Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (
More info?)
On 15 Feb 2005 03:50:17 GMT, "Michael McKelvy" <deskst49@peoplepc.com>
wrote:
>True, because accusations of who skipped out on what debate had been going
>for too long IMO, I wanted it closed.
Good idea.
>Hopefully, some people will get an earful of what's wrong with the way audio
>equipment is reviewed and what can help in the process.
I quit reading audio equipment reviews, AND (classical) music reviews,
a long time ago. There are so many aspects involved in audio
equipment, and so many details make a difference, that it is virtually
impossible to do a serieus review of some component.
The same holds true for music reviews.
I have read many articles claiming that this or that cd is suberb,
suberb interpretation, suberb recording, etc. And when I order the cd,
it turns out to be a huge disappointment, because the recording is not
good at all and the interpretation is bizarre.
So you have to do the listening yourself.
>It would be wonderful if more people were exposed to a DBT for example or if
Given the fact that nobody who is involved with dbt's will ever
explains what he means by "hearing", the dbt's as they are executed
are no more than hobby work, nice try.
For a scientist, a physicist, words like "work" and "energy" mean
something completely different than for the lay man. So the SCIENTIFIC
meaning of certain words is many times very different from the NAIVE
meaning.
But when it comes to hearing, it seems that nobody is this newsgroup
is interested in the SCIENTIFIC meaning of the word "hearing", in
contrast to the NAIVE meaning. People always talk about "you can hear
this" or "you cannot hear this", but how hearing goes, is never
explained.
So we get lay man's discussions about "hearing" in contrast to
"thinking what you hear", because the lay man doesn't grasp the fact
that ALL hearing is "thinking what you hear". There is no difference.
On the technical side people tend to forget that all equipment parts
work together, because they form one circuit. So it is possible that
one piece works beautifully in this context, but not in that.
The extremely naive view is that if you follow "good standards" every
piece of "good" equipment may be connected to every other piece of
"good" equipment.
But that is not true. We all know that EVERY piece of equipment is a
compromise. And sometimes the compromise works well, at others it
doesn't.
Some people like horn speakers for their clarity in the mid range.
Others hate them for their colourations, their narrow field, their
awful bass, etc.
Some people like electrostats, others hate their unrealistic windy
performance.
If you work with a better OTL amplifier, as I do, you get a sound that
resembles the sound of a transistor amp to a great extend. Only you
get this incredible speed, this sense of immediacy and naturalness
that is unsurpassed. I have heard, and have had at home, many
transistor amps. The better ones all start out with a huge sense of
clarity, but after some time, a few days, a few weeks, you start to
realize that you are listening through a tunnel.
You may get used to that and make yourself BELIEVE that this sound is
natural, or good, or perfect, but it isn't. One visit to the concert
hall and all your dreams are shattered.
You may read stories about "tight bass" and the like, but one visit to
the concert hall will tell you that the REAL bass, the contrabass in
the orchestra, is not so "tight" at all. So the "tight bass" is a
fake.
The "huge soundstage" that some speakers produce is also a fake. The
"pinpointing of every instrument" (the darling pet of every reviewer)
is also a fake. Even the best seats in the centre of the Concertgebouw
in Amsterdam, one of the truly great concert halls, will tell you that
in reality you cannot "pinpoint" all the instruments.
You may SEE a clarinet in the middle of the orchestra, but the SOUND
may come from the right, through early reflections, Haas-effect and
what not. It depends on the note the musician is playing, the
positioning of the instrument (where is the bell pointed), etc.
Going for the better OTL gives you a realism that is very hard to
achieve with a transistor amp. Perhaps a mosfet amp comes in the
direction, but they have their problems.
The OTL also has its problems. You get noise. Sometimes you have to
change tubes (once every 5 years). Sometimes you have to correct this
or that. The OTL may be extremely sensitive to dirty mains.
Some people say: "all good amps sound the same".
That is a ridiculous statement.
When my amp was modified, I asked for a variable negative feedback.
Optimal neg feedback depends not only on the amp itself, but also on
the amp + speaker combination. This means that a fixed amount of
overall neg feedback is always a compromise. Therefore I wanted it to
be variable.
Can you hear the difference between slightly more and slightly less
feedback (talking about 0.5 dB to 1 dB difference)? Yes, of course.
Less feedback means two things: louder sound and different sound.
What position is "the best"?
Depends on measurements and taste. The modern western ear likes a bit
of harmonic distortion. When we listen to well-tempered instruments,
like the piano and the guitar, we always listen to beats & wow and
harmonic thirds that are not really thirds etc.
Furthermore the ear itself distorts. So a bit of distortion makes the
sound "interesting".
Personally, however, I hate the sound of a piano. I hate it that the
strings are always tuned a bit off, that the things is ALWAYS out of
tune, by physical necessity.
>more people were educated on what is the best way to spend one's money when
>deciding on upgrades, something they don't seem to get from SP and other
>similar magazines.
I am doing at the moment some interesting tests with new interlinks
between cd player and pre amp. It turns out that there are REALLY huge
differences between this cable and that, irrespective from price.
It also turns out to be an empirical, observed FACT, that some
interlinks work better in my system than others. That is: huge
difference in detail, huge difference in realism, huge difference in
performance.
ALL these differences are related to electrical properties of the
cable, properties that depend on the copper or silver, the coating,
the dielectricum, the topology of the cable. All these aspects of a
cable have electrical effects, all these aspects make a difference.
There is NO magic involved. I do not believe in magic.
It is amazing how many of those differences you can hear, if your
audio equipment is sensitive enough, and how HUGE those differences
are. Coating, dielectricum and topology REALLY make an audible
difference.
It is also amazing how difficult it is to MEASURE those differences.
How difficult it is to measure what goes on during a transient.
Measuring the behaviour during a steady 998 Hz sinus is NOT so
difficult. But what goes on during a multi-tone impulse-like sound, is
not easy at all.
I always listen to acoustic music, that is music without stage
amplification. If you listen to pop music that is constructed in the
studio, there is no reference possible to how it "should" sound in
reality, because there is no reality outside the studio.
------------
If you have difficulty to BELIEVE what I am telling you here, you are
herewith invited to my home to listen for yourself. You may bring with
you all the cds you like, preferably with acoustical music, for the
said reasons.
If you like, we will bring in a third and fourth person and do some
blind or double blind tests. You may bring Randi with you if you like,
or Santa Claus. I don't mind.
You may also bring with you an ABX box of some kind and we could try
to do some tests with it.
BUT as in a simple cable topology etc is already of huge importance,
and as such an ABX box introduces an extra circuit with extra cabling
and the like, it is quite possible that the ABX box influences the
electrical behaviour of the cables so much that it cannot function
anymore as a neutral measuring device.
You should ALSO realize that as all parts of the audio system form ONE
CIRCUIT, a certain cable HERE may, and will, influence the sound of
another cable THERE.
I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that not only ***I*** will
hear differences between this interlink and that, but that ***you***
will hear those differences too. And that ***you*** as well as ***I***
will be able to say: "this cable is better than that", at least in
this system of mine.
So herewith you are invited to Amsterdam to do some listening for
yourself. I cannot pay all your traveling costs, but some 100 Euro or
200 I am prepared pay, if you are sorely in need of money.
-------------------
If however you do NOT want to accept this my offer, then it is clear
that you do NOT want to put yourself to the test.
If THAT is the case, then I suppose it would be better that you
refrain from the kind of statements that you make all the time in this
newsgroup, about what is and is not relevant to audio equipment, and
about the supposedly inaudibility of cable differences and the like.
If you would not want to listen at all, then you should not pass
judgements on what is audible and what not.
Ernst Raedecker
Anjeliersstraat 109 B
1015 NE Amsterdam
Holland
ernstr@xs4all.nl
"You don't have to learn science if you don't feel
like it. So you can forget the whole business if
it is too much mental strain, which it usually is."
Richard Feynman