The Totem Acoustic Hawk
- Thread starter Zero
- Start date
Doc
New member
Zero;
Certainly you possess a vocabulary adequate enough to refrain from the use of implied profanity. While a thread may go awry, it does not call for the use of profanity, implied or otherwise, to express your displeasure of the thread's misdirection.
Please think about what that profane word you implied to express your displeasure really means, then ask yourself what has that word got to do with the issue under discussion to which you are referring. I doubt if any reader of your diatribe got any benefit from what you wrote because of insertion of the implied profane word you wrote.
Finally, being a former U.S. Marine, I can assure you that I have, on more than a few occasions, shamed drunk'n sailors with the profanity I spewed forth from my mouth. Perhaps in deadly combat, a few choice words toward the enemy is appropriate. However, I think we both agree, it has no place on this website or forum.
Think.
Doc
Certainly you possess a vocabulary adequate enough to refrain from the use of implied profanity. While a thread may go awry, it does not call for the use of profanity, implied or otherwise, to express your displeasure of the thread's misdirection.
Please think about what that profane word you implied to express your displeasure really means, then ask yourself what has that word got to do with the issue under discussion to which you are referring. I doubt if any reader of your diatribe got any benefit from what you wrote because of insertion of the implied profane word you wrote.
Finally, being a former U.S. Marine, I can assure you that I have, on more than a few occasions, shamed drunk'n sailors with the profanity I spewed forth from my mouth. Perhaps in deadly combat, a few choice words toward the enemy is appropriate. However, I think we both agree, it has no place on this website or forum.
Think.
Doc
FlexibleAudio
Member
A couple of thoughts:
IMO Doc's A/B listening test of actual music is a much more compelling result than the 10k hz measurements for reasons stated by Kiwi.
That said, the most significant arguement against the Beak is what the market says: if this seemingly impossible feet is real why has no other manufacturer ever employed any similar technology.
Finally, while Doc may be right about the Beak, there is little doubt he is using his Board Certification as a Doctor of Clinical Hypnotherapy against us all.
IMO Doc's A/B listening test of actual music is a much more compelling result than the 10k hz measurements for reasons stated by Kiwi.
That said, the most significant arguement against the Beak is what the market says: if this seemingly impossible feet is real why has no other manufacturer ever employed any similar technology.
Finally, while Doc may be right about the Beak, there is little doubt he is using his Board Certification as a Doctor of Clinical Hypnotherapy against us all.
Doc
New member
Paul;
Trust me when I tell you, I am not using my Board Certification as a Doctor of Clinical Hypnotherapy against "all" audiophiles. While it is true my training makes me more aware of how marketing (hype or for real) effects those exposed to advertisements, interviews, reviewers comments, etc., the truth is, my being a doctor has nothing to do with that fact.
The old adage "don't believe everything you read or hear" or "Buyer beware" and then there is, "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts". The point is there are people in the industry of audio and video reproduction that work at telling lies and making up statements or stories that simply are not true to enhance their product or service. They take advantage of the typical audiophile's ignorance of how their product really works.
The truth is, Paul, the "average" audiophile/music lover does not have a clue as to how a power amplifier works or a transducer (speaker/driver). Some novice audiophiles can be lead to believe that silver speaker cable is vastly superior in sound to a 999.9 fine copper cable and are hood winked into spending hundreds of dollars for the silver cable rather than under $20.00 for the copper cable. It is not the metal in which the cable is made from. It is a matter of the resistance and capacitance that cable has and the quality of its construction that really matters. Further, if both are well made (engineered), they will likekt measure the same for a typical 2 to 3 meter length and, therefore, in an AB X blind listening test cannot be distinguished in sound from each other. Yet the silver speaker wire manufacturer will expound on the superior sound of the silver cable over more common copper cables. The fact is the silver cable manufacturer knows better and is lying to the gullible audiophiles out there. Why? Simple, follow the dollar. It's all about greed.
Paul, I could provide you many more examples of how some companies lie to audiophiles in their marketing and get away with it because their potential customer base (audiophiles like you, Paul) do not have the facts, the truth, or the instruments to verify the lying manufacturer's claim(s) and they are not in a position to do a proper AB X blind fold listening test to expose the lie.
To put this in its place, I can remember when a well respected reviewer in a popular hi-fi rag decided that if the outer edge of a CD was painted green, it would prevent laser reflection, thus providing a clean laser signal to read the pits in the CD, thus provides a clearer sound. After his article, which he did not back up with any science or instrument comparison readings, a small company started to sell this green paint one applies to the edge of CDs and its center ring edge and then touted how much better a CD sounds that is painted green versus one that is not. I found this fascinating because the color green absorbs laser reflection. So, I bought two CDs and I bought a bottle of this green snake oil to test it.
I painted one CD's outer edge and inner ring as directed on the bottle. After the paint dried, I played the CD. Then I played the CD not painted. Keeping all pre-amp controls the same including volume level for both CDs tested. Then I measured the decibel output and frequency response from 20Hz to 20KHz on a spectrum analyzer playing pink noise at 75dB at 2 meters into a calibrated mic. The painted CD, versus the none painted CD measured identical to each other and sounded identical. It was clear that the green paint had no positive or negative effect on the sound and the story of laser reflection from the edges of the CD distorting CD sound was absolute nonsense. It was a way to sell 19-cents worth of paint (which included the price of the bottle, label and box it came in) for $19.95.
Paul, need I say more? In what manner would my being a Doctor of Clinical Hypnotherapy have anything to do with audio truth? And, Paul, had could my being a Doctor of Clinical Hypnotherapy be used against fellow audiophiles? Why did you say that? As an audiophile seeking perfect reproduction of the live sound that was recorded to sound live in my listening room is my hobby. I love "live sonding" music. My being a Doctor of Clinical Hypnotherapy (a psychotherapist) has nothing to do with my hobby other than I have a clear understanding of how marketing hype (advertised lies) do, in fact motivate audiophiles to believe the hype (lies) at their subconscious level, and act on them in such a manner it bilks them out of their hard earned money (fraud) and, in no manner, does it advance our hobby to achieve reproduce sound that mimics real sound in our listening rooms.
So, Paul, when I see an audiophile write about a product in such a manner that it is clear he/she has been caught up in marketing hype and converted to a believer in a product or service that in no manner does what it is advertised to do, yet the misinformed audiophile "believes" it does under a placebo effect, I will be the first to expose the myth or lie and set that audiophile straight backed by science (measurement) and blind AB X listening tests.
Finally, Paul, if you can justify why I should not set audiophiles straight with the the truth, then give it your best shot. I'll be all ears. Meanwhile, I would expect ALL audiophiles who know for a fact a given audio product manufacturer is spewing forth lies and hype about their product or service and the audiophile can prove it with careful measurement done with calibrated, laboratory grade instruments and further backed with blind AB X listening tests would speak up on this website. When manufactures are caught with the pants down enough times by we audiophiles, they will "wake up" and stop the hype and focus on building a better product that in deed does produce a more accurate sound.
Paul, let me and all readers know...do you agree with my response to your previous comment?
Doc
Trust me when I tell you, I am not using my Board Certification as a Doctor of Clinical Hypnotherapy against "all" audiophiles. While it is true my training makes me more aware of how marketing (hype or for real) effects those exposed to advertisements, interviews, reviewers comments, etc., the truth is, my being a doctor has nothing to do with that fact.
The old adage "don't believe everything you read or hear" or "Buyer beware" and then there is, "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts". The point is there are people in the industry of audio and video reproduction that work at telling lies and making up statements or stories that simply are not true to enhance their product or service. They take advantage of the typical audiophile's ignorance of how their product really works.
The truth is, Paul, the "average" audiophile/music lover does not have a clue as to how a power amplifier works or a transducer (speaker/driver). Some novice audiophiles can be lead to believe that silver speaker cable is vastly superior in sound to a 999.9 fine copper cable and are hood winked into spending hundreds of dollars for the silver cable rather than under $20.00 for the copper cable. It is not the metal in which the cable is made from. It is a matter of the resistance and capacitance that cable has and the quality of its construction that really matters. Further, if both are well made (engineered), they will likekt measure the same for a typical 2 to 3 meter length and, therefore, in an AB X blind listening test cannot be distinguished in sound from each other. Yet the silver speaker wire manufacturer will expound on the superior sound of the silver cable over more common copper cables. The fact is the silver cable manufacturer knows better and is lying to the gullible audiophiles out there. Why? Simple, follow the dollar. It's all about greed.
Paul, I could provide you many more examples of how some companies lie to audiophiles in their marketing and get away with it because their potential customer base (audiophiles like you, Paul) do not have the facts, the truth, or the instruments to verify the lying manufacturer's claim(s) and they are not in a position to do a proper AB X blind fold listening test to expose the lie.
To put this in its place, I can remember when a well respected reviewer in a popular hi-fi rag decided that if the outer edge of a CD was painted green, it would prevent laser reflection, thus providing a clean laser signal to read the pits in the CD, thus provides a clearer sound. After his article, which he did not back up with any science or instrument comparison readings, a small company started to sell this green paint one applies to the edge of CDs and its center ring edge and then touted how much better a CD sounds that is painted green versus one that is not. I found this fascinating because the color green absorbs laser reflection. So, I bought two CDs and I bought a bottle of this green snake oil to test it.
