advertisement


Can we hear anything, allowed to hear anything, or are you deaf/stupid?

That’s the problem - a lot of words that intentionally or not bamboozle. Now have a look at the measurements Keith posted.
I have a regen but I didn’t buy it because of any technical pdfs. It’s not the ultimate but in certain dac configurations it’s really hard to say that it doesn’t make a difference.
 
I get why you say that.

The manufacturer might be hiding behind commercial sensitivities due to their BS but they might also be genuine. Copying is so very rife we can’t know easily which is the reason for hiding the technical details. Publishing specs gives massive clues about what has been implemented.
I’ll repeat, I’m no expert but surely a set of technical measurements does not give the game away with respect to design or implementation.
 
I’ll repeat, I’m no expert but surely a set of technical measurements does not give the game away with respect to design or implementation.
I can’t be sure about electronics or speaker drivers but in my field of IT if I get to know what and RPA system or AI / Cognitive has achieved it gives me a huge steer as to what to address.
 
You were sneering and you know it. In a thread that is complaining about on sneering at subj, this is not OK.

ok ok i guess i was being a bit snotty -sorry for that then - i've just seen SO MUCH of that toward the 'subjectivists' it seemed quite liberating at the moment (not as though i was directing toward anyone in particular but a phantom adversary)
 
In the late 1980s, when I started this hobby, it was common knowledge that engineers simply didn't have the right measurements that would validate what we actually heard.

Here we are 30+ years later, when one would expect that the science would have advanced and would finally have a more sophisticated set of tests that would align with our perception.

Alas, we are still exactly in the same place in the debate. And after thinking about it for a long time, I have come to an inescapable conclusion that it isn't, for example, some mysterious and unmeasured charachteristic that makes tube equipment sound "better" - it is audible level of second harmonic distortion.

Since then, I replaced my very expensive tube gear (Canary Audio) with moderate priced solid state gear (Emotiva), put away my tube buffers and my USB reclockers. I now insist that my gear measures very well, because if it can't reproduce simple sine tones without adding distortion, it will do worse still when playing much more complex music.
 
Alas, we are still exactly in the same place in the debate. And after thinking about it for a long time, I have come to an inescapable conclusion that it isn't, for example, some mysterious and unmeasured charachteristic that makes tube equipment sound "better" - it is audible level of second harmonic distortion.

Since then, I replaced my very expensive tube gear (Canary Audio) with moderate priced solid state gear (Emotiva), put away my tube buffers and my USB reclockers. I now insist that my gear measures very well, because if it can't reproduce simple sine tones without adding distortion, it will do worse still when playing much more complex music.

Many people actually prefer the 2nd harmonic distortion. They call it 'analog' sounding...
 
honestly -i've NEVER found specs to tell me ANYTHING useful about how a hifi product actually SOUNDS ...and after discovering some products with inferior specs that sounded far better than the high-spec'ed kit that i'd been chasing I pretty much learned to ignore it altogether. But i find it oddly touching, the spec warriors who cling so desperately to their numerical gods

And yet I’ve never heard anything that measures less than optimally that I could live with - when I think of all my favourite equipment, it happens to measure well too.

Brings us back to those pesky ears and brains, and their unreliability again doesn’t it?!
 


advertisement


Back
Top