[markl]

Whatever. Enjoy your budget system, it's clearly the best the planet has to offer...

 

[Kurt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wali Human beings with mental illness can hear sounds and noises, are those sounds really happening in the real world or in that persons brain?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wali Now, using common sense (which is not very common)… This is not an objective vs. subjective issue; IMHO, this is objective vs. brainwashed-by-marketing-hype-and-peer-pressure issue.

And you are just the next arrogant ***hole filled with fears.
For example to be seen as a audiophool or never could afford a better rig.

 

[Jahn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk_suki The sound I get out of my Vinyl rig amazes me! But requires a good pressed/condition album. CD similar but good recording. Then again, the DAP is darn convenient.

Personally my phono rig is arse. But then again so is all my vinyl. Maybe I should buy one decent audiophile grade recording and withhold judgment until then.

alot of my CDs sound horrible too. but with the right CD my CD rig sounds great.

my 128mp3s make my comp/ipod sound flat and nasty. but lossless is a beaut.

i guess before "Source First" we should even say "Recording First" of course.

 

[kentamcolin]

Quote:

alot of my CDs sound horrible too. but with the right CD my CD rig sounds great

The same is true for vinyl.

I think high(er) priced sources offer more potential, but in my experience matching and synergy become more critical. I have heard some very high priced gear that doesn't sound any better than my more modest system, but sometimes have noticed setup errors and things of the sort that would ruin any chance of getting the best sound. OTOH, I have heard very expensive equipment that just blew my mind, making me think that if you have the money, it was would be worth the cost.

 

[wali]

Quote:

Are you saying that anyone who spends more than $200 on a CD player is brainwashed by marketing hype and peer pressure?

You have totally missed my point, perhaps you could read the posts once again... my main argument is 'justification' of the price for an audio equipment based on its performance measured using 'scientific' tools.


Quote:

And you are just the next arrogant ***hole filled with fears. For example to be seen as a audiophool or never could afford a better rig.

So, you agree that you're "brainwashed-by-marketing-hype-and-peer-pressure", your honesty is surprising.

I also suggest that you spend some money on your education rather than this hobby, because from the looks of it you really needed.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wali How can one ignore the whole scientific process which led to the creation of particular device in judging its performance?

I must admit, I have fallen prey to this phenomenon. I've been listening to my system, and making what I thought were improvements, based on what sounded the best, when what I should be doing is reading the specs, making sure it has the minimal specs that are sufficient at the level of an audible difference, and then buying the equipment that has the best cost to spec ratio. I mean who cares what I think the music sounds like. If some piece of paper says it must sound good, that should be good enough. I suggest we redirect all our efforts on this entire forum to exploring what the scientific process says the equipment should sound like, and not let ourselves be distracted by what it actually sounds like.

 

[arnesto]

My feelings on spending a ton of money on audio equipment.
If you spend alot on a CD player, you should have a room to match the CD player. I don't understand some people that have a plasma TV but they might live in a motorhome.

I killer audio setup should be in a room with a nice couch and a nice stereo rack.

Am I totally off the topic?

 

[Kurt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wali blah, blah, and the next flamebait.

I can't say it better than markl:
Quote:

Originally Posted by markl Whatever. Enjoy your budget system, it's clearly the best the planet has to offer...

 

[Geise]

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnesto My feelings on spending a ton of money on audio equipment. If you spend alot on a CD player, you should have a room to match the CD player. I don't understand some people that have a plasma TV but they might live in a motorhome. I killer audio setup should be in a room with a nice couch and a nice stereo rack. Am I totally off the topic?

People who buy high end audio equipment buy it for their music and not to make their living room look like it's from a catalog...

 

[darkclouds]

We really should save this thread for when the next know it all shows up (which should be in about a couple of months). That way, we will not have to waste any more time.

 

[Samuli]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS I must admit, I have fallen prey to this phenomenon. I've been listening to my system, and making what I thought were improvements, based on what sounded the best, when what I should be doing is reading the specs, making sure it has the minimal specs that are sufficient at the level of an audible difference, and then buying the equipment that has the best cost to spec ratio. I mean who cares what I think the music sounds like. If some piece of paper says it must sound good, that should be good enough. I suggest we redirect all our efforts on this entire forum to exploring what the scientific process says the equipment should sound like, and not let ourselves be distracted by what it actually sounds like.

 

[Geise]

For my preferences, my cdp is as high end as I need to go (and can afford). Any more refinement beyond what I have would most definitly be unappreciated (I know because I've heard). Still though, I would go ahead and buy a really high end player anyway if I had the money to burn.

 

[wali]

With all personal attacks it is quite clear that none of this discussion will get anywhere.

"I have more expensive system, you have a cheap system", one expects a lot form this forum not this sort of dumb stupidity.

I guess the "garbage in garbage out", situation can also apply here as well.

End of discussion.

