Golden Earring wrote:
> I've read through this thread with interest, and I fully agree with the
> sentiments expressed about manufacturers' marketing campaigns being
> fuelled by the "independent" reviews published by the plethora of
> magazines. The sad reality is that both the manufacturers and the
> magazines are trying to sustain their businesses and this is most easily
> achieved by promoting the concept that this year's product is much
> better than last year's, and correspondingly that this month's magazine
> has something brand-new to say.
> > > >
> >
> > Agreed. If every new product sounds better than its predecessor, why
> > don't we have sonic perfection given that audio as we know it started
> > out in the late 1920s? The executive summary is that we have a lot more
> > differences than improvements, and most differences are actually
> > imperceptible. Most perceptions are based on obviously invalid sighted
> > evaluations.
> >
> > > > > > >
> > > Manufacturers have now long learned this lesson, and we now have
> > > "planned obsolescence" as a design requirement.
> > > > > > >
> >
> > I don't know about that. I have a store room full of gear that still
> > worked when I took out of service because it stopped being useful
> > or lacked some feature that I thought would be desirable, and I'm
> > pretty pragmatic.
> >
> > > > > > >
> > > Nevertheless, to continue the car analogy briefly, each year each model
> > > will incorporate changes of some kind, many of them useless & some of
> > > them plain stupid (like electronic handbrakes!).
> > > > > > >
> >
> > Interesting. I have a car with an electronic handbrake, and just
> > about every other electronic feature currently on the market. The
> > electronic handbrake and the other electronic controls make sense
> > given that the car uses electronic controls to achieve certain
> > desirable goals for reliability, safety and convenience.
> >
> > The traditional cable handbrake system was actually one of the more
> > inherently unreliable parts of just about every car I have ever
> > owned. I don't have enough experience with the new car to put the
> > reliability of its new technology into context, but so far, so good.
> >
> >
> > The desirable aspect of electronic handbrakes is that it is easy to
> > have them set themselves automatically whenever needed to achieve
> > certain goals for safety. Unintended movements of automobiles are a
> > significant source of accidents.
> >
> > > > > > >
> > > As in many fields, once you manage to penetrate the bs, there is an
> > > 80/20 rule at work which means that to achieve any meaningful/audible
> > > improvement will require an ever-increasing level of design
> > > sophistication & quality control effort in production meaning £££'s
> > > being spent in accordance with the law of diminishing returns.
> > > > > }
> >
> > There is a law of diminishing returns that is particularly
> > applicable to audio, but it is far more harsh than 80/20. At this
> > time other than loudspeakers and rooms no further meaningful
> > improvements in audible performance are possible at all. One about a
> > dollar or less is spent on most major audio component parts (ICs
> > like op amp and digital converters), no further audible improvements
> > can be obtained because the existing ones already cause no audible
> > degradation of the signals they process.
> >
> > [quote> >
> > Having said all that, I wish my music system to operate in order to
> > suspend my disbelief that I am listening to sophisticated
> > electronics and fancy transducers when I want to think that I am
> > listening to music. Ultimately there must be a subjective element to
> > this, and indeed a personal one, depending upon which aspects of a
> > real musical performance one feels most important: enjoying music is
> > after all an emotional experience.
> > > >
>
> An interesting question that can be answered is how much satisfaction
> can be obtained when most forms of subjective gratification are held
> constant, such as in blind tests.
>
> > > >
> > I myself consider that I'm getting close when a reproduction makes the
> > hairs on the back of my neck stand up - I most commonly get this
> > response listening to exceptional vocalists, although solo piano is a
> > good test of system too because 1. it's a difficult signal to reproduce
> > accurately because of the initial transients to each note, from the
> > variable hammer action of the internal mechanism of the instrument, and
> > 2. because most of us have a pretty good idea of what a real piano
> > played live sounds like.
> > > >
>
> Given how little live music is actually listened to and how much of
> that is actually an electronic fiction, I serious doubt the above
> statement. Furthermore, every live venue puts its own sonic imprint on
> the music listened to in it. This means that you may know what a flute
> sounds like played by a certain artist playing a certain work in a
> certain musical context in a certain room if you are sitting at a
> certain place in that room, but change any of those variables and you
> are only speculating.
>
> > > >
> > I usually buy components for my system second-hand whenever possible, or
> > look for ex-demo bargains when something I want cannot easily be
> > acquired s/h. A major reason for this is of course that I am a
> > skin-flint, but joking aside, until you hook a piece of kit up with your
> > other gear in your own listening room and then listen to the result
> > intensively for a couple of weeks at least, you will not know if it
> > improves your musical enjoyment.
> > > >
>
> While that is true to an extent, reality is that if I did a blind
> listening test in your room with your last 3 amplifiers,or DACs, or
> digital players, odds are extremely good that you would be reduced to
> random guessing. The strongest variable controlling the sound of your
> audio system is the room, and lots of changes usually happen in other
> areas for every signficiant change in the room.
>
> > > >
> > There are plenty of combinations of kit which don't work well together,
> > and a rare few that have a synergistic effect.
> > > >
>
> There are specific technical features that put into place in just
> about all audio gear to falsify that idea, and most of them are
> highly effective. As long as you stay clear of junk or tubed
> amplifiers, most components interface very well, thank you.
>
> > > >
> > And also something that sounds good initially may induce "listening
> > fatigue" after a longer audition.
> > > >
>
> That can happen, but again if you avoid sheerest junk or the darlings
> of the high end press like analog tape, vinyl and tubed gear, it is
> pretty rare.
>
> > > >
> > Like others on this site, I have an enquiring mind and am interested in
> > how the "magic" of producing music from a bunch of boxes can be achieved
> > and I thoroughly endorse the scientific method as the only rational way
> > to proceed. I would note though that "science" is not actually a body of
> > knowledge but rather a set of working hypotheses each of which can never
> > be definitely proved but can only be definitively disproved by readily
> > repeatable experiments the results of which disagree with the prediction
> > of the theory. So we always need to be careful making definitive
> > statements of the nature of "science says x, so you must be wrong"
> > unless the specific matter in question has already been subjected to
> > those repeated experiments which have confirmed the validity of our
> > current hypothesis to this situation, and someone is claiming a result
> > contrary to those experimental findings.
> > > >
>
> Sounds to me like you have invented a science of your own, based on
> hypothesis that are fairly easy to prove false with bias controlled
> listening tests. I'll baldly say, science falsifies a lot of your
> claims here, as I have already suggested.
>
> > > >
> > Some working hypotheses even after being shown to be incorrect in
> > certain aspects can still be of use in other circumstances: I believe
> > that the USA put their men on the moon using Newton's Laws of Motion,
> > even though they had already been long supplanted by Einstein's Theory
> > Of Relativity.
> > > >
>
> That's false. Relativity was well known at the time of the moon
> landings, and adjustments to account for it had to be made in certain
> critical areas, even back then. Computers were used to work out the
> flight plans and there were relativistic adjustments that were at
> least examined to see if they were relevant. You seem to have no clue
> about this sort of thing or many other areas of technology.
> Relativistic adjustments have to be made in common implementations of
> modern technology such as cell phones and GPS or they just don't
> work.
>
> > > >
> > Einstein's theories themselves remain unproved - they simply have not
> > yet been disproved.
> > > >
>
> Actually some of Einstein's theories or obvious applications of them
> are held in serious question. OTOH very anyf of them are as good as
> 100% true in many common modern applications, some already mentioned.
>
>
> I don't think you appreciate a fundamental principle of Science which
> is: "All findings of Science are provisional, just until we find
> something better." That's as true of everything as well las anything.
> Water flows down hill, and the earth is round, right? Well, sorta and
> surely if given that... The earth is actually pear shaped, for
> example!
>
> > > >
> > Equally, our latest theories about digital music reproduction are not
> > definitively proven, and we may later reach a greater depth of
> > understanding. Just saying...
> > > >
>
> I don't know what you are talking about. What part of digital music
> technology is questionable? IME, it all works, and more closely in
> accordance with its theories than many of its predecessors. Wanna see
> a theoretical mess? Let's talk about analog!
>
> No, it would seem that you are trying desperately to deify personal
> errors due to unmanaged subjectivity. That's what it seems to me, and
> for the reasons already given.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914