Roger believed in his product enough to let you hear it for yourself. To test the device in question. IOW, he put up. You, on the other hand, irrespective of the circumstances, HAVE NOT put up. It is that simple. Everything else is chest thumping. I have in no way said that I believe what he has said. If you could please point out where I said that, I would be grateful. On the other hand, I have not discounted it either. I am curious though, what exactly would you "risk" by listening to this piece of equipment? Your pride? Your beliefs? Financial obligation aside of course. I would love to audition one of these. Of course, IF (note I said if) I found it to do what Roger says and reported it as I heard it, I would be labeled a kool aid drinker, a dupe, and subject to confirmation bias because it cannot possibly be so. It would be better if one of the people that claims this to be snake oil actually test it in their own system and report what they heard. If you heard Roger's device do what he describes, would you be man enough to come back to these pages and report that?
Ironically the process has been perfected and the final version is coming out as X-12. There will be no X-13.It now has TOTAL control of the data recovered from the original recording. The Auto-Focus system has been perfected and now the holographic "display" is a full clone with no distortion and no noise. It can project the same acoustic layout including the exact spacing between objects as recorded. (at the proper volume of course) and the brain does in fact perceive it as live.
I am truly sorry about your financial situation. You state that giving a fair shake at your expense hasn't been a priority, and I can empathize with that. On the other hand, you haven't, for one second, avoided burning him at the stake at every turn. Kind of a one way street, isn't it? Apparently the sword is only supposed to cut in the direction of your personal bias. In the same vane as you, I have no compunction about telling someone they are acting a fool when they are. Hopefully, you will get out of this financial mess and find a way to actually listen to the piece of gear you are discrediting. Of course, at that point, you could let all of us know whether it sounds as Roger describes or not. If it does, could you and would you swallow your pride enough to actually admit it?
You know, way back on September 12, Roger offered to send one of his pre amps to Kosst to audition under no obligation to buy. He flatly turned him down. Then he has spent the next month berating him and proclaiming that there is no way his product can do what he claims. Just listen to the damn thing and form an opinion after that. Quit f***ing speculating about what it can and can't do. What do you have to lose? It takes a special kind of a**hole to act that way.
I did a comparison between the Audio Research DS450 and the GS150 at a local shop recently. GS Pre frontend and VPI turntable via Vandersteen speakers. Nice setup. The sound thru the DS450 ($9k), a switching amp wasn't too bad, but, wasn't what I'd call wonderful. Then the dealer switched over to the GS150 ($20k), yeah, MUCH better. In fact I brought my daughter along with me and she told the salesman flat out "the 1st amp was Broken..." Now, one would expect a $20k amp to sound better than a $9k amp. And, tubes do sound different than SS. But, at $9k the switcher produced "sound" no magic, no music really. So, yeah switching amps have a long, long way to go. The GS150 tube amp, not really sure it could get much better, nor do I feel it would Need to. Hey, maybe in 50 years switching amps will be as good as modern tube amps are today :)
kosst_amojan If you read me post again - word for word you will notice that I don't use the term "should" anywhere in the post.
...that an amp should behave like a straight wire with gain...
or
The problem with his interpretation of what a volume knob should do...
These statements imply that I am theorizing or expressing an opinion of what "should" happen. That is not the case. In order for me to relate an observation however implies that such a system has to exist. That is the case.
...a flute played softly doesn't sound as if it's further away.
It sounds like where it's at regardless of how loud or quietly it's played.
This is true but if you are sitting in the 10th row instead of the first row - it does sound further away. Also in the mix is the distance from the flute to the microphone. That is the difference between moving yourself physically at the venue and adjusting the volume in your listening room. Ideally you want the playback volume to match the acoustic volume expressed by the actual instrument(s). Even with no distortion - higher or lower than "normal" volumes will signal the brain that it is listening to a reproduction. If the volume is correct - the brain can accept that it is live
I could tell you what it sounds like. It sounds like no amplifier is in use. As far as performance - It's more like a 3D sound projector. The only thing you hear is the original venue fully "displayed" as an acoustic image. Turning the volume up and down acts as a zoom control that changes the distance or your proximity to the performance.
To answer the thread question... Nelson Pass is right (about Nelson Pass)
Pass:
Oh, I want perfection, all right, but I'm secure in the knowledge that I won't achieve it.
Some designers give up looking for perfection. Its extremely difficult even with state of the art devices. This is why there is a mindset that you just have to take the pros and cons of various components and make the best combination that gives you the "sound" you're looking for.That seems to be the norm.
Over the years I've owned some of the finest sounding amplifiers ever made. I'm positive that a few would still be competitive today. I returned to the hobby this year after a 9 year absence - starting with a clean palette. I started to research the current SOTA in amps and preamps with absolutely NO interest in class D amplifiers. I never heard one that came close to reproducing music realistically among their other problems.
I set a budget of $8k for amplification hoping I would find a mint used set of monoblocks in that price range. I kept hearing great things about the Bel Canto 600M's and even though I was dead-set against class D, I took a trip to hear them. To my total surprise they sounded great - no hint of that sterile class D sound - no lack of musicality and detail. In fact, inner detail retrieval is outstanding. I purchased a pair.
No, they aren't perfect, but if you write off class D amplifiers based on the examples of 5 years ago, you would be making a mistake. I have a very musical, detailed presentation with good slam and attack. There are other positives. The cost compared to my budget was far less and a bargain for performance at this level. I'm also happy that they run cool. My previous monoblocks - Sierra Audio Denali - required me to run the A/C in the winter in order to keep the listening room comfortable.
I know there are other great options at the budget I set. I listened to many before making my decision. It came down to buying a great set of amps for only $3k (dealer demos) that compete with much higher priced amps.
Benchmark licensed a device or circuit topology that uses feed forward to reduce distortion when going from class A to B (or was it AB). I have not heard one (yet) but people I trust really like it. It's on my list.
people who think innovation has stopped should read the thread "Class D is Like Candy"
dunno if it has slowed down or not - but it has not stopped
"Is there anyone on Audiogon actually interested in high fidelity or is everyone just fixated on making up completely imaginary pseudoscience nonsense?"
Wasn’t it Einstein in his later years who said, "I wish I had spent more time on metaphysics than I did on Physics."?
toddverrone Yeah man, sorry, as far as a testable scientific theory, m fields are out.
What did I just say? They’re testable. I just said they already had a contest. You know, con-test. And on the panel was David Bohm, super duper theoretical physicist. Besides, your humble scribe is a super tester. I’ve tested billion dollar comm systems. I’ve tested Morphic fields, too. You can trust me. They’re testable. And I’ve been testing them as long as almost anyone. I’m not hot dogging you. 🌭
Quote "Benchmark Media Systems' AHB2 is an extraordinary amplifier. Not only does its performance lie at the limits of what is possible for me to reliably test, it packs high power into a very small package, especially when used in bridged-mono mode. It is truly a high-resolution amplifier".—John Atkinson
Is there anyone on Audiogon actually interested in high fidelity or is everyone just fixated on making up completely imaginary pseudoscience nonsense?
stfoth "Geoff--finally something on which I think I can sort of at least partially agree with you, although the distinction between the purely psychological and the physiological is getting blurred as more folks monkey with brains.
Has a mood affected hearing/perception? Has anyone had auditory hallucinations--"natural" or, ahem, induced? Synesthesia? Ever said, "Hey, did you say something?" when the he/she hadn’t made a peep? "Hear" more deeply into the music, when relaxed with a clear head? Had a great day and the birds chirped more loudly? Been irritable and every little annoying noise that’s usually tuned out now heard.
Not just hearing...every sense can be impacted in similar ways. Some of it is hormonal, too.
What’s this have to do with amps/preamps? Depends."
>>>>I am making a distinction between what we CAN control ourselves by action or thought and what we CANNOT control by action or thought. So I’m not really talking about drinking some wine or taking hallucinogens to get in the mood or change one’s perceptions. The mind matter interaction I’m referring to is a natural phenomenon that can be conscious, for example the sense that someone is staring at you, but usually it’s subconscious, so we’re not (rpt not) aware that the influence of our immediate surroundings, the local environment as it were, on our sensory perception is taking place. It’s all just factored into whatever we observe through our senses. We can make no distinction between say the distortion of a wire and the distortion of the mind matter interference. The mind matter interaction/interference does affect all senses, not just the sense of hearing. Think of it like interference on a radio channel. I.e., noise and distortion.
toddverrone I’m pretty sure morphic fields were laid by the wayside years ago. Sheldrake had great ideas, but the details didn’t seem to pan out.
Sorry, you might have listened to one too many pseudo skeptics. They said the same thing about gravity waves. And black holes. Morphic fields are alive and well, thank you very much. 👩👩👦👦 Heck, they even had a contest to prove or disprove them. Guess who won. 😳
kosst_amojan Morphic fields!?!?!? I’ve been poking around physics for a while now but I’ve never come across Morphic fields. Sounds like you listen to lots of Coast to Coast AM. In the world of reality we call crap like that pseudoscience. State vector collapse within the framework of the Copenhagen Interpretation certainly doesn’t call for magical Morphic fields, and that’s the cornerstone concept concerning the observer’s relationship with the universe.
>>>>>See, that’s the difference between a real physicist and someone who just pokes around in physics. Your post is so reminiscent of what many skeptics and pretend skeptics say, "I looked everywhere but I could find no mention of it anywhere. So it must not exist." Maybe you just need to look harder, Pokey. 👀 I’m going to help you out. Remember I said I’m talking about psychological, not physiological, phenomenon. So there is no reason to assume Morphic fields must fit into the realm of physics per se. In fact, they actually don’t. They do not obey the laws of physics (physical science) so chances look good Morphic fields are not physics. First law of science - never assume anything.
That's actually not true. Sheldrake would be the first to say Morphic fields apply to everything, animate and inanimate, from birds to fish to electrons to trees to words and symbols. Now, we can do this the hard way or the fun way. 😄
The M-field idea was relevant in biology when it was proposed. Not physics. It’s actually a good idea that wasn’t developed in the right direction and its current incarnation is somewhat laughable, mostly because the new agers broke it. They do that with everything
Interesting thought, it basically wrong and right. Yes, the circuit topologies commonly used are reaching a limit in refinement. No, there are other topologies that we are just exploring that are proving better. I and others have heard them, some now posses products based on these new topologies. They are groundbreaking but they are a new wave of doing things in a world habituated to the old way.
But only time will tell, and it is telling as listeners discover it.
I’m pretty sure morphic fields were laid by the wayside years ago. Sheldrake had great ideas, but the details didn’t seem to pan out..
Teo - absolute objectivity has been dead for almost 100 years. But the mass of humanity will not believe this because it doesn’t match the world they experience. Not until we are consciously involved in the creation of our existence will people ’believe’ it.
So, I imagine someone is thinking, well, what’s an example of a psychological issue related to human perception of hearing, you know, something consciously or consciously that affects how you perceive the sound? You need to look no further than the standard, tried and true naysayer arguments - the placebo effect and expectation bias. These are both psychological effects, not physiological effects. I believe they are both real phenomena and both affect the sound, presumably for the better. Alas, while they are examples of psychological influences on the sound, they are not really examples of what I am referring to when I mention mind-matter interaction and Morphic fields. Wait’ll the naysayers get a load of this. 😀
And that article in emergent science ’changes everything’. As stated, there’s likely a thousand more like it in just the past 5 years.
On average, people are woefully behind mentally. Somewhere in the freaking dark ages. Science is moving so fast right now....that it is changing nearly by the hour. I kid you not.
The esoteric is, by fundamental necessity...going mainstream. We’re still doing the hard science but what it is saying -- is purely esoteric.
The problem that Geoff’s post proposes for some folks is that there is a tremendous amount of good scientific work to show where he’s coming from.
the idea that the ’problem’... as a stated set of words, is not so easily created and uttered. As a matter of fact, one’s intellect must rise to the complexity of the problem, it cannot be simplified down.
Quantum sciences are showing that we’re dealing with our own creation of reality, in the fundamental classical analysis context.
The studies, overall, done by thousands of competent researchers are all published and vetted. And then the meta studies on these given studies are also vetted and published. then gone over by the US Academy of Sciences.
Eg, the overall meta tests and the original works the meta tests were from, were gone over by the US academy of sciences..and this being true, it is stated as being true... with odds of being wrong in the 3 billion to one area of chance. Elon Musk, you might note, has also chimed in on this and has publicly and openly concluded that there is virtually zero chance (billions to one against) that we are in a matrix of a ’base reality’.
The end result is an overall ’scientific stamp of approval’, ie, overt factualization in the real world ---that we involve ourselves directly in creation of reality, from the dimensional to the real world.
Which takes the idea or thought of scientific objectivity and kills it dead, dead, dead. Objectivity is simply not possible. Ever. Never existed, and never will.
As this understanding begins to emerge in the masses..things will get hairy for a while. An understatement. the frantic flailing of a world’s ego sytem going down into a death spiral. Messy and ugly are understatements.
In the meantime, keep throwing those monkey punches and hay makers at the people who are trying to help you understand this mess.
What does this have to do with preamps? Well, in the end, quite a bit. This is issues of perception and discernment at the edges of science and thoughts on realities.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
