Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great.

Posted by thetubeguy1954 (A) on November 8, 2006 at 10:08:01

In Reply to: Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great. posted by tomservo on November 8, 2006 at 08:04:44:

Hi Tom,

I think deep down we both what the exact same thing, i.e. the most faithful or realistic replication of live music that can be obtained from a given recorded medium via our audio components.

Tom I am not a scientist as you well know. I cannot produce studies to back up my beliefs. But what if the deviations that occur in those audio components that measure poorly, yet replicates live music very faithfully, are duplicating something that occurs when the ear/brain combo determines what is and isn't live music? Wouldn't those components then represent a more "accurate" example of what the ear/brain combo hears as live music? So couldn't it at least be possible that those who use these components are in fact hearing a more faithful and true replication of live music? Yet at the same time because a machine doesn't use the same means the ear/brain combo does, to the machine ANY deviation from what it measured in the live music from what it measured in the recording would represent a less faithful replication of the original event. I still prefer trusting the ear as the final arbitrator.

Please understand me. I know some measurements are important and useful. I am NOT anti-science. I just know that SET amps replicate music that sounds more like live music than any other amp technology I've ever heard. Now because I know that's true (at least for me) and I know the ear/brain combo is never fooled into believing live music is recorded or visa versa (again at least for me) I cannot help but come to the conclusion that something MUST be happening, that isn't yet understood by science, when both human perceptions and the ear/brain combo are used as the reference standard in determining whether or not the music is live or not.

I believe in the end we have those who choose listen to audio components as their primary means to determine which replicates music more faithfully and those who look at test equipment results of components as their primary means to determine which replicates music more faithfully. I have no problem with anyone who chooses to use either method. Afterall the only person that needs to be happy is the person buying the audio components.

I think that it's the fanatics on both sides of the Sub vs Obj debate that do more damage than good for any meaningful talks or debates to ever occur. AJinFLA's typical means of response is to name-call, or ridicule the person. His response to my postion that "expectation bias" has to work both for and against the theory is a perfect example of what I mean by fanatic Obj(see link below for his response) This response would make you laugh I swear, if it wasn't so sad in what it says about the one posting it. Equally sad are the fanatic Subs who make outlandish claims. I remember when Enid Lumley claimed if she shined the light of a flashlight on audio components they would immediately sound brighter. That is perfect example of what I mean by fanatic Sub.

It's these two groups who do the real damage. Afterall if we cannot talk amongst ourselves civilly about what's wrong with audio and how it can be improved, how can we expect that we'll ever get anyone to (manufactuers, scientist, audio designers etc) to delve deeper into audio theory? I'm sure when they read Unsoundmind comments --who's about as fanatic an Obj as I've ever met --- about how the Citation 11 preamp, Dynaco 120 power amp, BSR equalizer and AR-9 speakers are as good as anything ever made in audio or when manufactuers produce --what's about as fanatic a Sub devices as I've ever seen-- like the Intelligent Chip, Clever Little Clock and Brilliant Pebbles etc (let me say as much as these devices seem suspect to me I've read that Geoff Kait has a BS in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Virginia so perhaps his explinantions are beyond me) Those who could improve audio see no need to! Why should they improve anything when a fanatic Obj states the Citation 11 preamp, Dynaco 120 power amp, BSR equalizer and AR-9 speakers are as good as anything ever made in audio or a fanatic Sub will buy just about anything and everything made as long as a reasonably scientific sounding explinantion is given for why it works. The Obj are already happy, it CANNOT get any better and the Subs will buy anything, so where's the incentive to improve anything?

Tom Keep Enjoying The Music -- Thetubeguy1954

It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows. - Epictetus

• http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/25455.html   (Open in New Window)

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

The Cable Cooker

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---