In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


Yes, that's right - 'distortion' is a concept, and not a thing.

You point being that anything we observe in reality and then have a
word for is a 'concept'?


No, cheese is a thing, distortion is a concept.

....yet cheese is not milk. :-)

I'm afraid that the problem here is with your understanding of the the
topic, not in the topic (distortion) being discussed.

Does that approach serve any purpose when we are trying to deal with
reality? It seems to me to be no more than playing with words and
doing this as a replacement for dealing with reality. In effect, a
displacement acitivity.


I'd rather dispense with the word distortion TBH.

I'm afraid that it is defined and has a specific meaning. It means what we
have been trying to explain to you. If you dislike this, then I'm afraid
the problem is yours.



Still, I'd (kind of) like to know why valves/vinyl sounds better. For
techie types I think the term is 2nd harmonic distortion?

Sweeping (and inaccurate) simplification, I'm afraid.

First 'better' does not mean 'different'.

Secondly, you are confusing a value judgement with a measurable and
perceivable property/result (distortion) which can take many forms.

Thirdly, 'valves' and 'vinyl' are gain devices and a form of polymer. Not a
specific example of an amplifier, or a LP or a replay system.

Finally, there are many sources of signal alterations in both LP systems
and other, and in both SS and valve designs. So again I don't know who
these 'techie types' are, but your statement looks to me like a string of
vague and inaccurate terms.

BTW If you want a totally different example of a way in which an LP may
sound different to a CD keep yer eyes open for the issue of HFN that will
appear cover-dated August 2007. 8-] Also have a look at the 'Clipping on
CD' thread. :-)

The point here is that any 'differences' may have little to do with 'valve'
or 'vinyl' per se, but a great deal to do with how they may be used.


It is perfectly reasonable for someone to decide to remain ignorant
about some topic. There are many topics in which each of us have no
interest.

I tend to find interest in just about everything, except sport for some
reason.

However this means our views on such topics may be
worthless.


Or amusing (etc) - depends how they're put across.

I've noticed that a lot of modern humour seems to be based on what IIRC an
American described as 'shmo humour' (if I have spelled that correctly). The
idea being that 'hilarious' things happen because the main character is a
shmo or dimwit. Personally, I tend to find this type of 'comedy'
uninteresting.


I still think the 'amplifiers don't sound the same' hypothesis is
interesting, worthwhile and (of course) grossly irritating round these
parts.

More 'boring' than 'irritating' I think. :-) At least that is my
reaction to seeing the same claims and ideas I've seen countless times
over the last 20-30 years.

One reason is that the statement you make simply misrepresents the
situation. Some do in some situations, others won't in others. Confusion
between inherent and situation-dependent, etc, etc.

Another is that such assertions aregenerally based on people never having
done any appropriate forms of comparison test, being unaware of the many
that have been done, and not really understanding the engineering,
physics, etc, involved.

People pop up on this group and elsewhere, make pretty much the same
sweeping claims, ignore or dismiss the evidence we have, avoid the
distinctions that can be made, then after a while go away without bothering
to put their claims to a test. I've lost count of how often this happens.

So if you wish to take this further, perhaps you should arrange to engage
in a test of what you believe. run in a way that the rest of us can see the
results and assess how the comparison was done. Otherwise is what you are
saying anything other than a waste of time?...



Is it 'conceptual' that when you build a bridge it does not collapse
the next day? If you think so, then your meaning of the word differs
from mine. I would also be reluctant to employ you to build bridges,
or walk on/under any you designed. :-)

And you'd be wise beyond your years :-)

Considering how old I am, that would be remarkable. :-)



FWIW The main reason I've spent decades studying, building, testing,
etc, audio amplifiers and other kit is that I am largely driven by
my enthusiasm for the results - being able to enjoy the music. My
point, therefore, was that measurements, etc, are very valuable (if
you understand them), and allow you to make more progress.


And modesty no doubt forbids the qualification: 'measurement is not
all'
:-)

No idea why you wrote that.


You place great store in positivist data. Yet you consider the human
response to that data as significant. 'Sounds rubbish' is not an example
of positivist data.

Not quite sure what the above means. :-) However FWIW my view of science
tends to be based on the classic 'Popper' approach of testability and
falsifiability. No idea how that relates to what you wrote.


Measurement is not all - you know that, but didn't feel the need to say
it.

Actually I thought it was clear from what I said. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html