I've been thinking quite a bit lately about audio components. Specifically how can it be possible that one audio component can measure poorly, yet sound more realistic when it replicates music, than another audio component that measure better yet, sounds less realistic when it required to replicate music? I don't think that anyone who accepts this idea is automatically an anti-science, voodooist, knot-tying, fluoride sniffing type who's constantly trying to twist science to fit their beliefs. Instead I believe these people, like myself, know that scientists haven't as of yet fiqured out what things to measure that correlate how the human ear/brain combo decides what is and isn't realistic sounding. I'm postive that in the end when scientists discover what to measure when the human ear/brain combo and NOT a machine is used to determine what is and isn't realistic sounding, when that day arrives, science will verify that those who use their ears as the final arbitrator have the more "accurate" audio components. You of course are free to believe as you will. These are MY beliefs, I don't require or ask that anyone else agree with them. I'm postive scientists will one day prove me correct!When it comes to tubes and SET amps I personally believe they are capable of and usually give the most realistic replication of live music I've ever heard. Others here would say the SET amps are just adding euphonic colorations to the music. Personally I don't care which side or POV you hold. In my house I only have to please myself and my ears. So far IMHO SETs do that better than any other amplifier technology I've ever heard. But because of the: "it sounds more realistic, not it doesn't' it's euphonic colored" back and forth arguement that never goes anywhere but endless repitions of it sounds more realistic, not it's euphonic colored. I looked around for another example of this type of measure poorly yet replicate live music more realistically audio component and found it! Or at least I believe I have in the Zanden, 47lab, Audio Note use Kusunoki-style DACs. These DACs have no oversampling, no upsampling, no digital filter, thus you'd expect poor measurements. However these companies which use the Kusunoki-style DACs ---(Kusunoki published the original research paper on why there are sonic benefits when DAC's are made without the then popular brickwall filter altogether)--- believe that the measurable distortion from their approach isn't audible but that the pre/post ringning from the other approach very much is. So because they believe thier approach produces a more "accurate" DAC, when replicating live music is the standard, they manufactuer a DAC that will measure more poorly that the more traditional type of DACs will.
Seems we have yet another example of an audio component that doesn't measure well, yet replicates music more realistically than other components of it's type (but not same technology) does! Once again, in the end, we discover that when the human ear/brain combo and not a machine is used to determine what does and doesn't sound realistic, many music lovers discover the component that measures poorly, does indeed replicate live music more realistically! Whatever you believe, whatever your POV on this issue is, doesn't really matter to me. I was simply looking for an audio component that would measure poorly, yet while replicating music, would sound more realistic. Apparently I've now found such a component in the Kusunoki-style DACs.
Thetubeguy1954
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great. - thetubeguy1954 09:17:55 11/07/06 (95)
- The 47 Labs DAC and transport don't measure particularly badly. - Pat D 12:52:08 11/14/06 (43)
- Re: The 47 Labs DAC and transport don't measure particularly badly. - thetubeguy1954 11:27:54 11/15/06 (42)