I painted one CD's outer edge and inner ring as directed on the bottle. After the paint dried, I played the CD. Then I played the CD not painted. Keeping all pre-amp controls the same including volume level for both CDs tested. Then I measured the decibel output and frequency response from 20Hz to 20KHz on a spectrum analyzer playing pink noise at 75dB at 2 meters into a calibrated mic. The painted CD, versus the none painted CD measured identical to each other and sounded identical. It was clear that the green paint had no positive or negative effect on the sound and the story of laser reflection from the edges of the CD distorting CD sound was absolute nonsense. It was a way to sell 19-cents worth of paint (which included the price of the bottle, label and box it came in) for $19.95.
Paul, need I say more? In what manner would my being a Doctor of Clinical Hypnotherapy have anything to do with audio truth? And, Paul, had could my being a Doctor of Clinical Hypnotherapy be used against fellow audiophiles? Why did you say that? As an audiophile seeking perfect reproduction of the live sound that was recorded to sound live in my listening room is my hobby. I love "live sonding" music. My being a Doctor of Clinical Hypnotherapy (a psychotherapist) has nothing to do with my hobby other than I have a clear understanding of how marketing hype (advertised lies) do, in fact motivate audiophiles to believe the hype (lies) at their subconscious level, and act on them in such a manner it bilks them out of their hard earned money (fraud) and, in no manner, does it advance our hobby to achieve reproduce sound that mimics real sound in our listening rooms.
So, Paul, when I see an audiophile write about a product in such a manner that it is clear he/she has been caught up in marketing hype and converted to a believer in a product or service that in no manner does what it is advertised to do, yet the misinformed audiophile "believes" it does under a placebo effect, I will be the first to expose the myth or lie and set that audiophile straight backed by science (measurement) and blind AB X listening tests.
Finally, Paul, if you can justify why I should not set audiophiles straight with the the truth, then give it your best shot. I'll be all ears. Meanwhile, I would expect ALL audiophiles who know for a fact a given audio product manufacturer is spewing forth lies and hype about their product or service and the audiophile can prove it with careful measurement done with calibrated, laboratory grade instruments and further backed with blind AB X listening tests would speak up on this website. When manufactures are caught with the pants down enough times by we audiophiles, they will "wake up" and stop the hype and focus on building a better product that in deed does produce a more accurate sound.
Paul, let me and all readers know...do you agree with my response to your previous comment?
Doc
Last edited:
- Thread Author
- #26
Doc,
On the topic of language:
There are numerous Sharkies who come from a generation that frowns upon the use of colorful language (stated or implied) in a public forum. I understand that. However, such notions of etiquette will not dissuade me from using the occasional 'bad word' when I feel it carries impactful nuance. Should the members of this forum take issue with my approach, that's fine. I know where the exit sign is.
On the topic of audio:
Let me first make it unquestionably clear that I appreciate your expositions. The framework for your posts is well-laid out and I enjoy how you're able to articulate your thoughts in concise, sequential order. I also feel like you touch upon many subjects that audiophiles should investigate.
However, what I don't care for is how you draw such a definitive line in the sand across such a vast array of topics. It's the classic "I'm right and you're not" stance that I've already seen hundreds of times. Now under most circumstances, I wouldn't care. Horses for courses, right? The problem is that you've donned this cape and decided to swoop into this forum to 'save' us from ourselves.
Now if your goal was to merely spark conversation and to encourage people to dig deeper into various subject matter, with of course the hope that they'll arrive to the same conclusions that you have, then I think most people here would be OK with that. What I'm not OK with, is your implications that the people who've invested their hard earned cash into the things that you feel is snake-oil, are fools (your words) for having fallen for what you perceive as marketing hype.
Quite frankly Doc, that's significantly more offensive than my censored use of the F-bomb.
Anyhoo - I like your posts Doc. They simply don't leave a whole bunch of room for an actual discussion. You seem to have made up your mind, and that's that.
On the topic of language:
There are numerous Sharkies who come from a generation that frowns upon the use of colorful language (stated or implied) in a public forum. I understand that. However, such notions of etiquette will not dissuade me from using the occasional 'bad word' when I feel it carries impactful nuance. Should the members of this forum take issue with my approach, that's fine. I know where the exit sign is.
On the topic of audio:
Let me first make it unquestionably clear that I appreciate your expositions. The framework for your posts is well-laid out and I enjoy how you're able to articulate your thoughts in concise, sequential order. I also feel like you touch upon many subjects that audiophiles should investigate.
However, what I don't care for is how you draw such a definitive line in the sand across such a vast array of topics. It's the classic "I'm right and you're not" stance that I've already seen hundreds of times. Now under most circumstances, I wouldn't care. Horses for courses, right? The problem is that you've donned this cape and decided to swoop into this forum to 'save' us from ourselves.
Now if your goal was to merely spark conversation and to encourage people to dig deeper into various subject matter, with of course the hope that they'll arrive to the same conclusions that you have, then I think most people here would be OK with that. What I'm not OK with, is your implications that the people who've invested their hard earned cash into the things that you feel is snake-oil, are fools (your words) for having fallen for what you perceive as marketing hype.
Quite frankly Doc, that's significantly more offensive than my censored use of the F-bomb.
Anyhoo - I like your posts Doc. They simply don't leave a whole bunch of room for an actual discussion. You seem to have made up your mind, and that's that.
FlexibleAudio
Member
Whats up Doc,
When I said you are using your Hypnotherapy on all of us I was simply indicating your post's had put me to sleep. (It was an attempt at being funny cuz you write some long ones.) Regarding your oratories, I suspect you are not as bright as you think you are nor am I as dull as you think I am. Of course mercantilist arbitrage the simple, that is the foundation and beauty of capitalism. You however paint far to broad of a picture in your diatribes. As an example, have you considered that your system may not be resolving enough to hear the difference between silver and copper cables?
Doc
New member
Zero;
Come now, are you telling me that you have to use the F word to emphasize a point when their are hundreds of words that are not profane which can (and do) emphasize ones frustration far more strongly?
Zero, based on your commentary on my post, you're a bully, and most folks don't like bullies. The purpose of this website is for audiophiles to get together and express what they think, know and even feel about the many facets of our jointly shared hobby. It's called freedom of speech. And, if I see things that many audiophiles do because they have been hoodwinked to do so, I'll post it. This, due to one's "ego", ruffles feathers, but in the end improves upon the audiophiles knowledge about the subject discussed so long as the discussion remains in the realm of honesty and "openness".
Nobody likes to be called out wrong or to have made a decision which when fully examined proved to be foolish, including yours truly. And yes, I was one of the first in line, back in the mid sixties, to buy a pair of Bose 901 speakers because I bought into a hifi rag reviewer's chili about how wonderful they were. So, that makes me a fool at that time, right? The answer is yes. However, that does not make me stupid. It makes me ignorant of the truth. In other words, I didn't know better and I didn't have a clue as to how I could test those speakers to find out what they really do to a signal to produce music in my home. That's when I decided to get serious about this hobby and use an intelligent approach which called on acoustic and audio science, math, proven test procedures and instrument readings to know what is really so about most audio components or speakers. I also concluded that the end result had to bring the sound I was hearing to a new replica of the "live" sound recorded at the venue. Nothing less would do for my listening pleasure because I love the sound of real "live music" and not a poorly produced reproduction of live music.
Once a person has discovered that they made a mistake in their purchase of a given audio widget, its often too late. They are out their hard earned money and looking to sell their mistake to another who is equally gullible to the marketing hype on the product. Zero, if you finally realized a 3 meter pair of silver speaker cables did nothing more for the sound than a well made pair of copper cables do (both sounded and measured the same), would it be ethical for you to sell those cables for a higher price than copper cables because of the hype placed behind those cables knowing they are no better than copper cables? Think about that. Would you be party to hoodwinking another fellow audiophile?
It is clear to me that you prefer to see visitors to this site remain in the realm of a gray area and that you dispise those who conclude what is so in a black or white manner about a given audio product. Zero, I'm of that later group. And, you do not speak for all of those who read the posts on this site or dictate the rules of what may or should be said or not said in a post. Those rules are laid out in the agreement one checks off before being allowed to post on this website their thoughts and feelings about a given audio subject or product.
Therefore, Zero, If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, swims and flies like a duck, than its a duck. And, if a speaker sounds like, well a mere music making speaker, and does not mimic the live, real sound of music at the venue in which the music was recorded, than the speaker sounds like a musical instrument onto itself and not a device which reproduces live music so well, it sounds live in the audiophile's listening room.
Zero, if my EXPERIENCE of 50 years in this hobby as an audiophile and telling the truth of my experiences and what I KNOW is so (based on AB X blind listening sessions and accurate readings from calibrated, laboratory grade instruments), offends you or others to write back to me a defensive response in an offensive manner then you and they can go pound sand. This forum has freedom of speech so long as the speech is not profane and tells the TRUTH of what an audiophile's EXPERIENCE is within a given audio related subject. On subjects or issues I have very little or no knowledge, I will be the reader, the listener, the learner and probably have little or nothing to say in reply to what I read other than to thank the writer for providing the TRUTH about the subject at hand and he states how he/she knows it's the truth.
If a post is one's "opinion", than the post should be prefaced as such. Why it's the author's opinion makes the article far more interesting and may add gravity to the writer's opinion. However, it is merely an "opinion" and not a proven fact. Most posts are opinions until they are validated and proven true using known test and listening procedures. This often makes for entertaining reading but does not improve upon the reading audiophiles wealth of knowledge in our hobby.
So, Zero, I will continue to draw my conclusions from a broad array of audio subjects so long as I know from where I speak, I have heard, seen touched, studied and backed my experiences with test instrument measurements. And if this bothers you, well, Zero perhaps pounding sand will provide you some relief from your anger. I can't help how you feel about what I write unless I choose to not to provide what I know is the truth and I remain in a gray area of blissful ignorance. As an example, older tube driven components, (which are really valves), do roll off the highs a few dB. This creates a euphoric sound which is not "the" real, "live" sound. That is a fact in most cases. Now, if a person has paid many thousands of dollars for a tube pre-amp and amp, they may take offense to what I just said. This, however, does not negate the truth of what I said. Do I suppose to lie and report that tubes sound more accurate than solid state digital components or do I leave fellow audiophiles in their gray area of ignorance and simply agree with their blissful belief system and congratulate them on the ownership of fine, expensive euphoric sounding components? My vote is I don' live in a gray area about any subject if I can prevent doing so. I happen to like facts and the truth they lead me to. The old saying, "The truth shall set you free" is, in fact, true.
Zero, I'm a former U.S. Marine, a semi-retired doctor and an avid audio/videophile. Therefore, I have no fear or concern about being honest, even if it does ruffle the feathers of a few people who read these pages, including you. Be advised, I am open always to standing corrected should I make a statement believed to be scientifically correct, and due to new scientific discovery makes that science obsolete and should be replaced by the new, greater truth.
Therefore, if you have something to contribute in that regard, I would relish it as there is no such thing as perfection in the world of audio. As fellow audiophiles, our quest is for the ultimate enjoyment of music reproduced in a manner we enjoy the most. For some its tubes and others its digital. Some people love Bose 901 and Acoustic Research AR3a speakers while others scoff at them as they point out the virtues of their Martin Logan electrostatic speakers, Magnapan or Klipsch horn driven speakers. Still others resort to custom built Scan Speak speakers designed and built to high value specifications that are known to reproduce life like sound in an acoustically treated room which at this time is what I own and is my reference. This all lends to a variety of ways and means of achieving audio satisfaction for true audiophiles. I am on a quest to search for (which is fun), find (which is a surprise), test (which reveals the truth) and experience components and speakers that mimic live sound so well, one is hard pressed in a well controlled AB X listening test to tell which is live music and which is a reproduction of live music produced by a pair of high end speakers in a properly treated and equalized room. I think I have been upfront about this from the beginning of my participation on this website and on this thread. That is my "standard of reference" to what is the "state-of-the-art" in audio, and anything less than that should be called out for what it really is so that an audiophile interested in that product may be aware of what he is getting before he spends his hard earned money on it.
You are herein invited to visit my digs, review my "He-Man"
audio rig, share a glass of high quality "red" and communicate with me your experiences and truths in our wonderful hobby. Further, we can listen to and talk about music and yes, even home theater and some great 3-D, 4K, atmos surround sound movies, too. I'm wide open to what you have to say so long as it can be measured to confirm what one hears or sees. And, finally, one does not hear soul in music or more balls, or tight or fast, etc. All things in audio (except the emotional experience of audio) can be measured to understand why a speaker sounds ballsy, tight, fast, slow, compressed, dynamic, etc. A tube amp does not have sound that has more "soul" no more than a solid state amp sounds dry, cold or sterile. These words used as adjectives mean nothing until measurements reveal what motivates a listener to say or believe such descriptions. A perfectly flat frequency response in a given listening room will generally sound dry, cool and not very musical. That's because the acoustical environment in which the recording is played puts a different face (sound) on the music than that heard at the live venue. Tipping the bass up 1 to 2 db from 250Hz on down may bring this same music back to life. So, Zero, lets see why a speaker sounds the way it does, then we can equalize its frequency response to achieve a more life like, you are there live sound.
just... Doc
Doc
Come now, are you telling me that you have to use the F word to emphasize a point when their are hundreds of words that are not profane which can (and do) emphasize ones frustration far more strongly?
Zero, based on your commentary on my post, you're a bully, and most folks don't like bullies. The purpose of this website is for audiophiles to get together and express what they think, know and even feel about the many facets of our jointly shared hobby. It's called freedom of speech. And, if I see things that many audiophiles do because they have been hoodwinked to do so, I'll post it. This, due to one's "ego", ruffles feathers, but in the end improves upon the audiophiles knowledge about the subject discussed so long as the discussion remains in the realm of honesty and "openness".
Nobody likes to be called out wrong or to have made a decision which when fully examined proved to be foolish, including yours truly. And yes, I was one of the first in line, back in the mid sixties, to buy a pair of Bose 901 speakers because I bought into a hifi rag reviewer's chili about how wonderful they were. So, that makes me a fool at that time, right? The answer is yes. However, that does not make me stupid. It makes me ignorant of the truth. In other words, I didn't know better and I didn't have a clue as to how I could test those speakers to find out what they really do to a signal to produce music in my home. That's when I decided to get serious about this hobby and use an intelligent approach which called on acoustic and audio science, math, proven test procedures and instrument readings to know what is really so about most audio components or speakers. I also concluded that the end result had to bring the sound I was hearing to a new replica of the "live" sound recorded at the venue. Nothing less would do for my listening pleasure because I love the sound of real "live music" and not a poorly produced reproduction of live music.
Once a person has discovered that they made a mistake in their purchase of a given audio widget, its often too late. They are out their hard earned money and looking to sell their mistake to another who is equally gullible to the marketing hype on the product. Zero, if you finally realized a 3 meter pair of silver speaker cables did nothing more for the sound than a well made pair of copper cables do (both sounded and measured the same), would it be ethical for you to sell those cables for a higher price than copper cables because of the hype placed behind those cables knowing they are no better than copper cables? Think about that. Would you be party to hoodwinking another fellow audiophile?
It is clear to me that you prefer to see visitors to this site remain in the realm of a gray area and that you dispise those who conclude what is so in a black or white manner about a given audio product. Zero, I'm of that later group. And, you do not speak for all of those who read the posts on this site or dictate the rules of what may or should be said or not said in a post. Those rules are laid out in the agreement one checks off before being allowed to post on this website their thoughts and feelings about a given audio subject or product.
Therefore, Zero, If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, swims and flies like a duck, than its a duck. And, if a speaker sounds like, well a mere music making speaker, and does not mimic the live, real sound of music at the venue in which the music was recorded, than the speaker sounds like a musical instrument onto itself and not a device which reproduces live music so well, it sounds live in the audiophile's listening room.
Zero, if my EXPERIENCE of 50 years in this hobby as an audiophile and telling the truth of my experiences and what I KNOW is so (based on AB X blind listening sessions and accurate readings from calibrated, laboratory grade instruments), offends you or others to write back to me a defensive response in an offensive manner then you and they can go pound sand. This forum has freedom of speech so long as the speech is not profane and tells the TRUTH of what an audiophile's EXPERIENCE is within a given audio related subject. On subjects or issues I have very little or no knowledge, I will be the reader, the listener, the learner and probably have little or nothing to say in reply to what I read other than to thank the writer for providing the TRUTH about the subject at hand and he states how he/she knows it's the truth.
If a post is one's "opinion", than the post should be prefaced as such. Why it's the author's opinion makes the article far more interesting and may add gravity to the writer's opinion. However, it is merely an "opinion" and not a proven fact. Most posts are opinions until they are validated and proven true using known test and listening procedures. This often makes for entertaining reading but does not improve upon the reading audiophiles wealth of knowledge in our hobby.
So, Zero, I will continue to draw my conclusions from a broad array of audio subjects so long as I know from where I speak, I have heard, seen touched, studied and backed my experiences with test instrument measurements. And if this bothers you, well, Zero perhaps pounding sand will provide you some relief from your anger. I can't help how you feel about what I write unless I choose to not to provide what I know is the truth and I remain in a gray area of blissful ignorance. As an example, older tube driven components, (which are really valves), do roll off the highs a few dB. This creates a euphoric sound which is not "the" real, "live" sound. That is a fact in most cases. Now, if a person has paid many thousands of dollars for a tube pre-amp and amp, they may take offense to what I just said. This, however, does not negate the truth of what I said. Do I suppose to lie and report that tubes sound more accurate than solid state digital components or do I leave fellow audiophiles in their gray area of ignorance and simply agree with their blissful belief system and congratulate them on the ownership of fine, expensive euphoric sounding components? My vote is I don' live in a gray area about any subject if I can prevent doing so. I happen to like facts and the truth they lead me to. The old saying, "The truth shall set you free" is, in fact, true.
