Schiit, interesting name...more interesting products!

[Joe Whip]

If only. I have known several reviewers for prominent magazines, who could not be bothered. I say this having been in their homes listening to A vs. B with them. And, I have an extensive network of audiophile friends and acquaintances in my area. Regrettably, very, very few seem to care or think it matters. Measurements, even simple level matches on a RatShack meter? Are you nuts? Hey, trust your ears above all else. Does it sound about the same level with this same recording?

And, it is thus that many sonic nirvanas are attained and shouted to the world.

No doubt about it.

 

[microstrip]

If only. I have known several reviewers for prominent magazines, who could not be bothered. I say this having been in their homes listening to A vs. B with them. And, I have an extensive network of audiophile friends and acquaintances in my area. Regrettably, very, very few seem to care or think it matters. Measurements, even simple level matches on a RatShack meter? Are you nuts? Hey, trust your ears above all else. Does it sound about the same level with this same recording?

And, it is thus that many sonic nirvanas are attained and shouted to the world.

The real question is that as you say, it is exactly in that way that many sonic nirvanas are attained - we read about them in WBF threads about great systems. And I have yet to see or learn about the great achievements of those who spend their time doing blind tests with accurately controlled levels.

An experienced listener will pick the volume remote and will play with it a few minutes to evaluate the performance of the system at several levels using his reference recordings, that he knows pretty well. Then he will do the same thing with another piece of equipment. At less it is what I see others doing and I do in my system. YMMV, as always.

Please note I comment on what I experience myself and read in WBF - I care very little about reviewers who shout their messages or single afternoon collective shootouts.

 

[amirm]

Have you ever been hypnotised?

No, but I was abducted by aliens once. They let me go after they realized I can do more damage to audiophiles here than up there.

What was your incident like?

 

[amirm]

The real question is that as you say, it is exactly in that way that many sonic nirvanas are attained - we read about them in WBF threads about great systems. And I have yet to see or learn about the great achievements of those who spend their time doing blind tests with accurately controlled levels.

Imagine going to college for four years and giving yourself tests, answers and grades instead of the professors. You would certainly buy yourself more happiness during that time than someone who let his professors do that. As I have said before, subjectivists will be a lot less happy if they embraced audio science.

Question is, do you really want to finish college while self-scoring yourself? How much studying would you do and what would you have learned if you had done that?

One problem that is faced by audiophiles you speak of is that their joy is fleeting. They have a lot of nirvanas because they keep switching and changing gear. What if that gear has made no sonic difference and its the false audio conclusion that is fading away?

Really, it doesn't take long to do both. Do your sighted evaluation but just a few times cover the identity of what is being played. You don't even have to tell any of us. Just do it and see how often it agrees with your sighted evaluation.

 

[Joe Whip]

No, but I was abducted by aliens once. They let me go after they realized I can do more damage to audiophiles here than up there.

What was your incident like?

I hope you were able to add some of that alien tech to your stereo. I hear it is killer!

 

[jkeny]

No, but I was abducted by aliens once. They let me go after they realized I can do more damage to audiophiles here than up there.

What was your incident like?

Aha, then you were hypnotised - interesting

 

[opus112]

As I have said before, subjectivists will be a lot less happy if they embraced audio science.

By which I infer that you exclude ASA from your definition of 'audio science'.

 

[jkeny]

So, Amir, what about your lack of level matching in your listening tests - care to come clean on this?

 

[microstrip]

Imagine going to college for four years and giving yourself tests, answers and grades instead of the professors. You would certainly buy yourself more happiness during that time than someone who let his professors do that. As I have said before, subjectivists will be a lot less happy if they embraced audio science.

Question is, do you really want to finish college while self-scoring yourself? How much studying would you do and what would you have learned if you had done that?

One problem that is faced by audiophiles you speak of is that their joy is fleeting. They have a lot of nirvanas because they keep switching and changing gear. What if that gear has made no sonic difference and its the false audio conclusion that is fading away?

Really, it doesn't take long to do both. Do your sighted evaluation but just a few times cover the identity of what is being played. You don't even have to tell any of us. Just do it and see how often it agrees with your sighted evaluation.

Why should I do it? Your suggested methodology only produces nice stories and funny but misleading analogies, while others sighted listening (and mine BTW) produces excellent results that many people can confirm.

Why don' t you suggest people to try listening to JBL speakers using biased capacitors in the crossovers with and without batteries in blind conditions?

BTW1, if I needed advice on HT multichannel and video I would happily ask you and consider your opinions. Why following your suggestions concerning a subject (stereo high-end) you systematically show a deep disbelief?

BTW2, nothing you posted changed or challenged the facts I posted.

The real question is that as you say, it is exactly in that way that many sonic nirvanas are attained - we read about them in WBF threads about great systems. And I have yet to see or learn about the great achievements of those who spend their time doing blind tests with accurately controlled levels. (...)

 

[microstrip]

(...) As I have said before, subjectivists will be a lot less happy if they embraced audio science.(...)

This interesting line deserves a comment. Subjectivists knowing about what audio science and audio experts think about stereo should be very happy. The real reason behind high-end and "subjectivism" are the technical limitations of the stereo system. A challenged system where the listener must contribute so much to the illusion defies the straight application of just current audio science. Stereo is intrinsically a jungle - and as efforts to create rigid rules to create recordings failed, audio science abandoned it sometime ago, considering almost nothing else could be done. Brave knowledgeable people however try to push stereo to the limits.

Surely IMHO, YMMV.

 

[amirm]

This interesting line deserves a comment. Subjectivists knowing about what audio science and audio experts think about stereo should be very happy.

I think that would make them pretty unhappy actually.

Take that imaging in the center. It is created by two speakers. Due to interference created by the two sound sources, its has severely deficient frequency response. Here are the differencein in-room measurements of a center speaker being replaced by a stereo pair:

As you see the frequency response of such a phantom center has very distorted response with a dip in 1 to 3 Khz. What do we usually put in the center? The vocals. And what is dominant frequency response of such vocals? Yup, you guessed it.

Note that the above is in a reflective room. If you cover all the walls there will be less reflections to fill the dips in comb filtering and the problem will be even more severe.

The real reason behind high-end and "subjectivism" are the technical limitations of the stereo system. A challenged system where the listener must contribute so much to the illusion defies the straight application of just current audio science. Stereo is intrinsically a jungle - and as efforts to create rigid rules to create recordings failed, audio science abandoned it sometime ago, considering almost nothing else could be done. Brave knowledgeable people however try to push stereo to the limits.

Surely IMHO, YMMV.

Nah. Stereo has been around for decades. As have humans. It has been analyzed to extreme.

But that is not what we are dealing with. What we are dealing with is substituting vivid imagination for what enters our ears. No argument is ever going to justify that for the truth in audio. Audio science has learned how to deal with it. Most subjectivists have not.

 

[jkeny]

So let's hear about your lack of level matching in your listening tests, Amir

 

[microstrip]

I think that would make them pretty unhappy actually.

Take that imaging in the center. It is created by two speakers. Due to interference created by the two sound sources, its has severely deficient frequency response. Here are the differencein in-room measurements of a center speaker being replaced by a stereo pair:

As you see the frequency response of such a phantom center has very distorted response with a dip in 1 to 3 Khz. What do we usually put in the center? The vocals. And what is dominant frequency response of such vocals? Yup, you guessed it.

Note that the above is in a reflective room. If you cover all the walls there will be less reflections to fill the dips in comb filtering and the problem will be even more severe.


Nah. Stereo has been around for decades. As have humans. It has been analyzed to extreme.

But that is not what we are dealing with. What we are dealing with is substituting vivid imagination for what enters our imagination. No argument is ever going to justify that for the truth in audio.

Your answer ignores my main questions and answers and tries to divagate sideways. Nothing to add. Please go on challenging people and covering walls.

And yes, subjectivists would be very happy. They would also learn about positive tests and that almost all the famous internet blind challenges that fuel audio forums failed to carry them ...

 

[amirm]

Aha, then you were hypnotised - interesting

 

[jkeny]

No interest in answering this? "let's hear about your lack of level matching in your listening tests, Amir"

 

[Don Hills]

No interest in answering this? "let's hear about your lack of level matching in your listening tests, Amir"

Quotes, or it didn't happen.

 

[jkeny]

Why not let Amir answer?

Or am I sensing that you don't defend or approve of this?

Come on Don, take a position before Amir answers or are you waiting for your guru's deflections?

 

[amirm]

Quotes, or it didn't happen.

It is the case of missing #2:

 

[jkeny]

And there it is as predicted - the usual deflection- the usual m.o.
Amir you have become so predictable, it's not even interesting anymore.
Afraid to answer the question, Amir - this is becoming a very habitual occurrence
I'll let you have some time to work out how best to massage this lack of level matching into a believable story for the readers (& for your disciple, Don)

 

[jkeny]

So, let's see what the reader base thinks of your lack of level matching?
Is it a grave sin in the world of audiophiles?
Is it excusable & how?
Vote now when the buzzer sounds