Before owning a Krell:-

"I'm an engineer. To be quite honest, my view has been that digital audio
was a solved problem. Any competent designer can build a CD player, with
inexpensive, off-the-shelf parts, and get a result that's close to
perfection. It's not an art, it's not a religion--it's science and
engineering. Some of the high-end CD rigs probably do sound different--but
only because they're playing games with frequency response. Different, not
better. Less accurate, not more accurate.".......

....."That's why I'd been hanging on to my very competently designed, very
well made, and very good sounding Technics player. The guys in the local
audiophile club weren't impressed, but I held my ground. "It's a solved
problem. All competent designs are going to sound the same. You want to
spend ten times the money for an incompetent design that's nothing more than
a tone control, that's your problem. Just don't try to pretend it's more
accurate." ......

And after having Krell:-

....."Now a skeptic would laugh at all of this. Better bass? Excuse me, but
the Krell and the Technics are both ruler flat to 20 Hz or below. You're
hearing a difference? Better dynamics? Yeah, maybe on paper the Krell's D/A
ekes out a few extra dB in signal to noise, but get real."...



...."I don't know. Maybe I'm imagining the differences. Or maybe the
professor's right... maybe things in audio are more complicated than they
seem at first. For example, I think I'm hearing better performance in the
bass, but not necessarily better frequency response. Maybe the improvement
I'm hearing isn't related to frequency response per se, but to better
behavior with musical material, which is very dynamic. Better transient
response, perhaps. Maybe."...

....In a way, I don't care. If it's a delusion, it's a harmless one, and
extremely pleasant. I was feeling pretty jaded about the audio scene.
Suddenly, I'm having a lot of fun with it."



http://www.audiophile.nu/cgi-bin/gen...lighten-up-001

"Chelvam" wrote in message
...
Before owning a Krell:-

"I'm an engineer. To be quite honest, my view has been that digital audio
was a solved problem. Any competent designer can build a CD player, with
inexpensive, off-the-shelf parts, and get a result that's close to
perfection. It's not an art, it's not a religion--it's science and
engineering. Some of the high-end CD rigs probably do sound different--but
only because they're playing games with frequency response. Different, not
better. Less accurate, not more accurate.".......

...."That's why I'd been hanging on to my very competently designed, very
well made, and very good sounding Technics player. The guys in the local
audiophile club weren't impressed, but I held my ground. "It's a solved
problem. All competent designs are going to sound the same. You want to
spend ten times the money for an incompetent design that's nothing more
than
a tone control, that's your problem. Just don't try to pretend it's more
accurate." ......

And after having Krell:-

...."Now a skeptic would laugh at all of this. Better bass? Excuse me, but
the Krell and the Technics are both ruler flat to 20 Hz or below. You're
hearing a difference? Better dynamics? Yeah, maybe on paper the Krell's
D/A
ekes out a few extra dB in signal to noise, but get real."...



..."I don't know. Maybe I'm imagining the differences. Or maybe the
professor's right... maybe things in audio are more complicated than they
seem at first. For example, I think I'm hearing better performance in the
bass, but not necessarily better frequency response. Maybe the improvement
I'm hearing isn't related to frequency response per se, but to better
behavior with musical material, which is very dynamic. Better transient
response, perhaps. Maybe."...

...In a way, I don't care. If it's a delusion, it's a harmless one, and
extremely pleasant. I was feeling pretty jaded about the audio scene.
Suddenly, I'm having a lot of fun with it."


I am happy for you. Just touching, feeling, seeing the Krell is a wonderful
thing. It is a masterpiece, no doubt about it. Pride of ownership surely
counts for something. I _really_wish I could afford one. Till then, the
Technics will have to do, but I still have happy ears, even if the aestetics
are not there! Without a doubt, the Technics is one compentent cd player,
even if it is 14 years old.
Sorta like good vino - it just gets better with time.
Regards,
Tom

In article ,
"Chelvam" wrote:

Before owning a Krell:-

[silly audiophile wish fulfillment fiction snipped]

And after having Krell:-

[more silly fiction snipped]

http://www.audiophile.nu/cgi-bin/gen...lighten-up-001

You are aware this is a work of fiction, right? It says so on that very
page. Up at the top:

"It's an elaborate, highly-embellished, free improvisation
based very loosely on a few kernels of fact..."

I cannot do anything but agree.

--
Tim

"Chelvam" wrote in message
...

...In a way, I don't care. If it's a delusion, it's a harmless one, and
extremely pleasant. I was feeling pretty jaded about the audio scene.
Suddenly, I'm having a lot of fun with it."

Nothin' wrong with that attitude, as long as you're willing to spend money
on something that might be an illusion (NOT a delusion, by the way).
Personally, I'd rather have fun with things I knew weren't illusions. To
each his own.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/g...ave/direct/01/

"Timothy A. Seufert" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Chelvam" wrote:

Before owning a Krell:-

[silly audiophile wish fulfillment fiction snipped]

And after having Krell:-

[more silly fiction snipped]


http://www.audiophile.nu/cgi-bin/gen...lighten-up-001

You are aware this is a work of fiction, right? It says so on that very
page. Up at the top:

"It's an elaborate, highly-embellished, free improvisation
based very loosely on a few kernels of fact..."


You said it all. A fiction based on "a few kernels of fact". Anyway, the
fault was on my part for not making it clear. Just forgot to paste the intro
after the link. But RAHE is slowing down alot and I thought I could just
provide some humour...

Cheers.

"Bob Marcus" wrote Nothin' wrong with that attitude,
as long as you're willing to spend money
on something that might be an illusion (NOT a delusion, by the way).
Personally, I'd rather have fun with things I knew weren't illusions. To
each his own.

I've always thought of home audio as a means of creating an illusion.
However that can be made to happen is good, even if it unfortunately
involves spending money.

Wylie Williams

Um - I'm still holding on to an ancient Revox CD player because I like
the sound of it. My guess is that it's almost totally due to the way the
analog output section is implemented and almost nothing to do with the
digital. Yes, I've tried newer boxes including a DVD player. The bass
from all the others simply wasn't as convincing, and the treble sounded
harsher. That, of course, is my opinion and not demonstrable fact. I'm
basing my opinion on the fact that Revox knows a LOT about analog
outputs and many of the digital guys don't - or don't want to spend the
money. So, whether the article is fact or fiction, I've heard different
sounds in single blind testing.

-- Bob T.

Timothy A. Seufert wrote:

In article ,
"Chelvam" wrote:



Before owning a Krell:-



[silly audiophile wish fulfillment fiction snipped]



And after having Krell:-



[more silly fiction snipped]



http://www.audiophile.nu/cgi-bin/gen...lighten-up-001



You are aware this is a work of fiction, right? It says so on that very
page. Up at the top:

"It's an elaborate, highly-embellished, free improvisation
based very loosely on a few kernels of fact..."

I cannot do anything but agree.

Wylie Williams wrote:

"Bob Marcus" wrote Nothin' wrong with that attitude,
as long as you're willing to spend money

on something that might be an illusion (NOT a delusion, by the way).
Personally, I'd rather have fun with things I knew weren't illusions. To
each his own.


I've always thought of home audio as a means of creating an illusion.
However that can be made to happen is good, even if it unfortunately
involves spending money.

Wylie Williams

I would think that would be much more so in home theater, but purists
tend to stick to stereo for creating a realistic interpretation.

CD

Codifus wrote:

Wylie Williams wrote:

"Bob Marcus" wrote Nothin' wrong with that
attitude,
as long as you're willing to spend money

on something that might be an illusion (NOT a delusion, by the way).
Personally, I'd rather have fun with things I knew weren't illusions. To
each his own.


I've always thought of home audio as a means of creating an illusion.
However that can be made to happen is good, even if it unfortunately
involves spending money.

Actually sound re-production is highly dependent on illusion. There's nothing
at all wrong with that. However, because even 2-channel stereo can provide a
convincing illusion (a phantom center is entirely an illusion.... sound
'coming' from a place where no sound is being generated) many people seem to be
happy expanding acoustical and psycho-aocustical illusion to a 'paranormal'
state where reproduced sound is nearly completely a function of imagination and
often cost.


Wylie Williams

I would think that would be much more so in home theater, but purists
tend to stick to stereo for creating a realistic interpretation.

CD

I'd have to beg your pardon here. I'm a realism "purist." The more "real" it
perceptually sounds than the better it is. 2-channel stereo is a distant cousin
to any of the better multichannel alternatives to emulating a live acoustical
perception and I don't necessarily mean with multichannel source material (more
than 1 or 2 channels.)

I read a "survey" a few years ago covering "Multichannel" amplifiers. Examining
the list I found amplifiers of 3,4,5,6,7 and even a single (1) channel (to
cover the case where a passive subwoofer or individual center channel might be
needed.)

But looking at the product listings I came to the humorous conclusion that, in
this context, the term "multichannel" seemed to mean
any-number-of-channels-except TWO.

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 15:04:44 +0000, Wylie Williams wrote:

"Bob Marcus" wrote Nothin' wrong with that attitude,
as long as you're willing to spend money
on something that might be an illusion (NOT a delusion, by the way).
Personally, I'd rather have fun with things I knew weren't illusions. To
each his own.

I've always thought of home audio as a means of creating an illusion.
However that can be made to happen is good, even if it unfortunately
involves spending money.

Wylie Williams

________________________________________________

Wylie...

It is all about an "illusion"...when the sound gets to your
mental processes it enters the world of a recreation of
an event. Unfortunately, we have some that think this
is a bad thing and continue to engineer a "fix" for this
imagined problem. All variations from a "known" get
thrown into the "bias" box...or the "illusion" corner!
Never once understanding the variables involved in
these "illusion" issues..they can't be numericalized
in a handy fashion for the "cult of numbers" group.
Admitting this factor is not understood, it is a "no-no"
for this mindset! Pity.

Note also, we are working ourselves toward some
kind of 10-channel mismash! Some of the current
magazines that have "many pictures" have already
started the march toward more channels, speakers
and equipment...who needs this? I would think
perhaps some manufacturers, over a few drinks at
some event, keep hinting at "more, more, more".
Read some of the editorials and technical comments...
...certain participants on this forum have already
began the chant.."more, more, more". Never mind
that multi-channel (5) is already unnatural...I rarely
sit in the middle of a musical event! But, then "natural"
belongs in the "bias box". Hmmm!

Our ole Capitalistic system will allow for some
unbridled excesses unless the buyer says..
.."..enough already"! We watch the quality drop
as we are pushed toward 15 wireless speakers with built-in
amps. Will it never end? Its coming!! You will be
told how good these built-in amps are..further
degradation of this audio hobby of ours. They must
be built to a price...and on it goes. Quality?

Leonard...

On 13 Sep 2004 23:42:54 GMT, lcw999 wrote:
Never mind
that multi-channel (5) is already unnatural...I rarely
sit in the middle of a musical event! But, then "natural"
belongs in the "bias box". Hmmm!

That's a very common misconception, aided by the several '5.1' music
tracks which do indeed use this unnatural balance. Find a *properly*
recorded multi-channel disc however, where the surround channels are
used to add the reverberent sound of a live concert location, and you
have a definite leap forward in fidelity compared to 2-channel.

We watch the quality drop
as we are pushed toward 15 wireless speakers with built-in
amps. Will it never end? Its coming!! You will be
told how good these built-in amps are..further
degradation of this audio hobby of ours. They must
be built to a price...and on it goes. Quality?

There is no reason why active speakers have to be 'built to a price',
especially since most pro-audio monitors are already active, and we
have genuine 'high-end' companies like Meridian already offering
fuully active 7.1 channel solutions of exceptional quality. Are you
suggesting that the ATC SCM300 is a poor quality active speaker? If
you're referring to 'HT in a box' solutions - well, we've *always* had
cheap and cheerful mass-market music centres, going right back to the
legendary Dansette.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

lcw999 wrote:

It is all about an "illusion"...when the sound gets to your
mental processes it enters the world of a recreation of
an event. Unfortunately, we have some that think this
is a bad thing and continue to engineer a "fix" for this
imagined problem. All variations from a "known" get
thrown into the "bias" box...or the "illusion" corner!
Never once understanding the variables involved in
these "illusion" issues..they can't be numericalized
in a handy fashion for the "cult of numbers" group.
Admitting this factor is not understood, it is a "no-no"
for this mindset! Pity.


Even when I agree with everything you say below, Leonard, I cannot share
your opinion on the above. The problem with the illusions is, they do not
last. So even when you perceived an amplifier sounding "better" than another
(which was actually sounding identical), sooner or later the truth will
pop-up in your mind when you do the comparison again, or hear somebody elses
gear.
So it is better to keep away from open mindedness and tell yourself again
and again those beliefs, maybe you can manage, but I doubt.


Note also, we are working ourselves toward some
kind of 10-channel mismash! Some of the current
magazines that have "many pictures" have already
started the march toward more channels, speakers
and equipment...who needs this? I would think
perhaps some manufacturers, over a few drinks at
some event, keep hinting at "more, more, more".
Read some of the editorials and technical comments...
...certain participants on this forum have already
began the chant.."more, more, more". Never mind
that multi-channel (5) is already unnatural...I rarely
sit in the middle of a musical event! But, then "natural"
belongs in the "bias box". Hmmm!

Our ole Capitalistic system will allow for some
unbridled excesses unless the buyer says..
.."..enough already"! We watch the quality drop
as we are pushed toward 15 wireless speakers with built-in
amps. Will it never end? Its coming!! You will be
told how good these built-in amps are..further
degradation of this audio hobby of ours. They must
be built to a price...and on it goes. Quality?

Leonard...

Happy listening!
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

Reading these posts I have grow confused over who is referring to
delusions versus illusions, or is for or against either, but it probably
doesn't matter. The semantics are always an obstacle.

Let me put it this way: if you have recreated the sound of a live
musical performance from a stereo system it must be an illusion because it
can't be the real thing. The actual performance happened in another time
and place. So, given my definition, I don't see the word illusion as a
pejorative term.

Wylie Williams

On 9/14/04 7:38 PM, in article , "Wylie
Williams" wrote:

Reading these posts I have grow confused over who is referring to
delusions versus illusions, or is for or against either, but it probably
doesn't matter. The semantics are always an obstacle.

Let me put it this way: if you have recreated the sound of a live
musical performance from a stereo system it must be an illusion because it
can't be the real thing. The actual performance happened in another time
and place. So, given my definition, I don't see the word illusion as a
pejorative term.

Yup - you are correct.

The whole point of most audiophile systems is to create the illusion of live
music with sound reproduction equipment. Operative term is illusion as you
stated.

Nousaine wrote:

Codifus wrote:

Wylie Williams wrote:

"Bob Marcus" wrote Nothin' wrong with that

attitude,

as long as you're willing to spend money


on something that might be an illusion (NOT a delusion, by the way).
Personally, I'd rather have fun with things I knew weren't illusions. To
each his own.


I've always thought of home audio as a means of creating an illusion.
However that can be made to happen is good, even if it unfortunately
involves spending money.


Actually sound re-production is highly dependent on illusion. There's nothing
at all wrong with that. However, because even 2-channel stereo can provide a
convincing illusion (a phantom center is entirely an illusion.... sound
'coming' from a place where no sound is being generated) many people seem to be
happy expanding acoustical and psycho-aocustical illusion to a 'paranormal'
state where reproduced sound is nearly completely a function of imagination and
often cost.


Wylie Williams


I would think that would be much more so in home theater, but purists
tend to stick to stereo for creating a realistic interpretation.

CD


I'd have to beg your pardon here. I'm a realism "purist." The more "real" it
perceptually sounds than the better it is. 2-channel stereo is a distant cousin
to any of the better multichannel alternatives to emulating a live acoustical
perception and I don't necessarily mean with multichannel source material (more
than 1 or 2 channels.)

I read a "survey" a few years ago covering "Multichannel" amplifiers. Examining
the list I found amplifiers of 3,4,5,6,7 and even a single (1) channel (to
cover the case where a passive subwoofer or individual center channel might be
needed.)

But looking at the product listings I came to the humorous conclusion that, in
this context, the term "multichannel" seemed to mean
any-number-of-channels-except TWO.
You know, you're right. I'm just caught up with all the un-natural
multi-channel recordings that are out there. The same thing can be said
of 2 channel, but because it's 2 channel, the effects are not as
outrageous or un-real, but there loads of bad 2 channel recording as
well as multi-channel.

CD

Wylie Williams wrote:

Reading these posts I have grow confused over who is referring to
delusions versus illusions, or is for or against either, but it probably
doesn't matter. The semantics are always an obstacle.

Let me put it this way: if you have recreated the sound of a live
musical performance from a stereo system it must be an illusion because it
can't be the real thing. The actual performance happened in another time
and place. So, given my definition, I don't see the word illusion as a
pejorative term.

Wylie Williams

I think of it as a realistic interpretation of the reality

CD

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:23:58 +0000, Ban wrote:

lcw999 wrote:

It is all about an "illusion"...when the sound gets to your
mental processes it enters the world of a recreation of
an event. Unfortunately, we have some that think this
is a bad thing and continue to engineer a "fix" for this
imagined problem. All variations from a "known" get
thrown into the "bias" box...or the "illusion" corner!
Never once understanding the variables involved in
these "illusion" issues..they can't be numericalized
in a handy fashion for the "cult of numbers" group.
Admitting this factor is not understood, it is a "no-no"
for this mindset! Pity.


Even when I agree with everything you say below, Leonard, I cannot share
your opinion on the above. The problem with the illusions is, they do not
last. So even when you perceived an amplifier sounding "better" than another
(which was actually sounding identical), sooner or later the truth will
pop-up in your mind when you do the comparison again, or hear somebody elses
gear.
So it is better to keep away from open mindedness and tell yourself again
and again those beliefs, maybe you can manage, but I doubt.

Granted...the issue with "illusions" is that they do not
last! Mother nature has blessed us with mental processes
that are dictated by certain "chemical" processes in the
brain that continually varies the "results". In fact, the
times you just really don't want to hear your system
play anything is due to this "chemical" variations that
we all have...the mental processes are not consistent..
which leads to certain types within our midst attempting
to "numericalize" things to somehow make all things
consistent..but, "mother nature" has blessed us with a
variable mental process that really vary the "illusion".
We all suffer this variability...one cannot pick and choose
and dump unacceptables into a "bias-box"...Individuals
with rather rigid formal training that is outdated have
difficulty in these mental variation factors. They are not
trained in a discipline that is still not well grasped at
this point in time...even by those that spend their career
in these disciplines. Those that see consistency in the
front end of the audio chain are deceiving themselves that
this represents what is interpreted in the ear-brain
process... ...this represents another domain...simplistic
efforts to dump all unexplained mental process into a
"bias-bucket" won't work. This was one of my points.
We have to work with all the flaws of the unpredictable
mental processes we are endowed with. One cannot
tell another individual with different mental processes what
he can or cannot hear. That he started out with a linear
device does not mean any two individuals will interpret
it the same. Sorry!

The "illusion" does change..sorry about the variability!
It can come back to where it was in the past..as your
memory recalls it..assuming a lot of other variables are
in place.

Leonard...


Note also, we are working ourselves toward some kind of 10-channel
mismash! Some of the current magazines that have "many pictures" have
already started the march toward more channels, speakers and
equipment...who needs this? I would think perhaps some manufacturers,
over a few drinks at some event, keep hinting at "more, more, more".
Read some of the editorials and technical comments... ...certain
participants on this forum have already began the chant.."more, more,
more". Never mind that multi-channel (5) is already unnatural...I
rarely sit in the middle of a musical event! But, then "natural"
belongs in the "bias box". Hmmm!

Our ole Capitalistic system will allow for some unbridled excesses
unless the buyer says.. .."..enough already"! We watch the quality
drop as we are pushed toward 15 wireless speakers with built-in amps.
Will it never end? Its coming!! You will be told how good these
built-in amps are..further degradation of this audio hobby of ours.
They must be built to a price...and on it goes. Quality?

Leonard...

Happy listening!