advertisement


Naim = bright?

Status
Not open for further replies.
As a long term hi-fi enthusiast I find the likes of Serge's input very helpful. It makes me wary of hyperbole and challenges the marketing stuff so dominant up until recently. Also people keep broadening the argument to include what is not being said. Of course amps with different specs sound different as do speakers and turntables so don't worry there is plenty to divert us.
 
Yank said:
We might as well close the forum, 'cause there's nothing left to discuss if Serge is right.
Click to expand...

And if everyone gets to have their own personal definition of what words mean we may as well give up all forms of communication! :rolleyes:
 
Cav said:
No, it is truth. There is not much that is not digital these days.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that's just so much clap trap.

Reduce Love, Anger, Jealousy, Psychopathy, Racism, Joy to numbers.. Oh I'm sure some idiot could give you arbitrary scales to quantify such things but they would be useless.

And 'digital' is just an information format/media, nothing more nothing less. It has no intrinsic truth in and of itself.
 
now given that it takes a finite time to switch the device on and the other device is switching off, why should there always be one device on?
Click to expand...
Because that is the definition of 'Class B', and the reason why the output stage is biased. So that they hand over with the minimum disruption and consequent crossover distortion.

What happens when you squirt RF into the output of an amp is an interesting question, I think that because the open loop gain is rolled off to keep the amp stable the feedback loop cannot deal with it. Which I think is where you came in with a different mechanism. I'm not at all sure it's relevant to anything though.

Paul
 
Naim is tiring on the ears, since i included the nait5i into my system (dynaudio contour 1.3mk2, meridian 508.24, rega p2, and sadly a SBT)i have basically stopped listening to music!! and that's no word of a lie.
 
flatpopely said:
Should listening to music be any other way?
Click to expand...

To me, yes. I don't care what it sounds like as long as I know that it's what was on the CD, with nothing added or taken away.

If I enjoy it, then fine, if I don't, I'll blame the recording and not play it again. What I won't do is fiddle around with the electronics in the hope of making it sound better, if I already know it's as good as it's going to get.

S.
 
sergeauckland said:
So would you like to suggest a way in which a SET amplifier is objectively better than a SS amplifier? This is what I stated, that there are those who will say a SET is better. Not that they like it more, but that it's better. That presupposes that objectively, they have reasons for so saying. What are these reasons?

S.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. You really do need to stop choosing the meaning of any given word in the english language to fit with your arguments.

"Better" is not a word that presupposes any objectivity at all. It's a word that is used in a subjective way every day by people and I think you know that perfectly well.

For example I'm willing to bet a large amount of money that you yourself have stated you thought one verison of a film was better than another or one restuarant was better than another and made such statements without any recourse to the use of measurement equipment of any sort. You were purely stating your subjective preference.
 
sergeauckland said:
To me, yes. I don't care what it sounds like as long as I know that it's what was on the CD, with nothing added or taken away.

If I enjoy it, then fine, if I don't, I'll blame the recording and not play it again. What I won't do is fiddle around with the electronics in the hope of making it sound better, if I already know it's as good as it's going to get.

S.
Click to expand...

Perhaps your choice of source is not sufficient to highlight differences further up the chain?
 
GTM said:
No it doesn't. You really do need to stop choosing the meaning of any given word in the english language to fit with your arguments.

"Better" is not a word that presupposes any objectivity at all. It's a word that is used in a subjective way every day by people and I think you know that perfectly well.

For example I'm willing to bet a large amount of money that you yourself have stated you thought one verison of a film was better than another or one restuarant was better than another and made such statements without any recourse to the use of measurement equipment of any sort. You were purely stating your subjective preference.
Click to expand...

And you'd lose. I don't say that something is better when I mean I prefer it. I say I prefer it. "Better" to me implies a degree of objectivity that isn't there for things like two versions of a film, or two wines or two fruit. Better to me means that one item or process gets closer to a specification than another, such as the example above of a people-carrier or a Porsche. One could be better than the other in how it fulfils a specification or stated requirement.

S.
 
sergeauckland said:
To me, yes. I don't care what it sounds like as long as I know that it's what was on the CD, with nothing added or taken away.

If I enjoy it, then fine, if I don't, I'll blame the recording and not play it again. What I won't do is fiddle around with the electronics in the hope of making it sound better, if I already know it's as good as it's going to get.

S.
Click to expand...

But what if lesser (in your eyes, reflected in the measured performance) equipment allowed you to actually enjoy said recording? Surely it then has value. It's what the gear is there to do ulimately - get you in touch with the performance? Not being arguementative by the way, but I no longer search for ultimate transparency with my gear, because I know a great deal of the music I happen to love was not particularly well recorded in the first place, and sounds better with (shall we say) more coloured equipment.

John
 
quad2fan said:
But what if lesser (in your eyes, reflected in the measured performance) equipment allowed you to actually enjoy said recording? Surely it then has value. It's what the gear is there to do ulimately - get you in touch with the performance? Not being arguementative by the way, but I no longer search for ultimate transparency with my gear, because I know a great deal of the music I happen to love was not particularly well recorded in the first place, and sounds better with (shall we say) more coloured equipment.

John
Click to expand...

That's a personal choice I won't make. I've heard equipment I actually like the sound of, but I know it's lying to me, so won't use it.

Valve equipment is a case in point, can be very attractive sound, all that lovely 2nd harmonic, but not for me.

S.
 
GTM said:
No it doesn't. You really do need to stop choosing the meaning of any given word in the english language to fit with your arguments.

"Better" is not a word that presupposes any objectivity at all. It's a word that is used in a subjective way every day by people and I think you know that perfectly well.

For example I'm willing to bet a large amount of money that you yourself have stated you thought one verison of a film was better than another or one restuarant was better than another and made such statements without any recourse to the use of measurement equipment of any sort. You were purely stating your subjective preference.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's fair, Serge has repeatedly stated his preferences are based on fidelity i.e. faithfulness to the original - not how much he enjoys what comes out the other end.
 
Christ have you lot been jabbering on for 37 pages. I've listened to the whole of Mozart since this thread started.

Can anyone provide a resume for the thread? GCSE York Notes to the eternal, utterly pointless, and philosophically spurious debate about 'objectivism', which cannot possibly be worth arguing when we all know that virtually all amps sound completely different, except for the bland mass produced ones that probably do sound pretty similar.

Or are you debating something quite different now? I bet you aren't.
 
GTM said:
Sorry, that's just so much clap trap.

Reduce Love, Anger, Jealousy, Psychopathy, Racism, Joy to numbers.. Oh I'm sure some idiot could give you arbitrary scales to quantify such things but they would be useless.

And 'digital' is just an information format/media, nothing more nothing less. It has no intrinsic truth in and of itself.
Click to expand...

I thought we were talking about hi-hi?
 
Yank said:
We might as well close the forum, 'cause there's nothing left to discuss if Serge is right.
Click to expand...

It is certainly true that most audio rooms would lose upwards of 70% of their content were you to discard the misinformed rubbish that largely drives them.

There is however plenty that is worth discussion because it does materially effect how a system performs. Page after page on how amplifiers that cannot sound bright miraculously do is a perfect example of the rubbish I'm referring to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top