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

[Sal1950]

6 hours ago, Superdad said:

Speak for yourself.  My ears are just fine.

6 hours ago, plissken said:

But yet you backed out on a bias controlled evaluation of your own product Alex.

 

What, no comment as usual SuperDad?

I think you flatter yourself at every available opportunity.

[Sal1950]

18 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

Asking Teresa to do human trials to 'prove' she hears what she claims is a bit over the top in a hobby, no?

Last I understood, this "hobby" was about obtaining High Fidelity

Not just "sounds good to me"

[Sal1950]

6 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

I agree and that is why it is important to occasionally attend live acoustic music events. IMHO that is the goal of better reproduction equipment, getting closer to the real thing. The ear/brain system is the best tool to use to compare the real event to the reproduction of it.

Sorry but that is where your argument runs off the tracks.  The "ear/brain system" is the most fallible tool to use in sighted evaluations of a High Fidelity system. Without a scientific approach you are lost in the human weaknesses of bias and illusion.  It's like believing the magicians tricks are real magic because your eyes saw that airplane disappear off the runway.

But I'm very glad you enjoy the sound of your music.

Sal

[Sal1950]

18 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Isn't that tantamount to saying "You are delusional", but with a smirk adding "I'm glad you are enjoying your delusions?" Aren't you also the person that claimed that if someone doesn't care for the sound of a system that tests accurate, that there is something wrong with the listener? I think your statements are hyperbolic and really tend toward inolerance of our human differences in aesthetic perception and judgement.

No, what I said was her approach to evaluation of a systems capability to accurately reproduce music was flawed.

But in the end if you don't care about such things and love the sound of your rig that is all that counts for you.

[Sal1950]

8 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

I find sharp edges fatiguing.

Yes, you must be careful you don't cut yourself.

[Sal1950]

8 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

OK. So then what's the problem?

That's not a position you want to pass on to others as a rational approach to High Fidelity.

What part of that do you find so difficult to understand?

[Sal1950]

6 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

You don't have to pass it on. You are trying to obstruct that message in fear that someone else will pass it on. How's that worked so far?

With you and Teresa I'm batting 0 and 2.

But I'm hoping for a better result with others more rational.

[Sal1950]

14 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

You have a laudable goal, but are actually accomplishing the opposite. The S/N ratio only goes up when people get into arguments like this. Simply stating one's opinion and any data to back up the opinion, works much better in the long run. 

 

Think about it from your own perspective. Do you tend to listen to people who attempt to jam something down your throat and persist despite a no-win situation? It works the same for both sides. Be pleasant, state your piece.

 

I appreciate what you're trying to do. Honestly. 

Why do you always react as the debate is one sided?

Your input here has been only to call the objectivists unreasonable all the while the subjectives attempt to shout us down.

A bit of a bias showing IMHO

[Sal1950]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

You’re speaking of the same person who banned a “subjectivist” member in the course of this thread?

 

Perhaps your view of any bias on his part is rather, um, subjective?  

The fact that there was a person who couldn't conduct themselves in a acceptable manner shows no relationship to my post.

But good try in any case barrister.

 

It was you that initially stirred this pot so don't go all innocent here.  LOL

[Sal1950]

7 hours ago, jabbr said:

The issue is that nothing is 100% accurate in the sense that each two replays or reproductions of a piece will be slightly different. At the most basic level the background noise level will be random, so not the same from play to play.

Total mis-direction from the points being discussed, that being the most reliable tools to use in judging accuracy.  The bottom line still being that sighted human opinions and judgement is next to useless unless they can be substantiated with either measurement, or under blind bias controlled conditions.

 

7 hours ago, jabbr said:

yeah in the end what you conclude is all that counts.

Only for your preferences.

Again having no place in the pursuit of the State Of The Art in High Fidelity Reproduction.

[Sal1950]

5 hours ago, Superdad said:

What about when the differences are obvious?

 

Let's not be silly about this, If the "differences are obvious",  they obviously will be easily identified under blinded conditions.

5 hours ago, Superdad said:

And then what about two people listening and one of them is a musician who can tell the difference between two brands of trumpets on the recording?  Is that person's judgment only valid if it can be "substantiated with either measurement, or under blind bias controlled conditions"?

Duh, common Alex,, stop with the circular BS. If he can easily identify them sighted, he can identify them blind.

If not there is a serious issue with his claims.

You remind me of the audiophool who claims his wife heard the difference in his system from the kitchen after installing some new cable risers. But of course that "HUGE" improvement will never be able to be substantiated, so we just have to take their word for it.

 

But you know all this, it's just another example of you ducking from your claims of  "obvious" audible improvements with your products, but your refusal to sit down with one or two of our members and put your ears with your mouth is under blinded conditions.  I would be perfectly willing to trust your ears if you would cover your eyes while listening.   

 

5 hours ago, Superdad said:

As much as I dislike you Sal

OH MY, you have cut my feelings to the quick.  But that's OK, cause I have a thick skin.

[Sal1950]

5 hours ago, jabbr said:

So tell me, I have both a FirstWatt M2 and J2. I've listened to both extensively, never blinded. I've not taken measurements of either, although I do have the individual parts and schematics to build copies/versions of both. So tell me: which one is "more accurate"? based on what exact measurements? Because clearly I've been doing this all wrong. What measurements should I make to tell me what to listen to? (I want the most accuracy)

Well if I were you I would submit the M2 to John Atkinson for measurement and comparison with his results from the J2. The J2 is already showing some potential problems but without detailed M2 numbers who can say.

But I thought you knew a bit about the technology, why do you have to ask me? 

 

"The output impedance was relatively high for a solid-state design, at 0.5 ohm from 20Hz to 20kHz. As a result, the response with our standard simulated loudspeaker varied by ±0.35dB (fig.1, gray trace)."
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/first-watt-j2-power-amplifier-measurements#QmWDdAB35Yr3QP9B.99

[Sal1950]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

Right. So you are saying that you would read Stereophile to find out what is best. Ok then.

I've been a subscriber since the early 70's. But about the only redeeming quality for reading Stereophile today are JA's  (John Atkinson) measurements.  Of course you have to understand that he must temper his comments about many components failures on the test bench. Can't let any bad measurements reflect on the subjective reviewers glowing prose. First and foremost can't let the failures potentially hurt a advertisers sales or cut into the magazines income from advertisers. This dance can be found quite often where John finds problems but the reviewer thinks the piece "sounds great".

(IMHO it's very sad that the number one reason JGH started Stereophile, to escape advertiser control over content, has been so lost in the last few decades.)

 

The below amp is still a $6K Recommended Component.

KM very much liked the sound of the Spec RPA-W7EX. I, however, was disappointed by its measured performance—modern class-D amplifiers, especially those using one of the Hypex modules, measure very much better than this. And with its low input impedance, its dislike of load impedances below 4 ohms, and its high levels of radiated noise, this not an amplifier that can be universally recommended, I feel.—John Atkinson
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/spec-rpa-w7ex-real-sound-power-amplifier-measurements#sVOVYGVILrPrv4S6.99

 

AJ / JA,  between Soundfield, Jones, and Atkinson it's getting hard to keep up.  LOL

[Sal1950]

21 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I believe every component that's written about in Stereophile makes it to the recommended lists. There are so many classes and categories that need to be filled. 

There are other opinions why the "Recommended Component" list has grown to what it is today.

Some very good ones IMO

http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-STEREOPHILE.html#REC

 

7 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Not quite but we do not choose what to review randomly.  I will not review anything that does not have promise. Although that may constitute a selection bias, not all live up to that hope.

 

Kind of stacking the deck. As I said, can't upset a advertiser. 

[Sal1950]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I believe every component that's written about in Stereophile makes it to the recommended lists. There are so many classes and categories that need to be filled. 

 

33 minutes ago, mansr said:

Even buying exclusively from recommended lists isn't safe since often clearly inferior (as shown in measurements) products get glowing praise.

Kal, Here's what I don't understand, and avoiding my usual wit I would like to ask you this honest question.

