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
_______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
