Hi Steve. I appreciate your feedback.
Sure, I've made assumptions. And I agree with you, (paraphrasing) a live event is best. But that's kind of my point. When you're at a live event, especially acoustic, you're likely to hear many unamplified sounds. In this context unamplified means the sound didn't first pass through a microphone. Once the sound passes through a mic, there is some degree of loss that has already occurred. You can't make up for what has been lost by playing back a recorded version of it.
To your other point, the fact that certain gear is somehow "revered" relative to other gear is, in my opinion, just part of the human condition where we somehow think that "normality" (in this example what it is that's being revered) is correct. Rather, normality is merely what the majority of the 8 billion of us humans do, think, etc.
Here's an analogy. What does science tell us that normal human body temperature is? Answer, 98.6F. Now, is that *everybody's* temperature *all the time*. Certainly not. Big variables plus/minus perhaps as much as 3 degrees.
"All of audiophilia is a search for the perfect distortion profile."
- Jason Stoddard
Yes, I've been able to find better gear over time, experimentation, etc. But that's merely my subjective opinion. Audio gear usually can be measured objectively. Once objectivity is brought to bear, I find it interesting that (usually, of course there are exceptions) most folks tend to like the sound of gear that measures *worse*, and dislike the sound of gear that measures *better*.
Add to that that once someone convinces themselves that something *is* better, as soon as blind or double blind testing is used, said individual becomes rather less convinced.
And yes, Steve. We can agree that we both like live music.
Hi Hal,
Glad to read your response as it is heartfelt. I would like to address some main issues, again
assumptions, listening to others, and testing methods as factual and/or scientific when they are
not.
The "mic" seems to be of special interest. Whether than means an actual mic or all of the
electronics I cannot tell.
However, my brother and I worked with audio, recording each other on a tape deck years ago.
Nothing special mind you. We would comment on how accurate the reproduction of our voices were.
We were 12 and 14 years old. The point is the "mic" itself has little distortion when it is
fed into accurate electronic components. Oh we may miss some peripheral, spacial information, it
depends upon the type of mic used as well.
Recording quality depends upon the electronics used just as it does with venue, speakers etc.
Recording quality varies wildly. When one sees a "console" in studio, the electronic's parts quality
inside is about the same as a cheap $199.00 stereo receiver. Cheapest junk parts, poor designs.
That is no exaggeration. Different designs do sound closer to accurate than others.
I think the problem you are facing, as are others, is that you have never heard a properly designed
component. That is not your fault as I have yet to find anyone who understands how to design
a basic component. A very few have almost, by accident, come close to being accurate/natural.
There is respect for those I have listed for a reason. If one actually checks, those pieces are more
accurate to the source. Testing is not simply installing in a system, like reviewers do, and coming
to a conclusion.
The nonsense, the unscientific posts in some forums and taken as science boggles the mind. One
must be on guard all the time.
One example that comes to mind are articles that compare and rate capacitors. Oh, they will tell
you the results are not absolute, to cover themselves, but then post "their findings" anyway not
knowing if their results are even close to accurate.
A couple of problems.
1. The capacitor under test is the wrong value. If the value in ufd is too small, the accurate ones will
sound anemic. The poorer, more fuller sounding ones will be given a higher score. The good ones
become extinct.
2. How much does the testing component design itself affect the test results.
Loving distortion, yep, some do. They love to manipulate and create their own music by using junk
designs. Does the music sound like the real thing though? I compare to live instruments.
"Here's an analogy. What does science tell us that normal human body temperature is? Answer, 98.6F.
Now, is that *everybody's* temperature *all the time*. Certainly not. Big variables plus/minus perhaps
as much as 3 degrees."
If people like a different sound, so be it. But I thought you prefer a live event as I do.
"Yes, I've been able to find better gear over time, experimentation, etc. But that's merely my subjective opinion. Audio gear usually can be measured objectively. Once objectivity is brought to bear, I find it interesting that (usually, of course there are exceptions) most folks tend to like the sound of gear that measures *worse*, and dislike the sound of gear that measures *better*."
Specialized listening tests check for differences, not preferences.
The specs given for a component hardly qualify as useful, except in some rare cases.
For instance, +/- 0,1db FR, as mentioned in an earlier post means virtually nothing; in the range of
-54db change. I suppose if masking is involved which can come from any component.
1 part in a million change in tonal balance is -114db to -120db down. HD does not mean
much either if an amp is only putting out a watt (unless a tiny SET amp).
What about objective channel separation not being listed in the specs?
What about other forms of distortion not mentioned in the specs. (See RCA Radiotron
Designers Handbook by 26 engineers for 6 different types, plus one or two of my own.)
Performed the way they are, blind and double blind testing actually skews the results toward no sonic
difference. Sight is taught and pushed as the only confound.
The individual public will perform the test incorrectly every single time with the
same false results. Interestingly, they claim science while teaching against science.
But how is the public to know.
Interestingly, I have found this same group posting fake graphs, going after a major peer reviewed
study. Reminds me of an article published by a criminal defense attorney, Martin DeWulf, titled
"Truth be Told". In it, the author brings out the point that a group gathers at different
forums claiming science while actually teaching against science. Same as what I had experienced.
A question. If there is a group blind or double blind test, and half the group are in a statistically bass
increasing mode while the other half are in a bass decreasing mode, how does the test arrive at
95% confidence of a sonic difference?
cheers
steve