Does Everything Make a Difference?

What you seem to ignore is the relatively large community that is now using tubes, and particularly SETs, despite their objectively much worse measurements and horns, which would horrify the Harman researchers. Why if the science suggests soemthing very different according to you? Clearly people, and I might add it is usually the most experienced people, are migrating this direction because they have tried the path you advocate and found it lacking in what they get from live music. You can call that anecdotal and it often doesn't compute for short term studies but when you see a large migration it is not due to imagination.

Shocking, simply shocking. Wink.

I think the response will be that there is no accounting for taste, which is preference. Can't argue over it.
 
I was not proposing using MRIs for audio correlation...you misread what I wrote. I was using that as an analog because they use them to look at brain activity in some psychology studies and try to correlate that with different mental states and diseases.
Ok

With the Harman studies they overlooked a lot of what makes people gravitate to a speaker design....a wide even dispersion is not the only or perhaps even the main criteria for preference.
The studies were limited and had their short comings. But the specific correlation between preference and speaker distortions, specifically speaker resonances looked pretty solid

What you seem to ignore is the relatively large community that is now using tubes, and particularly SETs,
Things are not how they seem. I am a big fan of tube distortion. I advocate for euphonic colorations.

despite their objectively much worse measurements
“Worse” is subjective. Tubes are less accurate. Preferences are inarguable. A preference for tube distortion is legit. Inarguable. And a preference I personally share.

and horns, which would horrify the Harman researchers.
The research at Harmon was aimed at developing speakers that will excel in the widest variety of domestic and studio settings. They did not have a commercial interest in speakers that are more room dependent. This left a lot of otherwise very legitimate speaker design philosophies off of their table.

Why if the science suggests soemthing very different according to you? Clearly people, and I might add it is usually the most experienced people, are migrating this direction because they have tried the path you advocate and found it lacking in what they get from live music. You can call that anecdotal and it often doesn't compute for short term studies but when you see a large migration it is not due to imagination.
As an atheist I have a very different opinion on large migrations due to imagination.
 
The studies were limited and had their short comings. But the specific correlation between preference and speaker distortions, specifically speaker resonances looked pretty solid



The research at Harmon was aimed at developing speakers that will excel in the widest variety of domestic and studio settings. They did not have a commercial interest in speakers that are more room dependent. This left a lot of otherwise very legitimate speaker design philosophies off of their table.

Solid conclusions except for the fact that they left a lot of otherwise very legitimate speaker design philosophies off of their table.

As an atheist I have a very different opinion on large migrations due to imagination.

Do you believe personal preferences that result in one's changing direction are due to imagination?
 
Ok


The studies were limited and had their short comings. But the specific correlation between preference and speaker distortions, specifically speaker resonances looked pretty solid


Things are not how they seem. I am a big fan of tube distortion. I advocate for euphonic colorations.


“Worse” is subjective. Tubes are less accurate. Preferences are inarguable. A preference for tube distortion is legit. Inarguable. And a preference I personally share.


The research at Harmon was aimed at developing speakers that will excel in the widest variety of domestic and studio settings. They did not have a commercial interest in speakers that are more room dependent. This left a lot of otherwise very legitimate speaker design philosophies off of their table.


As an atheist I have a very different opinion on large migrations due to imagination.
I don't say they didn't find anything useful. But as you pointed out, commercial considerations were probably a large driving factor for their "scientific" conclusions, which uncritical thinkers tend to take as the loudspeaker design gospel because it was done under "careful controlled conditions".

Actually tubes and transistors are both pretty inaccurate as amplification devices. Triode Tubes exhibit a 3/2 order transfer function, Mosfets roughly a quadratic relationship and bipolar transistors are some other higher exponential function. So, as a purely amplification device, triodes are in fact the most linear amplification device ever invented. That is just a scientific fact. How they are used is a different discussion. Using a bipolar transistor like a SET, for example probably won't end up working or sounding very good. FETs do better but then their transfer function is closer to a triodes than a bipolar transistor. As tube amps and transistor amps are designed though, typically a transistor amp has lower objective distortion, although the transistor amps that don't use feedback start having distortion levels approaching non-feedback tube amps. The question then becomes what sounds better to a human listener? Objectively the lower THD and IMD amp should be it and then done. In reality, it is the distortion pattern and level with SPL that matters much more. Geddes demonstrated that THD and IMD are non-predictive of sound quality and some of the lowest levels had the most objectionable sound to the review panel.

You can call it euphonic if you want, and in extreme cases it is clear coloration, but I would say it is not euphony but the absence of AUDIBLE distortion. Distortion of the right character and level is not euphonic it is invisible. The design itself has consequences on the pattern produced and thus it's audibility.
 
False .
Herd mentality of human beings is a well known / documented phenomena.
Human beings believe in all kinds of things they cannot see / have proof of , but only imagine .
What herd mentality? THere is no pressure on people to conform...it is happening organically...

The herd mentality was to follow the measurements to "perfect" hifi. That was in effect with the advent of the transistor until maybe 20 years ago.
 
A claim that I think is often way over stated. And rarely tested. Look no further than the AR speakers demo back in the 60s where listeners failed to identify the difference between their speakers and a live string quartet.

This claim that we be can always discern live instruments is a cheat. Almost all the time when we are evaluating stereo playback we know that it is playback. Knowing is hearing. You can’t fool someone into thinking something sounds real when they know for a fact it is not. On the other side all accounts of correctly identifying live instruments from down the hall, or across the street and around the corner are anecdotal. And often cherry picked.

