Audio myths and misconceptions

[Satanica]

2 hours ago, scumbag said:

Same way as it does for the block I have on you.

Double fail, maybe there's a bug in the system? 

[Assisi]

 

 

@MLXXX

 

 

23 hours ago, MLXXX said:

For really subtle differences, my auditory memory lasts only about 10 seconds.  The longer the delay, the less likely it is I'll be able to recall the auditory sensation.

 

I consider that we all in some ways do have a long term auditory memory that is better than what you may accept.  In fact I think that in one context it can last for years.  However it probably does not help with comparison listening.  I may play a track that I have not listened to for a long time.  Yet I know that I am just waiting for that couple of notes that to me are just special.  When I hear the notes I am waiting for and they are as I expect them to be then I know that everything is right.  Sometimes they even may be better than what I remember because of a change that I had made recently since I last played the track.

 

 

 

 

How many times have you heard the beginning of just the opening first few opening notes of a piece of music that you may have once been very familiar with yet you have not heard it for years?  Instantly you know what is.  I think that happens to all of us at times.  I accept that may not be what you would ascribe as auditory memory.  I most definitely would not be able to tell the difference of something from my long past being played on one system compared to another.

 

 

 

 

I have listened to a few particular tracks over and over and over until I am very familiar with even the most subtle aspects of just a few particular notes that are special.  For example a few notes of a guitar playing or a piano or saxophone.  I have a few tracks that I have listened to each at least a 1,000 times probably more.  When I want to hear whether something new is a benefit I listen to just the special notes parts of those tracks.  I listen to just 5 or 6 notes.  That is all I need to hear just maybe what I think could be a difference and or even maybe a benefit.

 

 

I find that for me changing things backwards and forwards does not work because there are too many complications that I do not want to deal with.  As well to listen to whole tracks just becomes totally confusing.  An important aspect is s you say the impact of the short term auditory memory.

What I find that does work for me is to make an addition to the system and just leave it there for days or even weeks and then take it out.  Sometimes without being overly conscious even days later I realise that sometimes something sound wise is missing after the removal.  I can put the change back and over time what was missing comes back.

 

 

For me the above is valid whilst I won't be surprised that it is considered to have no validity by some in this thread because it does not comply with DBT etc..

 

 

 

 

John

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Newman]

Perfectly valid way of using one's own Internal Illusion Generator to make decisions that pertain only to oneself. I have said that from the start. I have also said repeatedly that I commend taking IIG into account for oneself and one's own gear decisions, since we all listen to our music in 'sighted conditions'.

 

Completely invalid way of learning anything about sound waves, or of communicating with others as if it has any relevance to them, or worse, as a comment on 'the sound of a component or change'. Line in the sand.

[MLXXX]

6 hours ago, Assisi said:

 

 

 

 

@MLXXX

 

 

 

I consider that we all in some ways do have a long term auditory memory that is better than what you may accept.  In fact I think that in one context it can last for years.  However it probably does not help with comparison listening.  I may play a track that I have not listened to for a long time.  Yet I know that I am just waiting for that couple of notes that to me are just special.  When I hear the notes I am waiting for and they are as I expect them to be then I know that everything is right.  Sometimes they even may be better than what I remember because of a change that I had made recently since I last played the track.

 

 

 

 

 

 

How many times have you heard the beginning of just the opening first few opening notes of a piece of music that you may have once been very familiar with yet you have not heard it for years?  Instantly you know what is.  I think that happens to all of us at times.  I accept that may not be what you would ascribe as auditory memory.  I most definitely would not be able to tell the difference of something from my long past being played on one system compared to another.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have listened to a few particular tracks over and over and over until I am very familiar with even the most subtle aspects of just a few particular notes that are special.  For example a few notes of a guitar playing or a piano or saxophone.  I have a few tracks that I have listened to each at least a 1,000 times probably more.  When I want to hear whether something new is a benefit I listen to just the special notes parts of those tracks.  I listen to just 5 or 6 notes.  That is all I need to hear just maybe what I think could be a difference and or even maybe a benefit.

 

 

I find that for me changing things backwards and forwards does not work because there are too many complications that I do not want to deal with.  As well to listen to whole tracks just becomes totally confusing.  An important aspect is s you say the impact of the short term auditory memory.

 

 

What I find that does work for me is to make an addition to the system and just leave it there for days or even weeks and then take it out.  Sometimes without being overly conscious even days later I realise that sometimes something sound wise is missing after the removal.  I can put the change back and over time what was missing comes back.

 

 

 

 

For me the above is valid whilst I won't be surprised that it is considered to have no validity by some in this thread because it does not comply with DBT etc..

 

 

 

 

 

John

 

I do agree that many of us, myself included,  do seem to possess a type of auditory memory that lasts a very long time.  How the brain does this is by no means clear.

 

For example, I think that with particular singers we come to create a mental roadmap of how they phrase the words,  and what tone colours they produce. 

 

Interestingly, I think we can add in this phrasing and these tone colours mentally even if the playback is too soft, or too distorted for the phrasing or tone colours to be audible in the sound waves.  We just know they would be there and we generate the phrasing and the colour automatically and unconsciously.  Sooner or later the loudspeakers will actually reveal the sound, reinforcing the roadmap, or possibly triggering a slight revision of it.

 

Sound from pure imagination and memory

 

We can even play a song in our minds with no sound stimulus whatsoever.  Just as we can sometimes visualize something we've seen before. And of course when dreaming we create many visual impressions, and we may also generate dialogue and music as part of our dreams.  In order to create the visual and auditory dreams we must possess quite powerful recollections of images and sounds. 

 

If I watch a movie with the sound turned off I can recognize quite a few words by lip reading, even though I am untrained in lip reading. I feel I can I perceive syllable stress and it seems I can even hear some intonation, or so my brain tells me, even though the loudspeaker sound is fully muted.

 

No doubt when we listen to music, or admire a painting, our brain is performing a great deal of processing activity, comparing parts of the raw sound  that we concentrate on and parts of the raw vision that we concentrate on, with parts of a huge history of our previous  auditory and visual experiences.  

 

Quote

 

What I find that does work for me is to make an addition to the system and just leave it there for days or even weeks and then take it out.  Sometimes without being overly conscious even days later I realise that sometimes something sound wise is missing after the removal.  I can put the change back and over time what was missing comes back.

 

For me the above is valid whilst I won't be surprised that it is considered to have no validity by some in this thread because it does not comply with DBT etc..

 

For me, that is a very vague experience as you have described it, especially in regard to the timing (which I've taken the liberty to emphasize with italics). To my mind, It does not seem very clear that the coming and going of the sometimes missing element is necessarily due to the change in the system, rather than to some other influence.

 

 

 

Thanks very much Assisi for sharing your thoughts. I do very much have to agree with you that there are certain auditory impressions that we are able to retain over very long periods of time.

Edited January 12, 2018 by MLXXX

[crisis]

On 1/11/2018 at 9:31 PM, LHC said:

 

I was also in a similar situation when I picked the "wrong" component in the presence of a knowledgeable salesperson doing a blind audition. He was visually upset, but I didn't feel any pressure. Why should I? After all it is my hard earn money that I am spending, and I have to live with the component I chose. 

It is my experience that you do not need to be knowledgeable to be selling a particular product. It is also my experience that in audio it is less so. I have come across some utterly objectionable individuals in the  S.A. industry who are self proclaimed experts on the subject when what "sounds" "good" to someone is purely subjective. 

4 hours ago, Assisi said:

How many times have you heard the beginning of just the opening first few opening notes of a piece of music that you may have once been very familiar with yet you have not heard it for years?  Instantly you know what is.  I think that happens to all of us at times.  I accept that may not be what you would ascribe as auditory memory.  I most definitely would not be able to tell the difference of something from my long past being played on one system compared to another. 

 

To me I know when there is an "improvement" when I hear something in a well known piece that I have not noticed before.

I recently used a spirit level on my turntable for the first time ever. So kill me. But Jesus ******* Christ. Leveling that thing made a difference I was not prepared for. I know the theory and I should have done it ages ago but that was the best value "upgrade" I have ever made.

 

Quote

I have listened to a few particular tracks over and over and over until I am very familiar with even the most subtle aspects of just a few particular notes that are special.  For example a few notes of a guitar playing or a piano or saxophone.  I have a few tracks that I have listened to each at least a 1,000 times probably more.  When I want to hear whether something new is a benefit I listen to just the special notes parts of those tracks.  I listen to just 5 or 6 notes.  That is all I need to hear just maybe what I think could be a difference and or even maybe a benefit.

 

Quote

I find that for me changing things backwards and forwards does not work because there are too many complications that I do not want to deal with.  As well to listen to whole tracks just becomes totally confusing.  An important aspect is s you say the impact of the short term auditory memory. 

 

I simply cant be badoozled.

 

Edited January 12, 2018 by crisis

[magical]

23 hours ago, crisis said:

It is my experience that you do not need to be knowledgeable to be selling a particular product. It is also my experience that in audio it is less so. I have come across some utterly objectionable individuals in the  S.A. industry who are self proclaimed experts on the subject when what "sounds" "good" to someone is purely subjective. 

To me I know when there is an "improvement" when I hear something in a well known piece that I have not noticed before.

I recently used a spirit level on my turntable for the first time ever. So kill me. But Jesus ******* Christ. Leveling that thing made a difference I was not prepared for. I know the theory and I should have done it ages ago but that was the best value "upgrade" I have ever made.

 

I simply cant be badoozled.

 

 

[Guest Eggcup The Daft]

On 1/11/2018 at 10:01 PM, LHC said:

 

I was also in a similar situation when I picked the "wrong" component in the presence of a knowledgeable salesperson doing a blind audition. He was visually upset, but I didn't feel any pressure. Why should I? After all it is my hard earn money that I am spending, and I have to live with the component I chose. 

I've said here before about being thrown out of the first hifi store I visited for preferring the wrong turntable. But it's not just that immediate thing that I was referring to. It's the years of conditioning. The entire industry is based on telling us about differences that, sometimes, not so much don't exist, as can't. And, loyally, we hear them. Even the blue paper.

[rocky500]

I was quite unwell over Christmas and was house bound and decided to redo my setup and get my HT working again. 

My preamp has HT bypass, so put my center speaker back on top of my rack, moved my preamp down to a lower shelf, setup some other amps to enable my surrounds, so I could switch between them.
Unfortunately I modified my Preamp with an after market volume control and this disabled the HT bypass. :-( Not so bad, as I can swap some cables around if I want to use the HT setup as it all is in place now.

 

There are some experienced people on this forum who are very passionate too on this hobby and thought I would again try out my 2 dacs to see if maybe I was hearing things that are not there as a quick test against each of them always seems that they are close and I most probably could not pick which is which.
So for the next week or so, I have been listening to the cheaper Dac only. Low and behold I have had amazing sessions. It is sounding so impressive. I listen a lot to music as a background and there are so many moments that I have to stop as the music has totally grabbed my attention and I have to listen to it exclusivity. Never before has this Dac sounded this good and given me this type of sound.
Totally memorized with it and think I have to re-evaluate my thoughts on my 2 Dacs. Its so good, I do not think I will change back for the time been.
Hard to put into words but music has depth, instruments have impact, music is just so enjoyable and more natural that I do not think of my system at all, I just enjoy  the sessions.
This only happens with my more expensive Holo Dac not my modi multibit. They both run off a modified Singxer SU-1 with LPS-1 power supply.
This has me confused as long listening sessions are never like this with the modi. It just does not happen.

 

Well I finally thought I would swap back to the Holo Dac for a time to see how my listening sessions go again. Walked over and was shocked when I realized I had not been listening to the Modi but the Holo Dac all along!
Moving the Preamp down to the lower shelf made it hard to see which one I selected and I honestly thought I was listening to the Modi 100% this whole time.
My listening sessions where that good I was contemplating if I really need the Holo Dac anymore.

 

I have had others over and quick switching between them is always hard to pick a difference if any but this always does not pan out to what I hear when just relaxing back and listening to my music in my sessions for ME.
I have read a lot on the net to see if others find this at all. Occasionally I come across info that might shed a little light on this. Alan shaw explains it a little in what he thinks might happen in doing these tests, like the memory compresses the music like losing bits as time goes by like 2 seconds and then it all sounds the same. He likes to switch in miliseconds for his tests to get a good grasp on differences. Also 30 seconds at max before switching.
Some say the left and right part of the brain are used differently when testing or relaxing back to music.
There are a few thoughts on this, but in the end nothing is proven. Maybe some day there might be a comprehensive study on this phenomenon that sheds some light on why some people find this happens to them.

 

But for ME, I have found that quick switching between components, even not knowing which is which has the effect of making them sound the same. Long listening sessions over a week or so is the only good method for ME to get a handle on what I prefer.
The week is good as it rules out as some say moods, mindset I might be in and the big one that I think hampers my stereo is power quality on the mains. Different times can sound very different.
I only bring this up, in the hope others might not write off 2 components when they compare in say BT’s, DBT’s or even ABX tests.
It would be great if you could give them a week or so each (if possible) and see how your listening sessions go.
These quick comparisons tests (like DBT’s) sound like solid practical ways in theory that should be a great way in hearing a difference but unfortunately for ME, they seem to hide the differences in my testing and are not what I find in my long relaxed listening sessions.
My stereo has progressed so much since I gave them up that it has become a stereo I can listen to my music and not my system anymore.

 

Again, whatever works for you but I personally really have my doubts on tests like BT’s in audio. My practical side and thinking logically says they should be great but for some reason they are not good for ME.
 

Edited January 18, 2018 by rocky500

[MLXXX]

@rocky500, you refer to home theatre bypass, and to a centre speaker. What sort of sound do you get simply using the inbuilt DAC of your home theatre amplifier, i.e. using no external DAC and no preamp?

This is the method many people not into the "hobby" of setting up and experimenting with an audiophile system, but simply wanting to listen to music from a CD, would use.  They would connect the optical output of their CD player or transport to an optical input of their home theatre amplifier.

[rocky500]

1 minute ago, MLXXX said:

@rocky500, you refer to home theatre bypass, and to a centre speaker. What sort of sound do you get simply using the inbuilt DAC of your home theatre amplifier, i.e. using no external DAC and no preamp?

This is the method many people not into the "hobby" of setting up and experimenting with an audiophile system, but simply wanting to listen to music from a CD, would use.  They would connect the optical output of their CD player or transport to an optical input of their home theatre amplifier.

It is ok. It is a Emotiva XMC-1 with a good quality Dac inbuilt.

Just not as good as a dedicated Preamp and external Dac. That is where it all changed for me in having a dedicated 2CH Preamp. I had to go to an expensive one at that but the transparency different is quite large to me. Enough so that my HT has been sitting idle for over a year.

Now I am drawn into my music unlike ever before and listening sessions are so much longer. I would say before was just having sound in the room but now I emotionally connect to my music.

[rocky500]

I think also something can sound great until you hear something better for a while. Its like your threshold moves up and the old sound just is not as enjoyable like it once was.

Edited January 18, 2018 by rocky500

[Darren69]

Just to totally confuse, my Meridian 808.3i CDP (inbuilt dac and pre) sounds better than separate PS Audio Perfectwave DAC and PS Audio Perfectwave transport fed through a calibrated DEQX HDP4.

 

Then a separate pre in the form of the Parasound JC2 made it all sound better again.

 

Of course I wasn't chained, blindfolded and locked in a submerged bank vault at the time (no doubt contrary to the wishes of many poor SNA members) but my ears reckon this all to be true. In fact there were significant differences!

 

Default disclaimer- Of course, as always, this was with my crap music, in my room, through my system, with my ears and my tastes.

Edited January 18, 2018 by Darren69

[joz]

36 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

I think also something can sound great until you hear something better for a while. Its like your threshold moves up and the old sound just is not as enjoyable like it once was.

Sometimes a change is as good as a holiday.

[Satanica]

27 minutes ago, joz said:

Sometimes a change is as good as a holiday.

Or you could just spend it on a holiday.

[MLXXX]

9 hours ago, rocky500 said:

I have had others over and quick switching between them is always hard to pick a difference if any but this always does not pan out to what I hear when just relaxing back and listening to my music in my sessions for ME.

ok

 

7 hours ago, rocky500 said:

It is ok. It is a Emotiva XMC-1 with a good quality Dac inbuilt.

Just not as good as a dedicated Preamp and external Dac.

Is that inbuilt DAC sufficiently different in its sound that you can identify a difference in short term testing compared with an external DAC?

 

                                                         _ 

I'm finding it interesting to read that some people are unable to detect any difference in careful short-term A B comparisons but report hearing a significant difference (a difference worth spending a great deal of money on) that may slowly emerge after listening for about a week.  After that week if switching back to the original sound, again no immediate difference can be heard. [Presumably after a week or so of renewed listening wih the original setup, the sound would again begin to sound subjectively different.]

 

That type of medium-term drift in subjective perception is beyond my ability to pin down and categorise for my own hearing.  I find that I hear small differences in sound pressure waves most readily and with greatest confidence when then is a very short break between listening to the "A" and the "B" scenarios.  With longer time frames I cannot retain the sound with sufficient precision in my mind to be able to pin down a difference in perception as being due to personal variations (e.g. my state of alertness, or the quality of my memory), as distinct from objective differences (e.g. the sound pressure waves reaching my ears). I really have no way of telling what has caused a slight difference in my perception from one day to the next, being a fallible organic creature that on some days will feel tired, and on other days full of energy.

 

If I play the same CD on the same equipment 7 days in a row, sitting in the same chair, I will have a different listening experience each time. These differences are entirely due to my changing perceptions.  If someone unbeknown to me were to make a barely perceptible change to the system at the end of the 4th day, it would be almost impossible for me to become aware of that on the 5th, 6th or 7th days,  even though I might be able to detect it at almost any time in a careful, immediate, A B comparison. That's how my hearing works.

 

Edited January 18, 2018 by MLXXX

[Assisi]

On 1/12/2018 at 7:23 PM, MLXXX said:

Thanks very much Assisi for sharing your thoughts. I do very much have to agree with you that there are certain auditory impressions that we are able to retain over very long periods of time.

 

1 hour ago, MLXXX said:

    I'm finding it interesting to read that some people are unable to detect any difference in careful short-term A B comparisons but report hearing a significant difference (a difference worth spending a great deal of money on) that may slowly emerge after listening for about a week.  After that week if switching back to the original sound, again no immediate difference can be heard. [Presumably after a week or so of renewed listening wih the original setup, the sound would again begin to sound subjectively different.]

 

That type of medium-term drift in subjective perception is beyond my ability to pin down and categorise for my own hearing.  I find that I hear small differences in sound pressure waves most readily and with greatest confidence when then is a very short break between listening to the "A" and the "B" scenarios.  With longer time frames I cannot retain the sound with sufficient precision in my mind to be able to pin down a difference in perception as being due to personal variations (e.g. my state of alertness, or the quality of my memory), as distinct from objective differences (e.g. the sound pressure waves reaching my ears). I really have no way of telling what has caused a slight difference in my perception from one day to the next, being a fallible organic creature that on some days will feel tired, and on other days full of energy.

 

If I play the same CD on the same equipment 7 days in a row, sitting in the same chair, I will have a different listening experience each time. These differences are entirely due to my changing perceptions.  If someone unbeknown to me were to make a barely perceptible change to the system at the end of the 4th day, it would be almost impossible for me to become aware of that on the 5th, 6th or 7th days,  even though I might be able to detect it at almost any time in a careful, immediate, A B comparison. That's how my hearing works.

 

@MLXXX

 

I am also intrigued as to how different people hear or listen and their respective perspectives.

I sit very comfortably with@rocky500 's   comments.  It was what I was trying to say in my post above a few days ago in which your response was very gentle when I expected a hand grenade.  What I said does not sit with the objectivists at all and I am bemused as to why they have to be so definitely negative about my experiences.  I do wonder are the perspectives of myself and or @rocky500 a threat to their comfort zone.  To me my experiences are real and valid.  Thank you for your considered response.

If I listen to something to try and do a quasi AB comparison I just become very confused based upon an extended bit of a track.  As I said previously I just listen for a couple of notes that I think are special.  Listening to a track for an extended period of time helps me identify the notes that are particularly special. As well listening to my system for days or weeks with some change means that over time I get a feel for what is actually happening.  If the change is removed and there was an actual change I can pick it.

 

I am telling just as it is for me and nothing more.  I have never made an extrapolation that others should follow my example contrary to what has been a response by some to what I have said.

 

I know that I quote Paul McGowan a bit.  His perspective suits me.  His post yesterday created a bit of a firestorm.  It suits this topic

http://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/the-beauty-of-measurements/

John

[MLXXX]

21 minutes ago, Assisi said:

I know that I quote Paul McGowan a bit.  His perspective suits me.  His post yesterday created a bit of a firestorm.  It suits this topic

 

http://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/the-beauty-of-measurements/

 

 

John

[Thanks for your remarks.]

 

That post of Mr McGowan's is more extreme than others of his I've seen. I'm not surprised it created a firestorm. 

[Newman]

7 hours ago, Assisi said:

....I know that I quote Paul McGowan a bit.  His perspective suits me.  His post yesterday created a bit of a firestorm.  It suits this topic

http://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/the-beauty-of-measurements/

 

6 hours ago, MLXXX said:

....That post of Mr McGowan's is more extreme than others of his I've seen. I'm not surprised it created a firestorm. 

Oh, I've been right about McGowan since the beginning. Here are a few things I have said about his 'ponderings'.

2014 McGowan really is quite the spin doctor!

2014 Is McGowan the new Tiefenbrun?

2014 McGowan is 'selective with the truth'

2016 false claims about Memory Player

2017 Do you think he is credible? IMHO he says exactly what he feels like on a day-by-day basis and self-contradicts with gay abandon.

2017 Although that is true, McGowan saying so is not the reason.

This thread McGowan is a myth-maker.... a typical example of someone who knows his electronics but has no idea how to conduct a listening test in a way that controls the variables, or why one should do that.

This thread the basic hypocrisy of McGowan

 

Following him is a great way to get your personal audio progress and understanding tied into little tiny pretzels and baked in a tumble dryer.

[darthlaker]

More interesting "McGowanisms" here:

 

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/37942-diy-ps-audio-humbuster.html

[joz]

2 hours ago, Newman said:

 

Oh, I've been right about McGowan since the beginning. Here are a few things I have said about his 'ponderings'.

2014 McGowan really is quite the spin doctor!

2014 Is McGowan the new Tiefenbrun?

2014 McGowan is 'selective with the truth'

2016 false claims about Memory Player

2017 Do you think he is credible? IMHO he says exactly what he feels like on a day-by-day basis and self-contradicts with gay abandon.

2017 Although that is true, McGowan saying so is not the reason.

This thread McGowan is a myth-maker.... a typical example of someone who knows his electronics but has no idea how to conduct a listening test in a way that controls the variables, or why one should do that.

This thread the basic hypocrisy of McGowan

 

Following him is a great way to get your personal audio progress and understanding tied into little tiny pretzels and baked in a tumble dryer.

Feel sorry to those that hang on to his (and many others in that case) words as gospel.

[LHC]

There is an 2017 interview with legendary amplifier designer Nelson Pass where he expressed views that are not dissimilar to Paul McGowan's. 

 

That Stereophile interview is here

https://www.stereophile.com/content/nelson-pass-circuit-topology-and-end-science

 

I will go through some keys points and how they relate to what has been discussed in this thread so far.

 

(1) Do amplifiers sound different? Posters here have said that amplifier design is a 'solved' problem, and that all well designed amplifiers sound the same. Well, it is clear from the interview that while Nelson Pass accepts that the 'objective' aspects of amplifier design are now solved on a practical level, he believes there is still room to improve on the 'subjective' aspects of the design, aiming for perfection. "Fundamentally, what interests me most about amplifiers are the differences in sound created by different topologies and the characteristics of the active gain devices. There are few things I enjoy so much as to contemplate the specific (and complex) characteristics of the many transistors (or tubes) and how they might fit into an amplifier to deliver a sound which has a particular signature." There you go, Pass believes that well designed amplifiers can sound different, and parts can sound different, and he said "I enjoy listening to differences".

 

(2) Can we measure what we hear? "Measurements and listening go hand in hand. There is a correlation between objective and subjective, but they're not strictly causal relationships. Clearly, there are some amplifiers that measure great with "standard" measurements but don't sound so good, and there are examples of good-sounding/bad-measuring as well. The discrepancies are interesting because they point to either things that have not been measured—more likely, misinterpreted—or aspects of perception and taste that don't correlate to measured flaws. Or both." Pass' views here agree with Paul McGowan's in his blog. It partially answers an earlier question from @Sir Sanders Zingmore. It is also consistent with a post by @Zaphod Beeblebrox that we need to know the entire set of relevant measurements.

 

(3) Do we know which measurements correlate with good sound? There is an interesting discussion about designing SIT amps here that reveals Nelson Pass as "able to objectively identify the qualities of the sound—information which remains proprietary." He gave an example how he does this through listeners feedback, but taking care to avoid expectation bias.

 

(4) What is hi-fi all about? "I am centrally aware that all this is just entertainment, mine and yours." "In the end, the subjective experience is what our customer is looking for. Our taste in sound may not appeal to everyone, but it's what we have to work with, and we only need a small segment of the market to be successful. I don't neglect the measurements; I put them to work." So Nelson Pass has a similar worldview to those here like @rantan, the enjoyment of the sound is what matters. Here he aims to create amplifiers that sound great, and measure fairly well too. 

