Open Call to Mtry, Skeptic, Naysayers, and ABXers

[E-Stat]

I think we should limit ourselves to the active electronic devices and the loudspeakers/rooms in this discussion.

Isn't a CD player an active device? I find their static measurements next to useless with providing useful information as to how they sound. Although the audible performance has changed significantly since their introduction, the basic specs are essentially the same.

But in essence your philosophy dictates that any player, regardless of price or performance, could be a high-end player using a suitable "compensating" (or "EQ") surrounding equipment?!

No, you missed my point. Going back to my original issue, "high performance" to me is what returns the highest musical fidelity - as determined by resolution, soundstaging, timbral reproduction, etc. After two decades, the engineers FINALLY figured out how to fix jitter problems and other symptoms of digitalis. It may well be that the differences that remain are simply due to the analog stage performance and vibration control. Skeptic talks about high volume 10 cent opamps. I've yet to hear a good ten cent preamp. Yes, the recordings aren't absolute. Yes, various components can and do affect the end product frequency response. Fine. The system reference is for others to gauge the environment in which it is used. The kinds of qualitative aspects I hear differently from unit to unit do not have to do with frequency response. You have pointed out that my GamuT is down 1 db at 20khz. Given the lack of last octave content in most music, I would suspect that makes little difference to me. Perhaps someone who REALLY likes to listen to a lot of cymbal crashes on exceptional recordings might hear a difference. What I AM saying is that I will forgive such a subtle roll off in order to achieve improved response elsewhere.

rw

[okiemax]

"...the official lexicographer for the AR Forums..."

Like the judge says "...ignorance of the law is no excuse..."

Your unfamiliarity with the connotation of the phrase used is your problem, no one elses...your feeble attempt at sarcasm is just that...

"...telling people what they can and can't hear..."

I said this? When was that? I always tell folks to listen for themselves...but, to be aware of the potential biases involved. Also, I try to familiarize them with the laws of diminishing returns and the perils of deception from without...I make no claims since I cannot replicate all the variables involved in each unique situation...

"...unique interpretations of word meanings..."

Whose?

"...what motivates your attacks on their anecdotal postings?..."

Your choice of the word "attacks" speaks volumes...Reread the paragraph beginning with "I said this?"

jimHJJ(...pay particular attention to the "I make no claims" part...)

Did I mistake you for a naysayer?

[Thomas_A]

Isn't a CD player an active device? I find their static measurements next to useless with providing useful information as to how they sound. Although the audible performance has changed significantly since their introduction, the basic specs are essentially the same.

Yes, you mentioned cables in the system matching. Since cables are discussed in another forum, I would prefer to keep them aside. Static measurements do give a hint of the sound. Less treble can be heard if its enough down.

Additional dynamic measurements can be made too, and I would like to ask you what kind of measurements you would like to see that would reflect their sound? Again, there is no magic involved here, only electrical signals. Looking back at the converter spec of CD1, it's the Crystal 4390 from 1998 or so, same as used in e.g. the original Audio Analogue Paganini player. Regarding one-bit players, they also do have problems with reproducing perfect sin2 pulses, something that multibit players do better. Now mulibit players have quite some more cost due to expensive DAs, so they are seldom seen in CD players these days.

No, you missed my point. Going back to my original issue, "high performance" to me is what returns the highest musical fidelity - as determined by resolution, soundstaging, timbral reproduction, etc. After two decades, the engineers FINALLY figured out how to fix jitter problems and other symptoms of digitalis. It may well be that the differences that remain are simply due to the analog stage performance and vibration control. Skeptic talks about high volume 10 cent opamps. I've yet to hear a good ten cent preamp. Yes, the recordings aren't absolute. Yes, various components can and do affect the end product frequency response. Fine. The system reference is for others to gauge the environment in which it is used. The kinds of qualitative aspects I hear differently from unit to unit do not have to do with frequency response. You have pointed out that my GamuT is down 1 db at 20khz. Given the lack of last octave content in most music, I would suspect that makes little difference to me. Perhaps someone who REALLY likes to listen to a lot of cymbal crashes on exceptional recordings might hear a difference. What I AM saying is that I will forgive such a subtle roll off in order to achieve improved response elsewhere.

rw

Everything that comes out as an electrical signal can be measured and can be translated into resolution and soundstage. For example jitter problems, have you heard them and to what extent do you know they are jitter and not something else? The analog stage of the CD1 use OPA2134, a nowadays a quite widely used op-amp. Good spec, yes,and I use them too.

The 1 dB down at 20 kHz for sure has no implication since the audibility of 20 kHz pure tones are low to none. However, 0.3 dB at 10 kHz and 0.1 dB at 5 kHz are more of an issue, especially if these figures are combined with amps with similar drops. A system can then in total perhaps reach -3 dB at 20 kHz if one also add poor cable with 0.2-0.5 dB drop at 20 kHz. So surely, one can find and compose a system where the electrical response is down -3 dB at 20 kHz, -1 dB at 10 kHz and -0.3 dB at 5 kHz.

Also an overly bright system may "blind" your ears and cause a loss of focus of the musical content. If the treble is reduced then the focus on the music comes back. I've done the experiment lots of times by altering the treble response in the loudspeaker filter. There will be a change in the presentation of the details when using higher treble. It might sound detailed in the beginning but the mids will suffer.

So all I am saying, is that details and how the music is "presented" might very well be explained in the final frequency response domain, as well as the dispersion characteristics.

[E-Stat]

Yes, you mentioned cables in the system matching.

Not exactly. What I said was many reviewers vary ALL the related components other than the DUT to minimize any one factor from significantly affecting the outcome.

Static measurements do give a hint of the sound. Less treble can be heard if its enough down.

Agreed. I don't characterize 1 db down at 20 khz as significant.

I would like to ask you what kind of measurements you would like to see that would reflect their sound?

Ones that actually work.

Everything that comes out as an electrical signal can be measured and can be translated into resolution and soundstage.

Great. Which one(s) would they be? They certainly weren't known in the 70s when a host of truly dreadful solid state components came out. The Crown IC-150 preamp distortion spec was "essentially unmeasurable; IM less than 0.01%at rated output with IHF measurement (typically under 0.002%). Why did that preamp sound like fingernails on chaulkboard and my Audio Research SP-9 MKIII not? It's distortion spec is quite similar: "less than .01% at 2V RMS output. (Typically less than .005% in midband). Tell me why the ARC is vastly superior to the Crown. Even skeptic acknowledges that CDPs today as a whole sound much better than when they were introduced. Which specifications did the original engineeers miss? How do you know that they haven't missed any today?

So all I am saying, is that details and how the music is "presented" might very well be explained in the final frequency response domain, as well as the dispersion characteristics.

I suspect there is far more to the puzzle.

rw

[Thomas_A]

Not exactly. What I said was many reviewers vary ALL the related components other than the DUT to minimize any one factor from significantly affecting the outcome.


Agreed. I don't characterize 1 db down at 20 khz as significant.


Ones that actually work.


Great. Which one(s) would they be? They certainly weren't known in the 70s when a host of truly dreadful solid state components came out. The Crown IC-150 preamp distortion spec was "essentially unmeasurable; IM less than 0.01%at rated output with IHF measurement (typically under 0.002%). Why did that preamp sound like fingernails on chaulkboard and my Audio Research SP-9 MKIII not? It's distortion spec is quite similar: "less than .01% at 2V RMS output. (Typically less than .005% in midband). Tell me why the ARC is vastly superior to the Crown. Even skeptic acknowledges that CDPs today as a whole sound much better than when they were introduced. Which specifications did the original engineeers miss? How do you know that they haven't missed any today?



I suspect there is far more to the puzzle.

rw

First there has to be an established audible difference. IF one reach to this point, the explanation is in the measurements. If one does not find the difference, measure again. There are e.g. examples of low distorsion using the 1 kHz THD + noise test, but then the realisation that distorsion in the bass range was very high (which was missed in the standard test). See e.g.

http://www.pi.infn.it/%7Efederico/Immagini/Doner1.jpg

Once there is a high distorsion established the nature of the overtones (even or odd-ordered) will give quite different character to the sound. This is easily demonstrated. Se e.g.

http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/t...ound/index.htm

Another test is to test the frequency response and balance of the specific pot at different settings. See e.g.

http://www.pi.infn.it/%7Efederico/Immagini/trkpot.jpg

These are a few examples that are missing in many standard tests.

There is no "magic", the data is there in the signal.

T

[E-Stat]

Once there is a high distorsion established the nature of the overtones (even or odd-ordered) will give quite different character to the sound. This is easily demonstrated.

Fine. Now tell me exactly the audible result in terms of musical phenomena such as soundstaging and timbre these well known spectral distortion components create.

There is no "magic", the data is there in the signal.

What remains absent is the direct relevance to those differences. Do these distortion plots based upon steady state tones adequately mimic the highly dynamic and overtone rich nature of music? When did engineers finally figure out what you suggest is "easily demonstrated"? I'll ask again. What makes you think that we have all the answers today since history is littered with abject ignorance?

rw

[Thomas_A]

Fine. Now tell me exactly the audible result in terms of musical phenomena such as soundstaging and timbre these well known spectral distortion components create.


What remains absent is the direct relevance to those differences. Do these distortion plots based upon steady state tones adequately mimic the highly dynamic and overtone rich nature of music? When did engineers finally figure out what you suggest is "easily demonstrated"? I'll ask again. What makes you think that we have all the answers today since history is littered with abject ignorance?

rw

First you need to prove that there is a true audible difference from start. Then it is relevant to discuss these phenomena.

T

[E-Stat]

First you need to prove that there is a true audible difference from start. Then it is relevant to discuss these phenomena.

Evidently, you haven't had the distinct displeasure of hearing an IC-150.

rw

[Resident Loser]

...on one's definition of the term...which, as presented here by some, is usually incorrect or at very least oversimplified to allow things to get conveniently pigeon-holed...

It seems to be fair to say, middle ground is "listen and decide for yourself"...I share in that notion...I have always said tinkering is really the basis for this hobby. With the "sophistication"(and I use that word with some reservation) and complexity of today's circuitry, for the most part, gone are they days of swapping tubes, or tonearms, or cartridges etc. What used to be commonplace is now relegated to high-end tweakdom...shrouded in mystery, hoodoo and myth.

But I digress. One side relies on subjectivity and the other objectivity...I tend toward the latter. I do not dismiss things out-of-hand, I rely on experience coupled with limited knowledge of simple mechanics or physics or whatever...a great many things I read here and there, make absolutely no sense to me or are simply filled with hype, psuedo-science and wishful thinking. It's painfully obvious to a nimrod like myself and it simply amazes me how many are oblivious to such goings on.

jimHJJ(...but then again, that's just me...)