Two (perhaps) pertinent comments here: 1) even though I prefer (in general) digital to vinyl, MF and I agreed very closely in our time together (likes and dislikes as well as specific descriptions of what we liked or didn't) in 4 rooms at RAMF 2012 listening to 24/96 rips from his LP's in each room, and 2) even though the Belts propose some really weird tuning tweaks (and I have not specifically heard their systems), I suspect many of us have heard systems with a bunch of weird tuning tweaks which sound really fantastic, although it may have absolutely nothing to do with the weird tweaks themselves (don't try to convince their owners of that, though).
The Fremer lays an ostrich egg thread
- Thread starter DaveyF
- Start date
Two (perhaps) pertinent comments here: 1) even though I prefer (in general) digital to vinyl, MF and I agreed very closely in our time together (likes and dislikes as well as specific descriptions of what we liked or didn't) in 4 rooms at RAMF 2012 listening to 24/96 rips from his LP's in each room, and 2) even though the Belts propose some really weird tuning tweaks (and I have not specifically heard their systems), I suspect many of us have heard systems with a bunch of weird tuning tweaks which sound really fantastic, although it may have absolutely nothing to do with the weird tweaks themselves (don't try to convince their owners of that, though).
Which do you think provides more bang for the ....5 cents, a brick on an amplifier or green felt tip marker ink on a CD? I'll bet you went all the way and bought those rings you put around the outside of them. Man I wish I'd thought of that first.
One thing you should know about magnetic fields gregadd, they are not easily contained and they can travel considerable distance in free air....to partially demagnetize the permanent magnets in a phonograph cartridge. Better be careful where you put that thing if you buy one and plug it in. That will change the sound....of all your records.
Soundminded, have you heard the Shakti stone? Do you think it has any basis for its claim? (to absorb and dissipate EMI and RFI when placed on the top of a power transformer).Which do you think provides more bang for the ....5 cents, a brick on an amplifier or green felt tip marker ink on a CD? I'll bet you went all the way and bought those rings you put around the outside of them. Man I wish I'd thought of that first.
You are confused Greg. I am not a salesman. Nor do I make a dollar from selling that amp. The bulk of our Harman business is in custom electronics and pro products. We probably sell 100+ Crown amps for one Mark Levinson. We have the 53s on display since we are the only dealer in the area and they asked us to show their full range. We didn't put it there with expectations of making money from it. And personally, I am fortunate enough to have made a living good enough prior to creating Madrona as to not be in need of income from it.
As I noted earlier, when we do sell high-end gear, it is to folks who have never heard of these forums, nor would set foot in them.
But maybe you all raise your hand if you were in the market for the 53 before the review but are not now. Anyone?
He has informed opinion about audio. Indeed I usually read his intro where he talks about the gear he is about to review. He however does not have informed opinion about what sounds better using the methodology he uses. Or if he does, he can't prove it. I know you believe him without such. And I am OK with that. Just don't tell me I should take his testing seriously. I routinely test gear like he does and routinely catch myself making mistakes. Subjective evaluations like this are extremely faulty. They just are.
No my response is not stereotypical. My response is always the same to subjective reviews: they are hugely subject to placebo. As with Mike, you keep asking me to live with your rules and accept that MF has actually evaluated the sound of this device. He has not. He listened to it and wrote a bunch of stuff he calls entertainment. And that is what it is. You keep wanting to read it as gospel. Which again, you can. Just don't tell me that it is.
So was that review an informed opinion or not?
No but I have heard of Shiitaki mushrooms. I know some mushrooms can play strange tricks with your mind but I never thought that was one of them.
Funny how everyone has some weird explanation for some arcane problem someone else invented and solved. Now an then I come across some peculiar and usually difficult problems with stray electrical fields including RF fields and stray magnetic fields. (The two have different solutions.) When I do, they are generally not easy to fix. Somehow a magic stone never entered the picture. Faraday cages, mu metal but not magic stones. Nope, not in my experience. But if you're on to something I'm sure physicists would be happy to learn of some new and easy fix. Usually we have to go to extreme lengths to get anywhere.
http://amuneal.com/magnetic-shielding
Shielding Sun workstations from 20 milligauss at 60 hz from overhead power lines cost $1000 a pop for custom fabricated enclosures 20 years ago. Building shielded rooms to test RF emissions of electronic equipment for FCC compliance cost far more. If only I'd known about those stones think of all the money I could have saved my employer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_shielding
I've seen some naive attempts to create "barriers." Applied incorrectly even with the right materials the fields pass through or around them like they didn't exist at all. No effect whatsoever.Back to the drawing board Davey.
You are confused Greg. I am not a salesman. Nor do I make a dollar from selling that amp. The bulk of our Harman business is in custom electronics and pro products. We probably sell 100+ Crown amps for one Mark Levinson. We have the 53s on display since we are the only dealer in the area and they asked us to show their full range. We didn't put it there with expectations of making money from it. And personally, I am fortunate enough to have made a living good enough prior to creating Madrona as to not be in need of income from it.
As I noted earlier, when we do sell high-end gear, it is to folks who have never heard of these forums, nor would set foot in them.
But maybe you all raise your hand if you were in the market for the 53 before the review but are not now. Anyone?
He has informed opinion about audio. Indeed I usually read his intro where he talks about the gear he is about to review. He however does not have informed opinion about what sounds better using the methodology he uses. Or if he does, he can't prove it. I know you believe him without such. And I am OK with that. Just don't tell me I should take his testing seriously. I routinely test gear like he does and routinely catch myself making mistakes. Subjective evaluations like this are extremely faulty. They just are.
No my response is not stereotypical. My response is always the same to subjective reviews: they are hugely subject to placebo. As with Mike, you keep asking me to live with your rules and accept that MF has actually evaluated the sound of this device. He has not. He listened to it and wrote a bunch of stuff he calls entertainment. And that is what it is. You keep wanting to read it as gospel. Which again, you can. Just don't tell me that it is.
So was that review an informed opinion or not?
What do you expect? We're talking about the blind leading the blind. It's too bad these people can't take a hard look at measurements and come up with improved methods where there's some correlation between what they measure and what they say they hear. Now that would be an advance. Amp A sounds better than amp B to reviewer 1 connected to speaker X. But I have speaker Y and I think amp B sounds better to me. What do all these magazine reviews add up to? Kindling for a fireplace if you don't mind being poisoned by the burning ink. Otherwise it's just more bulk to put out by the curb on recycling day.
You mean Sean's graph? If so, it is a bit technical. Here is Sean's explanation from this AES paper where this was published:
"However, it the main focus of interest is the effect of the loudspeaker on preference ratings, Bech argues that the individual loudspeaker F statistic FL is a better choice [1]. FL is the ratio of the loudspeaker effect (mean sum of squares for loudspeaker ratings) divided by the error variance (mean sum of squares of the residual). This metric accounts for the listeners’ ability to discriminate between loudspeakers as well as their ability to repeat their ratings, expressed in the denominator.""
The denominator is the killer here. A perfect score is zero meaning the listener always assigned the same score to the device under test. Bad is when the person hears different things every time and that number goes up.
The graphs posted where the FL mean for the participants in their respective groups. It says that Expert listeners are able to vote well above random level to differences between loudspeakers than other groups.
If folks are having a hard time evaluating speakers with differing sounds, then there is less hope for when differences are smaller.
Harman's testing represents the situation where there are large differences between devices (i.e. speakers). My own experience represents when differences are small, non-linear and data dependent (i.e. compression artifacts). It was remarkable to test many audiophiles and have them not be much better as a group than average public in hearing artifacts in compressed files. As I noted earlier, I was the same way prior to training.
So this business comes down to whether we really, really know what to listen for. And to do that, we need a way to verify our results. One way to do that is to get compared to people better than us. And see how they vote similarly and differently than us.
"One way to do that is to get compared to people better than us. And see how they vote similarly and differently than us."
Another is to become very familiar with the sound of actual (live) music. If you can't tell the difference then the recordings and equipment are good enough for you. If you can, you may never be satisfied...unless you go out to build your own and keep at it until you are.
It's been 5 1/2 years since I went to the Vacuum Tube Valley Audio Show in Piscataway NJ. Much to my astonishment, I was able to pick out by sound alone the only solid state amplifier at the show. The exhibitor, North Creek Audio confirmed that I was listening to a solid state amplifier at that moment. It reminded me why I abandoned vacuum tube equipment 44 years ago and never looked back. Every time I hear one I can identify their peculiar tonal coloration they seem to impart to everything played through them where solid state amplifiers don't.
Amir: Thanks for responding. I was worried that my question got lost in the number of posts here. So, the 'difference' in the 'Sean' test was different loudspeakers?
And when you said that untrained listeners in your own testing had difficulty discerning artifacts in compressed audio, was the comparison compressed vs uncompressed or 'see if you can find the artifact' within recordings subject to the same level of compression?
TIA.
The bell rings for another round of this never ending bout ]
Then whhy can't we end this?
The last part of the jury instructions on opinion evidence in my jurisdiction reads as follows. Give the opinion what weight you deem it deserves. That's what Fremer says. That's what I am saying. The fact that he uses a different methodology than you is obvious. That subject has and will be the subject of endless debate. He has been to Harman and subjected himself to their procedures. That is what makes his opinion informed. The difference is being informed means just that. You don't have to adopt the procedure in order to be informd of it.
No I don't want you to accept it as gospel. Give it what weight you deem it deserves.
Unfortunately iyour response is stereotypical.
Yuure biased.
You're a hack..
You used the wrong equipment, setup or room.
Your test procedire is flawed.
A quick review of the Manufacture comment section of review magazine will prove my assertion. This is true even uf the opinion was favorable but not as enthusiastic as they think was warranted.
you have the last word.
Unless you are donating it to charity, not taking a a tax deduction, not paying your salesman a salary or commission, you have a financial interest. It is a conflict of interest. Even politicians understand that..
That's a shame. Informed consent is a good thing. My doctor assigned me two books to read before he would prescribe a controversial medication. i opted out
But maybe you all raise your hand if you were in the market for the 53 before the review but are not now. Anyone?
Then whhy can't we end this?
The last part of the jury instructions on opinion evidence in my jurisdiction reads as follows. Give the opinion what weight you deem it deserves. That's what Fremer says. That's what I am saying. The fact that he uses a different methodology than you is obvious. That subject has and will be the subject of endless debate. He has been to Harman and subjected himself to their procedures. That is what makes his opinion informed. The difference is being informed means just that. You don't have to adopt the procedure in order to be informd of it.
No my response is not stereotypical. My response is always the same to subjective reviews: they are hugely subject to placebo. As with Mike, you keep asking me to live with your rules and accept that MF has actually evaluated the sound of this device. He has not. He listened to it and wrote a bunch of stuff he calls entertainment. And that is what it is. You keep wanting to read it as gospel. Which again, you can. Just don't tell me that it is.
No I don't want you to accept it as gospel. Give it what weight you deem it deserves.
Unfortunately iyour response is stereotypical.
Yuure biased.
You're a hack..
You used the wrong equipment, setup or room.
Your test procedire is flawed.
A quick review of the Manufacture comment section of review magazine will prove my assertion. This is true even uf the opinion was favorable but not as enthusiastic as they think was warranted.
Yes it was informed opinion. What would be your opinion of him if he said he liked the amp? Even a bised hack using the wrong tools get's it right once and a while? His testing methods and opinions have been pretty consistent over decades. "You pays your money and takes your chamces."
you have the last word.
Soundminded, sometimes what's on the outside can fool you...
The Shakti has a very strong basis in science.. http://www.shakti-innovations.com/shaktiwhitepaper.htmSince you never heard it, and since it certainly looks 'bogus', you jumped to a conclusion..
NOT, IMHO a good thing to do in our hobby...better to let our ears decide. Again, IMHO. Back to the drawing board??
Soundminded: There are actually a good number of reality-based audiophiles here and only a very few that openly embrace magic rocks and the demangetization of plastics. While I appreciate both your point of view and your subtle, dry humor, a few of your responses would indicate that you haven't yet figured out who is who. My advice, and it's worth every dime you'll pay for it, is you might want to lay back a bit and get to know the characters better before you reach for that big brush. And I say that as respectfully as possible. Good to have you here.
Tim
Tim
Sorry for the late reply on the last one. I was away from the forum trying to meet some deadline on a project
.We did a range of tests. And yes, they were usually against uncompressed references. There were other tests though for example, trying to see if anyone could detect insertion of a watermark.
Into tweaks ???
You might want to check out machina dynamica, always fun , the tweak master
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina17.htm
You might want to check out machina dynamica, always fun , the tweak master
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina17.htm
Soundminded, sometimes what's on the outside can fool you...
I'm not an EE and I don't play one on TV, so the link'd claims mean very little to me, except for one:
"In April 2000 testing began to look at SHAKTI devices effects on automotive Engine Control Units (ECUs). Mike Morgan Motorsports in North Hollywood, California performed the evaluations on their installed dynometer from Dyno Jet Corporation. This unit is capable of plus or minus 1 horsepower readings on its inertia type of chassis dyno. Four tests were run with modification that were all preceded and followed by bone stock runs to certify effects. The first two tests used the SHAKTI Electromagnetic Stabilizer placed directly on the outside housing of a 2000 Pontiac Trans Am flash card ECU. In both instances the dyno registered between two and three horsepower gains at the rear wheels with the SHAKTI unit in place and measured returns to stock readings following there removal. The next two tests utilized first four and then two SHAKTI On-Lines in place on the ECU. In both cases results mirrored the two to three hp gains measured with the Stabilizer in place."
Has anyone here been near a dyno, chassis or engine? Ever dyno'd a car and/or a motor? Ever seen how three or four or five consecutive dyno runs materialize in their numerical scope? It is impossible - impossible - to run a car or a motor and come up with exactly the same numbers. Too many variables, not the least of which is heat. Hell, even a minute change in airflow will influence the number. The supposition quoted above is nothing less than absurd.
On an audiophile note, I used to sell Shakti when I worked in High-End. I also have the misfortune of living near a number of radio/TV transmission towers; RFI, or more accurately, its rejection is always at the top of my list. I think that one can easily imagine how this sort of thing impacts a LOMC and its associated gain. To make an overly long story short, I experimented with a number of Shakti products on my phono setup. No real change. Nothing significant. YMMV