paul packer wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:23:22 GMT, wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:10:46 GMT, wrote:

I don't care what the truth is, I just like
knowing it. Why delude myself into thinking I buy equipment that can't
deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or something
different
than what's on the recording?

This one got spellchecked.

Yes, but have you got a comprehension checker? I'm afraid I'm stumped.


I once saw a letter written by a brothel madam in Cairo in 1847. It
ended with the puzzling question: "Where are the feathersees sent?"
Your post brought it back to mind. :-)

Let me try and rephrase.

The truth about audio electronics is that except for speakers, it is a
simple matter to obtain equipment that reproduces exactly the source
material. This assumes CD playback and SS equipment.

That this is true, is verified by reams of reliable research.

I don't know why this fact confounds some people.
I don't understand why knowing the facts and repeating them should bother
people.
Something is either true or not.

Things are not as "true" as you imagine. Everything cannot be reduced
to measurement. The brain is not well understood and auditory science
is by no means complete. People tend to believe what they actually
hear rather than what a machine tells them they should be hearing
according to "logic".

I have no interest in buying equipment that does anything other than
reproduce what is on the source media, without any audible change.

Yep, same here.

Unfortunately, loudspeakers are the weakest link in the audio chain. They
can't work properly if not set up correctly. There's no known way to
completely eliminate distortion from loudspeakers, that I know of. There
are some that come pretty close but they usually need to be very large and
very expensive, or played at levels below live performance levels, unless
you're sitting very close.

Speakers probably are the weakest link in the sense of most obviously
variable. There was a time back in the 70s when the "garbage in,
garbage out" doctrine ruled and people swore that a Linn turntable
could make even crap speakers sound sweet. That was rubbish as was
eventually recognised. Nevertheless a good source is vital, and I can
never agree that all CD players and well-measuring amps sound the same
because my ears tell me otherwise. Therefore I have to go on
listening.

I have no interest in doing comparisons of audio equipment that don't
control for bias, and that doesn't include level matching, because I want
what I'm hearing to be as fair a comparison as is possible. Having sold
audio equipment, I know what sort of things salespeople can do to influence
a purchase.

"Fair" to what? We're talking listening for pleasure in the home here.
Therefore what sounds best to the purchaser in his listening
environment is the only "fair" that matters. As for salespeople, no
doubt they do play with purchaser's heads, and that's why it's
necessary to be as well-armed as possible when one goes into the shop.
This is were hi-fi mags came in, or used to before they went over to
HT. Only an idiot believed every word, but they were great for
compiling short lists. Beyond that it's a case of listening carefully
and ignoring most of the salesman's waffle. Live concerts are useful
too, to get the sound of live instruments. That after all is your
touchstone.

I'm lucky enough that I don't have to worry about it, partly because I have
the benefit of knowing how reliably accurate most gear is, and because I can
get reliable data on he build quality of anything I might be considering.

Hmmm...

I'm also lucky enough to know that there is a lot of pro audio equipment
that meets and/or exceeds the quality of so-called high end equipment that
costs much less than the high end stuff.

Hmmm...

I don't see that any of these views should be considered controversial, let
alone met with the kind of vitriol that they seem to engender here.

There's never any need for vitriol. The emotion is engendered by the
concept that audio as a hobby and a passion can be reduced to
measurerment. Our ears tell us it can't, sighted listening and
controlled SPLs notwithstanding.

I don't
understand replacing fact with emotion. I save my emotions for listening to
music that I know is as close as I can get to what was put down on the
master.

I understand there are people who choose to go with what sounds good to them
and that's all well and good, so long as they don't make claims about
performance that are at odds with reality.

Yes, but what is reality? What you've measured, or what you actually
hear? You talk about the bias of sighted listening, but measurement
can itself create bias. If you see that an amp has vanishingly low
distortion, and believe that such distortion cannot be audible, likely
you'll hear that amp as "perfect"--that's real bias.

Clear enough?

Yes, very clear. Putting aside content, I have to admit that your post
is a model of literate clarity. Therefore I can't help wondering why
all your posts aren't like this, why you insist on giving Robert and
George so much ammunition for their "Special Person" campaign. Did all
your report cards at school say, "Could do better," "Doesn't apply
himself" etc?
In any case if you can do it once you can do it always, and I expect
to see a similar standard in all future posts. Here's one star * to
start you off. You can wear it on your forehead. :-)
__________________________________________________ _
Nyob concedes that loudspeakers sound different.
Unfortunately, loudspeakers are the weakest link in the audio chain. They
can't work properly if not set up correctly. There's no known way to
completely eliminate distortion from loudspeakers, that I know of. There
are some that come pretty close but they usually need to be very large and
very expensive, or played at levels below live performance levels, unless
you're sitting very close.

And he repeats the catechism:
I have no interest in doing comparisons of audio equipment that don't

control for bias, and that doesn't include level matching, because I want
what I'm hearing to be as fair a comparison as is possible. Having sold
audio equipment, I know what sort of things salespeople can do to influence
a purchase

What he should have said was that loudspeakers sound different *even to
me*
Bercause nothing else does. According to him manufacture of audio
reached such perfection that no matter what you put together it will
sound the same.
Again what he should have said was: "TO ME"
He knows he is right because indeed under "bias- controlled
conditions" (read: ABX) everything does sound the same..To him that
is.
But the loudspeakers should not, right? Even to him they sound
different.
Except... In Sean Olive's double-blind, "bias controlled" study most
panelists failed to distinguish four very different loudspeakers from
each other when comparing "different or not". And that was just
DBT- imagine what would happen if they were ABXed (which Sean Olive
rejected as "unsuitable" for his test..)
(JAES, vol.51.#9, p.806-825)
But the same panelists when asked a straightforward question: "Which
one do you like better?" plumped for the ones with the smoothest
frequency response.
I pointed this out to our local "scientists" ten times if I pointed
it once. The replies ranged from silence to inarticulate, gutter
profanity.
I doubt if our one and only NYOB will do any better.
So much for "bias- controlled" "tests" of human likes and
dislikes.
Next: bias-controlled DBT/ABX test of a Stradivarius against a
Guarnieri,
Ludovic Mirabel