True enough, and I do appreciate the feedback especially as it is a good point, but all of the equipment I am considering is what most would call "classic" stuff. For instance, although I've got the Citations already, if I didn't there wouldn't be any place to audition them any longer. As it is, I'm mostly sticking to equipment that either I've owned in the past (I've had an Adcom GFA-545 and -555 years ago, but never with my current speakers) or equipment people close to me have owned. Essentially, Acurus, Aragon, Hafler, etc. I figure all of these are worth considering, and then I can try to mix and match with my needs (I have a pair of Duntech PCL-3s, Allison Fours, and a 7-channel Maggie system). If my experiment fails I can always resell the equipment, but I am hoping this will help make a more informed decision. The real problem is that with this equipment, and the equipment that I'm trying to match, an audition is almost always out of the question. You see my dilemma?
However, I will need ALOT of help discerning what the specs mean, or likely mean and how they might match this equipment. |
Atmasphere, at the risk of sounding completely ignorant... why hasn't somebody done what you're proposing? This sounds brilliant, simple, and straightforward. In fact, I'd think that this sort of testing would supply much of the sort of information that I'm looking for.
It isn't that I disagree that each piece of equipment won't sound different, and I certainly agree that what sounds 'good' is subjective, but the methodology behind the sound reproduction should be measurable meaning that it should be possible to say something like: okay, you are looking for this sort of sound, for this sort of speaker, etc. Then you should be looking for amps with these characteristics.
The problem as I see it right now is that if none of these measurements have any value, then how can any of these judgments be made. This is why, at least in part, I think your idea is great.
One last note: about not measuring what is important to the human ear. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this is likely not true. I can't say for sure, but in my field I research a fair amount of psychology regarding military deterrence and I am constantly impressed at how far the psychological and biological sciences have come in recent years. My point is that I would be shocked if no one has studied the interaction of the human brain, our in-built hearing, and how it interacts with music. Any study such as this would lead, inexorably, toward a better understanding of what appeals to the human ear (in general) and what does not. There are cultural issues here besides biological ones, but momentarily putting these aside, I believe you'd find that, in fact, what we hear, how we hear, and why we like certain things can be measured to a certain degree. To extrapolate, this would explain why certain types of sound reproduction--maybe using tubes?--remains popular even though arguably inferior technologically. |
Hi Kijanki,
You make some good points. The dealer with whom I should have a good relationship--I've given him over $20k worth of biz--is a complete ass in my opinion, so I don't go there any longer, but there are some others I could approach.... I just don't have a working relationship with them. However, your suggestion got me thinking about another option: using some friends and other audiophiles for demos. This might be the way to go.
I do have a few questions, however, about specs. Some folks are passionately against using specs in judging equipment and others, albeit a smaller group IMO, are just a passionate that specs/performance should be measurable. Personally, I'm a military historian and tend to be analytical, so while I can appreciate both sides of the debate, the end result frustrates me. So my main question is in trying to understand the two sides, or rather how do I reconcile these two positions?
Another question I've got concerns the use of amplifier types for reg. speakers vs. subwoofers. Currently I use my Citations to drive two passive SVSs subs (one of the reasons for my fixation on DF), but I don't know if I should get a dedicated 'sub-type' amp such as the one designed for the buttkickers, should I keep my current setup (and I still need to experiment between regular vs. bridged as well), or get a couple large mono-blocks for the subs. This is the sort of problem/question I'm trying to figure out. But without listening, what sort of factors should I be looking for?
This is why I'm confused. I've been 'into' home theater for about fifteen years, I've read magazines, forums, etc., so I'm hardly a newbie, nor am I completely ignorant. Yet, I find information that consistently confuses me. Here is an example: I've just purchased an old Janis sub (haven't gotten it yet) to experiment with matching it with my speakers. It uses a tiny little 80watt amp to drive a 15" driver! However, I'm told that the DF for this amp is very high. How does this jive?
So on the one hand, everyone is always talking about major wattage to drive subs, meanwhile the Janis has this big driver and dinky amp with a high DF. So I'm stuck trying to reconcile all of this information and this is the genesis of why I asked for any other specs I could find to put together a spreadsheet.
BTW, I hope my ignorance isn't too frustrating. I'm just a little frustrated myself trying to make the right choices and digesting this information.
Thank you, Aaron |
"Aewhistory, you might be surprised to find out that research about the way the ear hears and how the audio system interacts with that, has really not been dealt with all that much in a way that is not classified. "
That's disappointing to hear, although perhaps not surprising (and I shouldn't have presumed). With all the progress that the sciences have made, there is so much more to do; a fact made clear by our progress. If anything, our advances have really made it apparent how much of what we thought we knew we, in fact, do not know or have incomplete, need to rethink, etc.
However, thanks for sharing that snippet about something that has been done. Although this thread has gone completely in a different direction than I'd intended, I'm really quite happy with the discussion. I just wish I had something more to add, but I have been reading along consistently.
One last question/point: is there anything one might call research dealing with the linkage of critical listening and planar/electrostatic speakers? I might be totally off-base, but I remember hearing once that more than half of Stereophile readers had some sort of planar/eletrostatic speaker even though there are FAR more box-speaker manufacturers. I have little doubt that this is not representative of music listening in general; it must be representative of audiophiles and/or critical music listeners, right? Anyway, just wondering. |
Kijanki, would this explain why some have argued that keeping the signal above 20kHz is still necessary even though it isn't audible in the 'traditional' sense? Or is that what you're saying and I'm just repeating it? :-)
Thanks, Aaron |
To me, at least theoretically, a low THD should represent a cleaner signal path. Of course, this is theoretical, but what that spec. means to me is that the amplifier is not introducing outright distortion into the line. Of course, having said that, what constitutes distortion needs some definition.
This may seem completely unrelated, but in my field, history, the same types of arguments are made over trying to define terminology, categorizing, measuring, etc. And the results are no less frustrating. So while I can't claim to understand the finer aspects of EE, I do understand the academic aspects of the debate and appreciate them, despite my somewhat simplistic approach. |
