"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 09:00:14 GMT, "Steve Batt"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 03:41:48 GMT, "Steve Batt"
wrote:

"JustMe" wrote in message
...

If I were a recording artist, first and foremost I'd want those
listening to
my music to be entertained, inspired & moved by it. The Audiolab
doesn't do
that for me, the Alchemist does. For all its supposed colour, for
all its
foibles, operational quirks - whatever you like - it is by any
sensible
measure of what a hifi should be and do, better.

Only to *your* ears..............

Indeed - this is, by any sensible measure, what a hifi should do: sound
better to *my* ears. Whether *you* like it or not has no bearing on *my*
choice.

That's why a market full of different-sounding products exists: to cater for
all our different tastes.

Besides, how do you know that my ears don't have an imperfection (whose ears
are perfect anyway?) which counters my favourite amp's own imperfections (or
vice versa) and brings it into "straight-line"? For all you know, the 8000S
might sound terribly coloured to me, regardless of how a machine measures
it.

It's a similar difference that I experience when listening to vinyl
compared
with CD...

Yup, you do seem to love distortion! :-)

Suits me!

A friend had a 8000, was so bland compared to my Cyrus 2 (at the time)

Excellent! Amps are not *supposed* to have character, that's the job
of the performer!............

Yeah, but they ain't sposed to take away from the sound stage or dynamics
etc.

And sure enough, the good ones don't.

OTOH, plenty of amps will *add* what sounds like extra 'depth' and
'punch', but is really just IMD and clipping. Bizarrely, a reduced
dynamic range often sounds more 'dynamic'. All radio station sound
engineers are well aware of this trick.

I have never found the dynamic range compression employed by many radio
stations to do anything more than suck the life, soul and energy out of the
music being transmitted - it sounds ****.

AFAIK this is done for accessibility rather than to give a perception of
increased dynamism (this does sound peverse) - to make the listen tolerable
in noisy environments such as cars, factory floors etc.

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 01:49:13 -0000, "JustMe" wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 09:00:14 GMT, "Steve Batt"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 03:41:48 GMT, "Steve Batt"
wrote:

"JustMe" wrote in message
...

If I were a recording artist, first and foremost I'd want those listening to
my music to be entertained, inspired & moved by it. The Audiolab doesn't do
that for me, the Alchemist does. For all its supposed colour, for all its
foibles, operational quirks - whatever you like - it is by any sensible
measure of what a hifi should be and do, better.

Only to *your* ears..............

Indeed - this is, by any sensible measure, what a hifi should do: sound
better to *my* ears. Whether *you* like it or not has no bearing on *my*
choice.

Absolutely - never suggested otherwise. But once you start using terms
like 'by any sensible measure', you're getting into dangerous OSAF
territory.

That's why a market full of different-sounding products exists: to cater for
all our different tastes.

Besides, how do you know that my ears don't have an imperfection (whose ears
are perfect anyway?) which counters my favourite amp's own imperfections (or
vice versa) and brings it into "straight-line"? For all you know, the 8000S
might sound terribly coloured to me, regardless of how a machine measures
it.

Nope, that can't happen, because you'd be using the same ears to
listen to a live performance.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

If I were a recording artist, first and foremost I'd want those
listening to
my music to be entertained, inspired & moved by it. The Audiolab
doesn't do
that for me, the Alchemist does. For all its supposed colour, for
all its
foibles, operational quirks - whatever you like - it is by any
sensible
measure of what a hifi should be and do, better.

Only to *your* ears..............

Indeed - this is, by any sensible measure, what a hifi should do: sound
better to *my* ears. Whether *you* like it or not has no bearing on *my*
choice.

Absolutely - never suggested otherwise. But once you start using terms
like 'by any sensible measure', you're getting into dangerous OSAF
territory.

But, as I have explained repeatedly, any discussion of a subjective issue
is, by its nature, merely opinion and not fact and, therefore, there is no
need to insert the qualifying "IMO".

Therefore you can take this as read and I can save myself a few unneccessary
strokes on the keyboard by not STO )

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:48:46 -0000, "JustMe" wrote:

If I were a recording artist, first and foremost I'd want those
listening to
my music to be entertained, inspired & moved by it. The Audiolab
doesn't do
that for me, the Alchemist does. For all its supposed colour, for
all its
foibles, operational quirks - whatever you like - it is by any
sensible
measure of what a hifi should be and do, better.

Only to *your* ears..............

Indeed - this is, by any sensible measure, what a hifi should do: sound
better to *my* ears. Whether *you* like it or not has no bearing on *my*
choice.

