I have always trusted Ken C Polhman and his measurements over the years. |
Audioman58,
I think Albert Einstein knew what he was talking about. |
Albert Einstein said it best in regarding technical scientific
Specifications, Not everything that counts can be counted,
And not everything that can be counted counts ! |
Finally, from John Dunlavy:
"So, to those who like to call us "technocrats" or whatever, we would suggest that those who design by "voicing" loudspeakers are working with an enormous number of perturbations." |
More from JohnDunlavy:
"So we try to get the greatest accuracy we can achieve from measurements. Then we begin doing what some people might call "voicing," because the best set of measurements are still open to interpretation." |
And here is John Dunlavy:
"Oh, no. Listening comes later. Because if you stop to think about it, no loudspeaker can sound more accurate than it measures." |
More from Kevin Hayes of VAC:
"During this time, [voicing for the 70/70 amplifier] small changes in the physical arrangement of the parts were tested, different types of capacitors and wires were auditioned, and even various chassis materials tried. The differences often eluded the linear test bench instrumentation but were plainly audible to the human ear. This often frustrating work and attention to detail is required to bring a design to its peak of performance, and is the deciding factor between mere hi-fi and music." |
I find this quote from Kevin Hayes of VAC very interesting:
"We require that all VAC components sound superb and measure at least reasonably well. Careful attention is paid to sound engineering principles, but we recognize that theory is just that." |
Unsound, I can hear frequency response and sense dispersion also. I also think I can hear phase problems in speakers. I cannot recall ever getting such measurements before deciding on a speaker. But I cannot really understand a speaker designer who wouldn't use such measurements. I must say that I have sought and appreciate single driver speaker systems and two way systems. |
TBG, you've already posted that you've found some speaker measurements helpful. I can't help but wonder if upon further examination, you might find some correlation between some other measurements and some sound characteristics.
I like your proposal, very much!
Again, I think dismissing all other measurements would be imprudent. |
Unsound, when measurements were added to reviews I applauded it. However, I have seen little correlation between them. Nor have I heard good measuring components to sound better nor good reviewing components to sound better. Related to this is double blind testing. Having participated in several of these and having read critiques of the use of 30 sec. same/different tests in psychology, I find them invalid.
I really think that components should be sent to a known room where we have made a recording and had the performance digitized. Then we compare that component inserted into a known system whose measurements are known. We would then compare the change noted from both the existing system and the actual recording. The closer to the initial recording the better.
Screw all other measurements. |
Unsound,
The technical points you make are excellent and clearly explained. Regarding "audio rags", I would have thought it would be in their best interest to be as clear as possible although reading some of their reviews leads me to believe they seem to think otherwise. I will not name names but I think you will be able to easily find fine examples of unintelligible use of the English language by perusing some of the major audio review magazines. They often feature the most convoluted and confusing language that I can imagine a writer composing about audio matters. Florid language and audio cliches abound.
For the life of me, I cannot see how contradictory or confusing reports help the interests of audio magazines. They only lead to skepticism on the part of savvy readers, IMO. Each side of the coin in Stereophile reviews is valid. But if the two sides contradict each other and the review leaves it all hanging in mid-air it begs the question: don't these fellows realize their business is unfinished?
An example of this was the Stereophile review of Playback Designs MPS-5. Let me preface my remarks by saying I have no affiliation with Playback, I have never had any contact with them, I don't own their player, I have never heard it and I am completely neutral regarding it. I am not in the audio business and I have no connection with any audio company.
John Atkinson states at the end of his measurements: "So while I was impressed by the player's standard of construction, I can't say the same about its technical performance. The relatively high level of background noise limits the MPS-5's resolution with SACD and external 24-bit data to not much better than 16-bit CD. I am puzzled, therefore, why Michael Fremer liked the sound of this player so much."
Could John Atkinson not have picked up the phone and given Michael Fremer a call to arrange a chat and an audition together of the component in question? I mean, this seems to me to be a no-brainer. They work for the same publication. Are they not on speaking terms? You have one voice pointing north and the other voice pointing south and a little voice is heard in the background saying to their readers "up to you". How have they served their readers other than going to the trouble to confuse them? Frankly, I find this a very curious way for John Atkinson to end a review of one of the major contenders in the high end CD player market. |
Newbee,
Thanks for explaining. No problem.
I agree with you about not having enough experience. Years ago I was in the very same position you found yourself in -- not enough experience and lots of information trying to influence my purchases coming from various vested interests. This is a very steep learning curve that really never ends.
This has been a very rewarding if expensive process that is nearing an end because of serious financial constraints. But not only because of the latter. My system has got to such a satisfying level that I am at the point of diminishing returns. It would take a lot of money to get to a much higher level and I don't know if I did get there that all the effort and expense would translate into much more listener enjoyment because of the high level my system has reached.
It's time to sit back and enjoy what I have without chasing the latest and omnipresent breakthrough products with the attendant manufacturer claims. Over the years most of the improvements to my system have been what I would term incremental. Certainly, there have been some increments that have been more impressive than others. Some I would even call game-changers in their class. Nevertheless the effect on the sound has been incremental and improvement has not always come with the addition of an expensive component or cable. Sometimes even a very inexpensive tweak has given a wonderful improvement in the sound.
In spite of the impressive claims of even the most respected manufacturers in favor of a single component or cable being able to transform one's system, there has not been a single purchase that comes to mind that has measured up to the inflated claims of the maker. |
An understanding of measurements does more than just disqualify mismatched components. Some measurements will indicate specifically how those mismatched components will sound to some degree due to the them being mismatched, it's not just a matter of taste.
Some performance measurements will be more important to some than to others. For example, depending on ones location, a tuners ability to reject adjacent signals might be more important than overall sensitivity, and for others the reverse might be true. If one has to listen through static, everything else might be moot.
Let's not forget that some of today's measurements might be somewhat meaningless because they existed in the first place. There was a time, when not all gear "measured up" the same, but because of measurements they now do. It would be unwise to ignore measurements to the point that might happen again. I think we deserve more published measurements that can give us a better baseline correlation of audio components measurements and their sonic signatures. Perhaps published measurements of amplifiers propagation delays might be useful? How about more availability of harmonic distortions in frequency domain? FWIW, and though it doesn't necessarily exclude those that don't, I've never heard a speaker that publishes good measurements for either a good step response or clean square wave have anything but good imaging and sound stage.
Once again, measurements can be a valuable tool, but listening, though fickle, is more important...But, one doesn't need to choose between the two, both are more than the sum of their parts.
As to why the audio rags don't follow up on differences between subjective listening reviews and objective measuring, well, I suspect it's not in their best business interest. Let the buyer beware!:-) |
Sabai, More than anything else I was laughing at my self for allowing myself to be drawn into a discussion of magazine reviews/reviewers. I truly am an agnostic when it comes to most anything they publish. I haven't subscribed to any in years. That said I do believe JA's measurements can be helpful to those who know how to use them and I thought I should defend them on that issue alone.
In the 'beginning' I wasted a lot of money primarily based on published reports,tests,opinions, and a certain salesmanship pushing me on to chasing the latest, best etc. I waited anxiously for the next issue to arrive each month. Frankly, I had insufficient experience to make judgments on my own and they were my primary source.
Then I found this wonderful source of information - The Internet. Wow, now I had at my disposal user's as well as designer's and manufacturer's comments on all things audio! A treasure trove of information which I used as a basis for forward progress. It was broad band info though and part of the exercise was discarding all of the BS from salesmen and proud tyros. But it was there for those who are interested.
My LOL was not about you. Forgive me if my construction implied otherwise. |
Newbee, you are right that listening entails tinkering with speaker placement, compatible electronics, etc. and the tastes of the reviewer. While measurements are more stable, but also they ignore the subtleties of tweaking with placement, etc. But obviously many of us with some experience with measurement perfect electronics, know that listening by the customer is the only real guide. |
Newbee,
I have no idea what your LOL means. So I will return it in good humor. LOL.
I am assuming the following:
1. That John Atkinson's equipment is working when he takes measurements.
2. That Mr. Fremer and other reviewers are reporting accurately what they hear.
If we cannot assume these 2 basic things then there is no point in this whole exercise because everything becomes smoke and mirrors and nothing can be believed. If you start to question "valuations" of observations of what others report you can turn anything in any direction you wish. IMO.
I believe emphasizing JA's integrity is misplaced here. This is simply the way they do things at Stereophile. Integrity is part of their work, not something that would be extraordinary to expect from them. I am not questioning their integrity at all. I am questioning if there is not something missing in their evaluation process. Something very simple. They finish their work. They read each other's reports. They sit down and listen together and Fremer or another reviewer listens for the measurement side of things and Atkinson listens to the music as well as to any measurement factors he may be able to discern. Simple.
In this way, if one side or the other was missing something they can write a codicil to their report. This means instead of Atkinson saying "I don't understand how the reviewer could like that component after what my measurements show" he might well say after listening to some music that he can actually hear and report some good things -- in spite of what his measurements showed and the valuation he gave to those measurements. And the same for Fremer or another reviewer.
This does not mean Atkinson or a reviewer are changing the valuations placed on measurements or audition of components. Those observations stand. What they are doing is giving a second valuation based on listening in a different way. I mean, this is audio we are talking about, is it not? Or are we talking about the preeminence of the oscilloscope over the ears. |
LOL, while your choices are correct I do not think they are the only ones available. You might choose to think that not only Atkinson's valuation of the results of the component's deficiencies might be wrong, but so could the reviewers conclusions from his listening sessions.
One of the things all audiophiles experience in evaluating components is recognizing initially everything that is happening at one time. Usually subtle changes brought about by components deficiencies only creeps in with time, sometimes a long time. I'll spare you examples. But in this case I think it sez a lot about JA's integrity (if not his sonic preferences) that after discovering the measurements discrepancy he didn't simply call Fremer and tell him what he measured which would have allowed Fremer to incorporate it in some way in his review. A very pratical solution from a PR point of view - nobody loses and the audience never knows.
Interesting................. |
Newbee,
You're absolutely right. You will rarely read a negative review. And if anything negative is said it is usually couched in terms that make it sound not so bad at all, really. Or a matter of personal preference. You really do need to read reviews with your thinking cap on.
Regarding Stereophile reviews, my point is not that we have 2 reviewers commenting on the same aspects of the same products on Stereophile. If this were the case, two differing opinions could easily stand side by side without the need for further explanations.
What we have at Stereophile is 2 reviewers commenting on different aspects of the same products. When you have the latter happening and John Atkinson says "I don't know how he (the reviewer) could have liked the product given my measurements", he is implying that his measurements supersede the ears of his esteemed colleague.
This is a whole other ball game. Under these circumstances, I think it behooves John Atkinson to sit down and have a listen to the component under review with the reviewer whose ears are being called into question. Otherwise readers are left to consider what it all means without any attempt by the magazine to clarify matters.
The choices are:
1. The reviewer must be right since he is the only one of the 2 who actually listened to music on the component.
2. John Atkinson must be right because measurements are more important that the ears of a reviewer.
Leaving readers in limbo to sort out a matter that could have been clarified or reconciled by the 2 people in question getting together (but not doing so) is not the best way to present audio reviews in a widely-read audio magazine for high end consumers. IMO. |
For me, the ears must be the first guide, and are much more important than any spec or measurement. One must listen to many different types of equipment/systems and decide what one's priorities are sonically. Only then can one begin to use measurements and specs to help in a purchasing decision, by learning how and why the equipment types you like sound like they do. At least, this was my approach, since I was/am not very mechanically inclined at all, but I am blessed with very good ears, and as a professional musician I live the "absolute sound" literally almost every day. Very, very often in the world of audio reproduction, the equipment that measures "best" does not actually sound the best. So the actual measurements may not be very important, depending on one's priorities. What is more important, after one has determined one's priorities, is figuring out which measurements/specs are more important to you, and why, based on what you hear/want to hear. Hope this makes sense, I'm tired and probably shouldn't be posting right now. :) |
Sabai,
The problem with that is when its all said and done you are still just getting opinions which will lead you to believe that one of three things have occurred; 1) the measurement is inaudible to the most sophisticated ear using the most sophisticated equipment which as to that particular measurement it is meaningless except there it is on the test equipment; 2) that these same folks with the same equipment can hear the the effect of the measurement but thinks it doesn't materially affect the sound they deem important; or 3) that their listening skills or equipment are not up to standard for evaluating equipment, or that they just can't hear it because of their actual hearing limitations. What would a magazine have to gain by pursuing the testing/review you suggest. The finding has to affect the magazine and/or its reviewers negatively.
Interestingly I can think of one internet mag that uses two reviewers on many/all of its review who review the product separately. They publish each review but make no attempt to reconcile any differences which there often are.
Hobby magazines in general rarely publish negative reviews of anything, its just bad for business. As close as they will come is when someone like Adkinson measures spec's and points out deviations from manufacturers spec's or things HE thinks are meaningful for users and lets you draw your own conclusions whether you feel they are relevant, or on a rare occasion a reviewer will parse words in a way that MIGHT alert a potential user that it ain't up to snuff. But the reader has to put on his thinking cap to sort it all out. That is why personal knowledge is so important. |
Newbee and Unsound, I certainly would take no exception to your centering on specs that you find closely associated to your tastes, but I will continue to trust my ears. I have never found any measures other than whether the unit is on or not that are associated with quality music reproduction. Michael Fremer and I certainly are in total agreement about the WAVAC SH-833 monoblock amps. He is the only reviewer in Stereophile or TAS, that I would trust in recommending a component.
At one RMAF, John Atkinson presented a seminar where he had a Boulder amp and an unnamed amp hooked to a THD meter. Under various loads the unnamed amp was horrible and the Boulder exemplary. He went on and on. He had no capability to listen to the two amps. Having heard the Boulder and not liking it, I asked whether he thought the designer of the unnamed amp thought THD was a major concern in design. He was flabbergasted as were most in the audience. I left. |
Newbee,
You make a heck of a lot of good points. Don't you think it would be interesting to hear the cross-talk between Fremer and other reviewers and John Atkinson after both have finished their written observations if they sat down together and listened to the equipment being reviewed? It seems to me to be a very logical next step for Stereophile to take with their reviews. A no-brainer, really. I wonder why this is not being done by them? |
Newbee, I couldn't agree more. |
Tbg, What that tells you is that M Fremer is either not sensitive to the results of the 'bad measurement', that his equipment isn't sensitive enough to reveal the result of the bad measurement, or as often, that the 'bad measurement' is insignificant in real world conditions.
Unsound's comments about FM tuner spec's are correct, but as always with measurements those specs alone tell you nothing about how the unit will sound beyond its ability to pick up a clean signal. Yet a lot of folks can't tell the difference between the various tuners actual sound and buy them based on these spec's. It's curious that in a famous FM tuner site which has published a lot of reviews and has ranked tuners this is more true than anywhere. Very few of the reviewers are actually audio freaks, they a radio freaks, yet folks talk about the review rankings as if it were gospel.
FWIW to make measurements meaningful you must know in real life what they mean and how you can use the information productively. Just seeing and comparing spec's is a meaningless activity - often the most meaningful spec's, especially from manufacturers, is missing. Impedance curves for speakers and amps for example, which are very important, are hardly ever seen except in reviews by folks like Atkinson. Although I do recall one speaker manufacturer who did, but if you saw the curve you would know why - dammed near flat gentle curve between 5 and 8 ohms with nominal 6ohm rating. Just as with spec's, reviews are for the most part useless unless you have a good handle on the reviewers preferences and competence.
Bottom line, knowledge is great but hard to come by and even when possessed it isn't worth a crap if you don't know how to use it. :-) Sooner or later, if you last long enough, you will identify the spec's that will be meaningful to you and those you can safely ignore (most of the time). |
Unsound, I have certainly heard the impact of some of these, but I don't know of much concern with any of these save what is audible. A tuner or an amp that fails to deal with such issues probably will not sell given how it performs or sounds. |
Unsound,
You say "Things like frequency response and dBW just a couple of examples of measurements that can be important ...". I agree. There are specific measurements that can give us useful information and can help eliminate contenders when there are clear compatibility issues.
But my point is that once this process has taken place and there are a number of possible contenders left in the ring, all with compatible measurements, you can never tell which one will be the "best" for your system until you let your ears take the reigns. IMO. Measurements can never tell us everything we need to know. Once obvious mismatches are eliminated, measurements may tell us nothing further about the sound. The next step is system synergy which is totally unpredictable. IMO. This is where the ears are the final arbiter.
Charles1dad,
You hit the nail on the head. What do John Atkinson's measurements really tell us about the listening experience if the reviewer is in complete contradiction with his measurements and accompanying observations? Not much. IMO.
Onhwy61,
When I talk about the "essence of music" I mean the listening experience itself -- outside of intellectual considerations that consist of various observations that we make about the listening experience, sometimes kept to ourselves, sometimes shared with others. |
Sabai, what do you mean by the phrase "the essence of music" and is it related to high end audio? |
Tbg, how about an amplifier's dBW into impedance? Or the predictable roll off at frequency extremes when there's issues of impedance mismatch or capacitance issues? Antenna and tuner specs can often tell some how well they can receive certain stations at a given locations. Those are just a few examples. |
Unsound, you are right, speaker frequency response and sensitivity matter. All the cases I was alluding to were electronic components. |
Tbg, I respectfully disagree. Things like frequency response and dBW just a couple of examples of measurements that can be important in regards to what we might expect to hear. |
Tbg,
I feel the same as sabai, you really made a point. If a component sounds good to M, Fremer and he raves about it then the 'bad' measurements by JA tell us exactly what in regard to the subsequent listening experience? |
I think one of the ineffable aspects of this is system synergy. You just never know what a cable or component or tweak change or addition will do to your system until you plug it in and turn the system on. No amount of understanding specs will give you this information. IMO. |
I'll admit the obvious: we can't know all that we don't know. In as much as we might not be able to know in entirety what a system will sound like from specs alone, we can still get an understanding of many of the sound attributes a system will have from specs. Not only can specs be a valuable tool in shortlisting components for consideration, we can also use them as a baseline to share an understanding of how a system comes to sound as it does. Despite what so much of the reviewing community does to create a mysticism of how audio gear comes to sound a certain way, let's not forget that audio gear is still an exercise in engineering. The experience derived from audio gear might be predominately subjective, but getting to that point might be predominantly objective. I doubt we could have a satisfaction with either without the other. IMO, being able to correlate one with the other is an ongoing quest that needs to vigorously pursued. |
Onhwy61,
You say "music and the emotions I bring to listening to music trumps the quality of equipment I'm using." This is an important matter that I started a thread on a while back called "What is Musicality?"
Nevertheless, getting closer to the essence of the music often helps get closer to the emotions, IMO. And for many of us getting closer to the essence of the music involves equipment mating to optimize sound quality. I used to get tremendous satisfaction from my transistor radio. But I doubt that I would get that same satisfaction from it today having been spoiled by the high end sounds of my system. There are degrees of satisfaction. The song is the same from a transistor radio and a high end system. But the extent to which you can appreciate and enjoy it can increase greatly if you hear the music in a refined system. IMO. |
Tbg,
I think you may have hit the nail on the head here: "My conclusion is that we can measure what is not important to what we hear."
I wonder if John Atkinson sits down to listen to a component after it shows bad measurements to see if he can hear anything wrong? If, for instance, he has bad measurements for a given component and Fremer or another reviewer says it's a great component, does John Atkinson sit down and try to reconcile the measurements with what his ears say -- if his ears tell him something different from what his measurements show? Or is this just an intellectual exercise for him? I wonder. |
When I say marketing one of the concepts I'm referring to is that only through the meticulous selection of and then synergistic mating of equipment can audio satisfaction be attained. I suspect some people will find the last sentence nonsensical. And it could be, but have you ever had a moment of musical bliss when listening via clearly non-audiophile equipment? It happens to me all the time and I think it's because music and the emotions I bring to listening to music trumps the quality of equipment I'm using. Has all the knowledge each of us learned in our individual audiophile journeys actual conditioned us to enjoy music less if not reproduced via high end equipment? If so are you really better off than when you started? |
Onhwy61,
You state: "We can trade opinions, but our belief systems, which I believe are marketing driven, prevent us from being educated, at least to some large extent."
Some of how we hear may sometimes be marketing driven -- for some people. But our brains are wired for music, the same as they are wired for language and the same as they are wired for enjoying beautiful things. Marketing is only a small part of how we perceive music and the extent to which we enjoy music. IMO. This is a highly complex matter where many individual factors contribute, as well the collective unconscious playing an important role. IMO. |
And around and around we go. In all cases where JA didn't like much in measuring and Fremer liked the component I have always agreed with Fremer. A classic example was the WAVAC SH-833 monoblock amps. Fremer loved it as did I on risking hearing something I could not afford as CES. Atkinson panned it and it does look pretty awful. My conclusion is that we can measure what is not important to what we hear. |
"the complete nature of the resulting sound still cannot be known until heard regardindless"
Exactly! when all is said and done you still 'must' rely on your ears to judge the sound quality.I don`t believe we disagree on this conclusion.
Regards, |
"I agree with your clear reasoned examples, they will certainly have value in determining likely(or unlikely) compatability. They won`t help in determining the sound quality of various component matching."
Disagree somewhat.
Accurate impedance specs or even estimates are more likely to help assure quality of certain attributes (like dynamics and distortion) of the resulting sound than anything else.
However true that there is no guarantee that specs are accurate and the complete nature of the resulting sound still cannot be known until heard regardless.
Perhaps it would help to look at certain specifications and their application (like impedance matching)as a form of quality control one can practice before buying, though as has been stated repeatedly, the complete final results cannot be known until heard. |
Spinaker01,
This is a very good point that you make:
"A speaker that measures bad never sounds good, but conversely a speaker that measures good does not ALWAYS sound good.(but stands a better chance of sounding good)..."
Knowing a speaker's measurements and knowing how to interpret them may allow us to avoid making a costly buying error. |
My brother, who's a professional audio engineer, recently had to develop his own test gear, sensitive to smaller than picoseconds. |
I like to refer to a statement from Kevin Voekes (sp?) of Revel speakers fame. He states that measurements are indeed important in designing equipment but the ultimate test is double blind listening sessions. His summation? A speaker that measures bad never sounds good, but conversely a speaker that measures good does not ALWAYS sound good.(but stands a better chance of sounding good) I think this may apply more heavily to transducers than electronics, but I feel most of the improvements over the past 20 or so years are due to either improved materials and/or increased ability to take the measurements that DO matter. Without this, we are only left with the Art of design, which is falling off in favor of the Science of design as capabilities improve to measure the aspects of performance that truly do make a difference. |
Al,
I agree with your clear reasoned examples, they will certainly have value in determining likely(or unlikely) compatability. They won`t help in determining the sound quality of various component matching. |
03-19-12: Ahendler
Actually I have never found measurements to help me in any audio decision to by a certain product. Measurements are helpful in the design process but do not tell you anything how a component will sound. Let me supplement my previous response with some specific examples, that illustrate what I, Mapman, Roscoe and others have been alluding to: 1)Someone has read good things about the sound quality that SET amplifiers can provide. He or she is considering purchasing a SET amp and using it in conjunction with a speaker having a specified impedance of 8 ohms. JA's measurements reveal that the impedance has wide swings over the frequency range, including dips to low values at highly capacitive phase angles. Purchasing the SET amp would be an expensive and/or time consuming mistake. 2)Someone is considering adding a powered sub having only line-level inputs to his or her system, and driving it from a second set of output jacks that are provided on the preamp. As is commonly the case the two sets of output jacks are not separately buffered. The power amp is solid state and has an input impedance of 20K, the sub has an input impedance of 10K, and the preamp is tube-based and has a specified output impedance of 400 ohms. JA's measurements reveal that the output impedance rises to 3K at 20 Hz, which is not uncommon. Purchasing the sub would be an expensive and/or time consuming mistake. 3)Someone is considering purchasing a tube amp to use in conjunction with a speaker having a specified impedance of 6 ohms. JA's measurements reveal that the impedance is close to 4 ohms at low frequencies, and close to 8 ohms at high frequencies. That may work OK in some cases, but it definitely suggests the possibility that the speaker was designed with the expectation that it would be used with a solid state amp. The result stands a good chance of being an expensive and/or time consuming mistake. Countless other comparable examples could be cited. Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with JA, Stereophile, or anyone else associated with the audio industry. Regards, -- Al |
No, marketing is not driving what I think sounds good. I may be enticed to purchase a product, but after it is in my listening room the marketing is all over and forgotten. If it sounds good to me, I keep it. If not, I sell it or send it back.
Markering influences the buy decision, but never the keep and enjoy decision. Marketing's influence is very short lived in the end. |
Onhwy61,
I honestly don`t get your point. When I attend concerts it`s for the pure joy and involvement that music provides. With my home audio I attempt to come as close as I reasonably can and with my current system I`m extremely pleased with it. It`s that simple and straight forward for me.We just have different approaches and apparently different objectives.What ever works for you is the way to proceed.
Marketing has nothing to do with my choices, only the end result which is the sound and my response to it(it moves me or it does`nt).
I appreciate your different perspective.
Regards, |
In reply to Charles1dad, good sound is a comparative thing. If you don't know bad sound it might be hard to recognize good and nearly impossible to fully understand great sound.
Your attribution of beauty and enjoyment to components is exactly the type of marketing conditioning I was talking about. Over time each of us has developed a belief system about sound and music that largely predetermine our opinions on certain audio subjects. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but once you take it into account questions of measurements vs. subjectivity become largely irrelevant. We can trade opinions, but our belief systems, which I believe are marketing driven, prevent us from being educated, at least to some large extent. |
"The final of the Sibelius 2nd will give me goose bumps on certain speakers. I know of no measurement that will tell me which speaker will do that for me."
No, but to Almargs point, when shopping for gear with the best chance of doing it, impedance specs allow matching from output to input that if accurate and applied properly as a factor in the decision making process is more likely to result in better dynamics and lower distortion, two attributes that are generally desirable from a goosebumps perspective regardless of what speaker is used. |
