[bigshot]

There's nothing wrong with euphonic coloration. But it should be adjustable and it should be added on top of a calibrated clean source so you know exactly what you're adding to the sound. A DSP does this the best. Randomly picking tubes and hoping they hit the exact marks you want them to hit is wishful thinking. That's why so many people who love tube amps have more than one of them. They keep rolling the dice and having to try again.

It's possible to come up with a tube amp that sounds just as clean and just as flat as solid state amps generally sound. That's a lot of extra work and expense for the exact same thing though.

 

[jagwap]

I agree this needs a new thread. It has little to do with headphone break in.

Also you guys are getting really het up over a difference of philosophy, that in reality doesn't exist the way you think it does.

I design audio equipment. I have worked in consumer, audiophile and pro audio for decades. I measure the equipment. Of couse I do. If it measures wrong, it is wrong.

However, I also listen. If it sounds different I investigate. If it sounds better but measures wrong, I fix the wrong aspect and investigate why it sounded better if it stillThere maybe something going on.

Usually it is simple, repeatable and understandable. It is usually verifiable by measurement. But sometimes it is is all of the above but not measurable. Not because it doesn't exist (we will usually blind test to verify), just that we haven't devised a measurement to track it yet. Sometimes it has frustratingly taken years to work out what is going on. But if it works and is appropriate at the price point, it stays while we work it out. This gives the team an edge over those who do not listen.

Most innovations in audio happen because of science, investigation, experience and inquisitive thought, all backed up by measurement. Just look at the list of AES papers. However spme innovation happens because of listening which leads to science. They are not separate. They can exist together. So can you.

 

[jagwap]

There's nothing wrong with euphonic coloration. But it should be adjustable and it should be added on top of a calibrated clean source so you know exactly what you're adding to the sound. A DSP does this the best. Randomly picking tubes and hoping they hit the exact marks you want them to hit is wishful thinking. That's why so many people who love tube amps have more than one of them. They keep rolling the dice and having to try again.

It's possible to come up with a tube amp that sounds just as clean and just as flat as solid state amps generally sound. That's a lot of extra work and expense for the exact same thing though.

But tubes have some qualities that solid state can only emulate if you make extra effort. Those qualities being more accurate, not euphonic. But they will not show up on frequency response and THD sweeps.

 

[bigshot]

DSPs can recreate anything tubes can do with much more control. There's a great thread on it here in sound science if you're interested. The euphonic distortion of tubes can totally be recreated. Carver proved that.

If you can find audible differences that aren't measurable, quit your job, get a backer to finance your research and turn the home audio business on its head. If you can prove that, you have a tiger by the tail.

 

[jagwap]

DSPs can recreate anything tubes can do with much more control. There's a great thread on it here in sound science if you're interested. The euphonic distortion of tubes can totally be recreated. Carver proved that.

If you can find audible differences that aren't measurable, quit your job, get a backer to finance your research and turn the home audio business on its head. If you can prove that, you have a tiger by the tail.

I'll take a look. Yes Carver is one of the smart ones. He corrolated listening to some very novel and in depth measurement to achive that. Way beyond frequency response and THD sweeps.

I'm talking about some other aspects. I suspect Nelson Pass and John Curl know even more about this, looking at their designs. Tim de Paravicini especially.

 

[Killcomic]

Therea a lot of talk of stuff that cannot be meassured. Sound is waves moving through air, nothing more. We've been able to measure those pretty accurately for a long time now.
Can anyone explain to me what is a pair of headphones producing that cannot be meassured?

 

[jagwap]

Not cannot be measured.

Is not commonly measured.

Or

Has not not been measured yet.

 

[gregorio]

[If it sounds different ...] Usually it is simple, repeatable and understandable. It is usually verifiable by measurement. But sometimes it is is all of the above but not measurable. Not because it doesn't exist (we will usually blind test to verify), just that we haven't devised a measurement to track it yet.

Each of these sentences IS true/correct and I'm NOT disputing any of them! However, put them all together and I do dispute what you are saying because you have omitted a vital piece of information, namely: WHY "we haven't devised a measurement to track it yet"? - The answer to this question is WHERE it verifiably exists: Does it exist in the actual sound waves or does it exist only in the listeners' brains (perception)? If it's the latter then almost without exception "we haven't devised a measurement to track it yet", if it's the former then we have, because if we hadn't then we wouldn't be able to record sound waves in the first place (or obviously reproduce them).

