|
|
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
On 2006-09-17, Eeyore wrote:
Laurence Payne wrote: How do you feel about the pseudo-scientific justifications often given by snake-oil merchants? If they claimed magic, fair enough. But if they claim science, shouldn't it be measurable? Don't they just simply avoid the issue by using plausibly sounding pseudo-scientific terms which have in fact no actual meaning but sound 'important' ? Like MIT cables' advertisements and their graphs of a quantity they call "articulation". I wonder what the SI unit is? They don't label the "articulation" scale other than in dB versus frequency, compared to an unspecified reference. -- John Phillips |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
In article , Keith G
wrote: "Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: "Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... In article , Eeyore wrote: I'd also be interested in any evidence that it was real, due solely to the sound, and wasn't something trivial/obvious like an alteration in the frequency response. IIRC Andy made similar claims a while ago, but although someone else commented on a possible reason for a different in device (electronic) characteristics, no-one was able to provide anything more than assertions of an audible difference that wasn't for a trivial reason. This is interesting - it appears that some here wouldn't necessarily like what they were eating until they had read the ingredients list on the packet...??? Perhaps you should name a few of the "some" you have in mind. [snip] Actually the remark was triggered by the general tone of the thread and this remark in particular: "I'm curious for sure. I'd want to measure it too or would that be some kind of heresy" Not actually yours, I believe....?? Not so far as I can recall, no. And what you quoted of mine had zero to do with your comments. 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 |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
In article om,
wrote: Jim Lesurf wrote: In article , Keith G wrote: "Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... In article , Eeyore wrote: I'd also be interested in any evidence that it was real, due solely to the sound, and wasn't something trivial/obvious like an alteration in the frequency response. IIRC Andy made similar claims a while ago, but although someone else commented on a possible reason for a different in device (electronic) characteristics, no-one was able to provide anything more than assertions of an audible difference that wasn't for a trivial reason. This is interesting - it appears that some here wouldn't necessarily like what they were eating until they had read the ingredients list on the packet...??? Perhaps you should name a few of the "some" you have in mind. I can name them if you like by type. Those that insist claims of audible differences between amps, cables, CD players and the like must be supported by scienitifically valid evidence. I think you missed his point by the comment about reading ingredients though. I think the point is that those same "some people" probably don't do that at all. Which means they have decided for some reason to pick on something very specific for scientific validation out of the vast relm of experiences that are widely evaluated without such evidence. None of which appeared in what Keith quoted, either. :-) I have not insisted that anyone *must* do what you describe. I have asked for details in order to be able assess what basis they might have for their assertions. My comments had nothing to do with what anyone might or might not "like" (i.e. prefer). So I am wondering who you are referring to, and what it has to do with what I said... Really? There is no infered coment about people liking things they imagine to be there? Correct. :-) P.S. I am still waiting for your report on the other listening tests you are aware of on the transparency of CD-Rs so we can evaluate those along with the one I did. Since I have not said that CD-Rs are "transparent" I am afraid I don't know what tests may be referring to. Alas, this seems to be another example of what I have said being misrepresented or misunderstood. I have not said there are any tests that show CD/CD-R to be "transparent", so far as I can recall. I have participated in, and know of, comparisons where those involved were unable to distinguish a CDR copy from the original, if that is what you mean. The main reason I ask people for details is to see if any differences in conclusions or claims can be resolved and understood, and to see if their own "inferences" or conclusions actually follow from the evidence. Can't do this or draw any reliable inferences about specific examples without the details. However if you go back and read what I have been saying you should find: 1) That I do not use the term "transparency", nor have I made any claim that CD or CD-R is "transparent" as a format. 2) That my comments regarding tests are not limited to CD/CD-R, but to more general questions regarding claims that items are audibly different or distinctive. Not about what anyone might prefer. P.S. I am still waiting for the specific details of your own test. IIRC I asked for this on multiple occasions long before you asked about mine. I was wondering what equiment you used, how you set the levels, choice of test material, etc. If you gave this, I could do the same, and we could then try to assess any difference to see if we could arrive at a resolution. :-) 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 |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
In article ,
