Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › DIY (Do-It-Yourself) Discussions › A short history of the term -capacitor sound.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A short history of the term -capacitor sound. - Page 2

post #16 of 34
Thread Starter 

Subjectivisim is not a commercial invention its a result of the biological reproductive human species over 100000s of years  of gradually learning what were good and bad sounds.

              From the cry of a baby  to the baying of a wolf..Being "scientific" I am  sure you believe in human evolution.

              would it be "good" if we were all "robot like"without the ability to  be able to write poetry/compose beautiful songs

              sense when somebody is walking behind us without hearing or seeing them and to sense when we are being watched.

              All human subjective senses built into man over a long time part of our DNA.

              I am sorry you will never convince me against the human being having a -I am sure a word you hate -spirituality.

              If all we are is a blob chemicals compressed together that lives and dies and "that's it" -oblivion.

              We are much more than that and many agree with me.

              Yes I know PB-whose line is that of-The Book of Life or the " Unblameable" power amp circuit by D.Self

              If you like me have read many issues of EW/WW then you will know that any young EE coming up with [what I thought] as an innovative original design

              was "torn apart" by him every inch of the circuit was criticised in relation to his  "Imperial" Designs.

              It went on for so long that the EE who Taught him[ I wont name him] came on in the letters pages of EW/WW to Apologise-quote-"for letting him loose on the community.

              Don't get me wrong D.Self is a brilliant  ADE -no doubt about it.

              But even though many of those unusual circuit designs sounded very good they were put down -on purely Technical grounds

              Which -in my eyes -is not right.

              Have you counted the number of Subjective posts on Head-Fi in relation to others?

              Human beings cant communicate their feelings without being subjective.

                               And every piece of Hi-FI that is bought by the  Public is bought subjectively-

                                   I listened to it in the HI-Fi shop/I heard it in my friends house/ It was Recommended to me by another poster as having a "great"/"good"/"excellent" sound.

                                            Johns ears weren't just "golden" they were "platinum"
 

post #17 of 34
Thread Starter 

Subjectivisim is not a commercial invention its a result of the biological reproductive human species over 100000s of years  of gradually learning what were good and bad sounds.

              From the cry of a baby  to the baying of a wolf..Being "scientific" I am  sure you believe in human evolution.

              would it be "good" if we were all "robot like"without the ability to  be able to write poetry/compose beautiful songs

              sense when somebody is walking behind us without hearing or seeing them and to sense when we are being watched.

              All human subjective senses built into man over a long time part of our DNA.

              I am sorry you will never convince me against the human being having a -I am sure a word you hate -spirituality.

              If all we are is a blob chemicals compressed together that lives and dies and "that's it" -oblivion.

              We are much more than that and many agree with me.

              Yes I know PB-whose line is that of-The Book of Life or the " Unblameable" power amp circuit by D.Self

              If you like me have read many issues of EW/WW then you will know that any young EE coming up with [what I thought] as an innovative original design

              was "torn apart" by him every inch of the circuit was criticised in relation to his  "Imperial" Designs.

              It went on for so long that the EE who Taught him[ I wont name him] came on in the letters pages of EW/WW to Apologise-quote-"for letting him loose on the community.

              Don't get me wrong D.Self is a brilliant  ADE -no doubt about it.

              But even though many of those unusual circuit designs sounded very good they were put down -on purely Technical grounds

              Which -in my eyes -is not right.

              Have you counted the number of Subjective posts on Head-Fi in relation to others?

              Human beings cant communicate their feelings without being subjective.

                               And every piece of Hi-FI that is bought by the  Public is bought subjectively-

                                   I listened to it in the HI-Fi shop/I heard it in my friends house/ It was Recommended to me by another poster as having a "great"/"good"/"excellent" sound.

                                            Johns ears weren't just "golden" they were "platinum"
 

post #18 of 34
Thread Starter 

Sorry-Posted twice by mistake.!

post #19 of 34

Then please explain Harry Connick Jr.  biggrin.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by wakibaki View Post

Nobody deliberately seeks out poorer reproduction...   ...or do they?

 
 
post #20 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakibaki View Post

 

 

I'm with Peter Baxandall on this. He wrote 'I ... confidently maintain that all first-class, competently designed amplifiers, tested under completely fair and carefully controlled conditions, including the avoidance of overloading, sound absolutely indistinguishable on normal programme material no matter how refined the listening tests, or the listeners, may be; and that when an inferior amplifier is compared with a very good one and a subjective quality difference is genuinely and reliably established, it is always possible, by straightforward scientific investigation, to find a rational explanation for this difference.

 

 

 

Subjectivism is a commercial invention.

 

When amplifiers which were audibly indistinguishable could be produced on a regular basis, reviewers were alarmed. If different amplifiers sound the same, what need is there for reviewers? Consequently the subjective review was invented, in order to justify the continued existence of reviewers. If you have the time you can discover the history of this in Peter Aczel's 'The Audio Critic'

w

seems to me this is virtually a tautology - where the bulk of the work is being done by the terms .'first-class', 'competently designed', 'normal programme'   etc...  this is not to say that engineering principles do not govern amplifier design, or that the right measurements lack sonic relevance.   

 

The Aczel  reference and claims about reviewers simply begs the question while committing the fallacy of appeal to authority. 

 

 

all that said - there are reasons why some amplifiers  do sound different , and  these differences can be heard, and sometimes, perhaps, even be measured once it is decided what the proper measurements are, and how best to make them.


Edited by fzman - 3/27/13 at 2:45pm
post #21 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by fzman View Post

The Aczel  reference and claims about reviewers simply begs the question while committing the fallacy of appeal to authority. 

 

 

What? That's what happened. With the proviso that 'History is bunk.'

 

I totally fail to see how it's an appeal to authority.

 

One day a reviewer (I forget who, but you can look it up in The Audio Critic) published the first review in which he stated that he intended to depart from what had been the rule for Hi-Fi reviews previously and publish only his observations based on listening to the equipment. Previous to that reviews always included measurements of the system.

 

That's what started the whole ball rolling. Not long after that the first reviews of cables appeared, and it's been downhill ever since.

 

I remember the era of reviews with measurements. Then I became preoccupied with sex, drugs and rock and roll. When I started looking at reviews again, everything had gone to hell in a handcart. Looking through Peter's writing I found the story. I saw no reason to disbelieve it. It has a horrible ring of truth about it.

 

If you don't like the story, make up one that's more convincing, I'll give it a listen.

 

w


Edited by wakibaki - 3/27/13 at 3:22pm
post #22 of 34

wakibaki,

 

I think that we need theory and observations, both.  While i do not think that better sound arises out of special ways to depart from the laws of physics, i do think that auditory observations are relevant to judging good hifi.  This is now we would come up with better measurement techniques as well as a better sense of what to measure in the first place.  

 

At the end of the day, i think that when careful listeners discern sonic differences between amp a and amp b, e.g., that the two amps have different electrical behavior given the specific input source and load attached .  

 

Now then, back to the sex, drugs and rock and roll..... and not just Ian Drury.

post #23 of 34

there is a science of turning human sense impressions into data - when these long established controls are applied to amplifiers that  "measure well" - and which null against other well measuring amplifiers to better than ~60-70 dB - then no one has told them apart in controlled listening tests

 

including comparisons of tube vs SS - see the Carver Stereophile challenge

 

and I mean by "measure" the whole panoply of a modern AP analyzer's menus - IMD, multitones, level, frequency sweeps - not the strawman "conventional measurements" of subjective audiophile rants - which even in the 70's single level, frequency THD wasn't all that engineers did

 

near full power only 1 kHz THD got a bad reputation mostly because marketing found they could "game'  the specs - some SS amps looked good at full power while SE tube amps were distorting by multiple percent - made good ad copy - and was known at the time to be poor psychoacoustics by anyone who cared to read up on the subject

 

there really is considerable well validated psychoacousitc knowledge - in the past few decades digital audio has greatly improved reproduction accuracy, repeatability, ease of experiments - the whole psychoacoustic based lossy audio codec development is relentlessly Blind listening test driven


Edited by jcx - 3/27/13 at 8:23pm
post #24 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by fzman View Post

 

 

Now then, back to the sex, drugs and rock and roll..... 

 

The world might be a better place if we just focused on that... either that or we end up with more reality shows starring the Osbournes blink.gif

post #25 of 34

Here is a different perspective on the age old argument.

 

I have had, over the years, opportunity to dabble in all aspects of

sound production and reproduction.

 

If I am trying to get a sound from my synthesizer, I start out with a pure

tone and chip away at it with filters, envelopes and effects until I have

the pounding bass, delicate trill or evolving pad  am looking for. In short,

I distort a pure tone to sound like something else (subtractive synthesis).

The same sort of thing goes for many other sound production devices.

When a performer plays an electric guitar, they are not looking for the

most accurate reproduction of the sound their strings make. The amp

distorts, their effects distort and their speakers distort. All this distortion

becomes the "sound" of the guitar we know and love.

So, the point I am trying to make here is that distortion is an integral part

of the music we know and love.

 

Knowing how distortion shapes the sounds we love, you can see how

some people can love the "sound" of one amp and not the "sound" of

another. I understand the subjectavists. They are less concerned with

whether an amp exactly reproduces a waveform as opposed to if it makes

a sound that is pleasing to their ears. Much the same as when we judge the

sound of one guitar vers another.

The objectavists, of course, are interested in exactly reproducing what was

recorded. The only problem is unless we were present at the mixing and

mastering sessions, we don't know exactly what that session sounded

like. Unless we were listening with the sound engineers ears, how can

we know if what we are hearing is right?

Of course, we have to trust our equipment and ears, but in the end, I think

we are all subjectavists. Unless you can go and sit in the mastering room and use

the same equipment the engineer used, we have no hope of exactly reproducing

what was recorded.

 

When we listen to a song, we are listening to a long chain of evens that begins

with the performer and ends at our ears. Many things shape the sound along the

way. As long as we enjoy the results, is that not what counts the most?

post #26 of 34
Thread Starter 

I take the point that it is hard to tell the difference in well designed power amps driving MC loudspeakers.

                  But when a high quality headphone is attached to the output it is a lot easier to tell the difference .

                  I brought that up long ago in a letter to EW--and got agreement.

                  Minute detail could be heard differentiating  one amp from another.

                  Not everybody has the ability to hear those minute changes-that's just human make up.

                  We are all different.

                  Why do you think so many Head-Fi and loudspeaker listeners like tube technology.

                   Not because of its very low distortion rates -which are typical-0.05 at say 1KHZ and worse higher up.

                   Its because of the different harmonics [even] as opposed to SS[odd] and by traveling through "space" the reproduction is very slightly "rounded"-The well known subjective phrase-valve/tube "sound" beloved by the "Golden Ears" 

                   Millions of Hi-Fi users love that.All round the World.

                   What I do have in common with JLH AND D.Self is that I prefer SS as circuits can be designed to a very low level of distortion + noise allowing MINUTE detail to be heard.

                   That's why I think SS circuits are "harder " to design --to THAT level.

                    To me it gives a more "realistic " reproduction.

                     In classical music you can easily feel the emotion from the orchestra and you can join in- in the "excitement"

                      Sounds very Subective doesnt it? --but there again I am a human being not a robot.

post #27 of 34

Avro,  these are good points you make.  I'd say that in the first part of your quote below, 'distortion' is used much the same way that the word 'weed' is used in gardening.  'Weed' is not a botanical genus or species, it refers to unwanted plants.  In audio, 'distortion' usually refers to unwanted sound, or unwanted modifications to sound. In your example, it's kinda sorta not really distortion (they're not weeds, they're flowers)

 

The second part of your quote is also telling, and i agree with it's spirit as well.  When people listen to music, it is to achieve a certain mental/emotional state - it is about art and communication, not veracity of a waveform on a 'scope.  The electrical performance of an amplifier (or any component) is clearly relevant to its sonic performance.  they are different levels of description, and that is important.  The color of my credit card has no relevance in explaining a purchase made with it - half the battle is knowing which criteria matter to which questions/answers.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avro_Arrow View Post

When a performer plays an electric guitar, they are not looking for the

most accurate reproduction of the sound their strings make. The amp

distorts, their effects distort and their speakers distort. All this distortion

becomes the "sound" of the guitar we know and love.

So, the point I am trying to make here is that distortion is an integral part

of the music we know and love.

 

Knowing how distortion shapes the sounds we love, you can see how

some people can love the "sound" of one amp and not the "sound" of

another. I understand the subjectavists. They are less concerned with

whether an amp exactly reproduces a waveform as opposed to if it makes

a sound that is pleasing to their ears. Much the same as when we judge the

sound of one guitar vers another.

 

post #28 of 34
Quote:

 The only problem is unless we were present at the mixing and

mastering sessions, we don't know exactly what that session sounded

like. Unless we were listening with the sound engineers ears, how can

we know if what we are hearing is right?

Of course, we have to trust our equipment and ears, but in the end, I think

we are all subjectavists. Unless you can go and sit in the mastering room and use

the same equipment the engineer used, we have no hope of exactly reproducing

what was recorded.

buy the SVS Realizer, rent studio time for personal calibrations in the mastering engineer's seat, collect all of your favorite mastering studios...

 

 

and the rest of the musician's performing/creating sound with distorting amps has nothing to do with reproduction of a recording

 

no amp can make a Jimmy Hendrix recording sound like Andrés Segovia

 

 

few headphone amps are "colored" or add "euphonic distortion" that vary major measureable, highly correlating with audibility parameters of the sound by even small % of the diferences from simply changing headphone model


Edited by jcx - 3/28/13 at 9:06am
post #29 of 34

@jcx

The point was really to illustrate how a subjectavist may find the distortion introduced by a less-than-perfect amp

to be pleasing in nature.

 

Of course there is a big design goal difference in products meant for sound production and ones meant for sound reproduction.

post #30 of 34
Thread Starter 

Taking a purely scientific approach .If as postulated in some posts . The power amp reaches a "blameless" situation=THD-0.001-20HZ to 20KHZ . then what is the point of many manufacturers ALL making a power amp of the same spec, but different design?

                          If they say -"below a certain level a human being cant tell the difference in various amps"- then whats the point of having more than one design?

                            Why do Hi-Fi owners buy different PAs -taking into consideration   we are talking of top makes like Krell etc costing many $1000s which make I personally like.

                              What is the purely scientific explanation?

                                I am not talking of what type of load that it is stable at or peak amps out etc.

                                   Why do people buy different makes [at the top level] and say I prefer this one-brand loyalty? if so that isnt a very good reason if we are all going for the "best"

                                     Many amps now are have comp.for heat variation which  some didnt have 20YRS ago .Does that  mean they are not so "blameless" after all just like the shifting sand in the desert adjectives change and points of view change.

                                       What doesnt change is human biology.
 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › DIY (Do-It-Yourself) Discussions › A short history of the term -capacitor sound.