[Poll] Is no-distortion really better than any distortion?

[solderdude]

self-criticism is very healthy, my respects . I hope you did not forget that the "fuzzy asked question" was a copy-paste from your post. And that your response to exactly those "no clear options" was "go for it".

No it wasn't you added a word that took it out of context and made it about perception and belief.

 

[lashto]

No it wasn't you added a word that took it out of context and made it about perception and belief.

the only word I added was "music". I can see how my 'musical addition' changed the whole universe .

This opinion poll, like every other opinion poll, was always about "perception and belief". Only! Looks to me that you somehow forgot that too, here's the reminder:

You will get opinions and not facts though, and you know what opinions are like."

Well, that's what we all know now: "what opinions are like"

 

[tomtoo]

the only word I added was "music". I can see how my 'musical addition' changed the whole universe .

This opinion poll, like every other opinion poll, was always and only about "perception and belief". Looks to me that you somehow forgot that too, here's the reminder:

Well, that's what we all know now: "what opinions are like"

The word music can change a lot.
Espeacally when its used togheter with noise.

 

[lashto]

Dont call it hifi if you like it distordet. Call it what ever you like, maybe electronic smoothie, but dont call it hifi.

since you like to be oh-so-precise, you might be surprised that "hifi" does not mean what you think. And never did.
It's an almost ancient term (1930's according to some) and it's proper definition comes from DIN45500, a deprecated standard from the 60s. Here's how deprecated "hifi" is:

Amplifiers have to:
reach 10W Mono (yes, that's a thing, mono-hifi!) or 2x6W Stereo,
1% distortion, 40Hz-12,5kHz.

and the S/N ratio has to reach 50dB but may be worse for higher power amplifiers (above 20W).
Oh, and a damping factor of a whopping 3 has to be reached aswell!

almost any amp that one can buy in 2020 is HIFI. By Definition. Yes, even the tubed ones.

 

[tomtoo]

since you like to be oh-so-precise, you might be surprised that "hifi" does not mean what you think. And never did.
It's an almost ancient term (1930's according to some) and it's proper definition comes from DIN45500, a deprecated standard from the 60s. Here's how deprecated "hifi" is:

almost any amp that one can buy in 2020 is HIFI. By Definition. Yes, even the tubed ones.

Yes but the intention of this norm was to keep thd low. That it is a old norm, changes nothing on the intention. So maybe you have a understanding problem with that old norm?

Edit says: The same with the power, the intention was have more is better. A purely tecknical norm so maybe you read more about it so you can understand the intention and not bring outdated numbers. Thats yes sry some kind of stupid.

 

[solderdude]

the only word I added was "music". I can see how my 'musical addition' changed the whole universe .

Not the whole universe but it was taken out of context from another thread where I made a case for reproduction chain having to be accurate as it is not in the 'creation' phase. I was talking about the technical part of waveform fidelity and that changing the waveform may be preferred by some but is not more accurate. It wasn't about music, feelings and opinions.
To me there is a difference here.

 

[Mulder]

So maybe you have a understanding problem with that old norm?

Truly an unpleasant and unnecessary comment. In my opinion, sarcasm of this kind does not belong in a forum of this kind.

 

[tomtoo]

Truly an unpleasant and unnecessary comment. In my opinion, sarcasm of this kind does not belong in a forum of this kind.

Yes telling me that din45500 talks about smaller than 1% thd is unnecessary.

Edit says: Its just completly stupid to argument din45500 is ok with 1% thd. The intention of din45500 was to keep it as low as possible. Where the worst case is to call your product hifi is 1%thd. So it's absolutly ok to ask if there is maybe a understandig proplem with the intention of din45500?

 

[Thomas savage]

The 'Arguing semantics and being prima Donnas ' forum is down the hall .

Can we get back to meaningful and constructive exchanges please .

 

[lashto]

Not the whole universe

I am still pretty convinced that music did change the whole universe Anyway, that's just history. And we have a poll and results to interpret.

Already posted additional details, hopefully everyone had enough "fun" and that binary-logic-noise is also history now.
Everyone is welcome to have a go at interpreting the results. Use binary logic, use fuzzy logic or just throw dice ... same as during the voting, anything goes (at least from my point of view).

