Romy the Cat

[adamdea]

Actually I do not feel that there is any conflict between subjectivism and objectivism as if objective data does not benefit subjective sentiments than it was wrong data or wrongly interpreted. In audio unfortunately we are way more pre-sold (thank to the stupid hi-fi industry) to deal with absolutely wrong data, or put in this way “irrelevant data”. We quantify irrelevant data and feel that the outcome of this quantification has a direct relativity to our senses. Unfortunately it is not always the case. Pretend that you are a cook and you are cooking for a Cat. You can use your best cooking algorithms to cook the tastiest food and invest humongous amount of skills to cook your favorite Bouillabaisse but it might not necessary what you Cat might consider tasty.

Sound is in very same way but unfortunately it is very hard, almost impossible even to talk, not to mention corroborate, with most of audio people about the subject as “audiophiles” are generally ill-equipped in cultural appreciation of their “hobby”. They can deal with accumulation of amplifiers, soaking speakers diaphragm, measuring plate currents, gluing needle to a cantilever but those action, even they impact sound, has very little truly human service. For instance you “pure sound” the “manufacturer/distributor”, when did you see a customer come to you and request that he wants some kind of solution from you that would make specific renderation of let say Verklärte Nacht to move from acceptance and forgiveness to unsettled disappointment... only by means of playback?

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PageIndex=1&postID=18954#18954

Rgs, Romy The Cat

Thanks. This has helped me to recalibrate my non-sequiturometer.

 

[Robert]

Robert,
Even transparency is a loaded term, I interpret what Romy is saying is that too many in the "industry" baffle the punter with meaningless jargon, instead of making sure the effect on the listener is satisfactory. Does this hi-fi system extract the most enjoyment from the music? That's his main point.
Simon

It's his main point and one with which I'd agree 100%.
However it has nothing to do with transparency, which is fixed, absolute and easily tested.

 

[lordsummit]

Please stick to the AUP Topgear, thanks.

<moderating>

 

[martin clark]

It's his main point and one with which I'd agree 100%.

I would, too.

However it has nothing to do with transparency, which is fixed, absolute and easily tested.

And also these days a pretty low bar to entry; a nice but not sufficient condition.

Choosing something simply because you like the sound of it on the other hand, is exactly where this hobby resides and remains nothing to be ashamed of. If there's a problem, it to do with trying to justify [any] choices on spurious grounds. 'I choose it' is enough for each and every one of us. Quite why that is the case - also varies for each and every one of us. I like stuff backed with measurement; others might prefer to think in terms of choosing say crème brûlée over tarte Tatin (for a very rough analogy).

 

[wacko]

Tinkerer... yes, but in the good sense.
Beginner... no.

While I doubt Mr. The Cat would agree with what I do for a living (he's suggested that a good audio person is a dead industry person, after all) I have a lot of respect for a fellow traveller.

Hat off to Alan who probably wrote that through gritted teeth. My estimate is that RtC knows more about music/'hifi' than 95% of us little fishes... Easy to underestimate someone if you r so foolish to judge him on his English language skills alone (especially if he does it on purpose: compare his website to his PF answers....)

 

[Robert]

I would, too.
And also these days a pretty low bar to entry; a nice but not sufficient condition.

Choosing something simply because you like the sound of it on the other hand, is exactly where this hobby resides and remains nothing to be ashamed of. If there's a problem, it to do with trying to justify [any] choices on spurious grounds. 'I choose it' is enough for each and every one of us. Quite why that is the case - also varies for each and every one of us. I like stuff backed with measurement; others might prefer to think in terms of choosing say crème brûlée over tarte Tatin (for a very rough analogy).

Absolutely - I wouldn't disagree with that either.

However 'I chose it' being good enough for each of us individually is quite different to comments being posted on forums, given as advice, when the conditions under which 'I chose it' are not quantified and qualified.

Me saying I've bought a new amp and it sounds much better than the old one in x ways is pretty useless if put forward as general advice to others, which is usually what happens. That's why we also need some degree of objectivity if advice is being given, at least around the process.

 

[Joe P]

Rob,

Me saying I've bought a new amp and it sounds much better than the old one in x ways is pretty useless if put forward as general advice to others, which is usually what happens. That's why we also need some degree of objectivity if advice is being given, at least around the process.

It would be ideal if advice could be stripped of bias and the follies and foibles we're all susceptible to, but not everyone has an oscilloscope or spectrum analyzer on hand to back up subjective impressions, or the inclination to conduct double-blind level-matched tests with a sufficiently large sample sizes to conclude something with statistical certainty.

I think we sometime forget that this site is basically just a bunch of blokes (and occasionally a few women) discussing stuff they've bought or want to buy. None of this is destined to be published in Nature or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The fringy foo-ey stuff is obviously in a different category, but what's wrong with a bloke saying, for example, that a Stingray is better than an Anthem Integrated 1?

Joe

 

[Robert]

Nothing at all, unless the guy takes you (and others) at your word and finds that the Stingray sounds lousy into his loudspeakers.
The classic example is the chap on here recently looking to swap his Ortofon for a Nagaoka because its too bright.
It's bright because it isn't loaded correctly. A common response might be 'buy a warmer cartridge' but that is going to cost £600 that needn't be spent, and might actually make matter worse.
There was a time when these issues were better understood, and I'm of the view that knowledge empowers. These days we just see dumbing down
That's not to say that everyone needs to become an expert, but the more people are encouraged to better understand the basics of their hobby, the better the chance of them getting systems which work properly and satisfy.

I've not seen anyone call for scopes, analysers, DBTs or sample sizes to gives statistical certainly when giving general advice. Those things might be mentioned if a more general aspect of audio is being discussed and some degree of reliability is required as to the outcome, as it should.
Hiding the kit identity and matching levels is in itself a monumental step in the right direction, and not difficult for most people. Actually, just matching levels is a big bonus and is rarely done IME!
Those alone kill the foo aspect stone dead, and dispenses with a good amount of myth. It potentially raises standards hugely via pretty simple activity.

Having said that, there is a place for the in depth stuff and if people were indeed open minded (some are) they might take any findings of such work on board.

 

[Joe P]

Rob,

OK, but a Stingray would sound awesome into your speakers. ;-)

Joe

 

[Robert]

Joe,

I'd be very happy to use it, and yes it would

 

[martin clark]

Joe - if you persist in that line of reasoning I'm going to have to trademark the idea of pelagic audio.

(since - yes it would here as well. )

 

[Joe P]

Dudes,

Well, this is the fish forum. Seems only fitting.

Joe

 

[pure sound]

For instance you “pure sound” the “manufacturer/distributor”, when did you see a customer come to you and request that he wants some kind of solution from you that would make specific renderation of let say Verklärte Nacht to move from acceptance and forgiveness to unsettled disappointment... only by means of playback?

Rgs, Romy The Cat

It won't surprise you to learn that such requests are almost unheard of. Most listeners, if asking for any customisation at all, will be interested in particular FR adjustments ie more bass, less bass, more HF etc. Most systems do not allow for any more 'interesting' adjustment than that. Of course, making adjustments to the working points of an output stage or altering its loading can result in a different pattern of distortion which might allow for a more nuanced change in presentation but what might be preferable for one individual almost certainly wouldn't suit another.

While you are here, can you explain the function of your 'injection' channels and how altering the reproduction of tone allows you to change the accent of your playback system? Do the settings remain constant for all recordings once set or do different composers (Bruckner for example) benefit from customised settings?

Thanks for the tip about Verklärte Nacht. It wasn't a piece I was aware of but I am now.

 

[Tony L]

IThanks for the tip about Verklärte Nacht. It wasn't a piece I was aware of but I am now.

There are two versions; orchestral and the original string sextet. It's the latter you want IMO. It is a beautiful thing. I have the original vinyl issue of the LaSalle Quartet on DGG, I'll be interested as to which is Romy's pick. The String Trio it's partnered with is excellent too, but very much later (i.e. serial) Schoenberg.

 

[adamdea]

It won't surprise you to learn that such requests are almost unheard of.

I have been pondering very hard why those requests are unheard of; a request like that seems like such an obvious one.

While we are at it do you you think you could produce for me a phono amp which would make the Vegh quartet sound like they had had kippers for breakfast before recording the first Movement of the Op 135 Quartet, maybe with coffee although i can live with them having had orange juice as long as it was without pulp?

 

[Romy The Cat]

It won't surprise you to learn that such requests are almost unheard of. Most listeners, if asking for any customisation at all, will be interested in particular FR adjustments ie more bass, less bass, more HF etc.

It is not about “adjustments” but rather about objectives. “Most listeners” in audiophile world is the category that I have no interest at all as I feel my objective in sound reproduction are very different then just brainlessly and idiotically load my listening room with meaningless pressure waves.

Most systems do not allow for any more 'interesting' adjustment than that. Of course, making adjustments to the working points of an output stage or altering its loading can result in a different pattern of distortion which might allow for a more nuanced change in presentation but what might be preferable for one individual almost certainly wouldn't suit another.

The reality is that working points of an output stage is not adjustable parameter. Any given topology driving any given specific load have own optimal operational condition and they are fixed by the virtue of given topology. Even in SET world you “look like” have some freedom to moderate output tube plate loading (let say via transformer ration) and write own harmonic texture but the reality is that the plate loading is also has to be constant and would be a derivative from many parameters of your acoustic system, that once set shall remind permanent. They are no presentation nuances in SET plate loading that might wary from individual to individual. If the individuals have right objectives in sound reproduction and their reference points are not fluctuate by a new marketing campaign that some kind of audio magazine happed to run that month then there is absolutely no ambiguity in sonic expectations.

While you are here, can you explain the function of your 'injection' channels and how altering the reproduction of tone allows you to change the accent of your playback system? Do the settings remain constant for all recordings once set or do different composers (Bruckner for example) benefit from customised settings?

I would like not to. I have expressed about the subject all that necessary in the thread “How to USE “Resonating Oops” in loudspeakers”. In subject of 'tonal injection' is complex and I have seen a lot of criticism about it, mostly from idiots. There are however, two type of the people out there – those who hear how I did it and those who did not. Internet is full with all imaginary people who would run mouth about anything but they all collapse as you familiarize yourself with the actual results, namely the sonic accomplishments. I do very much appreciate my concept of injection and the way HOW it was done in context of my installation. Any single person who was in my listening room and asked me juts for test to turn down the injection temporary did understand the benefits. The injection, the way HOW I use it is something that make Prague Philharmonic woodwinds and Vienna Philharmonic brass to sound not like it was just another orchestra from NY…. The level of injection is also is remain constant. If you drink you tea then you have well defined amount of sugar that you put in your tea that serves your definition of comfort sweetness. The very same is with tonal injection. I could set it more or less if I with, something that I never do as I do not feel it necessary.

There are two versions; orchestral and the original string sextet. It's the latter you want IMO. It is a beautiful thing. I have the original vinyl issue of the LaSalle Quartet on DGG[/URL], I'll be interested as to which is Romy's pick.

They both are wonderful and I do not feel that sextet is more interesting than orchestral vision. If the orchestral vision is properly played then it might be a magnificent ride. Boulez with NY Philharmonic in 70s did it right but it was vandalized by Columbia sound, not to mention the American orchestra tonal impotency. There were some other attempts… The sextet and orchestral version are different. You hear more instrumental drama, more complexity of Schoenberg’s ideas, more expressionism of individual players (Try Hollywood String Quartet for instance) , more nuanced colors… etc… However as large orchestra undertake the Verklarte Nacht you might have the same painting only painted by large brash. It is different feeling, equally interesting but different. Can you claim that orchestral adagio from Bruckner 7 is less stimulation then the same adagio played in solo piano? Well, it is not about the size of instruments but level of talent invested into the interpretation and into the performance.

While we are at it do you you think you could produce for me a phono amp which would make the Vegh quartet sound like they had had kippers for breakfast before recording the first Movement of the Op 135 Quartet, maybe with coffee although i can live with them having had orange juice as long as it was without pulp?

If that is your objective to have a quartet in your listening room to sound as the players eat something for breakfast then you are not quilted to talk with me. I think you have enough credentials to become another industry reviewer and entertain your readers with irrelevance that you heard from someone hut have no cerebral aptitude to understand what it might mean.

 

[Rumpole]

Romy
You are one mad ****er, and I'm sure glad I'm not caught up in the vortex, but I'm really glad you are. Carry on with my best wishes...I enjoy reading your particular take on things...

I don't know if you are right or wrong, but I sure admire the dedication

How you are still married I do not know...

Cheers

 

[adamdea]

I think you have enough credentials to become another industry reviewer and entertain your readers with irrelevance that you heard from someone hut have no cerebral aptitude to understand what it might mean.

That's what it says on my job application.

 

[packtech]

Tinkerer... yes, but in the good sense.
Beginner... no.

While I doubt Mr. The Cat would agree with what I do for a living (he's suggested that a good audio person is a dead industry person, after all) I have a lot of respect for a fellow traveller.

You quite obviously don't recognize dry Humour when you see it...it's a British thing..

 

[louballoo]

Romy's site is pretty funny and a breath of fresh air. Very very non-stereophile compliant. Some things just need to be said.

Way-to-go!

Romy's Pal

Louballoo