Keith G wrote: "Andy Evans" wrote in message oups.com... How do you feel about the pseudo-scientific justifications often given by snake-oil merchants? How about multinationals? "In tests 9 out of 10 cats preferred it" "Reduces the appearance of wrinkles" "Fights the seven signs of ageing" quote "For more beauty science, please visit www.pg.com" And for those old enough "Aspro - does not affect the heart" Be my guest and list the most outrageous claims you've heard! The best one ever was 'Nothing works faster than Anadin'....!! :-) ....so use 'nothing'. ;- 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 |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
In article .com,
wrote: Eeyore wrote: wrote: I can name them if you like by type. Those that insist claims of audible differences between amps, cables, CD players and the like must be supported by scienitifically valid evidence. I think you missed his point by the comment about reading ingredients though. I think the point is that those same "some people" probably don't do that at all. Which means they have decided for some reason to pick on something very specific for scientific validation out of the vast relm of experiences that are widely evaluated without such evidence. I'm not clear from that whether it's the case that you think any audible difference should be scientifically measurable too or not. Absolutely I believe any real audible difference is scientifically measuable. Well, I think people should at least *try* to do this, particularly where there is some dispute and/or the experiences of different people contradict. The problem is that they often seem not to want to bother. For some years (decades in fact) I have persistently kept asking for detailed evidence on various audio matters. This is to help decide what the reality of these situations might be. Alas, all too often I get in response all kinds of reactions and re-statements of opinions/conclusions, but with little in the way of detailed assessable evidence. All too often the reaction seems to be defensive as if I am trying to "trip people up" and "prove them wrong". My actual aim is to establish in each case what may or may not be correct. 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 |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
In article . com,
Andy Evans wrote: I'd also be interested in any evidence that it was real, due solely to the sound, and wasn't something trivial/obvious like an alteration in the frequency response. The following was quoted from my posting, but not correctly attributed: Well, nobody is going to go to the trouble to set up a double blind test, so that kind of evidence won't happen. - quote end. If you can manage it, have a look at what I wrote and actually read it. You will find I have not been talking about "double blind tests". Indeed, I have explained this explicitly on more than one occasion. But since you misunderstand... The snag with what you say is that some people *have* carried out double blind tests comparing amplifiers - including valve ones compared with SS ones. The results in the cases I have read about showed that once trivial differences were dealt with, those involved tended to not be able to distinguish one amp from another in normal use. I have also participated in similar tests in the past which were done for proprietary reasons, and the results not published. I know others did the same. Thus we do have some evidence of this kind. People in the past *have* gone to the "trouble". The results indicated that any audible differences were often either undetectable or miniscule. The amount of "trouble" involved was not a deterrent at the time. I'm not a company with a testing budget and I don't have time or premeses to set up such things anyway. I'm just developing stuff, and trying out alternatives at this stage. That's fine. Just as others are free to decide to treat your claims with caution. The question of frequency response is extremely relevent, but difficult to do anything about. Depends what you mean. In the tests I know of the responses were in some cases different, but the people listening still could not generally distinguish. This did upset some of them at the time as they were confident they would be able to do so. For a start I don't have a parametric equaliser of sufficient quality, and even if I did, inserting it in the chain would change the sound. You get some simple idea of frequency response in two ways I can think of: a) Listening on and off axis, in and out of the room b) Listening to recordings that are bass light and bass heavy I have to say with the two above, the quality of the sound - especially instrumental timbre - remains pretty much the same. But your point about frequency response is quite correct - it has to be factored in. Well, it would not be necessarily to do any of the things you mention if the concern is to avoid significant differences in system response - unless one of the amps has an inherently poor response, which I would assume your amps do not. The following was quoted from me but not indicated in the normal way: no-one was able to provide anything more than assertions of an audible difference that wasn't for a trivial reason. Jim - quote ends. Correct. Most comments on hi-fi consist of "assertions of an audible difference". I try to test as logically as I can because I want to know drawbacks as well as advantages, and I try to test to produce a rank order with something familiar as reference, and always with known CDs which have been tried on a variety of systems etc etc. One does what one can. I'm only interested in the quality of the final sound, and making design choices on the basis of listening to that sound. I try to get second and third opinions all the way along to reduce the subjective element, but I won't compromise the selection of componants on the basis of the final sound being as close to the original acoustic listening experience as possible. I think I may be misunderstanding that last phrase. It reads like you were saying that you weren't willing to "compromise" by making the the reproduced sound like the original. Do you mean that your goal of making the reproduced sound like the original means you won't "compromise" by using components that don't allow this? Also, I'm not interested in blind tests for the purpose of producing publications of a scientific nature. Nor am I. That isn't what I have been talking about. Odd that people seem to think this is what I mean, despite my having explained this more than once. Perhaps you should read and understand what I actually wrote. :-) BTW It would also help if you could be bothered to show some consideration for readers and quote/attribute in the standard way. It would make reading and responding to your postings less inconvenient. I leave that to others. I'm interested in constantly improving the sound of what I have, and others judge the results by listening to it directly and not having me describe it in prose. The snag being to determine if you have actually achieved what you believe. I'm not unique in this - this is entirely banal and what I'm sure the majority of small scale hi-fi builders do. And what sensible hi-fi buyers do - they try a product out in their own system. If it's better than what they have and affordable they buy it. If it isn't better they send it back. The snag being that there are hundreds of competing items we could try, in millions of combinations. And that, for example, a slight movement of our head might alter the sound we hear by more than the differences between many of them. It might help if we had some useful evidence and understanding to guide the choice of which items to try, and which to ignore until more likely items have been tried and perhaps found wanting. That way we could spend more time listening to music, and less of our lives listening to equipment, and arguing about differences which may or may not matter. It would be nice if people who designed/made/sold equipment were willing to help. But I appreciate that you can't be bothered. That is your decision to make. 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 |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
|
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
|
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
Keith G wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. wrote in message ups.com... It's really funny that a guy who insists so many differences heard in careful evaluations of equipment are imagined because of bias effects would think he could make any kind of meaningful evaluation of SETs under show conditions with completely unfamiliar systems despite his obvious biases. The measured frequency response aberrations and nonlinear distortion in SETs are sufficient that claims to hear a difference are not exceptional. Some SETs have worse midrange frequency response than some speakers. Amazing..... Do elaborate. Graham |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
Some SETs have worse midrange frequency response than some speakers.
Amazing..... Irish SETs can wade through water and fetch sticks. |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
wrote: Keith G wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote wrote in message It's really funny that a guy who insists so many differences heard in careful evaluations of equipment are imagined because of bias effects would think he could make any kind of meaningful evaluation of SETs under show conditions with completely unfamiliar systems despite his obvious biases. The measured frequency response aberrations and nonlinear distortion in SETs are sufficient that claims to hear a difference are not exceptional. Some SETs have worse midrange frequency response than some speakers. Amazing..... What I find particularly amazing is that Arny would both paint SETs with such a broad brush and fail to understand that bias effects are still in play even with components that are widely agreed to have audible colorations. What components would these be ? You'd think someone who has made such a big deal about bias effects would better understand them. Do tell more. Graham |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
Eeyore wrote: wrote: Keith G wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote wrote in message It's really funny that a guy who insists so many differences heard in careful evaluations of equipment are imagined because of bias effects would think he could make any kind of meaningful evaluation of SETs under show conditions with completely unfamiliar systems despite his obvious biases. The measured frequency response aberrations and nonlinear distortion in SETs are sufficient that claims to hear a difference are not exceptional. Some SETs have worse midrange frequency response than some speakers. Amazing..... What I find particularly amazing is that Arny would both paint SETs with such a broad brush and fail to understand that bias effects are still in play even with components that are widely agreed to have audible colorations. What components would these be ? *Any* component believed to be involved in playback. You'd think someone who has made such a big deal about bias effects would better understand them. Do tell more. Bias effects affect perception always. It doesn't stop with the illusion of audible differences where there are really none. it is in play even with components that are widely agreed to have gross differences such as speakers. Bias effects affect all of our aesthetic perceptions. meals taste better when they look better, people look better when they smell better. etc etc. The funny thing is when someone says the food at such and such is great no one demands proof via DBTs. That seems to be a unique demand placed on people who express preferences for amps, wires, CD players and the like. Scott |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