We've known for many decades now what properties we need to play close attention to so that various Hi Fi components can be interfaced without causing obvious interaction problems. Things like in/out impedance's, radiated noise, etc; should be a easy peasy starting place for any competent designer. The consumer shouldn't have to stagger thru a minefield of what should be obsolete interface problems to put together a kit that is reasonably transparent.  I could make guesses as to what the designers are thinking but that's outside of my question at the moment.

My question to you is how any High Fidelity magazine can, in good conscience, put a expensive, potential tone control of a amp like the Spec RPA-W7EX in a 2017 Recommended Component list?

[Sal1950]

25 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

Well, it looks like the review (and mastery of HTML) are 17 years out of date, so hopefully he is doing something enjoyable.

Yep that was last updated quite some time ago, but there really is no need.

1. Much of what is written there is the factual history of Stereophile and a recounting of the various changes that occurred and conversations that took place at the time.

2. As I see it the only thing that has changed since Arthur wrote that is that many things have continued to get worse on the credibility front.

 

I can and do take great exception with Arthur on his choices and preferences in audio gear. But his evaluations of the Audiophile press back when written were for the most part spot on. There are a few other media reviews on the site.

http://www.high-endaudio.com/reviewers.html#Files

for those who may not have seen them. 

At one time there were some excellent "outlaw"  magazines available like The Audio Critic and International Audio Review. Sadly all gone now, they didn't take a editorial position that was "good for commerce". 

[Sal1950]

2 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Yes but I've grown out of that kind of thing.  Besides, inserting any new component into my listening system and attending to it over a period, usually of 30-90 days, quickly becomes really annoying if it's a dog.

My thought on that would be to show a somewhat higher level of integrity. 

Such as manufacturer X buys 4 pages of full color ads each month but when we measured his XYZ product it revealed very poor numbers and contrary to claims, it's insertion into 6 different systems revealed no change in SQ when listened to under bias controlled blind listening conditions.

NOT RECOMMENDED.

 

It's not about taking pleasure in trashing someone, but showing everything is not without warts in the real world.

Being much more of a consumer advocate than has been shown to me in a long long time.

[Sal1950]

6 hours ago, rando said:

Given the low chance of disrupting this thread with on topic matters, could you expand ever so slightly on the content one might have discovered in "outlaw" print?  Again, the mind wanders and I would like to center it.  

I'm not exactly sure I understand your question but I'll start here.

"Outlaw" along with "Underground" etc,  were terms used to describe audio print media back in the day that, in the main, started out free of advertising and supposedly were more free to review components without outside pressures.

On the list of  "MainStream"     were Audio, Stereo Review, High Fidelity --------

The Outlaws were Stereophile, TAS, Audio Critic, IAR,  --------------

Of the Outlaws, as here, there came a bit of a split between them. Some took a mainly subjective slant, others a objective one. Little is left in the Hi Fi print media of the objective approach, the most glaring exception being John Atkinsons measurement tags on some reviews at Stereophile.

What "one might have discovered in "outlaw" print" is exactly what you find in this thread. Divisive approaches to putting together a Hi Fi.  LOL

 

 

[Sal1950]

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

Without getting into a bunch of prose, I consider the "J2" more accurate and this was apparent after listening for a few minutes and this has been borne out over time. I felt no inclination to do measurements to prove this to myself.

 

Hogwash, you have no idea which is more accurate, your just making a big fat guess. LOL

[Sal1950]

10 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

Hogwash, you have no idea which is more accurate, your just making a big fat guess. LOL

 

3 hours ago, Jud said:

Now who knows, maybe in this case jabbr is just making a "big fat guess."  But my assumption would be to the contrary: That he understands what the circuitry in the two amps is doing, and since listening didn't show anything obviously wrong, he felt no need to perform measurements to determine the circuits were operating as designed.

My usual pat answer here would be that since he didn't measure or state the use of bias controlled blind listening to reach his conclusions they can only be considered a guess.

But I will add in the this case that it is exactly his technical understanding of things that even more so will tend to color his subjective impressions.  The more he knows the more important it is for him to follow a path capable of removing his bias's as completely as possible.

[Sal1950]

28 minutes ago, Foggie said:

Somehow I keep coming back to the fact this logic doesn't always add up. 

Good try Foggie, but no cigar. The facts and logic is clear, your attempt to add veils fails in the light of day.

 

32 minutes ago, Foggie said:

to me its confusing in that wouldn't a "sighted bias" looking at measurements predispose one to have already made up there mind?  As well as the more technical understanding one has with measurements, that outcome would be even more biased?

Sure, absolutely.

 

35 minutes ago, Foggie said:

Therefore if it measures bad it will sound inferior to something that measure better

Maybe, maybe not. It will for sure "inferior" technically. Whether that failing is audible falls back to bias controlled listening to deduce.

 

38 minutes ago, Foggie said:

How the heck can that translate into my room (modes, nulls etc..) or is it ("measurements") used as a guide?

Now your talking about a attempt to correct the speaker-room interface and maybe induce some personal preferences, a different kettle O fish.

[Sal1950]

9 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

everything and everyone is biased  

 

I also think that longer term listening tends to drain confirmation bias (at least for me) ... also one of the reasons to do more advanced measurement is that when you have say 15 variables, then everything starts to sound the same, particularly when different combinations of variables get switched on and off. ... but the sound of the J2 vs the M2 is very apparent ( the J2 uses a Semisouth power JFET, and negative feedback,  the M2 uses a transformer voltage amplification followed by a MOSFET current and no global feedback)

I didn't dispute that the two amps sound different, I doubted your ability to so rapidly make a subjective call on which of the two is more accurate. The differences could be a bias induced illusion since you don't take any further steps to confirm. As I mentioned before everything you know about the design of these two has created a strong subconscious preference of one over the other, depending on your personal believes on which design creates a more transparent chain.

Your opinions in this case are lost in the darkness created by lack of substantiated information.

[Sal1950]

7 hours ago, Albrecht said:

The overall "accuracy" of the recording and true-ness of the instruments is a result of the sum-total of all of the gear and the room, and the learned expertise of the listener.

The speaker that has a slight volume drop in the upper mids, sounds much different with an amp that has a little boost in the upper mids. (Such a pairing will in no way be reflected in the, {as you might call poor}, measurements of the speaker).

What decade of High Fidelity component are your writing about?

If the components behind the speaker terminals of your system vary so much from transparency that you can use them as tone controls,  you should seriously consider some upgrades.

This is a perfect example of the sad state of subjective audiophiles belief system in todays High Fidelity community.

 

[Sal1950]

17 hours ago, jabbr said:

Measurements can be useful under the right circumstances. Just because something is  a measurement does not mean that it is unbiased nor accurate. What is your goal?

 

It is if the person doing the measuring is competent.

If your letting personal bias enter your results, or you can't get consistent results, maybe you need some assistance.

[Sal1950]

5 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Can you measure the lower "fidelity" or tell me which has the lower fidelity without listening? This is the whole point. You have 2 great amps that measure well. The FirstWatt M2 and J2. They are different. There will be slight differences in measurements. Which is "lower fidelity" and on the basis of which measurements? Do your ears agree ? ( @esldude: you don't need to answer the last question because you admit not hearing differences between amps like these two, fair enough).

Of course you can, if you know what aspect of "fidelity" is important to you.

Both of those amps will vary from ideal in different ways and can potentially affect the sound differently.

I highly respect Nelson and own 4 of his designs currently and had 2 more in the past.

But I find his dabbling in the First Watt line curious, he knows and builds highly transparent amps for decades now but I find his sideline in First Watt along the same line as Bob Carvers tube amps and his "voicing" of SS with transfer function tuning possibly a stab at being "good for commerce".  JA's measurements of the J2 I posted earlier,along with just the basic fact that these are very low power amps and will be very load sensitive.

It's like building two very different tube SET amps or two OTL's and saying "see, amps do sound different".  DUH

It's true that amp designers have known for at least 3 decades how to build a fully transparent amp. The fact that many chose not to design along those lines I'll leave to others for debate.