Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[Phelonious Ponk]

It's not a contradiction it It is from the renatch.

Got a link?

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

I'd be interested in that myself.

Tom

I keep reading the original challenge. The prinary speaker was the the mid range and high frequency of the Infinity. They aslo used Rogers Ls3/5a. The Brtish mini-moitor with limited bass response. In his video that is posted somewhere above Bob siad he came for prepared for solid state amps. Sterophile admitted they sat out to "trick" him. He had to scramble to set it up for tube anps. Unless you can give me a quote saying they used another speaker and evaluiated for bass response I'll maintian my original positon.
I'm done.

 

[Gregadd]

Got a link?

Tim

The link is in the quote. It appears to have expired. See Post 601 this thread. That will lead you back to thread where this was discussed. It is tiresome to relocate the authority every time someone brings it up.

As stated above feel free to contact Stereoeditor if you have any doubts.

 

[Gregadd]

Rogers freq.resp.

 

[amirm]

Got a link?

Tim

I have not kept up with the thread. What link is that? The original challenge? If so, here is the article: http://carvermk2.com/Docs/Carver Stereophile Challenge.pdf

 

[Robh3606]

Here's a link


http://www.stereophile.com/content/bob-carver-carving-name-himself-page-3

The 87 challenge is not out on the site yet.

Rob

 

[Gregadd]

Tim will be happy to know that Carver could lower the danping factor of an amp to alter its bass chahracteristic.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim will be happy to know that Carver could lower the danping factor of an amp to alter its bass chahracteristic.

I do love a good sloppy, slow, musical bass.

Tim

 

[phycomp]

I think the subjectivist viewpoint gives plenty of leeway for hi-fi dealers to make profits selling unworthy 'upgrades' eg cables, special anti-resonance feet, mains conditioners et al, so it is ingrained in the whole hi-fi business.

 

[Gregadd]

I do love a good sloppy, slow, musical bass.

Tim

To quote Ronald Reagan, " There you go again,"

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

To quote Ronald Reagan, " There you go again,"

That was a slow pitch right across the plate. Resistance was futile.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Many tests have proven you can hear differences among amplifiers if they are large enough differences. However, within a certain range, the differences tend to be far less than what people expect. For example, a number of SS amps sound virtually identical when operated well within their power bands and with speakers that are not overly taxing loads. Ditto tube amps, but I would not expect the tube and SS amps to sound identical into a speaker. Bob was trying to prove he could match the sound of the big CJ tube amp with a SS amp design.

All IMO, IME, FWIWFM, YMMV, blah blah blah - Don

Don,

IMHO, the concept of "hear differences" as usually considered in WBF - assemble a system, listen to it, and then quickly change to another, is not an high-end activity or even challenge.

You have to assemble a system that shows the best of an amplifier to make a fair comparison between it and another one. If a system sounds lousy or just reasonable, most probably any amplifier will sound similar to the current one. IMHO high-end systems have an high Q factor - they can have a high quality but with a very narrow and sharp peak. I know some people will find this fact unacceptable and not practical, but it is part of the life of an audiophile.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

IMHO high-end systems have an high Q factor - they can have a high quality but with a very narrow and sharp peak.

I don't get this. Can you elaborate?

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

I just ran across this:

I am not an audiophile. Audiophiles love audio and equipment, but rarely music. An audiophile is someone who can't listen for more than a few minutes before stopping to change capacitors or swap cables. Audiophiles spend more on equipment than they spend on music and concerts. They will own dozens of different headphones, cables and amplifiers, and receive their pleasure from fiddling with all this gear. Audiophiles listen to their gear, instead of the music. Audiophiles just as often are listening to recordings of thunderstorms or locomotives, while I, as one professional studio musician shared with me, enjoy great music even if it's coming over a 3" speaker. I know good reproduction, but it's ultimately all about the music, not the hardware. If I let myself get caught up in the hardware, I'd have no time to enjoy music.

 

[treitz3]

I am an audiophile. I love audio and it's equipment, especially the music for that's what ultimately satisfies me in this hobby. I can listen to entire albums without stopping just because I enjoy the ability of having an accurate a musical reproduction whenever I demand it but admittedly, I often ponder what would make the reproduction of certain notes or instruments just a little bit closer to the real thing. At times, I take these thoughts and put them into action as there is nothing wrong with improving anything in your life. Especially a hobby in which brings me so much pleasure. I have spent quite a bit on gear but I can not admit that I listen to the gear and not the music. If this were the case, I wouldn't have returned some of my dream gear that I have had the chance to audition in my rig. The plain fact was that the music did not sound right, so I returned the gear. I often listen to music and occasionally, I'll dabble with a test tone or two and it doesn't matter whether it's on a 3" speaker or my rig. I would prefer to listen to music over my rig versus the 3" speaker but that is aiken to preferring to drive the Ferrari over the Pinto. One just offers a bit more pleasure. I know good reproduction, but it's ultimately all about the music, not the hardware. If I let myself get caught up in people who can't appreciate an audiophile, I'd have no time to enjoy music.

