analogsurviver said:

  Poor bats - always scapegoats when talking about anything above 22050 Hz ...

Click to expand...

 
They're your target audience!

analogsurviver said:

  While a violin or cello is a LARGE chunk of material, cartridge and particularly stylus is at the very edge of being possible - and can not be made with the same kind of precision/ consistency as incomparably larger violin. 1 micrometer error is inconsequential in violin, yet can totally ruin the sound of a phono cartridge.
 

Click to expand...

 
We have gotten very very good at micro (and even nano) scale manufacturing. It is admittedly harder for the very small hand crafter to approach that level though. 
 

Customers may also want a certain type of sound - or else they will carry the business to the competition. Assuming that a perfect phono cartridge existed - there will be those who would not replace their SPUs and Deccas ( etc, add your own preference ) nomatterwhat - as it no longer sound the way they expect it, as it may mean replacing the arm, which is no longer aesthetically/historically matched to the turntable, etc - you get the picture.

Click to expand...

 
Certainly - but we need to be very sure to not conflate their preference, for objective performance. 
 

Having a tombstone with the inscription He/She Was Right does not strike me as a particularly desirable end result.

Click to expand...

 
An engineer, or scientist (or philosopher, or any number of other fields) may disagree. 
 
 
 

If a customer for several hundred cartridges walks in but wants to have them voiced so that they harmonize well with his electronics and speakers  (often the strategy to be able to sell the whole system, not just a bit here and trhere ) ( where perfectly neutral cart, if it existed, would sound off ) - what would you do ?

Click to expand...

 
First, I would seriously question why they built a system such that something which does not color the sound, sounds wrong (if ever there was a good argument for transparent equipment, it is this very situation). I'd also want to hear some tests done to show that to be the case (dbt/level matched, etc.)
 
But if they insist that they want a colored sound, and not an accurate sound, then I'm sure a product can be found to meet their need (though an EQ would do it better, and wouldn't be so finicky in general). 

Ultimately, such a question is why I could not in good faith be an audio component sales person, and prefer to stay on the engineering side of things.

bigshot said:

They're your target audience!

Click to expand...

-I chuckled at this and I do agree with the implied sentiment - though to be fair, it is /possible/ that frequencies >20kHz result in audible effects if the RIAA stage is not properly band-limited and also exhibits non-linear amplification.

However, if this was the case, the proper response would be to band-limit and linearize it...

liamstrain said:

   
We have gotten very very good at micro (and even nano) scale manufacturing. It is admittedly harder for the very small hand crafter to approach that level though. 
 
 
Certainly - but we need to be very sure to not conflate their preference, for objective performance. 
 
 
An engineer, or scientist (or philosopher, or any number of other fields) may disagree. 
 
 
 
 
First, I would seriously question why they built a system such that something which does not color the sound, sounds wrong (if ever there was a good argument for transparent equipment, it is this very situation). I'd also want to hear some tests done to show that to be the case (dbt/level matched, etc.)
 
But if they insist that they want a colored sound, and not an accurate sound, then I'm sure a product can be found to meet their need (though an EQ would do it better, and wouldn't be so finicky in general). 

Ultimately, such a question is why I could not in good faith be an audio component sales person, and prefer to stay on the engineering side of things.

Click to expand...

I agree with you on all counts - in theory and in perfect world. 
 
However, in real life things are different. I never did like equipment purposely designed to sound right as a combination only - as it was designed with deviation A in one component that cancelled with the exactly opposite -A in another - etc till one almost runs out of alphabet.  But they were/are among the most successful in the market - and God forbid even to quietly think about an equalizer while anywhere near their " zone of influence". And that they is meant in plural - for firms.
 
I also can not bring myself to be an audio component sales person - because after when one sees cable sales in real life generate incomparably more gain than almost everything else combined, you can only say yes or no. I do not say that cables do not matter, but nowhere to the extent as exploited by the cable manufacturers/retailers. 
There are a few instances where cables actually do matter - yet none of the cable specialists have figured it out what these instances are and do not provide such cables at all. 
 
I could not stop LMAO when I read a rep "confession" of a certain cartridge manufacturer that they were instructed to badmouth in the field  each and every other cartridge manufacturer - including the one they shared the same production plan with and sole difference (except an odd model equivalent lacking in one or another line) was the two
had different marketing and distribution networks - with entrance and office for each firm from another lane/street, with actual plant in the middle ...

analogsurviver said:

  I never did like equipment purposely designed to sound right as a combination only - as it was designed with deviation A in one component that cancelled with the exactly opposite -A in another - etc till one almost runs out of alphabet.

