not mean it's engineered properly. And as I pointed out on another thread just because the numbers all look good does not mean something sounds good - Herman Hosmer Scott. Of course it's a balance.
As for my audio engineering idols, Douglass Self, Randy Sloan, Morgan Jones. Look them up. They are widely published. I follow their advice very closely.
and the tube amps that eat tubes, indicating to me something is grossly wrong).
go making assumptions based on lack of any subject knowledge. Do the math. My tube amps were in HT duty, not casual weekend listening like most audiophile tube amps. That is two to three hours an average of 5 days a week. Watch TV, the tubes are on. That's more or less 1000 hours per year. Look on any tube forum and tell me the average hours for power tubes to stay in optimum operating condition. 5000 hours! Yes they can go 10,000 or even possibly 20,000 hours but they will sound like crap. And it's a slow degradation. You don't notice it day by day because human hearing is so easily fooled. I didn't want to go there hence my mandatory bi- yearly power re-tube. And the new former iron curtain made tubes are very hit and miss these days. The old classics of the 1960s are long gone. It's dead technology yet fun to play with as I still do.
Also please show me where I stated my equipment is perfect or sounds any better than others? I don't recall ever stating that. I think I am my hardest critic. That's why I am always tweaking and building.
You get tired of the engineering angle on this forum because it violates some of the sacred beliefs. Well I get tired of the country club angle here. What difference does it make how much you paid for it. Is this technology or jewelry?Edited by Glimmie - 2/14/14 at 9:49pm