I’ve briefly taken a look at some online reviews for budget Tekton speakers from ASR and Youtube. Both are based on Klippel quasi-anechoic measurements to achieve "in-room" simulations.
As an amateur speaker designer, and lover of graphs and data I have some thoughts. I mostly hope this helps the entire A’gon community get a little more perspective into how a speaker builder would think about the data.
Of course, I’ve only skimmed the data I’ve seen, I’m no expert, and have no eyes or ears on actual Tekton speakers. Please take this as purely an academic exercise based on limited and incomplete knowledge.
The standard practice for analyzing speakers is called "quasi-anechoic." That is, we pretend to do so in a room free of reflections or boundaries. You do this with very close measurements (within 1/2") of the components, blended together. There are a couple of ways this can be incomplete though.
a - Midwoofers measure much worse this way than in a truly anechoic room. The 7" Scanspeak Revelators are good examples of this. The close mic response is deceptively bad but the 1m in-room measurements smooth out a lot of problems. If you took the close-mic measurements (as seen in the spec sheet) as correct you’d make the wrong crossover.
b - Baffle step - As popularized and researched by the late, great Jeff Bagby, the effects of the baffle on the output need to be included in any whole speaker/room simulation, which of course also means the speaker should have this built in when it is not a near-wall speaker. I don’t know enough about the Klippel simulation, but if this is not included you’ll get a bass-lite expereinced compared to real life. The effects of baffle compensation is to have more bass, but an overall lower sensitivity rating.
For both of those reasons, an actual in-room measurement is critical to assessing actual speaker behavior. We may not all have the same room, but this is a great way to see the actual mid-woofer response as well as the effects of any baffle step compensation.
Looking at the quasi anechoic measurements done by ASR and Erin it _seems_ that these speakers are not compensated, which may be OK if close-wall placement is expected.
In either event, you really want to see the actual in-room response, not just the simulated response before passing judgement. If I had to critique based strictly on the measurements and simulations, I’d 100% wonder if a better design wouldn’t be to trade sensitivity for more bass, and the in-room response would tell me that.
3. Crossover point and dispersion
One of the most important choices a speaker designer has is picking the -3 or -6 dB point for the high and low pass filters. A lot of things have to be balanced and traded off, including cost of crossover parts.
Both of the reviews, above, seem to imply a crossover point that is too high for a smooth transition from the woofer to the tweeters. No speaker can avoid rolling off the treble as you go off-axis, but the best at this do so very evenly. This gives the best off-axis performance and offers up great imaging and wide sweet spots. You’d think this was a budget speaker problem, but it is not. Look at reviews for B&W’s D series speakers, and many Focal models as examples of expensive, well received speakers that don’t excel at this.
Speakers which DO typically excel here include Revel and Magico. This is by no means a story that you should buy Revel because B&W sucks, at all. Buy what you like. I’m just pointing out that this limited dispersion problem is not at all unique to Tekton. And in fact many other Tekton speakers don’t suffer this particular set of challenges.
In the case of the M-Lore, the tweeter has really amazingly good dynamic range. If I was the designer I’d definitely want to ask if I could lower the crossover 1 kHz, which would give up a little power handling but improve the off-axis response. One big reason not to is crossover costs. I may have to add more parts to flatten the tweeter response well enough to extend it's useful range. In other words, a higher crossover point may hide tweeter deficiencies. Again, Tekton is NOT alone if they did this calculus.
I’ve probably made a lot of omissions here, but I hope this helps readers think about speaker performance and costs in a more complete manner. The listening tests always matter more than the measurements, so finding reviewers with trustworthy ears is really more important than taste-makers who let the tools, which may not be properly used, judge the experience.
Yes I really ordered he 80 dollar dac. A blind test may not be possible but if it's really close I can always shut my eyes and have my wife toggle the inputs.
I'm a little wary as I could actually hear a difference in DACs on a youtube comparison when they were comparing fairly expensive DACs. I live about 3 hours from any decent Stereo store so the cost is less than a tank of gas and I'll get to hear it on a system I'm familiar with.
I'll be sure to post my findings as I'm willing to take the heat from any (or both) sides. Let the flaming begin
There is no such thing. These are made up terms by audiophiles with zero knowledge of audio science and engineering. No different than PRAT and other nonsense terms like it. So don't ask me about it.
