Well after talking to many Recording engineers in their 70's(wealth of knowledge and experience) the largest difference is the refinement of everything used in this hobby. The basics haven't changed that much. Except for digital...this hobby will always be of incremental advances. Which depends on the amount of audio signal that the system can convey accurately to the human ear.
You can't measure or explain everything,but there are well established norms that go back to the days of Bell Labs. Many pathways to Nirvana.
What do you think every piece of your high end equipment is? They're the best examples of subjective scientific work, what high end is all about starting with Bell Labs and the origins of high end sound recording and reproduction!
Well, you are just bringing the usual semantic problems to the subject. We are free to build any new definition of subjective scientific work for WBF, but in general high-end achievements are not subjective science at all. High-end does not not fulfill the conditions for be a science contrary to most of the work carried in Bell Labs - for example it is neither testable of predictable.
Well, you are just bringing the usual semantic problems to the subject. We are free to build any new definition of subjective scientific work for WBF, but in general high-end achievements are not subjective science at all. High-end does not not fulfill the conditions for be a science contrary to most of the work carried in Bell Labs - for example it is neither testable of predictable.
I'll use Vladimir Lamm whom I know well as an example. His design parameters come from a mathematical model of "Ear" that he came up with after years of scientific research. You can read his online interviews, before he starts a design he has a clear idea of the type of subjective sound that he wants. Then he starts design using that "Mathematical Ear" to achieve that subjective goal. Then there's the scientific process of design and measurements and when it's all done comes the final subjective tests. I've been privy to the process and I know everything even the design and manufacturing process for the transformers and final outcome was always predictable and testable throughout the process, with measurements and objective listening. Personally I don't know any good designer that will say nothings predictable and they have no way of testing or knowing what they'll end up with. Of course something unexpected can come up in design or production but that doesn't mean that results are all random. It was the same when I worked on the AS2000, I knew where I wanted to make improvements and I knew the steps I had to take to achieve my targets and predictably I got the results that I wanted. All of the modifications are also measurable, both in measurements and objective sonics. Why do you believe that it's all random, specially given the calibre of your equipment.
I know a few very good designers back in the early 1990's that used computer modeling. The circuits where very good and other less understood aspects effected the design, but overall their amplifiers and preamps were excellent.
I'm sorry, but i find this a bit amusing Tim. What is a nano-composite "skin" and how does "fast coupling" produce audibly better results? I can understand nano coatings on drivers, but amp stands is a stretch.
This just seems like a bunch of buzz words to get audiophiles excited.
I get why you'd be sceptical. Marketing words can put a cloud over reality to make it seem like something its not, but in this case that's not so: the words are not meant to be buzzy but expository.
Here 'skin' means the coating used over the V-Class component's outer surface. Contrary to adyc would tell you, it is not lacquer paint. I'm not a materials scientist, and the material is proprietary anyway, so the composition of the nano-composite is unknown. It may be patented (SRA holds over 40 patents) but I have not done a search. It is built to look glossy - in person the skin looks like the finish on a fine piano.
A coupling is an interface between two objects. Vibrations (energies) move at different speeds and in different directions based on what material they travel through. The purpose of the outer skin, at least as I understand it, is to offer a more efficient path for vibration dissapation while sinking energy into the V-Class interior. I think of this in terms of reaction time - fast coupling - how quickly component vibration can move into (drain from) the platform, where it can be addressed further. (Not dissimilar to asking what is the reaction time of an active platform.) The nano-composite skin is just one of several 'systems' that make up an SRA platform. Apparently the composition of the platform's skin can be customized for the material type of the component's footer.
I'll use Vladimir Lamm whom I know well as an example. His design parameters come from a mathematical model of "Ear" that he came up with after years of scientific research. You can read his online interviews, before he starts a design he has a clear idea of the type of subjective sound that he wants. Then he starts design using that "Mathematical Ear" to achieve that subjective goal. Then there's the scientific process of design and measurements and when it's all done comes the final subjective tests. I've been privy to the process and I know everything even the design and manufacturing process for the transformers and final outcome was always predictable and testable throughout the process, with measurements and objective listening.
I respect Vladimir Lamm work and products, but as long as his models are secret and kept under lock they are not science. When you say "privy" you are just saying it all.
His interviews are not science , they are simply communication. I read them all and there is nothing I can consider science in them.
Compare for example with the work that IanG refers of Peter Walker - he published his mathematical models , schematics and building techniques. There were a lot of debates (at that time letters in magazines) that lasted for years. He really contributed to audio science, his findings and designs are still influencing new products in audio.
Personally I don't know any good designer that will say nothings predictable and they have no way of testing or knowing what they'll end up with. Of course something unexpected can come up in design or production but that doesn't mean that results are all random. It was the same when I worked on the AS2000, I knew where I wanted to make improvements and I knew the steps I had to take to achieve my targets and predictably I got the results that I wanted. All of the modifications are also measurable, both in measurements and objective sonics. Why do you believe that it's all random, specially given the calibre of your equipment.
No one said that "nothing is predictable" in the sense you are describing, we are not debating horoscopy. Never said all is random, please do not try to distort my words.
Again I was addressing the classical definition of science, not technology or empirical knowledge. Just because we incorporate science in parts of audio products they do not become "science" per inherence.
I respect Vladimir Lamm work and products, but as long as his models are secret and kept under lock they are not science. When you say "privy" you are just saying it all.
His interviews are not science , they are simply communication. I read them all and there is nothing I can consider science in them.
Compare for example with the work that IanG refers of Peter Walker - he published his mathematical models , schematics and building techniques. There were a lot of debates (at that time letters in magazines) that lasted for years. He really contributed to audio science, his findings and designs are still influencing new products in audio.
No one said that "nothing is predictable" in the sense you are describing, we are not debating horoscopy. Never said all is random, please do not try to distort my words.
Again I was addressing the classical definition of science, not technology or empirical knowledge. Just because we incorporate science in parts of audio products they do not become "science" per inherence.
In this case maybe you should define “science” according to Francisco. By classical science do you mean that of Ibn Sina or Josef Mengele or both?
Is your argument here that Quad products are science based because Walker divulged all and Vladimir’s aren’t because he prefers to keep his research and findings private so in this case it’s only using science? Is there no art in science or science in art? I’m not taking the piss just trying to understand your definition of science here? Which side does Dr. Toole fall in based on your definition of science?
david
In this case maybe you should define “science” according to Francisco. By classical science do you mean that of Ibn Sina or Josef Mengele or both?
Is your argument here that Quad products are science based because Walker divulged all and Vladimir’s aren’t because he prefers to keep his research and findings private so in this case it’s only using science? Is there no art in science or science in art? I’m not taking the piss just trying to understand your definition of science here? Which side does Dr. Toole fall in based on your definition of science?
david
Please use wikipedia if you need a general definition of "science". As soon as you read it will understand why science can't be a secret. It is a pity that you need to bring horrors to audio debates, I expected better. I see we have little to debate on this subject, sorry, I will not enter your sematic games. A product is not "science", I never said so, please do not try re-write what I said.
Dr. Toole is a true audio scientist - his research on sound reproduction is a landmark . However most of his findings do not apply to the high-end stereo sound reproduction - he is not interested in our peculiar preferences.
Please use wikipedia if you need a general definition of "science". As soon as you read it will understand why science can't be a secret. It is a pity that you need to bring horrors to audio debates, I expected better. I see we have little to debate on this subject, sorry, I will not enter your sematic games. A product is not "science", I never said so, please do not try re-write what I said.
Dr. Toole is a true audio scientist - his research on sound reproduction is a landmark . However most of his findings do not apply to the high-end stereo sound reproduction - he is not interested in our peculiar preferences.
It wasn’t my intention to introduce horrors just used those examples because both were physicians and scientists but one worked in secrecy. Just pointing out that as disgusting and horrible Mengele’s work was it’s still science even if all in secret.
Engineering is still science. Maybe engineering is not natural science. As far as I know, engineering is still based on Newton mechanics and Maxwell's Equations.
... it's really not. Science is really only the objective and impartial study of the unknown. That doesn't fit into building something with known information.
... it's really not. Science is really only the objective and impartial study of the unknown. That doesn't fit into building something with known information.
Science is about establishing a framework to explain as much as possible. Eventually enough phenomena accumulate that the framework itself must change. In effect the unknown is no longer objectively available because what counts as objectivity has changed.
One can take this even further and say that interpretation of measurements are purely subjective in this context, specially as they've been presented in this thread.
Your brain, ears and eyes are the most complex instruments available and when calibrated by knowledge, experience and common sense is the most objective tool available. When one doesn't know what one is doing or what to do next depending on measurement are in some ways even worse than depending on one's hearing. IME.
That’s very cool, celebrating our capacity as experienced listeners to actually ultimately be very fine instruments.
It is fascinating all the complex layers of analysis and high order thinking required in going through a significant system change. To be able to come through it and then be able to evaluate the complete range of sometimes very fine and complex sonic impacts. Then review how that then translates to how we specifically experience the sound in whole as well as part and then further how we ultimately experience music.
This is not a good sport for blunt instruments. It takes a lot of time to appreciate all of that.
Ching Cheng. Are the power cables used with tube or SS. Are the amps high power or low power. Are the cables plugged into a wall or conditioner. Are dedicates circuits at the rack or general power. I think all this will impact ones perception of a power cable.
How many people have used a CC for some amount of time, then gravitated away after 6 months to a year.
Racks.
I don't call a rack a tweak. Its more a system component. We all know they affect sound. But racking selection is such an expansive black hole. I don't see a one size fits all. Tima makes SRA sound great, but do they really look at every brand and every model and design the optimum shelf for each. It seems to me racking (and footers) has a lot of trial and error. You hope your dealer has access to many brands and has sat all components they carry on all types and determined what works best for each piece.
I can see how math calculations taking into account say transformer vibrations at this frequency or a chip at another, so a particular type of material or layering of material will shunt the vibration. But wait, did the owner use stock feet or stillpoints. What foot did the manufacturer use, rubber, sorbothane, silicone. And what real impact to the sonics is perceived by the ear when science says this will get rid of that vibration. Do we like it. And that sucking of a certain frequency, how does it affect all other frequency. Do we perceive that too.
I don't like the high power SS and Wilson/Magico sound. My friends don't like my SET horn sound. So what does your dealer like as he tunes to a sound. Because really, isn't that what were doing. Tuning to a sound we like
I would assume with enough time and money, one could "tweak" there way into the perfect blend of stuff to support their foundation pieces of equipment. I'm pretty happy myself. Could it be better, absolutely. There is no doubt I have not found optimum. Nor would I have a way of knowing I'm there. Because every time I change something the sound changes. And it could be better, or worse, or lateral.
Ching Cheng. Are the power cables used with tube or SS. Are the amps high power or low power. Are the cables plugged into a wall or conditioner. Are dedicates circuits at the rack or general power. I think all this will impact ones perception of a power cable.
How many people have used a CC for some amount of time, then gravitated away after 6 months to a year.
I've had five NOS Ching Cheng power cords in my system for over a year. Both with high power SS and now with low power SET amps. They remain and I have no desire to test alternatives. I have done comparisons with friends in their systems with everything from stock cords, to NOS CC, to fancy expensive, highly regarded after market audiophile power cords. Although the comparisons have been limited in scope, I have preferred the NOS CC each time, regardless of component, amp power, amp typology, or dedicated circuits.
I have read this claim before that people tire of Ching Cheng after six months, but it is always hearsay, never from the source. Perhaps they miss enhancement of the sound and go back to something more exciting. Cheap and non fancy has little appeal in audiophile circles it seems.
Racks.
I don't call a rack a tweak. Its more a system component. We all know they affect sound. But racking selection is such an expansive black hole. I don't see a one size fits all. Tima makes SRA sound great, but do they really look at every brand and every model and design the optimum shelf for each. It seems to me racking (and footers) has a lot of trial and error. You hope your dealer has access to many brands and has sat all components they carry on all types and determined what works best for each piece.
I can see how math calculations taking into account say transformer vibrations at this frequency or a chip at another, so a particular type of material or layering of material will shunt the vibration. But wait, did the owner use stock feet or stillpoints. What foot did the manufacturer use, rubber, sorbothane, silicone. And what real impact to the sonics is perceived by the ear when science says this will get rid of that vibration. Do we like it. And that sucking of a certain frequency, how does it affect all other frequency. Do we perceive that too.
Regarding racks, I have owned a few, including different supports and isolation. It seems to be a very complicated and potentially expensive area. I agree that it should be taken seriously and I would not argue with those who consider the rack system to be a component of the system. Various solutions can certainly affect the sound one hears from his system. Learning by listening during various experiments, I have decided to design my own rack and have someone build it for me.
I've had NOS Ching Cheng in my system for over a year. It remains and I have no desire to test alternatives. I have done comparisons with friends in their systems with anything from stock, to NOS CC, to fancy expensive, highly regarded after market audiophile power cords. Although the comparisons have been limited in scope, I have preferred the NOS CC each time, regardless of component, amp power, amp typology, or dedicated circuits.
I have read this claim before that people tire of Ching Cheng after six months, but it is always hearsay, never from the source. Perhaps they miss enhancement of the sound and go back to something exciting. Cheap and non fancy has little appeal in audiophile circles it seems.
I have about 9 Ching Cheng PC's in my from end components and have for the past 5-6 years and love them . My system is all tubes including my amps. My personal experience was the only down side of these PC's was less than adequate bass response. As a result I do use different PC's for my amps. The only other concern I had using them with my amps was an audible hum which drove me crazy. It improved somewhat with cheater plugs (which I am loathe to use on power amps). The hum disappeared with the new power cords. This was not a ground loop hum but sound from the transformers on my amp power supplies
