Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › What if the audio critic is completely right? What would you own?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What if the audio critic is completely right? What would you own? - Page 5

post #61 of 103

You're calling many of his statements incorrect by nitpicking individual details in the statements, rather than tackle the truth of the statements as a whole. Nor do you provide any proof that the things you mention actually matter audibly.

 

This is not a "10 Lies of Electronics" article, it's a "10 Lies of Audio" article. The writer wasn't out to make definitive statements about the physics of equipment, he's was out to show that what audiophiles think makes a difference doesn't. As such, rather than nitpick the physics discussed, you should be countering the claims of lack of audibility.

post #62 of 103



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post

You're calling many of his statements incorrect by nitpicking individual details in the statements, rather than tackle the truth of the statements as a whole. Nor do you provide any proof that the things you mention actually matter audibly.

 

This is not a "10 Lies of Electronics" article, it's a "10 Lies of Audio" article. The writer wasn't out to make definitive statements about the physics of equipment, he's was out to show that what audiophiles think makes a difference doesn't. As such, rather than nitpick the physics discussed, you should be countering the claims of lack of audibility.


Actually, My intent was to keep within the request of the OP, who did not wish to start an argument over the validity of Peter's article.

 

I provided extremely brief responses to all 10 items (and stated exactly that), one liners as they were, in trying to keep within the spirit of the OP's request while trying to respond to your request as well.

 

I could in fact, copy and paste the entire article item by item, word for word, and without remorse, pull the entire stinkin thing apart vowel by vowel, consonant by consonant.  Where he is correct, I have already mentioned such.

 

The concept of protecting the un-learned from the bad manufacturers is a good one which I certainly subscribe to.  I however require that this also be applied on both sides of the fence.  Using totally incorrect and/or fabricated  "electronics facts" in support of dispelling "myths" is incorrect in any case, and EVERY engineer should bristle at bad engineering being used to support one's agenda.  In this case, Peter's agenda is clear, but the uninformed will assume he knows what he is talking about w/r to the engineering and physics details.

If you wish to discuss any of these topics from a glossy overview to maxwells equations to material science, perhaps a new thread would be better.  I must warn you up front, I will not attempt to simplify my explanations for the general public.  I have been harassed in the past for talking over heads as well as being harassed for dumbing it down too much and insulting the reader..sigh, I can't win of course..

 

ps.  I recommend avoidance of a biwiring discussion, as nobody will understand it accurately. 

 

Cheers, jn

 

 

 

 


Edited by jnjn - 12/28/11 at 9:25am
post #63 of 103

Feel free to send that to me in a PM then.

post #64 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post

Feel free to send that to me in a PM then.



Send what?  The biwire stuff or the entire kittenkaboodle?? (I love spelling it that way).

For all but biwire, it would be really good to involve all, no?

 

For biwire, review Leseuf's analysis..when you're ready, I'll point out where he went from walking along the edge of the cliff to falling off.  It's the assumptions that'll get ya every time.

 

cheers, jn

 


Edited by jnjn - 12/28/11 at 9:32am
post #65 of 103

Everything, provided you make it clear why it makes a difference and thus invalidates the purpose of the article.

post #66 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post

Everything, provided you make it clear why it makes a difference and thus invalidates the purpose of the article.



On forum, not off. 

 

That way,  everybody can read, everybody can participate, everybody can discuss.  No exceptions.

 

ps.  I did not say the purpose of the article was invalid.  I did say that the engineering context used to support the article was invalid.

jn

ps..sigh, I've tried about 5 times to copy and paste the "lie" and the "truth" part of the first one, the cable lie...I'll see if I can save it to disk and copy/paste...

 


Edited by jnjn - 12/28/11 at 10:10am
post #67 of 103


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjn View Post

4.  ABX is flawed whenever a switchbox is used.  Changes in the system caused by even putting the box in renders comparisons meaningless.  This is from EMC concerns.

 

I won't bother disagreeing with the rest of what this guy has written, but basically, he starts from a point of disagreeing with PA and just lets his mind flow on. Anybody who thinks that a switchbox invalidates ABX is grasping at straws. At the end he throws in 'EMC' in a vain attempt to garner some scientific credibility with the easily impressed.

 

I have 2 principal systems (not counting headphone systems).

 

The first uses a Sony terrestrial TV recorder with a an inbuilt DVD player as a source. You can play CDs or plug in a USB stick of MP3s. This feeds the TV. The TV has an on-screen graphic equaliser. It is set to give a progressive cut as frequency rises because the speakers are a bit shouty. The TV out drives an unmodified Sonic Impact T-amp which drives a pair of Audio Nirvana 'Super 8' FRs in homemade 2.7 litre enclosures. I have a sub which can be run from the TV's sub output, but it's not turned on mostly. The sound is better than the first dedicated Hi-Fi I bought in the '70s, Pioneer PL12D, Goldring cartridge, Rodgers amp and B & W speakers, largely because the DTV rx blows away the Pioneer turntable and the Audio Nirvanas put out more real volume than the B & W bookshelves could before they sounded distressed. The imaging is better too.

 

In my 'man cave' here I have a pair of old Wharfedale Dalesmans (50 y.o.). They sound like an old, expensive gramophone. These are driven by a Cambridge Audio A1. Numerous sources feed the A1; a satellite receiver, a Bluray player, a standalone SPDIF DAC and a Behringer Xenyx mixer. The mixer is connected to an M-Audio 2496 soundcard in the computer. Additionally I have a Behringer USB DAC. A Yamaha midi keyboard feeds the soundcard directly and an array of microphones (dynamic, studio condenser) and a DI box permit recording into Cubase or WHY. The playback isn't ideal for mastering, I'm going to get some powered monitors, but the audio complements the HD projector nicely. You don't get earthquake TV effects, but music is enjoyable.

 

I have 4 additional instrument amplifiers, 2 of which I built, one of those has tubes.

 

You can plug headphones into the mixer, but there are a lot of experimental headphone amps around that I've designed and built.

 

Peter Aczel might be shown to have overstepped the mark on a rare occasion, but for the large part what he says is true, and if it is inaccurate in minor detail, those details really are minor when it comes to taking pleasure in recorded music. The forceful statements that he has made are a necessary antidote to the reams of rubbish spouted by professional reviewers and amateur enthusiasts alike. 

 

I'm a pretty good guitarist of over 40 years standing. More than once my wife's guests have heard me playing in another room and mistaken it for a recording. I've made money playing the guitar.

 

I've also worked as an electronic design engineer.

 

I know what I'm talking about.

 

Most 'audiophiles' can't play a note and are a bunch of flakes.

 

w

post #68 of 103



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Br777 View Post

frown.gif



My apologies for discussion outside of your expressed desires.  If you wish, I will discontinue.

 

Cheers, jn

 

post #69 of 103

I've always agreed with the Audio Critic.

 

There is a point in using tubes in audio though. You may be looking for that kind of harmonic richness, or distortion, or coloration, or whatever... Tubes are still there in recording studios indeed.

 

The important thing is to be counscious of what you are getting! 

 

 

post #70 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Br777 View Post

I fear starting this thread may be utterly pointless and turn into a monster, but my intentions are honest.

Lets ASSUME for the sake of this thread, that the audio critic, 10 biggest lies in audio http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issue...ritic_26_r.pdf is completely correct.  What kind of system would you build.  Has anyone built thier system around these parameters?

IF YOU DISAGREE AND WANT TO CONVINCE EVERYONE, PLEASE GO SOMEWHERE ELSE

given that assumption, lets make some amp and dac recommendations.
and yes that means tubes are right out...

also, if you have built your system around their information id love to hear what you have.

Again im not looking for convincing arguments one side or the other, i just want to know whats recommended ASSUMING the audio critic is totally correct


Like br777 said, we argue nothing.  This is pretend, anything can happen. 

 

post #71 of 103

Based on the audio critic I would have the set up I do now. The bulk of time and effort is on the headphones, were the biggest difference is to be had. I have a cheap DAC, a powerful amp, a bog standard laptop to access imported CDs and streamed music files and no effort on the cables whatsoever.

post #72 of 103

 

The cable EMC discussion has been moved here: Cable and EMC discussion (Split from "What if the Audio Critic was completely right")

 

PM me the links to any posts that are in the wrong place if I missed or accidentally moved any.

post #73 of 103

Last time I spent money on "proper" audio cable was 12 years ago. The speaker cable was from Van Den Hul in the UK. Now I use cheap 12 gauge solid copper wire with thin insulation from home depot. It's better and cheaper (. I also tried the lamp wire or zip cord which did not work for me). My current interconnects are now mono price which replaced my 12 year old Sonic Link Pink. Thee are slight differences but the monoprice cable works just fine. I use regular AC power cables but do try and keep amp and source on different circuits. As far as listening tests, I only believe my own deteriorating hearing for my own needs. I do read reviews but mostly for build quality, specs and such. 

 

post #74 of 103
Thread Starter 

boy, the O2 amp is adding some major weight to my suspicion that this audio critic guy was/is really preaching the truth.

 

This $145, designed strictly around measurements amp is knocking my socks off.    At around nine times the price, the stacker II may be in for some stiff competition when it arrives. 

post #75 of 103

I more or less followed audio critic's advice unknowingly. The only deviation is that I bought a realitivly expensive amp (HeadAmp Pico DAC/AMP). Granted, it's a portable so it's bound to be expensive by nature, but I know that it will serve as the foundation for all my cans that I will buy and own in the future. This reminds me of another hobby of mine, photography. When you decide to choose either Nikon, Canon, Sony, Lecia, etc. , you do not choose one company because of the camera body, but for the lenses. Whereas you can upgrade the body later on, the lenses you keep forever. In this case, my amp is the body and my cans are the lenses and I don't see myself buying a new amp anytime soon.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › What if the audio critic is completely right? What would you own?