Sterile shrill class D + sterile Revel could launch you into a whole new level of sterile...you could quickly become a sterile ASR necromonger.
Class D has never been sterile. That reputation came from people judging products with their eyes and lack of engineering background than proper sound evaluation.
Class D amps have to have a post filter to get rid of the carrier frequency. That filter will have a rising impedance with respect to frequency, causing it to interact with the speaker's impedance. Result is that the high frequency response of the speaker would change, either tilted up or down, together with potential for ringing. Note that tube amps that have high output impedance do the same thing except they do so across the spectrum.
There were also non-linearities in class D amps due to dead time in switching transistors.
Then comes the genius Bruno Putzeys who designed the Hypex amplifiers some 10 to 15 years ago. He put the output post filter into the feedback loop, and thereby nullifying its effect. He also added more gain which allowed it to in turn have more feedback, linearizing the response to near state of the art.
Fast forward a decade and he partnered with Lars Risbo and Peter Lyngdorf and created Purifi amplifiers. These worked to push distortion and noise even lower, bringing them very close to Benchmark AHB2 class G amplifier.
This thing is compact and weighs like it too. You can easily pick it up with one hand. Check out how low the distortion is:
It is also incredibly quiet although there are a couple of other amps that are even better:
It is not super powerful but still:
I know, I know... You don't care about measurements. So let's look at reviews of this amplifier covered by a site that caters to you all: Soundstage Hifi:
"I began evaluating the Eigentakt when I used it in May to review the Magico A1 minimonitors ($7400/pair). Before hooking up the Eigentakt, I’d been using a pair of Constellation Audio Revelation Taurus monoblocks -- massive amps that cost $40,000/pair, are specified to each output up to 500W into 8 ohms or 1000W into 4 ohms, and sound outstanding. "
[...]
"I found that the Eigentakt was not only powerful enough to drive the A1s -- it sounded as good as the Constellations. As I wrote in my review, “almost nothing about the A1s’ sound had changed -- the tonal balance was the same, the highs were just as extended and the midrange just as pure, voices were equally robust, bass just as extended, and the soundstaging and imaging were exactly as before.” What’s more, I also thought that if there were any differences in the sounds, they “were at best slight and, surprisingly, favored the Purifi.”
On noise level he says:
"Nor did the Eigentakt functionally disappoint. When I first turned it on, by flicking the main power switch on its backside and pressing Standby on the front panel, I heard no trace of noise or hum from the speakers. The ring around the Standby button glowed red, but still I wondered if the power was on. I held one ear close to the tweeter of one A1 and heard only a faint hiss. At that point, the EMM Labs DAC and preamp were also in circuit and powered up -- when I turned them off, the hiss got even fainter. I had to put my ear almost on the tweeter to hear anything at all. The Eigentakt is one quiet amp."
Precisely as measurements predicted.
He gets a second opinion:
"
After completing my review of the Magico A1, I traveled to the UK to shoot some videos for our YouTube channel, and lent the review sample of the Eigentakt to fellow reviewer Diego Estan, who hooked it up to his McIntosh Laboratory C47 preamp-DAC ($4500). Diego had exactly the same experience I had. When he first powered up the Purifi and Mac, he was startled to hear only a faint hiss from the tweeter of one of his Focal Sopra No1 speakers -- a hiss that grew fainter still when he switched off the preamp. Diego admires superquiet components -- he really liked that aspect of the Eigentakt.
He then compared the Eigentakt to his McIntosh MC302 stereo power amp ($5500, 300Wpc into 8, 4, or 2 ohms), and found them sonically indistinguishable -- their tonal balances were identical, and he didn’t think he heard any more or less detail with either."
He concludes thusly:
"I was bowled over by the Purifi Eigentakt’s sound and operation. It turned on silently, made almost no noise, provided more than enough power while generating hardly any heat, and passed music through so transparently, at volume levels from low to high, that it left me in near disbelief that so small a box could accomplish so much. Diego Estan had the same experience. In fact, I like the Eigentakt so much that I want to keep it here permanently, to review speakers with and to compare with other amps, particularly those based on Purifi 1ET400A modules. It will be interesting to hear if any of the latter improve on the Eigentakt’s sound."
So objective and subjectively your comments are wrong. Class D amplifiers that I recommend are superb. Absolutely superb. They not only sound great, they don't heat up your house, don't break your back carrying them, and don't take much space in your system. With a number of companies packaging them in nice boxes and selling direct, they easily put many high-end amplifiers to shame across the board.
Nope they do measure pretty well. You were talking about John’s measuements and how it must have been my room(s) and multiple amps I used. Do you believe dynamics is how loud a speaker can play?? Macro/micro? You ignored this last time? Also fast is a thing in a speaker whether or not you say it is or not. Can you measure dynamics?? Most important top 3 for a speaker? How do you measure that with your equipment? Enquiring minds want to know.
Amir told me my Pioneer S1ex were dynamic and had great bass cause the measurements said so.
What? You said your speakers measure great. I showed you that they did not remotely have such good measurements. Your diagnostic of what is wrong with them is suspect but your bad experience matches not so great measurements.
Did you really order the 80 buck dac? I’m curious to see your reaction when you hear the thing… please keep us updated. I know you could never do a blind test that would suffice Amir but if you do a variant of that it would be curious. Amir told me my Pioneer S1ex were dynamic and had great bass cause the measurements said so. Then it was my room. Then he just stopped talking. Then he said dynamics was just how loud something could play. Then he said…….. well you get the point.
Sonically, "State of the art" speakers need not be unreachable for dudes with thin wallets.
If you don’t mind the big n ugly, some sonic gems exist inside the relatively more expensive side of Pro Audio. To be fair, low aptitude extortion category "hifi speakers" can be ugly as hell too (look at wilson for example).
Guy’s started to tout the sterile class D again for low prices...You can get other better sounding topologies for lower prices too. For example, the Schiit Tyr can be endgame for all kinds of guys at around 3k. Sterile shrill class D + sterile Revel could launch you into a whole new level of sterile...you could quickly become a sterile ASR necromonger.
Somehow, i doubt the 100 dollar SMSL dac will clean the socks of some great dac implementations observed in technics, aavik, denafrips, mola mola, etc. But, i’m sure y’all will report back after you hear this 100 dollar miracle dac and start listing all your expensive dacs for sale.
Also worth noting that these days in the 21st century, Roon DSP like DSP in general is the great "equalizer" thus can make a huge difference in sound quality in any room if applied wisely, though I suppose few buy Roon solely for its DSP. That’s merely a huge bonus!
I would just add that peak performance and sound will typically cost a good bit more in a larger room than a smaller one.
Also worth noting that these days in the 21st century, Roon DSP like DSP in general is the great "equalizer" thus can make a huge difference in sound quality in any room if applied wisely, though I suppose few buy Roon solely for its DSP. That’s merely a huge bonus!
One is at a HUGE disadvantage these days if they still go about getting great sound today the same way they did 30-40 years ago.
Technology has progressed greatly since then. Just look all around you! Hifi gear including speakers and electronics are no different.
Wow thank you for the detailed and constructive response to my post. It would be worth the $80 to test your assumption regarding the SMSL against my current horribly measuring PSaudio DirectStrem DAC (Which I love by the way). It will be here tomorrow.
I hope at least you were listening to enjoyable music while you were responding.
The other inference is that ASR can build a minimal system based on perception measurements that when blind tested in Mike Lavigne’s listening room that the ASR system would sound indistinguishable or better than his current system. I find that hard to believe but then again I’ve never heard Mike’s system or Amir’s for that matter.
That should be hard to believe because it is not true. State of the art audio system will be expensive. My system is not cheap and neither is Mike’s:
The reason is to the left and right of Mike. To get incredible dynamics and bass down to subsonic will be super expensive. I am guessing his speakers weigh close to 1000 pounds! Your $500 bookshelf speaker is not going to do what his does. Physics and economic business models won’t allow it.
Mind you, we have made incredible progress toward bringing cost of such systems down. In the "old" analog days, every component of the system from source to speakers was expensive. Today with digital, playback hardware can be free in the form of a music player on a computer you already own. Some of us splurge a bit more for likes of Roon but that is not related to fidelity. This is a lot cheaper than a turntable.
DACs have massively come down in price while sharply increasing performance. If you don’t need balanced out, an $80 SMSL DAC will clean the clocks of many high-end DACs and provide full transparency to source content you are playing.
Amplification used to be another expensive factor. More power meant more expensive output transistors and inefficiency meant large and heavy heatsinks and cases. My amplifiers cost $25,000 each and weigh more than 110 pounds each. Fortunately, the era of high performance class D is upon us. For around $1000 you can get tons of power and superb, absolutely superb performance.