Click to expand...

 
GREAT NEWS! Just about all midrange solid state electronics are designed to be audibly transparent. You can swap amps and players all you want and the sound stays transparent. This makes it VERY easy to use an equalizer at the last stage before the transducer to calibrate it exactly the way you want. The added benefit to you is that it doesn't cost a lot of money! I bet you're happy to find this out.

bigshot said:

  I've stopped paying much attention to the "analog crowd". It seems to have become another expensive consumer fetish. None of it has anything to do with sound quality. It's all about luxury items for rich men. When I was first starting out as a hifi nut, the focus was on building the better mousetrap... not spending a lot of money, just getting great sound out of your system so you can listen to your music better. Audiophiles have moved on far beyond that. It's more about status than music now. Kind of sad.
 
Thankfully, there are a few modern equivalents of the old hifi nuts here in sound science.

Click to expand...

I agree about status thing - it went too far long ago. And even more sad is that they hardly ever even try to listen to any music that is not from within very narrow selection they usually listen to  and requires more attention as to not interfere while boasting about the equipment. 
 
I do not agree entirely that analog has become another expensive consumer fetish. It can not be as inexpensive as digital - and particularly not really high quality equipment. But some of the analog has gone to pure status symbol - there is only one table around 100K  I feel that *somehow* its price is justified. 
 
To put things in perspective - the machines for azimuth adjustment  I posted yesterday are  anything but inexpensive - but even if one decides to use the most expensive one    ( 3000 something ) to correctly adjust a turntable for another 3000 - would the result surpass the SQ from a six figures TT that has not been optimized for azimuth. And if one uses the least expensive one it is still possible with a carefully chosen TT for say 1000 to achieve a better result than the six figure TT without azimuth optimization. But if you study it a bit , it can be done with an oscilloscope (say $ 200 ) and test record ( GOOD luck finding one at all, let alone at decent price ) - and carefully selected vintage TT off ebay or similar places for say 500 + stylus/cartridge.
 
And although nowhere near the end of the road, if I say that I can not listen to music on Project RPM 4 ( approx 400 10 years ago ) - that would be a lie.

bigshot said:

   
GREAT NEWS! Just about all midrange solid state electronics are designed to be audibly transparent. You can swap amps and players all you want and the sound stays transparent. This makes it VERY easy to use an equalizer at the last stage before the transducer to calibrate it exactly the way you want. The added benefit to you is that it doesn't cost a lot of money! I bet you're happy to find this out.

Click to expand...

No news to me - I did list equalizer as a part of my equipment the day I registered with head-fi - and after quite a few years of using it before registering. It is an immensely useful piece of equipment if properly utilized.
 
However, I do not agree that just about all solid ( or hollow ) state electronics are designed to be audibly transparent. I would really like to hear one day what - or to which degree - you call "transparent" -  in my book, that is something I no longer can hear any difference with or without it in the  system. I am not going to claim I am listening to same lenght of cable A and cable B and can hear a mountain of differences between the two - but amps and players swapping all I want while sound remaining the same is a bit far fetched.
 
Except if "transparent" < "same" - then I would like some definition what is the degree of deterioration allowed to be still considered "transparent".

analogsurviver said:

  No news to me - I did list equalizer as a part of my equipment the day I registered with head-fi - and after quite a few years of using it before registering. It is an immensely useful piece of equipment if properly utilized.
 
However, I do not agree that just about all solid ( or hollow ) state electronics are designed to be audibly transparent. I would really like to hear one day what - or to which degree - you call "transparent" -  in my book, that is something I no longer can hear any difference with or without it in the  system. I am not going to claim I am listening to same lenght of cable A and cable B and can hear a mountain of differences between the two - but amps and players swapping all I want while sound remaining the same is a bit far fetched.
 
Except if "transparent" < "same" - then I would like some definition what is the degree of deterioration allowed to be still considered "transparent".

Click to expand...

Transparent would be measurably transparent within audible levels, or indistinguishable in a controlled ABX test.
 
You need to separate this transparency from the transparency you're thinking of because the mind is too easily influenced by factors which have nothing to do with the changes being made to the audio signal and sound wave. Factors like brand, price, components, appearance, groovy glowing toobz, etc. These will cause you to "hear" a difference even when no audible difference in the actual audio exists, which can be demonstrated by taking those factors away in an ABX test.

head injury said:

  Transparent would be measurably transparent within audible levels, or indistinguishable in a controlled ABX test.
 
