Why do many discussions about sonic performance disintegrate into technical discusions?
Guys I have noticed that certain members start with technical back and forth in discussions which look like they are self serving, to prove how smart or knowledgable they are, rather then forwarding the OP's original question.
Shouldn’t these discussions be moved into a separate post about technical stuff ie the techical merits of bibolar vs mosfets for example, if these members want to do that?
I think most member don’t care if a Krell amp uses brand x or y for transistors vs a Pass or any other amp, I think most people are more concerned with what the sonic differences there are vs specific technical arguments that are not related to the sonic flavor or design methodologies that these product use to produce their sound, what do you guys think?
I hear you! Our hobby is not about solving problems like world peace, yet some people seem to take themselves really seriously, especially those who seem to need to "stroke themselves" for all the technical stuff they know about the equipment. I don't see anything wrong with that. If that approach makes you happy, go for it!
First, +1 to the responses by numerous posters which reflected balanced and/or pragmatic viewpoints.
Second, +1 to the comments by Wolf_Garcia objecting to the promulgation of gender-based stereotypes, even if the two posters he appeared to be responding to did not intend their comments to be taken that way.
Third, I find it ironic that the focus of this very thread, that was intended to deal with technical discussions in other threads that were deemed to be irrelevant or at most semi-relevant, has evolved to encompass discussions of ancient civilizations and even differences between the sexes. Not that I see anything wrong with that (and in fact I see nothing at all wrong with it), but it serves to illustrate that changes in the focus of a thread are often inevitable, whether one likes it or not.
I tend to agree with your assessment. I’m not really sure why certain folks, and only a few, tend to get bugged down on technical arguments which in most cases the OP didn’t even ask or care about. A more annoying but related gripe I have is some of these members challenge other members who are obviously more qualified in expressing their position in an objective manner. We can argue all day long on subjective opinions but technical subjects are generally based on data and facts, both of which are absolute by definition.
The other thing is that all existence is subjective, inescapably so. Tied to the only fact in existence, which is: there are no facts.
It is a problem that circles around the drain of the idea of consciousness. We’ve projected, in our subjective existence, that objectivity and facts exist, when they simply do not. Objectivity is an agreed upon idea, in an entirely subjective reality experience. The only fact we know to exist, is that there are no facts.
Which, neatly, parallels the particle/wave paradox. Not a coincidence.
Facts are an agreed upon reality. An agreed upon projection. They posses no reality of their own - whatsoever. It is not the fundamental, and must always be remembered.
This thought is unpopular (viciously so) in engineering science or technical science, mostly due to the conceptual headiness required to grok it. But it is the underlying fabric of theoretical sciences, exploratory sciences, the philosophy of science. These areas of conception are the parent branch of engineering sciences, and engineering thoughts and sciences have no capacity to overrule the origins of objective science and objective reality.
There’s a lot of misconceptions about logic and process in engineering sciences, and that area (engineering sciences) does attract people of a certain mindset. Not pondering the greater questions, ie, ignoring them... does not give engineering sciences the stance, position, or credibility to overrule the origins of the fabric and scope of the known nature of reality.
If one wants to understand the nature of reality, it is important to consider that none of it is ironed out in nature, shape or causal connections..that it is still..to this day..turtles all the way down.
The thinkers do get it and it can be a big bit of width and scope to try and grab it whole. It’s why Elon Musk said that it is ’billions to one’ that we exist in a base reality -and that this has to be a simulacrum of some sort or nature.
All cutting edge science and mathematical explorations, etc, all point you in that direction.
So people can talk facts and whatnot, but in the final analysis, it means jack. Exactly Squat.
In our day to day lives we can ignore these things but they must NEVER be forgotten, even for a second. If you forget or ignore the fundamental carrier of your reality you will find that some of the caricatures that ride on top of it (like engineering science, objective science) somehow, over time... supplant the fundamental reality. Then you’ll end up going far far off course. Like a blind newborn puppy crawling into a corner and crying. No way out. With no idea how to move forward.
In essence, in audio..as you (anyone reading this) can then see or hopefully..try and 'get'..that objectivity vs subjectivity..is a mixed bag. At best.
Essentially, Objectivity exists in a bubble. An agreed upon format in basis, communications, references and so on..but..in a bubble. A subset bubble of a greater reality.
Besides it's a bit of a joke, in that music is about feeding the inner barking monkey - the ego and the body's emotional core.
Good luck in trying to be objective with that. Logical? Sure. No problemo.
But fundamentally Objective? No point.....
When we look at audio designers, they'll help you (or at least show some potentials) with your quandary in these areas. They design objectively, or creatively in a objective framework. The vast majority of them will then say they listen to the gear, after it is done or prototyped. If it does not move them emotionally..after all that objective work...then the wiser ones will scrap the new work or alter it until it does move them emotionally.
As it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing...
The swing can be objectively identified, IMO and IME, but it's a fairly tough nut to crack.
OP, as you have suggested at the end of the day, first is sonic performance, being the most important. Stability and functionality is second but perhaps can be equal first. How it is made is absolutely third to sonic performance and although can be sometimes interesting.
As regards technology being based on data, that is actually generally not true inasmuch as the only data is about technical performance when what is needed is data about the listener's reactions. As well, technical innovations are often confounded by other changes in a product such that even if everyone agrees that a new product is better you can't actually say why.
Audio is about technology but the discussions of the technical advances almost always have less merit than the authors believe because they lack evidence that the supposed technical advantage of, say a new amplifier circuit, is what really makes the new amp, which employs it, actually sound better. Almost always with new products, the new technological innovation is confounded with other changes in the product. For example higher grade components, such as capacitors, resisters, volume controls, transformers. Or in a topic near and dear to my heart, additional mechanical damping. What is usually missing is a controlled comparison where two amps are compared with only one variable changing, such as the circuit.
So talking technology generally creates a false impression of scientific exactitude. And to be clear, I am not just talking about amplifiers.
Sonic performance: This tweak is amazing, the earth moved and the heavens opened up and my million dollar system suddenly sounds one hundred thousand times better with this mere $299.95 tweak.
Technical Discussion: How can hemorrhoid cream possibly help you get better sound? Why does audiophile hemorrhoid cream cost so much more than regular hemorrhoid cream? Where do you apply it? Did your wife try it and does she like it too? (If the wife likes it then it’s solid technology - bona fide! In a technical discussion if the wife’s gives her thumbs up then it is like a knock out in boxing.)
you know 20 years ago few argued. It seem now-a-days everyone argues. It is in Washington DC, on ham radio sites, Audio Asylum is very bad & other places now. One can speak about this or that from a technical stand-point, but please stop disagreeing with one another. It really accomplishes nothing to argue.
There's no sincerity starting this thread whatsoever, and I ditto that this thread should be under the topic, tech talk, not amps-preamps. Its obvious whats really going on here. Of all people to bring up these tech issues regarding sonic performance, when he already knows the answer's since he owns a high end retail store, give me a break. This is simply nothing more than another angle for audiotroy to throw out his fish net to lure more customer's into his store. JohnnyR at Audio Connection doesn't play this game. What a shill.
'Disagreement and argument accomplishes nothing?' Audio sonics is very subjective. What sounds great for one many not for another. So, read the suggestions and experiment.
If I were trying to sell high end stuff on these forums based on anecdotal subjective sonic performance then I would not welcome technical comments, as it confuses the buyer.
Indeed, the recurring crackpot argument is that scientific facts do not exist and that you should follow your subjective impressions. That makes people easy targets for snake oil sellers (many of them here) and audiophilia nervosa, leading to frequent buying and selling of vastly overpriced gear.
willemj Indeed, the recurring crackpot argument is that scientific facts do not exist and that you should follow your subjective impressions. That makes people easy targets for snake oil sellers (many of them here) and audiophilia nervosa, leading to frequent buying and selling of vastly overpriced gear.
>>>>>>Actually, there is no such argument by anybody that scientific facts don’t exist. Quite the contrary. It’s usually the non technical types, but sometimes supposed technical ones, who claim that controversial tweaks 🐍 you know, the ones they either don’t understand or ones they choose not to subscribe to, disobey the sacred Laws of Physics or Electronics or some other field of science. The ones they most likely never studied themselves or, if they did, slept peacefully through class. The two most commonly used fake arguments by skeptics are (1) it will never pass a controlled double blind test and (2) it disobeys the Laws of Science. (They’re never quite sure which one). Of course, the whole “it disobeys the Laws of Science” ploy is obviously a Strawman Argument, a fallacious argument.
As someone posted on one of these forums, “only quote facts.”
Gee, and all I'm trying to do is learn about the science behind the Synergistic blue fuse which uses
Quantum Inductive Coupling. Can anyone explain that to me in a non-technical manner?
Yes. Anytime you see the word 'quantum' associated with an audio product, it is an indication that you should turn around and run! as hard as you can until you are a very long distance away. Of course, you won't get away from the quantum, but you might be a bit further away from where you saw the word. And maybe also the audio product in which it is supposed to reside.
Somebody asked, Can anyone explain that to me in a non-technical manner?
To which atmosphere replied,
“Yes. Anytime you see the word ’quantum’ associated with an audio product, it is an indication that you should turn around and run! as hard as you can until you are a very long distance away. Of course, you won’t get away from the quantum, but you might be a bit further away from where you saw the word. And maybe also the audio product in which it is supposed to reside.”
>>>>>>With these exceptions: Bybee Quantum Purifiers, WA Quantum Chips, Silver Rainbow Foil, Quantum Clip, the Red x Pen, Morphic Message Labels and The Super Intelligent Chip and of course The Teleportation Tweak and a great many others. And everybody’s favorite - the Photos in the Freezer Tweak. 😳 Let’s not forget the humble CD laser is a Quantum thingamabob.
There is almost no line dividing Quantum Mechanics from Standard Physics. 😬
Remember what teo_audio stated earlier in this thread, "Facts are an agreed upon reality. An agreed upon projection. They posses no reality of their own - whatsoever."
Facts are not stubborn things as a noted politician once said, they are irrelevant and non-existent. Not things at all.
Gee, and all I'm trying to do is learn about the science behind the Synergistic blue fuse which uses Quantum Inductive Coupling. Can anyone explain that to me in a non-technical manner?
Yes. Anytime you see the word 'quantum' associated with an audio product, it is an indication that you should turn around and run!
amg56-Absolutely!! The Egyptian's did indeed create the first sub-woofer. In fact,the Kings' Chamber has the highest damping factor in human history, measured at 700,000. Phew! The sub-woofer inside the chamber measured 30x30 feet on all sides. The cabinet material was made from the strongest bamboo in Egypt. Fresh from the shallow waters by the shores of the Nile. Hieroglyphics on the temple walls in the Valley of the Kings reveals a great tragedy, over 11,000 child slaves were killed by Nile Crocodiles while cutting the bamboo for the sub-woofer. Wow! The sub-woofer was mounted on a massive block of compressed diamond blended with fine granule's of gold and copper, held down by large brass bolts. The large 27 foot sub-woofer cone material was made from multi-layered razor thin sheets of the finest papyrus in Egypt coated with bamboo resin for maximum strength. The surround material for the sub-woofer basket ring was a blending of rubber tree resin and cobra skin. Audio history has it all wrong. It is not true that Edgar Villchur invented the first speaker piston driver in 1952. What a load of bull. The Egyptians did! Give credit where credit is due! The sub-woofer was powered by the crystal capstone on top of the pyramid. Attached to the bottom of the capstone was a long copper rod that went into the pyramid going down at different angles until it entered the King's Chamber stopping at the rear of the sub-woofer. A very thick 4 awg single solid core copper wire extended from the end of the rod and was connected to a locking ring on the rear of the sub-woofer. The same locking ring that is on the center hub of the finest Chariot wheels. At mid-day, the power of the sun would enter and charge up the crystal capstone, acting as a large capacitor building up massive volumes of continuous current to the sub-woofer. The Great Pyramid is well known for being covered centuries ago with a beautiful layer of white limestone. King Tut destroyed it. One afternoon the King decided to throw a birthday party for one of his friends inside the King's Chamber. They got so smashed that they accidentally set the current lever to maximum for over an hour causing such massive low waves all the way down to 6 Hz, resulting in powerful destructive vibrations to the surface causing the slabs of limestone to crack and break up and slide to the bottom of the Pyramid. What a tragedy.
this thread disintegrated into technical discussions
Nah, disintegrated only for those poor souls that have no technical knowledge, so all they can do is whinge about it, because all they have to believe in is "snake oil".
Nah, disintegrated only for those poor souls that have no technical knowledge, so all they can do is whinge about it, because all they have to believe in is "snake oil".
TASTES GREAT!! LESS FILLING!!
Duly noted George, we will place you squarely in the Less Filling camp.
Knowledge is what’s left after you subtract all the stuff you forgot from school. As we approach the 100th anniversary of Schrodinger’s Cat, there seems to be a whole lot of confusion or just plain, what’s the word, absence of knowledge, regarding quantum mechanics. Perhaps uh, fear? 😃 Ohm’s Law is not (rpt not) the end-all do-all for technical arguments.
