Flat earther?

Not wishing to go off topic is that not pure ad hominem (in your definition)?

Can't ever remember saying the same about anyone ever on a forum.


<moderator - post deleted> Rob

Thank you Rob - Andrew.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Richard Dunn said:
The point is I just don't bloody care, I used to try but now I just accept reality as I see it. I gave up designing with test gear and specs years ago because I got fed up with being lied to. I use the minimum necessary to build and repair, any circuit changes now come from my ears - full stop!
Click to expand...

I don't actually disagree with you.

I've built speakers in the past largely by ear. You just need a basic understanding of crossover effects, driver and box characteristics and you are half way there. The rest comes form many man hours of experiment and listening. No issue with that approach at all.

Where we might part company is on identifying the characteristics we have arrived at by ear and experimentation. I would argue that my purely subjectively designed loudspeaker could then be measured/analysed and that all of the subjectively identified characteristics will be revealed in the measurements.

That to me is important for several reasons.
Firstly it allows understanding of what you are hearing and why.
Secondly, it adds to your personal knowledge bank, so that you can build the speakers you like in the future through better understanding.
 
Dave Simpson said:
So what happens when the difference returns when sighted? Do you have to tell yourself each time you're imagining it?
Click to expand...

It usually doesn't return because half the battle against bias is identifying and understanding it. Do that and you dispel it.
 
RobHolt said:
I don't actually disagree with you.

I've built speakers in the past largely by ear. You just need a basic understanding of crossover effects, driver and box characteristics and you are half way there. The rest comes form many man hours of experiment and listening. No issue with that approach at all.

Where we might part company is on identifying the characteristics we have arrived at by ear and experimentation. I would argue that my purely subjectively designed loudspeaker could then be measured/analysed and that all of the subjectively identified characteristics will be revealed in the measurements.

That to me is important for several reasons.
Firstly it allows understanding of what you are hearing and why.
Secondly, it adds to your personal knowledge bank, so that you can build the speakers you like in the future through better understanding.
Click to expand...

But this is where the lying comes in Rob, remember I have been at this for over 40 years, man and boy. I used to think I had come up with formula and the science, but the next time I used it the results were different. I came to the conclusion that there are just too many variables and inconsistences. Now it is ground rules that are obvious, ground rules that are personal, experience and ears, once I accepted that the process became a lot more enjoyable.
 
Dave Simpson said:
It's your world and you have to live in it. I'm glad you found a defense mechanism;-)
Click to expand...

it certainly works :)

In the past few years I've used kit I'd have once dismissed.
I now see the merits and in some cases (eg PJW) the genius that went into the designs.
 
Ive heard all the rot about Quad SS and wouldn't let it influence me in the slightest. I give everything a fair shake. God knows, we have few pieces enough as it is which deliver the goods IMO.
 
Richard Dunn said:
But this is where the lying comes in Rob, remember I have been at this for over 40 years, man and boy. I used to think I had come up with formula and the science, but the next time I used it the results were different. I came to the conclusion that there are just too many variables and inconsistences. Now it is ground rules that are obvious, ground rules that are personal, experience and ears, once I accepted that the process became a lot more enjoyable.
Click to expand...

My experience is completely different.

If i stack up a Quad 34/306, A&R A60, Cambridge 840 and a Cyrus 3 and play them into most non load punishing loudspeakers they sound so alike that I regard them essentially as the same. It is almost the same with most dacs. When I examine the measurements I find great similarity in important areas such as IMD, THD, bandwidth, crosstalk, flat response 20-20k etc. It might just be me - but when when i play these things to people blind they also reach the same conclusion. Do that enough times and with enough kit and a strong opinion is formed. Not one carved into stone but one that requires strong evidence to dispel.

Sit me down in front of 10 phono cartridges and I'll fill pages with subjective prose, each will have clear attributes and I'll form an opinion on each. The measurements (most as above) will back them up. Play them blind and I will still react differently to each one.
 
Most of us are normal and well-adjusted despite the impressions we leave here. I can assure you I do not have the income to throw away on a Naim amp if a Radio Shack receiver sounded even similar. Something else is going on when i just sit down and listen to music through both. For me, there is a difference which justifies the more expensive unit in this case .

In other cases, I often find the least expensive choice gives the best performance (cables for instance.) All of my choices are arbitrary when it comes to the sticker price or badge. If I find something better than Naim, I will buy it. I certainly did this with Linn and Mana without a second's hesitation and despite ridicule.

Personally, I think most do the same.
 
Dave Simpson said:
Most of us are normal and well-adjusted despite the impressions we leave here. I can assure you I do not have the income to throw away on a Naim amp if a Radio Shack receiver sounded even similar. Something else is going on when i just sit down and listen to music through both. For me, there is a difference which justifies the more expensive unit in this case .

In other cases, I often find the least expensive choice gives the best performance (cables for instance.) All of my choices are arbitrary when it comes to the sticker price or badge. If I find something better than Naim, I will buy it. I certainly did this with Linn and Mana without a second's hesitation and despite ridicule.

Personally, I think most do the same.
Click to expand...

For many people it represent going against the grain, back peddling or having egg on their face. Not everyone will risk it and nobody is comfortable with it.
I've demonstrated things to people and seen them shocked that the result confounds their current opinion.
'Do it again that cannot be right', so we do and it is, again and again.
The same people a few months later are reverting to the previous stance and again swapping the kit they have demonstrated to themselves has not been bettered or no difference heard.

It might surprise you, but there are forums out there where people are perfectly happy using old receivers, decks and speakers of the type that would be laughed at on many audiophile forums. I'd bet they easily outnumber us too (all uk audiophile forums added) so we shouldn't lose sight of where we fit in the audio community.
 
Audio asylum is an excellent example of the receiver-stuffed-with-spiders-crowd (great vintage room for old american gear discussions.) Personally, I envy them. I wish my expectations were that low. It would be a helluvalot cheaper.
 
My dad had a Rotel RX602, I would love to find one in mint nick. It's what got me started in conjunction with Wharfedale Isodynamic headphones. I listened to Peel on a night, lovely.
 
I know what you mean, I did the same with an AR tuner bought purely on spec (Rob would be proud - 1.6µV input for 50dB quieting back in the sixties! ) I spent most late nights in my youth listening to the local college stations and discovering music beyond rock 'n roll (until I discovered girls.) It was a fabulous tuner which i regret selling to this day.

!B1GpwoQEGk~$(KGrHqEOKj0E)MFfnVeVBMdF1IV(nQ~~_3.JPG
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FWIW, JV once commented they discovered during the 52's development line-level circuits were found to be one thousand times more sensitive to vibration than previously thought.
Click to expand...

You think he might possibly have been trying to justify the price?

Did he provide any evidence to support the statement?
 
You think he might possibly have been trying to justify the price?
Click to expand...

Not likely, you either paid his asking price or didn't buy one. A simple solution to a not-so-complex problem.


Did he provide any evidence to support the statement?
Click to expand...

Not likely as the handful of paranoid internet audiophiles who couldn't trust their own ears didn't exist when the product was released. You simply compared it against another and made a decision. Another simple solution to a not-so-complex problem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So you don't think it similar to Ashleys claims of 30,000 (or whatever it was) times less distortion with the ADM9's?

As an aside, I simply do not understand this problem some people seem to have about seeking proof when it comes to hi-fi.
 
Dave Simpson said:
I believe Ashley's claim was 3,000 times. I have no reason to disbelieve JV's statement. Frankly, neither claim means anything to me as a listener-all that matters is the end result.
Click to expand...

Then why bring it up in the first place?
 
Basil said:
As an aside, I simply do not understand this problem some people seem to have about seeking proof when it comes to hi-fi.
Click to expand...

No one has a problem other than some of the forum objectivists. The rest of us aren't obsessed requiring proof for every breath we take or sound we hear. We enjoy what's heard and get on with life.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top