"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Rob" wrote in message


I simply don't get this. I've been using 5 SS amps of
late (Quad 405, Rose power amp, Cambridge AV, Behringer
A500, and that within a Pure mini system), as well as
others on and off over the years, and I feel each has 'a
sound of its own'.

Good choice of words - "I feel". IOW what your emotions tell you, not
necessarily what well-reasoned testing would tell you.



Yep, why waste time *listening* to a bit of kit when you could just stick
a meter on it....??

Works for me! If I want to know what something is doing, I'll take
measurements over ears any day.

S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Yep, why waste time *listening* to a bit of kit when you could just
stick a meter on it....??

Indeed. A doctor with a stethoscope beats a MRI scan every time.

--
*Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake.

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Yep, why waste time *listening* to a bit of kit when you could just
stick a meter on it....??

Indeed. A doctor with a stethoscope beats a MRI scan every time.




Why look at (with your eyes?!) a picture when you can digitally analyse
it? Why go for a walk when there's perfectly good GIS profile of your
route? Why listen to music when ... :-)

"Serge Auckland" wrote in
message news
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Serge Auckland" wrote in
message

I rarely use the sound card as it is too difficult to
use . Firstly you need an attenuator to reduce the
incoming level, as few soundcards take more than a
couple of volts of input before clipping themselves, idealy

A 5K 2 watt high quality potentiometer suffices.

you need a
millivoltmeter in parallel with the sound card input to
make sure the level stays when it should.

You mean a voltmeter across the UUT output. We often
used those with the old nulling-type analyzers for one
reason or the other.
No, I mean across the sound card input, so I know what's
going into it to avoid it clipping.

If you follow my software recommendations, that is redundant.

In practice, that may
also be across the DUT (or UUT if you prefer) output, but
what's important to me when using a soundcard is that I
don't clip its input.

Unless you're measuring some really dirty crap, audio interface overload
sticks out like a sore thumb.

Then, with software, I never really know what it's
measuring

That's your fault - a good experimentalist should be
able to determine that with a few real world
measurements. On a bad day, analyze some signals
generated for the purpose. Generating complex tones is
very easy these days.

Agreed, if I could be bothered, but as I have two
null-type meters available, I really can't be fagged.

I have just one null-type meter, but I can't be bothered with using it.

unless you have a suitable sound card and sample
at 192kHz, you can't measure over the 100kHz bandwidth
that most THD meters manage.

Virtually every sound card that I'd consider to be an
alternative to test equipment samples that high.

My current laptop's internal sound card offers 192k
sampling, and it actually works! However, I prefer to use
my Digigram card for anything serious as its noise
performance is much better, but it samples only up to 48k.

Lots of other options.

I use the software test set
for analysing WAV files. For example, it's easier for me
to take my laptop to the hi-fi than test gear, so if I'm
making any measurements to my room or system, I will
record the DUT as a WAV and analyse it later.

Agreed - it is easy to capture data in the field, and
analyze it in detail later on.

If I were still a practicing engineer I would probably
get with modernity and have PC based test tools, but as
now my engineering is for personal pleasure only, I have
a set of old-fashioned instruments that are good enough
for the purpose of hobbying. If noise/distortion etc is
below what I can measure, I go and worry about other
things.

A practical approach, in all liklihood.

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Rob" wrote in message


I simply don't get this. I've been using 5 SS amps of
late (Quad 405, Rose power amp, Cambridge AV, Behringer
A500, and that within a Pure mini system), as well as
others on and off over the years, and I feel each has 'a
sound of its own'.

Good choice of words - "I feel". IOW what your emotions
tell you, not necessarily what well-reasoned testing
would tell you.

Yep, why waste time *listening* to a bit of kit when you
could just stick a meter on it....??

Agreed that sighted listening is pretty worthless, if the equipment is good
enough to be interesting.

"Rob" wrote in message

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Yep, why waste time *listening* to a bit of kit when
you could just stick a meter on it....??

Indeed. A doctor with a stethoscope beats a MRI scan
every time.



Why look at (with your eyes?!) a picture when you can
digitally analyse it?