- Re: The 47 Labs DAC and transport don't measure particularly badly. - Pat D 20:12:08 11/15/06 (41)
- Re: The 47 Labs DAC and transport don't measure particularly badly. - thetubeguy1954 09:04:14 11/16/06 (40)
- Yes, I have heard 47 Labs and you haven't. - Pat D 14:36:53 11/16/06 (39)
- Re: Yes, I have heard 47 Labs and you haven't. - thetubeguy1954 06:55:42 11/17/06 (33)
- Re: Yes, I have heard 47 Labs and you haven't. - Pat D 12:28:56 11/17/06 (32)
- Re: Yes, I have heard 47 Labs and you haven't. - thetubeguy1954 13:41:43 11/17/06 (31)
- Re: Yes, I have heard 47 Labs and you haven't. - Pat D 15:32:36 11/17/06 (30)
- Re: Yes, I have heard 47 Labs and you haven't. - thetubeguy1954 09:19:20 11/20/06 (29)
- Re: Yes, I have heard 47 Labs and you haven't. - Pat D 09:32:10 11/21/06 (28)
- OK Pat, But I Did Compare the Aliantes vs The Paradigm. - thetubeguy1954 11:36:55 11/21/06 (27)
- Re: OK Pat, But I Did Compare the Aliantes vs The Paradigm. - Pat D 14:48:57 11/21/06 (26)
- Re: OK Pat, But I Did Compare the Aliantes vs The Paradigm. - thetubeguy1954 08:16:42 11/22/06 (25)
- You keep on making up opinions and motives for me. I thought you were giving that up . . . - Pat D 21:29:04 11/22/06 (24)
- That's YOUR Interpretation, It's Not What I Said or Meant. - thetubeguy1954 13:20:10 11/27/06 (23)
- Nope! At this point I can read you like a book. (nt) - Pat D 15:38:17 11/27/06 (22)
- Pat You Believe You Can Read Me Just Like The Book Called War & Peace, After You've Read The Comic Book Version. - thetubeguy1954 09:39:21 11/29/06 (21)
- You haven't even heard the Sonus Faber Cremon Auditor - Pat D 10:56:13 11/29/06 (20)
- Nor Have I Ever Claimed To! - thetubeguy1954 13:20:07 11/29/06 (19)
- No, but you compare the SF Cremona Auditor to other speakers! - Pat D 15:00:49 11/29/06 (18)
- And I've Told You How & Why I did That Many Times Now... - thetubeguy1954 09:48:37 11/30/06 (17)
- Tom tries to justify comparing the sound of speakers he has never heard! - Pat D 00:50:02 12/01/06 (16)
- Pat tries to justify his disapproval of my opinion of the SF Cremona Auditor ! - thetubeguy1954 06:31:28 12/01/06 (15)
- Would you review a theatre performance you never attended? - Pat D 08:22:36 12/01/06 (14)
- Let It Go Pat, Let It Go - thetubeguy1954 13:16:36 12/01/06 (13)
- Hey, it's OK as long as Tom is "comfortable!" - Pat D 17:55:13 12/01/06 (12)
- You're Finally Getting It Pat - thetubeguy1954 18:16:54 12/03/06 (11)
- Irony is lost on you, I think. (nt) - Pat D 19:36:34 12/03/06 (10)
- It's Not Lost, I Just Don't Accept Your Version Of It - thetubeguy1954 12:53:42 12/04/06 (9)
- My concern is that you don't discuss logically. - Pat D 14:45:12 12/04/06 (8)
- Re: My concern is that you don't discuss logically. - thetubeguy1954 08:44:30 12/05/06 (7)
- Re: My concern is that you don't discuss logically. - Pat D 09:04:20 12/05/06 (6)
- Pat, Pat, Pat... - thetubeguy1954 06:35:18 12/06/06 (5)
- Cheap debating tricks? - Pat D 07:56:43 12/06/06 (4)
- Cheap debating tricks, are being used by you Pat! I Give Up... - thetubeguy1954 14:19:09 12/06/06 (3)
- Put up or shut up!. - Pat D 15:53:56 12/06/06 (2)
- Just Learn To Read Pat - thetubeguy1954 07:14:00 12/07/06 (1)
- No, in context, your remarks are to invalidly argue against my audio philosophy by bashing my system and choices! - Pat D 08:05:21 12/08/06 (0)
- Re: Yes, I have heard 47 Labs and you haven't. - morricab 00:50:30 11/17/06 (4)
- Re: Yes, I have heard 47 Labs and you haven't. - Pat D 07:13:18 11/17/06 (3)
- Restricted LF??? - kerr 16:59:09 11/17/06 (2)
- I beg your pardon. - Pat D 17:33:51 11/17/06 (1)
- No need - my mistake - kerr 06:08:50 11/18/06 (0)
- I don't get it Tom? - Don T 13:45:35 11/11/06 (10)
- I'll Attempt To Explain - thetubeguy1954 11:09:38 11/13/06 (9)
- Look..... - Don T 19:07:23 11/13/06 (8)
- This is stated perfectly - kerr 09:34:07 11/14/06 (1)
- I Still Disagree... - thetubeguy1954 13:33:14 11/14/06 (0)
- OK, But... - thetubeguy1954 08:55:07 11/14/06 (5)
- Re: OK, But... - Don T 14:48:13 11/14/06 (4)
- I'll Try Once Again - thetubeguy1954 07:39:20 11/15/06 (3)
- Re: I'll Try Once Again - Don T 17:59:46 11/15/06 (2)
- Bye-Bye Don - thetubeguy1954 10:44:14 11/16/06 (1)
- Tom, Tom, Tom....... - Don T 07:56:23 11/17/06 (0)
- Re: "These are MY beliefs". Good for you. nt - jensw 00:39:36 11/08/06 (0)
- Re: we don't have the same hearing priorities - mls-stl 15:03:51 11/07/06 (9)
- The "goal" is not to suit your sonic taste, .. - cheap-Jack 08:43:23 11/08/06 (7)
- Re: replicating live is still a set of compromises - mls-stl 13:03:58 11/08/06 (5)
- Re: replicating live is still a set of compromises - thetubeguy1954 13:45:59 11/08/06 (0)
- I said "closest" to live music, not "replicating" it. - cheap-Jack 13:41:05 11/08/06 (3)
- Re: still missing the point - mls-stl 14:46:49 11/08/06 (1)
- Who really misses the point? - cheap-Jack 08:05:30 11/09/06 (0)
- Amen To That! (NT) - thetubeguy1954 14:20:22 11/08/06 (0)
- Re: The "goal" is not to suit your sonic taste, .. - thetubeguy1954 10:38:57 11/08/06 (0)
- Great Response! - thetubeguy1954 06:47:42 11/08/06 (0)
- There have been papers/ studies that address details about how humans interpret sounds.... - Ugly 13:56:50 11/07/06 (0)
- Believe it or not, SET can work wonders. (long) - cheap-Jack 12:22:28 11/07/06 (0)
- Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great. - tomservo 10:49:27 11/07/06 (20)
- Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great. - andy19191 13:47:52 11/07/06 (4)
- Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great. - tomservo 07:28:32 11/08/06 (3)
- Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great. - andy19191 14:30:44 11/08/06 (1)
- Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great. - tomservo 14:23:00 11/09/06 (0)
- The Nyquist criterion was developed for telephony. 'Nuff said. nt - clarkjohnsen 09:30:48 11/08/06 (0)
- Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great. - thetubeguy1954 13:32:47 11/07/06 (12)
- Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great. - tomservo 08:04:44 11/08/06 (11)
- Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great. - thetubeguy1954 10:08:01 11/08/06 (10)
- Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great. - tomservo 12:32:51 11/08/06 (9)
- Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great. - thetubeguy1954 09:20:27 11/09/06 (2)
- Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great. - tomservo 19:36:55 11/09/06 (1)
- Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great. - thetubeguy1954 10:25:48 11/10/06 (0)
- Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great. - andy19191 14:54:35 11/08/06 (5)
- Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great. - tomservo 16:05:39 11/08/06 (4)
- Indeed - E-Stat 17:31:47 11/08/06 (3)
- Re: Indeed - kerr 06:29:09 11/09/06 (2)
- They were the only guys who cared about THD (nt) - E-Stat 09:21:14 11/09/06 (1)
- How much could they hear - 0.000005%? LMAO! (nt) - kerr 09:37:36 11/09/06 (0)
- Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great. - kerr 12:16:06 11/07/06 (1)
- While I cannot confirm the accuracy of this statement - E-Stat 13:36:20 11/07/06 (0)
- You're fast! - kerr 09:47:48 11/07/06 (4)
- Re: You're fast! - thetubeguy1954 14:09:36 11/07/06 (3)
- Re: You're fast! - kerr 09:20:32 11/08/06 (2)
- Re: You're fast! - thetubeguy1954 12:12:53 11/08/06 (1)
- Re: You're fast! - AJinFLA 13:55:23 12/10/06 (0)
- pretty confused argument IMO - tunenut 09:36:19 11/07/06 (0)