"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

This does not mean they are accurate. Aural exciters use this
very technique.

Ian


Pardon my hignorance.....What's an Aural exciter and what is it used for?

The original Aural Exciter was a box made by Aphex several decades
ago. It was flavour-of-the-month for a time. I think at the
beginning you could only hire it, not buy it outright. It gave your
recordings special "magic" ;-) It was mostly even-order distortion, I
think. Probably some eq and compression as well.

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 01:56:22 -0000, "Wally"
wrote:

Laurence Payne wrote:

Please point me at a £100 CD player that sounds better than my DAC.

The point is rather whether you can show him an expensive unit that
sounds better than the £100 one ;-)

Easy - my mate's Arcam CD player. (Might be an 8se.) Hearing it wipe the
floor with my 100 quid player led to the DAC. My player has digital out, and
it was the cheapest way to an improvement of a similar order of magnitude.

Interesting.
I don't pretend to "golden ears". But I'm a full-time musician,
spending much of my working day listening to, criticising and
attempting to perfect sound.

I can hear enormous differences between different speakers, and their
positioning. In this area I have no trouble saying "This is good,
this is bad".

I can sometimes hear a difference between two sources of the same type
- two CD players, two DAT machines. But I can rarely define that
difference as "good" or "bad". Except that any unit that is
immediately noticeable as different often becomes tiring to listen to
after a time, suggesting that "different" often means "worse". Cf
the discussion of the Aural Exciter in another thread. It certainly
makes a difference, maybe an immediately appealing one.

What sort of music are you using to audition these systems? It's
quite hard to find anything today that hasn't been subjected to
processing and "mastering" to a degree that makes any reference to
"fidelity" quite arbitrary.

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 01:56:22 -0000, "Wally"
wrote:

Laurence Payne wrote:

Please point me at a £100 CD player that sounds better than my DAC.

The point is rather whether you can show him an expensive unit that
sounds better than the £100 one ;-)

Easy - my mate's Arcam CD player. (Might be an 8se.) Hearing it wipe the
floor with my 100 quid player led to the DAC. My player has digital out, and
it was the cheapest way to an improvement of a similar order of magnitude.

Interesting.
I don't pretend to "golden ears". But I'm a full-time musician,
spending much of my working day listening to, criticising and
attempting to perfect sound.

I can hear enormous differences between different speakers, and their
positioning. In this area I have no trouble saying "This is good,
this is bad".

I can sometimes hear a difference between two sources of the same type
- two CD players, two DAT machines. But I can rarely define that
difference as "good" or "bad". Except that any unit that is
immediately noticeable as different often becomes tiring to listen to
after a time, suggesting that "different" often means "worse". Cf
the discussion of the Aural Exciter in another thread. It certainly
makes a difference, maybe an immediately appealing one.

What sort of music are you using to audition these systems? It's
quite hard to find anything today that hasn't been subjected to
processing and "mastering" to a degree that makes any reference to
"fidelity" quite arbitrary.

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Laurence Payne wrote:

Easy - my mate's Arcam CD player. (Might be an 8se.) Hearing it wipe
the floor with my 100 quid player led to the DAC. My player has
digital out, and it was the cheapest way to an improvement of a
similar order of magnitude.

Interesting.
I don't pretend to "golden ears". But I'm a full-time musician,
spending much of my working day listening to, criticising and
attempting to perfect sound.

I don't pretend to have golden lug-'oles either. I'm also a musician, but
I've never done it professionally.


I can hear enormous differences between different speakers, and their
positioning. In this area I have no trouble saying "This is good,
this is bad".

I can sometimes hear a difference between two sources of the same type
- two CD players, two DAT machines. But I can rarely define that
difference as "good" or "bad". Except that any unit that is
immediately noticeable as different often becomes tiring to listen to
after a time, suggesting that "different" often means "worse". Cf
the discussion of the Aural Exciter in another thread. It certainly
makes a difference, maybe an immediately appealing one.

With the exception of speakers, the differences between roughly-similar
qualities of kit can be hard to detect, but become rather easier when
they're of widely differing quality. To my mind, speakers have the most
noticable effect on the overall character of the sound, such that upgrading
by an order of magnitude might bring a clearer sound, but it still might not
sound good - there's much variety between speakers themselves, and they all
interact with the room in their own ways. It's a bit like choosing an
electric guitar and amplifier - two halves of one instrument which must be
chosen so that they complemet each other.


What sort of music are you using to audition these systems? It's
quite hard to find anything today that hasn't been subjected to
processing and "mastering" to a degree that makes any reference to
"fidelity" quite arbitrary.

Filippa Giordano, cello/guitar piece by Schubert, AC/DC's Back In Black,
Rickie Lee Jones, dry instrument recordings from Alan Parsons' sound check
CD, other stuff I can't remember. It was AC/DC's What Do You Do For Money
Honey that did it for me - during the unison riffing, it had that
unmistakable heads down, no nonsense, balls-out drive.


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
On webcam: Black Cat In Coal Cellar

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Laurence Payne wrote:

Easy - my mate's Arcam CD player. (Might be an 8se.) Hearing it wipe
the floor with my 100 quid player led to the DAC. My player has
digital out, and it was the cheapest way to an improvement of a
similar order of magnitude.

Interesting.
I don't pretend to "golden ears". But I'm a full-time musician,
spending much of my working day listening to, criticising and
attempting to perfect sound.

I don't pretend to have golden lug-'oles either. I'm also a musician, but
I've never done it professionally.


I can hear enormous differences between different speakers, and their
positioning. In this area I have no trouble saying "This is good,
this is bad".

I can sometimes hear a difference between two sources of the same type
- two CD players, two DAT machines. But I can rarely define that
difference as "good" or "bad". Except that any unit that is
immediately noticeable as different often becomes tiring to listen to
after a time, suggesting that "different" often means "worse". Cf
the discussion of the Aural Exciter in another thread. It certainly
makes a difference, maybe an immediately appealing one.

With the exception of speakers, the differences between roughly-similar
qualities of kit can be hard to detect, but become rather easier when
they're of widely differing quality. To my mind, speakers have the most
noticable effect on the overall character of the sound, such that upgrading
by an order of magnitude might bring a clearer sound, but it still might not
sound good - there's much variety between speakers themselves, and they all
interact with the room in their own ways. It's a bit like choosing an
electric guitar and amplifier - two halves of one instrument which must be
chosen so that they complemet each other.


What sort of music are you using to audition these systems? It's
quite hard to find anything today that hasn't been subjected to
processing and "mastering" to a degree that makes any reference to
"fidelity" quite arbitrary.

Filippa Giordano, cello/guitar piece by Schubert, AC/DC's Back In Black,
Rickie Lee Jones, dry instrument recordings from Alan Parsons' sound check
CD, other stuff I can't remember. It was AC/DC's What Do You Do For Money
Honey that did it for me - during the unison riffing, it had that
unmistakable heads down, no nonsense, balls-out drive.


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
On webcam: Black Cat In Coal Cellar

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

In article , Glenn Booth
wrote:
Hi,

In message , Jim Lesurf
writes

I fear it is 'dumbing down'. The impression is that they have decided
their readers are too dim to understand, and they can't be bothered to
even try and explain.

I think that "dumbing down" is right; however it may not be only the
reader that is 'too dim to understand'.

What irrirates me is that I feel sure that most readers are *not* to dim to
follow these matters. It is just that some effort on the part of the writer
and editor is required to explain clearly and accurately. However, this
takes us to your points, below... :-/

I deal almost daily with journalists associated with the PC press and I
increasingly find that 1. Few of them have any training as journalists
and 2. Even fewer have any real grasp of engineering. I have refused to
submit several products for review, simply because after talking with
the reviewer, I found that they did not have the technical know-how to
produce a valid, meaningful review. I get the impression that at least
some of the audio press is similar.

Sadly, I have to agree with you. My experience with/of audio journalists
over the years is quite mixed. 20+ years ago many were excellent. They knew
enough to design and analyse equipment as well as test and evaluate it. Now
very few seem to me to have an understanding that extends beyond knowing
the current buzzwords and acronims, and having 'fashionable' views, dressed
up in techno-babble. I could give examples, but it seems unfair to pick on
one or two as the problem seems endemic. :-/

Easier to say, "I am an expert and X is better than Y, so there."

Exactly; and provided they are sufficiently vague (i.e. they don't tell
any provable lies), many readers will not question their conclusions.

Again, annoyingly, when they publish measurements and make 'factual'
statements they are often incorrect, but without clear explanations or
other reliable sources, many readers would have no way to know this.

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
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

In article , Glenn Booth
wrote:
Hi,

In message , Jim Lesurf
writes

I fear it is 'dumbing down'. The impression is that they have decided
their readers are too dim to understand, and they can't be bothered to
even try and explain.

I think that "dumbing down" is right; however it may not be only the
reader that is 'too dim to understand'.

What irrirates me is that I feel sure that most readers are *not* to dim to
follow these matters. It is just that some effort on the part of the writer
and editor is required to explain clearly and accurately. However, this
takes us to your points, below... :-/

I deal almost daily with journalists associated with the PC press and I
increasingly find that 1. Few of them have any training as journalists
and 2. Even fewer have any real grasp of engineering. I have refused to
submit several products for review, simply because after talking with
the reviewer, I found that they did not have the technical know-how to
produce a valid, meaningful review. I get the impression that at least
some of the audio press is similar.

Sadly, I have to agree with you. My experience with/of audio journalists
over the years is quite mixed. 20+ years ago many were excellent. They knew
enough to design and analyse equipment as well as test and evaluate it. Now
very few seem to me to have an understanding that extends beyond knowing
the current buzzwords and acronims, and having 'fashionable' views, dressed
up in techno-babble. I could give examples, but it seems unfair to pick on
one or two as the problem seems endemic. :-/

Easier to say, "I am an expert and X is better than Y, so there."

Exactly; and provided they are sufficiently vague (i.e. they don't tell
any provable lies), many readers will not question their conclusions.

Again, annoyingly, when they publish measurements and make 'factual'
statements they are often incorrect, but without clear explanations or
other reliable sources, many readers would have no way to know this.

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
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

In article , Ian Bell
wrote:


Exactly. The thing most people forget is that *all* push pull systems
are very good a canceling even harmonic distortion (the type we don't
mind/like even) which just leaves odd harmonic distortions in the output
which the ear abhors. This may explain why some people prefer the sound
of single ended class A amplifiers which produce predominantly second
harmonic distortion. This does not mean they are accurate. Aural
exciters use this very technique.

The difficulty with the abive view is that:

1) In most cases with decent amplifiers, the THD level stays well below
0.1% from below clipping until the signal vanishes into the noise. This can
be the case for both class-A and AB designs. (So far as I know, no-one uses
class B for audio, and has not done so for many years.)

2) Whenever tests are carried out, people do not show any ability to notice
THD levels of 0.1% or less.

Thus the source of any possible audible differences may well not be in this
specific area. FWIW I have my own suspicions about this, but the matter
seems to me to be far fro settled.

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
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

In article , Ian Bell
wrote:


Exactly. The thing most people forget is that *all* push pull systems
are very good a canceling even harmonic distortion (the type we don't
mind/like even) which just leaves odd harmonic distortions in the output
which the ear abhors. This may explain why some people prefer the sound
of single ended class A amplifiers which produce predominantly second
harmonic distortion. This does not mean they are accurate. Aural
exciters use this very technique.

The difficulty with the abive view is that:

1) In most cases with decent amplifiers, the THD level stays well below
0.1% from below clipping until the signal vanishes into the noise. This can
be the case for both class-A and AB designs. (So far as I know, no-one uses
class B for audio, and has not done so for many years.)

2) Whenever tests are carried out, people do not show any ability to notice
THD levels of 0.1% or less.

Thus the source of any possible audible differences may well not be in this
specific area. FWIW I have my own suspicions about this, but the matter
seems to me to be far fro settled.

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
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

In article , Chris Isbell
wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:23:32 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

I fear it is 'dumbing down'. The impression is that they have decided
their readers are too dim to understand, and they can't be bothered to
even try and explain. Easier to say, "I am an expert and X is better
than Y, so there."

Dumbing down implies that there were providing intelligent reviews not
so long ago. I cannot recollect this happening during my adult life.

You must be younger than myself. :-) (Mind you, who isn't? ;- )

Has the Scottish Yew Year festivities been more than usually good this
year, Jim? :-) tongue firmly in cheek

Well, we survived with most brain cells intact... ;-

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
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html