Ohm's Law is not like a speed limit law that can be broken. It is inviolate.
Put simply, anything to do with electricity is following Ohm's Law. All the gain in transistors, all the gain in tubes, all of it follows Ohm's Law.
Ohm's Law is also quite simple. One Ohm is equal to one Volt divided by one Amp. That's it- 4th grade algebra. It is the basis of all things electric and electronic.
Thanks to you both for proving my point. Come on, people, stop obsessing over Ohm’s Law. Besides saying Ohm’s Law is unbreakable is a Strawman Argument. Extra credit : why is it a Strawman argument?
As I mentioned previously, a lot of the explanations regarding problems in sonic performance are really technical in nature. When people start off a conversation with "I think" the hair on the back of my neck rise.
What are the facts? That is the important thing. If people hear a sonic difference using certain fuses, that is fine and quite possible. Anytime that the signal passes through or interacts with a component, it is quite possible that it my negative/positively impact the signal. even fuses. I won't argue that.
The why is always technical. the internal wiring within the fuse may not be as conductive as other wiring, the end connections may be worse, the conductor may not be satisfactory, etc. There will be a technical reason. Certain wire types and configuration conduct better than others. Some cables have an impedance curve that is so bad over frequency range that they become a very bad load on the system. It is a technical reason. Yes, the non-technical person heard a difference and many technical people are hard pressed to provide a technical answer, but (the huge but), there is a technical answer.
Some may not be able to answer in a technical manner and that is fine. But to me, subjectivity really has no place in this reality. Science is all about being able to repeat situations under the exact same circumstances. If it isn't repeatable under the same environmental and physical circumstances, it is not science.
people sitting in a room talking about differences in cables. Either you hear the difference or you didn't. However, unless one's hearing is faulty, all will hear the same things in the same room with the same equipment. When they understand what they are listening for.
Amp differences, to me mean simply remove one amp and connect the other without changing anything else. Anything else is not an apples to apples comparison and is not scientific, but subjective.
Two amps that have the same general specifications will sound very different. Why? Because unless they are using the exact same circuitry and have the exact same transfer function they are not the same and will react very different over the frequency and power range. That is a fact. So no, all amps can't sound the same. Impossible unless the transfer functions are the same. which can't happen unless they are the same amps. or unless you are Mr. Carver who figured out how to design some of his amps to match the transfer function of some high end known amps. this was quite the feat.
So, don't be mad or upset when some step up with attempts at technical answers. its all technical. even room acoustics, standing waves, reflection points, inductance, electromagnetism, conductance, even why we hear the way we do.
I'll leave by saying this, the long standing argument about fuses is funny to me. of course they may make a difference. As an Engineer I have to acknowledge this. but, is it worth it to me or you? maybe. I like the way my amps and pre-amps sound with stock fuses. I did when I demo'd them in the store and at home and saw no reason to fuse roll. they sound great to me. Would they sound better with $100 fuses? maybe, but at this time in my life it isn't an interest to me. For others it is. I would not disparage them for it.
most "normal" people think we are nuts anyway in this hobby. but look at car enthusiast or watch enthusiast or people that go absolutely crazy over clothing, they are just as crazy are we are. Actually, some of us fall in those categorizes also.
It’s a two way street. Yes, science can sometimes help explain things. And help design things. But one can be blinded by Science, too. There are a great many examples in this hobby that are difficult to explain. It’s really the nature of the hobby, has been for some time. So I wouldn’t get too upset or disappointed if explanations are not forthcoming or, if they are, not very palatable.
Give me some examples, you say? How about the Green Pen, Schumann Frequency Generator, Silver Rainbow Foil, VPI Brick, Mpingo disc, Cream Electret, tiny bowl acoustic resonators, the Intelligent Chip, crystals, directionality of fuses and cables, conductors the diameter of a human hair, Lessloss Blackbody, vibration isolation for solid state electronics, copper foil Flying Saucers for Windows, Shakti Stone, Shun Mook Original Cable Jacket, Teleportation Tweak, WA Quantum Chips, Graphene cables, fuse and contact enhancer and liquid cables?
kosst_amojan @geoffkait I googled it. "geoffkait’s generic name-calling smear in the face of anything that violates his mythology". It’s like you don’t actually know what the term means because you never use it in a context that coincides with it’s definition.
>>>>Gee, I was wondering what happened to the real costco_emoji. That’s more like it! Welcome back! The DMT Express is back in town, baby!
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.
