pablolie wrote: > I like faithful reproduction, never quite got into the whole tube thing, > and i was glad when i got rid of my turntable. :-) > > i also think one can indeed measure many things quite well and that they > provide a reliable indication of the design intent of the engineers, > which for me ideally is quite a linear response across frequencies and > loads... but we also all know that the *ideal* response can not be > achieved yet, even though several designs come quite close. > > i thoroughly agree a bit is a bit, and jitter discussions over USB or > Toslink focus on the wrong side of the issue. > > when it comes to the analogue side, even within the DAC, more so in > amplification, and especially with loudspeakers, wow, there are quite a > bit of elements at work. one of the reasons i think one day active > loudspeakers will rule the world is because it eliminates a lot of > guesswork with matching stuff up. sometimes components don't mix well > even when they are all well designed and on paper look like they should > sound awesome. analogue is treacherous, and manufacturing tolerances can > add up to the point where something is audible even when it comes to 2 > amplifiers of the same kind (i did so with MusicalFidelity M1PWR, one > clearly noisier than the other, but i would have never known if i'd only > received the "bad" one, because it still sounded very good).
Many thanks for this post - I couldn't agree more. As a 'rudimentary informed layman' I also expect active speaker designs (with crossovers before amplification) to be the most promising speaker concept. If we only had a more fact-based discussion within the so-called 'audiophile' segment, progress would be even better than it is already today, because effort spent on developing improved designs need the consumer's acceptance (any money) in the end. (This - by the way - also holds true for other areas of potential progress slowed-down by false beliefs like in medical care [e.g. homeopathy], or an up-to-date continuation of Darwin's evolution theory [e.g. creationism]). pablolie wrote: > and speakers... wow. when someone said that models are flawed they were > RIGHT. we engineers work with models, and they are quite awesome, but > they never reflect a TRUTH. witness speakers. when we measure them, we > ultimately measure them by modeling the human ear. does anyone think we > have a perfectly accurate model for that? that's why it's important to > involve some trained ears in the design of good analog audio equipment. > i could download a circuit design for an amp on the internet, go buy the > best batch of everything parts, put it together, and still come up with > something underwhelming. i have actually done it, albeit many years ago > in University. :-) it is not as simple. it is not just a formula. > > and the reason for that is that there is stuff we don't know about how > our hearing works. it is most certainly NOT linear at all. it is hard to > model. hence, it is hard to cater to that "perfect sound production" > model that is being advanced here, at least as far as the analog part of > the design goes, that is, where the soundwave leaves the membrane. and > btw try to model the latter perfectly... and you'll prolly win a Nobel. > :-) I still think engineering and the audio equipment industry should strive for the most transaparent music reproduction öpossible. 'Shortcuts' based on (assumed) imperfections of human audio perception should be the 'last resort'. Practically I think we all cannot live without them for mere practical reasons, though. Cheers Ben ------------------------------------------------------------------------ superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330
_______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
