Why Do People Come To Computer Audiophile To Display Their Contempt For Audiophiles?

[AJ Soundfield]

4 hours ago, semente said:

From over a decade participating in web forums I don't doubt that "many untrained listeners find difficult to describe" frequency response; that probably also explains the large amount of "unflat" response speakers which are popular with audiophiles.

 

But "difficult to describe" also might explain why some people can't relate spatial or tonal problems with frequency response, or pinpoint what is wrong with their system/gear (making upgrades difficult and erratic).

Most people only report tonal differences in the top or bottom of the spectrum when changing gear (or even cables) because these are obvious.

Frequency response aberrations are like colour inaccuracies with TVs or displays; if audiophiles don't worry about this then in my view they have the wrong priorities

Here is the answer: https://www.britannica.com/topic/projection-psychology

The typical audiophile evidence averse retort to why they are deaf to gross tonal coloration, is "Because "most" people are". 

You can't make this stuff up 

[semente]

45 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

And perhaps the visitors to Procrustes’ inn all ought to learn how to fit into the one bed?

 

Toole and Olive take a sonic characteristic to which most people are relatively insensitive, frequency response over the entirety of the audible spectrum; they as engineers feel people ought to be sensitive to it; and so they train people to be more sensitive to it.  In the process they also are training the same listeners *not* to prioritize characteristics to which people are immediately sensitive, such as phase linearity, with the role it plays in the fundamental auditory function of locating sounds.  Having changed the way people listen from normal, they then designate the result an improvement.  And some folks are even of the opinion *everyone* ought to learn to listen abnormally, since this would make them smarter.  

 

I would say that the bold bits are a tad far fetched.

 

Currently there is only a handful of "conventional" (cones and domes) hi-fi loudspeaker manufacturers producing phase linear speakers.

The rest don't seem to find that the drawbacks occurring from using first-order crossovers outweigh the benefits.

 

45 minutes ago, Jud said:

I am thinking if engineers were able to make designs that were more sophisticated than our level of knowledge and technology currently allows, they would be able to design speakers that reproduce the key characteristics of reality as people actually hear it, rather than taking what we currently know and are able to build and training people to think of it as accurate.

 

I agree with this bit: the best loudspeaker should produce a flat frequency response on-axis and a smooth one off-axis (controlled directivity) and be time/phase aligned and linear at both high and low SPLs but, to my knowledge, it just can't be done with the present technology.

And these are the ones we have to live with.

[mmerrill99]

59 minutes ago, Jud said:

Having changed the way people listen from normal, they then designate the result an improvement.

I'm pretty sure they also did this test with only one speaker & not two channel stereo?

[semente]

22 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

I'm pretty sure they also did this test with only one speaker & not two channel stereo?

 

It looks like that from most photos available online:

 

 

And this video:

 

 

 

 

But I think it makes sense: to assess sound quality you need to focus on sound reproduction, not on spatial reproduction.

[4est]

17 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Here is the answer: https://www.britannica.com/topic/projection-psychology

The typical audiophile evidence averse retort to why they are deaf to gross tonal coloration, is "Because "most" people are". 

You can't make this stuff up 

 

If we are to get back to the original post:

 

Why Do People Come To Computer Audiophile To Display Their Contempt For Audiophiles?

 

Speaking of projection, it really makes me wonder why you are here. Despite your denial to Chris(CA), your posts generally drip with attitude. I cannot see how this could be doing your business any favors, unless your business model is that of alienating your prospective clients. I've seen you knock other speakers (ESLs and some sort of stand mounted things),  suggest that amps are interchangeable and a cheap DAC is all that is required to show off your speakers. All of that is from some dude that simply assembles other peoples stuff into boxen using planar magnetics as the primary transducer- which is pretty straight forward shit as I understand it. That is why they are used!

 

Seriously. If you designed or engineered anything of note, it might be different and viewed as colorful (thinking of the Bull Durham scene about the flip flops). As it stands from where I sit, you are just another angry guy on the internet spouting off.

[AJ Soundfield]

14 minutes ago, 4est said:

Speaking of projection

 

you are just another angry guy on the internet spouting off.

