or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy? - Page 65

post #1921 of 3048
So what would a typical "objectivist" do if he heard a tube based system that he thought sounded really great, much better than his own "more accurate" system. Darn I love that sound quality but is not accurate enough, I must resist those tubes!
post #1922 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd68 View Post

So what would a typical "objectivist" do if he heard a tube based system that he thought sounded really great, much better than his own "more accurate" system. Darn I love that sound quality but is not accurate enough, I must resist those tubes!

I'd congratulate the owner for playing that piece of music nicely, knowing for myself that the coloration that was a bonus for that piece of music would make other pieces worse, and also know that there'd be no way in hell that tube amp would be able to power my speakers to the volume levels I want. ( Unless you can show me a tube amp that can give me 1.7kW uncompressed transients @ 8 ohms ) So no, there'd be no appeal to me to have it. It's only nice to know that there will be served nice music next time I visit that person if he doesn't change anything. If the owner would be the bragging kind, next time I might bring along some music I know would not be played as flattering. cool.gif

I have heard very nicely sounding setups using both Radford and Audio Research gear for reference.
Edited by Nightlord - 3/8/13 at 12:53am
post #1923 of 3048
Personally, I would probably just keep enjoying it, or, mixing some of both, for the variety of it all.

I just wouldn't go on audio forums claiming that the tube-based system is somehow more truthful to the music or to present some convoluted analysis about how the tube amp is really more accurate by way of some fortuitously complex interactions of complementary distortions or cancelling distortions. wink.gif
post #1924 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd68 View Post

So what would a typical "objectivist" do if he heard a tube based system that he thought sounded really great, much better than his own "more accurate" system. Darn I love that sound quality but is not accurate enough, I must resist those tubes!
I've been designing and building tube amps since the late 70's. I know what the sonic signatures of most topologies are and where the design limits exist. I enjoy building them as it's fun, and they generally look pretty with the quietly glowing (or really bright thoriated tungsten transmitter tubes) which are almost always exposed. For a few years I used nothing but tubes with my big horn system, and one day after an accident I used a modified Rotel SS amp I'd owned since 85 or so as a stand in. I enjoyed it no less and with complex material that revealed the limitations of tube topologies, preferred it much more. Put some NIN through it compared to good SS and it doesn't stand up, especially in the LF and spatially.

I started testing more and more between them, and decided SS was overall better. Especially when I went back to fully active systems and didn't want 200kg of amps.

During the late 90's/ eraly 00's I trade a lot of vintage and had it pass though one of my systems so for periods I've owned a lot of name brand stuff as well. Not a lot of it impressed me or I'd have kept it. I've also repaired, modified and cloned a many amps and lots of instrument amps too. At one time I owned a Marantz 7C preamp which is held in high regard by many, but it's a horrible preamp. I built a clone and POOGE'd it and it was better, but still thick, round and syrupy sounding compared to the SS I had: it made everything sound like a 50's radiogram. I also owned 4 QUAD II amps at one stage, driving Quads

I still have one tube component in use, an old Sherwood mono FM tuner which I keep tuned to the classical station. It is not accurate but very lush and I like that effect when using it for background listening.

The best overall piece of tube gear I've ever owned was an Allen Wright RTP3 preamp, but that was hybrid and I thought my hybrid line stage was better than his over complex design. I might build another when I rebuild the current analogue system, just for variety.

So, I've had a lot of different gear and always rotate beck to SS because I prefer accuracy. Tubes are sometimes fun for the effects and definitely more so to build or work on.
post #1925 of 3048
Thanks guys, so accuracy isn't extremely important to the sound enjoyment. If it sounds good it is good!
post #1926 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd68 View Post

Thanks guys, so accuracy isn't extremely important to the sound enjoyment. If it sounds good it is good!

If you only aim to enjoy yourself, for sure. If you want full analysis of the media... as in sounding properly bad when media is bad.. then accuracy is extremely important. For me: If it sounds bad when it is bad - is good. tongue.gif
post #1927 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd68 View Post

Thanks guys, so accuracy isn't extremely important to the sound enjoyment. If it sounds good it is good!

Only an unaltered signal is accurate, i.e. high fidelity. If that doesn't sound good to you, then so be it. Alter the signal to your liking but don't call it HiFi.
post #1928 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

Alter the signal to your liking but don't call it HiFi.

Even though I agree... stating it in a thread like this is quite close to troll baiting.wink.gif Not everyone subscribes to the literal meaning of HiFi nowadays.
post #1929 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

Even though I agree... stating it in a thread like this is quite close to troll baiting.wink.gif Not everyone subscribes to the literal meaning of HiFi nowadays.

If people don't "subscribes to the literal meaning" of a word then any discussion is pointless because in that case different people are discussing different topics.
post #1930 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

If people don't "subscribes to the literal meaning" of a word then any discussion is pointless because in that case different people are discussing different topics.

Yes? Hasn't that been obvious in this thread for a very long time? biggrin.gif

One can have parallell conversations if both all sides realize that and put comments in the proper context and respect each other.

( I wouldn't be surprised if a majority vote on what HiFi is would tell us it's a word for the gear used. "My colleague just bought a new HiFi". )
post #1931 of 3048
I might say I have a HI-FI but enjoy more the sound of my MID-FI, or is tubes LOW-FI?
post #1932 of 3048
If high fidelity is an unaltered signal then the vast majority of people are not experiencing it including staunch objectivists. The room introduces its own noise and distortion, the speakers introduce their own distortion which is orders higher than any electronics.

If a piece of electronics is altering the signal a little then it really shouldn't matter. It's just altering the sound more - it's a matter of degree. So if you claim that an amp that deviates from flat is "not good" then really nothing is "good" because nothing in the real world is flat. The response profile will be all over the place unless you are listening ground plane outside, or in an anechoic chamber.

It really is a trivial issue. If "good" is defined as the joy a piece of gear contributes to the auditory experience then there is nothing wrong with thinking a non-flat amp is "better". Accuracy and what sounds "best" do not necessarily fall hand in hand.
post #1933 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

If people don't "subscribes to the literal meaning" of a word then any discussion is pointless because in that case different people are discussing different topics.

Just about all modern gear is hi-fi compared to those scratchy gramophones your parents/grandparents used. Stop being so precious about it.
post #1934 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd68 View Post

or is tubes LOW-FI?

Impossible to say. It's not what the gear is built with, it's how it perform under the usage envelope.

If I get frequency range without roll-offs, sufficiently low distortion and power enough to stay away from signal compression of transients, noisefree operation (might be more parameters if I ponder it longer)... Then I really don't care if it's bipolar transistors, mosfets, J-fets, tubes, thyristors or latching relays that do it...
post #1935 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S View Post

Thank you for the tacit admission that you can't actually support your position. You are an extraordinary waste of bandwidth.

 

Irony, right?

post #1936 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd68 View Post

I might say I have a HI-FI but enjoy more the sound of my MID-FI, or is tubes LOW-FI?

The term that gets thrown around, particularly with regard to room correction software, is "reference vs. preference".

We can enjoy things that have been changed from the original, whether via tube distortion, house curves imposed via EQ, or an amplifier that does more to the signal than amplify it.

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with this, but we should really be intellectually honest with ourselves about it, too. I might enjoy looking at an image that's been "posterized" by a Photoshop filter. I might post it all over the 'net and get thousands of comments about how awesome it looks. The second I start arguing that it's a better representation of reality than the original image is where I've stepped over the line into nonsense.
post #1937 of 3048
"There's nothing wrong with preference, but it's always recommended to start from reference!" / Chris Kyriakakis (Audyssey)
post #1938 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Just about all modern gear is hi-fi compared to those scratchy gramophones your parents/grandparents used. Stop being so precious about it.

Good is the enemy of great. Nothing new.

And then there's the point where more accuracy/fidelity is simply inaudible. This is the point where it doesn't make much sense to invest in improved gear.
post #1939 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perry R View Post


I agree that the AES group probably didn't know enough about the psych aspect....that makes sense, why should they?

The "AES group" includes one or more psychologists and psychiatrists. They are usually the only ones in forum theads who can back their claims about perception with technical books and papers.

And here's one for you: "This is your Brain on Music". Get back with us after you read it.
Quote:
I've read enough posts to know that bias comes to play as well.

I've done enough hands-on testing to know that bias is very strong, particularly in sighted evaluations.
Quote:
Thats the reason most of the "all sound the same group" wouldnt make good ABX participants....right?

So far you are a little fact-challenged.
Quote:
They would have a bias to not hear a slight difference, even if they were told the amps were the same but in realty
they had very slight audible differences, they would have a bias to not hear a difference....they believe so the brain
wouldnt let them hear the difference...it works both ways I assume. BUT they were not the subjects in these 100 or more
verified tests, so I'll have to agree that the participants heard no difference because there was none....makes sense....done deal.

perchance you are free-associating?

I invented ABX and was among the organizers and participants in many of those tests that are in the archives.
Quote:
What i have a problem understanding is the "why" is that the perfect amp.... at least for me....the one with flat response.

You seem to be stumbling over a gnat.

Nothing is perfect.

Amplifiers are generally specified to have flat response because that makes them into good interchangeable parts for far more complex audio systems.

Most good audio systems end up with equalizers so that the overall system has the desired response which is generally smooth but not necessarily perfectly flat. Since rooms and speakers are all over the map, it is very helpful to have our adjustments all together and properly labelled for easy use.

BTW one of the nicer amps I've worked with is the Crown XTi 1000 and 2000 which have built in DSP-based signal processors that include a number of crossovers and equalizers. If you have configured the DSP for non-flat performance and enable it, the amp is anything but flat. But yet it is a good amp and I doubt that any of the people here who favor DBTs would complain. How is that?
Quote:
Ok, so heres the thing, I spend many thousands of dollars on high end SS gear, it sounds great. I also spend many thousands of dollars
on good speakers.....its really nice. Then I come here do a bunch of reading and am told that yep my amp is good, but I've overpaid.
What?...ok be open minded, lets check.....I get my bells and whistles $1000 avr out and do some serious listening...over a period
of time I see.....there really is no difference, I try to hear one, nope its just not there. Theyre correct, I've overpaid, on the bright
side I've been educated, and I sell my high price gear, take a small loss....now I'm in the know.

So your complaint is?
Quote:
Then a while back I decide to buy a small 15w tube amp, very inexpensive....if I remember under $600. I hook it up to my
speakers and audition it out. Its sounds very nice....wtf? So off I go and do more reading, its a crappy amp.....I've been told
it wont measure correct....its low fi.....but....I really like it. Is it bias?.....cant be that, my bells and whistle avr....the expensive one...
cost me much more, if anything I should have a bias towards that. Ok so It must be that I prefer the harmonic distortion...

So you've never heard of sentimentality?

;-)
post #1940 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S View Post

If high fidelity is an unaltered signal then the vast majority of people are not experiencing it including staunch objectivists. The room introduces its own noise and distortion, the speakers introduce their own distortion which is orders higher than any electronics.

If a piece of electronics is altering the signal a little then it really shouldn't matter. It's just altering the sound more - it's a matter of degree. So if you claim that an amp that deviates from flat is "not good" then really nothing is "good" because nothing in the real world is flat. The response profile will be all over the place unless you are listening ground plane outside, or in an anechoic chamber.

It really is a trivial issue. If "good" is defined as the joy a piece of gear contributes to the auditory experience then there is nothing wrong with thinking a non-flat amp is "better". Accuracy and what sounds "best" do not necessarily fall hand in hand.

I wasn't talking about "good" but about accuracy.
post #1941 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S View Post

If high fidelity is an unaltered signal then the vast majority of people are not experiencing it including staunch objectivists.

Um, that would be nobody is experience it. Perfection or if you will unaltered response is elusive. In the case of microphones and speakers, even unaltered response based on listening tests is elusive.
Quote:
The room introduces its own noise and distortion, the speakers introduce their own distortion which is orders higher than any electronics.

How many times have people of the so-called objectivist viewpoint posted this, even just on AVS? Truly you don't think this is any kind of news flash! ;-)
Quote:
If a piece of electronics is altering the signal a little then it really shouldn't matter.

And that my friend is why so many amplifiers and DACs can't be distinguished based on reliable listening tests.
Quote:
It's just altering the sound more - it's a matter of degree.

How many times have people of the so-called objectivist viewpoint posted this, even just on AVS? Truly you don't think this is any kind of news flash! ;-)
Quote:
So if you claim that an amp that deviates from flat is "not good" then really nothing is "good" because nothing in the real world is flat.

You appear to be again arguing with yourself, and providing amunition for the people you appear to want to argue against. Thank you! ;-)
Quote:
The response profile will be all over the place unless you are listening ground plane outside, or in an anechoic chamber.

Even if, because speakers aren't all that good, particularly off-axis.
Quote:
It really is a trivial issue. If "good" is defined as the joy a piece of gear contributes to the auditory experience then there is nothing wrong with thinking a non-flat amp is "better". Accuracy and what sounds "best" do not necessarily fall hand in hand.

You appear to misunderstand why people prefer amps with flat response.
post #1942 of 3048
Quote:
="arnyk"You appear to misunderstand why people prefer amps with flat response.

Actually no. What you seem oblivious to is that the lack of audible colouration, due in large part to a flat response, is largely offset by all the other distortion in the rest of the chain which means it does not matter if an amplifier deviates from the ideal spec.

LOL."I developed ABX and I am the invester of this". So what? Although I would need to verify that as you just made a positive claim. Even if it were true, who the hell cares?

You will not appreciate a flat response in your room unless the rest of your system is flat, including the speaker/room partnership. That is the bottom line arny. The other thing is that I don't think you know what you like - your preference has no basis for being made - it's just void of any meaning. The only difference between your lack of a preference and mine is that my preference involves a higher degree of change to the signal. Which I like.

I have a feeling your biases and prejudices prevent you from enjoying music and I'll preempt your next reply by saying that you can't see the forest for the trees. Do you believe in a supernatural entity, arny?
Edited by Heinrich S - 3/8/13 at 5:16am
post #1943 of 3048
Heinrich - all forms of distortion are not the same. Nor is the amounts of distortion of different kinds the same for when they annoy us. Also, distortions are to a certain degree cumulative. So, don't imagine the much higher figures in speaker distortion would in any way hide the problems caused by gear earlier in the chain. If you do, you're only fooling yourself into accepting problems you could fix.
post #1944 of 3048
So, in essence, Heinrich, you're just a knob twiddler.
post #1945 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord 
Heinrich - all forms of distortion are not the same. Nor is the amounts of distortion of different kinds the same for when they annoy us.

I never made that claim. A non-flat amplifier response is benign compared to room distortions, or speaker distortions. Arguing over a flat response is just completely nonsensical.
post #1946 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai 
So, in essence, Heinrich, you're just a knob twiddler.

No, I just like listening to music. I don't have fancy cables or magic stones to "improve" the sound of my system. I don't subscribe to this objective world-view that some are promoting here. It's just another type of kool-aid.
post #1947 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S View Post

I never made that claim. A non-flat amplifier response is benign compared to room distortions, or speaker distortions. Arguing over a flat response is just completely nonsensical.

A non-flat amplifier response is not bening if the response changes with the speaker it is driving. It's like driving a car and sometimes the break and gas pedal change places.
post #1948 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S View Post

I never made that claim. A non-flat amplifier response is benign compared to room distortions, or speaker distortions.

Sorry, but there are plenty of distortion forms that will be much more disturbing at much lower levels than speaker distortions.
post #1949 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S View Post

I never made that claim. A non-flat amplifier response is benign compared to room distortions, or speaker distortions. Arguing over a flat response is just completely nonsensical.
Most amplifiers, whether tube based with significant output impedances or transistor based with low output impedances, have essentially a flat response into a static load of say 8 ohms. Speakers though have an impedance that varies with frequency. As a result, if the output impedance of the amp is significant, then your system will start to behave like an equalizer whose peaks and dips resemble the speaker's impedance profile. Further, since the output impedance of the amp is neither constant and can vary with applied power, the results are that of an equalizer whose settings are constantly varying. Whatever it is that the room is imposing upon the listening environment is being constantly modified by broad band phenomena and those most certainly are not benign but rather audible.

To varying extents people can turn to appropriate room treatments as well as electronic room correction to compensate for the inherent problems the room presents and I think you know that. Hence, I disagree that non linear amplifier response is benign seeing that such behavior can be clearly audible. As to whether or not you embrace and prefer such behavior is for you to decide.
post #1950 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S View Post

No, I just like listening to music. I don't have fancy cables or magic stones to "improve" the sound of my system. I don't subscribe to this objective world-view that some are promoting here. It's just another type of kool-aid.
Never said you did use those gizmos. I'm just unclear what your synopsis of the objective world view is. Could you codify it in a Twitter type response?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy?