Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Little Comment

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 7:45:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

-Excuse me for bad english-
I don't know what to say after i read certain comments here, especially
about CD Players.
Many peoples here says that all CD-players sounds same, i can say OK, i
respect opinions from all, but others maybe have different thinking. I am
very surprised whit name of this group "rec.audio.high-end", especially
because from expression HIGH-END i expect something more criticall. I have
nothing against peoples what thinking that is the same hear music from
MustekDVD or CoplandCD-player for example, but i dont think that. Maybe are
my ears better, maybe i listen different music, or is my taste different, or
maybe i am crazy, who know?
Really guys, in this group i dont see high-end, except in the title.
Or maybe "High End" meaning something else today (Like "Hi-Fi" in the past),
maybe it's time to find new expression for true High End.
....and for finish, please, dont catch me wrong, i dont want to underestimate
nobody, i really like to hear another thinkings (although different then
mine), but i just want to say something what i think, especially because i
dont see large activity in this group, and because are my thinkings on
another way.

Greeting, sorry if i say somethig wrong, i dont have bad intention

More about : comment

May 12, 2005 6:31:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

_Dejan_ wrote:
> -Excuse me for bad english-
> I don't know what to say after i read certain comments here,
> especially about CD Players.
> Many peoples here says that all CD-players sounds same, i can say OK,
> i respect opinions from all, but others maybe have different
> thinking. I am very surprised whit name of this group
> "rec.audio.high-end", especially because from expression HIGH-END i
> expect something more criticall. I have nothing against peoples what
> thinking that is the same hear music from MustekDVD or
> CoplandCD-player for example, but i dont think that. Maybe are my
> ears better, maybe i listen different music, or is my taste
> different, or maybe i am crazy, who know?
> Really guys, in this group i dont see high-end, except in the title.
> Or maybe "High End" meaning something else today (Like "Hi-Fi" in the
> past), maybe it's time to find new expression for true High End.
> ...and for finish, please, dont catch me wrong, i dont want to
> underestimate nobody, i really like to hear another thinkings
> (although different then mine), but i just want to say something what
> i think, especially because i dont see large activity in this group,
> and because are my thinkings on another way.
>
> Greeting, sorry if i say somethig wrong, i dont have bad intention

Dejan, it might seem what you imagine about high-end is *not* fulfilled
here. OTOH a lot of the contributers have really very good sounding gear at
home and know what they are talking about. A few even write articles in
mags. Many are engineers or sound engineers.
So it seems it is maybe you who has to drop a few of your believes and
preconcepts. It is quite a long way after all this indoctrination, but with
your post you have started the inquiry. Go on.

--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 6:33:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

_Dejan_ <BRISIOVOpdejan@net.hr> wrote:
> -Excuse me for bad english-
> I don't know what to say after i read certain comments here, especially
> about CD Players.
> Many peoples here says that all CD-players sounds same, i can say OK, i
> respect opinions from all, but others maybe have different thinking. I am
> very surprised whit name of this group "rec.audio.high-end", especially
> because from expression HIGH-END i expect something more criticall.

First, I'm not sure that anyone is saying 'all CD players sound the same',
without some sort of qualification of that claim.
Second, you don't consider a standard of proof that requires blind testing to be
*critical* enough?

> I have
> nothing against peoples what thinking that is the same hear music from
> MustekDVD or CoplandCD-player for example, but i dont think that. Maybe are
> my ears better, maybe i listen different music, or is my taste different, or
> maybe i am crazy, who know?

Well, we do know that human perception is easily fooled when differences
are in fact small, or nonexistant. So if we want to verify that what
we think we hear is real, we have to take measures to account for the
'fooling' factors.

> Really guys, in this group i dont see high-end, except in the title.
> Or maybe "High End" meaning something else today (Like "Hi-Fi" in the past),
> maybe it's time to find new expression for true High End.

First, define what you mean by 'true High End'.

> ...and for finish, please, dont catch me wrong, i dont want to underestimate
> nobody, i really like to hear another thinkings (although different then
> mine), but i just want to say something what i think, especially because i
> dont see large activity in this group, and because are my thinkings on
> another way.

> Greeting, sorry if i say somethig wrong, i dont have bad intention

If skepticism bothers you, there are plenty of audio discussion groups that
are less tolerant of it -- e.g. www.audioasylum.com.




--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
Related resources
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 12:10:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

That is absolutely true. It defies logic why on earth some of the
usual suspects post here at all as they only try and slam any high-end
product. What is worse is that they monitor the group daily and jump
on anyone that wants to talk about a high-end amplifier, CD player,
turntable, you name it. They just can't stand anything that costs more
than $300 no matter who makes it or what it does. It is disrupting the
group to the point where there are no more posts about high-end audio.
In other words, the "moderators" have allowed certain individuals to
hijack the group, thread by thread, against it's own charter. It is
pathetic.
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"_Dejan_" <BRISIOVOpdejan@net.hr> wrote in message
news:D 5ujhf02hr5@news2.newsguy.com...
> -Excuse me for bad english-
> I don't know what to say after i read certain comments here,
> especially
> about CD Players.
> Many peoples here says that all CD-players sounds same, i can say
> OK, i
> respect opinions from all, but others maybe have different thinking.
> I am
> very surprised whit name of this group "rec.audio.high-end",
> especially
> because from expression HIGH-END i expect something more criticall.
> I have
> nothing against peoples what thinking that is the same hear music
> from
> MustekDVD or CoplandCD-player for example, but i dont think that.
> Maybe are
> my ears better, maybe i listen different music, or is my taste
> different, or
> maybe i am crazy, who know?
> Really guys, in this group i dont see high-end, except in the title.
> Or maybe "High End" meaning something else today (Like "Hi-Fi" in
> the past),
> maybe it's time to find new expression for true High End.
> ...and for finish, please, dont catch me wrong, i dont want to
> underestimate
> nobody, i really like to hear another thinkings (although different
> then
> mine), but i just want to say something what i think, especially
> because i
> dont see large activity in this group, and because are my thinkings
> on
> another way.
>
> Greeting, sorry if i say somethig wrong, i dont have bad intention
>
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 12:33:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <d60d8d0i2l@news1.newsguy.com>,
Uptown Audio <uptownaudio@rev.net> writes:
> That is absolutely true. It defies logic why on earth some of the
> usual suspects post here at all as they only try and slam any high-end
> product. What is worse is that they monitor the group daily and jump
> on anyone that wants to talk about a high-end amplifier, CD player,
> turntable, you name it. They just can't stand anything that costs more
> than $300 no matter who makes it or what it does. It is disrupting the
> group to the point where there are no more posts about high-end audio.
> In other words, the "moderators" have allowed certain individuals to
> hijack the group, thread by thread, against it's own charter. It is
> pathetic.

As one of the moderators, I feel the need to point out this section of
the guidelines, something that has been there since before I began
moderating in 1997:


2.0 -- Definition of High-End Audio

The working definition of 'high-end audio' under which this
newsgroup operates is

a) audio equipment whose primary and fundamental design goal is
to reproduce a musical event as faithfully as possible; or

b) audio equipment which attempts to provide an electromechanical
realization of the emotional experience commonly called music;
or

c) any relevant issues related to the use, design or theory about
a) or b).

Price is generally not significant in determining whether or not a
given component may be considered 'high-end'.

Products from mass-market corporations are less likely to be
considered high end insofar as such mass-market gear is designed
with apparent priority on things other than absolute sound quality.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-.- David Bath (rec.audio.high-end moderation team)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 7:13:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

_Dejan_ wrote:
> -Excuse me for bad english-
> I don't know what to say after i read certain comments here,
especially
> about CD Players.
> Many peoples here says that all CD-players sounds same, i can say OK,
i
> respect opinions from all, but others maybe have different thinking.
I am
> very surprised whit name of this group "rec.audio.high-end",
especially
> because from expression HIGH-END i expect something more criticall.

This newsgroup is called rec.audio.high-end for historical reasons.
"High end" is and probably always was a marketing term. "High end"
refers to products designed and marketed to appeal to people who care a
lot about the quality of audio reproduction--as opposed to people who
just want something to play their music on.

Now just because products are aimed at that segment of the market
doesn't mean that they will necessarily sound better--or even
different--than mass-market products. And there are good scientific
reasons to expect that many "high-end" amps, CD players, and wires do
not sound any different than mass-market alternatives.

You won't find out much information about that science on other
Internet discussion boards, because the topic is usually either banned
entirely or tightly constrained. And you won't find that scientific
perspective in the high-end magazines, because it would be very, very
bad for business. So consider yourself lucky that you have happened
upon one of the few places where you actually can get that scientific
perspective.

Also, lest you think we are frauds, rest assured that everyone who
posts here really is interested in the quality of audio reproduction.
But some of us think the best way to achieve that is to concentrate on
the pieces of the chain that really do make a difference in sound
quality: the recording itself, the loudspeakers, and the placement of
the speakers inthe room.

> I have
> nothing against peoples what thinking that is the same hear music
from
> MustekDVD or CoplandCD-player for example, but i dont think that.
Maybe are
> my ears better, maybe i listen different music, or is my taste
different, or
> maybe i am crazy, who know?

Your ears aren't better, and you are not crazy. I don't know about
those two disk players, and it may be that one or the other is
defective or poorly designed in some way that makes it sound different
from the other. But it is also quite likely that they sound different
to you for one of the following reasons:
1. One is playing louder than the other.
2. You expect them to sound different, and expectation can fool us.

And no, #2 isn't crazy. It's normal. All of us are subject to this sort
of illusion. (It's like the aural equivalent of an optical illusion.)
But if you compare them without knowing which is which, can you still
tell them apart? If not, then there's good reason to believe that they
aren't really audibly different, even if they seem to be.

bob
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 7:14:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Uptown Audio wrote:
> That is absolutely true. It defies logic why on earth some of the
> usual suspects post here at all as they only try and slam any
high-end
> product.

For your information, this list does not exist to promote your product
line.

> What is worse is that they monitor the group daily and jump
> on anyone that wants to talk about a high-end amplifier, CD player,
> turntable, you name it. They just can't stand anything that costs
more
> than $300 no matter who makes it or what it does.

This is just nonsense. First of all, the posting rules forbid "jumping"
on people who want to discuss any product. We do tend to jump on people
who want to advance pseudoscientific theories for why some products
*seem* to sound better than others. Sorry if that's bad for business.

> It is disrupting the
> group to the point where there are no more posts about high-end
audio.
> In other words, the "moderators" have allowed certain individuals to
> hijack the group, thread by thread, against it's own charter. It is
> pathetic.