wrote: Eeyore wrote: wrote: Keith G wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote wrote in message It's really funny that a guy who insists so many differences heard in careful evaluations of equipment are imagined because of bias effects would think he could make any kind of meaningful evaluation of SETs under show conditions with completely unfamiliar systems despite his obvious biases. The measured frequency response aberrations and nonlinear distortion in SETs are sufficient that claims to hear a difference are not exceptional. Some SETs have worse midrange frequency response than some speakers. Amazing..... What I find particularly amazing is that Arny would both paint SETs with such a broad brush and fail to understand that bias effects are still in play even with components that are widely agreed to have audible colorations. What components would these be ? *Any* component believed to be involved in playback. Can you possibly be more specific ? You'd think someone who has made such a big deal about bias effects would better understand them. Do tell more. Bias effects affect perception always. I agree. I'd hope I'm absent of this effect but I can't be sure. It doesn't stop with the illusion of audible differences where there are really none. Quite so. it is in play even with components that are widely agreed to have gross differences such as speakers. Bias effects affect all of our aesthetic perceptions. meals taste better when they look better, people look better when they smell better. etc etc. And then eat a 'funny' cookie ! That'll explain a thing or two ! The funny thing is when someone says the food at such and such is great no one demands proof via DBTs. That seems to be a unique demand placed on people who express preferences for amps, wires, CD players and the like. Soften up your reviewer ! I reckon I know how to administer a small dose of THC to do the job and no-one would ever be the wiser ! Graham |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
wrote in message ups.com... Keith G wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. wrote in message ups.com... It's really funny that a guy who insists so many differences heard in careful evaluations of equipment are imagined because of bias effects would think he could make any kind of meaningful evaluation of SETs under show conditions with completely unfamiliar systems despite his obvious biases. The measured frequency response aberrations and nonlinear distortion in SETs are sufficient that claims to hear a difference are not exceptional. Some SETs have worse midrange frequency response than some speakers. Amazing..... What I find particularly amazing is that Arny would both paint SETs with such a broad brush and fail to understand that bias effects are still in play even with components that are widely agreed to have audible colorations. You'd think someone who has made such a big deal about bias effects would better understand them. Sure, but it depends on the individual - in Arny's case (so aware of his own bigotry in certain 'audio areas' he is continually trying to unload the word) he has very fixed views and seems to have developed strange *hostile feelings* towards certain items of audio kit (SETs being a good example) and can't stand to hear others make positive comments about them! So his composure and objectivity usually go out of the window as he sets (oops) off on one of his rants where it seems he doesn't know whether to attack the *kit* or its user... Others are a lot more open-minded and tend to remain a lot less dogmatic in their views - I like to re-draw the picture from time to time and right now am listening to a record on an SS amp, using its own phono stage instead of the the valve setup I normally use. After an hour I can say it's fine/OK and if it was all I had I wouldn't be too unhappy, but usually when I swap back to the valves (haven't got time atm) I find the *improvement* is instantaneous and reaffirming. But who knows, one day this might change - until it does I certainly have no *hatred* of any audio kit stemming from my own preferences. (Does this mean I suffer a lot less from 'bias effect'....??? :-) |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: "Andy Evans" wrote in message oups.com... How do you feel about the pseudo-scientific justifications often given by snake-oil merchants? How about multinationals? "In tests 9 out of 10 cats preferred it" "Reduces the appearance of wrinkles" "Fights the seven signs of ageing" quote "For more beauty science, please visit www.pg.com" And for those old enough "Aspro - does not affect the heart" Be my guest and list the most outrageous claims you've heard! The best one ever was 'Nothing works faster than Anadin'....!! :-) ...so use 'nothing'. ;- Or at least don't take Anadin and *prolong* the agony...??? ;-) |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... In article .com, wrote: Eeyore wrote: wrote: I can name them if you like by type. Those that insist claims of audible differences between amps, cables, CD players and the like must be supported by scienitifically valid evidence. I think you missed his point by the comment about reading ingredients though. I think the point is that those same "some people" probably don't do that at all. Which means they have decided for some reason to pick on something very specific for scientific validation out of the vast relm of experiences that are widely evaluated without such evidence. I'm not clear from that whether it's the case that you think any audible difference should be scientifically measurable too or not. Absolutely I believe any real audible difference is scientifically measuable. Well, I think people should at least *try* to do