 

[Ferbose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wali Now, using common sense (which is not very common), one can conclude that since the device in question has been built using standard mechanical and engineering practice, then why on earth it's performance should be judged using 'faith' and other abstract human perceptions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS I must admit, I have fallen prey to this phenomenon. I've been listening to my system, and making what I thought were improvements, based on what sounded the best, when what I should be doing is reading the specs, making sure it has the minimal specs that are sufficient at the level of an audible difference, and then buying the equipment that has the best cost to spec ratio. I mean who cares what I think the music sounds like. If some piece of paper says it must sound good, that should be good enough. I suggest we redirect all our efforts on this entire forum to exploring what the scientific process says the equipment should sound like, and not let ourselves be distracted by what it actually sounds like.

I have to disagree with both quotes above.
You put too much faith into our scientific understanding of hearing!
Scientists don't even claim to know how the ear differentiates different frequencies, although some good theories have been proposed and a lot of experimental evidence support those theories.
The performance of audio equipment has to be evaluated by subjective listening (always has been, and probably always will be), although subjective listening tests can be designed carefully to yield rather objective results that apply very widely to the general population.
I will give you a very concrete example.
OP-amp are designed by highly knowledgeable engineers in the semiconductor industry. The physics of the devices used in op-amps are very well understood. The performance of these circuits can be simulated and measured to very hogh precision. The nature of distortions in these devices are well characterized.
Still, physics alone cannot guide engineers to build a good-sounding op-amps. The fundamental reason is that we do not know what physical properties correlate with "good sound" to human hearing. This has nothing to do with philosophical debates or supernatural phenomena. It is certainly not becuase we can hear things machines cannot detect. It is also not because musicality is metaphysical and transcends the laws of physics. It is simply because percieved good sound correlate with very complex physical properties, and we have little understanding of this complex phenomena.
So, how do engineers at TI build good sounding JFET Op-amps like OP604 and OP637. They dsign circuits that yield extremely good performances on standard test procedures, and then they ask audio experts to do SUBJECTIVE evaluation. Once they get a good sounding op-amp after some trial and error, they go back and try to study the potential reasons that some JFET op-amps sound very pleasant. In other words, TI engineers claim their op-amps sounds good because subjective evaluations reveal so, not because they see some great specs generated in some standard tests. The fact that so many head-fiers testify to the great sound of TI JFET op-amps verifies the success of TI engineers.

If you read the datasheet of OP604, on page 12 you can find this discussion about audio quality (it is truly inspirational to read):

"The following discussion is provided, recognizing that not all measured performance behavior explains or correlates with listening tests by audio experts. The design of the OPA604 included consideration of both objective performance measurements, as well as an awareness of widely held theory on the success and failure of previous op amp designs.
SOUND QUALITY
The sound quality of an op amp is often the crucial selection criteria—even when a data sheet claims exceptional distortion performance. By its nature, sound quality is subjective. Furthermore, results of listening tests can vary depending on application and circuit configuration. Even experienced listeners in controlled tests often reach different conclusions. Many audio experts believe that the sound quality of a high performance FET op amp is superior to that of bipolar op amps. A possible reason for this is that bipolar designs generate greater odd-order harmonics than FETs. To the human ear, odd-order harmonics have long been identified as sounding more unpleasant
than even-order harmonics. FETs, like vacuum tubes, have a square-law I-V transfer function which is more linear than the exponential transfer function of a bipolar transistor. As a direct result of this square-law characteristic, FETs produce predominantly even-order harmonics. Figure 10 shows the transfer function of a bipolar transistor and FET. Fourier transformation of
both transfer functions reveals the lower odd-order harmonics of the FET amplifier stage."

 

[edstrelow]

I really object to the double-blind testing issues being raised in these forums. They are a true waste of time and not what these forums were set up for and I vote to extend the dbt free ban to all the forums.

I am one of the few persons who writes in who has an actual background in human experimentation and I do not want to see forums set up for discussions of issue in audio degenerate into uninformed discussions of psyho-acoustic experiments.

I have a PhD. in experimental psychology, and worked on human perception issues for almost 15 years, including 5 years in with electrical engineers in acoustics issues and frankly you just can't do much good science with these types of studies. Their strength is that they are objective. Their failing is that they are simply too crude to measure subleties so you can put no faith in a result which fails to find a difference between conditions. In fact in general you can not even publish negative results in scientific journals. . Psycho-acoustic studies are more likely to employ less objective techniques, which one seeks to replicate using more than one experiment. I have gone in more detail on these issues in some other postings

While I can see that many people would want objective measures to guide their purchases, we are currently a long way away from knowing how to carry out good studies in this area As matters stand if the DB crowd keeps raising these issue as some sort of magic cure-all we will spend more time arguing about the proposed experimental techniques and flaws in proposed studies than in discussing audio issues.

I believe that most people writing in to these forums know that we are merely expressing subjective opinions. I neverthless value many of these opinions more than any of the proposals for double-blind testing I have seen here.