Then don't read it. There are other places on the Web where you can
read exactly what you want to read. Try www.audiogon.com, where only
scientifically illiterate posts seem to be tolerated. Or the Asylum,
where "legendary audio designers" can be found extolling the virtues of
the "Intelligent Chip." You might be happier there. Why put up with us
if we cause you so much agita?

bob
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 7:53:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 12 May 2005 20:10:53 GMT, Uptown Audio <uptownaudio@rev.net> wrote:

>That is absolutely true. It defies logic why on earth some of the
>usual suspects post here at all as they only try and slam any high-end
>product. What is worse is that they monitor the group daily and jump
>on anyone that wants to talk about a high-end amplifier, CD player,
>turntable, you name it. They just can't stand anything that costs more
>than $300 no matter who makes it or what it does.

That is utterly untrue. You have *never* seen any of the so-called
'objectivsist' objecting to expensive loudspeakers, or indeed
expensive turntables. Both (especially turntables) involve extremely
precise mechanical engineering, which will never be cheap.

CD players and amplifiers however, are a different matter. It remains
a truism that, once you get past the very bottom of the market, the
only time CD players or amps really do sound different is indeed in
the 'high end' at stratospheric prices. Unfortunately, that difference
is a deliberate *degradation* of the sound from the functional
near-perfection which is ubiquitous in the mid-market.

> It is disrupting the
>group to the point where there are no more posts about high-end audio.

Sure there are - just not about some of the overpriced dross which can
be found in 'high end' audio stores.

>In other words, the "moderators" have allowed certain individuals to
>hijack the group, thread by thread, against it's own charter. It is
>pathetic.

That's rubbish, and if you didn't own a 'high end' audio store, you'd
recognise that.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 11:21:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

_Dejan_ <BRISIOVOpdejan@net.hr> wrote:
> -Excuse me for bad english-
> I don't know what to say after i read certain comments here, especially
> about CD Players.
> Many peoples here says that all CD-players sounds same, i can say OK,

The digital part of the CD player should be able to read correctly the
bits on the CD. That leaves the DAC as the possible cause for sonic
differences (and that, only if you are not connecting the CD player
digitally to the receiver).

This was posted by Arny Krueger in another group:

:> Many built-in DAC's are cheap, cheap, cheap.

: Despite their low prices, they are often up to the task at hand. Here
: are the measured performance specs for the DAC in a $39 DVD player - a
: Apex AD 1201:

: Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB: +0.07, -0.05
: Noise level, dB (A): -95.2
: Dynamic range, dB (A): 95.0
: THD, %: 0.0012
: IMD, %: 0.002
: Stereo crosstalk, dB:-92.9

I found it a bit strange that the test was not from 20 Hz to 20 kHz,
but then I found another (older) post with this:

| Frequency response +0.10 -0.16 dB 20-20 KHz into a 5.6 K load.
| Zero signal noise -95 dB A-weighted, -94 dB unweighted
| Dynamic range 96 dB A-weighted 93 dB unweighted
| THD 0.001%
| THD+N A-weighted 0.007%
| THD+N 0.007% unweighted
| IM (18 & 20 KHz) 0.003%

Note that the theoretical performance from 16bit PCM is
20* log(65536) ~= 96.33 dB

So the most expensive CD player in the world won't be able to improve
significantly this performance. Of course there are other qualities that
matter on a CD player, like mechanical noise, durability, ergonomics, etc..

In the case of DVD-Audio (20 or 24 bit, so 120 dB or 144 dB theoretically)
or SACD (about 120 dB on the audio band) things are somewhat different,
because the analog parts can't approach the theoretical limits, so one
can expect some differences between models.

For instance the very recent Yamaha DV-657:

DA Converter 24 bit
Signal-Noise (1 kHz) 110 dB
Dynamic range (1 kHz) 100 dB
Distortion and Noise (1 kHz) 0.003 %

The Pioneer DV-575A:

S/N ratio 115 dB
Dynamic range 101 dB
Total harmonic distortion 0.0020 %

Or the Yamaha DV-2500:

Signal-Noise Ratio 115 dB
Dynamic Range 103 dB (DVD 48 kHz 24 bit)
Total Harmonic Distortion (1 kHz) 0.0017 % (DVD 48 kHz 24 bit)

So there are _measurable_ differences between 24 bit players. But:

1 - Most amplifiers have worse signal/noise than this.

2 - The original performance probably has more noise than this.

3 - Human hearing is limited, so many people think that the
96 dB of CD are enough ("perfect sound forever" was the
original marketing slogan for the CD).

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 7:59:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Thanks for reply. I have a lot thinkings, but sorry, i dont want
discussing to match because i speak english like a Tarzan. I say
something for start, and now i leave finish to somebody else.

Greetings
Dejan, Croatia


....this i write before, but somebody dont like my thinking, and this
message you cant read in news group. Now i see that i must say more.
You say engineers. Hm. Read all, and you may see what i think about
this. After all this i am a little angry, and up to finish less polite.
Sadly.

[Moderator's note: The post he refers to was not posted due to the use
of an invalid address which is not allowed per the guidelines.
-- deb]
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 8:02:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D 5vpfn01mvf@news2.newsguy.com...

> First, I'm not sure that anyone is saying 'all CD players sound the
same',
> without some sort of qualification of that claim.


From what i read here in some threads, i simply make this conclussion
because peoples often really say this


> Second, you don't consider a standard of proof that requires blind
testing
> to be
> *critical* enough?


Blind test are not perfect! Blind test are relatively short, for good
conclusion is important long term hearing. It would be nice to make
long
blind test, but this is hard to make. Usual blind test often make
confuse,
this can be interesting, but not necessarily usefull. Many factors are
here,
for example maybe in that moment person dont think like after good
sleep, so results can be very different. I know this because i like
DIY, when i make something different i often dont know it is better or
not, but in another time things in my head can be totaly different.


> Well, we do know that human perception is easily fooled when
differences
> are in fact small, or nonexistant. So if we want to verify that what
> we think we hear is real, we have to take measures to account for the
> 'fooling' factors.


Like i say, i like DIY, for example i can hear PSU snubbers in my
circuits. But i can't meassure them in otput signal.


> First, define what you mean by 'true High End'.


Oh, sorry i dont want define this. But for sure this is not CD-Player
for 9$. Last what i try with this price have left channel louder then
another. This talk enough to me. Or maybe i dont have luck. I can try
again.


Greetings
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 8:02:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Thanks for support. It's realy nice to hear same opinion.
And enjoy in the music, this is most important!
....in buisness is sometimes hard enjoy, i know, i wish you luck

Cheers

Petrovic Dejan
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 8:05:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote

> Now just because products are aimed at that segment of the market
> doesn't mean that they will necessarily sound better--or even
> different--than mass-market products. And there are good scientific
> reasons to expect that many "high-end" amps, CD players, and wires do
> not sound any different than mass-market alternatives.


You must to learn a lot about this science, believe me


> You won't find out much information about that science on other
> Internet discussion boards, because the topic is usually either
banned
> entirely or tightly constrained. And you won't find that scientific
> perspective in the high-end magazines, because it would be very, very
> bad for business. So consider yourself lucky that you have happened
> upon one of the few places where you actually can get that scientific
> perspective.


Again, this is not scientific perspective!!!


> But some of us think the best way to achieve that is to concentrate
on
> the pieces of the chain that really do make a difference in sound
> quality: the recording itself, the loudspeakers, and the placement of
> the speakers inthe room.


Aleluja! Placement of the speakers in the room? I am surprised that you
care
about this


> But it is also quite likely that they sound different
> to you for one of the following reasons:
> 1. One is playing louder than the other.
> 2. You expect them to sound different, and expectation can fool us.


Now you realy make me idiot. Obviously i AM crazy. From your scientific
perspective i expect much more.


> But if you compare them without knowing which is which, can you still
> tell them apart? If not, then there's good reason to believe that
they
> aren't really audibly different, even if they seem to be.


Who say this? I not! It IS different! Often drastical! But not
necessarily, this is true.

....and it's true that are price often to large, but this is no reason
for bad informations. I simply say: Yes this is really good sound but i
dont have money for this. Science is not needed to say this. And if you
dont hear difference you must know: this is just your perspective. You
talking about silence, but you dont have proof that somebody dont hear.
And please, dont say now: blind test!


Dejan
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 9:03:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D 62ii20ega@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> CD players and amplifiers however, are a different matter. It remains
> a truism that, once you get past the very bottom of the market, the
> only time CD players or amps really do sound different is indeed in
> the 'high end' at stratospheric prices. Unfortunately, that difference
> is a deliberate *degradation* of the sound from the functional
> near-perfection which is ubiquitous in the mid-market.
>
Amps have to be reliable, have good warranties, have decent binding posts,
not be unnecessarily large or heavy, do not emit sounds of their own (no
fans please), be up to the task of driving your "current" loudspeakers and
have lotsa reserve power, watts and current, and be up to the task of doing
so with any speakers which may lie in your future. If they satisfy all of
the above, their designers will most probably have assured that they will
sound good (neutral). I think if you choose accordingly you will be safe
(happy).
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 10:05:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

This is why much "high end" gear is now in the commodity category. Style
and electrical parameters and utility only seperates amps when it comes to
neutral sound reproduction. Price is used to evoke an arena of exclusive
membership about which all manner of subjective feelings of self
satisfaction can be experienced and sound "quality" imagined therefrom.
The current state of listening alone tests confirms this. The 200k
dollar 5 watt amp with extra high distortion but highly touted is the flip
side of listening tests and confirms it also.

"Amps have to be reliable, have good warranties, have decent binding
posts,
not be unnecessarily large or heavy, do not emit sounds of their own (no
fans please), be up to the task of driving your "current" loudspeakers and
have lotsa reserve power, watts and current, and be up to the task of
doing
so with any speakers which may lie in your future. If they satisfy all of
the above, their designers will most probably have assured that they will
sound good (neutral). I think if you choose accordingly you will be safe
(happy)."
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 11:39:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Thanks for support. It's realy nice to hear same opinion.
And enjoy in the music, this is most important!"

Enjoying is the key, and the first step is to cure oneself of the "better
sound" is in the gear I don't currently have or can afford. In place of
which we can be highly assured that most audio gear now is a commodity
item except for speakers and the control of the space in which we place
them.
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 11:42:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Yes, this is OK, but i heard amplifiers what have all this
charactersitics, but i dont like them. I am again foolish probably.

This is just my illusion, i know.

Why scientists in this group dont unite mental power to make somethig
useful, for example high efficient, compact and good sounding speaker,
or something similar.
This discussion is waste of energy, i am sad what i start this.

I give up and go to another place.
And sorry to all for bad words what i say.

Bye to all
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 11:44:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

_Dejan_ <pdejan@net.hr> wrote:
> "Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:D 5vpfn01mvf@news2.newsguy.com...

> > First, I'm not sure that anyone is saying 'all CD players sound the
> same',
> > without some sort of qualification of that claim.


> From what i read here in some threads, i simply make this conclussion
> because peoples often really say this


> > Second, you don't consider a standard of proof that requires blind
> testing
> > to be
> > *critical* enough?


> Blind test are not perfect! Blind test are relatively short, for good
> conclusion is important long term hearing.

<lots of similar misinformation snipped>

You really need to google search threads about blind testing here.
You have a lot of learning to do.




--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 1:42:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<nabo...@hotmail.com> wrote

> Now just because products are aimed at that segment of the market
> doesn't mean that they will necessarily sound better--or even
> different--than mass-market products



Voice of ratinality from me: Yes, this is true. Really.
And many are insane expensive - this is not good. True.
From another side, many high-end products deserve attention!

But i dont talk about this.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 3:54:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<outsor@city-net.com> wrote in message
news:D 65k6f0prt@news3.newsguy.com...
> "Thanks for support. It's realy nice to hear same opinion.
> And enjoy in the music, this is most important!"
>
> Enjoying is the key, and the first step is to cure oneself of the
"better
> sound" is in the gear I don't currently have or can afford. In place
of
> which we can be highly assured that most audio gear now is a
commodity
> item except for speakers and the control of the space in which we
place
> them.

I allready say that i give up, but i am here again, ah.
I see sense in your words and i respect your words. But this is not so
simple. Believe me, i see many things. I dont want be part of one or
another extrem. This is problem here, you guys are EXTREM. I can accept
some things, but not all. I am lucky that i dont need to buy amps and
speakers. Everyone can make this if know something about electronic.
And i try many things. Often i expect a lot, sometimes not, and results
are not always like i expect. This is important! Theory about
foolishnes is here very weak. Some amps really make change sound! For
me this is so obviously that i really dont know what to say here and
how to response. You have your believes i have mine. And then we have
short-circuit. I dont want this. I try dont look further here, and
maybe sometime all we find on same wavelenght in better frame of mind
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 7:58:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"I see sense in your words and i respect your words. But this is not so
simple. Believe me, i see many things. I dont want be part of one or
another extrem. This is problem here, you guys are EXTREM. I can accept
some things, but not all. I am lucky that i dont need to buy amps and
speakers. Everyone can make this if know something about electronic.
And i try many things. Often i expect a lot, sometimes not, and results
are not always like i expect. This is important! Theory about
foolishnes is here very weak. Some amps really make change sound! For
me this is so obviously that i really dont know what to say here and
how to response. You have your believes i have mine. And then we have
short-circuit. I dont want this. I try dont look further here, and
maybe sometime all we find on same wavelenght in better frame of mind"

It is easy to make an amp sound different and the electrical parameters by
which to do so are well known. For those amps not trying to sound
different but to only increase the signal as faithfully as it enters the
amp we have become so successful as to have created a commodity market.
In a large series of tests when the obvious and well known amp differences
are controlled,ie. frequency response and staying within it's power supply
design goals, by using listening alone they cann't be distinguished one
from another. People who did accept that such amps can sound different
and say they experience it on a common basis find that using listening
alone they cann't distinguish the amps. That is the benchmark of data and
experience from which we can have such a discussion by asking the question
- why do the differences said to exist and be heard disappear when
listening alone testing is done?
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 8:08:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Steven Sullivan" May 14, 3:44 pm <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D 65keg0q6r@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> <lots of similar misinformation snipped>
>
> You really need to google search threads about blind testing here.
> You have a lot of learning to do.

I see that you are very disappoint.
Sorry, same about google i can say to you, but you dont need search
only blind tests. You can find a lot good informations (and bad
informations offcours, and be carfully like i - not naive). Maybe in
that way you find real science.
Known conclusion blind tests is that audio components like CD-Players
and amplifiers are not important for sound quality. This is reason why
i am not interested in your blind test.
And yes its true, i dont know if you have revolutionary new blind test,
and i dont have intention look for this in google because i find some
answers a long time ago and now this is not interesting to me, sorry
again.
I want to learn, but i dont want learn about your blind tests.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 8:24:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro" May 13, 3:21 pm <rps@koala.mat.uc.pt>
wrote in message news:D 62unq0qfv@news2.newsguy.com...

>The digital part of the CD player should be able to read correctly
the...
> .../cut/...
>...Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94


Now i realised "science": You forget say that is largest distorsion
factor from speakers, so with this logic all others is not important.
Strange theory. Instead of rewriting technical characteristics
CD-Players it would be smarter to use brain or ears for change. Do you
listen music? Do you like music? Or, if you are technical directed, did
you ever see something more then numbers for S/N, dynamic range and
distortion? And what is really important for good sound? I see you
allready know all. I understand that to you all components have same
sound and i dont see nothing bad in this. But wrong is this: Do you
really think that are all audiophiles so foolish? If you something dont
see (dont hear), dont mean that this dont exist. Your omission, not
mine.
And, you probably dont have problems with components and sound. You
have less then 0.01% distorsions. Voila! Why you then reading this?
Just dont tell me that you are soooo good man and you want help to
others. You are allready happy with your sound and its time for
something new. I see you like F1 so you can be another Schumacher. But
this is not so easy like telling nonsenses.
Or, maybe you trying to find speakers with 0.0001% distorsions. This is
only thing what you need. Like i see in this group we have scientists,
so you are maybe another one and you maybe have idea how to achieve
this. I am very interested in this. You know much about CD-players,
maybe about speakers too. Horns, TQWP, transmission line, bass reflex,
closed box, variovent, open baffle, MKP, MKT, Elcos, air coils,
ferrites, cooper foil coils, MF resistors..bla..bla....single drive
speakers, two-way, three-way, or more??, co-axial speakers,
tri-axial?...passive crossovers, active.. What is better for you? Or
you again dont hear differences because are distorsons always high? I
can only gues what you think about peoples what cares about materials
for boxes, even about varnish. This is hard to measure. Many things can
be strange to me too, but i am openend mind, you are not, and this is
not good. Sorry.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 8:48:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 14 May 2005 19:42:02 GMT, "_Dejan_" <pdejan@net.hr> wrote:

>Yes, this is OK, but i heard amplifiers what have all this
>charactersitics, but i dont like them. I am again foolish probably.
>
>This is just my illusion, i know.

Possibly, or possibly there actually is something wrong with them. The
existence of many good amplifiers does not preclude the existence of
many bad ones!

>Why scientists in this group dont unite mental power to make somethig
>useful, for example high efficient, compact and good sounding speaker,
>or something similar.

That's simple. Such a loudspeaker is physically impossible - if it is
to cover the full acoustic range. There are however many reasonably
efficient and very high quality 'minimonitors' which can be combined
with a good subwoofer to provide SOTA performance.

>This discussion is waste of energy, i am sad what i start this.

Sorry you feel that way, but it's hard to tell what is your position.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 9:02:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 14 May 2005 18:05:22 GMT, outsor@city-net.com wrote:

>This is why much "high end" gear is now in the commodity category. Style
>and electrical parameters and utility only seperates amps when it comes to
>neutral sound reproduction. Price is used to evoke an arena of exclusive
>membership about which all manner of subjective feelings of self
>satisfaction can be experienced and sound "quality" imagined therefrom.

Are these scientific remarks of yours? Do you have test results? Do
you have documentation? Lab reports?

Or do I have to repeat Dejan's remark: "I do not see science here, I
only see talk about science."

Which is the only thing the objectivists are good at: talk about
"science" in a rather metaphysical way.

Ernesto.

"You don't have to learn science if you don't feel
like it. So you can forget the whole business if
it is too much mental strain, which it usually is."

Richard Feynman
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 1:01:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<outsor@city-net.com> wrote in message news:D 67rjf01h10@news3.newsguy.com...
> "I see sense in your words and i respect your words. But this is not so
> simple. Believe me, i see many things. I dont want be part of one or
> another extrem. This is problem here, you guys are EXTREM. I can accept
> some things, but not all. I am lucky that i dont need to buy amps and
> speakers. Everyone can make this if know something about electronic.
> And i try many things. Often i expect a lot, sometimes not, and results
> are not always like i expect. This is important! Theory about
> foolishnes is here very weak. Some amps really make change sound! For
> me this is so obviously that i really dont know what to say here and
> how to response. You have your believes i have mine. And then we have
> short-circuit. I dont want this. I try dont look further here, and
> maybe sometime all we find on same wavelenght in better frame of mind"
>
> It is easy to make an amp sound different and the electrical parameters by
> which to do so are well known. For those amps not trying to sound
> different but to only increase the signal as faithfully as it enters the
> amp we have become so successful as to have created a commodity market.
> In a large series of tests when the obvious and well known amp differences
> are controlled,ie. frequency response and staying within it's power supply
> design goals, by using listening alone they cann't be distinguished one
> from another. People who did accept that such amps can sound different
> and say they experience it on a common basis find that using listening
> alone they cann't distinguish the amps. That is the benchmark of data and
> experience from which we can have such a discussion by asking the question
> - why do the differences said to exist and be heard disappear when
> listening alone testing is done?

Are you speaking of Tom Nousaine's tests. That's the only "large set" of
dbt's of amps claiming no difference that I know of. And if I recall correc
tly, all we have is Tom's anecdotal telling of the results of those tests.
I don't recall they were ever published or even a white paper issued. Am I
wrong?
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 2:52:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D 67ugs01kh1@news3.newsguy.com...

> Possibly, or possibly there actually is something wrong with them.
The
> existence of many good amplifiers does not preclude the existence of
> many bad ones!

Yes, true! Of course! And this differences are often AUDIBLE. I believe
that you think so too (but some persons here dont think so). This is
only thing what is in this discussion important to me. I dont try here
explain why is one amp better or not.


> That's simple. Such a loudspeaker is physically impossible - if it is
> to cover the full acoustic range. There are however many reasonably
> efficient and very high quality 'minimonitors' which can be combined
> with a good subwoofer to provide SOTA performance.


Of course, but you understand me wrong! And i hope that you dont think
that i give this yob to you. This long yob i grant to "scientific"
persons what think that all CD-players and amps sound same. Impossible
or not, it is more usefull.


Dejan Petrovic
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 5:10:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 15 May 2005 22:52:57 GMT, "_Dejan_" <pdejan@net.hr> wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:D 67ugs01kh1@news3.newsguy.com...
>
>> Possibly, or possibly there actually is something wrong with them. The
>> existence of many good amplifiers does not preclude the existence of
>> many bad ones!
>
>Yes, true! Of course! And this differences are often AUDIBLE.

Not among the good ones...........

> I believe
>that you think so too (but some persons here dont think so). This is
>only thing what is in this discussion important to me. I dont try here
>explain why is one amp better or not.
>
>> That's simple. Such a loudspeaker is physically impossible - if it is
>> to cover the full acoustic range. There are however many reasonably
>> efficient and very high quality 'minimonitors' which can be combined
>> with a good subwoofer to provide SOTA performance.
>
>Of course, but you understand me wrong! And i hope that you dont think
>that i give this yob to you. This long yob i grant to "scientific"
>persons what think that all CD-players and amps sound same.

The good ones do.

> Impossible
>or not, it is more usefull.

No, what was *really* useful was all the engineering effort that went
into making sonically transparent CD players and amplifiers available
to all. The 'high end' in 2005 is merely big boys toys and snobbery.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 6:39:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"you have documentation? Lab reports?
Or do I have to repeat Dejan's remark: "I do not see science here, I
only see talk about science."

Which is the only thing the objectivists are good at: talk about "science"
in a rather metaphysical way."

Review the archives of this group to see discussion of the testing over
several years that has been done. To make the question even more
intresting, a standing offer of around $6000 for wire, $10000 for amps,
$1000000 for some of the really fringe claims is available. In past
cycles of this question, either here or in another list there was mention
of similar offers in other countries for substantual sums, finland is one
that comes to mind but there were others also. We would be happy to
arrange to have you try for the money, and happy to add your datum point
to the set of examples where folk could not demonstrate that a difference
could be shown by listening alone blind testing. One discussed here in
some detail before was an audio store owner who thought his then top of
the line pass labs and an older yamaha in his store using his gear would
be a cake walk, not so.
May 18, 2005 5:06:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

_Dejan_ wrote:
> And, you probably dont have problems with components and sound. You
> have less then 0.01% distorsions. Voila! Why you then reading this?
> Just dont tell me that you are soooo good man and you want help to
> others. You are allready happy with your sound and its time for
> something new. I see you like F1 so you can be another Schumacher. But
> this is not so easy like telling nonsenses.
> Or, maybe you trying to find speakers with 0.0001% distorsions. This
> is only thing what you need. Like i see in this group we have
> scientists, so you are maybe another one and you maybe have idea how
> to achieve this. I am very interested in this. You know much about
> CD-players, maybe about speakers too. Horns, TQWP, transmission line,
> bass reflex, closed box, variovent, open baffle, MKP, MKT, Elcos, air
> coils, ferrites, cooper foil coils, MF resistors..bla..bla....single
> drive speakers, two-way, three-way, or more??, co-axial speakers,
> tri-axial?...passive crossovers, active.. What is better for you?

Pet, what in the world makes you think your opinion has any more weight than
tose of others? You can list all the expressions you have heard or read
about, that doesn't give you a PhD either. To me it seems more you are
missing an academic title and want to proof that you have almost accumulated
the same amount of knowledge if not more.
I think this is foolish and also your neglected aversion against scientific
approach. Who are you to decide if a certain test is valid or not. I think
it much more foolish to pretend being an expert, but with all credentials
missing.
Or is it not so?

> you again dont hear differences because are distorsons always high? I
> can only gues what you think about peoples what cares about materials
> for boxes, even about varnish. This is hard to measure. Many things
> can be strange to me too, but i am openend mind, you are not, and
> this is not good. Sorry.

And how do you know that the poster is *not* "open mind". Your open
mindedness seems much smaller, because you do not even want to experiment,
but believe you have already enough understanding.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 4:04:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

When i start this thread i have no clue what that would be. In fact, i
dont like discussions, because of big probability of hard words,
sparcles, etc. Ironically, *I* was guilt for this (i start this, and
some bad emotions are from me). Maybe is to late, but now i want stop
this like i was start: with apologyes. This dont mean that i think
different then before (sorry for that), but this discussion is endless
(like many others).
My belief: True is somewhere in the middle (sorry again).
Providentially, we all have ears and we can make answer for yourself.
For shure, never again one single word from me because is this
expirience awful for me, and probably for others. I come back to my
cave.
Thanks for answers, bye.
Peace

Petrovic Dejan
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 4:55:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Ban" <bansuri@web.de> wrote in message
news:D 6e4eq02p2b@news3.newsguy.com...
> _Dejan_ wrote:
>> And, you probably dont have problems with components and sound. You
>> have less then 0.01% distorsions. Voila! Why you then reading this?
>> Just dont tell me that you are soooo good man and you want help to
>> others. You are allready happy with your sound and its time for
>> something new. I see you like F1 so you can be another Schumacher.
But
>> this is not so easy like telling nonsenses.
>> Or, maybe you trying to find speakers with 0.0001% distorsions. This
>> is only thing what you need. Like i see in this group we have
>> scientists, so you are maybe another one and you maybe have idea how
>> to achieve this. I am very interested in this. You know much about
>> CD-players, maybe about speakers too. Horns, TQWP, transmission
line,
>> bass reflex, closed box, variovent, open baffle, MKP, MKT, Elcos,
air
>> coils, ferrites, cooper foil coils, MF resistors..bla..bla....single
>> drive speakers, two-way, three-way, or more??, co-axial speakers,
>> tri-axial?...passive crossovers, active.. What is better for you?
>
> Pet, what in the world makes you think your opinion has any more
weight than
> tose of others? You can list all the expressions you have heard or
read
> about, that doesn't give you a PhD either. To me it seems more you
are
> missing an academic title and want to proof that you have almost
accumulated
> the same amount of knowledge if not more.
> I think this is foolish and also your neglected aversion against
scientific
> approach. Who are you to decide if a certain test is valid or not. I
think
> it much more foolish to pretend being an expert, but with all
credentials
> missing.
> Or is it not so?
>
>> you again dont hear differences because are distorsons always high?
I
>> can only gues what you think about peoples what cares about
materials
>> for boxes, even about varnish. This is hard to measure. Many things
>> can be strange to me too, but i am openend mind, you are not, and
>> this is not good. Sorry.
>
> And how do you know that the poster is *not* "open mind". Your open
> mindedness seems much smaller, because you do not even want to
experiment,
> but believe you have already enough understanding.
> --
> ciao Ban
> Bordighera, Italy



Yes, i know, i tell him to hard words. Its answer is probably free of
bad intention. And my reaction is like from idiot. This is not hard to
confess to me. But in this group are some peoples wich have its
believes, and THIS peoples talk free of of any another possibility. (in
a way like "this is like that, story is over").

Please accept my appology for my behaviour
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 3:52:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:D 62g6f0bja@news1.newsguy.com...
> Also, lest you think we are frauds, rest assured that everyone who
> posts here really is interested in the quality of audio reproduction.
> But some of us think the best way to achieve that is to concentrate on
> the pieces of the chain that really do make a difference in sound
> quality: the recording itself, the loudspeakers, and the placement of
> the speakers inthe room.

I must say there is little discussion of the above 3 items that "really do
make a difference". I agree that they are the 3 critical items (although the
whole room treatment is critical, not just the placement of speakers), but
90% of the traffic is subjectivist v objectivist, over and over and over and
over.....

and 90% of the few threads on speaker and recording are subjectivist /
sighted, too.

I'd love to hear from someone or see references to actual distortion
measurements of speakers, of various harmonics and intermod dist.


.....and actual measurements of recordings' noise floor, musical dynamic
range, evidence of clipping and compression, average-to-peak levels.
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 6:37:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nowater wrote:
> <nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:D 62g6f0bja@news1.newsguy.com...
> > Also, lest you think we are frauds, rest assured that everyone who
> > posts here really is interested in the quality of audio reproduction.
> > But some of us think the best way to achieve that is to concentrate on
> > the pieces of the chain that really do make a difference in sound
> > quality: the recording itself, the loudspeakers, and the placement of
> > the speakers inthe room.
>
> I must say there is little discussion of the above 3 items that "really do
> make a difference". I agree that they are the 3 critical items (although the
> whole room treatment is critical, not just the placement of speakers),

Agreed. I was trying to be succinct.

> but
> 90% of the traffic is subjectivist v objectivist, over and over and over and
> over.....

Yeah. I wish the subjectivists would give it a rest. :-)

> and 90% of the few threads on speaker and recording are subjectivist /
> sighted, too.

It's well-nigh impossible for amateurs to do blind evaluations of
speakers. Unless you work for Harman or a Canadian manufacturer,
sighted subjective evaluations are all you've got.

> I'd love to hear from someone or see references to actual distortion
> measurements of speakers, of various harmonics and intermod dist.

Good sources for speaker measurements include:

www.stereophile.com (Ignore the reviews themselves and go straight to
John Atkinson's measurements.)

www.soundstageav.com/avreviews_speakers.html (The ones labeled NRC have
measurements.)

www.soundandvisionmag.com (Tests by Tom Nousaine accompany speaker
reviews.)

www.theaudiocritic.com (Very little so far, and full site access costs
$10.)

> ....and actual measurements of recordings' noise floor, musical dynamic
> range, evidence of clipping and compression, average-to-peak levels.

I don't know of anybody who actually measures recordings.

bob
____________

"Further carefully-conducted blind tests will be necessary
if these conclusions are felt to be in error."

--Stanley P. Lipshitz
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 4:11:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"nowater" <nowater@grantsellek.com> wrote in message
news:D 70enq0e43@news3.newsguy.com...
> ....and actual measurements of recordings' noise floor, musical dynamic
> range, evidence of clipping and compression, average-to-peak levels.
>

Actually not much of a problem with some available software for
you to investigate what is on CD's or DVD's with your home PC.

Many popular CD's only have average to peak levels of around
15 dB. Some don't have any more dynamic range than that.
Noise floors are almost never more than 70 dB down from max level
in the few dozen I have looked at this way. In general objectively,
seems few if any recordings have needs exceeding the capability
of your basic CD format. Actually few even exercise the CD format
very much.

Also can be instructive to play with compression, expansion and
other alterations of recordings with CoolEdit (now Adobe Audition)
or similar programs. Frequency response tilts are enlightening too.
Results can be very surprising. Such as finding a little compression
often seems to enhance the subjective dynamic range. While expansion
leads to a lifeless low energy sound that is subjectively 'compressed'.
Or that slight frequency cuts in the high frequencies sound like a boost
of the low end or vice versa.

Maybe someone can suggest a bit of software with these capabilities
that is less costly than Adobe Audition has become.

Dennis
!