Absolutely - never suggested otherwise. But once you start using terms
like 'by any sensible measure', you're getting into dangerous OSAF
territory.

But, as I have explained repeatedly, any discussion of a subjective issue
is, by its nature, merely opinion and not fact and, therefore, there is no
need to insert the qualifying "IMO".

Actually no, as level-matched DBTs are by their very nature
subjective, but do give us true information regarding what is *really*
audible.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:48:46 -0000, "JustMe" wrote:

snip

But, as I have explained repeatedly, any discussion of a subjective issue
is, by its nature, merely opinion and not fact and, therefore, there is no
need to insert the qualifying "IMO".


Actually no, as level-matched DBTs are by their very nature
subjective, but do give us true information regarding what is *really*
audible.

And the DBTs, by nurture, do for some (you obviously) create an
objective realm. A couple of things:

Is what is audible all that counts? Not a troll (really!) but I'm afraid
I've been reading HFW. Without going in to the merits or otherwise of
that organ I'm loosely curious - not the extent of actually buying any
of the stuff they mention to bolster their argument - by the notion of
sound outside the audible range having an effect on 'the act of
listening' - vibrations especially, and a specific reference to
supertweeters and subwoofers. You can't 'hear a note' but 'sense a
presence'.

And I think, from distant memory, that 'Which?' use DBTs and they (their
panel) quite readily find differences between amplifiers, CDPs and DVDAs
- devices of (to all intents and purposes) identical measurement.

Rob

In article , Rob
wrote:

Is what is audible all that counts?

No necessarily. For example, a friend has just reported that one of his
tweeters has failed, and his (valve) amp now also sounds bit strange. One
possibility (which he is now investigating) is that the amp may have
deteriorated and instability damaged the tweeter as the amp performance
deteriorated. Hence there are cases where effect which are in themselves
nominally inaudible may end up having significant consequences.

Not a troll (really!) but I'm afraid I've been reading HFW. Without
going in to the merits or otherwise of that organ I'm loosely curious -
not the extent of actually buying any of the stuff they mention to
bolster their argument - by the notion of sound outside the audible
range having an effect on 'the act of listening' - vibrations
especially, and a specific reference to supertweeters and subwoofers.
You can't 'hear a note' but 'sense a presence'.

ULF can affect loudspeakers and amplifiers. Possibly also hearing.

Ohashi and others have also reported in physiology journals experiments
that show effects upon hearing and brain activity of 'ultrasound'
accompanying music.

And I think, from distant memory, that 'Which?' use DBTs and they (their
panel) quite readily find differences between amplifiers, CDPs and
DVDAs - devices of (to all intents and purposes) identical measurement.

I am not sure the above is correct about DBTs. However I'd agree that it is
perfectly possible to hear differences between some amplifiers, etc, in
some circumstances. e.g. differences in frequency response, or when one amp
is clipping/limiting and another is not.

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

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 11:07:21 +0000, Rob
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:48:46 -0000, "JustMe" wrote:

snip

But, as I have explained repeatedly, any discussion of a subjective issue
is, by its nature, merely opinion and not fact and, therefore, there is no
need to insert the qualifying "IMO".


Actually no, as level-matched DBTs are by their very nature
subjective, but do give us true information regarding what is *really*
audible.

And the DBTs, by nurture, do for some (you obviously) create an
objective realm. A couple of things:

Is what is audible all that counts? Not a troll (really!) but I'm afraid
I've been reading HFW. Without going in to the merits or otherwise of
that organ I'm loosely curious - not the extent of actually buying any
of the stuff they mention to bolster their argument - by the notion of
sound outside the audible range having an effect on 'the act of
listening' - vibrations especially, and a specific reference to
supertweeters and subwoofers. You can't 'hear a note' but 'sense a
presence'.

I see where you're going with this, and infrabass can certainly affect
your perception, even though your ears are not in the loop. Very deep
bass in the low 20s is often used by movie sound producers to generate
unease and even fear, while a good dose of genuine high-level 6-7 Hz
will have you throwing up - literally!

OTOH, there's no real evidence that any *musical* content above the
22kHz cutoff of CD can be perceived - even it the studio microphones
could pick it up, which most can't. The only known studies which show
humans perceiving above the audible range have used very high SPLs of
ultrasonic waves, which simply don't occur in musical instruments -
and would destroy most tweeters in seconds!

And I think, from distant memory, that 'Which?' use DBTs and they (their
panel) quite readily find differences between amplifiers, CDPs and DVDAs
- devices of (to all intents and purposes) identical measurement.

Nope, read it carefully. They use blind listening panels, so that's
just single blind, and they write up notes on each presentation
separately, so they never do repeated trials to check if they can
actually hear any differences. While it seems at first sight to be
somewhat scientific, it actually isn't at all - especially if the
listeners compare notes while they're listening!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 11:07:21 +0000, Rob
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:48:46 -0000, "JustMe" wrote:


snip

But, as I have explained repeatedly, any discussion of a subjective issue
is, by its nature, merely opinion and not fact and, therefore, there is no
need to insert the qualifying "IMO".


Actually no, as level-matched DBTs are by their very nature
subjective, but do give us true information regarding what is *really*
audible.

And the DBTs, by nurture, do for some (you obviously) create an
objective realm. A couple of things:

Is what is audible all that counts? Not a troll (really!) but I'm afraid
I've been reading HFW. Without going in to the merits or otherwise of
that organ I'm loosely curious - not the extent of actually buying any
of the stuff they mention to bolster their argument - by the notion of
sound outside the audible range having an effect on 'the act of
listening' - vibrations especially, and a specific reference to
supertweeters and subwoofers. You can't 'hear a note' but 'sense a
presence'.


I see where you're going with this, and infrabass can certainly affect
your perception, even though your ears are not in the loop. Very deep
bass in the low 20s is often used by movie sound producers to generate
unease and even fear, while a good dose of genuine high-level 6-7 Hz
will have you throwing up - literally!

OTOH, there's no real evidence that any *musical* content above the
22kHz cutoff of CD can be perceived - even it the studio microphones
could pick it up, which most can't. The only known studies which show
humans perceiving above the audible range have used very high SPLs of
ultrasonic waves, which simply don't occur in musical instruments -
and would destroy most tweeters in seconds!

Shouldn't think it's too difficult to arrange - one of HFW's 'year
awards' is given to some supertweeters - you'd just need to switch out
the main speakers and er, listen, feel, smell, taste whatever. All seems
a bit daft to me and for £800 I'm not about to jump in.


And I think, from distant memory, that 'Which?' use DBTs and they (their
panel) quite readily find differences between amplifiers, CDPs and DVDAs
- devices of (to all intents and purposes) identical measurement.


Nope, read it carefully. They use blind listening panels, so that's
just single blind, and they write up notes on each presentation
separately, so they never do repeated trials to check if they can
actually hear any differences. While it seems at first sight to be
somewhat scientific, it actually isn't at all - especially if the
listeners compare notes while they're listening!

'Distant' in my case is 20 years ago, so happily stand corrected. I
still think they make far more effort in this regard than virtually any
hifi mag I can think of.

Rob

In article ,
JustMe wrote:
AFAIK this is done for accessibility rather than to give a perception of
increased dynamism (this does sound peverse) - to make the listen
tolerable in noisy environments such as cars, factory floors etc.

And since cars have got quieter - and factories certainly due to H&S regs
- it makes one wonder how anything was ever heard in the days before
overall signal processing was used?

--
*The closest I ever got to a 4.0 in school was my blood alcohol content*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , JustMe
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

Only to *your* ears..............

Indeed - this is, by any sensible measure, what a hifi should do: sound
better to *my* ears. Whether *you* like it or not has no bearing on *my*
choice.

What about the view that some of us don't really want the *hi fi* to
'sound' of anything - just the music? :-)

That's why a market full of different-sounding products exists: to cater
for all our different tastes.

Besides, how do you know that my ears don't have an imperfection (whose
ears are perfect anyway?) which counters my favourite amp's own
imperfections (or vice versa) and brings it into "straight-line"? For
all you know, the 8000S might sound terribly coloured to me, regardless
of how a machine measures it.

Alternatively, what about the possibility that you could conclude that your
*ears* sound 'coloured' on the basis of the above since they would
presumably have the same effect when you listen to live music? :-)


OTOH, plenty of amps will *add* what sounds like extra 'depth' and
'punch', but is really just IMD and clipping. Bizarrely, a reduced
dynamic range often sounds more 'dynamic'. All radio station sound
engineers are well aware of this trick.

I have never found the dynamic range compression employed by many radio
stations to do anything more than suck the life, soul and energy out of
the music being transmitted - it sounds ****.

The compression applied by radio stations, etc, tends to be various forms
of 'gain riding' where the gain is altered as the music plays - sometimes
also altering the frequency response. However the compression applied by an
amp going into clipping would not behave like this as it would distort the
waveforms and introduce extra components, not just alter the gain. Hence
you can expect the two forms of 'compression' to not sound the same.

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