Speakers remain problematic. There is progress to bring the cost way down for equiv. performance. A Genelec or Neumann monitor bring accuracy and fidelity to die for. But except for the top of their range, they lack the amplification power and dynamics to do what Mike’s or my speakers do. Although the Genelec 8361A comes awfully close to my speakers for less than half the price.
There is a work around here with subwoofers. Those can bring the low-end but they also demand lots of work and knowledge on behalf of the owner to get them to work well with their room and main speakers.
Final note: there are a lot of expensive speakers that have poor design. So above is not to say that you pay more and get more. It is just that it is impossible to get the impressive sound that you can out of large/massive speaker systems at budget prices. I have listened to hundreds of audio systems at shows. The ones with statement speakers always do things that amaze me. No way do I go around and say you can spend $5K and get the same thing. Just not going to happen.
Yet ASR continues to bring in new products after the peak has already been reached based on perceptive hearing, To me then it appears that the pursuit is not about music but bragging rights regarding the numbers or else there is an audible difference beyond the perceived hearing threshold and ASR members can tell the difference.
People and companies send me products and I test them. I don't go and seek them out myself. People want to know if the performance is still great or taken a step back.
Almost every review of state of the art DAC is followed by a number of people complaining what the point of testing them is as they all sound the same. So your comment about "ASR people" is wrong. Members know that a few manufacturers are in a race to product the least amount of noise and distortion they can.
While maintaining start of the art performance for $229.
Finally, please note that the asian consumer electronics market demands fresh products. Anything more than a few months old is "not good anymore." If I were running these companies I would produce 10% of the products they do but their local market demands much more. So we have embarrassment of riches as they say.
First, wouldn't that mean the more expensive product should get dinged in a review because even though it measured better the differences weren't audible and the relentless pursuit of better measuring products is of no value?
It got the soccer panther (equiv. of golfing panther for European products). Here are my conclusions after it topped all the charts:
"Conclusions
The Mola Mola Tambaqui DAC shows again that just because a DAC is designed from ground up, it need not perform poorly. It is actually the opposite with it performing at the top of the class with respect to distortion and noise.
Since I am not the one paying for it for you to purchase it, it is not my issue to worry about the cost. As such, I am happy to recommend the Mola Mola Tambaqui DAC based on its measured performance and functionality."
There are non-fidelity aspects of products that matter to some people, myself included. There is pride of ownership, looks, support, warranty, resale, etc. that are valuable purchase criteria. The key is to not confuse those things with sound fidelity.
To be sure, there is pushback from membership on how I can recommend such expensive devices since you can get similar performance for much lower cost. My answer to them is that they can judge the product however they want (they get to vote in the poll that way). My job is not to assess how affordable something is. That, the readers can and do take into account. I provide the missing information, i.e. performance data and they get to combine it with above factors to make a purchase decision.
I should say that I do "curve the grades" a bit when testing super budget products. I will recommend a $90 amplifier with certain performance that I would not if it cost $9,000.
Finally, there are exceptions. But above is how it works almost all the time.
I guess my confusion about the ASR site is that there seems to be a certain measured criteria that noise when below the audible range that in a dark room I (or any real/ or perceived audiophile) wouldn't be able to differentiate this product from a more expensive product even if the more expensive measured better.
Noise is just one parameter of performance, albeit, an important one that telegraphs other performance specifications. If the frequency response of one system is rolled off then you are going to hear that whether noise is a factor or not. Indeed, passive speakers are noise-free (when you are not feeding them a signal) yet there are vast audible differences between them.
If you mean all measured impairments are below threshold of hearing in both devices, then yes, in a controlled, level matched, repeated test, listeners would not be able to reliably tell them apart.
This is a common theme in your posts. People that disagree with you don't simply have a different opinion, they must be punished. Bottom line, you saw a video of a woman playing violin in an orchestra and you decided that it was soft porn because she was attractive.
Are you woefully obtuse or willfully obtuse? I posted the video to lay bare Amir's claims to high fidelity and achieving it without sighted determination as a bunch of hogwash. What purpose of posting his video did he have other than to take a different tact, appealing to baser impulses of his audience? It sure stirred you up, showing it worked.
Yeah, that makes sense. You point to a video of a woman sitting in a chair playing the violin and refer to what she's doing as soft porn, but I'm objectifying women. Give your head a shake, that was stupid.
The second video simply validates what I stated by showing the obvious intent of her videos and her followers: they have no interest in her "talents" and follow her simply because she’s attractive.
I personally wouldn’t denigrate a woman because her "followers" appreciate her beauty, but you do you. I see a lot of detractors of Taylor Swift do the same thing. Same with Beyonce. So in your mind a woman sitting in a chair, fully clothed, bouncing from side to side is soft porn. And to prove it you posted your own link to her soft porn.
Crazy thing here... good looking women can produce amazing music. Go figure. Like the video that mapman posted... helluva attractive woman that is a very talented guitar player. Sure, many will follow her simply because she’s beautiful, but only a misogynist would put her videos down as soft porn to make a point.
Man a forum that has gotten out of hand on two sites.
I guess my confusion about the ASR site is that there seems to be a certain measured criteria that noise when below the audible range that in a dark room I (or any real/ or perceived audiophile) wouldn't be able to differentiate this product from a more expensive product even if the more expensive measured better. First, wouldn't that mean the more expensive product should get dinged in a review because even though it measured better the differences weren't audible and the relentless pursuit of better measuring products is of no value? Yet ASR continues to bring in new products after the peak has already been reached based on perceptive hearing, To me then it appears that the pursuit is not about music but bragging rights regarding the numbers or else there is an audible difference beyond the perceived hearing threshold and ASR members can tell the difference.
The other inference is that ASR can build a minimal system based on perception measurements that when blind tested in Mike Lavigne's listening room that the ASR system would sound indistinguishable or better than his current system. I find that hard to believe but then again I've never heard Mike's system or Amir's for that matter.
Criticizes video posted because it borders on soft porn.... ups the ante by posting another video of the same women behaving the same way. Sure pwned on that one.
Clearly your IQ seems to drop when you post on this thread to save face for your master, losing yours in the process. The second video simply validates what I stated by showing the obvious intent of her videos and her followers: they have no interest in her "talents" and follow her simply because she's attractive.
One could fill a room with charts and graphs and still not know how a system sounds.
Even assuming that everything that can be heard can be measured - which is a big assumption - we don't know how to comprehensively and reliably translate that. Perhaps one day, with the help of AI we will, but not yet.
As it stands now, measurements are worse than useless. They lead people to buy cheap DACs that sound like crap and avoid buying great sounding speakers like the Magnepan LRS because Amir labeled them with a "not recommended". It's absurd.
This thread proves that some people have way too much time on their hands and that they take themselves way too seriously. Do they not have a day job? Because beating dead horses to death does not qualify.
Posting a video of an attractive women in a short skirt is not "music enjoyment" but rather, a cheap shot for the boys at ASR that borders on soft porn. She’s barely playing enough to qualify as talented, shaking her seated booty to the music, to some contemporary Russian music that borders on pop.
Criticizes video posted because it borders on soft porn.... ups the ante by posting another video of the same women behaving the same way. Sure pwned on that one.
There are a number of forums dedicated to the audio hobby on the web. As was noted earlier, Amir and a partner started one that is now known as WBF. This forum is one that is designed to be a soap box for its owners to stand on…and push not only their wares, but also their beliefs. Anyone having the temerity to disagree with the owners is first belittled, and then banned. Same goes for a number of other forums one can mention. Has anyone ever questioned what the motive/benefit is behind these forums for the owners of same? Naturally, this goes for Amir and the forum he ran to quickly start up once he left, or was removed from..WBF.
Posting a video of an attractive women in a short skirt is not "music enjoyment" but rather, a cheap shot for the boys at ASR that borders on soft porn. She’s barely playing enough to qualify as talented, shaking her seated booty to the music, to some contemporary Russian music that borders on pop.
There’s a slew of videos dedicated to her over on YouTube based, from what seems, to be just on her looks. Here’s a great one,
When I listen to music, I do it without the visuals, which I thought ASR was all about.
One a scale of 1-10 with 10 being best, this thread ranks a 8 for tawdry entertainment, a 10 for learning about people for better or for worse, and a 3 for information useful to people seeking better sound and most of that has come from the accused.
Seriously, come to ASR to learn what really ticks in your audio systems.
Once again on display, the massive ego of Amir that he and ASR are the fountains of all audio system knowledge.
The site is called Audio Science Review.
Where is it you REVIEW the state of Audio Science? Where is the open-minded fresh examination of any of the "Industry Standard" measurements you perform and promote as settled science? Pardon me, if that review was missed.
Measurements and reviews are one cornerstone of the site.
Indeed, finally a true statement.
This is why so many of your audiophile friends frequent ASR.
If one is a measurement zealot then ASR will grant them the label audiophile. If one is not a measurement zealot with a different approach, then ASR attaches the label audiofool.
When I get something new to review, I usually do a search to see what others have said about it. Invariably I land on ASR with someone already talking about the device!
Of course you all at ASR are always ahead of everyone else, and smarter.
It is an absolute pleasure to have so many knowledgeable people on ASR to interact with.
There are people on ASR that are courteous and respectful. There are also those that are rude, insulting and arrogant. Why do you refuse to admit there are too many bad apples on ASR and refuse to control that situation? That behavior is certainly a factor in why there is pushback. How many times do you have to hear people stating measurements are valuable, but are turned off by the unfriendly atmosphere of ASR? Clean up your own backyard before trying to clean up any other backyard.
As I said, you do you but please don't keep repeating that talking point about measurements.
That is a laugh, accusing me of repeating a talking point. You are the one repeating the same thing over, and over, and over ad nauseum. You are the one using software to locate the next place to flood with your cut and paste talent. You are the one constantly claiming to be the fountain of knowledge all should drink from, i.e. come to ASR to learn what really ticks in your audio systems.
Like learning how to use one’s ears and listening skills, putting thought, ideas and argument to truth takes huge effort…and a lot of attention to context, as much of context one can possibly find. It appears the rationalist side of asr cares very little for as many sources of integrity as possible to corroborate statements made, and instead conveniently picks what it chooses to falsify, prevaricate and basically spread untruth. Sort of like using measurements to justify measurements; philosophically inbred. And. far from just being scientific, represents behaviour that is not even technical, or rational.
Amir says “Search for High Fidelity and Google gives you this:
"high fi·del·i·ty /ˌhī fəˈdelədē/ noun
the reproduction of sound with little distortion; giving a result very similar to the original."
And how do you know about distortion? By measuring it.”
How sad for Google to be used for definitions instead of proper sources of integrity. Even ChatGPT would have given better result.
First, google does not define distortion as measurable or heard, what is defined is its definition referring to sound and not signal.
The Cambridge dictionary: “the production by electrical equipment of very good quality sound that is as similar as possible to the original sound.”
Merriam-Webster: “the reproduction of an effect (such as sound or an image) that is very faithful to the original.”
Collins: “the use of electronic equipment to reproduce a sound or image with very little distortion or loss of quality.”
The Oxford dictionary: “very high quality recording and playing of sound by electronic equipment”
The Oxford advanced learners dictionary : uncountable.
Wikipedia: “a term for the high-quality reproduction of sound or images.”
Britannia: “the very good quality that some recorded sounds or copied images have.”
Longmans: high fidelity recording equipment produces sound that is very clear.”
No where is the word or term ‘signal’ used in multiple definitions over credible sources, from the origins of the term. How conveniently it has been twisted to suit an argument for measurement.
The Oxford advanced dictionary has an interesting take on high fidelity as “uncountable” - quite the opposite of measurable, in fact.
And he determines who gets to perceive and hear correctly.
The fact that you think these are my ideas shows how little you know about human psychology. What I have explained to you has literally been known for more than a century. Don't believe me? Watch the story of "Clever Hans:"
ASR stands for Audio Science Review? Wow, who would have known? Based on the comments therein I always thought it stood for Audio Stupid Review. The number of people there, including the minion leader. ( I almost said Grue, but Grue is likeable), who pretend they know something about science but in reality know nothing is legion.
A few years ago, Schiit decided to take measurements seriously, put aside their lousy audio measurement and buy an Audio Precision analyzer like I have. In less than a year, they managed to produce superb performance and price as good as Chinese companies.
Jason Stoddard (the Schiit): Capable of dev’ing amps, dacs, maybe a AP like kit, etc from scratch. IQ=170
Majidimehr: Aptitude levels restricted to reading AP manual, push button, spit chart, IQ=65
Majidi-minions: Write songs in praise of Majidimehr’s eternal glory, IQ = 25
Amir says “We have to have protocols to keep the brain from imagining things and only reflect what you are hearing. Don't confuse what you perceive vs what goes into your ear. They can be the same or completely different.”
And he determines who gets to perceive and hear correctly.
very true for many subjectivists, not true for audiophiles who believe in balance. And, in truth, no different from rationalists who spend so much time worrying about the measurements, one wonders if they are ever able to sit back and enjoy the sound of the system until every measurement is done because every ‘measurement’ matters….
It is clear you have no idea who we are. Or you do know and are just making things up.
We buy gear based on measurements and excellence in engineering. Once there, we are done and just enjoy music. I listen to music for hours every day. I discover half a dozen new albums as my Roon player automatically plays wonderful music from Tidal service.
except the most vital one of the specific sound waves coming from that specific signal chain of an entire system in the specific space of listening.
Signal chain? Sounds like you are sitting there analyzing the sound instead of enjoying it as the rest of us do. And as I said, constantly worrying about what part of that "chain" needs tweaking, changing, improving.
High fidelity is not about signal fidelity in isolation - it is about the accuracy of the entire sound reproduction in comparison to the original sound.
There you go worrying about "accuracy" and not enjoying music for what it is.
The signal has nothing to do with high fidelity. Do look up the definition of high fidelity.
Search for High Fidelity and Google gives you this:
"high fi·del·i·ty
/ˌhī fəˈdelədē/
noun
the reproduction of sound with little distortion, giving a result very similar to the original."
And how do you know about distortion? By measuring it.
You all are so wrapped around the axel that are now inventing new notions for everything. Please stop posting and go and listen to some music.
Amir says “Subjectivists are worst at it, worrying about every bit of their system affecting the sound from screws to cables. One wonders if they are ever able to sit back and enjoy the sound of their system without constant worrying that "everything matters" and what else they could upgrade.”
very true for many subjectivists, not true for audiophiles who believe in balance. And, in truth, no different from rationalists who spend so much time worrying about the measurements, one wonders if they are ever able to sit back and enjoy the sound of the system until every measurement is done because every ‘measurement’ matters….except the most vital one of the specific sound waves coming from that specific signal chain of an entire system in the specific space of listening. High fidelity is not about signal fidelity in isolation - it is about the accuracy of the entire sound reproduction in comparison to the original sound. The signal has nothing to do with high fidelity. Do look up the definition of high fidelity.
- frees one to be lazy and not develop listening skills is what it does.
Why do you need "listening skills" to enjoy music? If your are sitting there analyzing sound with them "listening skills," it means you are not paying attention to music itself. To wit, billions of people around the world enjoy music who are not audiophiles. By definition then, they are superior to any audiophile because their focus is all on music, not hardware. You should be jealous of them if your goal is music enjoyment.
This is assuming you have developed listening skills. When you are tested blind, all of a sudden you can't tell A from B even though the difference was clear as a day sighted. Listening skills would have to be durable as I showed in my double blind testing. Demonstrate that instead of self grading your exam and you would have something other than another grandiose claim.
Forum software notifies me of topics that involve ASR. I take a look and routinely find all kinds of misstatements which can trivially be shown to be wrong. I post that with the response just being angry comments. No explanation of science. No explanation of engineering. No data. Just fantastical, self-grandiose claims of amazing listening abilities that has to be accepted, damn every bit of evidence to the contrary.
Once again, Amir reveals his arrogant belief that any misstatement made anywhere must be corrected. And WOW, Software guides you to topics involving ASR. Automation to feed your infinite desire to demonstrate how superior you are and how stupid everyone else is. Just amazing.
Amir, your are the one trying to FORCE acceptance of your doctrine. Those that opine about their own listening experience are not forcing acceptance of anything on your or anyone else. That claim by you is delusional. Any suggestion of the possibility that measurements do not tell the entire story is met by dismissive statements like "trivially can be shown to be wrong".
You want to perform measurements and create a following, good for you. Tend to your flock and keep your nose out of others business that choose to follow a different path. Unbelievable massive ego that you search the Internet for wrongs that you feel compelled to right.
Amir says “That frees them to site back and enjoy music. I know I am.
- frees one to be lazy and not develop listening skills is what it does. And you already showed you don’t enjoy music, you’re in constant disbelief unless a measurement tells you it’s ok to sit back and enjoy it. The measurement, not the music, that is.
But, the illusion of reality that we sometimes get with our systems is what the brain does when combining the sounds with a lifetime of experiences. A distinction without a difference.
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.
