Anti-ASR gear

[valkeryie]

I think you answered your own question in earlier post.
Funny thing is I've owned all the gear mentioned except the AR speakers and well know their weaknesses.
I'm glad you enjoy your older gear, but it wasn't SOTA in the 1960-70s, let alone today.
I know, I was there.

You only know WHAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW - MORE SUBJECTIVE DRIVEL OF ABSOLUTELY NO CONSEQUENCE. Your opinions DO NOT CONSTITUTE FACT.

 

[ahofer]

You only know WHAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW - MORE SUBJECTIVE DRIVEL OF ABSOLUTELY NO CONSEQUENCE. Your opinions DO NOT CONSTITUTE FACT.

Why are you yelling? (Capitals and bolded fonts imply raising your voice).

Like most people around here, your interlocutors use “transparent” in this context to mean measured performance that is audibly indistinguishable from the input signal. This is not subjective drivel, it is a set of measured criteria demonstrated to produce equivalent audible results to the listener. Humans hear amplitude, frequency, and phase, so most transparent means most similar to the input signal in those characteristics, and lacking any audible non-signal noise or distortion. At any given time, the most transparent equipment would be considered “State of the Art”.

However, it is at least “subjective” to suggest there might be more “transparent”-sounding, thus accurate or “high fidelity” equipment that somehow measures as non-linear, inconsistently phase-shifting, and/or over audible thresholds in distortion. It posits the existence of an audible criterion not yet revealedin a vast body of audiology research and testing, and the dismissal of known, measurable, and audible deviations from fidelity. I can’t tell if that is really what you are suggesting.

 

[Frank Dernie]

You, my dear sir, are arguing in circles. The question is; what constitutes a "transparent" system that is accurate in reproducing "sources". The fact of the matter is that YOU DON'T KNOW AND NEITHER DOES ANYBODY ELSE. So you cannot make any all encompassing statements about "transparent' and "accurate" systems. Jeez Louise - give it a break already.

It is well known what is transparent amongst experts. I am content that when I listen to my system I am hearing the music very close to, if not identical to, that which was heard by the artist in the control room and signed off by him/her/them.
If I choose to listen to an LP I know it isn't the same since the distortion levels are clearly audible but I am comfortable with that, after all I have been listening to and involved in the technology of LPs for nearly 50 years. If I listen to a CD I know it is as close as I can get top what the artist wanted.

Sadly a huge number of people don't like expert opinion if it does not confirm their long held view.
People are much happier to ignore facts than amend their opinion.

Stick around with an open mind and you may learn something from people who have spent decades involved in sound recording and reproduction, there are a few here, unlike most forums.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Your opinions DO NOT CONSTITUTE FACT.

Well yours certainly don't.

 

[BDWoody]

But not anywheres near accurate to the source.

And how Dear Sal can you say that? You haven't heard the old junk - you are MERELY SPECULATING BASED ON WHAT YOU HAVE READ - NOT WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD.

Hearing anything is not needed to compare signals and measure the difference.

He isn't challenging that you like it. He is simply pointing out that if you think adding distortion increases fidelity to the original, you have a tough sell to make.

 

[gene_stl]

If you need to yell you have probably already lost the argument. It doesn't look like you have made any friends here. Are you a troll??

 

[scott wurcer]

And how Dear Sal can you say that? You haven't heard the old junk - you are MERELY SPECULATING BASED ON WHAT YOU HAVE READ - NOT WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD.

I have, in 1970 we re-amped all of MIT's movie venues with Dyna Mark III's. I got to keep the pair I made for a semester until all the work was done. I swear I could still ID the colored sound 50yr. later.

BTW this was through my DIY David Weems' "Wild Woofers".

 

[Snarfie]

My laptop Lenovo X230 DAC lacking depth, imaging air between voices an instrument etc. compared to mine Topping D10 but man it sound real comfortable my feet is tapping. Suppose my D10 has to be changed i'm happy to change in a sec to the laptop DAC for the time beeing.

 

[Thomas savage]

You only know WHAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW - MORE SUBJECTIVE DRIVEL OF ABSOLUTELY NO CONSEQUENCE. Your opinions DO NOT CONSTITUTE FACT.

Can you dial down the bombastic, self admiring tone please.

Not needed or appreciated.

Thanks

 

[Robin L]

My favorite piece of tube gear was the Scott 299B, this one nearing the end of tube life. It managed to hide many of LPs flaws with rolled off highs and "punchy" bass, smoothing over surface noise and vividly projecting vocals. Realistic? Accurate? No, but very enjoyable while it lasted.

 

[pozz]

I've got some ancient (1971-1972) Dynaco equipment that I'm sure would earn a headless panther if put to the meter. I got these pieces for no other reason than I thought they were cool. The published specifications are something like...

Dynaco PAT-4 Preamplifier
THD: 0.05%
SNR: 85dB (line)

Dynaco Stereo 120 Amplifier
THD: 0.5%
SNR: 95dB

If I did my math right, this translates to a SINAD of about 66. Certainly nothing to write home about, though still somehow placing it above the bottom of the list of tested equipment. There are very few details about these published specs, and my equipment is going on 50 years old. Some of the internals have been replaced over the years as needed, but there's a good chance it would measure even worse.

Using this equipment, it's easy to identify the shortcomings. The high noise floor produces audible hiss at most listening volumes, and when compared with modern gear with SINAD >100 quite obviously produces audible distortion. Still, it doesn't give me any anxiety to play an album through it now and then. Think of it like an instagram filter for your music. Is it less precise? Of course. Does that automatically make it less enjoyable? Well, no. Especially with source material from the same era or earlier. You don't expect a 50 year old Polaroid to have the same color accuracy and resolution as a modern DSLR portrait.

I find this early transistor equipment has a charm of its own. This is from the era where stereo audio was just starting to become standard in the American household. I'll always choose my modern, precise desktop headphone setup for critical listening. When all you need is some ambience though, the Dynaco does just fine.

@saturnaal Check out: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...review-and-measurements-of-dynaco-st-70.7224/

 

[valkeryie]

Pozz - I doubt if my Darling Dynas are anywhere near as good as the specifications you listed. So what?

The ensemble simply sounds very pleasing - it takes me away when it plays music. Is that a criteria? Am I allowed to enjoy myself when playing music?

I have heard the $300,000 rigs - the Wilsons, the Rockports, the big Momentum amps, DCS players - and while capable of playing MUCH LOUDER, they are all much more forward, much more "in your face" and as a consequence much less inviting. The hyper expensive stuff simply does not connect - with myself - on a deeply emotional level. That kind of gear seems very much concerned with meeting some objective criteria - and it does not convey the passion and the glory of MUSIC.

You realize that the artists that we are playing are far less then perfect -they make mistakes, hammer keys, miss chords, slip timing and their voices sometimes warble a bit - perhaps our kit should contribute to that reality? Maybe the imperfection of "ordinary" gear serves to make the playback more accessible?

 

[valkeryie]

Can you dial down the bombastic, self admiring tone please.

Not needed or appreciated.

Thanks

Bombast you say? Must have hit a nerve somewhere. I read these observations on this forum presented as hard fact as though carved on a slab of granite by a fiery finger - and you accuse myself of bombast? Really?

BTW: Bombast was actually the middle name of a fellow named Paracelsus - a much admired medico from the late 15th century, early 16th. He insisted that medicine should be based on observation - not on received wisdom from hoary Greeks. His name was; Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim, - now that is a mouthful. Evidently he was "long winded" - and consequently his name entered our lexicon as a shorthand for excessive displays of speech - accompanied by much pounding and drama.

Nothing excessive about my contributions - and they too insist on observation - such as how something sounds as opposed to how it is incorrectly measured.

 

[ahofer]

Bombast you say? Must have hit a nerve somewhere. I read these observations on this forum presented as hard fact as though carved on a slab of granite by a fiery finger - and you accuse myself of bombast? Really?

BTW: Bombast was actually the middle name of a fellow named Paracelsus - a much admired medico from the late 15th century, early 16th. He insisted that medicine should be based on observation - not on received wisdom from hoary Greeks. His name was; Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim, - now that is a mouthful. Evidently he was "long winded" - and consequently his name entered our lexicon as a shorthand for excessive displays of speech - accompanied by much pounding and drama.

Nothing excessive about my contributions - and they too insist on observation - such as how something sounds as opposed to how it is incorrectly measured.

Your capitalization, bolding, and condemnation was excessive in my opinion as well, earning the bombastic label.

You have yet to establish, AFAICT, that anything a)sounds any particular way or b)was "incorrectly measured". Listening over measurement is a flawed way to conduct neutral observation, aptly described by the adjectives you hurled, bolded, at others. Honestly, you come across as one of the oddest subjectivists ever to assume the contrary stance here, inasmuch as it seems you keep dressing subjective observations up as objective fact, and measurements as subjective 'drivel'.

So now that the yelling has been toned down, it is time to lay out your argument: What, exactly, is this audible quality that (ASR or other) measurements do not capture, and how do you intend to prove that it exists?

 

[Sal1950]

Bombast you say? Must have hit a nerve somewhere. I read these observations on this forum presented as hard fact as though carved on a slab of granite by a fiery finger - and you accuse myself of bombast? Really?

The facts are that most of the responses given to you were "hard facts that are set in stone". 100 years of audio technology research has shone us what the criteria are for accurate reproduction of source material and outside of speakers, digital sources thru the amplification have reached a level as to be fully transparent for a few decades now. On these points I can see nowhere for you to dispute.

So now that the yelling has been toned down, it is time to lay out your argument: What, exactly, is this audible quality that (ASR or other) measurements do not capture, and how do you intend to prove that it exists?

+1
You are more than welcome to say that you enjoy the sound of your system more than newer, more accurate gear, that is your impression and opinion. But if you believe that all the distortions in this older gear is actually more reflecting of the sound of live music, please instruct us on where the design engineers have taken a wrong turn over the decades and how inaccuracy's in reproduction can actually be more accurate to the real thing. You will need to supply something better than just "I hear it so it is so".

 

[valkeryie]

Good question - as in acute.

The reality - objective reality - that I perceive is that for some reason - non measurable - some stereo kit just sounds really inviting - warm (now measure warmth), entrancing to the human spirit - at least to this one. Probably much the way some musical genres simply sound better than others. I like some 70's pop - and Rachmaninoff - Second Symphony in particular. And Saint Saen (organ symphony) and Debussy (la mer) and Philip Glass. Those tunes may leave others completely cold - fine - but try and measure something objective about them. Impossible. Hey track 5 on Led Zep 2 really does it for me - as does Dazed and Confused.

Thousands of tunes light me up - and tens of thousands of offerings leave me cold. So how can that be measured?

Same with stereo gears - some of it - and some of that very expensive - just leaves me feeling that there is "nothing there". Same with digital - many digital releases - particularly early ones - are simply unlistenable. Same with MP-3 and most other compressed music - it just seems that the music is missing - though the sound is still there. Perhaps that can be measured.

Want an objective example? Here is an F/R plot of a Martin-Logan ESL-13A - looks like trash. Toole addressed these failings as "resonances" - I think they are drum modes typical of all membrane speakers. But look at that plot;

BUT - and it is a big butt - I have heard those speakers on a friend's rig - and they sound superb. Just wonderful. So what is wrong here? How does the terrible objective measurement not reflected in the actual sound of the speaker? Toole's plots of the same speaker look even more trashy - and Toole was dismissive of that particular speaker. Fine - but it still sounds inviting and entertaining.

Same with my Darling Dynas - those things have enough self noise for about six high end stereos (I jest) - but I am sure that they measure terribly - old valve amps, creaking along 50 or 60 years old. They hum, pop and generally I am sure measure inferior to almost anything. But they sound so good - so warm, so inviting, so musical - the timbres, the tonality, the dynamic contrasts? Magnificent.

So now you are left with only one thing - declaring myself deaf and possessed of no taste. About what I would expect in any kind of argument with a stereo zealot - no matter their particular religious bent.

 

[valkeryie]

Here is Toole's plot of the ML Summit - very similar to the ESL-13. Another large membrane speaker. I have heard this speaker - and while not as good as the ESL-13 its sound did NOT reflect the terrible measured performance. So there seems to be some disconnect - dare I say dissonance - between objective measurements and actual perceived performance. The notes are Toole's. I can send you a link to the Toole presentation I lifted this plot from - if you are interested.

 

[RayDunzl]

You only know WHAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW - MORE SUBJECTIVE DRIVEL OF ABSOLUTELY NO CONSEQUENCE. Your opinions DO NOT CONSTITUTE FACT.

Here, you can SING ALONG!!!

 

[BDWoody]

The reality - objective reality - that I perceive is that for some reason - non measurable - .

I keep starting to say something, but words are failing me...

 

[Ron Texas]

I keep starting to say something, but words are failing me...

The discussion in this thread has turned dark due to a lack of politeness of a small minority.