Perfect 

[4est]

10 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Perfect 

 

Guilty perhaps, but it does not belie my point. If you are this wealth of knowledge, how about some in lieu of all the negativity?

[AJ Soundfield]

2 minutes ago, 4est said:

 

Guilty perhaps, but it does not belie my point. If you are this wealth of knowledge, how about some in lieu of all the negativity?

I make no claim of knowledge wealth, but if you're asking something specific, please do. This loaded fallacy thread has meandered quite a bit.

How to cobble speakers together, or...??

[Jud]

26 minutes ago, 4est said:

I cannot see how this could be doing your business any favors

 

Lavry, Benchmark, JRiver, Harman, and to an extent Schiit (regarding SDM and DSD) make use of marketing styles that share some aspects of this.  We see it not just in audio, but everywhere: “I will strip away the fluff and misdirection and show you things as they really are.”  

 

I’m reasonably sure these folks, including AJ and Harman, believe this is absolutely what they are doing, and I will also say unless there *was* fluff and misdirection people would not be so receptive to this message.

[christopher3393]

1 hour ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Here is the answer: https://www.britannica.com/topic/projection-psychology

The typical audiophile evidence averse retort to why they are deaf to gross tonal coloration, is "Because "most" people are". 

You can't make this stuff up 

 

I do wonder about how you see the big picture in audiophilia and how this has led to what sure looks like a strategy. I don't want to caricature your contributions here, or to get personal in some hurtful way. But it appears to me that you engage in almost incessant polemic against audiophiles that is as much rhetorical/ political as anything else. It seems like a campaign. Your cause seems to be to thoroughly discredit audiophiles. Now I suppose you might say they discredit themselves, but if so, where is the need to point this out ad nauseam? I don't get it.

[4est]

5 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Lavry, Benchmark, JRiver, Harman, and to an extent Schiit (regarding SDM and DSD) make use of marketing styles that share some aspects of this.  We see it not just in audio, but everywhere: “I will strip away the fluff and misdirection and show you things as they really are.”  

 

I’m reasonably sure these folks, including AJ and Harman, believe this is absolutely what they are doing, and I will also say unless there *was* fluff and misdirection people would not be so receptive to this message.

 

I guess I just don't understand the message then or it gets lost in translation. I am weary of hearing what someone "is not" as prescribed to others. It's old.

[AJ Soundfield]

41 minutes ago, semente said:

 

It looks like that from most photos available online:

 

There are other pictures with the stereo shuffler, so they can do both (and MCH too).

The fact is that they found the speakers that "won" in mono correlated well to winning in stereo, so mono was more efficient. I thought it was complete BS..until I tested it myself 

[AJ Soundfield]

5 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

I do wonder about how you see the big picture in audiophilia

No need to wonder: https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/index.html

[jabbr]

4 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

Dennis answered all your questions to me in a better and more detailed way than I ever could.

But I will make one small addition.  You are a smart guy and I know you understand that simply looking at the design and measurements of the First Watt line you can deduce a simple fact.

This line of amps from Nelson are simply designed to be very system reactive, this at a time in history when designing to be system agnostic should be easy-peasy.

As I said before, the fact that he has made these de$ign choices I'll leave to others to debate.

Do you agree with what @esldude wrote?

 

Its easy to sit on the sidelines and take potshots but your assertion that amplifiers from 30 years ago were entirely transparent is not true, which specific amplifier are you speaking of, perhaps one of Nelson Pass' earlier designs?

 

By "de$ign choices" you are throwing out a dogwhistle implying that his motivations are financial.  Why shouldn't they be?, but I doubt they are purely financial in fact the reason that I am an admitted and enthusiastic fanboi is because of his generosity to the DIY community ... http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/pass-labs/281520-official-m2-schematic.html ... wow ... and http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/pass-labs/276711-sony-vfet-amplifier-part-2-a.html ... and it goes on and on and on. Can you name another successful designer who is more generous?

 

In any case FirstWatt is small volume, handmade and is not intended to be Pass Labs where the more "system agnostic" amplifiers are made and sold. I am using this as an example for the question of whether measurements can predict sound ... specifically how 2 amplifiers compare ... I know its hard for you to have a discussion without throwing out criticisms... but accusing Mr. Pass of being purely financially motivated is gross given his longstanding and well documented contributions to education.

 

 

[jabbr]

9 hours ago, esldude said:

Nelson Pass tells us how his M2 is not transparent in the manual:

 

 

9 hours ago, esldude said:

I think you will find the M2 a very pleasant amplifier to listen to. It is relaxed and

lively with a slight softness to both the bottom and top frequencies. I hope that

you will find as I do that it disappears and leaves the music for you to enjoy. I also

hope that it will make you go back through your entire record collection and make

you listen to it all over again.

 

"disappears and leaves the music for you to enjoy" sounds transparent to me

 

Every electronic component: resistors, capacitors, transformers, transistors have "electronic signatures" i.e. measureable non-linearities. Thus each component has a "sound". In his description of the M2 the "sound" is ascribed to the transformer but many amps have transformers so isn't this generally useful info? The goal of ultimate transparency involves tradeoffs. Yes, these tradeoffs can be described as "not transparent" to a degree. So which "non transparencies" are important? What are the best tradeoffs?

 

The FirstWatt line is designed to be low power (as opposed to the main Pass Labs offerings). Thats why I am comparing two of these similar designs. You have suggested that the M2 is better than the J2 because it has more power, but there is also the issue of the transformer and its characteristics, so perhaps the J2 has advantages in other regards. These are competing factors. This makes an absolute judgement of relative transparency difficult.

 

What I am suggesting is that measurements can help but not (alone) answer that question ... and yes, each amplifier in existence has its own sonic signature determined by the non-linearities in its components.

[semente]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

 

"disappears and leaves the music for you to enjoy" sounds transparent to me

 

Every electronic component: resistors, capacitors, transformers, transistors have "electronic signatures" i.e. measureable non-linearities. Thus each component has a "sound". In his description of the M2 the "sound" is ascribed to the transformer but many amps have transformers so isn't this generally useful info? The goal of ultimate transparency involves tradeoffs. Yes, these tradeoffs can be described as "not transparent" to a degree. So which "non transparencies" are important? What are the best tradeoffs?

 

The FirstWatt line is designed to be low power (as opposed to the main Pass Labs offerings). Thats why I am comparing two of these similar designs. You have suggested that the M2 is better than the J2 because it has more power, but there is also the issue of the transformer and its characteristics, so perhaps the J2 has advantages in other regards. These are competing factors. This makes an absolute judgement of relative transparency difficult.

 

What I am suggesting is that measurements can help but not (alone) answer that question ... and yes, each amplifier in existence has its own sonic signature determined by the non-linearities in its components.

 

The same is valid for listening.

 

Depending on the listener's experience of both live and of reproduced sound as well as his taste in sound, a report describing an amplifier that "disappears and leaves the music for you to enjoy" can be more or less meaningful.

 

To be honest I am always sceptical of reports that talk about enjoying the music, an expression that also comes up in discussions involving measurements and poor technical performance.

And if soundstage is mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs I just stop reading.

[mmerrill99]

3 hours ago, semente said:

And if soundstage is mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs I just stop reading.

Silly Billy

[semente]

13 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

Silly Billy

 

[Ralf11]

8 hours ago, Jud said:

 

And perhaps the visitors to Procrustes’ inn all ought to learn how to fit into the one bed?

 

Toole and Olive take a sonic characteristic to which most people are relatively insensitive, frequency response over the entirety of the audible spectrum; they as engineers feel people ought to be sensitive to it; and so they train people to be more sensitive to it.  In the process they also are training the same listeners *not* to prioritize characteristics to which people are immediately sensitive, such as phase linearity, with the role it plays in the fundamental auditory function of locating sounds.  Having changed the way people listen from normal, they then designate the result an improvement.  And some folks are even of the opinion *everyone* ought to learn to listen abnormally, since this would make them smarter.  

 

I am thinking if engineers were able to make designs that were more sophisticated than our level of knowledge and technology currently allows, they would be able to design speakers that reproduce the key characteristics of reality as people actually hear it, rather than taking what we currently know and are able to build and training people to think of it as accurate.

 

WOW!!  Way to mischaracterize something!

[Kimo]

Regarding the transparency of Pass designs, Nelson is also stating that the sonic signature of the M2 is more transparent, not less, at least in some ways.

 

Part of this is due to the limited bandwidth of transformers, and part of it is the lack of feedback artifacts.

 

 

[jabbr]

2 minutes ago, Kimo said:

Regarding the transparency of Pass designs, Nelson is also stating that the sonic signature of the M2 is more transparent, not less, at least in some ways.

 

Part of this is due to the limited bandwidth of transformers, and part of it is the lack of feedback artifacts.

 

 

Yes I've considered using it as the output stage of a DAC  

[esldude]

6 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

 

"disappears and leaves the music for you to enjoy" sounds transparent to me

 

Every electronic component: resistors, capacitors, transformers, transistors have "electronic signatures" i.e. measureable non-linearities. Thus each component has a "sound". In his description of the M2 the "sound" is ascribed to the transformer but many amps have transformers so isn't this generally useful info? The goal of ultimate transparency involves tradeoffs. Yes, these tradeoffs can be described as "not transparent" to a degree. So which "non transparencies" are important? What are the best tradeoffs?

 

The FirstWatt line is designed to be low power (as opposed to the main Pass Labs offerings). Thats why I am comparing two of these similar designs. You have suggested that the M2 is better than the J2 because it has more power, but there is also the issue of the transformer and its characteristics, so perhaps the J2 has advantages in other regards. These are competing factors. This makes an absolute judgement of relative transparency difficult.

 

What I am suggesting is that measurements can help but not (alone) answer that question ... and yes, each amplifier in existence has its own sonic signature determined by the non-linearities in its components.

In context of everything he said, no he isn't even claiming transparency.  Especially as sins of omission can be ignored whiles sin of commission in audio gear can't.  He is simply saying despite the limits it could disappear and be musically enjoyable. 

 

While any stage may have non-linearities not all puncture transparency.  Some do, some don't.  Going from .000005% distortion to .00005% is not going to be heard.  Going from flat response to being 3 db down at 20 hz and 20 khz might not be heard in isolation and with some music though it can be heard as lacking compared to flat response. 

 

 

[esldude]

58 minutes ago, Kimo said:

Regarding the transparency of Pass designs, Nelson is also stating that the sonic signature of the M2 is more transparent, not less, at least in some ways.

 

Part of this is due to the limited bandwidth of transformers, and part of it is the lack of feedback artifacts.

 

 

I am still trying to figure out in what world limited bandwidth, described by the designer as part and parcel of a sonic character indicates transparency.  Now low gain, low bandwidth amplifiers similar to these two can have difficulties with feedback causing problems.   So he wisely avoided enough feedback or any feedback (one uses some and one uses none) in a range that causes audible problems that would not sound okay.  The part you excerpted was where he was saying the sound shares characteristics associated with transformers and tubes.  Just after saying it has a lush warm character.  Again, Nelson Pass isn't claiming transparency for these designs.  He is claiming a highly musical enjoyable character.  Given the design and the specs that is exactly what I would expect.   A warm enjoyable sound as he has carefully removed any warts that would disrupt that character.

[jabbr]

35 minutes ago, esldude said:

In context of everything he said, no he isn't even claiming transparency.

Exactly. Is there a purely objective definition of transparency that you are using? What is it  and how does it compare for the amps in question?

 

"transparency" is a descriptive term.

 

No one ever claimed perfect transparency as if this were a binary property. My point all along has been that measurements alone have a difficult time determining sonic accuracy.

 

Every amp has its own sonic signature and no amp is perfectly transparent (and  there are no perfect measurements)

[AJ Soundfield]

3 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Every amp has its own sonic signature

Wow, you've listened to every amp, with honesty controls (no peeking, etc. and "Just listening, trusting ears") in place.

Where can one find the details of this?