advertisement


Power conditioners & Power Regenerators dont do anything for audio

Power conditioners & Power Regenerators dont do anything for audio

OK , next time I go to the tip I will take my NVA 4 way unit :(
 
adamdea said:
At last I find something you write that I agree with (I marginally prefer 135 and 130 (with gf) but let's not quibble).
Incidentally 132 from the Jerusalem quartet is at the Wigmore hall this week.
Click to expand...
The hymn of thanks in the 132 is the most beautiful piece of music ever written...I always think the angels visited Beethoven and this hymn of thanks is the conversation between them and Beethoven...its transcendental music...most extrordinary music..
 
AudioAl said:
Power conditioners & Power Regenerators dont do anything for audio

OK , next time I go to the tip I will take my NVA 4 way unit :(
Click to expand...

Be sure to notify the authorities so the proper entourage can be arranged for the walk up to the skip:

shame-gameofthrones.gif
 
adamdea said:
At last I find something you write that I agree with (I marginally prefer 135 and 130 (with gf) but let's not quibble).
Incidentally 132 from the Jerusalem quartet is at the Wigmore hall this week.
Click to expand...
Adam mate, I think your great..really great..but your wrong! No big deal...I used to be wrong a lot as a young man..but nowadays wisdom bestowed itself upon me! One day this wisdom will bestow itself upon you too..and wrongness will turn righted...hope this gives you hope..all the best..lol
 
adamdea said:
At last I find something you write that I agree with (I marginally prefer 135 and 130 (with gf) but let's not quibble).
Incidentally 132 from the Jerusalem quartet is at the Wigmore hall this week.
Click to expand...
When I first heard 132 on radio three I think it was..I started to collect versions from different quartets..and I soon found the violins seemed to be competing with each other to the detriment of the music in my opinion..the kodaly quartet on naxos is one i really like..Budapest and lindsay I like very much too..
 
the caretaker said:
Adam mate, I think your great..really great..but your wrong! No big deal...I used to be wrong a lot as a young man..but nowadays wisdom bestowed itself upon me! One day this wisdom will bestow itself upon you too..and wrongness will turn righted...hope this gives you hope..all the best..lol
Click to expand...
Is it just possible that the desire to identify "the best one" might not be the ulimate aim of art appreciation? Just a thought from an ingenu[e]. Incidentlly I have a theory that all male hobbies amount to stamp collecting.
 
Incidentally also I was about to settle down the other day to a run though all the versions of the 132 I have when for the first time in years something went wrong with my LMS server. Grrr.
In a perfect world I'd probably like to claim that my favourite version was the Busch, just as i would in a perfect world like to claim that my favourite version of Mahler 9 was the 1938 Walter, but sound quality does get in the way at some level.
 
Here's a quick thought on the objectivists v. subjectivists debate. In a nutshell, subjectivists say "I hear a difference between components that the measurements don't show" and the objectivists say " if the measurements don't show a difference between components, there is no difference in their sound".

Let me advance the theory that both sides are right. If there is a difference between the sound of two components, then that difference will be measurable. However, when the difference is allegedly not apparent from the available measured characteristics of the two components, this is for one of two reasons. Firstly, the parameter that causes the difference has not been measured, or not measured with sufficient accuracy or detail to show the difference. Secondly, differences between the measured performance of the two components that are considered insignificant, are in fact significant, but we don't yet know why or how, particularly when a sonic difference is caused by small differences in separate parameters that individually appear insignificant, but, together, become significant.

So, what is the practical compromise? Objectivists should accept that the art of measuring the performance of components is not yet up to predicting the small sonic differences that we all hear and subjectivists should accept that this doesn't mean that it won't be at some time in the future.

Now, I'll run for cover :)
 
Timcat said:
Here's a quick thought on the objectivists v. subjectivists debate. In a nutshell, subjectivists say "I hear a difference between components that the measurements don't show" and the objectivists say " if the measurements don't show a difference between components, there is no difference in their sound".

Let me advance the theory that both sides are right. If there is a difference between the sound of two components, then that difference will be measurable. However, when the difference is allegedly not apparent from the available measured characteristics of the two components, this is for one of two reasons. Firstly, the parameter that causes the difference has not been measured, or not measured with sufficient accuracy or detail to show the difference. Secondly, differences between the measured performance of the two components that are considered insignificant, are in fact significant, but we don't yet know why or how, particularly when a sonic difference is caused by small differences in separate parameters that individually appear insignificant, but, together, become significant.

So, what is the practical compromise? Objectivists should accept that the art of measuring the performance of components is not yet up to predicting the small sonic differences that we all hear and subjectivists should accept that this doesn't mean that it won't be at some time in the future.

Now, I'll run for cover :)
Click to expand...
Firstly you have to establish that there is actually a difference only then can you go looking for the reason.
Keith
 
Timcat said:
Here's a quick thought on the objectivists v. subjectivists debate. In a nutshell, subjectivists say "I hear a difference between components that the measurements don't show" and the objectivists say " if the measurements don't show a difference between components, there is no difference in their sound".

Let me advance the theory that both sides are right. If there is a difference between the sound of two components, then that difference will be measurable. However, when the difference is allegedly not apparent from the available measured characteristics of the two components, this is for one of two reasons. Firstly, the parameter that causes the difference has not been measured, or not measured with sufficient accuracy or detail to show the difference. Secondly, differences between the measured performance of the two components that are considered insignificant, are in fact significant, but we don't yet know why or how, particularly when a sonic difference is caused by small differences in separate parameters that individually appear insignificant, but, together, become significant.

So, what is the practical compromise? Objectivists should accept that the art of measuring the performance of components is not yet up to predicting the small sonic differences that we all hear and subjectivists should accept that this doesn't mean that it won't be at some time in the future.

Now, I'll run for cover :)
Click to expand...

Well said, also what I have been trying to convey but not as eloquently!
You will probably get shot down by claims that we can already measure to a resolution greater than human hearing, something I take issue with - not because I know we can't, but because I don't know we can!
 
Timcat said:
Here's a quick thought on the objectivists v. subjectivists debate. In a nutshell, subjectivists say "I hear a difference between components that the measurements don't show" and the objectivists say " if the measurements don't show a difference between components, there is no difference in their sound".

Let me advance the theory that both sides are right. If there is a difference between the sound of two components, then that difference will be measurable. However, when the difference is allegedly not apparent from the available measured characteristics of the two components, this is for one of two reasons. Firstly, the parameter that causes the difference has not been measured, or not measured with sufficient accuracy or detail to show the difference. Secondly, differences between the measured performance of the two components that are considered insignificant, are in fact significant, but we don't yet know why or how, particularly when a sonic difference is caused by small differences in separate parameters that individually appear insignificant, but, together, become significant.

So, what is the practical compromise? Objectivists should accept that the art of measuring the performance of components is not yet up to predicting the small sonic differences that we all hear and subjectivists should accept that this doesn't mean that it won't be at some time in the future.

Now, I'll run for cover :)
Click to expand...

It was stuff like this that made me give up posting in the audio room.

You really need to prove you are hearing these differences to say science needs to catch up on discovering these differences. Objectivists = just use your ears and only your ears, subjectivists = I need to know what I'm listening to or my ears won't work properly. No objectivist has advocated just using measurements, not even Serge.

I will once again stop posting in the audio room.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top