Put live musicians in the room, something small in scale like a string quartet, play back a recording of them made in an anechoic chamber, level match and compare them in a large reverberant space while they mime playing when switching to playback from live sound and guess what happens? We don’t have to guess. We can thank AR for that demo.

Of course what AR did was as much parlor trick as meaningful demo. But so is recognizing a live piano from down the hall and around the corner. Neither really proved the points for very specific reasons.
record them in an anechoic chamber? Ok now we have gone totally off the deep end.
Let me test drive my ferrari on an ice rink vs a sand pit...ummm WTF
Let us stay in the world of reality and the world where we listen and enjoy music.
Harry Pearson was my mentor and friend. I find it offensive for people to talk about what they don't know and judge from afar. Most of these people have no clue what he did and how much he affected the Industry and moved foward the high end. Every single member of the high end Industry chased him and wanted to be part of what he did. Those who say they didnt were liars and were among those rejected or tried to buy their way in. Harry was far from perfect but they all wanted a piece of him. How do I know this? I was there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hes not here to defend himself so I will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Another Johnson
Between the speakers, outside the speakers, to my extremes left and right and even behind the listening position using state of the art in ear microphones. The results were 100% spatial accuracy and near perfect reproduction. Human voice.
Trough your hearing aid ? :oops:
 
No, reality is distinquishable from reproduction.
agreed. What I meant to say is that during the recording in a studio, there is the interaction of the instruments with the recording space. The engineer makes adjustments to mics, etc. to get the "right" sound, meaning what sounds right to him/her, that captures the "event" not just the sound as heard in the recording room (at least this is the method I've read about in two autobiographies of well-known recording engineers). Those adjustments are made within the context of the studio playback system as telling those listening to the playback whether the recording was successful.

So, even if your system were hypothetically perfect (transparent with no distortion - i.e., impossible) and matched to the one in the studio, you aren't hearing what the live event sounded like, you are hearing the one that was "produced." And, of course, mastering adds another layer. [is it good when your setup informs you the various songs on the album were mastered at different studios or is that annoying?]

Just trying to make the point that when we talk about trying to approximate the live event recorded in a studio (as many are), we are layers away from what actually happened. Only the musicians in the room heard the "original."
 
Unless they record separately or are wearing IEMs (in which case they are hearing a mix).
yes. so what is the live sound and who heard it? The recording process, of course, can be part of the art of producing an album and one can do it at a home studio too.

When I read about jazz musicians from the golden age, it is interesting how few were interested in the recording. They were in the studio to fulfill contractual obligations. Live performances were where they perfected their craft and interacted with their audience. Back then, few of the influential (in the development of their art) live performances were recorded.
 
record them in an anechoic chamber? Ok now we have gone totally off the deep end.
Let me test drive my ferrari on an ice rink vs a sand pit...ummm WTF
Let us stay in the world of reality and the world where we listen and enjoy music.
That’s what AR actually did. So it doesn’t get more real than reality.

Harry Pearson was my mentor and friend. I find it offensive for people to talk about what they don't know and judge from afar. Most of these people have no clue what he did and how much he affected the Industry and moved foward the high end.
Sorry if you are offended. It’s no secret what he did. It couldn’t be more public. I know very well what he did. He promoted misinformed beliefs about audio. And I do know how much he affected the industry. It’s an industry driven mostly by true believers in BS or scammers taking advantage of true believers. He definitely was one of the leading instigators of all of that. He may have been your friend and I am sorry if this offends you but he was also the editor and chief of one of the most misinformed and irresponsible publications in the history of audio. And as such HP is a fair topic of discussion.

Every single member of the high end Industry chased him and wanted to be part of what he did. Those who say they didnt were liars and were among those rejected or tried to buy their way in. Harry was far from perfect but they all wanted a piece of him. How do I know this? I was there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hes not here to defend himself so I will.
Of course every small scale manufacturer wanted to get reviewed in either TAS or Stereophile. And when they did they held their breath and hoped they got a good review. That’s businesses. Doesn’t change anything about his or the magazine’s promotion of ignorance and mythology.

I guess it’s time to quote JGH again. The guy HP credits as being his mentor.

“ Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel. For the record: I never, ever claimed that measurements don't matter. What I said (and very often, at that) was, they don't always tell the whole story. Not quite the same thing.”

He was literally embarrassed by what it had all become. HP was his #1 disciple.
 
Last edited:
A confirmation that someone said something is not anecdotal evidence.
Sure it is.Testimonial that someone else’s testimonial happened is anecdotal evidence of anecdotal evidence. Again it’s nothing personal. But it absolutely is anecdotal.
 
Last edited:
agreed. What I meant to say is that during the recording in a studio, there is the interaction of the instruments with the recording space. The engineer makes adjustments to mics, etc. to get the "right" sound, meaning what sounds right to him/her, that captures the "event" not just the sound as heard in the recording room (at least this is the method I've read about in two autobiographies of well-known recording engineers). Those adjustments are made within the context of the studio playback system as telling those listening to the playback whether the recording was successful.

So, even if your system were hypothetically perfect (transparent with no distortion - i.e., impossible) and matched to the one in the studio, you aren't hearing what the live event sounded like, you are hearing the one that was "produced." And, of course, mastering adds another layer. [is it good when your setup informs you the various songs on the album were mastered at different studios or is that annoying?]

Just trying to make the point that when we talk about trying to approximate the live event recorded in a studio (as many are), we are layers away from what actually happened. Only the musicians in the room heard the "original."
Yes. When tape became the medium studio recording became an art form as much as a means of documentation. The idea of “the original live sound” is dubious at best when applied to studio recording
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu