Don Richard Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 There are an increasing number of "Julian Hirsch" types on the forum these days - he was a prominent writer for Stereo Review, who oft opined that "all good amplifiers sound the same" and it's corollary, "all CD players sound the same" If my memory serves me correctly, what Julian Hirsch said about CD players was that some players sounded slightly different but they all sounded pretty good. Quite different from what you wrote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 No one needs any of this stuff. Period, end of story. So, you move on to adopting a belief system about your hobby. One such system is the "Practical DBT School." It's very simple. If you can hear the difference in a DBT, and that difference is worth the $ delta in cost, and you have that money, you buy the item. Another is the aforementioned "Julian Hirsh School". You stack rank the items in order of best specifications, and select the best specs that meet your budget. Get the annual issue of Consumer Reports, and just buy what they rate as "Best Buy." They do a good job of practical selection. But another school for some, is what I have dubbed the "Art School of Audio." You build a system based on conceptual ideas, whimsy, aesthetics, intuition, playfulness, and pure emotion, with the final result being a completely subjective sense of pleasure. If you intuit that reducing noise, for example, would be beneficial, you allow yourself the freedom of putting something like Uber into your system and seeing what happens. Your analysis doesn't need to meet the criteria of other people (that's a core principle in any art), as long as it satisfies your own feelings about it. Go ahead, laugh all you want. But, that's a major reason we have hundreds of companies making audio gear with so much of it being mere variations on the same thing. If this was rational, for instance what you see in the desktop PC market, there'd be one or two receivers to buy, a couple different speakers, and that would be the end of it. Rationality though, is fortunately just ONE belief system you can adopt in this hobby, not the ONLY one. This is a fairly good description of the attitudes that various people have on audio. The technical nature of sound system design for some is reduced to a "belief system", much like a religion. I can tell you one thing - people who assemble a system based solely on advertising hype and testimonials take longer to get good sound than those who follow a more logical approach. The "believers" seem to go through a lot of equipment and it seems that they are never satisfied. A new piece of equipment receives gushing praise at first, then next thing you know they replace it with a new magic box, heaping greater accolades on their newer purchase. A more rational process would include defining an objective, then building or buying equipment to meet those objectives. If a problem is heard, troubleshooting procedures are initiated which will lead one to the source of the problem and then a proper fix can be implemented. I never understood why people would purchase products that offer solutions that are looking for problems. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Let loose and relax, Don. It's just for fun and amusement for some of us. It's something to do while we're waiting to die. The fun and amusement for me is relaxing while listening to music. Spending $ on audio equipment does not make me happy. Fussing with my equipment is not much fun. Buying a new CD might flip my switch if I like the album. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 See? That's how different people can be, Don! You've got it! Everyone should free themselves to do the things they enjoy. Hobbies are a bad place to invoke dogma. Dogmas are part of belief systems. What I believe in is a process - the scientific process. This process leads to the truth, beliefs and dogmas do not. An audio system functions on scientific principles. An audio system does not and indeed cannot know what one's beliefs are. If it is set up properly it will work properly. If set up in a haphazard manner it will not work properly, no matter what one believes. Many times people will come over and listen to my system. Some of them ask me why my system sounds better to them than their own system. Some assume it is the equipment I have, so they rush out and duplicate what I have. When it doesn't sound right they ask me to come over to try to find out why. So I walk into a room with Khorns hooked to decent equipment, and in fact it doesn't sound right to me either. The walls are bare with glass framed pictures on the wall, bare wood floors, wooden blinds with no drapes and hard furniture. In other words, an acoustic nightmare. When I tell them what they need to do they shake their heads in disbelief. Then they want to argue, one guy even saying that the latest cable reviewed in TAS sounds like it will fix his problem. The dummy actually thinks a piece of wire can fix a flutter echo. I don't believe so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 I am certainly not going to argue science here. It's fundamental in audio...as far as it goes. But what science knows about the human brain is doodlely. Try to get a computer to design a violin or voice a pipe organ to a space. If you want to hear what science can do for a "pipe" organ, listen to an Allen electronic at any price. They don't remotely approach those built by human hands and artistry. Sure, audio systems are rooted in science. But to say "science proves blah, blah, blah" is to show ignorance both of science and human perception. A dog can smell cancer when the most sophisticated equipment science can come up with cannot. It would not be a good idea to ignore the dog. I'll just say once again...science cannot tell you what another person hears. I get the same comments you do from many about my system. I have done no measurements except for 45 years of listening to it and replacing one thing at a time, then living with it. I started with a pair of Frazier Super Monte Carlos, a Grommes "Little Jewel" tube amp, and a Garrard turntable. Replaced the Grommes with a Dynaco SCA-35, etc, etc. Every component has a direct line back to that system. I still have the Fraziers. That first system would sound great today, better, in fact, than probably the vast majority of systems in most peoples homes. My quest has been driven largely by ever more clean bass to get to that C0-B0 required for 32' organ pipes, finally realized with the Cinema F20 sub. Of course, many upgrades were due to sudden targets of opportunity or increased income. But I've been happy with what I had since 1970. If I don't jones for expensive cables and such, it has nothing to do with science as much as with not feeling I am missing anything. Couple of years ago I visited the unfortunately now MIA Marshall, AKA GLA51 and his "Wall of Voodoo." Indeed it was. Startup was by two large, metered, impressively lit power conditioners that told you everything about your power except the fuel used to make it. I can tell you that was one AWESOME system at any level and with any material. But I didn't come home and feel like I needed to start saving for more stuff. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Bum Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Dave, you realize you just contradicted your opening sentence that you wouldn't argue science by following it with a hilarious string of logical fallacies in an effort to do just that, don't you? Cheers and happy new year! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 (edited) Dogmas are part of belief systems. What I believe in is a process - the scientific process. This process leads to the truth, beliefs and dogmas do not. An audio system functions on scientific principles. An audio system does not and indeed cannot know what one's beliefs are. If it is set up properly it will work properly. If set up in a haphazard manner it will not work properly, no matter what one believes. Which is the "proper" book, "To Kill A Mockingbird" or "For Whom the Bell Tolls"? These are books on audio? "For Whom The Bell Tolls" maybe. "To Kill A Mockingbird"? Which is the "proper" performance of "Begin the Beguine"? The one with Artie Shaw at the Avalon Ballroom, or the one by Pete Fountain in the New Orleans arena? Dunno. I was not present for either performance. I think some people are confused as when to apply science, and when to apply art. From you previous questions, I think you are the one confusing science and art. It's true that intuition wont help you make a typewriter, or a clarinet. You need some science. But when you begin pecking on the keys to write the great novel, science will not be the most helpful skill. Agreed. And science can help describe a clarinet, and the machinery needed to make one, but it won't help that much in composing music and playing the clarinet. Agreed. I believe in the scientific process too, for scientific problems. I can't design an amplifier without employing the laws of electromagnetism. And designing a sound system is likewise an endeavor where using scientifically sound procedures (no pun intended) will yield the best results in the least time. But, once having it, how it is used is a creative process. A little bit like cooking is a creative process. The sound experience I want to create absolutely DOES depend on my beliefs. My beliefs about what makes glorious experiences when I play my records. Not really a "belief" as I would use that term. I would say that process would be an engineering/design preference. And in this regard, I can bring together a dozen items created with science and employ them in the same way any artist will employ a typewriter, paint brush, clarinet. Yes, I see that you think there is one truth to behold when you play your CD or whatever you play. What? I just listen to the music and let it take me where it will. But, to say that, you might as well be saying that everyone who reads "Of Mice and Men" must walk away with the same truth, the same emotion, the same experience. Whew! That's asking a lot. The words typed into the book are exactly the same in my copy of the book as in yours. The bits on my CD are the same as the bits on yours. But my experience through the time of reading/playing of each will be different than yours, and why is that so hard to grasp? Mark, are you starting to celebrate New Years already? I never said everyone's experiences are the same. I completely agree that people who experience any art form will all have different perspectives of the art as a result. What in the world does this have to do with setting up a sound system or troubleshooting a problem? My life leading up to the exact moment the experience begins is different than yours. Each word, and each note, will come to me in a way that is not the same as you. And part of that is I will tilt the experience in various ways. I want the music that I play to have certain characteristics. I will get that by using certain gears which I select for that purpose. I would want the equipment to be as neutral and unobtrusive as possible, adding as little distortion as possible. I want the equipment to reflect as closely as possible what the artist put on the record. I don't want to be held hostage to your truth, or the truth of anyone else. I like discovering my own. I don't hold hostages, nor would I wish to do so. I have no problem at all seeing that the science creates tools like typewriters, clarinets and amplifiers and artists create experiences like novels, symphonies and musical simulation in the home. Neither do I. I rarely like the sound of other music systems I hear, and I have heard a lot of them. They don't please me. But you know, I also wouldn't read most of the books I see on their shelves, nor would I hang most of the pictures I see on their walls. Enjoy your process, Don. But, why should everyone want to copy it? It's not my process, it's a logical process. They might want to follow a logical process when setting up a sound system, or fixing a problem with a sound system. Doing so will get the best results in the quickest time while spending the least money. A haphazardly assembled or a malfunctioning sound system will certainly impede one's enjoyment of the music that the artist recorded. Edited January 1, 2015 by Don Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Dave, you realize you just contradicted your opening sentence that you wouldn't argue science by following it with a hilarious string of logical fallacies in an effort to do just that, don't you? No, I do not realize it anymore than you can't seem to get the idea that music isn't about science. Science can measure things, but it cannot measure music or the perception thereof. I do not argue with science, but I don't care a fig about the science if the music sounds good. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 The one with Artie Shaw at the Avalon Ballroom, or the one by Pete Fountain in the New Orleans arena? Man, do I have the answer to that one: YES! Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 BTW...this thread is exceptional, and gets to the heart of our passions. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 A haphazardly assembled or a malfunctioning sound system will certainly impede one's enjoyment of the music that the artist recorded. Precisely why I spent 45 years putting mine together. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willland Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Couple of years ago I visited the unfortunately now MIA Marshall, AKA GLA51 and his "Wall of Voodoo." Indeed it was. Startup was by two large, metered, impressively lit power conditioners that told you everything about your power except the fuel used to make it. I can tell you that was one AWESOME system at any level and with any material. Boy did that system rock with some special "voodoo" that if you have not ever had the pleasure of experiencing the W of V or Marshall's hospitality, you have missed out. With the shape of the room, acoustic treatment, speakers chosen(Khorns, center Belle, and Heresy's on top of Khorns) and of course the gear which accounted for most of the "voodoo", any music chosen made you feel like you were in the studios in which the music was recorded. But I didn't come home and feel like I needed to start saving for more stuff. Me either but I sure got educated the couple of times I visited GLA51. I miss that guy. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 It's not my process, it's a logical process. They might want to follow a logical process when setting up a sound system, or fixing a problem with a sound system Don, Let's talk about logical processes a bit. Assume that LP, CD, TAPE are transfer media. Assume musical performances take place outside the purview of media consumers. That is to say, in halls, or recording studios. Assume each consumer has a unique room in which they will play media. Hypothesis: I want to play commercially available media in my room and have the resultant sound approximate what I might have heard if I was present at a similar performance. What do we know about the creation of the media? |-- BOX 1 - an acoustic performance of musicians---|-------BOX 2 - transduction of acoustics to electromagnetic media----|----BOX 3---transduction of media back into acoustics---| What do we know for sure about each box? BOX 1 The Acoustic Performance: Nothing. Because we weren't there, we don't know where the players were, what kind of room it was, or what the sound was like in any of thousands of possible seating positions. BOX 2 The Acoustic Transduction: Nothing. Because only in the rarest of media is the stream of microphones, mixers and mixdown machinery specified, and then only in the most general terms. Worse yet, to transduce 3D acoustics into 2D electromagnetics is involves a crude conversion or approximation for utilitarian purpose because the input energy is a different kind of energy than the output energy. Just like the heat from a woodstove is not the same as the wood which is being burned in the woodstove. BOX 3 The Electromechanical Transduction: We have quite a bit of control here. We know how to manipulate this transduction in a million ways. This is where we deploy selected gear to perform another energy conversion from electromagnetic media to acoustic energy. We must employ single axis pistons to attempt to mimic the 3 dimensional movement of strings, for example. We must aim the acoustic transducer into the room, knowing that every location of that aiming, will produce a different acoustic result in the room. Q1: What should we pursue as a goal in Box 3? Why? Q2: How will we accomplish that goal? If you say the goal is to reproduce Box 1, you are being illogical because you don't know what was in Box 1 (I am referring to commercial recordings, not home recordings). If you say the goal is to make Box 3 sound like "times I have been in various rooms and heard various similar performances" you have a logical way to proceed. You define the qualities of those past experiences that are important to you, and then you use a trial and error process of finding the right gears that meet those requirements. Here's the rub - only YOU will know when that has been achieved. And your selection, in your room, might not work for anyone else in their room. And worse yet, if the gears you choose work on one piece of media, they may not work on the next. It's really easy. Let's jump to your "Box 3". The home audio equipment is made as accurate as possible - that is, the output of the loudspeaker as measured by a microphone is as close as possible to the electrical signal that goes into the amplification equipment. You can't do anything about "Box 1 or Box 2" other than to select recordings made by engineers and recording studios who are known to do a good job with their recordings. Making the home system accurate involves selecting the proper equipment, including amplification equipment, loudspeakers, and room treatments along with proper adjustment of the equipment and treatments. This is the same sorts of things done in the control rooms of recording studios, so looking at how they do things can give a person ideas for what to do in the home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimjimbo Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 So...back kind of on topic: While I wouldn't ever drop that kind of money unless it made my system sound $1,000 better (and even then...right now I'm not of the financially well off group - so that's a no go anyway for me.) However...anyone happen to look on their page for speaker diffusing and see these? YES PLEASE!!!! That's just downright ugly, sorry IMHO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) It's really easy. Let's jump to your "Box 3". The home audio equipment is made as accurate as possible - that is, the output of the loudspeaker as measured by a microphone is as close as possible to the electrical signal that goes into the amplification equipment. You can't do anything about "Box 1 or Box 2" other than to select recordings made by engineers and recording studios who are known to do a good job with their recordings. Making the home system accurate involves selecting the proper equipment, including amplification equipment, loudspeakers, and room treatments along with proper adjustment of the equipment and treatments. This is the same sorts of things done in the control rooms of recording studios, so looking at how they do things can give a person ideas for what to do in the home. Great. That's very easy, and it only involves measuring with instruments to confirm the end point. That's how "accuracy" of a signal is determined. So, you get a very low distortion amplifier, like a $200 Denon receiver, and you get a pair of very, flat, low distortion speakers, like any of dozens of available bookshelf speakers that cost under $500 a pair. Test your system with the instruments, adjust the room acoustics as far as you can, and that's it - you're done. What do you have? How will your favorite records sound? Will it sound at all like the kind of sound you enjoy? Maybe, maybe not. What if it doesn't? Then what do you do? I have heard several systems assembled on that basis, and can't say they impressed me in any particular way. Simple distortion in speakers is quite high. Two speakers with equal amounts of measured distortion will have very different tone. Which one is right? There's nothing wrong with following that process. But it would never be my process. it would be the height of lunacy to me to spend money on a system that I didn't think sounded musical. It would appear you have no clue how to do a proper installation or system alignment. Look up some studio design sites for ideas. Specifically, one needs to start with better equipment than bottom of the line consumer grade audio gear. Then measure the room, try different locations for the speakers and listening position, determine the best compromise, then do a system alignment and final acoustic treatments. If you are not happy with the results, listen for a while until you get used to the "new sound" that you hear. It's likely "better" than anything you have heard up to this point. It always amazes me how people get used to crappy sound and are disappointed when they hear a system that sounds different than what they are used to. Remember, you have no control over how the recording was made. A good resource for helping determine recording quality is the Dynamic Range Database: If the system reveals problems with a recording, the Database might be useful in finding a better version. http://dr.loudness-war.info/ Edited January 2, 2015 by Don Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaddeus Smith Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 If i need to get a mains block anyways, is this a waste of $80 if it also cleans up the power a bit? http://www.ebay.com/itm/Supra-MD-06US-SP-Mains-Block-Surge-Protector-HI-FI-NEWS-HIGHLY-COMMENDED-/400804223097 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I've yet to hear an issue I could blame on the power from my own systems or anyone else's. But that is entirely my own experience and makes no assumptions about what another may hear. I do not claim to be able to predict another persons hearing experience. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaddeus Smith Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 so I'm good with this? http://www.amazon.com/Tripp-Lite-TLP606-Protector-Outlet/dp/B0000AI0N1/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1420171185&sr=8-2&keywords=power+strip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) Specifically, one needs to start with better equipment than bottom of the line consumer grade audio gear. Why? You already said that the only objective was reproducing the input at the output of the speaker. A Denon receiver can be bought for a few hundred dollars that has 100x less distortion than any speaker. Why would anyone LOGICALLY spend more money to get anything better? Because that unit will not drive the speaker properly. For example more than 2 amplifier channels may be needed. Hard to answer because each system design has unique requirements. See? That's the box you paint when you say something like you did. Specs are specs. Distortion is distortion, Don Incorrect. Marketing department specs (one number specs) are too simple to be useful. There are various types of distortion, some audibly objectionable, some not. One has to know how to read specs and make sense of them all. Most of the widely quoted specs,THD for example, don't really tell you much. If the objective is just reproducing the input signal, the Demon is probably even over kill! You can't justify more than that by taking about studios. You goal can easily be meet with a Best Buy receiver. So, now you are already backpeddaling away from the objective you set. No, I'm backing away from the objectives you set. The scenario you have set up fails as a logical, goal oriented process on many levels. Edited January 2, 2015 by Don Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 so I'm good with this? I don't know, Michael. May be excessive. However, if your amp lights up and you hear good things it will be worth it. Dave 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.