Any Wilco fans out there?

Tim: I love your signature "In high-end audio, you can't even fight an opinion with the facts" It can be re-stated as "don't confuse me with the facts"

This forum is the only place in the Universe where the irrefutable laws of physics have been been temporarily suspended.

This forum is the only place in the Universe where the irrefutable laws of physics have been been temporarily suspended

Click to expand...

You don't have to be quite so dogmatic as I can point you in the direction of many others

BTW Tim, I have all of Wilco's albums

audioguy said:

Tim: I love your signature "In high-end audio, you can't even fight an opinion with the facts" It can be re-stated as "don't confuse me with the facts"

This forum is the only place in the Universe where the irrefutable laws of physics have been been temporarily suspended.

Click to expand...

In high-end audio, there are more opinions than facts because we don't have enough real facts to make intelligent decisions based on facts alone. Some people's "facts" are just conjecture. You actually have to listen in order to fill in the big blanks that facts don't cover when it comes to determining how something sounds. Saying it isn't so doesn't make it true.

And another thing is that some people confuse specifcations with measurements because there are more specification sheets than there are measurements that are made public. A specification sheet is nothing more than an unverified list of design goals until proven otherwise. People assume the specifications listed are based on actual measurements, but it really is an assumption that has no factual basis for those that like facts.

audioguy said:

Tim: I love your signature "In high-end audio, you can't even fight an opinion with the facts" It can be re-stated as "don't confuse me with the facts"

This forum is the only place in the Universe where the irrefutable laws of physics have been been temporarily suspended.

Click to expand...

Not really. The laws of physics are never suspended. But our understanding and application of them leave a lot to be desired. All to often we confuse our opinions with fact. We are for the most part amateurs. The experts tell us something is perfect. Our ears disgree. Trial and error often yield better results. We struggle with our limited knowledge. We wonder why with all our effort our sytems fall short of our goal.

I hope that's not to OTC.

Steve Williams said:

You don't have to be quite so dogmatic as I can point you in the direction of many others

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Many other "high end" audio forums have the same ability to create their own laws !!

Phelonious Ponk said:

I'm glad to see you're enjoying your new platform, Mark, and it's a good one, to a point. But the thing is, we really don't need a full set of comprehensive measurements on every component in the audiophile world to understand some very basic things like....components/media/technologies with a markedly higher SNR can't really have better dynamic range than the components/media/technologies with markedly lower SNR.

Click to expand...

Tim-Your now switching this to an analog vs. digital debate and my argument about measurements applies equally to both and nothing I said in this thread came remotely close to talking about analog being superior to digital or vice-versa.

Phelonious Ponk said:

The difference may or may not be audible and yes, we should use our ears, but claiming the noisier one is better is nonsense.

Click to expand...

Again, I didn’t make the above statement in this thread. However, having the lowest noise possible is always an admirable design goal. I wouldn’t take the giant leap of faith (and no, it’s not a fact) that just because a piece of gear has lower noise doesn’t necessarily make it the better sounding component. It just simply means it has lower noise and noise is just one of many parameters that shape how something sounds, not the only parameter. I would gladly take every professionally made 15 ips 2 track over its digital cousin in whatever digital format it was recorded in because very slight tape hiss and all, I think they sound better. And ironically, I would also take the tape over the LP version because the tape will be lower in noise than the LP. See, I do like low noise, but the noise from a 15 ips 2 track tape is very low and the sonic benefits from tape outweigh less noise from digital (for my ears) assuming the digital music wasn’t sourced from an analog tape to begin with because the noise will still be there.

Phelonious Ponk said:

And we can't really say that components/media/technologies with higher levels of distortion are more "natural" than components/media/technologies with much lower levels of distortion, without totally re-defining "natural" to suit our purposes.

Click to expand...

Tim-Define higher levels of distortion please. How much higher does distortion have to be before you can even hear it? Are we talking about single-ended triode amp sort of distortion vs. ultra-pure SS distortion? I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that modern day tube and transistor gear with the exception of single-ended tube amps both have distortion so low in any of the parameters that are measured (when they really are measured) that the distortion won’t be heard.

Phelonious Ponk said:

Use your ears. Prefer the harmonic swell; but it ain't more "natural" in a system whose entire reality is the signal from the recording. And of course components/media/technologies with poorer channel separation can't really have better stereo imaging than components/media/technologies with better channel separation (though they might have a bigger "soundstage," because the definition of that term is variable anyway).

Click to expand...

Is there a measurement for “harmonic swell?” I don’t think there is. There is a measurement for harmonic distortion though. So if someone has a piece of gear that measures harmonic distortion low enough that it’s not audible and yet their sound isn’t thin sounding like some other gear that looks great on a test bench, who’s to say that’s wrong? Channel separation is another boogie man. At what point on the measurement scale is channel separation good enough and anything over that value become meaningless? In my entire adult life, I have never once listened to a single component and said to myself, “Gee, I wish I had more channel separation.”

Phelonious Ponk said:

Your new argument is an effective one for countering the claim that if it can be heard, it can be measured. You're right; that doesn't really matter much if it hasn't been measured. But it really isn't a sufficient position from which to defend the substitution for reality of the highly imaginative claims that are the daily diet of the high-end audiophile fringe. All of the components haven't been measured, of course. But the media and technologies have been. And if someone comes along and says his SET amp has better bass and dynamic range than your new Krell, we really don't need comprehensive measurements of all the components in both of the systems to understand that he's whistling in the dark, now do we?

Click to expand...

Tim-you last example is an extreme example that fell far outside of the window of the points I was trying to make. I would rather discuss different components whose measurements are beyond reproach and discuss why they sound different from each other.

Not sure if I'll be a fan of Wilco. I have their Wilco (the album) LP still sealed. Come to think of it I have a lot of stuff still sealed....oops a bit OT there.

Phelonious Ponk said:

Though I've had a copy of "AM" for years, it's more the Alt Country Rock of the band Wilco sprung from, Uncle Tupelo, than the odd, almost avant-garde band they've evolved into. I've just discovered that band in the last couple of years. Listening to their latest The Whole Love right now. What an interesting band.

Tim

Click to expand...

now that you discoverd wilco and jeff tweedy in particular, his collaborations are worth a listen too which include the on again off again Golden Smog with co-collaborators Gary Louris of The Jayhawks and Dan Murphy of Soul Asylum. Id start with the album "Weird Tales"

My favorite wilco albums: being there and summerteeth

Phelonious Ponk said:

Really, I'd be happy to never again say that vinyl cannot have higher SNR and better dynamic range, that those two things are in direct conflict with each other. I'd be pleased to just say I prefer what I hear in really good digital/SS, they prefer what they hear in really good analog/tubes, isn't it great that everybody has found what they like? I've tried.

Click to expand...

I don’t know any diehard vinyl lover that has ever said that vinyl has a higher SNR than digital does. However, the argument about how much better the dynamic range of CD is only holds true for its theoretical ability. The reality is most of today’s music is heavily compressed and we aren’t using a fraction of the dynamic range capability of the digital technology. So it might be fun to stand on a soap box and proclaim the dynamic range of digital is far superior to analog, but the reality of the compressed music being recorded today has to be taken into account and temper the chest beating. I don’t know anyone who owns a top notch vinyl rig and/or tape rig who also owns a top notch digital rig who thinks that digital is smoking the dynamic range of analog. Actually, I think the reverse is true. You have to be able to separate capability from reality. We aren’t coming close to exercising the full dynamic range of digital in today’s recordings and the dynamic range of analog is fully capable of exceeding what is being laid down today.

...we still have preference strutting around declaring its superiority

Click to expand...

The fact that it is inaccurate notwithstanding why don't you use your super moderator status to make it a STICKY. That way you want have to stick it in every thread as your fall back position on every issue.

John72953 said:

Not sure if I'll be a fan of Wilco. I have their Wilco (the album) LP still sealed. Come to think of it I have a lot of stuff still sealed....oops a bit OT there.

Click to expand...

Now that's funny John

Maybe I'll just make a sticky I keep adding to every time someone makes a statement like it, so when one of you goes into denial I can just point. Are you seriously saying that the analog crowd here, and all over the net doesn't present it as superior to digital? Are you reading the forum? Let me see how far I have to go....

Click to expand...

That is probably a good idea to make both sides a Sticky. It is different to argue that vinyl or digital is superior as an absolute, rather than as a preference. The latter leaves nothing to debate.

It goes without saying you can indulge your preference. Who else would you try to please?

Just what are going into denial about?

Phelonious Ponk said:

Denial that there is a consistent positioning of analog as superior, not a preference. It not only happens, it's a consistent, predictable pattern. But I don't actually think a sticky is a particularly good idea. The same members would end up there over and over again, and it would end up being a personal criticism, even if it didn't start out that way.

Tim

Click to expand...

Yes many have taken the position that analog at its best is better than digital at its best. They seemingly miss few opportunities to point that out. It is exactly my point. That is stated as an absolute. Your continued characterization of it as a mere preference is dismissive and an incorrect statement of the position.

Saying I like or prefer analog over digital is a statement of preference. So if Myles says I like analog tape best, that is a matter of preference. If he says analog tape is best, that is an absolute to be argued against, if you disagree. Or even to require additional information if you are unpersuaded.