|
|
Do amplifiers sound different?uad
Roderick Stewart wrote: In article .com, Andre Jute wrote: The present position is that we take someone's word for the THD and IMD numbers, we take it once for the entire design and many manufacturing runs of that particular amp, we make a few spotchecks (sometimes, more often not), most people don't know how to take the measurements. Thus this discredited system which predicts nothing hangs on the word of engineers, often a single engineer. It is equally valid when addingg another system of predictive judgement, this one based on culture, to have qualified persons of cultivated taste who have heard the orchestras, who have been in the halls, who have heard the musicians play the music in the venue, make the judgement once on behalf of everyone else. The method is the same; all that differs is that a different class of person, one of culture rather than a technician, now makes the call. I'm tired of this superior attitude towards engineers. Forgive me, Rod, but have you actually read what I wrote in the paragraph you quote? ***I express no superior attitude to engineers anywhere in the text you quote.*** No superior attitude in that text, none, zilch, nechevo, zero. If you wish to insist, prove it by a quotation from the text above. What I say is that a measure held up as predictive by engineers is thought to have failed by a large part of the consumers whose satisfaction with hardware the predictive measure presumes to predict. I suggest an additional measure and then compare the trust put in professional engineers with the trust my measure will require to be put in cultural professionals. What you're implying in effect is that the works and opinions and orthodoxies of engineers are beyond question by anyone else and should be taken on faith. That's bull****, and you know it. The rest of your script is smoke to cover up the fundamental irrationality of your dumb claim that engineers are beyond questioning by anyone else. I answer it in detail only to illuminate the incredible stupidity of your basic assumption. Who do you think invents, designs, builds and maintains the equipment without which broadcasting and home audio would not exist at all? I know some of those people and respect them, not least for their culture. That goes without saying. What you're demanding is that the respect earned by talented technical professionals be extended without question to the idiots who posture on these conferences. The answer is no, never. Let them earn their own respect. Furthermore, irrationality in your argument won't earn you any respect either. What on earth makes you think that possession of technical knowledge puts a person into a different "class" (your choice of word), where they are devoid of "culture" (your choice again)? Point to the text where I said that. On the contrary, it is easy to prove that certain barbarians well known to us, who were educated as engineers, repeatedly, daily, proudly tell us that they consider themselves in a different class and entirely beyond culture. How often have you seen " Music is Art - Audio is Engineering". Before you reproach me for what I didn't say, how many times have you reproached Pinkerton for what he says every day? Please provide a count and point to a reference where we can audit your count. Oh, by the way, not only didn't I say what you accuse me of saying... *** I said exactly the opposite*** .... that I know many cultured engineers, in this same thread, in messages which appeared on the newsgroup hours before you wrote your cramped, ill-informed, slanted, wrongheaded reply. What do you imagine guides these "uncultured" people in their decisions when they are designing the equipment that is used by everybody else, Eh? Why should I justify their decisions to you? If you wish to know, ask them. I have. Most of those I talked to agree with what I actually think, rather than what you are pretending to believe I think. Some of them formed my opinions. including those who consider themselves "cultured" but would not know where to begin? Try designing the equipment for a broadcasting or recording system on the basis of "culture" but using no technical knowledge and see how far you get. Again, try reading what I said in the paragraph you quote. Where did I say the "cultured" (which you somehow project as a separate class, like intellectuals, which seems to me a highly questionable classification) *should* design equipment? Why, as you seem to believe, shouldn't the engineers who design such systems, be cultured as well as technically proficiient? One would assume that they went into that line of work not only to earn a salary but because they were interesting in the full panoply of broadcasting and recording, which must include cultural aspirations and interests. Rod. Jumped-up techies who deliberately misinterpret what I say, or put words in my mouth that I didn't speak, **** me off. I'm quite capable of speaking for my myself, if you don't mind. The regular regurgitators of predigested opinions who responded to your post (Plowman, Pearce, etc) apparently have such short attention spans that they didn't notice that my paragraph you quote says something entirely different from what you claim. One has to wonder whether, on this evidence, they have the brains to discern that your claim that engineers should be beyond question, is ludicrous even in your own terms. Andre Jute |
Do amplifiers sound different?uad
In article . com, Andre Jute
wrote: I'm tired of this superior attitude towards engineers. Forgive me, Rod, but have you actually read what I wrote in the paragraph you quote? OK, what about- The method is the same; all that differs is that a different class of person, one of culture rather than a technician, now makes the call. What am I supposed to infer from a phrase like "a different class of person, one of culture rather than a technician", if not the suggestion that "culture" and technical knowledge are somehow mutually exclusive? Nothing could be further from the truth of course, but it is an all too common prejudice, often so deeply ingrained that it is not even recognised by its owners for what it is, and I have encountered it all my working life. You then go on to say (among other things) - The rest of your script is smoke to cover up the fundamental irrationality of your dumb claim that engineers are beyond questioning by anyone else. I don't think I said that *anybody* was beyond questioning, simply that there is a widespread unspoken assumption amongst those without technical knowledge that those who do possess it are somehow culturally sullied, and cannot properly understand the artistic aspects of what their efforts are used for. It's ironic considering that without these efforts, broadcasting and recording would not be possible at all. You then refer to me (correct me if you weren't referring to me, but it certainly looks like it) as a "jumped-up techie". In fact, referring to *anyone* as a jumped-up techie betrays a certain disdain, which was the very point I was trying to make. Rod. |
Do amplifiers sound different?uad
On 12 Feb 2006 17:17:28 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:
Keith G wrote: For me, the prime requirement of a music system is that it fully engages the emotions. I am not interested in 'sonic information flow'... Emotion is of course the difference between art and "engineering": No, it isn't. One can (and should) certainly be passionate about good engineering. Should you ever meet some real engineers discussing their craft, this will become obvious................ "Music is Art - Audio is Engineering" tells you everything you need to know about a whole class of "engineers". But we should be careful. Emotion isn't in fact absent from engineering, without the pejorative quotation marks, because good engineering is always done with passion. Yes, so why are you contradicting what you wrote a few lines ago? As ever, you write reams of turgid prose which sum to zero......... I suspect you are right about the 'Class A' thing and am hoping to grab a Class A SS amp for reasonable money in a couple of says time to check it out for myself and compare it with the Class A valve amps I already have. I mostly use a Class A Krell amplifier - it sounds just like my low-bias Class AB Audiolab amplifier................. The only real advantage of Class A for the hobbyist is that it's much easier to *design* a good Class A amplifier. In particular, linearity at low levels is pretty much guaranteed, if the thing is remotely decent at full power. The smaller and lower-powered the better. There is a suspicion held by more ultrafidelista than just the microwatters that higher power in itself interferes with desirable delicacy in one's sound. That's because they are idiots who think SET amps sound good, so they make up these fairy stories about proper amplifiers in order to ascribe some magivcal prperty to their pathetic flea-power crap. The term 'ultrafidelista' is of course just more of your pretentious twaddle. I explained, probably last year sometime but several times before then as well, that the hostility of the "engineers" arises from fear and a consequent tendency to control freakery. They know that they will not fit in an audiophile environment where cultural judgements have value, perhaps even primacy. Actually, engineers fit very well into such an environment - they design the equipment that audiophiles listen to. Engineers do of course also have an unerring ability to sniff out pretentious dilettantes like yourself...................... Pay attention now, Keith. Andy and I between us can explain it to you. Might take us a while though. Put on some nice muzak and... Andy would have difficulty explaining that it's Monday..... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Do amplifiers sound different?uad
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:28:04 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: In article .com, Andre Jute wrote: For a start, your room, unless you live in a church, will not be big enough accurately to reproduce the lowest bass notes. Bollox. Never forget that Jute is an author of fantasy fiction (as should be obvious.............) and a sales/marketing guy, *not* someone with any real technical knowledge. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Do amplifiers sound different?uad
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:31:02 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: In article , Roderick Stewart wrote: I'm tired of this superior attitude towards engineers. Who do you think invents, designs, builds and maintains the equipment without which broadcasting and home audio would not exist at all? What on earth makes you think that possession of technical knowledge puts a person into a different "class" (your choice of word), where they are devoid of "culture" (your choice again)? What do you imagine guides these "uncultured" people in their decisions when they are designing the equipment that is used by everybody else, including those who consider themselves "cultured" but would not know where to begin? Try designing the equipment for a broadcasting or recording system on the basis of "culture" but using no technical knowledge and see how far you get. On the nail. And see Andre Jute's amplifier 'designs' for perfect examples! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Do amplifiers sound different?uad
|
Do amplifiers sound different?uad
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:33:17 -0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote: In article . com, Andre Jute wrote: I'm tired of this superior attitude towards engineers. Forgive me, Rod, but have you actually read what I wrote in the paragraph you quote? OK, what about- The method is the same; all that differs is that a different class of person, one of culture rather than a technician, now makes the call. What am I supposed to infer from a phrase like "a different class of person, one of culture rather than a technician", if not the suggestion that "culture" and technical knowledge are somehow mutually exclusive? Nothing could be further from the truth of course, but it is an all too common prejudice, often so deeply ingrained that it is not even recognised by its owners for what it is, and I have encountered it all my working life. You then go on to say (among other things) - The rest of your script is smoke to cover up the fundamental irrationality of your dumb claim that engineers are beyond questioning by anyone else. I don't think I said that *anybody* was beyond questioning, simply that there is a widespread unspoken assumption amongst those without technical knowledge that those who do possess it are somehow culturally sullied, and cannot properly understand the artistic aspects of what their efforts are used for. It's ironic considering that without these efforts, broadcasting and recording would not be possible at all. You then refer to me (correct me if you weren't referring to me, but it certainly looks like it) as a "jumped-up techie". In fact, referring to *anyone* as a jumped-up techie betrays a certain disdain, which was the very point I was trying to make. Don't worry about it - Jute is just a jumped-up sales guy and hack scribbler, with pretensions to culture and acedemia. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Do amplifiers sound different?uad
On 13 Feb 2006 06:11:48 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:
Roderick Stewart wrote: In article .com, Andre Jute wrote: The present position is that we take someone's word for the THD and IMD numbers, we take it once for the entire design and many manufacturing runs of that particular amp, we make a few spotchecks (sometimes, more often not), most people don't know how to take the measurements. Thus this discredited system which predicts nothing hangs on the word of engineers, often a single engineer. It is equally valid when addingg another system of predictive judgement, this one based on culture, to have qualified persons of cultivated taste who have heard the orchestras, who have been in the halls, who have heard the musicians play the music in the venue, make the judgement once on behalf of everyone else. The method is the same; all that differs is that a different class of person, one of culture rather than a technician, now makes the call. I'm tired of this superior attitude towards engineers. Forgive me, Rod, but have you actually read what I wrote in the paragraph you quote? Yes, and it's bull****. The essential point is that you do *not* have to take the engineer's word for anything, you are always free to check it for yourself. Compare and contrast with the purple prose spewed by the culturally pretentious like yourself. BTW, there's no reason why the person of culture should not also be a technician. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the term Tonmeister? ***I express no superior attitude to engineers anywhere in the text you quote.*** No superior attitude in that text, none, zilch, nechevo, zero. If you wish to insist, prove it by a quotation from the text above. What I say is that a measure held up as predictive by engineers is thought to have failed by a large part of the consumers whose satisfaction with hardware the predictive measure presumes to predict. Actually, that would be a *tiny* part of the consumers, and generally found to be a technically incompetent part at that. I suggest an additional measure and then compare the trust put in professional engineers with the trust my measure will require to be put in cultural professionals. You never need to trust an engineer - unless you fly...... :-) What you're implying in effect is that the works and opinions and orthodoxies of engineers are beyond question by anyone else and should be taken on faith. That's bull****, and you know it. Of course it is - but he didn't say it, so what's your point? Jumped-up techies who deliberately misinterpret what I say, or put words in my mouth that I didn't speak, **** me off. I'm quite capable of speaking for my myself, if you don't mind. It would be nice if you said things that made sense, however....... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Make a gainclone
You can then change the components and hear the differences.
:-) Jem ps It's no bollox, hairy or otherwise though I can't imagine what the otherwise would be. |
Do amplifiers sound different?uad
Roderick Stewart wrote: In article . com, Andre Jute wrote: I'm tired of this superior attitude towards engineers. Forgive me, Rod, but have you actually read what I wrote in the paragraph you quote? OK, what about- The method is the same; all that differs is that a different class of person, one of culture rather than a technician, now makes the call. What am I supposed to infer from a phrase like "a different class of person, one of culture rather than a technician", if not the suggestion that "culture" and technical knowledge are somehow mutually exclusive? I didn't say that. You concluded it (inference is another process) from your own prejudice that culture is superior to technical concerns. It is only in the light of that prejudice, common among the British, that a distinction between techincal and cultural classes automatically becomes "a superior attitude to engineers". I don't share your prejudice either, so I reject this conclusion of yours as I rejected the other unfounded conclusions. You may think what you like. You may not put words in my mouth that I didn't speak. Nor may you assume I share your prejudices. If you insist on splitting hairs, add the word primarily before each of the words technical and cultural in my original and it should be clear even to you that I intended no value judgement by the classification. Nothing could be further from the truth of course, but it is an all too common prejudice, often so deeply ingrained that it is not even recognised by its owners for what it is, and I have encountered it all my working life. You then go on to say (among other things) - The rest of your script is smoke to cover up the fundamental irrationality of your dumb claim that engineers are beyond questioning by anyone else. I don't think I said that *anybody* was beyond questioning, simply that there is a widespread unspoken assumption amongst those without technical knowledge that those who do possess it are somehow culturally sullied, and cannot properly understand the artistic aspects of what their efforts are used for. It's ironic considering that without these efforts, broadcasting and recording would not be possible at all. You then refer to me (correct me if you weren't referring to me, but it certainly looks like it) as a "jumped-up techie". In fact, referring to *anyone* as a jumped-up techie betrays a certain disdain, which was the very point I was trying to make. If the shoe fits, wear it. But I was referring to Krueger, who also in this thread tried crudely to put words into my mouth to suit his prejudices. You won't catch me making any ad hominem statements. I always have a specific example in mind. Just ask and I'll tell you. Rod. Now, can we stop wasting time on your over-sensitive professional skin and return to discussing the substantive matters in my original post. Please, go ahead, have the last word. I'm out of this tiresome, time-wasting sub-thread. Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk