Naim = bright?

[dave]

...telling it how it is...

Presumably in more accurate fashion than the engineers that designed the flawed solid rocket boosters or the engineers that tested the o-rings and the joints they sealed in the Challenger space shuttle which caused a tragedy?

 

[jumbo]

The engineers knew too well and communicated to management their concerns about the cold weather and how it would effect the compliance and efficacy of the O rings.

Management over ruled their concerns and went with the launch.

 

[DLF]

Presumably in more accurate fashion than the engineers that designed the flawed solid rocket boosters or the engineers that tested the o-rings and the joints they sealed in the Challenger space shuttle which caused a tragedy?

Sorry Dave, I consider this a rather tasteless and ignorant comment. The Morton Thiokol engineers recommended NASA scrub the launch because of the cold temperatures.

 

[dave]

The engineers knew too well and communicated to management their concerns about the cold weather and how it would effect the compliance and efficacy of the O rings.

Management over ruled their concerns and went with the launch.

True, management in this case were engineers making it even more insidious.

Regardless, the problem began with insufficient testing by engineers and disastrous management decisions made by engineers.

Engineers are not infallible in other words nor do they know all there is to know in their profession. (Google "engineering mistakes")

regards,

dave

 

[DLF]

True, management in this case were engineers making it even more insidious.

Regardless, the problem began with insufficient testing by engineers and disastrous management decisions made by engineers.

The Challenger disaster was a failure of management not engineering. Read the report. I suggest you pick a more tasteful example to pursue your anti-science anti-engineering agenda.

 

[ariegur]

While thinking more on the subject, I can't understand how can someone describe the Naim's sound as "bright". I'm with Naim since 1992. I've listened to many Naim systems and there were times when I went to stores and freinds' houses and listened to other systems. The one thing that captures me with the Naim's sound beside PRaT is that this sound has a clear nature of "darkness" with a strong "black" silent background. Even with the IBLs that I used for many years with kind of lack in bass, the sound wasn't "bright".

Arye

 

[Brian]

Losing it, I see and you don't do context either.

I admit I don't give a toss about your obsession with whatever transparency sounds like.

Was that consciously amusing? Full marks, if so.

I realise the self-proclaimed experts aren't interested in how music sounds, so it was meant to be 'tongue-in-cheek.'

 

[rich46]

the are still bright. some would say fast, they do not have inductor protection in theory makes the amp fast /bright. they are over priced too

 

[Paul R]

I am saying that tapping an amplifier with your finger and finding that this does not produce and output signal does not prove the amplifier is not microphonic.

You could be saying the moon is made from green cheese, or the earth was created in 6 days, you can say anything you like.

But given that some electronics demonstrably produce outputs in response to mechanical impulse, then establishing that there is nothing audible from the whole system in response to a relatively huge impulse suggests microphony isn't a big problem with that system.

There are more subtle experiments you can do, but first why not record the output of your turntable with the stylus in a stationary groove while playing a CD at normal listening levels?

Paul

 

[sergeauckland]

the are still bright. some would say fast, they do not have inductor protection in theory makes the amp fast /bright. they are over priced too

So even with the evidence that the HF response is actually slightly drooping at 20kHz, you still persist with the idea that they must somehow sound bright?

As to output inductors, have you any idea what the effect of this actually is at audio frequencies?

S.

 

[dave]

The Challenger disaster was a failure of management not engineering. Read the report. I suggest you pick a more tasteful example to pursue your anti-science anti-engineering agenda.

Who were management - school lunch counter ladies? No, they were engineers.

 

[Mescalito]

Who were management - school lunch counter ladies? No, they were engineers.

Primarily, they were managers. Which means they want to keep the customer happy & hence ensure future revenue streams. That's what managers are paid to do.

Chris

 

[dave]

Primarily, they were managers. Which means they want to keep the customer happy & hence ensure future revenue streams. That's what managers are paid to do.

Chris

Does this excuse their lack of ethics as engineers?

 

[PsB]

There are more subtle experiments you can do, but first why not record the output of your turntable with the stylus in a stationary groove while playing a CD at normal listening levels?

Paul

What is that supposed to prove, besides the fact that a cartridge is sensitive to vibration and produces a voltage when picking up vibration, which is surely not in doubt and not the issue here? Genuinely curious. (I'm assuming you would amplify the output of the cartridge with phono etc. just like a normal signal).

 

[Arkless Electronics]

Well as we engineers are obviously so stupid and incompetent you will no doubt be designing your own amplifiers, phono stages etc in the future

 

[PsB]

Are you talking to me, AR?

 

[GTM]

Never ceases to amaze how those who have the least knowledge about hifi have the most opinions on it... Empty vessels make the most noise they say!
It's a good thing that the opinion of medical doctors are treated with rather more gravitas than that of electronic engineers... I can just imagine it "I don't believe a word of what that consultant says about my so called cancer! Think I'll see what Dave the plumber thinks down at The Kings Arms"

Actually I think you'd be shocked at just what percentage of the population would do something similar. Ignoring established medical opinion for that of the latest tv evangelist guru or self-proclaimed alternative expert

There is a bit of a difference though. The world of audio does have psycho acoustics etc so whilst a large part of it is clearly engineering/scientifically based, peoples individual experiences are 100% subjective. Even the technically knowledgeable and experienced are not immune to the very same vagaries and flaws of the human auditory experience. So in that sense the whole thing will always be open for debate. If there is one thing that can never be argued against it's subjective opinion/experience.

 

[GTM]

I should have though the answers to those points was bloody obvious.

If a piece of equipment is deemed transparent its presence in the signal path can be shown to be sonically undetectable. For example, replace an interconnect with a pre amp and match the gains, and if the presence of the pre amp cannot be detected, it is transparent.

Something either is or isn't transparent. There can be no subjectivity.

Sonically 'better' also needs qualifying criteria, so you can apply the term to technical performance, or as is often the case with audio, liking or disliking distortion or colouration.

I guess it all comes down to the bold part. Personally, being of a technical/scientific bent I would take it to mean measurably sonically undetectable rather than audibly by humans undetectable. That said, I'll freely admit to being a pedant.