You need to separate this transparency from the transparency you're thinking of because the mind is too easily influenced by factors which have nothing to do with the changes being made to the audio signal and sound wave. Factors like brand, price, components, appearance, groovy glowing toobz, etc. These will cause you to "hear" a difference even when no audible difference in the actual audio exists, which can be demonstrated by taking those factors away in an ABX test.

Click to expand...

I fully understand what you are talking about.
 
Yet I can also perfectly understand why I keep receiving the same kind of answer " all amps sound the same " etc. There is far more potential in "midrange solid state" electronics than most are aware of - only slightly less more in even high end made today. And no, stock units are NOT transparent. You really do not need ABX to hear what
a well modified amp brings over stock unit. I wish GOOD ABX "boxes" ( the ones that do not present SQ bottleneck due to poor inconsistent contacts and/or potentiometers ) were not that expensive. You can not ABX two amplifiers with a PC ( say in foobar2000 ABX comparator ) - that analog to digital converter in the PC (and of course DAC ) would have to be miracolous to  be able to do that without causing far more damage than the difference between the amps. 
 
I have been preparing some Hi Rez samples - but the listening outcome after trough PC and DAC can vary all over the place - depending on software and DAC one is using, provided the PC and DAC is up to the task ( DSD128, PCM 192/24 - and beyond )  in the first place. This is the bottleneck, it can not be  taken for granted that "computer" on the other side will be capable of correctly displaying the differences. 
 
Sorry, no MAC and related software experience.

analogsurviver said:

  However, I do not agree that just about all solid ( or hollow ) state electronics are designed to be audibly transparent. I would really like to hear one day what - or to which degree - you call "transparent" -  in my book, that is something I no longer can hear any difference with or without it in the  system.

Click to expand...

 
I do line level matched direct A/B switched comparison tests of every piece of equipment I own. Every player and every amp/receiver I have ever owned sounds identical. If you would like some recommendations of dependable brands next time you are in the market, let me know.

Originally Posted by analogsurviver /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
There is far more potential in "midrange solid state" electronics than most are aware of - only slightly less more in even high end made today. And no, stock units are NOT transparent.

Click to expand...

 
Yes they are. I've owned plenty. And there is no such thing as "slightly less transparent". Audible transparency is the same just over the line as a mile beyond it.

bigshot said:

  I've stopped paying much attention to the "analog crowd". It seems to have become another expensive consumer fetish. None of it has anything to do with sound quality. It's all about luxury items for rich men. When I was first starting out as a hifi nut, the focus was on building the better mousetrap... not spending a lot of money, just getting great sound out of your system so you can listen to your music better. Audiophiles have moved on far beyond that. It's more about status than music now. Kind of sad.
 
Thankfully, there are a few modern equivalents of the old hifi nuts here in sound science.

Click to expand...

 
+1
 

analogsurviver said:

  No news to me - I did list equalizer as a part of my equipment the day I registered with head-fi - and after quite a few years of using it before registering. It is an immensely useful piece of equipment if properly utilized.
 
However, I do not agree that just about all solid ( or hollow ) state electronics are designed to be audibly transparent. I would really like to hear one day what - or to which degree - you call "transparent" -  in my book, that is something I no longer can hear any difference with or without it in the  system. I am not going to claim I am listening to same lenght of cable A and cable B and can hear a mountain of differences between the two - but amps and players swapping all I want while sound remaining the same is a bit far fetched.
 
Except if "transparent" < "same" - then I would like some definition what is the degree of deterioration allowed to be still considered "transparent".

Click to expand...

 
-1
 

bigshot said:

   
I do line level matched direct A/B switched comparison tests of every piece of equipment I own. Every player and every amp/receiver I have ever owned sounds identical. If you would like some recommendations of dependable brands next time you are in the market, let me know.

Click to expand...

 
+1
 
(however, the existence of an audible difference in sound between amps was, for instance, the basis for the Carver Challenge back in the '80s)

Transparent DAC/amps exist, isn't that great?
 
The ODAC/O2 sounds slightly more clear than the audiophile gear I had before which was not.

grave said:

  Transparent DAC/amps exist, isn't that great?
 
The ODAC/O2 sounds slightly more clear than the audiophile gear I had before which was not.

Click to expand...

 
Audiophile equipment is more likely to be colored to create a "house sound". I'd rather have accurate sound. It's cheaper and sounds better.

What is "accurate sound"? The sound that is either picked up by a set of mics during recording, the artificially generated sound from electronic musical instruments, or the sound resulting from the D to A conversion process?