|
|
Post by savvypaul on Nov 4, 2022 23:37:02 GMT
None of that means that 'getting out of the way of the music' is a bad or irrelevant term to use, generally. Any phrase can be misappropriated by anyone. [/quote] No, it's not irrelevant.....just probably not true. [/quote] I'm not arguing that describing something which massively deviates from RIAA for effect as 'getting out of the way of the music' is credible. I think I would very quickly hear that as a problem that would have the opposite effect. There may be some people who like that deviation, though (it's a free country). There may also be people that have a very limited frame of reference - heard very few systems and are easily impressed. Where I came into this conversation was to say that the phrase (gootwotm) is not automatically bad, in of itself. I rather like it as a way of expressing musical enjoyment. Much preferable, to me, than much of the hi-fi bingo bullshit (imo) that is often bandied around. But, one man's bullshit may be another man's formula for success. YMMV, as they say. |
|
|
|
Post by sq225917 on Nov 5, 2022 1:33:16 GMT
Given that almost no one chooses the cart loading with the optimum measured electrical damping and therefore flattest frequency response, arguing the toss over 0.1db response accuracy on RIAA implementation is a bit of a moot point.
You have to consider the full picture, always.
|
|
Arke
Moderator
Posts: 1,266
|
Post by Arke on Nov 5, 2022 7:51:03 GMT
In sport, especially at the top level, people talk about 'marginl gains'. This was pivotal in cycling for Team GB and this ethos has now been adopted by many teams in a wide range of sports.
In sport, a competitor is aiming to achieve the 'perfect' performance, however, many factors are conspiring against them achieving this: enviroment, psychology, fatigue, equipment, other competitors, nutrition, illness etc. EVEN THOUGH these factors can have a profound and powerful effect on the outcome, a competitor with spend years training and working towards achieving marginal gains in many aspects of the sport. This could be training at different times, training differently, shaving their legs, eating differently etc. etc. EVERYTHING MATTERS. That is the ethos of marginal gains. Yes, other external factors can be massive and sometimes completely negate the years of work on marginal gains - the cyclist may crash in the last 100m! Things go wrong. We can't control everything, but we can do our upmost to completely optimise everything within our control.
I think of Hifi (and many other hobbies/pastimes/sports) in a similar way. Yes, many factors will have a powerful effect on the overall SQ and my ultimate enjoyment of the music. I can't control everything, however, I enjoy the pursuit of marginal gains. To me details matter. If I can optimise various aspects of my Hifi's performance, why not? Some details may seem insignificant and 'lost in the noise' but ultimately (IMHO) it all matters.
|
|
optical
Moderator
BIG STAR
Be Excellent To Eachother
Posts: 1,624 
|
Post by optical on Nov 5, 2022 8:29:11 GMT
In sport, especially at the top level, people talk about 'marginl gains'. This was pivotal in cycling for Team GB and this ethos has now been adopted by many teams in a wide range of sports. In sport, a competitor is aiming to achieve the 'perfect' performance, however, many factors are conspiring against them achieving this: enviroment, psychology, fatigue, equipment, other competitors, nutrition, illness etc. EVEN THOUGH these factors can have a profound and powerful effect on the outcome, a competitor with spend years training and working towards achieving marginal gains in many aspects of the sport. This could be training at different times, training differently, shaving their legs, eating differently etc. etc. EVERYTHING MATTERS. That is the ethos of marginal gains. Yes, other external factors can be massive and sometimes completely negate the years of work on marginal gains - the cyclist may crash in the last 100m! Things go wrong. We can't control everything, but we can do our upmost to completely optimise everything within our control. I think of Hifi (and many other hobbies/pastimes/sports) in a similar way. Yes, many factors will have a powerful effect on the overall SQ and my ultimate enjoyment of the music. I can't control everything, however, I enjoy the pursuit of marginal gains. To me details matter. If I can optimise various aspects of my Hifi's performance, why not? Some details may seem insignificant and 'lost in the noise' but ultimately (IMHO) it all matters. That's very well put Jason. Is upgrading one component in a path of hundreds going to make a huge difference? Likely not, but it's a good place to start and then when you've replaced a few more "peripheral" components that make no difference on their own, you might see some nice performance increases. As is often concluded by some on here, everything can/could (non definitive) make a difference. So basically don't overlook anything. That doesn't mean to say of course that things will make a difference, but you gotta try. (I feel like I have to put that last bit as a bit if a disclaimer these days).... |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Nov 5, 2022 8:49:51 GMT
'very experienced listners' - Can you gain experience in a totally passive activity? I mean I've watched a lot of TV over the years but I wouldn't describe myself as an 'experienced viewer'. The idea that there can somehow be a 'listening elite' intrigues me. I'd suggest that all opinions of how 'the music was being communicated' are equally valid no matter the number of hours of listening any individual has racked up. If I hear a 'proper' hi-fi system for the first time and I think it sounds great, does it sound great compared to other hi-fi systems or does it, in that moment, sound great to me because my only previous benchmark was the cassette player in a Ford Fiesta? If I have subsequently heard hundreds of hi-fi systems, am I more experienced than when I had just heard my first hi-fi system? For me, the answer is obvious. It is true that experience does not automatically imply ability. I'm not sure about a 'listening elite' but I know people who are able to quickly tell what is wrong with a system. Having a frame of reference is useful, I agree, but I'm still wary of describing that as 'experience' in the context you used the word. i.e that these people's subjective impression somehow counts for more than that of a bloke you pull in off the street. If he disagrees that the system communicates music well, is he wrong and are the very experienced listeners right? I don't think so. There is no absolute right or wrong with regard to that metric. It's totally personal. With regard to being able to diagnose what is wrong with a system then I think then that we are talking about knowledge. You can have tens of thousands of hours of listening experience but without knowledge there is no way to assess problems or come up with the correct solutions to those problems. No amount of listening can substitute for knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Nov 5, 2022 8:57:12 GMT
In sport, especially at the top level, people talk about 'marginl gains'. This was pivotal in cycling for Team GB and this ethos has now been adopted by many teams in a wide range of sports. In sport, a competitor is aiming to achieve the 'perfect' performance, however, many factors are conspiring against them achieving this: enviroment, psychology, fatigue, equipment, other competitors, nutrition, illness etc. EVEN THOUGH these factors can have a profound and powerful effect on the outcome, a competitor with spend years training and working towards achieving marginal gains in many aspects of the sport. This could be training at different times, training differently, shaving their legs, eating differently etc. etc. EVERYTHING MATTERS. That is the ethos of marginal gains. Yes, other external factors can be massive and sometimes completely negate the years of work on marginal gains - the cyclist may crash in the last 100m! Things go wrong. We can't control everything, but we can do our upmost to completely optimise everything within our control. I think of Hifi (and many other hobbies/pastimes/sports) in a similar way. Yes, many factors will have a powerful effect on the overall SQ and my ultimate enjoyment of the music. I can't control everything, however, I enjoy the pursuit of marginal gains. To me details matter. If I can optimise various aspects of my Hifi's performance, why not? Some details may seem insignificant and 'lost in the noise' but ultimately (IMHO) it all matters. to take the cycling analogy a bit further I would liken a lot of enthusiasts to cyclists who fret about the effect on performance of the colour the bike is painted, whilst ignoring that it has square wheels. There's really no point in worrying about the quality of the copper in an interconnect when the room is an acoustic disaster and the speakers are rubbish. Being concerned about the accuracy of vinyl to the original recorded signal is a bit like buying a traction engine and being concerned that the top speed is very low. |
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,412
|
Post by Bigman80 on Nov 5, 2022 8:57:37 GMT
In sport, especially at the top level, people talk about 'marginl gains'. This was pivotal in cycling for Team GB and this ethos has now been adopted by many teams in a wide range of sports. In sport, a competitor is aiming to achieve the 'perfect' performance, however, many factors are conspiring against them achieving this: enviroment, psychology, fatigue, equipment, other competitors, nutrition, illness etc. EVEN THOUGH these factors can have a profound and powerful effect on the outcome, a competitor with spend years training and working towards achieving marginal gains in many aspects of the sport. This could be training at different times, training differently, shaving their legs, eating differently etc. etc. EVERYTHING MATTERS. That is the ethos of marginal gains. Yes, other external factors can be massive and sometimes completely negate the years of work on marginal gains - the cyclist may crash in the last 100m! Things go wrong. We can't control everything, but we can do our upmost to completely optimise everything within our control. I think of Hifi (and many other hobbies/pastimes/sports) in a similar way. Yes, many factors will have a powerful effect on the overall SQ and my ultimate enjoyment of the music. I can't control everything, however, I enjoy the pursuit of marginal gains. To me details matter. If I can optimise various aspects of my Hifi's performance, why not? Some details may seem insignificant and 'lost in the noise' but ultimately (IMHO) it all matters. That's very well put Jason. Is upgrading one component in a path of hundreds going to make a huge difference? Likely not, but it's a good place to start and then when you've replaced a few more "peripheral" components that make no difference on their own, you might see some nice performance increases. As is often concluded by some on here, everything can/could (non definitive) make a difference. So basically don't overlook anything. That doesn't mean to say of course that things will make a difference, but you gotta try. (I feel like I have to put that last bit as a bit if a disclaimer these days).... Believing that performance indicators like RIAA, SNR, THD+N etc matter less, due to other stuff being worse, is absolute nonsense. The accumulative effect of getting things right through the signal path is far greater than just picking out one measurement, I agree, but let's be clear here, if a Phonostage isn't within the acceptable parameters of the RIAA curve, you should be called out for it. When comparing devices, the ASR method of DAC testing has been very effective. That doesn't mean you can't personally enjoy a DAC at the lower end of the table, but it does mean you can't sit here and make claims about performance that are measurably improbable or unlikely due to said measurements. My point was that Phonostage designers have largely been allowed, and/or encouraged, to play fast and loose with RIAA curves, yet if a DAC had a LF boost accumulating in a 8db rise by 20hz, it would be absolutely vilified and chastised for poor design and performance. The same applies to DACs as it does phonostages and amplification. The speakers will always be the most likely culprit of colouration. I accept that. What I don't accept is shoddy phonostage designs being used and people saying "it gets out of the way" No it doesn't. It's directly in the way and directly manipulating what you hear by adding colouration of it own. Arguing over 0.01% of RIAA accuracy? No need, the numbers are self explanatory...but 8db and it's "like being in the recording?" Bollocks. |
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,412
|
Post by Bigman80 on Nov 5, 2022 8:59:08 GMT
In sport, especially at the top level, people talk about 'marginl gains'. This was pivotal in cycling for Team GB and this ethos has now been adopted by many teams in a wide range of sports. In sport, a competitor is aiming to achieve the 'perfect' performance, however, many factors are conspiring against them achieving this: enviroment, psychology, fatigue, equipment, other competitors, nutrition, illness etc. EVEN THOUGH these factors can have a profound and powerful effect on the outcome, a competitor with spend years training and working towards achieving marginal gains in many aspects of the sport. This could be training at different times, training differently, shaving their legs, eating differently etc. etc. EVERYTHING MATTERS. That is the ethos of marginal gains. Yes, other external factors can be massive and sometimes completely negate the years of work on marginal gains - the cyclist may crash in the last 100m! Things go wrong. We can't control everything, but we can do our upmost to completely optimise everything within our control. I think of Hifi (and many other hobbies/pastimes/sports) in a similar way. Yes, many factors will have a powerful effect on the overall SQ and my ultimate enjoyment of the music. I can't control everything, however, I enjoy the pursuit of marginal gains. To me details matter. If I can optimise various aspects of my Hifi's performance, why not? Some details may seem insignificant and 'lost in the noise' but ultimately (IMHO) it all matters. to take the cycling analogy a bit further I would liken a lot of enthusiasts to cyclists who fret about the effect on performance of the colour the bike is painted, whilst ignoring that it has square wheels. There's really no point in worrying about the quality of the copper in an interconnect when the room is an acoustic disaster and the speakers are rubbish. Being concerned about the accuracy of vinyl to the original recorded signal is a bit like buying a traction engine and being concerned that the top speed is very low. So when should you worry about the copper in your interconnect? |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Nov 5, 2022 9:00:27 GMT
Never.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,412
|
Post by Bigman80 on Nov 5, 2022 9:01:48 GMT
😂😂 I knew you'd say that. |
|
Arke
Moderator
Posts: 1,266
|
Post by Arke on Nov 5, 2022 9:03:24 GMT
In sport, especially at the top level, people talk about 'marginl gains'. This was pivotal in cycling for Team GB and this ethos has now been adopted by many teams in a wide range of sports. In sport, a competitor is aiming to achieve the 'perfect' performance, however, many factors are conspiring against them achieving this: enviroment, psychology, fatigue, equipment, other competitors, nutrition, illness etc. EVEN THOUGH these factors can have a profound and powerful effect on the outcome, a competitor with spend years training and working towards achieving marginal gains in many aspects of the sport. This could be training at different times, training differently, shaving their legs, eating differently etc. etc. EVERYTHING MATTERS. That is the ethos of marginal gains. Yes, other external factors can be massive and sometimes completely negate the years of work on marginal gains - the cyclist may crash in the last 100m! Things go wrong. We can't control everything, but we can do our upmost to completely optimise everything within our control. I think of Hifi (and many other hobbies/pastimes/sports) in a similar way. Yes, many factors will have a powerful effect on the overall SQ and my ultimate enjoyment of the music. I can't control everything, however, I enjoy the pursuit of marginal gains. To me details matter. If I can optimise various aspects of my Hifi's performance, why not? Some details may seem insignificant and 'lost in the noise' but ultimately (IMHO) it all matters. to take the cycling analogy a bit further I would liken a lot of enthusiasts to cyclists who fret about the effect on performance of the colour the bike is painted, whilst ignoring that it has square wheels. There's really no point in worrying about the quality of the copper in an interconnect when the room is an acoustic disaster and the speakers are rubbish. Being concerned about the accuracy of vinyl to the original recorded signal is a bit like buying a traction engine and being concerned that the top speed is very low. interesting points. I think the theory of marginal gains assumes the big/important things will also be addressed. An olympian focussing on marginal gains will probably already have round wheels |
|
|
|
Post by firebottle on Nov 5, 2022 9:05:24 GMT
You can have tens of thousands of hours of listening experience but without knowledge there is no way to assess problems or come up with the correct solutions to those problems. No amount of listening can substitute for knowledge. Possibly semantics but knowledge is a good choice of word here IMO. If a lot of the listening experience came with explanation of perceived problems does that not add to the accumulated knowledge? Strikes me you need someone with the knowledge already willing to disseminate it. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Nov 5, 2022 9:09:33 GMT
😂😂 I knew you'd say that.  seriously though, imagine how perfect everything else would have to be before an infinitessmal difference in electrical conductivity would become audible. Even if hearing is good enough, loudspeakers almost certainly are not. A small deviation in RIAA accuracy is orders of magnitudes above cable conductivity, but even then it is going to be swamped by larger effects. Although I agree that as a basic principle, aiming for excellence/perfection in every component is not a bad thing. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Nov 5, 2022 9:16:40 GMT
to take the cycling analogy a bit further I would liken a lot of enthusiasts to cyclists who fret about the effect on performance of the colour the bike is painted, whilst ignoring that it has square wheels. There's really no point in worrying about the quality of the copper in an interconnect when the room is an acoustic disaster and the speakers are rubbish. Being concerned about the accuracy of vinyl to the original recorded signal is a bit like buying a traction engine and being concerned that the top speed is very low. interesting points. I think the theory of marginal gains assumes the big/important things will also be addressed. An olympian focussing on marginal gains will probably already have round wheels right but that's the bit where the GB team did not fall down but where many hi-fi people do. The difference being that the cycling team did not reject the science and engineering aspect as irrelevant in favour of 'Did the bike feel faster to you since we painted it red? It did? Then let's experiment with other colours of paint.' |
|
|
|
Post by savvypaul on Nov 5, 2022 9:22:03 GMT
If I hear a 'proper' hi-fi system for the first time and I think it sounds great, does it sound great compared to other hi-fi systems or does it, in that moment, sound great to me because my only previous benchmark was the cassette player in a Ford Fiesta? If I have subsequently heard hundreds of hi-fi systems, am I more experienced than when I had just heard my first hi-fi system? For me, the answer is obvious. It is true that experience does not automatically imply ability. I'm not sure about a 'listening elite' but I know people who are able to quickly tell what is wrong with a system. Having a frame of reference is useful, I agree, but I'm still wary of describing that as 'experience' in the context you used the word. i.e that these people's subjective impression somehow counts for more than that of a bloke you pull in off the street. If he disagrees that the system communicates music well, is he wrong and are the very experienced listeners right? I don't think so. There is no absolute right or wrong with regard to that metric. It's totally personal. With regard to being able to diagnose what is wrong with a system then I think then that we are talking about knowledge. You can have tens of thousands of hours of listening experience but without knowledge there is no way to assess problems or come up with the correct solutions to those problems. No amount of listening can substitute for knowledge. An individual's reaction to hearing a system is theirs, exclusively. It is always valid. And, I have witnessed a couple of times when someone 'new' who is just listening to the music may well have given a more meaningful reaction than someone who is experienced but only listening to the sound. So, how many systems you have heard doesn't necessarily make you a better listener, but I think it ought to give you a better chance of doing so. I can run with your idea that knowledge is different to experience, but I think that they often intertwine. I think you then go on to describe 'understanding'. |
|
|
|
Post by karma67 on Nov 5, 2022 9:26:40 GMT
😂😂 I knew you'd say that. seriously though, imagine how perfect everything else would have to be before an infinitessmal difference in electrical conductivity would become audible. Even if hearing is good enough, loudspeakers almost certainly are not. A small deviation in RIAA accuracy is orders of magnitudes above cable conductivity, but even then it is going to be swamped by larger effects. Although I agree that as a basic principle, aiming for excellence/perfection in every component is not a bad thing. a well set up cartridge against one poorly set up trumps the lot imo,with stylus tips like the replicant 100 simply using yours eyes for azimuth isnt good enough. too many varibles with vinyl imo. |
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,412
|
Post by Bigman80 on Nov 5, 2022 9:32:28 GMT
seriously though, imagine how perfect everything else would have to be before an infinitessmal difference in electrical conductivity would become audible. Even if hearing is good enough, loudspeakers almost certainly are not. A small deviation in RIAA accuracy is orders of magnitudes above cable conductivity, but even then it is going to be swamped by larger effects. Although I agree that as a basic principle, aiming for excellence/perfection in every component is not a bad thing. a well set up cartridge against one poorly set up trumps the lot imo,with stylus tips like the replicant 100 simply using yours eyes for azimuth isnt good enough. too many varibles with vinyl imo. What's that Jamie. What does the replicant 100 need that a mirror and eye sight can't do? Genuinely interested |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Nov 5, 2022 9:37:16 GMT
Having a frame of reference is useful, I agree, but I'm still wary of describing that as 'experience' in the context you used the word. i.e that these people's subjective impression somehow counts for more than that of a bloke you pull in off the street. If he disagrees that the system communicates music well, is he wrong and are the very experienced listeners right? I don't think so. There is no absolute right or wrong with regard to that metric. It's totally personal. With regard to being able to diagnose what is wrong with a system then I think then that we are talking about knowledge. You can have tens of thousands of hours of listening experience but without knowledge there is no way to assess problems or come up with the correct solutions to those problems. No amount of listening can substitute for knowledge. An individual's reaction to hearing a system is theirs, exclusively. It is always valid. And, I have witnessed a couple of times when someone 'new' who is just listening to the music may well have given a more meaningful reaction than someone who is experienced but only listening to the sound. Yes, very much so. Easy to get to a state in this hobby where you can no longer see the wood for the trees. And then the civilian comments 'This sounds beautiful' or 'Would you turn that off please it's giving me a headache.' - out of the mouths of babes, as it were. |
|
|
|
Post by sq225917 on Nov 5, 2022 9:37:46 GMT
The same as any other cart, if you want it right azimuth should be measured electrically.
And re British cycling, don't kid yourself the marginal gains were almost all at the chemists.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,412
|
Post by Bigman80 on Nov 5, 2022 9:40:12 GMT
The same as any other cart, if you want it right azimuth should be measured electrically. And re British cycling, don't kid yourself the marginal gains were almost all at the chemists. Gains are gains. Lol What's the process .... Enlighten the masses!!! |
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Nov 5, 2022 9:44:06 GMT
Hmm. Interesting, and intense, discussion.
Some experienced designers here seeking technical and musical perfection, so it seems to me. One thinking they are the same, another disagreeing.
As a long term non-technical user / customer my own viewpoint tends to the musical.
I can understand the need for technical excellence in aviation engineering, but don't necessarily see it for audio.
I do a lot of changes (boxswapper!) and I've used a lot of gear, and I know that my path and journey is very definitely not one of incremental improvement. That doesn't interest me at all.
I've learned (rightly or wrongly) that there are many paths up our audio mountain. Different paths give you different views and experiences. None are right or wrong. None get you to the top. They can't.
... To borrow the sports analogy, no-one will ever run a zero second 100m. There will always be room for change or improvement. And maybe you'll decide you want to change to hurdles, or the marathon and get a new experience.
I'd rather have a different viewpoint than squeeze an extra 2% out of the current performance.
To me, different really can be more enjoyable than better.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,412
|
Post by Bigman80 on Nov 5, 2022 9:52:42 GMT
Hmm. Interesting, and intense, discussion. Some experienced designers here seeking technical and musical perfection, so it seems to me. One thinking they are the same, another disagreeing. As a long term non-technical user / customer my own viewpoint tends to the musical. I can understand the need for technical excellence in aviation engineering, but don't necessarily see it for audio. I do a lot of changes (boxswapper!) and I've used a lot of gear, and I know that my path and journey is very definitely not one of incremental improvement. That doesn't interest me at all. I've learned (rightly or wrongly) that there are many paths up our audio mountain. Different paths give you different views and experiences. None are right or wrong. None get you to the top. They can't. ... To borrow the sports analogy, no-one will ever run a zero second 100m. There will always be room for change or improvement. And maybe you'll decide you want to change to hurdles, or the marathon and get a new experience. I'd rather have a different viewpoint than squeeze an extra 2% out of the current performance. To me, different really can be more enjoyable than better. There's a reason Usain Bolt is the highest earning Sprinter in history, Jerry....and that's because he is the best there has ever been. You'll note that the lower the earning, the slower the runner...or the gender, which is another issue entirely. Whilst I agree that the journey to personal nirvana is very much down to the individual, I don't agree with the aforementioned and challenged views expressed by other in this exchange. If you are going to do something, why not do it to the best of your ability? Rather than chucking something together, thinking "that's good enough" and taking peoples hard earned money from their wallets. BTW, none of this is aimed at Paul's outfit, it's aimed at a much higher priced equipment that really should be labelled as defective. |
|
|
|
Post by misterc on Nov 5, 2022 9:56:07 GMT
Everything references to a point of reference, a personal one for each individual as that point of reference is valid for that persona making that assement.
Where analogue or digital EVERTHING in the chain makes that whole complete sound in your systems, from the room/ speaker interface / wires you hook it up with/ spaker placement / mians power/ supports you have the system sitting on oh and your mood.
A quality sound is about about working through the system systematically to remove those variables that work against you, the more you 'iron' out the some the smile on your face grows.
Every system has different aspects that affect them, no two systems are the same.
For example if my audiofool goal was best SINAD, then I would not be listening to the equipment I use now, if s/n of amplifiers was the purch I was looking to achieve then maybe Benchmark would be in place of what I use personally?
Your system is combination of many factors so of them measurable others purely down how you wish the sound to be and that can include 'acoustical bias' like the whippet thrashers and toe tappers club, also the white elephant in the room personal hearing ability.
Humannature is that we wish to better ourselves, fact of life its in the DNA some of us are very driven, however there is a point where when to achieve that next step into resolution that trying to find that uA range stability in the precessing circuit while retaining a pA stand current rate for that product may just consume you to the point of uber nurd with OCD on steriods.
I like to use a measuring method to abtain the correct VTA, but does that mean that swinging the cart and listneing by ear is wrong? NO, it just takes a little longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Nov 5, 2022 10:06:26 GMT
Lots of different things being discussed here, so it gets a mite confusing about who is saying what to who and about which topic.
"If you are going to do something, why not do it to the best of your ability?"
Well, there are lots of reasons why you might not want to.
Cost. Time. Relevance to the larger picture objective. Customer appeal.
As for the shocking 8db bass boost. Ever heard of Beats headphones? 8db is nuthin'! And, to follow the Usain Bolt analogy, they may well be the best selling headphones on the planet, the biggest earners, like Mr Bolt. So that's worthy of emulating?
If it's something the customers want to buy that makes them a success in commercial terms.
|
|
|
|
Post by stryder5 on Nov 5, 2022 10:14:16 GMT
Many moons ago (Christ, it was 1978/79) I went out with a girl who was doing a psychology degree at Reading university. We spent ages talking about the project she needed to develop for her final year thesis. These days I have to rely on my phones autospell let alone understand psychology. It did make me think about how you might study the effects of different filters on the listening experience. But then it made my brain hurt, so went and made another cup of tea. You spent time talking..... Gary |
|
|
|
Post by karma67 on Nov 5, 2022 10:19:31 GMT
a well set up cartridge against one poorly set up trumps the lot imo,with stylus tips like the replicant 100 simply using yours eyes for azimuth isnt good enough. too many varibles with vinyl imo. What's that Jamie. What does the replicant 100 need that a mirror and eye sight can't do? Genuinely interested not just the replicant mate,imo all fine line ,Shibata types need more careful and accurately setting up that just eyeing up the cantilever with a mirror,for a start you have the parallax effect to throw you out,there's also build tolerance or error with stylus to cantilever alignment too. as simon has already mentioned electronically is the way to go imo.
then theres SRA. just getting the headshell level isn't good enough with these profiles. You can drive yourself nuts with all this,but in the context of what we are talking it all needs to be right if we are optimising every aspect as best we can.
|
|
|
|
Post by karma67 on Nov 5, 2022 10:23:10 GMT
The same as any other cart, if you want it right azimuth should be measured electrically. And re British cycling, don't kid yourself the marginal gains were almost all at the chemists. Gains are gains. Lol What's the process .... Enlighten the masses!!! i reckon 2 bombs of good quality speed would get me on the podium!  |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Nov 5, 2022 10:25:41 GMT
Gains are gains. Lol What's the process .... Enlighten the masses!!! i reckon 2 bombs of good quality speed would get me on the podium! Or chewing on it... |
|
|
|
Post by robbiegong on Nov 5, 2022 10:52:02 GMT
Everything references to a point of reference, a personal one for each individual as that point of reference is valid for that persona making that assement. Where analogue or digital EVERTHING in the chain makes that whole complete sound in your systems, from the room/ speaker interface / wires you hook it up with/ spaker placement / mians power/ supports you have the system sitting on oh and your mood. A quality sound is about about working through the system systematically to remove those variables that work against you, the more you 'iron' out the some the smile on your face grows.
Every system has different aspects that affect them, no two systems are the same. For example if my audiofool goal was best SINAD, then I would not be listening to the equipment I use now, if s/n of amplifiers was the purch I was looking to achieve then maybe Benchmark would be in place of what I use personally? Your system is combination of many factors so of them measurable others purely down how you wish the sound to be and that can include 'acoustical bias' like the whippet thrashers and toe tappers club, also the white elephant in the room personal hearing ability. Humannature is that we wish to better ourselves, fact of life its in the DNA some of us are very driven, however there is a point where when to achieve that next step into resolution that trying to find that uA range stability in the precessing circuit while retaining a pA stand current rate for that product may just consume you to the point of uber nurd with OCD on steriods. I like to use a measuring method to abtain the correct VTA, but does that mean that swinging the cart and listneing by ear is wrong? NO, it just takes a little longer. Yeah, like it |
|
|
|
Post by robbiegong on Nov 5, 2022 11:02:56 GMT
What's that Jamie. What does the replicant 100 need that a mirror and eye sight can't do? Genuinely interested not just the replicant mate,imo all fine line ,Shibata types need more careful and accurately setting up that just eyeing up the cantilever with a mirror,for a start you have the parallax effect to throw you out,there's also build tolerance or error with stylus to cantilever alignment too. as simon has already mentioned electronically is the way to go imo.
then theres SRA. just getting the headshell level isn't good enough with these profiles. You can drive yourself nuts with all this,but in the context of what we are talking it all needs to be right if we are optimising every aspect as best we can.
True Jamie, these types of what they call 'sophisticated' profiles, take no prisoners in my experience, they demand that you get them as accurately aligned as possible, otherwise they sound wrong/crApp, pinched, 1D etc etc and you'll wonder what all the fuss is about - As you say, it all needs to be right. |
|
