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

[wgscott]

14 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Holy crap, that guy has some serious time on his hands and serious issues with Stereophile and its personnel. Life is short, perhaps he should stop reading the magazine he now hates and do something he enjoys. 

 

Well, it looks like the review (and mastery of HTML) are 17 years out of date, so hopefully he is doing something enjoyable.

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Well, it looks like the review (and mastery of HTML) are 17 years out of date, so hopefully he is doing something enjoyable.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

[christopher3393]

 Arthur Salvatore's "My Audio Philosophy", updated June 2017, includes a subsection titled "The Problems With Measurements", which concludes "Until it is possible to scientifically measure low-level musical information, we will have to trust our imperfect and unscientific ears and let them choose what component has the most "magic".

 

Hmmmm...here's the argument that precedes that statement:

 

Quote

All audiophiles should at least once bring an accurate sound-level pressure gauge into their listening rooms. This is especially important for those music lovers who listen mainly to acoustical music; classical, jazz, folk etc., like me.

After an evening of listening to different music and observing the meter, most audiophiles are very surprised at how low the dB readings are on the gauge; usually between 60 to 85dB. It will on occasion go lower, and only for extremely brief instances will it ever rise above 90db.

Much more important than the pure numbers are the ultimate implications of all this. What do these surprisingly low dB numbers really mean for the on-going scientific and practical attempts of measuring a component's ability to reproduce music?

They are devastating, and here is why.

Let's start with a speaker of fairly high sensitivity, which is the trend these days and also what I recommend above. Let's say the sensitivity is 90dB/1 watt. This means that at an 80dB loudness level, this speaker is receiving a total of 1/10th of 1 watt of power from the amplifier.

This is the point where most audio magazines stop measuring, but this is the exact point where they really should begin "fine measuring", because the 80dB is only the peak/accumulated loudness at that moment. All the real, fine musical details and information; the harmonics, decays, sense of space, dynamic inflections etc. are still 20 to 30dB (or more) below the 80dB peak.

What does this all mean?

The truly unique and distinguishing musical information is being reproduced with only 1/10,000 of a watt or even less power!

At a softer 60dB loudness level, which is not that unusual, the power level of even 1 Millionth of one watt becomes important!

Which audio "tech/guru" or scientist measures what is happening in an amplifier from 100th to 1,000,000th of one watt?

The Answer: Not even one.

This same basic principle holds true for measuring preamplifiers, speakers and everything else. (It is also a very plausible explanation why some components appear to sound better after some "break-in".)

 

http://www.high-endaudio.com/philos.html

 

Thoughts?

[Jud]

My thought is that Arthur has a lot of thoughts.

 

Even before I went to the link, I figured it was Arthur.  He’s kind of a quotable guy, if you like an opinionated style.

[christopher3393]

4 minutes ago, Jud said:

My thought is that Arthur has a lot of thoughts.

 

Even before I went to the link, I figured it was Arthur.  He’s kind of a quotable guy, if you like an opinionated style.

 

I don'y find his style at all to my taste, but that is subjective.   Is his information accurate? Is he objective? Does he exercise good judgement? 

[Jud]

3 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

I don'y find his style at all to my taste, but that is subjective.   Is his information accurate? Is he objective? Does he exercise good judgement? 

 

It’s a shotgun approach.  You can find stuff to agree or disagree with no matter what your opinion is.

[christopher3393]

Jud, I may be wrong, but my impression is that you are being dismissive of the concerns I'm raising. We have had a lengthy thread on what is measurable which indicated that most of what can be heard is measurable. Arthur seems to be saying the opposite. Maybe I just don't understand.

 

I also think it is reasonable to raise the question of a critic's objectivity. This is not always scientific objectivity, but we could call it fairness. Is he fair to those he criticizes? He has a certain kind of critical distance as an outsider, but he does not seem unbiased at all to me. Not in the least! Why soften your response to this?

[rando]

50 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

At one time there were some excellent "outlaw"  magazines available... They didn't take a editorial position that was "good for commerce". 

 

37 pages to get here.  The mind is apt to wander.  Thank you for this unexpected addition that came about by accidentally clicking through and panic scrolling upwards towards the exits.  

 

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.  

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Jud, I may be wrong, but my impression is that you are being dismissive of the concerns I'm raising.

 

 

I’m being dismissive of taking Arthur very seriously.

[christopher3393]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I’m being dismissive of taking Arthur very seriously.

 

Thanks. That clears it up.

[esldude]

7 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Which measurements would you want for accuracy, and do you have studies or data on how these correlate with human perception of sound in general or yours (in your system) in particular?

I think others have answered most questions in regard to doing measurements at the loudspeaker posts.

 

I would start with your conventional measures like frequency response (+/- .35 db would be audible btw), THD and IMD, and noise.  A few seconds using something like REW would give you frequency response, distortion vs frequency, and phase all at once.  You could do that at a few different power levels.  The interpretation of the results would be less than black or white though not too unreasonable to do.  With the loudspeaker attached you'll probably uncover most reasons amplifiers sound different with these starting measures. 

 

You might need to do some high level tone bursts for uncovering when the reactive load of the speaker can cause one amp to sound different from another due to output current capabilities.  Still nothing highly exotic testing wise. 

 

If one wished to do null type testing, no reason in this case not to use an ADC/DAC so the clock is the same each and every time.  Or as mansr said use one amp on each channel at the same time.  I don't know if propagation time differs enough to alter results thru different amps.  There are some easy tests to check for that.  A simple one is a two tones of equal level spaced apart by one octave.  With good timing those null to the same level.  With a timing difference the higher frequency tone nulls 6 db higher in level.  Or you can use saw tooth or square waves.  The harmonics should decrease in level with good timing.  If instead harmonics are the same level as the fundamental a timing shift has occurred. 

 

Alternatively one could use the old headphone method.  Connect a headphone with one lead on positive of one channel and the other on positive of the other channel.  Precise level adjustment is needed.  Piece of cake with 64 bit volume control in software now.  Adjust for lowest sound output and listen. 

 

The J2 and M2 mentioned probably sound different.  Both have fairly high output impedance.  One has more power and output current capability vs the other.  One has feedback vs none. 

 

I had an Aleph 3 years back.  30 watt single ended Nelson Pass design.  Sounded very nice with Quad ESL63s I owned.  You had to tread a little lightly on the volume knob.  With some ported Thiels or Mirage speakers it fell apart and sounded awful.  Didn't have enough power nor nearly enough current capability.  Sounded pretty nice with early Maggies again treading lightly on the volume. 

[semente]

21 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

Jud, I may be wrong, but my impression is that you are being dismissive of the concerns I'm raising. We have had a lengthy thread on what is measurable which indicated that most of what can be heard is measurable. Arthur seems to be saying the opposite. Maybe I just don't understand.

 

I also think it is reasonable to raise the question of a critic's objectivity. This is not always scientific objectivity, but we could call it fairness. Is he fair to those he criticizes? He has a certain kind of critical distance as an outsider, but he does not seem unbiased at all to me. Not in the least! Why soften your response to this?

 

I quite agree with this piece called "AUDIO RELATIVISM" - the new disease and excuse:

 

http://www.high-endaudio.com/philos.html#Rel

[esldude]

17 minutes ago, rando said:

 

37 pages to get here.  The mind is apt to wander.  Thank you for this unexpected addition that came about by accidentally clicking through and panic scrolling upwards towards the exits.  

 

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.  

Sal can answer for himself of course.

 

I imagine Peter Aczel had one such outlaw publication.  Also initially Stereophile and the Absolute Sound were outlaw publications.  Initially neither took advertisements.  Subscriptions rates were rather costly, but it purchased independence of opinion. 

 

Sal can tell you what you might have found. 

[rando]

The alley cat that persists until someone adopts it wasn't an altogether unexpected answer.  Some distant relative who never comes to terms with how closely they're aligned to their less provocatively mannered audiophile kin, matching them equidistant through every curve and curlicue with a complete lack obeisance, should be more apt for the present conversation.  I suppose the ground these organizations covered would determine the worth of continuing to investigate their existence, here.

 

Bedlam never entering the equation.  I doubt I'm the only one who held close the idea CA's "mainstream acquisition" might just provide an enjoyable initial clash that accompanied the fresh air they let in with them.  If we were lucky and they didn't end up resolving to the same opinions shared here already.  

[esldude]

1 hour ago, rando said:

The alley cat that persists until someone adopts it wasn't an altogether unexpected answer.  Some distant relative who never comes to terms with how closely they're aligned to their less provocatively mannered audiophile kin, matching them equidistant through every curve and curlicue with a complete lack obeisance, should be more apt for the present conversation.  I suppose the ground these organizations covered would determine the worth of continuing to investigate their existence, here.

 

Bedlam never entering the equation.  I doubt I'm the only one who held close the idea CA's "mainstream acquisition" might just provide an enjoyable initial clash that accompanied the fresh air they let in with them.  If we were lucky and they didn't end up resolving to the same opinions shared here already.  

This post makes me think you left an 'm' off your user name.

[esldude]

3 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 Arthur Salvatore's "My Audio Philosophy", updated June 2017, includes a subsection titled "The Problems With Measurements", which concludes "Until it is possible to scientifically measure low-level musical information, we will have to trust our imperfect and unscientific ears and let them choose what component has the most "magic".

 

Hmmmm...here's the argument that precedes that statement:

 

 

http://www.high-endaudio.com/philos.html

 

Thoughts?

Well if you listen at 80 db peak in your room, which is not uncommon, you need the amp clean to -80 db below that level at the most careful use.  So you could be talking down around a millionth of a watt. Transformer couple devices can and usually do have various non-linearities over different power ranges.  Many tube amps quote frequency response at one watt, because the extremes of response shrink at full power.  Solid state amps wouldn't normally have such issues.  Distortion of course rises at some point.  Typically with SS amps you see distortion plus noise drop until some level (often between .5 and 5 watts) where it then begins a slow rise.  The rise is noise while distortion of the device usually is continuing downward with level.  Usually the THD+N rises around a factor of 3 for every reduction in power by a factor of 10.  With most good modern amps the THD+N would likely be something under .5% at 1 millionth of a watt, and will mostly be noise. 

 

Would a comparison of the performance envelope further illuminate differences in amps if measures were done at 1 millionth of a watt and steps of 10 times that up to 1 watt?  I doubt it would for SS amps, it might for tube/xmfr coupled amps.  Usually if amps really sound different you can find reasons why without going that route. 

[Kal Rubinson]

6 hours ago, mansr said:

It would be useful to readers if less than stellar results were published as well. Under the current model, which is apparently how all the publications operate, failure to find a review of a component one is considering could be down to any of three reasons:

1. It's new and nobody has had time to review it yet.
2. It's crap and nobody wants to upset the advertisers.
3. It has simply escaped the attention of reviewers.

If reviewers dared publish negative assessments more often, a lot of bad purchases, or at least wasted time, could potentially be avoided. Even buying exclusively from recommended lists isn't safe since often clearly inferior (as shown in measurements) products get glowing praise.

In principle, I agree.  However, it is not a question of whether one dares to publish negative assessments because the editor will publish them with glee.  It is a question of what I consider is a good and enjoyable use of my time and effort. 

 

Let me put it this way.  I think that I look at the market as an audiophile but have the advantage of getting to home audition almost anything that piqued my interest.  Why would any audiophile want to borrow something about which one has doubts or caveats when there are others that appeal?  

[Kal Rubinson]

5 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

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?

I cannot help here since I have had no experience with that product and, therefore, did I vote for it.

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Why would any audiophile want to borrow something about which one has doubts or caveats when there are others that appeal?

To make a mockery of it, obviously.

[Kal Rubinson]

Just now, mansr said:

To make a mockery of it, obviously.

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.

[fas42]

Just on the "Can we see what the differences are?" front, this should be doable - for a complete system. The program DiffMaker was a first attempt at such, but unfortunately is riddled with all sorts of problems, is essentially unusable. I've had a first go at doing something myself, using a MATLAB type workbench, and the problem of synchronising two recordings done separately in time is far from trivial - the DiffMaker program can come up with complete nonsense, because it doesn't grok how to 'match' the two versions. The simple approaches mentioned so far in this thread are miles from what's needed ... but it would be worthwhile pursuing the developing of a decent tool for doing the job ...

[mansr]

6 minutes 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.

Fair enough. Then again, you could abort the trial and let everybody know how bad it was.

[pkane2001]

Quote

Let's start with a speaker of fairly high sensitivity, which is the trend these days and also what I recommend above. Let's say the sensitivity is 90dB/1 watt. This means that at an 80dB loudness level, this speaker is receiving a total of 1/10th of 1 watt of power from the amplifier.

 

At a softer 60dB loudness level, which is not that unusual, the power level of even 1 Millionth of one watt becomes important!

 

This might be true, but only if you sit 1m away from the speakers, which is where the speaker sensitivity is measured. At 4m from the speaker (my listening position) the actual amplifier output level will need to be around 0.02 watts to achieve 60dB SPL with 90dB/1W/1m speakers. Hardly 1 millionth of one watt as claimed, and certainly something that can be easily measured.

 

[esldude]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

This might true, but only if you sit 1m away from the speakers, which is where the speaker sensitivity is measured. At 4m from the speaker (my listening position) the actual amplifier output level will need to be around 0.02 watts to achieve 60dB SPL with 90dB/1W/1m speakers. Hardly 1 millionth of one watt as claimed, and certainly something that can be easily measured.

 

I may have read it wrong, I took him to mean 60 db down from the 80 db.  Not that you turn volume down that far.  Rather that various small little details below the peak are being reproduced at these tiny small levels.  So yes some of those are down at 100,000th of a watt or millionth.  Maybe a more codified test of noisefloor modulation would be worth looking at though with solid state gear of quality I think it would turn out to be a waste of time.