Jolida 302b ou 810a pour RF3?

[DSI77]

Bonjour a tous encore moi..

Pour mes RF3 faut il un jolida 302b ou un 801a

Merci a bientot

[dougdrake]

Hey folks - He wants to know if he should get a Jolida 302b or a 801a to use with his RF3s? Any input?

Doug

[Colin]

oui

[leok]

302b because it's smaller. But 50 Watts is still over 2x too big, I think. 20W max. I'd vote for the Superamp because you can use it in triode mode and maybe even no feedback.

leok

[Colin]

Welcome, mon ami -

Que cherchez-vous? Deux film de chaîne et le système de reproduction de musique? Le théâtre de maison de cinq chaîne? Comment grand l'écoute la salle? Avez-vous un subwoofer? Quel genre de musique qu'aimez-vous?

What are you seeking? Two channel movie and music reproduction system? Five-channel home theater? How large is the listening room? Do you have a subwoofer? What kind of music do you like?

[lynnm]

Kwantou!

Toyate memerga hult ? Ato blangute ? Qyantaga muta sowattan !

Sebil derdego tentousin bus es inaro ! Nojo demis trux summit cousin summit dux!

[DSI77]

Bonjour

S'est pour ecouter du jazz modern en hifi.

Ma piece fait 25 m2.

Uniquement de la musique ritme.

Merci

[Clipped and Shorn]

"Gee, I don't know, but I'm dying to see the translation for "slightly more soulful presentation and midrange bloom..."

mdeneen"

I have often before mentioned the need for an ongoing audiophile glossary.

Bloom: Pertaining to midrange. A word used to direct one's attention to this area of frequency response. If it is perceived as something positive or improved it is said to have "bloom". The association with flowers and fruit trees and fertilizer is akin to cowboys, cigarettes, and tattoos and has to do with sales, eg. selling the myth.

Presentation: How an audio system is percieved to sound. More importantly how the system looks. NOS Tubes, by definition, help a presentation, also bird's eye maple. The appearance that every aspect of the audio system has involved intense shopping considerations. When presenting a bride to be, the look and context is as important as her inherent personality traits and physical features. As every trained chef knows, this is the same with everything from sushi to gourmet desserts.

Soulful Presentation: A presentation perceived as favoring jazz and blues. The visual aspect should not be underestimated, and cool Jazz LPs should be seen in the vacinity. Now the concept can be extended to every area of music, as long as it seems to be more like local BBQ ribs than corporate KFC. Then again this can be reversed with the right cables and interconnects.

Air:

Grain:

Blackness:

Extension:

obviously there is much more work to do on this glossary.

-C&S

[dougdrake]

----------------

On 2/11/2003 11:15:22 AM mdeneen wrote:

Gee, I don't know, but I'm dying to see the translation for "slightly more soulful presentation and midrange bloom..."

mdeneen

----------------

Jolida 801a a la présentation légèrement plus mélancolique et la fleur moyenne.

(at least according to freetranslation.com)

Doug

[mobile homeless]

Well, to be honest, any language that can describe something that was not defined before has merit, especially if the definitions do a good job of describing or defining the subject at hand. We have the same thing in science, art, drama, literature, and almost every hobby known to man.

I personally would not die laughing for 20 minutes at a word or set of words that described something that does define a certain characteristic. For people that believe the use of numbers is the only quantifiable method for observing reality, then good luck with the English language.

I think .005% distortion does a pretty useless job of describing what an amplifier sounds like. While the use of the word "bloom" if handled with any sense of acumen can go a long way in describing a characteristic or trait of a quality amp vs a more mediocre one. If the patrons in this place refuse to acknowledge the existence of these words and continue to toss stones at their usage with the idea that "science" is not suited, then so be it. I played the measurements game for the entire early portion of my audio journey and found myself pretty disappointed.

Along comes a few interesting chaps that felt that actually LISTENING TO THE GEAR and describing the sounds and performance (along with measurements) would yield a more meaningful result. Slowly, over the years, some words and definitions became more standard to describe some of the observations, just like in any other field. A trait was observed, and suitable name or descriptive was devised to enable the person to CONVEY the finding to someone else. Hence, a lexicon was developed.

If one decides it is "balderdash" so be it. Me? It's sure helped me make great finds with gear with equal measurements not to mention where measurements actually said one thing and the ears another. The words bloom, air, inner detail, shrill, brittle, aggressive, flat, three-dimensional, etc all have meaning to me and have helped me in both describing gear and understanding others that have heard it as well. Exact science? The idea that only "exact science" if there is such a thing, has validity is absurd to me.

The words "it just sounded real good" do not do subtle differences much justice nor are they very articulate. While they might be fine and dandy for someone sitting in his own lair, the sentence does nothing much to differentiate the qualities.

I think it's important to understand the words "chesty" right along side "impedance" as both can go a long way in understanding the performance and parameters of a speaker. I have heard the word "chesty" describing sounds from a speaker for YEARS, probably since the 70s. I find it amusing that in 2003, it still brings about head scratching. If one says the speaker has an extremely flat frequency response, what does it sound like? If a speaker sounds "chesty" than it tends to emphasize the more "chesty qualities of the spoken or singing voice. " I am sure many of us have heard speakers or systems or setups that put more emphasis on this to the detriment of the presentation. So are we to think it absurd and laughable when we use words to describe the sounds?

Frankly, I think it is just one more piece of the puzzle to understand the whole equation.

Oh, and since it's such a nebulous word to a few within here, how about this one for BLOOM relating to audio: "sonic description for a sense of air around instrumental images." How can there be air around instruments you say? Well, listen to a good tube amp compared to a more pedestrian solid state offering. Now compare the palpability, another good descriptive word, in the sounds from the horn, drums, etc. Does the horn sound like it is flat and coming from a wall? Or does it have a sense of defined space around it, more like sound traveling from the instrument in a three dimensional space, and not a flat image.

Words like dynamic and immediacy and tone etc are also descriptive, yet are now more accepted. I tend to believe that art, science, math, drama, philosophy, literature all come together to further the understanding of whatever subject is at hand. I think those that discount any of the preceding are just missing some of this equation.

All in the name of true science, right?

kh

[JohnA]

FEmale!

[Clipped and Shorn]

Any words can be used for terminology as long as they can be defined. There is a certain logic involved in making a meaningful definition. Terms need to be defined using only the simplest commonly understood other words. Definitions should not include the word being defined as part of the definition. Definitions should not be based on other words themselves needing special definitions unless there is a logical order to the dervation. It should not be assumed that the previous "baggage" or previous connotations of the word automatically make that word meaningful in its new context. Just because "bloom" is commonly understood in the garden does not automatically mean that its connotation translates to the new audio context without further definition. Nor should new terms be defined in terms of other neologisms which themselves have not been clearly defined . Before defining "bloom" in tems of "air" , first "air" needs to be properly defined.

There are basic guidelines for making definitions using simple logic and generally understood linguistic practice. Scientific or mathematical definitions are even more rigorous. It is not expected that these general "audiophile" terms be scientific or mathematical, just that they be logical, non-circular, and meaningul in the most basic linguistc ways.

To say a wine tastes like cherries or plums assumes that the person has tasted cherries or plums and can recognize that flavor in the wine. To say a wine tastes like wet fur or smoke, makes a connection between a smell and a taste, to say that a wine has

"structure" needs a bit more in the way of a definition.

Audiophile terms are similar to wine tasting terms. The main difference is that it is fairly simple to sit around a table with some bottles and some friends and compare experiences and come to some agreement about the word used at the moment to describe a perception of that moment. This might also be the case if one is in an audio showroom (amatuer or professional).

Whereas most people can make the connection from the statement "tastes like chocolate" to their own past experience of chocolate, to use a term like "air", or "grain", or "bloom" etc. away from the actual experience requires a definition and that definition should point to some known correlate of common experience, as best as possible. If nothing else analogies might be useful when all else fails.

All I am asking for is a list of carefully honed definitions of these audiophile terms, a definitive glossary, avoiding circularity, and avoiding the assumption that the common usage of the term automatically translates to the audio context.

It will require some thought and work to provide these definitions and in the process, the development of a skill at doing this. Defining "bloom" in terms of "air" is not what I am talking about. When it is possible to correlate an audiophile experiential term with actual physics, this also should be included if possible, but, like wine tasting terms, is not necessary for all definitions.

I suggest an ongoing refinement of the terminology, a process open to critique and input from other members of the forum until we get them right.

My previous definitions, where not only meant to be humorous, they were an attempt to be clear and honest from the limited experience I have. I would love to see better definitions that are also clear and honest and accurate and above all meaningful.

C&S

[anarchist]

Interesting discussion. I just read some lecture from a University to make myself more acquainted with resistors, capacitors, voltage, circuits, etc. I would assume this stuff is hard science and the definitions were give for the formula E=IR or some such nonsense. They were quickly followed up by an explanation that the definitions for each were, in fact, circular. If we can't avoid circles in science how do we do so in trying to describe something purely subjective?

[Clipped and Shorn]

I suspect the reason we never see a glossary of terms with definitions is that we are not really talking about definable terminology as much a a collection of descriptive adjectives which have caught on and are currently in style in certain circles.

Just as you would not write a novel using "awesome" to desribe everything, the use of a variety of descriptive adjectives has come to be common parlance in audiophile discussions and marketing. These adjectives attempt to associate words with subjective experience and at best are similar to the way words are used in fiction writing, except for the fact that the experiences referred to with the audio are not as universally experienced. It is an elitist language which seems to always be saying "you had to be there", a language which makes you curious to know what it was like to be there. "I am Jelling now. No your not Jellin' yet."

In any case I would still like to see an attempt made here at a glossary so that those who read this forum, including myself, can have an inkling to what is being suggested with the use of these words. I think it would be informative to see the terms defined by those who readily use these terms, or at least an honest attempt.

Example:

Bloom: descriptive term referring to the mid range.

Even an honest definition such as this would be better than nothing. More might be better if possible.

Now lets see the rest of the list.

C&S

"The name "Sonicweld" encapsulates my philosophy in a single word, because a weld is the strongest, most intimate bond that can be made between two things, and therefore conveys the idea that when listening to our products, one is sonically "welded" to the performance--that is, there is nothing to veil, mar, or truncate the musical experience, and the artist's message is conveyed in a bonding, intimate, personal way. All of the descriptive adjectives commonly employed in the audiophile vocabulary--transparent, fast, spatial, timbrally correct, etc., can be derived from this core idea."

[mobile homeless]

There IS a glossary of terms with definitions. The definitions have been defined by various people from J. Gordon Holt to Robert Harley. It is available in print form and various places online. People have been using these terms in print for about 25 years or more. There are actually several referecences in this case, both in hard and soft cover form.

[anarchist]

MH,

Dang it. You went all nice on me and I had to revise my post to remove my Wyatt reference. Stop being fickle.

[mobile homeless]

J Gordon Holt's The Audio Glossary

http://www.audioxpress.com/bksprods/books/bkaa7.htm

Robert Harley's book gives more...

Below, is the beginning of a pretty interesting article by the sometimes irascible J. Gordon Holt. Some definitions are at the link that follows the text.

In typical Holt fashion, humor is involved and there are some tongue-in-cheek words laced throughout so reading helps (as does a sense of humor). And others have continued, refined, and added to the descriptions. They are not stagnant.

For example, BLOOM in Holt's terms means: A quality of expansive richness and warmth, like the live body sound of a cello. Harley's interpretation includes the more refined, "sonic description of a sense of air around instrumental images" which I think defines it better relating to subject at hand.

Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary

By J. Gordon Holt, July 1993

Subjective audio is the evaluation of reproduced sound quality by ear. It is based on the novel idea that, since audio equipment is made to be listened to, what it sounds like is more important than how it measures. This was a natural outgrowth of the 1950s high-fidelity "revolution," which spawned the notion that a component, and an audio system as a whole, should reproduce what is fed into it, without adding anything to it or subtracting anything from it.

Traditional measurements of such things as harmonic distortion, frequency response, and power output can reveal many things a product is doing imperfectly, but there have never been any generally accepted guidelines for equating the measurements with the way they affect the reproduced sound. And there was strong evidence that many of the things people were hearing were not being measured at all.

Subjective reviewing simply skirts the question of how objective test results relate to what we hear, endeavoring to describe what the reproducing system sounds like.

But what should it sound like? The pat answer, of course, is that it should sound like "the real thing," but it's a bit more complicated than that. If the system itself is accurate, it will reproduce what is on the recording. And if the recording itself isn't an accurate representation of the original sound, an accurate sound won't sound realistic. But what does the recording sound like? That's hard to tell, because you can't judge the fidelity of a recording without playing it, and you can't judge the fidelity of the reproducing system without listening to it---usually by playing a recording through it. Since each is used to judge the other, it is difficult to tell much about either, except whether their combination sounds "real." But it can be done.

Even after more than 116 years of technological advancement (footnote 1), today's almost-perfect sound reproduction still cannot duplicate the sound of "the real thing" well enough to fool someone who has learned to listen analytically---a trained listener. But the goal of literal realism, or "accuracy," remains the standard against which a subjective reviewer evaluates any audio product design.

...Continued with additional Words/definitions, with tongue in cheek mixed:

http://www.stereophile.com/fullarchives.cgi?50

kh

[edster00]

Emergency edit!!

The comment I was replying to has been changed...

[anarchist]

Hey MH,

I remember reading that a long time ago. I recognized it as soon as I saw "Onomatopoeia." It does a pretty good job of defining them in what I perceive as layman's terms but some of it seems very redundant - which is more than likely when you take 70 words and bloat them to 300 just so you have 6 ways to say the same thing; this is most evident when we are dealing with the more subjective of definitions.

The "true believer" would likly say it was necessary so you can try to make sense to the guy who doesn't do well with imagery or Onomatopoeia and needs some other definition which might make sense to him.

You have, in any case, performed another valuable service and, might I add, did it ever so graciously.

[Clipped and Shorn]

That's the links I was looking for. Do you think that "scary", "serious guts", and "soulful" are in the big book? I guess at a certain point, like hip street slang, one can try one's hand at creating new forms to see if they will catch on. It was nice to see "chocolate" on the audio list, a term which is also used for wine.

C&S