Yes Carver is one of the smart ones. He corrolated listening to some very novel and in depth measurement to achive that.

No he didn't! As far as I'm aware, Carver did not use ANY novel or more in depth measurements. What he did that was "novel", was build an amp and physically demonstrate to some of the most influential audiophiles, who didn't know/refused to believe and therefore disputed facts which were proven, well known, established and accepted by everyone else (or at least, by those who understood the science and electrical engineering). Carver effectively demonstrated that all the mysticism and magic ascribed by these influential audiophiles could in fact be entirely defined by established measurements, provided that cognitive bias was eliminated. The result, as we all know, was not as anticipated, audiophile BS was not consigned to history, it continued almost exactly as it had before. It achieved that feat (at least for some of the more gullible audiophiles) by one simple addition, a determined obfuscation of the role, importance or even existence of biases.

G

 

[jagwap]

Each of these sentences IS true/correct and I'm NOT disputing any of them! However, put them all together and I do dispute what you are saying because you have omitted a vital piece of information, namely: WHY "we haven't devised a measurement to track it yet"? - The answer to this question is WHERE it verifiably exists: Does it exist in the actual sound waves or does it exist only in the listeners' brains (perception)? If it's the latter then almost without exception "we haven't devised a measurement to track it yet", if it's the former then we have, because if we hadn't then we wouldn't be able to record sound waves in the first place (or obviously reproduce them).

You read things selectively. Notice I said where we verify the effect with blind listening. So the effect is repeatable, but there is no difference in the measured performance. You don't want to believe it, but it does happen. Ideally when we delve further, we find a way to measure it. But it isn't there on the AP or similar industry standard kit.

No he didn't! As far as I'm aware, Carver did not use ANY novel or more in depth measurements. What he did that was "novel", was build an amp and physically demonstrate to some of the most influential audiophiles, who didn't know/refused to believe and therefore disputed facts which were proven, well known, established and accepted by everyone else (or at least, by those who understood the science and electrical engineering). Carver effectively demonstrated that all the mysticism and magic ascribed by these influential audiophiles could in fact be entirely defined by established measurements, provided that cognitive bias was eliminated. The result, as we all know, was not as anticipated, audiophile BS was not consigned to history, it continued almost exactly as it had before. It achieved that feat (at least for some of the more gullible audiophiles) by one simple addition, a determined obfuscation of the role, importance or even existence of biases.

G

That's what you want to believe, but he did uncommon measurements of his and the competition's products to get them to sound the same. I've worked in a number of places and very few do the analysis he did. Many places don't have that kit. If you don't understand that, that us understandable.

 

[gregorio]

You read things selectively. Notice I said where we verify the effect with blind listening. So the effect is repeatable, but there is no difference in the measured performance.

No, I did not "read things selectively". Yes, I did notice where you said we verify with blind testing and that it's repeatable. You on the other hand do seem to be reading selectively! Did you not notice where I said "The answer to this question is WHERE it verifiably exists"? Something can exist ONLY in our perception and still be verified with blind tests and be repeatable, music itself for example!

It really is surprising the lengths, the mental gymnastics and semantics you are going to, in order to deny the basic undeniable facts: If we cannot measure it, we cannot record (or therefore reproduce) it! And, what we do record is effectively a measurement of amplitude and frequency, that's it, nothing more and nothing less!

That's what you want to believe, but he did uncommon measurements of his and the competition's products to get them to sound the same. I've worked in a number of places and very few do the analysis he did. Many places don't have that kit. If you don't understand that, that us understandable.

"Uncommon measurements", yes, "novel measurements", no! If you don't understand the difference between "uncommon" and "novel", "that is understandable". What Carver actually had to do was not just build a linear (high-fidelity) amp, an amp whose output matched it's input, but an amp which mimicked the output of another specific amp. That means he had to calculate and implement a fairly precise transfer function and for that he probably would have needed some measurements which were "uncommon", or at least uncommon for most audiophile amp manufacturers, though not necessarily for audio scientists or other engineers!

G

 

[Glmoneydawg]

So you don’t trust yourself? Your own ears? You trust a graph more?

your ears can tell you what you find pleasing....the graph can tell you if its true to the source....having said that,if you are listening for pleasure you gotta go with the ears.

 

[gregorio]

So you don’t trust yourself? Your own ears?

your ears can tell you what you find pleasing....the graph can tell you if its true to the source.

I would go a step further. I cannot possibly trust my "own ears" because I cannot hear my own ears! The only thing I can hear is my brain's interpretation of what my ears are sensing. That interpretation can, as you say, define what I find pleasing but it's not necessarily true to what even my ears are sensing, let alone true to the source!

G

 

[jagwap]

No, I did not "read things selectively". Yes, I did notice where you said we verify with blind testing and that it's repeatable. You on the other hand do seem to be reading selectively! Did you not notice where I said "The answer to this question is WHERE it verifiably exists"? Something can exist ONLY in our perception and still be verified with blind tests and be repeatable, music itself for example!

It really is surprising the lengths, the mental gymnastics and semantics you are going to, in order to deny the basic undeniable facts: If we cannot measure it, we cannot record (or therefore reproduce) it! And, what we do record is effectively a measurement of amplitude and frequency, that's it, nothing more and nothing less!

It is deniable. I deny it. So PCM of the quality available to us today is capable of storing any audable sound (we've debated this elsewhere, but for this argument let us assume) It doesn't mean we can necessarily capture it perfectly. If we could, we don't necessarily have the knowledge to decern the aspect that changes.

"Uncommon measurements", yes, "novel measurements", no! If you don't understand the difference between "uncommon" and "novel", "that is understandable". What Carver actually had to do was not just build a linear (high-fidelity) amp, an amp whose output matched it's input, but an amp which mimicked the output of another specific amp. That means he had to calculate and implement a fairly precise transfer function and for that he probably would have needed some measurements which were "uncommon", or at least uncommon for most audiophile amp manufacturers, though not necessarily for audio scientists or other engineers!

G

That is part of my point. Then it was novel. He discovered its merit for this purpose. Innovation occurs and we learn more. Your position is we know everything now. I know that we don't. It's a nice position to take, but unrealistic. New and novel measurements are being discovered still. You maybe don't need them if you are the end user.

 

[Glmoneydawg]

I would go a step further. I cannot possibly trust my "own ears" because I cannot hear my own ears! The only thing I can hear is my brain's interpretation of what my ears are sensing. That interpretation can, as you say, define what I find pleasing but it's not necessarily true to what even my ears are sensing, let alone true to the source!

G

you use your ears to make a living....mine are just for shittz and giggles

 

[gregorio]

[1] It is deniable. I deny it.
[2] So PCM of the quality available to us today is capable of storing any audable sound (we've debated this elsewhere, but for this argument let us assume) It doesn't mean we can necessarily capture it perfectly.

1. Yep, my bad. I should have said "rationally undeniable" or "logically undeniable".

2. No PCM (or any other digital audio format) of any quality can capture or store any audible sound whatsoever, let alone "perfectly"! All PCM can store is data which represents the fluctuating amplitude and frequency of an electrical current, that's it, no audible sound OR ANYTHING ELSE!!

[1] That is part of my point. Then it was novel.
[2] Your position is we know everything now. I know that we don't.
[3] New and novel measurements are being discovered still. You maybe don't need them if you are the end user.

1. The measurements were NOT novel, the principle of those measurements was not novel, the fact those measurements could be used to create a transfer function was not novel. The only thing that was novel was demonstrating those already known facts to those specific ignorant audiophiles.

2. The nonsense you're making up is now reaching truly ridiculous levels! As I've already stated that we do not know everything, how can my position be that we do know everything? Doesn't that sound truly ridiculous, even to you? Do you really need me to repeat what I've already stated?

3. Yes there are and in fact I've actually been part of developing one of them (albeit a very tiny part). And, I use that measurement quite often. It's a measurement of loudness, something which VERIFIABLY AND REPEATABLY exists in blind (and sighted) tests but which exists only in our perception!

G