 

[tomtoo]

I like to see the conclusions of the OP.

 

[barfyman362]

If I took a double blind test between a high distortion amp and an inaudible distortion amp and found out I massively preferred the sound of high distortion I would still rather use the inaudible distortion amp. I'm not the type of person who thinks it's possible to attain some objective perfection in music playback, but at the very least I'd like to remove as much noise and distortion as feasible.

 

[solderdude]

I like to see the conclusions of the OP.

I'd like to see a poll about the usefulness of this poll with the following choices:

Very useful
somewhat useful
don't know
somewhat pointless
completely pointless

 

[lashto]

I like to see the conclusions of the OP.

understandable.
I'm just afraid that if I post my conclusions first, the discussion would be mostly about that. Would be more useful to know what people think about the poll and the numbers, not about my interpretation.

Probably not possible but IMO it would be good to have a period when we can only post interpretations (after the poll closing). No discussion between users allowed, just 'conclusions'. And only afterwards discuss everything.

 

[tomtoo]

understandable.
I'm just afraid that if I post my conclusions first, the discussion would be mostly about that. Would be more useful to know what people think about the poll and the numbers, not about my interpretation.

Probably not possible but IMO it would be good to have a period when we can only post interpretations (after the poll closing). No discussion between users allowed, just 'conclusions'. And only afterwards discuss everything.

Oh come on not that game you show first ,couse i have already shown.

 

[solderdude]

understandable.
I'm just afraid that if I post my conclusions first, the discussion would be mostly about that. Would be more useful to know what people think about the poll and the numbers, not about my interpretation.

Probably not possible but IMO it would be good to have a period when we can only post interpretations (after the poll closing). No discussion between users allowed, just 'conclusions'. And only afterwards discuss everything.

I suspect you may have to bump this thread regularly and get the same responses as were already mentioned in this thread.
Stop procrastinating and post your conclusions which we can then critisize.

 

[Jimbob54]

understandable.
if I post my conclusions first, the discussion would be mostly about that.

Correct. That is generally the point. You asked for information in the form of a poll. You get it. You form your conclusions. The world discusses them. Its clear from the discussions on here both before and after the close of the poll that there is no showstopping conclusion. T

The majority of responders (57%) believe no audible distortion is always better than some audible distortion in music playback. Only 9% believe the opposite. Care needs to be taken if you try and infer much more about that 9% (and anything inbetween them and the 57%) . I dont believe you can conclude 9% (or even 12%) of responders prefer distortion. I would guess from comments that some of those that answered "100% wrong" would say it is the word "always" they are rejecting, more than declaring a fondness for distortion.

 

[tomtoo]

Yes "always" could be a show stopper.

On the other hand i would never add distortion on all channels in a mix in every mix.
So adding distortion in reproducing a mix is a strange idear. Thats why i then prever never.

 

[lashto]

I'll start with another 'clarification' for the options and the numbers. The poll was designed to be like below:

Is no-distortion (or below audible limits) always better for music playback than any distortion ?!

1. 100% right = "always better"
2. somewhat right ~= more right than wrong ~= "mostly/predominantly better" = 50-99% better
3. don't know
4. somewhat wrong ~= more wrong than right ~= "mostly not better" = 1-49% better
5. 100% wrong = "never better"

Since there was so much noise, a bit more about that "somewhat right". Could be "most of the time I prefer to listen to no-D devices". Or maybe "most of the no-D devices I heard did sound better". Or a generic, non-100% rule-of-thumb like "less-D is usually better".
So I went for "somewhat right". Most generic IMO. Also least clear. Also way too much overthinking. Shoot me

The above was the intention. Didn't really work that way.
From the first hours it was obvious that many went for the binary-logic approach: if it's not "always better" (if there is a single counterexample) than it must be "100% wrong". I had an option to add more clarification or to accept that as a valid interpretation. I chose to do the later. Makes interpreting the results much harder but it's interesting for my purpose. So shoot me again

Now you have the idea. You have the history. You have the numbers. Hopefully there'll be some fun & learning too.

 

[lashto]

Oh come on not that game you show first ,couse i have already shown.

I know you did. Some others also expressed long before the poll ended. It is what it is