Zero, I'm a former U.S. Marine, a semi-retired doctor and an avid audio/videophile. Therefore, I have no fear or concern about being honest, even if it does ruffle the feathers of a few people who read these pages, including you. Be advised, I am open always to standing corrected should I make a statement believed to be scientifically correct, and due to new scientific discovery makes that science obsolete and should be replaced by the new, greater truth.
Therefore, if you have something to contribute in that regard, I would relish it as there is no such thing as perfection in the world of audio. As fellow audiophiles, our quest is for the ultimate enjoyment of music reproduced in a manner we enjoy the most. For some its tubes and others its digital. Some people love Bose 901 and Acoustic Research AR3a speakers while others scoff at them as they point out the virtues of their Martin Logan electrostatic speakers, Magnapan or Klipsch horn driven speakers. Still others resort to custom built Scan Speak speakers designed and built to high value specifications that are known to reproduce life like sound in an acoustically treated room which at this time is what I own and is my reference. This all lends to a variety of ways and means of achieving audio satisfaction for true audiophiles. I am on a quest to search for (which is fun), find (which is a surprise), test (which reveals the truth) and experience components and speakers that mimic live sound so well, one is hard pressed in a well controlled AB X listening test to tell which is live music and which is a reproduction of live music produced by a pair of high end speakers in a properly treated and equalized room. I think I have been upfront about this from the beginning of my participation on this website and on this thread. That is my "standard of reference" to what is the "state-of-the-art" in audio, and anything less than that should be called out for what it really is so that an audiophile interested in that product may be aware of what he is getting before he spends his hard earned money on it.
You are herein invited to visit my digs, review my "He-Man"
audio rig, share a glass of high quality "red" and communicate with me your experiences and truths in our wonderful hobby. Further, we can listen to and talk about music and yes, even home theater and some great 3-D, 4K, atmos surround sound movies, too. I'm wide open to what you have to say so long as it can be measured to confirm what one hears or sees. And, finally, one does not hear soul in music or more balls, or tight or fast, etc. All things in audio (except the emotional experience of audio) can be measured to understand why a speaker sounds ballsy, tight, fast, slow, compressed, dynamic, etc. A tube amp does not have sound that has more "soul" no more than a solid state amp sounds dry, cold or sterile. These words used as adjectives mean nothing until measurements reveal what motivates a listener to say or believe such descriptions. A perfectly flat frequency response in a given listening room will generally sound dry, cool and not very musical. That's because the acoustical environment in which the recording is played puts a different face (sound) on the music than that heard at the live venue. Tipping the bass up 1 to 2 db from 250Hz on down may bring this same music back to life. So, Zero, lets see why a speaker sounds the way it does, then we can equalize its frequency response to achieve a more life like, you are there live sound. just... Doc
Doc
Last edited:
- Thread Author
- #31
So this is how you respond to a post that repeatedly compliments you - by calling me a bully and telling me that I should go 'pound sand'. Cool. I can't say I'm surprised. I'll say this much Doc; if anybody here wants to know what you're truly about, all they have to do is take note of the words that you capitalized in the above post.
As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is done and this thread should be as well.
As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is done and this thread should be as well.
Doc
New member
Paul;
Very clever. And, to your question the answer is no, I can't, with my human ears, determine if my rig is resolving enough detail to hear the difference between silver and copper speaker cables. However, I can also say that calibrated, precision, laboratory grade instruments do detect the differences in detail with far greater resolution than any human ear can hear. Therefore, if the copper and the silver wires measure the same (plus or minus zero decibels when played at the same decibel level) which is further confirmed via AB X blind listening tests with trained ears that can actually hear from 14hz to 16kHz, then the issues is put to bed with the truth spotted by instruments that are far more sensitive to any audio component of which I am aware.
Paul, have you used a high quality, calibrated spectrum analyzer and a calibrated decibel meter and o-scope plus a calibrated mic to see what your instruments and speakers are producing in the way of a signal? Are you components electronically behaving like a straight wire with gain? If you don't know, than you don't really know what you are hearing other than what your subconscious mind wants you to believe you are hearing.
I stand on the FACT that if you compare one quality amplifier brand with another brand and both amps are played within the parameters they were designed to operate within, instruments will measure them to produce a signal that is identical to each other and, therefore, is so close in measurement that the human ear could not possibly hear the difference between amp A and amp B under test. However, many audiophiles in a listening test will rant and rave about one amp versus the other, regardless of the fact that both amps measured the same in all parameters in which an amp can be measured. Just amp A's brand name versus amp B's unknown brand name or one costing more than another is enough to throw the subconscious mind's belief system into play to bring about a placebo effect. After all, is it not generally "believed" that the more expensive an amp is, the better it will sound? Is not a U.S. built MacIntosh or Canadian built Anthem Amp a better sounding amp than a Japanese Integra Research amplifier? The answer is no. They all measure the same and sound the same when operated within their design parameters and specifications. And this, Paul, is why there are hundreds of different brands of speakers and components of which most claim to sound better (for the price) then their competitors and make up lies about their products for the unsuspecting audiophile's subconscious mind to latch on to. In short, follow the dollar and you will discover what's really so in the marketing of audio gear.
Obviously many audiophiles will disagree with what is mentioned above. However, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and flies like a duck...well, it's a duck. What more can I say other than I'll hear from audiophiles who will insist the duck is a chicken.
Doc
Very clever. And, to your question the answer is no, I can't, with my human ears, determine if my rig is resolving enough detail to hear the difference between silver and copper speaker cables. However, I can also say that calibrated, precision, laboratory grade instruments do detect the differences in detail with far greater resolution than any human ear can hear. Therefore, if the copper and the silver wires measure the same (plus or minus zero decibels when played at the same decibel level) which is further confirmed via AB X blind listening tests with trained ears that can actually hear from 14hz to 16kHz, then the issues is put to bed with the truth spotted by instruments that are far more sensitive to any audio component of which I am aware.
Paul, have you used a high quality, calibrated spectrum analyzer and a calibrated decibel meter and o-scope plus a calibrated mic to see what your instruments and speakers are producing in the way of a signal? Are you components electronically behaving like a straight wire with gain? If you don't know, than you don't really know what you are hearing other than what your subconscious mind wants you to believe you are hearing.
I stand on the FACT that if you compare one quality amplifier brand with another brand and both amps are played within the parameters they were designed to operate within, instruments will measure them to produce a signal that is identical to each other and, therefore, is so close in measurement that the human ear could not possibly hear the difference between amp A and amp B under test. However, many audiophiles in a listening test will rant and rave about one amp versus the other, regardless of the fact that both amps measured the same in all parameters in which an amp can be measured. Just amp A's brand name versus amp B's unknown brand name or one costing more than another is enough to throw the subconscious mind's belief system into play to bring about a placebo effect. After all, is it not generally "believed" that the more expensive an amp is, the better it will sound? Is not a U.S. built MacIntosh or Canadian built Anthem Amp a better sounding amp than a Japanese Integra Research amplifier? The answer is no. They all measure the same and sound the same when operated within their design parameters and specifications. And this, Paul, is why there are hundreds of different brands of speakers and components of which most claim to sound better (for the price) then their competitors and make up lies about their products for the unsuspecting audiophile's subconscious mind to latch on to. In short, follow the dollar and you will discover what's really so in the marketing of audio gear.
Obviously many audiophiles will disagree with what is mentioned above. However, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and flies like a duck...well, it's a duck. What more can I say other than I'll hear from audiophiles who will insist the duck is a chicken.
Doc
Doc - what's your system comprised of?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Doc
New member
Zero;
Sometimes the truth bruises one's ego and the ego refuses to face it. Everything I said in my reply post to you, Zero is fact, is true and you know it.
I don't apologize for telling you the truth and dealing in the realm of real facts. I do ask that you own up to what's so and look at this through a clear lens that has no opinion or bias, but only wants to get to the bottom of the facts and then deal with reality of the situation in dignity.
It is not wise to condemn and then say you are through with this thread. It would express wisdom if you simply would admit you stand to be corrected about certain matters that do raise their ugly head in our beloved hobby and at least indicate you would take what I said under "consideration". You see, Zero, my intent was not to insult you. It was to get your attention so you might examine your existing "belief" system in the realm of audio and just perhaps, see another viewpoint that smacks as valid. So, Zero, when I tell you that you can go pound sand, toss out your ego and read that for what it really means, and that is, if you do not wish to own the truth, then vent your anger on sand, and not on me.
You are cutting off the head of the messenger which is not a wise or graceful thing to do.
Be advised, I will still read your posts and if they are confirmed with your testimony that you know from where you speak via instrument measurements and AB X blind testing, you will have my most devoted attention. If, however, you wish to manage what people post with your approval or disapproval, you are doing it to the wrong guy when you put me in your cross hairs. I have no interest in managing what you say, even if you told me to take a flying leap. I don't read posts through the scope of my ego. To do so would be stupid. I read posts to see what I may learn from them after I have surmised they are accurate (by measurement or other reliable, proven means) or simply one's opinion. Opinions are okay as long as they are observed for what they are, just mere opinions. So, Zero, I will read your opinions and take great interest in your scribbles if backed with known facts, truth, and reliable instrument readings. I am not advocating everyone has to approach what anyone writes on this site with that formula. They, like you, have every right to remain in their gray area comfort zone all they want. However, I also have rights, and one of them is to tell the truth as it is proven to me by instrument readings or other scientific procedures which is further confirmed with blind AB X testing.
Now Zero, since I have confirmed that you have a right to say what you like, when you want to, don't I have the same right? And, if I tell you that you can go pound sand if you don't like the truth I present in these pages, it is an analogy saying if you refuse to accept the truth of a matter in view of overwhelming evidence brought into play by instrument readings, then your ego is in a defensive posture which I refuse to deal with. The subject matter of this thread involves matters of audio reproduction and not your ego or mine. I strongly suggest you stay with what this site is for rather than smoothing the feathers of your ego which I have obviiouly ruffled.
Finally, if you exit this thread as you alluded to in you previous reply to me, it will speak volumes in a negative way to many readers who are following along on this discourse of diatribe between the two of us.
Doc
P.S. If my discourses replying to those who post on this thread or website seem a bit long on the tooth, well, they are. I find many posts on web sites like this one are simply sound bites which raise more questions than provide answers and become verbal intercourse one might experience if having a drink with a friend at their local pub. The trouble is, this website is not one's local pub. I would think people are attracted to this site and its threads in pursuit of greater knowledge about their beloved hobby and, on occasion, entertained or amused by what they read by those who are gifted writers (of which I am not so fortunate to be among those who are). So, if my lengthy discourses and replies puts you or other readers to sleep, I do hope you and they enjoy a good snooze, but also have learned something that improves upon their enjoyment of the audio hobby. Meanwhile, I hope to learn from yours or their posts, too.
Sometimes the truth bruises one's ego and the ego refuses to face it. Everything I said in my reply post to you, Zero is fact, is true and you know it.
I don't apologize for telling you the truth and dealing in the realm of real facts. I do ask that you own up to what's so and look at this through a clear lens that has no opinion or bias, but only wants to get to the bottom of the facts and then deal with reality of the situation in dignity.
It is not wise to condemn and then say you are through with this thread. It would express wisdom if you simply would admit you stand to be corrected about certain matters that do raise their ugly head in our beloved hobby and at least indicate you would take what I said under "consideration". You see, Zero, my intent was not to insult you. It was to get your attention so you might examine your existing "belief" system in the realm of audio and just perhaps, see another viewpoint that smacks as valid. So, Zero, when I tell you that you can go pound sand, toss out your ego and read that for what it really means, and that is, if you do not wish to own the truth, then vent your anger on sand, and not on me.
You are cutting off the head of the messenger which is not a wise or graceful thing to do.
Be advised, I will still read your posts and if they are confirmed with your testimony that you know from where you speak via instrument measurements and AB X blind testing, you will have my most devoted attention. If, however, you wish to manage what people post with your approval or disapproval, you are doing it to the wrong guy when you put me in your cross hairs. I have no interest in managing what you say, even if you told me to take a flying leap. I don't read posts through the scope of my ego. To do so would be stupid. I read posts to see what I may learn from them after I have surmised they are accurate (by measurement or other reliable, proven means) or simply one's opinion. Opinions are okay as long as they are observed for what they are, just mere opinions. So, Zero, I will read your opinions and take great interest in your scribbles if backed with known facts, truth, and reliable instrument readings. I am not advocating everyone has to approach what anyone writes on this site with that formula. They, like you, have every right to remain in their gray area comfort zone all they want. However, I also have rights, and one of them is to tell the truth as it is proven to me by instrument readings or other scientific procedures which is further confirmed with blind AB X testing.
Now Zero, since I have confirmed that you have a right to say what you like, when you want to, don't I have the same right? And, if I tell you that you can go pound sand if you don't like the truth I present in these pages, it is an analogy saying if you refuse to accept the truth of a matter in view of overwhelming evidence brought into play by instrument readings, then your ego is in a defensive posture which I refuse to deal with. The subject matter of this thread involves matters of audio reproduction and not your ego or mine. I strongly suggest you stay with what this site is for rather than smoothing the feathers of your ego which I have obviiouly ruffled.
Finally, if you exit this thread as you alluded to in you previous reply to me, it will speak volumes in a negative way to many readers who are following along on this discourse of diatribe between the two of us.
Doc
P.S. If my discourses replying to those who post on this thread or website seem a bit long on the tooth, well, they are. I find many posts on web sites like this one are simply sound bites which raise more questions than provide answers and become verbal intercourse one might experience if having a drink with a friend at their local pub. The trouble is, this website is not one's local pub. I would think people are attracted to this site and its threads in pursuit of greater knowledge about their beloved hobby and, on occasion, entertained or amused by what they read by those who are gifted writers (of which I am not so fortunate to be among those who are). So, if my lengthy discourses and replies puts you or other readers to sleep, I do hope you and they enjoy a good snooze, but also have learned something that improves upon their enjoyment of the audio hobby. Meanwhile, I hope to learn from yours or their posts, too.
FlexibleAudio
Member
Well Doc, while it is probably a waste of time given the entrenchment of your dogma, let me attempt to explain my view of your problem. In my world everything starts and ends with with science. I never buy a component without doing a thorough analysis of the fundamental science behind the design. If the claims of the manufacturer have scientific merit I will audition the gear. I will also take to heart the input of a small group of trusted advisers whose ears have proven to me in Blind A/B tests to be reliable.
What I will never do is be so naive as to think that the complexity of the emotional response of the human mind to sound waves can be measured by the extremely crude (relative to the human mind) devices used in the measurements you reference. When it comes to gear analysis, I class audiophiles into three levels of enlightenment.
1) The Placebo Loving Audiophiles. (Kinda obvious to describe.) -- They will give anything a go and often hear what is not present in a properly implemented double blind.
2) The "Ah-Ha," I am Smarter Audiophiles. (This group actually makes me laugh the most. Their stock in trade is ignorance and arrogance.) -- This group has a grand epiphany ("Ah-Ha") when they find there first piece of Placebo Gear and are convinced because Placebo's are sold regularly in the Audio market everything is hyperbola that can't be measured. They believe anyone who fails to see this epiphany in concert with them is intellectually inferior. The laughable part of this thought process is the group's complete inability to appreciate man's very crude understanding of psycho-acoustics and his even cruder methods of attempting to measure the things that actually matter to the human mind. This group typically consists of well educated engineers and technicians whom are real good at looking at trees but have no idea of what the forest consists or people from outside the science and engineering community whom know nothing about proper scientific and statistical analysis but know just enough to be extremely dangerous.
3) The Blind Testing Audiophiles. (This group may be technical or not but are smart enough (and humble enough) to understand the vagaries of inaccurate measurement and Placebo Effect.) -- The human mind is the only effective measuring device for measuring the impact of a variable on the human mind. Everything else is essentially a proxy based on a very limited understanding of the human condition. Blind Testing is the measurement of choice for this group because how the gear makes a person feel is all that really matters. Placebo is exposed in this process just as is the ignorance of relying on a bench tests which either measure the wrong variable or fail to measure it at the resolution necessary to see its effect on the human psyche.
Hmmmmm, I wonder where I will put Doc in my spectrum of enlightenment.....
CPP
Active member
Paul, you left one out
4) The Music Loving Audiophile or the I don't give a crap about 1,2 or 3. ( This group just loves listening to music, period.)
Doc
New member
Mike;
Your statement "We can hear everything we measure, but we can't measure everything we hear. Let your ears be your guide." is not a correct or true statement. Once again old doc with his green blood and pointed ears (Spock like in notions and scientist at large) seeks the truth of this statement and here is what I learned from reliable medical and scientific data.
1. No one person hears the same. This is due to the fact we humans are evolving animals, thus have different shaped outer ears, and their internal parts, plus different shaped heads. Some have hair, some do not. Some wear glasses, some do not. Some have damaged or dead inner ear receptive hairs that signal our brain as to what is being heard and, therefore, are, as they say, hard of hearing or hearing impaired to be politically correct. Some human's have healthy inner ear hair cells such as young children who have not been exposed to loud sound for long periods of time or extremely loud sound such as a 357 magnum pistol shot or weapons of war.
2. Most humans have one ear that hears better than the other. Therefore, if one person hears better with their left ear and another person hears better with their right ear, and both are sitting in front of a pair of high quality speakers, taking turns listening to the same music from the same speakers at the same decibel level in the same sound room, both reviewers will rate the same speakers differently than the other because they will hear them at a different phase and both reviewers also have different shaped hears and head.
3. One's hearing is connected with their emotional state of mind, their level of intelligence, and their belief system. Has not everyone heard a sound that they thought was caused from a given source just to find out the sound was caused by a totally different source...a car backfiring exhaust versus the sound of a rifle shot is a good example. A spectrum analyzer would tell us the probable source of the sound and pin it down to the sound of a backfiring car. The F.B.I. does this in connection with an investigation of a crime or location of the sound in their sound investigation lab in Washington.
4. An instrument can accurately produce, measure and report sound frequencies, phase, pulse, decibel level, etc. well below human hearing (9 cycles and lower which are only felt) and frequencies in the ultrasonic range well above 20,000 Hz.
5. Generally speaking, an adult human being cannot hear over 25,000 Hz in a sound proof listening booth in a audio hearing test using calibrated earphones at a 75dB listening level. Very few adults can hear up to 20,000 Hz. The average adult male, age 40 hears up to 15,000 Hz, thereafter hearing rolls off rapidly at about 6dB per octave. This fact exposes the B.S. put forth by some reviewers in hifi rags who gush on how well a speaker sounds in the extreme high frequencies, when in fact, he or she cannot hear above 15,000 Hz. Their audio review report was obviously tainted with psychological wishful thinking because they are a fan of the brand of the speaker under review or its manufacturer or impressed by its lofty price all of which are reflected at the subconscious level as to having to be superior in sound.
It's clear that a human being (even a child with perfect hearing) cannot hear what a calibrated test instrument can detect in the higher and lowest frequencies. Therefore, it is the instrument that should be trusted and not one's ears. One's ears can be defective in numerous ways and the owner of those ears may not be aware of it. Even if a bit of excess wax is in one' ears, that's all it would take to cause a false impression on what one is hearing.
This all boils down to what the mind thinks it hears or worse yet, "wants" to hear versus what the sound truly is in the environment of the sound when analyzed by a calibrated instrument and mic plugged into that instrument. Therefore, a professional audio equipment and speaker reviewer's commentary as to what they heard is clearly just an opinion. It speaks of what the reviewer heard based on his ability to hear anything accurately under the most ideal conditions. If the review's hearing is not accurate (impaired in some manner), the reviewers article on the speaker or sound produced by the component reviewed will be a distortion of the real sound produced during the review.If the reviewer first measures what is heard and then listens to same sound he measured he will often be at odds with himself. How many times have you read where a reviewer stated he could not hear what the print out of the spectrum analyzer revealed. That's because the reviewer likely has a hearing impairment at that frequency or a psychological belief system causing him to have a false opinion of what he thinks he is hearing.
Therefore, to get to the truth about the sound produced by the component or speaker, it must be measured by a calibrated analyzing test instrument into which a calibrated, studio grade microphone is plugged. The test should be conducted in room of ideal measurements and treated to eliminate any nulls or swells at a 75dB listening level at the listening position. Further, digital EQ should be carefully employed to further quell any room caused changes in the sound from that of what the speakers would produce on their own if elevated 10 feet from the ground and 100 feet or more from any flat surface (wall, building, etc.) in a dead quite outdoor environment free from any wind and the microphone placed 1 meter from the speakers mid range driver. Otherwise, a the test should be conducted in a anti-echoic chamber to eliminate all reflections of sounds with the measuring microphone at 1 meter from the mid range driver in the speaker enclosure. The results of either test would reflect what the speaker actually does sound like. Now to get to the real truth, live music would have to be played at the same decibel level as the speaker played and also heard by the same spectrum analyzer and mic set up. Then a print out of the recorded music play back versus the live musical instrument of the same music by the same musical instruments and musicians played at the same 75dB level would reflect on the graphs the difference in sound of the speakers versus the real live playback of musical instruments. The difference between recorded and live reflects the distortion to the sound produced by the speakers. If the graph readings are very close to each other, it means you have a very fine, accurate speaker. If they are grossly different, it means you don't have a speaker, you have a speaker that is behaving like its own musical instrument and, therefore, not delivering the truth in sound to you.
For an audiophile who cannot locate or afford to rent the use of a anti-echoic chamber to test the accuracy and quality of sound that his/her speakers are really producing, they need to go to an outdoor environment that is dead quiet and free of reflected surfaces for 100 feet or more in the horizontal and vertical plain. The ground cannot be eliminated, so one must raise their speaker 10 feet off the ground and align a mic in the center of that speaker 1 metere away. The speaker should be played at 75db to 85 db (80 is best). Then what the mic picks up and forwards to a high quality, calibrated spectrum analyzer and that analyzer reports in the form of a computer print out is truly what that speaker sounds like.
How, if during this test the speaker (at 10 feet off the ground) sounds bright, or booming, it will likely be seen in the print out produced by the spectrum analyzer and also tell you at what frequencies that is occurring at and at what decibel levels.
Very few manufacturers will go to these lengths to understand just how accurate their speakers are. You, however, as a dedicated audiophile can. It would involve owning the instruments and microphone with excellent cables. You would have to have the mic and instrument calibrated and certified as accurate within in its high standard of operation within in military specifications. After all, the report printed out by the analyzyer is going to be only as accurate as the analyzer and mic itself. So, do get them calibrated and certified as accurate. Next,you will have to build a stand that is 10 feet high and can support and securely hold your speaker at that height. Then you have to extrude from that speaker stand a device to hold the mic securely but in no manner can be made to vibrate from the speaker enclosure's vibrations. Next, you will have to hire three musicians for a day playing the sound recorded on the ground of "live instruments". When the recorded sound of the speaker lowered to the ground and the sound of of live instruments are played in an AB X blind listening test at the same outdoor location and found to be nearly identical, you have a very accurate speaker. If you hear a significant difference, it reveals how far off from reality your speakers distort the sound.
Now if you, dear audiophile, actually do these things, you are, in my opinion, counted in the upper 1% of true fanatical audiophiles who know from where they speak and honestly understand what their speaker really sounds like when compared with live musical instruments in a perfect sound environment (the great, quiet out doors, free from reflective surfaces.
So what to do, if you cant test in this manner? I have some ideas on this. However before I expound on them, I would very much like to hear from all readers of this thread, including you Mike. Just maybe some of you will have some exciting new ideas that can be employed in our quest for the reality in sound while others will come up with something to hoot and laugh at. And, when all the dust is settled, I will return with some of the methods I have used to overcome many of the pitfalls in sound measurement that are doable in your home.
Doc
Your statement "We can hear everything we measure, but we can't measure everything we hear. Let your ears be your guide." is not a correct or true statement. Once again old doc with his green blood and pointed ears (Spock like in notions and scientist at large) seeks the truth of this statement and here is what I learned from reliable medical and scientific data.
1. No one person hears the same. This is due to the fact we humans are evolving animals, thus have different shaped outer ears, and their internal parts, plus different shaped heads. Some have hair, some do not. Some wear glasses, some do not. Some have damaged or dead inner ear receptive hairs that signal our brain as to what is being heard and, therefore, are, as they say, hard of hearing or hearing impaired to be politically correct. Some human's have healthy inner ear hair cells such as young children who have not been exposed to loud sound for long periods of time or extremely loud sound such as a 357 magnum pistol shot or weapons of war.
2. Most humans have one ear that hears better than the other. Therefore, if one person hears better with their left ear and another person hears better with their right ear, and both are sitting in front of a pair of high quality speakers, taking turns listening to the same music from the same speakers at the same decibel level in the same sound room, both reviewers will rate the same speakers differently than the other because they will hear them at a different phase and both reviewers also have different shaped hears and head.
3. One's hearing is connected with their emotional state of mind, their level of intelligence, and their belief system. Has not everyone heard a sound that they thought was caused from a given source just to find out the sound was caused by a totally different source...a car backfiring exhaust versus the sound of a rifle shot is a good example. A spectrum analyzer would tell us the probable source of the sound and pin it down to the sound of a backfiring car. The F.B.I. does this in connection with an investigation of a crime or location of the sound in their sound investigation lab in Washington.
4. An instrument can accurately produce, measure and report sound frequencies, phase, pulse, decibel level, etc. well below human hearing (9 cycles and lower which are only felt) and frequencies in the ultrasonic range well above 20,000 Hz.
5. Generally speaking, an adult human being cannot hear over 25,000 Hz in a sound proof listening booth in a audio hearing test using calibrated earphones at a 75dB listening level. Very few adults can hear up to 20,000 Hz. The average adult male, age 40 hears up to 15,000 Hz, thereafter hearing rolls off rapidly at about 6dB per octave. This fact exposes the B.S. put forth by some reviewers in hifi rags who gush on how well a speaker sounds in the extreme high frequencies, when in fact, he or she cannot hear above 15,000 Hz. Their audio review report was obviously tainted with psychological wishful thinking because they are a fan of the brand of the speaker under review or its manufacturer or impressed by its lofty price all of which are reflected at the subconscious level as to having to be superior in sound.
It's clear that a human being (even a child with perfect hearing) cannot hear what a calibrated test instrument can detect in the higher and lowest frequencies. Therefore, it is the instrument that should be trusted and not one's ears. One's ears can be defective in numerous ways and the owner of those ears may not be aware of it. Even if a bit of excess wax is in one' ears, that's all it would take to cause a false impression on what one is hearing.