Enjoy the music.

Tom

 

[Gregadd]

Well said Tom.

I once wrote this: I am an audiophile. I love music. I am thrilled that it comes out of a little box in my home.

 

[DonH50]

Don,

IMHO, the concept of "hear differences" as usually considered in WBF - assemble a system, listen to it, and then quickly change to another, is not an high-end activity or even challenge.

You have to assemble a system that shows the best of an amplifier to make a fair comparison between it and another one. If a system sounds lousy or just reasonable, most probably any amplifier will sound similar to the current one. IMHO high-end systems have an high Q factor - they can have a high quality but with a very narrow and sharp peak. I know some people will find this fact unacceptable and not practical, but it is part of the life of an audiophile.

I am not sure I followed you on this one, sorry.

I understand some folk, and some differences, take time to identify and explore. Time was not a factor in my post; take as little or as long as you like.

Assembling a system that shows the best of one amplifier may show the worst in another, but I still think within a large range (as an example say several $1k to $10k conventional dynamic speakers that do not have wide impedance excursions in a moderately-sized room driven at moderate volume, in other words, what a lt of people own) most listeners would be hard-pressed to distinguish from among a group of typical SS amplifiers whether AVR or separates.

I assume by high-Q you are addressing those speakers "on the edge" that have perhaps more difficult requirements and are best suited to a certain breed of amplifier? In that case I think we agree.

p.s. I finally grew out of listening to the gear and now listen to the music. Usually. Actually, I have to listen extra closely tonight as I'll be making it, not just listening (big band gig)!

 

[MylesBAstor]

I just ran across this:

I am not an audiophile. Audiophiles love audio and equipment, but rarely music. An audiophile is someone who can't listen for more than a few minutes before stopping to change capacitors or swap cables. Audiophiles spend more on equipment than they spend on music and concerts. They will own dozens of different headphones, cables and amplifiers, and receive their pleasure from fiddling with all this gear. Audiophiles listen to their gear, instead of the music. Audiophiles just as often are listening to recordings of thunderstorms or locomotives, while I, as one professional studio musician shared with me, enjoy great music even if it's coming over a 3" speaker. I know good reproduction, but it's ultimately all about the music, not the hardware. If I let myself get caught up in the hardware, I'd have no time to enjoy music.

Standard Musician/recording engineer cliche. Heard it a million times.

I still want to know why sound and music are mutually exclusive. No they're trying to blame and pass the buck of their doing a mediocre job onto the audiophile.

Besides the author's condescending and exceedingly arrogant tone (yeah we all know professional musicians) many of these so-called new gen of recording engineers are nothing more than dial jockeys and ProTool fools (see there's the antonym for audio photos).

And who is he to pass judgement on why and what anyone should do with their audio system? It's enough if they are having fun. The idea of what works for me will work for you nauseates me. Oh, it's called the principle of individuality.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Standard Musician/recording engineer cliche. Heard it a million times.

I still want to know why sound and music are mutually exclusive. No they're trying to blame and pass the buck of their doing a mediocre job onto the audiophile.

Besides the author's condescending and exceedingly arrogant tone (yeah we all know professional musicians) many of these so-called new gen of recording engineers are nothing more than dial jockeys and ProTool fools (see there's the antonym for audio photos).

And who is he to pass judgement on why and what anyone should do with their audio system? It's enough if they are having fun. The idea of what works for me will work for you nauseates me. Oh, it's called the principle of individuality.

Sound and music are not mutually exclusive; one can be both a musician and an audiophile (though it does seem to be pretty rare), and most musicians I know are quite obsessed with sound. But I don't think anyone is trying to blame some personal mediocrity on the poor audiophile; where did that even enter the conversation? I think their (the musicians' and engineers') dismissal is condescending enough...or maybe it's just defensive. Maybe they're just trying to understand how it is these people who create no music of their own, who have, relative to themselves, very little experience of live instruments, can claim to hear what they don't hear, to have superior sensibilities regarding an art and craft which they only observe, and through a lens at that. Gotcher arrogance right there.

A little sympathy and understanding would take these musicans far perhaps, but their reaction is also pretty understandable, and their arrogance, if that is what it is, is a reflection, not a defense of some undefined mediocrity. I can tell you this much -- there are Sunday evenings I come home from band practice, log on here, read some of our members here (the few, the loud...) describing their listening experience, or more likely, the deficit in someone else's listening experience, relative to the "real instruments" that I just finished playing and listening to for a few hours. And I haven't a clue what they heck they're talking about. And I know, as sure as I know the sun is setting outside my window, that they don't know either. It's no excuse for arrogance but it's a hell of a good reason for skepticism.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

---Myles, how was your visit at Cape Cod; Ivan's place? :b