 

 

[Newman]

Unlike my lack of followship towards McGowan, I am a long-standing sycophantic follower of Nelson Pass, particularly due to his long-standing generosity to the DIY community with his time and ingenuity. A very clever man, too, with a true genius for grasping and inventing circuit concepts.

 

But in relation to the above guru-worshipping comments, I add the following balanced notes:

• All his comments and opinions on sonics apply to sighted listening. By now this should be a 'QED' statement.
• He makes, and makes his living off, high-priced amplifiers. He will automatically have a strong aversion to any notion that cheaper amps can sound indistinguishable from his megabuckers. He will have strong disinterest or antipathy to putting that theory to the test, if he suspects it might be true.
• He has a glorious inquisitiveness, open-mindedness, and experimentality. He revels in the fun of it all.
• He has no inhibition whatsoever towards making or suggesting amps that will have a clear sonic signature due to the way they introduce non-linearities and other errors. So, naturally, amps can and will sound different in Nelson Pass' world. Of course he will "enjoy listening to the differences". Not only the internal illusions of sighted listening, but the ways he is willing to modify the sound waves.
• He wasn't kidding when he said "The objective needs of amplifier users are largely solved on a practical level, and ....when that happens, we turn our technology into art." He is now having fun with the elegance of his creations, and selling uniqueness of circuit concepts and solutions. I have an interest in that too, and I am drawn to his genius and (amplifier) elegance. He has indeed turned his technology into art.

Closing note: the prevalence of guru-worship by audiophiles as a means to find truth, is most concerning. It's like Alice willingly jumping feet-first into the rabbit hole and believing that everything that follows is non-illusory. Surely even Alice had a second thought when the rabbit started speaking in English!

[LHC]

On 1/22/2018 at 4:44 PM, Newman said:

All his comments and opinions on sonics apply to sighted listening. By now this should be a 'QED' statement.

I made the mistake before of taking your claims for granted, but I am not making such mistake again. So unless you can backup your claim with evidences, your claim is meaningless. Since you are a long time fan of his, it should be easy for you to come up with evidence that Nelson Pass use sighted listening exclusively to inform his views and opinions. To help you with this task, here is what an audio reviewer wrote about his methods (https://www.cnet.com/news/first-watt-f7-very-special-amplifier-dazzled-the-audiophiliac/): "Pass regularly performs blind listening tests to confirm he's going in the right direction as new designs take shape in his workshop."

 

On 1/22/2018 at 4:44 PM, Newman said:

He makes, and makes his living off, high-priced amplifiers. He will automatically have a strong aversion to any notion that cheaper amps can sound indistinguishable from his megabuckers. He will have strong disinterest or antipathy to putting that theory to the test, if he suspects it might be true.

Again another unsubstantiated claim. Where is the evidence to back up your made-up assertions, especially that last sentence?

 

On 1/22/2018 at 4:44 PM, Newman said:

He has a glorious inquisitiveness, open-mindedness, and experimentality. He revels in the fun of it all.

Nelson Pass is a student of physics, this is not surprising. This goes to what @Muon N' said earlier. But what you wrote here contradicts what you wrote above that he won't put certain theory to the test. You can't have it both ways.

 

On 1/22/2018 at 4:44 PM, Newman said:

He has no inhibition whatsoever towards making or suggesting amps that will have a clear sonic signature due to the way they introduce non-linearities and other errors. So, naturally, amps can and will sound different in Nelson Pass' world.

This conflicts with what Pass spoke about in that article. He said he aims for simplistic design that measures well. They sound great because of his choice of configurations and parts used. Do bear in mind the measurements that guide him may not be the 'standard' ones, and may be misinterpreted by others as 'errors'. You can't possibly know this information because its proprietary.

 

On 1/22/2018 at 4:44 PM, Newman said:

Closing note: the prevalence of guru-worship by audiophiles as a means to find truth, is most concerning.

You are mistaken. What we do is called an evidence-based approach where we back up what we write here with evidence sourced from printed and published material. I recommend you give it a try one day. 

Edited January 23, 2018 by LHC

[Rob181]

20 hours ago, Newman said:

Surely even Alice had a second thought when the rabbit started speaking in English!

Oh...I don't know...

There are a number of people in this thread who speak English...

Yet continually rabbit on...

[Satanica]

11 hours ago, LHC said:

You are mistaken. What we do is called an evidence-based approach where we back up what we write here with evidence sourced from printed and published material.

You have got to be kidding me?