If you had a clue about audio measurements, you'd know why your comparison
is a bad joke.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 19:11:40 +0100, Rob
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Yep, why waste time *listening* to a bit of kit when you could just
stick a meter on it....??

Indeed. A doctor with a stethoscope beats a MRI scan every time.




Why look at (with your eyes?!) a picture when you can digitally analyse
it? Why go for a walk when there's perfectly good GIS profile of your
route? Why listen to music when ... :-)

But the measurements aren't a substitute for listening - they are
designed to make sure your equipment is not going to mar your
pleasure. A bit like making sure the glass on the front of your
picture is nice and clear... Of course there are those who like
cloudy glass with a coloured tint, but not those who want to see the
whole of the picture.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 19:11:40 +0100, Rob
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Yep, why waste time *listening* to a bit of kit when you could just
stick a meter on it....??
Indeed. A doctor with a stethoscope beats a MRI scan every time.



Why look at (with your eyes?!) a picture when you can digitally analyse
it? Why go for a walk when there's perfectly good GIS profile of your
route? Why listen to music when ... :-)

But the measurements aren't a substitute for listening - they are
designed to make sure your equipment is not going to mar your
pleasure.

It strikes me that measurement fixation *does* affect listening. For
some, a measured anomaly would take away some of the listening pleasure
even if it was inaudible.

A bit like making sure the glass on the front of your
picture is nice and clear... Of course there are those who like
cloudy glass with a coloured tint, but not those who want to see the
whole of the picture.

d

Some people like their glass 'distorted' so they can see the bigger
picture.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 20:45:32 +0100, Rob
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 19:11:40 +0100, Rob
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Yep, why waste time *listening* to a bit of kit when you could just
stick a meter on it....??
Indeed. A doctor with a stethoscope beats a MRI scan every time.



Why look at (with your eyes?!) a picture when you can digitally analyse
it? Why go for a walk when there's perfectly good GIS profile of your
route? Why listen to music when ... :-)

But the measurements aren't a substitute for listening - they are
designed to make sure your equipment is not going to mar your
pleasure.

It strikes me that measurement fixation *does* affect listening. For
some, a measured anomaly would take away some of the listening pleasure
even if it was inaudible.


Would it take you that way? Not me, that is for sure. ANd by now I
have a very good idea of what is audible and what is not. Add to that
the fact that it is trivially easy these days to make equipment with
errors many orders of magnitude below audibility, and the situation is
really pretty relaxed.

A bit like making sure the glass on the front of your
picture is nice and clear... Of course there are those who like
cloudy glass with a coloured tint, but not those who want to see the
whole of the picture.

d

Some people like their glass 'distorted' so they can see the bigger
picture.

No, you never see the bigger picture through distorted glass. You
always see less - no choice there, I'm afraid. And of course you have
not the slightest chance of seeing the details.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 20:45:32 +0100, Rob
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 19:11:40 +0100, Rob
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Yep, why waste time *listening* to a bit of kit when you could just
stick a meter on it....??
Indeed. A doctor with a stethoscope beats a MRI scan every time.


Why look at (with your eyes?!) a picture when you can digitally analyse
it? Why go for a walk when there's perfectly good GIS profile of your
route? Why listen to music when ... :-)
But the measurements aren't a substitute for listening - they are
designed to make sure your equipment is not going to mar your
pleasure.
It strikes me that measurement fixation *does* affect listening. For
some, a measured anomaly would take away some of the listening pleasure
even if it was inaudible.


Would it take you that way? Not me, that is for sure. ANd by now I
have a very good idea of what is audible and what is not. Add to that
the fact that it is trivially easy these days to make equipment with
errors many orders of magnitude below audibility, and the situation is
really pretty relaxed.


Well, yes it has affected my listening pleasure for a time. Maybe I'm alone.

A bit like making sure the glass on the front of your
picture is nice and clear... Of course there are those who like
cloudy glass with a coloured tint, but not those who want to see the
whole of the picture.

d

Some people like their glass 'distorted' so they can see the bigger
picture.

No, you never see the bigger picture through distorted glass. You
always see less - no choice there, I'm afraid. And of course you have
not the slightest chance of seeing the details.


Try telling my wing mirrors :-)