this, particularly where there is some dispute and/or the experiences of different people contradict. The problem is that they often seem not to want to bother. For some years (decades in fact) I have persistently kept asking for detailed evidence on various audio matters. This is to help decide what the reality of these situations might be. Alas, all too often I get in response all kinds of reactions and re-statements of opinions/conclusions, but with little in the way of detailed assessable evidence. All too often the reaction seems to be defensive as if I am trying to "trip people up" and "prove them wrong". My actual aim is to establish in each case what may or may not be correct. I would like to observe that I believe it isn't a trivial matter for ordinary people to make accurate and meaningful 'scientifice measurements' and that, despite both you and Einstein might perhaps have wished it, not everything in this life falls into the 'easily explained/easily measured' category....?? In any case, with 'audio' there is the human factor - where one man's meat can simply be another man's poisson.... |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
Jim said:
For some years (decades in fact) I have persistently kept asking for detailed evidence on various audio matters. This is to help decide what the reality of these situations might be. Alas, all too often I get in response all kinds of reactions and re-statements of opinions/conclusions, but with little in the way of detailed assessable evidence. All too often the reaction seems to be defensive as if I am trying to "trip people up" and "prove them wrong". He then went on to say: It would be nice if people who designed/made/sold equipment were willing to help. But I appreciate that you can't be bothered. Now, it should be obvious to anyone with the slightest emotional intelligence would see that Jim is playing the game "I'm just a good guy asking for proof" and then turning round and attacking anyone who doesn't give it to him. This sort of hypocrisy has been going on for decades. As I said before several times, it won't stop because Jim doesn't understand it and has no intention of stopping it. Maenwhile it just annoys people. |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
"Andy Evans" wrote in message ps.com... Jim said: For some years (decades in fact) I have persistently kept asking for detailed evidence on various audio matters. This is to help decide what the reality of these situations might be. Alas, all too often I get in response all kinds of reactions and re-statements of opinions/conclusions, but with little in the way of detailed assessable evidence. All too often the reaction seems to be defensive as if I am trying to "trip people up" and "prove them wrong". He then went on to say: It would be nice if people who designed/made/sold equipment were willing to help. But I appreciate that you can't be bothered. Now, it should be obvious to anyone with the slightest emotional intelligence would see that Jim is playing the game "I'm just a good guy asking for proof" and then turning round and attacking anyone who doesn't give it to him. This sort of hypocrisy has been going on for decades. As I said before several times, it won't stop because Jim doesn't understand it and has no intention of stopping it. Maenwhile it just annoys people. I think you may be missinterpreting Jim's intentions here. What may be frustrating Jim is that people propose scenarios that they will argue for using intangibles, and will not make any attempt to provide something tangible to support their arguements. This does tend to cause some level of frustration in those who have knowledge anad experience, and are use to working with facts. |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
|
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
"Keith G" wrote in message ... (Does this mean I suffer a lot less from 'bias effect'....??? :-) Hi Keith, I don't think it does, I think you are nearly (only nearly :-)) as biased as the best of them, however, whenever we prefer one thing over another I think we are demonstrating a bias toward what we prefer in many instances. Our bias may be because of many reasons that are at variance with the reasoning of others. So What! We all have biases in some area or another. I picked up a set of old home made speakers today without knowing what was in them, but I could see through the cloth that they were fitted with a 12" driver. The boxes are three feet wide and three feet high. When I got them home and pulled them apart I find a Wharfedale Super 12/FS/AL 15 ohm driver in each box. They were mated to an Atomix HTM-2 Japanese made tweeter (fair bit of corrosion in the chrome finish). My eyes lit up a little until I realised the drivers are not a perfectly matched pair. The cones, while they appear original, differ in the number of concentric ridges in each cone. Also, the foam surround on one is not in good condition at all. I would say that one of the drivers is a later model then the other. Both cones have the white writing (fairly faint) on the outer back edge that was evidently placed there in the factory by QC. I thought of you as one of the perfect people to build something to put them into, however, they are unuseable as they are because of foam rot. I have already put the tweeters on eBay here in Aussie (listed world wide so you will find them in the UK). I haven't been able to find any info on the tweeters on the net other then a few pictures on a japanese forum. It was an interesting aquisition but one I really don't have any use for. I would have much prefered the drivers to be from the later series AR3a's. |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
"APR" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote in message ... (Does this mean I suffer a lot less from 'bias effect'....??? :-) Hi Keith, I don't think it does, I think you are nearly (only nearly :-)) as biased as the best of them, however, whenever we prefer one thing over another I think we are demonstrating a bias toward what we prefer in many instances. Our bias may be because of many reasons that are at variance with the reasoning of others. So What! We all have biases in some area or another. Hmm.. There's a big difference between a bias and a preference. There's also a difference in being biased towards something than being biased against it - one is open-minded, the other is not. I prefer valve amps for some/most jobs but I am not biased against SS amps - I have had an SS amp on (only) all day, so far... I picked up a set of old home made speakers today without knowing what was in them, but I could see through the cloth that they were fitted with a 12" driver. The boxes are three feet wide and three feet high. When I got them home and pulled them apart I find a Wharfedale Super 12/FS/AL 15 ohm driver in each box. They were mated to an Atomix HTM-2 Japanese made tweeter (fair bit of corrosion in the chrome finish). My eyes lit up a little until I realised the drivers are not a perfectly matched pair. The cones, while they appear original, differ in the number of concentric ridges in each cone. Also, the foam surround on one is not in good condition at all. I would say that one of the drivers is a later model then the other. Both cones have the white writing (fairly faint) on the outer back edge that was evidently placed there in the factory by QC. I thought of you as one of the perfect people to build something to put them into, however, they are unuseable as they are because of foam rot. Nice of you to say so, but I'm not really a *speaker person* - luckily, my choice of single, FR driver speakers has enabled me to avoid the problems with/of crossovers and I don't really know much about them. What I do know is that it is quite likely almost any tweeter/woofer arrangement will work in almost any box to some extent and that it is easy to convince yourself that they sound good. The other thing that needs to be kept in mind is that we get *used* to a certain speaker sound and, I think, naturally develop a preference for it. This is why so many people seem to be trying to find the speakers of their youth, as the modern stuff gets more and more 'technically capable' but possibly less 'listenable - good for HT, less good for 'drawing you into the music'.... Having said that, there's no denying modern, budget speakers offer a lot for the money (and are usually very smart in appearance) if you don't mind a small, relatively 'planar' sound with ****-all bass...?? |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
"APR" wrote in message ... "Andy Evans" wrote in message ps.com... Jim said: For some years (decades in fact) I have persistently kept asking for detailed evidence on various audio matters. This is to help decide what the reality of these situations might be. Alas, all too often I get in response all kinds of reactions and re-statements of opinions/conclusions, but with little in the way of detailed assessable evidence. All too often the reaction seems to be defensive as if I am trying to "trip people up" and "prove them wrong". He then went on to say: It would be nice if people who designed/made/sold equipment were willing to help. But I appreciate that you can't be bothered. Now, it should be obvious to anyone with the slightest emotional intelligence would see that Jim is playing the game "I'm just a good guy asking for proof" and then turning round and attacking anyone who doesn't give it to him. This sort of hypocrisy has been going on for decades. As I said before several times, it won't stop because Jim doesn't understand it and has no intention of stopping it. Maenwhile it just annoys people. I think you may be missinterpreting Jim's intentions here. What may be frustrating Jim is that people propose scenarios that they will argue for using intangibles, and will not make any attempt to provide something tangible to support their arguements. This does tend to cause some level of frustration in those who have knowledge anad experience, and are use to working with facts. Given that this group is not entirely made up from 'industry pros' (real or imagined) or 'audio/electronics engineers' (?), there will be instances where people cannot easily argue their case with *tangibles* and/or supply meaningful research data. It is up to the 'technical types' here to find out what point such a person is making without expecting said 'tangibles', if they wish to take issue with such points without the frustration you mention. Otherwise the 'because I say so' card is the only one left to play.... |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
Keith G wrote: wrote What I find particularly amazing is that Arny would both paint SETs with such a broad brush and fail to understand that bias effects are still in play even with components that are widely agreed to have audible colorations. You'd think someone who has made such a big deal about bias effects would better understand them. Sure, but it depends on the individual - in Arny's case (so aware of his own bigotry in certain 'audio areas' he is continually trying to unload the word) he has very fixed views and seems to have developed strange *hostile feelings* towards certain items of audio kit (SETs being a good example) and can't stand to hear others make positive comments about them! What's good about massive intermodulation distortion ? It's the most unmusical thing in the world. Graham |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
Keith G wrote: After an hour I can say it's fine/OK and if it was all I had I wouldn't be too unhappy, but usually when I swap back to the valves (haven't got time atm) I find the *improvement* is instantaneous and reaffirming. It's called listening fatigue. The break that you give yourself so doing allows the ear to recover. Now try it the other way round ! Graham |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
Andy Evans wrote: Jim said: For some years (decades in fact) I have persistently kept asking for detailed evidence on various audio matters. This is to help decide what the reality of these situations might be. Alas, all too often I get in response all kinds of reactions and re-statements of opinions/conclusions, but with little in the way of detailed assessable evidence. All too often the reaction seems to be defensive as if I am trying to "trip people up" and "prove them wrong". He then went on to say: It would be nice if people who designed/made/sold equipment were willing to help. But I appreciate that you can't be bothered. Now, it should be obvious to anyone with the slightest emotional intelligence would see that Jim is playing the game "I'm just a good guy asking for proof" and then turning round and attacking anyone who doesn't give it to him. This sort of hypocrisy has been going on for decades. As I said before several times, it won't stop because Jim doesn't understand it and has no intention of stopping it. Maenwhile it just annoys people. And your attitude annoys me ! Who are you to re-interpret his position and then claim he's lying ? Graham |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
APR wrote: "Andy Evans" wrote As I said before several times, it won't stop because Jim doesn't understand it and has no intention of stopping it. Maenwhile it just annoys people. I think you may be missinterpreting Jim's intentions here. What may be frustrating Jim is that people propose scenarios that they will argue for using intangibles, and will not make any attempt to provide something tangible to support their arguements. This does tend to cause some level of frustration in those who have knowledge anad experience, and are use to working with facts. I agree. For something similar ( but a different approach ) take a look at Patrick Turner's contributions in the thread 'tube rectifier impedance' in rec.audio.tubes. Graham |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
|
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
I think you may be missinterpreting Jim's intentions here. What may be
frustrating Jim is that people propose scenarios that they will argue for using intangibles, and will not make any attempt to provide something tangible to support their arguements. This does tend to cause some level of frustration in those who have knowledge anad experience, and are use to working with facts. APR I've been having this discourse with Jim for quite some time and I think I understand his intentions quite well. The basic facts of the case are that the home audio industry - unlike other arenas like medicine where stringent tests are required (quite rightly) for products - has almost universally based its recommendations of products on comparative listening tests. Jim wants to take an unusual step for the home audio scene and ask for scientific proof of the superiority of A over B or the claim that A sounds better than B. He seems oblivious to the reality that this is a highly unusual demand, but continues to "demand" that people supply him with such data. When they don't because they see no need to he turns on them with dismissive comments and, in addition, invokes some mystical "them" who will support his scientific case and treat people in the same dismissive way (he has various terms for this "treat with caution", "will come to their own conclusions" etc etc) I have no problem with him asking for scientific proof if there is any available, as long as his response when there is none forthcoming (in almost all cases) is something along the lines of "fine, I was just asking". But that's not the case, and there's the problem. |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
Who are you to re-interpret his position and then claim he's lying ?
Graham I'm a psychologist - like it or not, my job is to interpret what people say or do. I didn't say Jim was lying, and I wouldn't. He doesn't strike me as the sort of person who would deliberately lie. I said his attitide was hypocritical. You can't pretend to be the good guy and then turn on people without expecting some comeback. You either accept that you're being critical and deal with the consequences or you do the whole nice guy thing and treat people with grace and acceptance. I don't fall for all this faux ingenue stuff of "I'm only asking for scentific proof, and I really don't see what all the fuss is about". |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
Eeyore wrote: Keith G wrote: After an hour I can say it's fine/OK and if it was all I had I wouldn't be too unhappy, but usually when I swap back to the valves (haven't got time atm) I find the *improvement* is instantaneous and reaffirming. It's called listening fatigue. The break that you give yourself so doing allows the ear to recover. Now try it the other way round ! Hmmm I read somewhere that the opposite is usually in play. There seems to be a common bias to prefer the second smaple in an A/B comparison. That is the reason I always do A/B B/A comparisons and repeat them ove several listening sessions to try to remove other human variables such as mood and physical well being. Scott |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
|
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
wrote in message oups.com... Eeyore wrote: Keith G wrote: After an hour I can say it's fine/OK and if it was all I had I wouldn't be too unhappy, but usually when I swap back to the valves (haven't got time atm) I find the *improvement* is instantaneous and reaffirming. It's called listening fatigue. The break that you give yourself so doing allows the ear to recover. Now try it the other way round ! Gawd, this idiot's still replying to my posts when he's been told he's binned....??? Hmmm I read somewhere that the opposite is usually in play. There seems to be a common bias to prefer the second smaple in an A/B comparison. That is the reason I always do A/B B/A comparisons and repeat them ove several listening sessions to try to remove other human variables such as mood and physical well being. One-off A/B comparisons are really quite useless except in the case of *profound* differences, as in the case where summat's busted. My preferences were evolved by long months (even years) of comparisons of varying durations with any number of different bits of kit. The first valve amp I got was something of a Paulian revelation and was what I had been seeking (without even knowing it) for a good long time - I have not looked back since the first time I fired it up! When I am free to choose and can play the field I'm not likely to fall foul of a *snap decision* - tell yer mate (above) that I now have equal numbers of SS and valve amps here and can say *with conviction* that the valves beat the SS stuff fifteen different ways up, on every front except *convenience*!! (I don't use valves for HT and don't like to leave them on when I'm in and out of the house all day - global warming and a waste of valves....) (I love it when noobies try to tell me about **** like 'listener fatigue'....!!) |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
wrote in message oups.com... Eeyore wrote: Keith G wrote: After an hour I can say it's fine/OK and if it was all I had I wouldn't be too unhappy, but usually when I swap back to the valves (haven't got time atm) I find the *improvement* is instantaneous and reaffirming. It's called listening fatigue. The break that you give yourself so doing allows the ear to recover. Now try it the other way round ! Hmmm I read somewhere that the opposite is usually in play. There seems to be a common bias to prefer the second smaple in an A/B comparison. Yes. This is a ploy used in some demos. Also if you can make the second a little louder, this too will tip the balance. Iain |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
|
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
Iain Churches wrote: wrote in message Eeyore wrote: Keith G wrote: After an hour I can say it's fine/OK and if it was all I had I wouldn't be too unhappy, but usually when I swap back to the valves (haven't got time atm) I find the *improvement* is instantaneous and reaffirming. It's called listening fatigue. The break that you give yourself so doing allows the ear to recover. Now try it the other way round ! Hmmm I read somewhere that the opposite is usually in play. There seems to be a common bias to prefer the second smaple in an A/B comparison. Actually it seems that was what I was saying ! I wasn't thinking of an A/B comparison per se actually but I can well believe it. Yes. This is a ploy used in some demos. Also if you can make the second a little louder, this too will tip the balance. Yes. I had the trick about the level tweak explained to me by a guy who's familiar with hi-fi reviewers a couple of weeks ago. Works every time apparently ! Graham |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
|
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
Eeyore wrote: wrote: Eeyore wrote: wrote: The funny thing is when someone says the food at such and such is great no one demands proof via DBTs. But presumably they aren't making claims for 'fidelity' into the bargain ! Doesn't matter. Because it's irrelevant in the case of restaurants. Nope, guess again. Scott |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
Eeyore wrote: Iain Churches wrote: wrote in message Eeyore wrote: Keith G wrote: After an hour I can say it's fine/OK and if it was all I had I wouldn't be too unhappy, but usually when I swap back to the valves (haven't got time atm) I find the *improvement* is instantaneous and reaffirming. It's called listening fatigue. The break that you give yourself so doing allows the ear to recover. Now try it the other way round ! Hmmm I read somewhere that the opposite is usually in play. There seems to be a common bias to prefer the second smaple in an A/B comparison. Actually it seems that was what I was saying ! I wasn't thinking of an A/B comparison per se actually but I can well believe it. Interesting becuase i always thought listener fatigue happened after extensive listening, that would be the B in an A/B comparison Yes. This is a ploy used in some demos. Also if you can make the second a little louder, this too will tip the balance. Yes. I had the trick about the level tweak explained to me by a guy who's familiar with hi-fi reviewers a couple of weeks ago. Works every time apparently ! No just most of the time. Scott |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
Eeyore wrote: wrote: Eeyore wrote: Keith G wrote: After an hour I can say it's fine/OK and if it was all I had I wouldn't be too unhappy, but usually when I swap back to the valves (haven't got time atm) I find the *improvement* is instantaneous and reaffirming. It's called listening fatigue. The break that you give yourself so doing allows the ear to recover. Now try it the other way round ! Hmmm I read somewhere that the opposite is usually in play. There seems to be a common bias to prefer the second smaple in an A/B comparison. Which is what I said. If listner fatigue were the cause then A would be the prefered component since that listening took place with less fatigue. Scott |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:58 AM. |
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