advertisement


Challenge From Harbeth... (part II)

Brian

Eating fat, staying slim
Continued from here.


I think the plan is to so comprehensively bore the potential constituency that might be interested in the outcome of this challenge in order to ensure no-one cares when no-one can hear any difference. Normal service can then resume and we can all start talking about the difference between a Hi-cap and a cloned hi-cap.

People have been bored by the importance of 'transparency' and 'competently designed electronics' long before this rigged challenge.

None of it matters if you enjoy your music.
 
People have been bored by the importance of 'transparency' and 'competently designed electronics' long before this rigged challenge.

None of it matters if you enjoy your music.

which asks the question 'why hang about on a hi fi forum if it's all about the music'?????

some people want to believe in magic.....
 
People have been bored by the importance of 'transparency' and 'competently designed electronics' long before this rigged challenge.

None of it matters if you enjoy your music.

Lazy and crap non-trump card.
 
People have been bored by the importance of 'transparency' and 'competently designed electronics' long before this rigged challenge.

None of it matters if you enjoy your music.

And yet your boredom and musical enjoyment does not extend to ignoring the thread and butting out.

How telling.
 
The thing is I'm not in either of these camps. However I thank the gentlemen of the measurement tendency because they have caused me to read the many pieces of research sited and referenced that demonstrate without reasonable doubt that there is less that meets the ear than the minds eye would like to believe.
 
Lazy and crap non-trump card.
Really?

So tell me, suppose you have been enjoying listening to your music for say...2 years or so using whatever system you use. Serge comes along, measures your electronics and shock horror, he discovers it's not transparent ( so incompetently designed).

What do you do? Do you suddenly not enjoy your music?

Which part of my earlier post was crap exactly?
 
Really?

So tell me, suppose you have been enjoying listening to your music for say...2 years or so using whatever system you use. Serge comes along, measures your electronics and shock horror, he discovers it's not transparent ( so incompetently designed).

What do you do? Do you suddenly not enjoy your music?

Which part of my earlier post was crap exactly?

Wow brian, the pub must be fun ;)
 
Really?

So tell me, suppose you have been enjoying listening to your music for say...2 years or so using whatever system you use. Serge comes along, measures your electronics and shock horror, he discovers it's not transparent ( so incompetently designed).

What do you do? Do you suddenly not enjoy your music?

Which part of my earlier post was crap exactly?

When you invoked the music lover card, limp and lazy sort of; "I believe in magic". I'm pleased for you that you enjoy your music it is nice, however how you derive enjoyment is a different argument. My mate loves deep bass and sometimes he says to me "there's not enough bass" I say that's because there's no bass on it and play him something else with bass on it. He enjoys bass. The last thing he needs is a transparent system.
 
When you invoked the music lover card, limp and lazy sort of; "I believe in magic". I'm pleased for you that you enjoy your music it is nice, however how you derive enjoyment is a different argument. My mate loves deep bass and sometimes he says to me "there's not enough bass" I say that's because there's no bass on it and play him something else with bass on it. He enjoys bass. The last thing he needs is a transparent system.

It's nothing to do with magic, it's just a fact that in the end it's all about enjoying music, but some are more interested in electronics. That's a different interest really.
 
Nonsense. I've not said anything of the sort. When evaluated blind and level matched, transparent amplifiers cannot sound anything but identical.

However, if either not level matched or evaluated sighted, then anything can happen.

No inconsistency there.

S.

Apologies, Serge. The post below was the one that confused me. You seemed to accept that some amplifiers sound harsher than others. I hadn't realised that you must have been talking about amps at least one of which would have failed your transparency measurements.

So what if I like "harsh". I would then presumably prefer the amplifier that was "harsher" and so, for me that would be the better amplifier?

This is the whole problem with the subjective approach. Firstly, we have the problem of definitions. For example, how do we define "harsh" that has the same meaning to someone who likes "harsh" and someone who doesn't?

Then, even assuming we can define the terms, how do we cope with those who like one particular attribute, and one who doesn't. How, then with a subjectivist approach, can we ever define good, better, best?

Is it not then a more universally useful approach to define performance in terms of the measurements and facilities and allow readers to decide if amplifier A suits their needs better than amplifier B? It's how I've bought my HiFi and anything else technical, like camera, TV, car etc for the past 40+ years

S.
 
It's nothing to do with magic, it's just a fact that in the end it's all about enjoying music, but some are more interested in electronics. That's a different interest really.

How do you explain paintings to a dead Hare?
 
One more point. In post 653 Serge, you claimed that standard Naim amps were transparent. If that is the case, I must prefer some variety of non-transparent amp, by your analysis. My 82/HiCap/250 often became very slightly confusing with complex music. I switched to amps which did not seem to have that quality. I really didn't want to quit Naim as its amps had served me well for 25 years, but after spending several weeks switching back and forth between my trusty, serviced Naim kit and the alternative, I really couldn't deny that the Naim combo seemed a little ragged when the signal involved many instruments and demanded great clarity to resolve everything convincingly. Maybe your standard of transparent, and Naim's, is just lower than mine. But I took great care to make the assessment, and I really had no interest in favouring one amp maker or the other. My Naim amp and a similar spec of amp from another well-known British maker just sounded different in repeatable ways. Could I distinguish blind? I really don't care, but I'm still not convinced that measurable transparency always sounds the same when you listen over a period of days, weeks and months.
 
Apologies, Serge. The post below was the one that confused me. You seemed to accept that some amplifiers sound harsher than others. I hadn't realised that you must have been talking about amps at least one of which would have failed your transparency measurements.

Sorry if my post caused any confusion. I was responding to the earlier post that assumed that the less favourite amplifier must have been more harsh than the more favoured one. That made me ask what happens if one likes harsh? Is then the harsher amplifier better? In which case, what constitutes a better amplifier is entirely in the mind of the listener.

Now this would be fine if all amplifier sounded different, but this has not been established in any sort of testing except for those designs for which the measurements indicate how they will sound. For the vast majority of competent modern amplifiers, there's no such indication, those tests that have been done indicate that there's no such difference.

So why the seeming reluctance to take up Harbeth's offer of a very nice pair of 'speakers to anyone who under sensibly controlled conditions can tell two amplifiers apart which could be expected, from the measurements, to sound identical, like Naim, Quad, Krell, Arcam and so on. Even Behringer against Krell. It can't be the switching between amplifiers that's the problem, as it can be done instantaneously, with no perceptible change (if there's no difference) or a noticeable change if there is. Can it just be fear of putting one's "golden-ears" reputation to the test? If I believed for a moment that there was any difference between such amplifiers, I'd be hammering on Alan Shaw's door to be allowed to take the test. Why isn't there a queue formed of all those on here who so vocally disagree with my view?

S.
 
Seems you can't read either.

I'm not the first to say I'll take the challenge and I'm not even a subjectivist.
 
Sorry if my post caused any confusion. I was responding to the earlier post that assumed that the less favourite amplifier must have been more harsh than the more favoured one. That made me ask what happens if one likes harsh? Is then the harsher amplifier better? In which case, what constitutes a better amplifier is entirely in the mind of the listener.

Now this would be fine if all amplifier sounded different, but this has not been established in any sort of testing except for those designs for which the measurements indicate how they will sound. For the vast majority of competent modern amplifiers, there's no such indication, those tests that have been done indicate that there's no such difference.

So why the seeming reluctance to take up Harbeth's offer of a very nice pair of 'speakers to anyone who under sensibly controlled conditions can tell two amplifiers apart which could be expected, from the measurements, to sound identical, like Naim, Quad, Krell, Arcam and so on. Even Behringer against Krell. It can't be the switching between amplifiers that's the problem, as it can be done instantaneously, with no perceptible change (if there's no difference) or a noticeable change if there is. Can it just be fear of putting one's "golden-ears" reputation to the test? If I believed for a moment that there was any difference between such amplifiers, I'd be hammering on Alan Shaw's door to be allowed to take the test. Why isn't there a queue formed of all those on here who so vocally disagree with my view?

S.

I can only answer that question for myself, and say that although I am sorely tempted to have a go because I really don't care if I succeed or fail from the point of view of reputation, since I enjoy none, I'm not sure I can actually be bothered to (1) procure use of second amp, (2) build switching device, (3) procure suitable sound-level meter and signal processing equipment to ensure compliance with Shaw's terms, (4) travel to Shaw's venue, and (5) endure a test of 100 switches, when I have so many other problems to deal with. It's a lot of effort, and there's no guarantee of success, so I'm unlikely to get my act together to do all this, but that's not to say that I think it can't or won't be done. Suppose it's a 50/50 chance of winning what will fetch five grand on ebay. So at 50/50 that's 2500 quid for the effort. Frankly I think I should concentrate on more consistent ways of earning the 2500 quid, if you know what I mean. I hope someone does have a go - it would be fun to hear about it.
 
sergeauckland;1657491So why the seeming reluctance to take up Harbeth's offer of a very nice pair of 'speakers to anyone who under sensibly controlled conditions can tell two amplifiers apart which could be expected said:
As I understand it there is a queue wanting to take the test, as the thread has progressed a number of posters have indicated that they are ready able and willing!
Or didn't you read those posts?
Errol.
 
Hey, why don't you lot get together? The measurement boys can do the techi bit and provide amp 2 and the golden eared boys can do the test. We the dwindling interested can foot the bill. I will stump up a tenner. About 15 of us will cover expenses. Deffo laugh regardless!
 


advertisement


Back
Top