This all boils down to what the mind thinks it hears or worse yet, "wants" to hear versus what the sound truly is in the environment of the sound when analyzed by a calibrated instrument and mic plugged into that instrument. Therefore, a professional audio equipment and speaker reviewer's commentary as to what they heard is clearly just an opinion. It speaks of what the reviewer heard based on his ability to hear anything accurately under the most ideal conditions. If the review's hearing is not accurate (impaired in some manner), the reviewers article on the speaker or sound produced by the component reviewed will be a distortion of the real sound produced during the review.If the reviewer first measures what is heard and then listens to same sound he measured he will often be at odds with himself. How many times have you read where a reviewer stated he could not hear what the print out of the spectrum analyzer revealed. That's because the reviewer likely has a hearing impairment at that frequency or a psychological belief system causing him to have a false opinion of what he thinks he is hearing.
Therefore, to get to the truth about the sound produced by the component or speaker, it must be measured by a calibrated analyzing test instrument into which a calibrated, studio grade microphone is plugged. The test should be conducted in room of ideal measurements and treated to eliminate any nulls or swells at a 75dB listening level at the listening position. Further, digital EQ should be carefully employed to further quell any room caused changes in the sound from that of what the speakers would produce on their own if elevated 10 feet from the ground and 100 feet or more from any flat surface (wall, building, etc.) in a dead quite outdoor environment free from any wind and the microphone placed 1 meter from the speakers mid range driver. Otherwise, a the test should be conducted in a anti-echoic chamber to eliminate all reflections of sounds with the measuring microphone at 1 meter from the mid range driver in the speaker enclosure. The results of either test would reflect what the speaker actually does sound like. Now to get to the real truth, live music would have to be played at the same decibel level as the speaker played and also heard by the same spectrum analyzer and mic set up. Then a print out of the recorded music play back versus the live musical instrument of the same music by the same musical instruments and musicians played at the same 75dB level would reflect on the graphs the difference in sound of the speakers versus the real live playback of musical instruments. The difference between recorded and live reflects the distortion to the sound produced by the speakers. If the graph readings are very close to each other, it means you have a very fine, accurate speaker. If they are grossly different, it means you don't have a speaker, you have a speaker that is behaving like its own musical instrument and, therefore, not delivering the truth in sound to you.
For an audiophile who cannot locate or afford to rent the use of a anti-echoic chamber to test the accuracy and quality of sound that his/her speakers are really producing, they need to go to an outdoor environment that is dead quiet and free of reflected surfaces for 100 feet or more in the horizontal and vertical plain. The ground cannot be eliminated, so one must raise their speaker 10 feet off the ground and align a mic in the center of that speaker 1 metere away. The speaker should be played at 75db to 85 db (80 is best). Then what the mic picks up and forwards to a high quality, calibrated spectrum analyzer and that analyzer reports in the form of a computer print out is truly what that speaker sounds like.
How, if during this test the speaker (at 10 feet off the ground) sounds bright, or booming, it will likely be seen in the print out produced by the spectrum analyzer and also tell you at what frequencies that is occurring at and at what decibel levels.
Very few manufacturers will go to these lengths to understand just how accurate their speakers are. You, however, as a dedicated audiophile can. It would involve owning the instruments and microphone with excellent cables. You would have to have the mic and instrument calibrated and certified as accurate within in its high standard of operation within in military specifications. After all, the report printed out by the analyzyer is going to be only as accurate as the analyzer and mic itself. So, do get them calibrated and certified as accurate. Next,you will have to build a stand that is 10 feet high and can support and securely hold your speaker at that height. Then you have to extrude from that speaker stand a device to hold the mic securely but in no manner can be made to vibrate from the speaker enclosure's vibrations. Next, you will have to hire three musicians for a day playing the sound recorded on the ground of "live instruments". When the recorded sound of the speaker lowered to the ground and the sound of of live instruments are played in an AB X blind listening test at the same outdoor location and found to be nearly identical, you have a very accurate speaker. If you hear a significant difference, it reveals how far off from reality your speakers distort the sound.
Now if you, dear audiophile, actually do these things, you are, in my opinion, counted in the upper 1% of true fanatical audiophiles who know from where they speak and honestly understand what their speaker really sounds like when compared with live musical instruments in a perfect sound environment (the great, quiet out doors, free from reflective surfaces.
So what to do, if you cant test in this manner? I have some ideas on this. However before I expound on them, I would very much like to hear from all readers of this thread, including you Mike. Just maybe some of you will have some exciting new ideas that can be employed in our quest for the reality in sound while others will come up with something to hoot and laugh at. And, when all the dust is settled, I will return with some of the methods I have used to overcome many of the pitfalls in sound measurement that are doable in your home.
Doc
Doc - what's your system comprised of?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FlexibleAudio
Member
Well I can think of no better evidence of the malady from which you suffer (which I described in my post #41) than what you have just written above. I suggest you pull back a second, take a deep breadth and consider that the world is bigger than you envision. Your above post to Mike reads like a Teaching Assistant's first day in Audio Class 101 at the local community college and yet you have the testicles to babble on pedantically as if we all just fell off the turnip truck.
Just as an example, consider in your post where you claim: "An instrument can accurately produce, measure and report sound frequencies, phase, pulse, decibel level, etc." This is a good example of your narrow scope of understanding. In my travels I have found nothing more critical to the SQ of my gear than the preservation of time domain (be it time and phase alignment, transient response etc.). So what is the typical unit of measure you use in your pulse measurements....maybe a millisecond; at best a microsecond??? The brain has a remarkable ability to distinguish perturbations in the time domain well beyond what you are measuring in your tests. The best evidence of this is found in the progression of digital playback toward a more pleasing sound as a dac's clock speed is improved (with all other variables held constant). The differences in time alignment are in the 100 Femtosecond arena yet a Blind Test will show the difference. This is just one small example of the problems you have with applying a crude approach to a complex problem.
If and when you can reference statistically significant Blind Testing (using human brains) to provide evidence supporting your specific point of view, it would then be reasonable to enter a discussion under which you challenge others in conflict with said point. But, entering a discussion about say, measuring length, and accuse the masses of being the ignorant ones when you are the one trying to measure the thickness of a hair with a yardstick, makes you look kinda silly.
PS: You can make your point easily with about 10% of the content if you cut the condescension. It will make it easier for all to follow along.
Doc
New member
Hello again, Paul;
You need not concern yourself with where you may pigeon hole me in your spectrum of enlightenment. Your first concern is where you would place yourself. For, in the end, it is you and your ears and the pleasure you experience in your audiophile hobby that really matters. Anything I can contribute to enhance your joy and the joy of readers of this thread is time well spent.
I generally agree with your 3 positions of audiophile status. The second position is well proven when an audiophile brags about the clarity and accuracy of his electrostatic speakers and a jazz musician who by chance listens to it simply states "they have no balls"...they are thread bare and not musical. The musician has little or no knowledge about speakers, but knows when he hears live music versus what he hears on the electrostatic speakers. And, in that context, it is the musician who is correct and the bragging audiophile who stands to be corrected. Where we differ is that the difference between live music and what the electrostatic speaker produced can be accurately measured. Therefore, one does not have to be a musician to know if the sound he hears from his speakers approaches the real "live" sound or not.
Here is the second problem about the engineer who is focused on the tree and oblivious to the forest that surrounds the tree. The engineer will design the electrostatic speaker I refer to in this reply to meet ideal measurements such as a flat frequency response on and off axis, from 20kHz to 32Hz, a high efficiency standard of 1 watt of input cranks out 100 decibels of sound pressure at 1,000 Hz at 1 meter and the speaker is free form any frame resonance, and there is no passive cross over network because it is a full range electrostatic driven panel transducer. And, after all of this has been achieved via brilliant engineering and construction methods, when this speaker is played to a group of jazz musician, they all agree, the speaker has "no balls". The engineer, however does not ask musicians and those exposed to a lot of live music what they think after hearing his design of an electrostatic speaker. He consults with his test instruments. The end result is a product hyped to reproduce sound accurately, but, in fact, does not due to a misled engineer, speaker designer. Had the engineer measured live music and then played that same well recorded live music through the speaker and measured the results, he would clearly have seen, via the instrument readings the difference between the two. Therefore, the reference standard would be the live musician playing their instruments and the readings on the spectrum analyzer that were produced on a printed graph chart. This chart, therefore becomes the standard of reference to which the engineer should aspire to build an electrostatic speaker to mimic as close as possible. Then when that electrostatic speaker is played, it will have "balls" (sound live) to the jazz musician who played the music to establish the reference standard to begin with.
Now, Paul, if what I just wrote sounds condescending to you or anyone reading this, consider I write in detail which may cause that illusion. Be advised I don't write "down" to you or anyone else. I simply write in such a style and manner to assure I am understood. Who am I to write to anyone in a way that would even hint at my supposedly being superior to the readers of this site and threat? Look, I'm simply a combined music lover and audiophile with over 50 years of experience in our beloved hobby under his belt. I have learned if I speak to anyone (even most audiophiles) in the language engineers use, they roll their eyes in misunderstanding. So, I write using words most understand and skip all the geek, technical, Latin words and talk and use common verbosity so more readers can understand what I'm saying. You, Paul, have picked this up as me being condescending when I'm not.
Now that you have an idea of how I think about this issue, please do put me in the pigeon hole of your choice, but also do so to yourself. I have a feeling we will not find the two of us in positions 1, 2 or 3. I think we will have morphed into a 4th position which looks at these matters by standing outside of the box to discover new view points that get us ever closer to the real, live sound in our listening rooms at home.
Paul, as for the person who commented to you that audiophile status 1, 2 and 3 matters not, but as an audiophile listening to and enjoys music as group of fellow audiophiles is all that matters, I take issue with that. Now honestly, did you think I was going to let that breezy statement go by without tossing in my two cents worth?
Such people who believe the music is what matters are not what I would define as true audiophiles. Those folks are true music lovers and may be musicians, too. They seek the psychological satisfaction music brings to them and do not concern themselves much with the devices used to produce that affect. These are folks who would enjoy listening to their favorite artist over a pair of Bose 901 speakers driven by 1969 circa 50 watt Pioneer Receiver that clips every time the Bose hits a bass note of 50 Hz or lower.
Conversely, a true audiophile in the realm of the audiophile hobby is equally concerned with how accurate (live sounding) music is reproduced with the components and speakers used plus the music itself. The audiophile is clearly aware that you can't have one without the other. A bad hi-fi or poor recording is going to produce the sound of music that is not even near the live sound of the music recorded as produced at the live musical venue. Yet many music lovers will sit through this completely oblivious to how crappy the audio accuracy of the music is that they are listening to. You see, they are listening to music and not how accurate that music sounds. This is why the recording industry can get away with compressing pop music to such a degree it sounds almost like its one boring note. The source of joy for a music lover comes from the musical beat, vocals, words, harmony and composure of the music heard. If an E-flat alto sax sounds more like a lower range bass saxophone that doesn't matter. What matters is the psychological affect the music itself has on the music lover. Once again, true audiophiles realize one cannot have their cake and eat it to. You must have accurate sound reproduction approaching the quality and sound of the live venue in order to fully enjoy music as it was intended to be heard. Audiophiles expect more, even demand more and pay far more for that goal. However, when they finally have caught the brass ring on the audiophile merry-go-round and lay claim to absolute real sound (live sound) in their listening room, satisfaction and pleasure, I believe, are far greater than that ever experienced by the average music lover.
Of course, we audiophiles are quickly put in our place when approached by frequent attendance of real live musical events. I honestly find it strange that a well heeled audiophile who spends nearly one-half million dollars on his He-Man rig, and room conditioning could have spent far less and simply attended the concerts and live venues he so dearly loves to listen to on his "state-of-the-art Hi-Fi. Indeed, this would cover his air fare, ground transportation, meals lodging, tickets to listen to his favorite composers and philharmonic orchestras or cellar jazz club stars all over this planet for that kind of money. Taken one step further, he could book a jazz group and singers to entertain him and his guests in his own home frequently and have change left over...so who needs a hi fi if one is that wealthy? Yet, the wealthy have elaborate hi-fi rigs that are rarely listen to except as background music. They really want the bragging rights of ownership of the ultimate in hi-fi gear. Once again, this is ego at play which does not make one an audiophile.
Your thoughts on this are most welcome, Paul, and all other readers of this thread, too
Doc
You need not concern yourself with where you may pigeon hole me in your spectrum of enlightenment. Your first concern is where you would place yourself. For, in the end, it is you and your ears and the pleasure you experience in your audiophile hobby that really matters. Anything I can contribute to enhance your joy and the joy of readers of this thread is time well spent.
I generally agree with your 3 positions of audiophile status. The second position is well proven when an audiophile brags about the clarity and accuracy of his electrostatic speakers and a jazz musician who by chance listens to it simply states "they have no balls"...they are thread bare and not musical. The musician has little or no knowledge about speakers, but knows when he hears live music versus what he hears on the electrostatic speakers. And, in that context, it is the musician who is correct and the bragging audiophile who stands to be corrected. Where we differ is that the difference between live music and what the electrostatic speaker produced can be accurately measured. Therefore, one does not have to be a musician to know if the sound he hears from his speakers approaches the real "live" sound or not.
Here is the second problem about the engineer who is focused on the tree and oblivious to the forest that surrounds the tree. The engineer will design the electrostatic speaker I refer to in this reply to meet ideal measurements such as a flat frequency response on and off axis, from 20kHz to 32Hz, a high efficiency standard of 1 watt of input cranks out 100 decibels of sound pressure at 1,000 Hz at 1 meter and the speaker is free form any frame resonance, and there is no passive cross over network because it is a full range electrostatic driven panel transducer. And, after all of this has been achieved via brilliant engineering and construction methods, when this speaker is played to a group of jazz musician, they all agree, the speaker has "no balls". The engineer, however does not ask musicians and those exposed to a lot of live music what they think after hearing his design of an electrostatic speaker. He consults with his test instruments. The end result is a product hyped to reproduce sound accurately, but, in fact, does not due to a misled engineer, speaker designer. Had the engineer measured live music and then played that same well recorded live music through the speaker and measured the results, he would clearly have seen, via the instrument readings the difference between the two. Therefore, the reference standard would be the live musician playing their instruments and the readings on the spectrum analyzer that were produced on a printed graph chart. This chart, therefore becomes the standard of reference to which the engineer should aspire to build an electrostatic speaker to mimic as close as possible. Then when that electrostatic speaker is played, it will have "balls" (sound live) to the jazz musician who played the music to establish the reference standard to begin with.
Now, Paul, if what I just wrote sounds condescending to you or anyone reading this, consider I write in detail which may cause that illusion. Be advised I don't write "down" to you or anyone else. I simply write in such a style and manner to assure I am understood. Who am I to write to anyone in a way that would even hint at my supposedly being superior to the readers of this site and threat? Look, I'm simply a combined music lover and audiophile with over 50 years of experience in our beloved hobby under his belt. I have learned if I speak to anyone (even most audiophiles) in the language engineers use, they roll their eyes in misunderstanding. So, I write using words most understand and skip all the geek, technical, Latin words and talk and use common verbosity so more readers can understand what I'm saying. You, Paul, have picked this up as me being condescending when I'm not.
Now that you have an idea of how I think about this issue, please do put me in the pigeon hole of your choice, but also do so to yourself. I have a feeling we will not find the two of us in positions 1, 2 or 3. I think we will have morphed into a 4th position which looks at these matters by standing outside of the box to discover new view points that get us ever closer to the real, live sound in our listening rooms at home.
Paul, as for the person who commented to you that audiophile status 1, 2 and 3 matters not, but as an audiophile listening to and enjoys music as group of fellow audiophiles is all that matters, I take issue with that. Now honestly, did you think I was going to let that breezy statement go by without tossing in my two cents worth?
Such people who believe the music is what matters are not what I would define as true audiophiles. Those folks are true music lovers and may be musicians, too. They seek the psychological satisfaction music brings to them and do not concern themselves much with the devices used to produce that affect. These are folks who would enjoy listening to their favorite artist over a pair of Bose 901 speakers driven by 1969 circa 50 watt Pioneer Receiver that clips every time the Bose hits a bass note of 50 Hz or lower.
Conversely, a true audiophile in the realm of the audiophile hobby is equally concerned with how accurate (live sounding) music is reproduced with the components and speakers used plus the music itself. The audiophile is clearly aware that you can't have one without the other. A bad hi-fi or poor recording is going to produce the sound of music that is not even near the live sound of the music recorded as produced at the live musical venue. Yet many music lovers will sit through this completely oblivious to how crappy the audio accuracy of the music is that they are listening to. You see, they are listening to music and not how accurate that music sounds. This is why the recording industry can get away with compressing pop music to such a degree it sounds almost like its one boring note. The source of joy for a music lover comes from the musical beat, vocals, words, harmony and composure of the music heard. If an E-flat alto sax sounds more like a lower range bass saxophone that doesn't matter. What matters is the psychological affect the music itself has on the music lover. Once again, true audiophiles realize one cannot have their cake and eat it to. You must have accurate sound reproduction approaching the quality and sound of the live venue in order to fully enjoy music as it was intended to be heard. Audiophiles expect more, even demand more and pay far more for that goal. However, when they finally have caught the brass ring on the audiophile merry-go-round and lay claim to absolute real sound (live sound) in their listening room, satisfaction and pleasure, I believe, are far greater than that ever experienced by the average music lover.
Of course, we audiophiles are quickly put in our place when approached by frequent attendance of real live musical events. I honestly find it strange that a well heeled audiophile who spends nearly one-half million dollars on his He-Man rig, and room conditioning could have spent far less and simply attended the concerts and live venues he so dearly loves to listen to on his "state-of-the-art Hi-Fi. Indeed, this would cover his air fare, ground transportation, meals lodging, tickets to listen to his favorite composers and philharmonic orchestras or cellar jazz club stars all over this planet for that kind of money. Taken one step further, he could book a jazz group and singers to entertain him and his guests in his own home frequently and have change left over...so who needs a hi fi if one is that wealthy? Yet, the wealthy have elaborate hi-fi rigs that are rarely listen to except as background music. They really want the bragging rights of ownership of the ultimate in hi-fi gear. Once again, this is ego at play which does not make one an audiophile.
Your thoughts on this are most welcome, Paul, and all other readers of this thread, too
Doc