Like your food salty, do you?...
Schiit Magni 2 - didn't measure well, but sounded really good.
Hifime ES9018 - didn't measure well here, but sounded really sweet.
...
Rick "nothing wrong with that if one sees it for what it is" Denney
Like your food salty, do you?...
Schiit Magni 2 - didn't measure well, but sounded really good.
Hifime ES9018 - didn't measure well here, but sounded really sweet.
...
@restorer-john
But here is what I would like to know (honest curiosity), what makes these Mark Levison amps $10k? Aside from better parts and the luxurious chasis. Does it have better engineering? Does those better parts make better sound? Does the Mark Levison engineers honestly tried to give it a "sound signature." Apparently the Hegel engineers may have (if you read their response to the H190 review, they use the word "subjective"). And if these true and legit engineers believes in "sound signature" can we blast them for it? Remind you, they are real legit EE many have PhD. Or are all of these EE just playing the game because, let's face it, it's a business at the end of the day. And there is an audiophoolia ecosystem that keeps the machine running and the cash coming.
In my view, if we're trying to orient new members/visitors around the basic perspective of the site, we have to back up another step to 'before' the measurements.
I think the basic primary gulf between the 'objectivist' leaning crowd and the 'subjectivist' leaning crowd rests in the difference in perspective on the human auditory system. The 'objectivist' leaning cohort accepts the results from psychology that our hearing is actually rather flawed, and that bias (both conscious and unconscious) has a large influence on subjective perception. i.e. they understand that we really can't trust our ears in many cases. Conversely, the subjective camp believes strongly in both the resolution and repeatability of our hearing. They have a perspective that seems to be rooted in the belief of an 'invariant' listener, leading to the belief that the only possible explanation of a difference in subjective experience is that there is an objective difference in the sound field.
So, I think it's a mistake to jump straight to discussions of 'the measurements' in these cases. If the new member doesn't understand or isn't willing to accept the basic premise, then there isn't likely to be any productive discussion.
From there, I do find the question of exactly how well the measurements capture the potential range of audible differences to be interesting. I do still 'believe' that there are aspects of system performance - particularly spatial perception - that probably aren't captured by the single-channel types of measurements done here. But, it's also highly likely that speaker and room completely dominate that discussion, and so it's probably not relevant to electronics. (probably)
Not quite sure I agree re DSP valve emulation.Re: first: nothing in universe is the same, yet, two different amps carefully designed to be as transparent as they could be do share the same qualities, namely - transparency. There're a lot of colors until you just wash off all of them to see clear canvas.
Second: any distortions can be added via appropriate DSP. You just need to care about DSP rules and design what you need. If you cannot describe all details of a model - you cannot model...yet you can make "snaphots"! LUTs, volterra Kernels... Another very big topic by itself.
I do adore modern digital processing as being able to bring all sorts of needed harmonic distortions without any problems. A lot of people replaced their old hardware with code, i did too, to some degree...(a can solder, but cannot code!...)
Sorry to cut you offIn my view, if we're trying to orient new members/visitors around the basic perspective of the site, we have to back up another step to 'before' the measurements.
I think the basic primary gulf between the 'objectivist' leaning crowd and the 'subjectivist' leaning crowd rests in the difference in perspective on the human auditory system. The 'objectivist' leaning cohort accepts the results from psychology that our hearing is actually rather flawed, and that bias (both conscious and unconscious) has a large influence on subjective perception. i.e. they understand that we really can't trust our ears in many cases. Conversely, the subjective camp believes strongly in both the resolution and repeatability of our hearing. ...
If it was so easy, no musicians would be using valve amplifiers. It would all be SS with DSP. Don't think that we are quite there yet. Not far off most likely tho.
There is nothing wrong with dreaming about what you want.Not married but I have a girlfriend. That floral wallpaper is brutal and I guess, being an audiophile, I kinda dig subwoofers... In my ideal mancave I could stare at my motorcycles too. (used as room treatment perhaps?)
When top jazz guitarists and folk like Jeff Beck go the way of purely SS and DSP, I think that the technology will have arrived.Would so many mastering engineers ever resort to these plugins if they were so inferior?
I agree. Adding euphonic distortion is not by definition hifi.I don't understand how euphonic gear are 'hi-fi'. They're the opposite of hifi.
Well, duh. It's musically accurate. It's higher-fi.I don't understand how euphonic gear are 'hi-fi'. They're the opposite of hifi.
You have a much different view of musicians than I do.When top jazz guitarists and folk like Jeff Beck go the way of purely SS and DSP, I think that the technology will have arrived.
Just my personal opinion.
How is being less faithful to the original waveforms somehow being more faithful to the music?Well, duh. It's musically accurate. It's higher-fi.
Pro violinists fail to spot Stradivarius in blind test.even world-class performers are subject to a range of biased perceptions, and also show great difficulty in connecting effect to cause. Thus, they change to overweight mouthpieces (or skeletonized mouthpieces to lighten them) based on the fad of the moment. They attribute special qualities to the specific formulation of the brass.
Ok. I guess now I would be interested to know your opinions on digital emulation of various instruments such as the tuba, violin etc? Are they accurate?You have a much different view of musicians than I do.
In my musical world, I advocate for a science-based understanding of how our instruments work. Yet even world-class performers are subject to a range of biased perceptions, and also show great difficulty in connecting effect to cause. Thus, they change to overweight mouthpieces (or skeletonized mouthpieces to lighten them) based on the fad of the moment. They attribute special qualities to the specific formulation of the brass. They argue about whether a lacquer finish or a silver finish (on an instrument that makes precisely zero sibilant transients) affects the sound. Their eyes glaze over if I talk about the bell as an impedance matching device--impedance not being a common topic in music school. They argue about whether brass, bronze, or stainless steel is the better mouthpiece material--again for instruments that do not produce any useful/measurable sounds above a couple thousand Hz. They can do things that make me cry--at the beauty they produce and at my own incompetence as a performer. But science ain't their thang.
I do know some extremely qualified physicists with expertise in acoustical science who also play tuba. Let's just say they have a different view of causes and effects than the above examples. This forum is populated with people like that, even those who are musicians.
Rick "doubting that Jeff Beck has subjected his listening to controls, but confident that he gets the effects he wants" Denney
So true. Any conversation across intelectual/emotional/philosophical/etc. divides proceeds best if things start off finding common ground, which often involves uncomfortable topics and tolerance and focusing on questions and listening rather than jumping into argumentative patterns.[…] So, I think it's a mistake to jump straight to discussions of 'the measurements' in these cases. If the new member doesn't understand or isn't willing to accept the basic premise, then there isn't likely to be any productive discussion […]
Sorry, I assumed the sarcasm would have been obvious. It is (or at least was - I've stopped paying attention) something of an Audiophile talking point - "you're measuring the wrong things. technical accuracy doesn't matter - musical accuracy does"How is being less faithful to the original waveforms somehow being more faithful to the music?
That just makes no sense to me.
I get where it could be more faithful to your expectation of the music, but now you are usurping some of the musician's role. The musician may or may not care, but please see it for what it is.
Rick "distortion is distortion" Denney