Home of the Squeezebox™ & Transporter® network music players.
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32
  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    365

    Epiphany

    Quote Originally Posted by drmatt View Post
    Have you tried the Chord Hugo/TT and friends? Not mqa certified I think, but quite different sounding from others, IME.


    Transcoded from Matt's brain by Tapatalk
    This could be the moment for Archimago to affect a conversion to subjectivism (even to the extent of writing some drivel somewhere to "prove" his credentials) so that some fool will lend him some of this stuff & he can apply his particular "skill set" to it...

    Dave

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,194
    I didn't say "better" I just said different...

    Anyhow, I'm not sure demo gear comes to anyone for free for real.
    Last edited by drmatt; 2017-10-25 at 16:49.
    --
    Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP Microserver NAS with Debian+LMS 7.9.0
    Music: ~1300 CDs, as 450 GB of 16/44k FLACs. No less than 3x 24/44k albums..

  3. #23
    Senior Member Archimago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,104
    LOL... Don't think I *can* even convert to being a subjectivist if I wanted to at this point .

    For one thing, I honestly find it remarkably boring writing about the subjective experience of what one hears. The reason being that when writing that stuff, one recognizes that the words are just describing an ephemeral internal experience that can (and should) be different for each person based on life history. This is also why I typically just briefly glance over subjective reviews these days. I can appreciate album recommendations and general discussions about the gear and why it might be great...

    But do I really care about the quality of the supposedly perceived subjective change when some golden-eared guru replaced cables or switched a $5000 DAC when we know these experiences are prone to bias? Not really. Some devices that are more difficult to characterize might be worth a read - like speakers.

    Too many people describe too many subjective experiences already in this world (like every month of TAS and Stereophile). I really can't see how any more will actually educate, add knowledge, or change the hobby in any positive direction...

    As for this:
    "Anyhow, I'm not sure demo gear comes to anyone for free for real." -- drmatt

    No. Nothing is really for free. The price is that of a review of sorts and at least an endorsement, right?

    As for Chord, I have heard some great sounds from these at the local audio show and showroom. The most interesting thing about these DACs I think is how they've taken the opposite direction from MQA. Instead of weak, poorly antialiasing digital filters of something like 32 to 64 taps with MQA, they implement very long "brick wall" type filters with tens of thousands of taps. If time domain performance were about impulse responses, this is like giving the finger to Bob Stuart and MQA's typical presentation material .
    Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    365

    Speakers

    Quote Originally Posted by Archimago View Post
    LOL... Don't think I *can* even convert to being a subjectivist if I wanted to at this point .

    For one thing, I honestly find it remarkably boring writing about the subjective experience of what one hears. The reason being that when writing that stuff, one recognizes that the words are just describing an ephemeral internal experience that can (and should) be different for each person based on life history. This is also why I typically just briefly glance over subjective reviews these days. I can appreciate album recommendations and general discussions about the gear and why it might be great...

    But do I really care about the quality of the supposedly perceived subjective change when some golden-eared guru replaced cables or switched a $5000 DAC when we know these experiences are prone to bias? Not really. Some devices that are more difficult to characterize might be worth a read - like speakers.

    Too many people describe too many subjective experiences already in this world (like every month of TAS and Stereophile). I really can't see how any more will actually educate, add knowledge, or change the hobby in any positive direction...

    As for this:
    "Anyhow, I'm not sure demo gear comes to anyone for free for real." -- drmatt

    No. Nothing is really for free. The price is that of a review of sorts and at least an endorsement, right?

    As for Chord, I have heard some great sounds from these at the local audio show and showroom. The most interesting thing about these DACs I think is how they've taken the opposite direction from MQA. Instead of weak, poorly antialiasing digital filters of something like 32 to 64 taps with MQA, they implement very long "brick wall" type filters with tens of thousands of taps. If time domain performance were about impulse responses, this is like giving the finger to Bob Stuart and MQA's typical presentation material .
    Hi Archimago!

    I agree wholeheartedly with the points that you make.

    It is certainly the case that loudspeakers are still (despite massive advances in materials available for driver construction since I first started my audio quest for nirvana some 45 years ago) the weakest link in the chain, & the most appropriate choice for an individual listener will be governed by the size (& shape) of their listening room, the particular combination of compromises used by the various manufacturers (who usually have some kind of "house" sound throughout their range) that meshes best with the musical ear of the listener, & also on the type of music that is to be reproduced. If you predominantly listen to string quartets, you will have an easier time finding loudspeakers that you like than you will if you have more catholic tastes (like me, & I suspect, the majority of the members of this forum).

    I am not particularly bothered which "genre" a musical performance is (often relatively arbitrarily) assigned to, I am interested in whether it is an emotionally engaging musical performance. I like listening in the dark with no distractions, in the (probably delusory!) belief that this helps my analogue brain focus on the sound without any other sensory distractions. I do have to observe certain safety protocols when indulging myself like this since my 18 year old black cat still hasn't twigged that, unlike her, I cannot see in the dark (or for that matter that my eyes are located much further away from my feet than in her configuration... ). This is slightly dangerous for me, but potentially disastrous for her. I have a powerful flashlight to hand!

    The almost total inadequacy of any commonly quoted objective measurements of loudspeaker performance for the purpose of assisting one's selection of a loudspeaker that suits you is apparent. Arnyk sent me the link (on another thread) for a recently published paper by 3 Danish academic researchers who were attempting to make headway with this issue by inventing new objective measures which actually do correlate to the sound produced. It was a tough read - I think it took me 3 run-throughs fully to fathom their chosen methodology & ultimately I was less than impressed with the amount of progress which they had actually made by the end.

    However, if anyone would like to have a headache this weekend, I'll go off & find it so that you can judge for yourself! Throwaway remarks like needing a "specially experienced listening panel" & the need for the experiment to be conducted by "experts" gave me cause for concern that the scientific method (which requires the results of experiments to be readily repeatable) was not being closely followed despite the undoubted qualifications of the authors...

    Have a great weekend all!

    I'm off to a Richard Thompson concert this evening - I attended one of the early concerts in his current tour & he was so good that I got tickets to see him again before he retreats back to the US which has been his home for the last 30 years. I'm really looking forward to it!

    Dave

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Archimago View Post
    As for this:
    "Anyhow, I'm not sure demo gear comes to anyone for free for real." -- drmatt

    No. Nothing is really for free. The price is that of a review of sorts and at least an endorsement, right?

    As for Chord, I have heard some great sounds from these at the local audio show and showroom. The most interesting thing about these DACs I think is how they've taken the opposite direction from MQA. Instead of weak, poorly antialiasing digital filters of something like 32 to 64 taps with MQA, they implement very long "brick wall" type filters with tens of thousands of taps. If time domain performance were about impulse responses, this is like giving the finger to Bob Stuart and MQA's typical presentation material .
    Yeah a review. If not an endorsement a fair shot at least. But it's true to say that no company is going to ship a ton of stuff at their own cost to people who consistently say unpleasant stuff about it. The best review sites are the ones who buy the gear themselves (opticallimits.com for example.).

    Yes, I really liked the Hugo, but didn't like it as much as the Mytek which I got for a third the price.. The FPGA approach was interesting. They threw so much hardware at the DAC part of the FPGA they ran out of space to implement stuff like a "default volume level", you know, things like that..


    Transcoded from Matt's brain by Tapatalk
    --
    Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP Microserver NAS with Debian+LMS 7.9.0
    Music: ~1300 CDs, as 450 GB of 16/44k FLACs. No less than 3x 24/44k albums..

  6. #26
    Senior Member Archimago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Golden Earring View Post
    Hi Archimago!

    I agree wholeheartedly with the points that you make.

    It is certainly the case that loudspeakers are still (despite massive advances in materials available for driver construction since I first started my audio quest for nirvana some 45 years ago) the weakest link in the chain, & the most appropriate choice for an individual listener will be governed by the size (& shape) of their listening room, the particular combination of compromises used by the various manufacturers (who usually have some kind of "house" sound throughout their range) that meshes best with the musical ear of the listener, & also on the type of music that is to be reproduced. If you predominantly listen to string quartets, you will have an easier time finding loudspeakers that you like than you will if you have more catholic tastes (like me, & I suspect, the majority of the members of this forum).

    I am not particularly bothered which "genre" a musical performance is (often relatively arbitrarily) assigned to, I am interested in whether it is an emotionally engaging musical performance. I like listening in the dark with no distractions, in the (probably delusory!) belief that this helps my analogue brain focus on the sound without any other sensory distractions. I do have to observe certain safety protocols when indulging myself like this since my 18 year old black cat still hasn't twigged that, unlike her, I cannot see in the dark (or for that matter that my eyes are located much further away from my feet than in her configuration... ). This is slightly dangerous for me, but potentially disastrous for her. I have a powerful flashlight to hand!

    The almost total inadequacy of any commonly quoted objective measurements of loudspeaker performance for the purpose of assisting one's selection of a loudspeaker that suits you is apparent. Arnyk sent me the link (on another thread) for a recently published paper by 3 Danish academic researchers who were attempting to make headway with this issue by inventing new objective measures which actually do correlate to the sound produced. It was a tough read - I think it took me 3 run-throughs fully to fathom their chosen methodology & ultimately I was less than impressed with the amount of progress which they had actually made by the end.

    However, if anyone would like to have a headache this weekend, I'll go off & find it so that you can judge for yourself! Throwaway remarks like needing a "specially experienced listening panel" & the need for the experiment to be conducted by "experts" gave me cause for concern that the scientific method (which requires the results of experiments to be readily repeatable) was not being closely followed despite the undoubted qualifications of the authors...

    Have a great weekend all!

    I'm off to a Richard Thompson concert this evening - I attended one of the early concerts in his current tour & he was so good that I got tickets to see him again before he retreats back to the US which has been his home for the last 30 years. I'm really looking forward to it!

    Dave
    Just reading from overseas... Thanks GE. Do you happen to have a link to the paper you're referring to? Maybe Arnyk can chime in here...
    Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog.

  7. #27
    Senior Member Mnyb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Vństerňs Sweden
    Posts
    16,386
    Objektive characterisation of loudspeakers . Sean Olive of Harman International had an article about it years ago .

    They claim to have some sort of method involving many different measurments a staggering undertaking if i remember there where dossens of them .

    For from small signal electronics, preamps DACĺs whatever where noise and distortion is diminishingly small magnitudes below our threshold of hearing .
    Making subjective reviews even more pointless as you actually describe the source material flowery terms with all kinds of cocnetive bias .
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub.
    Bedroom/Office: Boom
    Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4
    Misc use: Radio (with battery)
    iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad
    (spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller )
    server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux

    http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

  8. #28
    Senior Member Archimago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Mnyb View Post
    Objektive characterisation of loudspeakers . Sean Olive of Harman International had an article about it years ago .

    They claim to have some sort of method involving many different measurments a staggering undertaking if i remember there where dossens of them .

    For from small signal electronics, preamps DACĺs whatever where noise and distortion is diminishingly small magnitudes below our threshold of hearing .
    Making subjective reviews even more pointless as you actually describe the source material flowery terms with all kinds of cocnetive bias .
    I believe Toole & Olive do the "spinorama" measurements to get a sense of off-axis response for speakers. Alas, I have no access to the usual Google / YouTube information today, but Audioholics talk about it:
    http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeak...choic-chambers

    I know Toole has a video that goes into good depth.

    Yes, once we get into the realm of competent DACs, the differences are so microscopic compared to loudspeakers that it is a waste of time with subjective myth-making.

    I suppose there is some entertainment value in record recommendations and subjective comments on quality of workmanship, ergonomics, and apparent reliability (notice how frequently reviews like Stereophile seem to have issues with faulty gear!). Beyond that, I agree, there is no value in much of the subjective reviews out there when it comes to adjudicating sound quality.

    I think what is fascinating is how seriously the subjective reviewers take themselves and their opinions.
    Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    745
    Quote Originally Posted by Archimago View Post
    Beyond that, I agree, there is no value in much of the subjective reviews out there when it comes to adjudicating sound quality.

    I think what is fascinating is how seriously the subjective reviewers take themselves and their opinions.
    I think that part of the problem is that there is an entire bogus conceptual scheme built around the audiophile hobby about the nature of hearing and the listening process. Once it is acquired it is quite difficult to "un-learn".

    In essence it is based around a set of tacit assumptions that human beings are a sort of sound quality detection advice and that fluctuations in one's listening experience must be caused by variations in the sound pressure waves reaching the ears. On this model thinking that two things sound different is like thinking you can see someone else in the room- a perceptually based conclusion which can only be mistaken as a result of extraordinary disturbance of the perceptual system/hallucination etc. The curiosity is that even the most superficial acquaintance with the basics of perceptual science would immediately uncover this conceptual error. I have noticed that even some very smart people in the industry (some of them engineers and scientists in other disciples) seem to lack any curiosity about how perception works.

    It is quite difficult to persuade people with so little intellectual curiosity to rethink their position as to what it may mean to say that measurements "can't explain" what they hear.

    One could go on, but the gist of it is that the level of understanding of perceptual science required to see through the entire subjectivist canon is about the same as the level of understanding of physics required to understanding that cartoon characters do not obey newtonian mechanics.

  10. #30
    Senior Member Julf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,463
    That is a pretty good analysis. I always wonder if audio subjectivists ever use a measuring tape, spirit level or even a car speedometer - after all, aren't their senses perfect and absolute?
    "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •