|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
|
|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
In Reply to: Re: The Audio Critic is now a free Web 'zine posted by andy19191 on January 9, 2007 at 14:22:31:
Andy19191,Of course there's is something in this science stuff! I don't believe anyone who prefers to use subjective listening as a primary or even as the only means to selecting an audio component is automatically discarding all measurements or science. The "problem" at least as I see it, starts when a proponent of this "science stuff" begins to believe today's accepted measured parameters are all-sufficient as is! Unfortunately anyone who believes that usually views all people who claim they hear differences in audio components as Golden Eared tweakos who are fooling themselves into believing they hear differences that don't exist! Then just to be sure their postion is a safe one, in the off chance that other people actually do hear a difference and aren't simply fooling themselves, the proponents of this "science stuff" will say that automatically means the component must be clipping, broken or it's not be "well-made", "well-designed" or "properly-designed." This is witnessed by the claims of the King of Measured Performace Tells All, Peter Aczel!
1)Peter Aczel says about amps: As I have pointed out innumerable times, a properly designed amplifier has no sound of its own. It is impossible for two amplifiers to sound different at matched levels if each has high input impedance, low output impedance, flat frequency response, low distortion, low noise floor, and is not clipped.
http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=31&blogId=12)Peter Aczel says about speakers: But what is a “better†loudspeaker? The standard model, employing forward-firing dynamic drivers with a passive crossover in a closed box, has been refined to the point where further improvements are most unlikely. There are small ones and big ones, simple ones and elaborate ones, $600 ones and $45,000 ones, but if they are correctly designed (admittedly not always the case), the sound will always be of the same general quality—wide-range, smooth, effortless, but not quite real, with a slightly closed-down, boxy characteristic that says: loudspeaker, not live. There’s a ceiling in performance with this type of loudspeaker, maybe at three or four thousand dollars, above which you get very little, if anything, regardless of the hyperbolic claims and insane prices of some ultrahigh-end models. I have revived the old-time “monkey coffin†label, used by 1970s hi-fi salesmen, for this category of box speakers. There are dinky little monkey coffins and huge expensive monkey coffins, but they all sound like monkey coffins, more or less.
http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=33&blogId=1All to often the proponents of this "science stuff" leave absolutely no room for the possibility of there being a measurement that's not being measured within today's accepted measured parameters. Today's set of measurements are embraced by the proponents of "science stuff" as being all inclusive of what does and doesn't matter, regarding how audio components sound. Those who embrace the "science stuff" seem to quickly forget that most companies don't bother with measuring everything that CAN be measured. They also forget that these measured parameters are what's cheaper, convenient and standard to measure. That sounds like "good business" and nothing else! But why shouldn't these companies do business as usual? Afterall they have people like Peter Aczel declaring it is impossible for two amplifiers to sound different at matched levels if each has high input impedance, low output impedance, flat frequency response, low distortion, low noise floor, and is not clipped. So where's their incentive to delve deeper into finding measurable parameters that are more representative of what we hear?
As I've stated many, many times now. I believe every difference we hear should be able to be verified through a measurement. Unfortunately not all of today's accepted measured parameters correlation well with how the human ear/brain combo decides what does and does not sound like live music. Perhaps one day when companies start measuring everything that CAN be measured we'll have a set of measured parameters that more closely correlation with how the human ear/brain combo decides what does and does not sound like live music. I however highly doubt that day will come when we have a group of music lovers declaring it is impossible for two amplifiers to sound different and those who do hear differences are either fooling themselves or listening to broken equipment!
Thetubeguy1954
It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows. - Epictetus
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: The Audio Critic is now a free Web 'zine - thetubeguy1954 11:17:24 01/10/07 (1)
- Re: The Audio Critic is now a free Web 'zine - 3fd 14:09:53 01/12/07 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
