Hi Steve. Welcome to the forum! More importantly, thank you so much for the invitation. That is some gorgeous scenery at that link. I don't golf but love to learn one of these days. I will certainly take you up on the offer.
Baffled about computer power
- Thread starter mauidan
- Start date
- Status
No, it is not. May be you have to read some high-end forums to understand better why, but there are several key points of groupthink that are not compatible with audiophile behavior and debates - mainly when their independence of views and opinions, diversity and many times mutual competition and even fight.
Last edited:
That comment from Dr. Toole is unrelated to the topic at hand. He is saying stereo is a broken system if one's goal is to recreate reality. But that despite being so broken, we draw from our real experiences to make the sound real to us, even though technically it is remote from that. A bell sounds like a bell even on a $1 ear bud headphone. That type of thing. He does not at all mean to justify two people listening to the same amplifier and walking away with two impressions. Indeed, he leaves no room for audible differences between transports, DACs, amps (sans power differences), cables, etc. Even when it comes to speakers, he is liable to convince you that one that costs just a few hundred dollars, augmented with a few subs will produce excellent sound. So if you are looking for an expert witness about anything high-end, you have the wrong guy
.Our experiences must be very different. When I go to the high-end shows, I listen to what people are saying. It is a rare, rare situation that audiophiles speak the same. I see Mark here. Didn't someone just give the opposite feedback to his DAC from his ears? Sure, maybe a lot of people will say Wilson is a good speaker, and such. But as a whole, the high-end is a massively fragmented market because audiophiles don't agree with each other and lack commonality of views. So while you say the system is not perfect, I would say there is no system at all!
The only commonality I see is love of music, and aspiration to find the best within one's budget. I don't see it extend to hardware in any meaningful way. Again, this can be tested. Create a top-10 list of amps and see if you all agree on the ordering. Or transports. DACs, etc. Indeed, I think it would be great to have lists like this on WBF. I love to see threads created on them and someone maintain what is believed to be the top-10 in every bucket.
On people disliking high-end, that is very true. The thought of people spending so much on audio electronics is just bizarre to many people. I have a small boat but I just spent huge amount of money for its electronics ($10,000 and I did the install). The engine that powers the whole boat cost just a bit more than this!
This was an upgrade over the older $5,000 system that was there. I won't even begin to try to justify that investment . I just accept the fact that others may view that as crazy and move on. In audio, objectivists as a group tend to share this disdain for high-end. I don't like that and don't act that way myself. I know that it costs $500 for the fancy case alone on some amp so not going to see me complain why the thing retails for $20K. I also know the margins required to sell them so know another reason why they are priced high. Yet, this type of openness has not made me immune to strong and forceful negative comments in this thread and elsewhere. So this point can't be an important one.
I believe you've read Toole, micro, because you quote him a lot. But you don't 'get' Toole. You interpret his words to support your own beliefs, often to the point of hearing exactly the opposite of what he said.
Tim
Excellent!! We can both have some fun tinkering. If you bike or hike or horsebackride, this is the place.
Email me and we'll plan it.
I used to be modder for almost 10 years, so I have a lot of high-quality surplus parts if you want to do some mods to your gear. Speaker crossovers are one good place to mod.
Steve N.
On people disliking high-end, that is very true. The thought of people spending so much on audio electronics is just bizarre to many people. I have a small boat but I just spent huge amount of money for its electronics ($10,000 and I did the install). The engine that powers the whole boat cost just a bit more than this!
IMO, there are so many different views simply because:
1) not all audiophiles have trained their ears the same
2) not all audiophiles systems are at the same level of refinement
Achieving a new level of refinement does not necessarily mean spending a lot of additional money. Sometimes just swapping out an offending component is enough. Sometimes getting some mods done to a particular component.
IME, these are the most important generic things to attack in refining a digital system and making it more analog-like, in order of importance:
1) Reduce jitter of the digital source
2) Eliminate or minimize the effects of digital filtering
3) Eliminate or minimize the distortion, noise and compression of the active preamp - I eliminate it completely
4) Eliminate or minimize the incidence of ground-loops in the system
5) upgrade the crossover components in your speakers
Some of these things above improve with new power cords or new power supplies or mods to a power subsystem.
Beyond these you can get into more specific things like rippers, playback software and file formats or treatments to your CD's or rewriting them with low-jitter writers etc..
Steve N.
Empirical Audio
Thanks Steve. How about having you write a longer post on what you think goes into producing best sounding digital systems in a separate thread??? You have a short list above. Expanding on them would be great. Oh yes, we put industry people to work when they join.
That comment from Dr. Toole is unrelated to the topic at hand. He is saying stereo is a broken system if one's goal is to recreate reality. But that despite being so broken, we draw from our real experiences to make the sound real to us, even though technically it is remote from that. A bell sounds like a bell even on a $1 ear bud headphone. That type of thing. He does not at all mean to justify two people listening to the same amplifier and walking away with two impressions. Indeed, he leaves no room for audible differences between transports, DACs, amps (sans power differences), cables, etc. Even when it comes to speakers, he is liable to convince you that one that costs just a few hundred dollars, augmented with a few subs will produce excellent sound. So if you are looking for an expert witness about anything high-end, you have the wrong guy
I suggest you read the whole sentence in the original text:
"Attempting to bring a little more spatial “flavor” to the reproduction process, loudspeakers are available in directivities ranging
from conventional front-firing, through bipole (bidirectional in phase), dipole (bidirectional out-of-phase), predominantly-reflecting, to
omnidirectional. These present listeners with very different combinations of direct and reflected sounds, and in most of them the room
is a major determinant. Stereo, therefore, is not really a system at all but, rather, a basis for individual experimentation."
IMHO this particular view is related and adequate to be included in an exchange of opinions about diversity in high-end preferences.
Curious that you seem to be obsessed in your wars and trials and only see warriors and witnesses. I know pretty well the opinions of F. Toole about the high-end and the small differences and I have repeated it several times. I disagree with him in these aspects, as many other people. But I recognize he was a master in his analysis of the principles of sound reproduction.
Tim,
Please read the original texts before making arrogant comments about my interpretations and hearings. Surely I pick examples to illustrate my points - usually quoting full sentences and paragraphs. Anyone knowing how to use Google can localize and read the full texts in a few seconds.
I'm familiar with Toole's work and POV on perceptions and audio, micro. You misinterpret and misunderstand him. If you understood him you would not be using his writing to support your arguments, because it does not. Is that arrogant? I don't know. It's real.
This is a perfect example. Toole said:
"
You used a tiny fraction of that statement to lend his gravitas to this argument:
They are unrelated. You have put an incredible number of words in Toole's mouth. When I say I think you don't get it, I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt. I could just as easily interpret your twisting of his words and meaning as callously manipulative.
Tim
Last edited:
High-end preferences? I have never heard Dr. Toole talk about high-end preferences. Only what people in general prefer. What he is saying is that since there are choices of speaker technologies, as consumers you get to make the dish out of selection of such devices. Nothing at all is said about up stream electronics -- the topic we are talking about.
There is no war. I do however treat these discussions as mini court-room trials. Evidence needs to be put forward to make one's case rather than just declaring the other side wrong. You are doing exactly that: quoting Dr. Toole as your evidence and expert witness. Oddly, you then go on to say you disagree with him on small differences? Isn't that what we are talking about when it comes to electronics?
Would you say Dr. Toole has any room for sighted evaluation of gear? I assume the answer is a resounding no. He has used double blind testing in areas that even objectivists don't: speakers. Using him to back high-end audiophile choices would be like an objectivist quoting Robert Harley to back his argument
. We can look to Dr. Olive who worked under Dr. Toole for his similar views. This is the results of the testing they did with different groups of people: http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/part-2-differences-in-performances-of.html
How could anyone seeing such a result then back audiophiles and their hearing abilities? How can magazine reviewers garner such low scores if they are the leaders of audiophiles??? And assume that Dr. Toole would have a view that is favorable to such people's ability to assess audio fidelity??
Honestly, I know the arguments from both sides, more intimately than they know it
. And this line of reasoning is just going to dig the hole deeper.Thanks Steve. How about having you write a longer post on what you think goes into producing best sounding digital systems in a separate thread??? You have a short list above. Expanding on them would be great. Oh yes, we put industry people to work when they join.
I'll think about it. The only reason that I'm posting here is I feel too lazy to do the work I need to do
Steve N.
High-end preferences? I have never heard Dr. Toole talk about high-end preferences. Only what people in general prefer. What he is saying is that since there are choices of speaker technologies, as consumers you get to make the dish out of selection of such devices. Nothing at all is said about up stream electronics -- the topic we are talking about.
There is no war. I do however treat these discussions as mini court-room trials. Evidence needs to be put forward to make one's case rather than just declaring the other side wrong. You are doing exactly that: quoting Dr. Toole as your evidence and expert witness. Oddly, you then go on to say you disagree with him on small differences? Isn't that what we are talking about when it comes to electronics?
Would you say Dr. Toole has any room for sighted evaluation of gear? I assume the answer is a resounding no. He has used double blind testing in areas that even objectivists don't: speakers. Using him to back high-end audiophile choices would be like an objectivist quoting Robert Harley to back his argument
We can look to Dr. Olive who worked under Dr. Toole for his similar views. This is the results of the testing they did with different groups of people: http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/part-2-differences-in-performances-of.html
How could anyone seeing such a result then back audiophiles and their hearing abilities? How can magazine reviewers garner such low scores if they are the leaders of audiophiles??? And assume that Dr. Toole would have a view that is favorable to such people's ability to assess audio fidelity??
Honestly, I know the arguments from both sides, more intimately than they know it
I believe the graph is pretty accurate, and I believe the "trained" listeners are actually a subset of audiophiles. Based on feedbacks I know some of my customers qualify. I don't think you can lump audiophile equipment owners into one group. However, the salespeople that run salons you can, based on my experience. In 40 years or more of this hobby, I have yet to hear a salon system that sounds decent. I also am a bit reluctant to send any equipment to reviewers until I know their system quality and how much time they have spent tweaking it and applying acoustic treatments etc.. Very few reviewers systems are up to snuff IME. All it takes is a poor preamp and everything they try as a source will sound homogenized. Bad for business
Steve N.
I believe the graph is pretty accurate, and I believe the "trained" listeners are actually a subset of audiophiles. Based on feedbacks I know some of my customers qualify. I don't think you can lump audiophile equipment owners into one group. However, the salespeople that run salons you can, based on my experience. In 40 years or more of this hobby, I have yet to hear a salon system that sounds decent. I also am a bit reluctant to send any equipment to reviewers until I know their system quality and how much time they have spent tweaking it and applying acoustic treatments etc.. Very few reviewers systems are up to snuff IME. All it takes is a poor preamp and everything they try as a source will sound homogenized. Bad for business
Steve N.
Steve I have to say you convinced me that an active preamp
is generally the weakest link in most systems.
After having a Music First passive line stage in the system, and
also driving the Carver amp direct with my DAC using the amp's volume pot,
I can no longer accept the sound of an active pre.
Yes, indeed & yet I don't see the objectivists jumping on this with measurements to "prove" that it can't possibly affect the sound!
Guys, please stop discussing each other. Let's focus on technical points. If there are no more, then we are done with the thread.
Good for you. I have an old customer that beat on me for years about making the signal paths as simple as possible. I finally took his advice and have never looked back.
The only added component that seems to be worthwhile is a transformer buffer stage or TVC.
Steve N.
Steve,
While gross generalisations are just that, gross, my experience is still that transformers tend to be non-linear and have limited high frequency response.
While gross generalisations are just that, gross, my experience is still that transformers tend to be non-linear and have limited high frequency response.
You have evidently not tried the latest technology in transformers. It has come a long way, just as capacitors have. Eliminating a ground-loop and/or making a signal truly balanced is a net win compared to any effects of adding in the transformer. All customers of mine that have tried this absolutely love it.
Steve N.
- Status
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |