russ69 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Really? Someone that trusts what they hear is a fool? I didn't know PWK but he trusted what he heard, did he not? He didn't just rely on measurements did he? Are we all fools, or just the ones that hear differences? Does all audio gear sound the same to these other guys? Are we back to all amps sound the same, really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted May 31, 2011 Moderators Share Posted May 31, 2011 I think he trusted his ears, when he had something to back it up. That's why he spent a ton of money building an Anechoic chamber and a pile of test equipment directly on the outer wall right in the lab with the normal listening room next door. PWK was a very smart guy, he knew he would have to back up his claims to someone, testing and having proof of the claims. I don't really know but just a guess after looking at the setup in Hope ? Like something you have talked about before, wires, I don't doubt they can make a difference but the way I look at is I have much to improve on before it gets down to wires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Really? Someone that trusts what they hear is a fool? I didn't know PWK but he trusted what he heard, did he not? He didn't just rely on measurements did he? Are we all fools, or just the ones that hear differences? Does all audio gear sound the same to these other guys? Are we back to all amps sound the same, really? I hear differences between most components, and I MAY have heard differences between speaker cables. Thinking I heard differences is not sufficient, because of the possibility of placebo-like effects, time delays, etc.. Nevertheless, I try to buy the (affordable) stuff that I think sounds the best to me. It's like Pascal's wager: if there truly is a benefit, I am rewarded for these behaviors ... if the benefits are illusory, since I buy equipment that is regarded as being well designed, I haven't lost anything by going with what I think I hear. I engage in several other behaviors that may be quasi-superstitious, like turning off other electronic devices in the house before firing up my audio equipment (power amps first, on McIntosh's advice). Suppose we really wanted to know if the differences we "hear" are real or illusory? There is a threat to validity in every method I've heard of. Even with double-blind A-B testing, there may be problems with the devices doing the switching, the brain functioning differently when making comparisons than when relaxing and letting the music wash over you, etc., etc. With so-called "subjective" listening, there is a loss of experimental control. We could try to close in on the reality by using these two approaches, and looking for the degree of statistical agreement between them, with specific components. But why? I would think we should just give up insensitively dismissing what some believe they can hear, especially when terms like Audiophool are used, and also give up saying confidently (or in an arrogant, exaggerated manner, the way some magazine writers and consumer reviewers do) that there are large differences between components based only on uncontrolled auditioning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djk Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 PWK did not even have a test mic when he started, he commented on how the response sounded when he swept the signal generator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnatnoop Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 i haven't measured any of my equipment in my current 2 channel setup.. but i listen to it all [H] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted May 31, 2011 Moderators Share Posted May 31, 2011 i haven't measured any of my equipment in my current 2 channel setup.. but i listen to it all Me too, I haven't figured out how to measure, need to get a few things to be able to try. Mostly to see what the room is doing, I guess ? Everything was designed to be setup this way so that end should be right. I would rather it sound good to me compared to being right and I was not happy with the sound. But also like when people change caps, they say it sounded good but then with new caps it sounds even better, you really don't know what your missing until hear the difference and that could be many different things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted May 31, 2011 Moderators Share Posted May 31, 2011 PWK did not even have a test mic when he started, he commented on how the response sounded when he swept the signal generator. Your probably right, there wasn't even stereo yet, then when there was he went to three speakers across the front. I don't think there were many great recordings either, what came first tape or LP's ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 PWK did not even have a test mic when he started, he commented on how the response sounded when he swept the signal generator. I don't think there were many great recordings either, what came first tape or LP's ? In the Beginning ... or near it ...there were many 78RPM recordings. They are probably what PWK used for a music source when he was starting. A long work -- even the length of the average symphony --- needed many 78 RPM records to handle the length, and they were sold in a book like binding containing many records in sleeves -- which is how the word "album" entered the recording lexicon, since these collections resembled photo albums. Reel to Reel (or "Open Reel) magnetic tape and tape recorder/players were captured from the Germans during World War II. Rumor has it that BIng Crosby helped finance an American company (AMPEX?) to copy and improve on the German recorders. Wealthy folk began to buy these MONO machines for their homes shortly after 1945. Before that people used wire as a recording medium.. It was prone to snaging. There was a Mickey Mouse comic strip depicting Mickey grappeling with his wire recorder. The first Klipschorn, "Not a good speaker," according to PWK, was built around 1941 and was invaded by termites, then burned, about 4 or 5 years before tape recorders were available to the public. I'm not sure when Lps came in.... They were around in 1955, for sure. Cassette tape came in in the '60s, and so did 8 track. Both sounded terrible until improved tape formulations like TDK SD, Scotch 206 / 207, etc hit the market in aboout 1970 The older magnetic oxide tape formulations (before 1970) were just fine for reel to reel, but couldn't perform well enough in 1 7/8 inches per second cassettes. In the home 7 1/2 ips was the most common Reel to Reel speed, and there was a distinct loss of high frequency response at 3 3/4ips. Most pre-recorded tapes were @ 7 1/2 IPS. Professional machines moved at 15 ips or 30 ips. One of the best sounding formats was the 6 channel magnetic sound used in Todd-AO and other 70 mm film processes. Optical sound sucked. Most of these recording/playback media (except for 78 rpm, cassette, 8 track & optical soundtracks) sounded better than CDs, IMO. Blu-ray and SACD have finally returned to the recording quality of the past, thank goodness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEvan Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Audiophools earn their stripes, not by ther ears, but by claiming their ears are telling them the wooden volume knob "resolves detail" better than the stock aluminum, or hears a wider, deeper soundstage with that $500 AC cord. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groomlakearea51 Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 "wooden volume knob resolves detail" That's a new one!! Never heard that claim before. Gotta' add that one to my collection! [H] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJkizak Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 I love my knobs. JJK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 There is a pretty big difference between an audiophool and an audiophile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 I'm not sure when Lps came in.... They were around in 1955, for sure. ~1950 or '51. Huge improvement over the very rapidly eclipsed 78's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhoak Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 "wooden volume knob resolves detail" That's a new one!! Never heard that claim before. Gotta' add that one to my collection! Yep... http://boingboing.net/2005/11/07/astronomically-overp.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark1101 Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Your ears and brain will fool you every time. We need a "reference".........and it's simple for the sound of our systems to stray from that reference if its missing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Pleasing the ears is the reason for all of the fancy systems we have. However, the more complex your system is the greater is the need for instrumentation when you are setting the system up for the first time. Set up a 5 band parametric EQ by ear? No way. Tune a system with a 31 band per channel graphic EQ by ear alone? Not if you want the system to sound good. You get it close with an RTA or REW or similar, then do the final adjustment by ear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Islander Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 "wooden volume knob resolves detail" That's a new one!! Never heard that claim before. Gotta' add that one to my collection! Yep... http://boingboing.net/2005/11/07/astronomically-overp.html I took a look at that knob and immediately noticed the small pointer on its lower edge. Surely, that pointer would cause unwanted resonances and totally muddy the soundstage. It would likely blur transient attacks as well.Do they have a premium knob with a smooth edge that prevents these potential problems? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWL Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 You get it close with an RTA or REW or similar, then do the final adjustment by ear. [Y][Y]Makes sense to me. I've never had or used any type of equipment to dial in my room but have experimented thoroughly with placement and room treatments to get it the way I like it. I wonder how close I really am in reguard to what an RTA or an REW would tell me. Would it even matter? I mean it's two speakers....no subs. How far off can it be? [:^)] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tube fanatic Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 "wooden volume knob resolves detail" That's a new one!! Never heard that claim before. Gotta' add that one to my collection! Yep... http://boingboing.net/2005/11/07/astronomically-overp.html I took a look at that knob and immediately noticed the small pointer on its lower edge. Surely, that pointer would cause unwanted resonances and totally muddy the soundstage. It would likely blur transient attacks as well.Do they have a premium knob with a smooth edge that prevents these potential problems? It's nice to see that sense is prevailing among forum members. Last year I was taken to task by a very prominent forum member for making a disparaging remark about the Shun Mook Mpingo Discs! http://www.shunmook.com/text1.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 I love my inner ear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.