IMHO these real experiences also show we must have a large statistic taken over a long time and be very careful when wanting to analyze audiophile typical behavior and beliefs. Once someone reports a bizarre or unusual story, every one is tempted to report a similar one, and this can create an effect of Bermuda's triangle.
Audiophiles Who Don't Trust Their Ears...
- Thread starter Andre Marc
- Start date
IMHO these real experiences also show we must have a large statistic taken over a long time and be very careful when wanting to analyze audiophile typical behavior and beliefs. Once someone reports a bizarre or unusual story, every one is tempted to report a similar one, and this can create an effect of Bermuda's triangle.
Yes, the omni-present SS Beryllium dome is one, Von Schweikert had the ones on their new VR-55 coated and imo it's the best conventional tweeter I've ever heard. Just enough damping to make them not sound metallic while still letting their strengths show.
But to Purite's point, a lot of issues with "paint-shredding" are due to room acoustics. I recently heard Focal Grande Utopias in Boulder Amplifier's extremely well-damped room and they were fantastic and not bright at all. These speakers are often shown in less than ideal conditions at audio shows. In a room tailored to them they are fantastic, in a live room they are a bit much.
Thanks, but just wanted to be clear my example was that you in order played that song three times, like in a row. That is not long term listening in my book, you could also play a portion of the song over three times rapidly as well, either way the more you hear it the more you hear. Just don't want you to think my view on long vs short term listening has changed...I have strict, rigid, unflinching, unrealistic standards to uphold ya know
Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself
Wikepedia
The first thing I learned in law school is "don't fight the hypothetical.' If you do you might wind up with the right answer to the wrong question
If you concede their is a benefit to repeated auditions, how man is appropriate? 3,4,---100,---1000,....infinite. Certainly one could listen until he gets it right. Are you saying after three trials there is no benefit? Furthermore is the result repeatable with other songs? Is it repeatable when matched with other equipment? Do other people hear the same thing? Were you having a good day ,a bad day, or just indifferent? Whew! That is exhausting and very time consuming
Once you concede the benefits of repetition you kind of open the door.
Neither. The audio equipment is the delivery device. The hypothetical does not reveal how the rock is "applied" to the dog.
Edit ; The rock is the music.
Last edited:
Perhaps this aspect is much more important than speaker measurements, manufacturers should supply specifications of the ideal room for their speakers ...
A few manufacturers give some specific orientations in their manuals, but is is a double edge sword - people could start wrongly avoiding some speakers just because they think it is not suitable for their rooms. It is where a knowledgeable dealer or an experienced installer can be very helpful.
Perhaps this aspect is much more important than speaker measurements, manufacturers should supply specifications of the ideal room for their speakers ...
A few manufacturers give some specific orientations in their manuals, but is is a double edge sword - people could start wrongly avoiding some speakers just because they think it is not suitable for their rooms. It is where a knowledgeable dealer or an experienced installer can be very helpful.
Simplest way adjust system to room is panoramic spectral analysis.
You said if I push a rock, it moves forward. If I feed a signal into an amplifier, it likewise reacts on its output. No input, no output. No pushing of the rock. No movement.
So the movement of a rock described by mathematical formulas as you mentioned, is a hypothetical? If it is not proven, why did you mention it as a fact Greg?
How so?
I am not sure what this has to with anything. It does seem interesting however ,so I'll play
I can appreciate your thinking I signed on to it. But it is a quote and not my original thought. When I say, if a give you this medicine your disease will be cured, that is a hypothetical. If I say gave you this medicine that is a fact. So the article said "if" I push a rock. Certainly rocks have been pushed and measured.
I
What caused the rock to move the force? The force applied to it Therefore the force is the stimulus and and the movement of the rock is the response. By analogy music is the stimulus and our reaction to the music is the response. It appears then our ear/ brain interface is the rock and our reaction to the music is the response. The music is analogous to the force moving the rock.
P.S.AMIRM U went back to the post and I do not see where I represented anything as a hypothetical. It was fun discussing it anyway.
Last edited:
If so, then that interface can be represented in mathematical terms as in your original quote for the rock?
I was hoping to drag this for a few posts before admitting that I was having fun with you.
If so, then that interface can be represented in mathematical terms as in your original quote for the rock?
I was hoping to drag this for a few posts before admitting that I was having fun with you.
Okay, you made me say it . My original statement equating the rock was incorrect.
I
Perhaps this aspect is much more important than speaker measurements, manufacturers should supply specifications of the ideal room for their speakers ...
A few manufacturers give some specific orientations in their manuals, but is is a double edge sword - people could start wrongly avoiding some speakers just because they think it is not suitable for their rooms. It is where a knowledgeable dealer or an experienced installer can be very helpful.
In this world where people believe that the cables, the outlets, the amplifiers, the synergy of the major and even the most minor parts of a system have strong impact on system performance, and that the consumer must achieve the balance, perhaps manufacturers should just publish lists of all of the parts that do or do not work with whatever it is that they're selling. Or maybe just a simple warning label - "Caution: This product does not play well with others." But no one does this, do they? No amp manufacturer publishes a short list of the preamps that work well with their product; no speaker manufacturer warns you that their product will sound bad if not mated to the following list of amplifiers?
Do you suppose they're just dishonest? Or could it be that audiophiles make far too much of synergy?
Tim
Let's ask the same of all manufactures
Caution: This mustard does not go well with ice cream.....
Caution: This suit does not go well with crocs, flip flops or your baggy tube socks
Do you suppose they're just dishonest? Or could it be people make too much of synergy?
In my experience, amp + speakers + room = a "system within a system", and one should simultaneously take as much into account about all three as possible.
Let me give an example. Suppose someone has a large open-floorplan room and, for whatever reason, really likes tube amps. It's hard to get good bass in large open-floorplan rooms that cannot readily be pressurized, but a high-output-impedance tube amp may well interact with a speaker's impedance curve in a way that gives us a bit more bass energy. And maybe we can find fairly directional speakers whose midrange is relatively unaffected by placement close to the walls, so we can better take advantage of boundary reinforcement in the bass region without there being much downside.
This is by no means the only way to end up with good sound in a large open-floorplan room, but there is a certain elegance to choosing components whose synergy with the room and with one another serves the end one has in mind.
But, the question is how does sound figure into the model, a clumsy one in my opinion? It has gotten lost somewhere. Sound is merely the conduit of the music, and the art of music transcends sound quality.
Excellent point. As a listener there is very little I can do about the original performance.The die is cast. There are many qualities of a live performance that we take for granted, Assuming they are captured in the recording this hobby is dedicated to reproducing them. .
The real question is not "Do you trust your ears?" ...It's more to do with: Are you aware of your emotional changes from one minute to the next?
Listen to the same tune twice in a row...and try to capture your overall emotional level each time you listen to that tune. ...And how @ the end it influences your hearing impact.
I listened to Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon, today with a completely different state than say 40 years ago. ...Even yesterday it was slightly different...with Dad on my mind.
RIP John.
Listen to the same tune twice in a row...and try to capture your overall emotional level each time you listen to that tune. ...And how @ the end it influences your hearing impact.
I listened to Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon, today with a completely different state than say 40 years ago. ...Even yesterday it was slightly different...with Dad on my mind.
RIP John.
Very nice sentence, but without sound you will not have access to the music, unless you want to read the music sheet. And this becomes more complex when you debate the sound of the tree falling in the forest.
Yes Greg, but the main problem is that people do not know exactly how far these qualities are captured in the stereo recording. Usually real playback improvements show us more of the recording and we think we are now getting the maximum, until next improvement shows more.
Similar threads
- Sticky