|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Oct 5, 2020 16:54:48 GMT -5
It is the place of science only to observe, not only to seek cause where it may be found, but also to realize that there are many things in the world for which no cause shall be found - not because it does not exist, but because we know too little to find it. It is not the place of science to insist on explanation, but only to observe in hopes that the explanation will manifest itself. People will disdain phenomena that are perceived with their own senses, yet defend to the death the reality of a phenomenon that they have neither seen nor experienced.
Faith is just as powerful a force as science - but far more dangerous - and an explanation-demanding faith IN science may be the most dangerous of all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2020 20:48:47 GMT -5
It is the place of science only to observe, not only to seek cause where it may be found, but also to realize that there are many things in the world for which no cause shall be found - not because it does not exist, but because we know too little to find it. It is not the place of science to insist on explanation, but only to observe in hopes that the explanation will manifest itself. People will disdain phenomena that are perceived with their own senses, yet defend to the death the reality of a phenomenon that they have neither seen nor experienced. Faith is just as powerful a force as science - but far more dangerous - and an explanation-demanding faith IN science may be the most dangerous of all. Everyone has faith. The question is whether we hold our faith in the correct object. For example, Boom walks into the room and sits in his chair. Why didn't Boom test his chair each time to make sure the chair could be trusted? Therefore, some have faith in chairs. That is, if I may define faith: an action based on belief sustained by confidence in X. In this case X = chair. Faith in Science and Science in Faith. For example, on the topics of origins scientist abandon the scientific method. Nobody observed, tested, and repeated the popular origin narratives of today. However, I find the debates most interesting and entertaining while observing two schools of thought studying stick figures. That is, fossil records, the Darwinian Evolutionist equipped w/ artist rendering and a little imagination on the part of reader have quite a different tale than say the Creationist examining the same exact evidence. This is actually what led me into presuppositional apologetics. I know, I know, there are those Science advocates today. But what gets me is the amount of confidence displayed in an area of study where one paradigm is often replaced by another. For example, Newtonian law did a pretty good job in explaining the world around us. And then a little planet popped on the radar, Pluto which didn't act like other planets and couldn't be predicted in orbit. Along comes Einstein w/ this theory of relativity proving Newton wrong. That's the amusing part to me, Newton's theories were completely satisfactory up until Pluto. One scientific paradigm replaced by another ....... just like one yelling the sky is falling and then it doesn't. After awhile, I'm sitting here thinking why haven't these camps lost all credibility? Just takes another object to come along and shatter what everyone thought they knew. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Oct 5, 2020 22:22:08 GMT -5
That is, fossil records, the Darwinian Evolutionist equipped w/ artist rendering and a little imagination on the part of reader Do you really think that's what science has to say about the fossil record? That's a strength not a weakness. Insufficient models get replaced by better models due to evidence. That's the whole point of science. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2020 22:39:06 GMT -5
Interesting that you state, "what science has to say about the fossil record". Science is the interpretation of nature.
Right, and I'm simply pointing my finger to fallible sources of information. Takes the kinda faith I don't have to believe in Science as an infallible source of information.
No doubt Scientist draw to conclusion based on limited information. As evidence becomes available past paradigms are replaced.
No doubt Scientist are not omniscient or omnipresent, therefore we are dealing w/ limited knowledge that'll never explore all possibilities w/ the scientific method, that is, Scientist can't be every everywhere to know. For example, who'd of guess a foreign object named Pluto disregarded Scientific laws up to that point?
I find it equally absurd to suggest that the entire universe operates according to the laws we observe here. That's an assumption.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Oct 5, 2020 22:45:36 GMT -5
Interesting that you state, "what science has to say about the fossil record". Science is the interpretation of nature. Right, and I'm simply pointing my finger to fallible sources of information. Takes the kinda faith I don't have to believe in Science as a infallible source of information. No doubt Scientist draw to conclusion based on limited information. As evidence becomes available past paradigms are replaced. No doubt Scientist are not omniscient or omnipresent, therefore we are dealing w/ limited knowledge that'll never explore all possibilities w/ the scientific method, that is, Scientist can't be every everywhere to know. For example, who'd of guess a foreign object named Pluto disregarded Scientific laws up to that point? Indeed science is based on limited evidence. I think it's winning feature is that is a lot better than no evidence or shaky conjecture. Because it is based on demonstrable evidence, that can (ideally) be repeatable and ideally demonstrated to be correct in multiple ways. Science is very comfortable with their confidence (or lack of) in certain scientific understandings. Sometimes they can quantify just how unsure they are of something (and sometimes not). For instance, the pluto demonstration...it's a minor planet and a very small variation. That was enough to create a huge problem in the model and lead to even more discoveries. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2020 23:00:47 GMT -5
Interesting that you state, "what science has to say about the fossil record". Science is the interpretation of nature. Right, and I'm simply pointing my finger to fallible sources of information. Takes the kinda faith I don't have to believe in Science as a infallible source of information. No doubt Scientist draw to conclusion based on limited information. As evidence becomes available past paradigms are replaced. No doubt Scientist are not omniscient or omnipresent, therefore we are dealing w/ limited knowledge that'll never explore all possibilities w/ the scientific method, that is, Scientist can't be every everywhere to know. For example, who'd of guess a foreign object named Pluto disregarded Scientific laws up to that point? Indeed science is based on limited evidence. I think it's winning feature is that is a lot better than no evidence or shaky conjecture. Because it is based on demonstrable evidence, that can (ideally) be repeatable and ideally demonstrated to be correct in multiple ways. Science is very comfortable with their confidence (or lack of) in certain scientific understandings. Sometimes they can quantify just how unsure they are of something (and sometimes not). For instance, the pluto demonstration...it's a minor planet and a very small variation. That was enough to create a huge problem in the model and lead to even more discoveries. I haven't anything to add other than to acknowledge what you stated. Too bad the very scientific method you're stating as "demonstrable evidence" doesn't actually fall into scientific methods concerning origins. I don't possess that kinda faith. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Oct 5, 2020 23:49:48 GMT -5
Indeed science is based on limited evidence. I think it's winning feature is that is a lot better than no evidence or shaky conjecture. Because it is based on demonstrable evidence, that can (ideally) be repeatable and ideally demonstrated to be correct in multiple ways. Science is very comfortable with their confidence (or lack of) in certain scientific understandings. Sometimes they can quantify just how unsure they are of something (and sometimes not). For instance, the pluto demonstration...it's a minor planet and a very small variation. That was enough to create a huge problem in the model and lead to even more discoveries. I haven't anything to add other than what you stated. Too bad the very scientific method you're stating as "demonstrable evidence" doesn't actually fall into the scientific paradigms concerning origins. I don't possess that kinda faith. And you shouldn't possess that kind of faith in science. So we are in agreement. Unless it has been scientifically shown using some form of evidence in a robust way and accepted by scientific consensus, it remains a guess. Depends on what you mean by origins. Origins of the universe? of the universe? Life? Human life? Science has educated guesses on some of these. And nothing on others. For instance how did life first come to being. Science does not have enough evidence to show how life came from nonlife. But they have some educated guesses. Not strong enough to be accepted as "the way". People think evolution means that science claims to know the origin of life which is simply not true.Evolution points to the evolution of life, not its origin or genesis. Now there's a lot more evidence for microevolution, macroevolution. So in this case, evolution has become a pillar of science. Science for a long time guessed that the Higgs Boson or a variation likely existed. They finally discovered it. But until they did, it remained a well-educated guess, not a proven thing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2020 7:59:23 GMT -5
I haven't anything to add other than what you stated. Too bad the very scientific method you're stating as "demonstrable evidence" doesn't actually fall into the scientific paradigms concerning origins. I don't possess that kinda faith. And you shouldn't possess that kind of faith in science. So we are in agreement. Unless it has been scientifically shown using some form of evidence in a robust way and accepted by scientific consensus, it remains a guess. Depends on what you mean by origins. Origins of the universe? of the universe? Life? Human life? Science has educated guesses on some of these. And nothing on others. For instance how did life first come to being. Science does not have enough evidence to show how life came from nonlife. But they have some educated guesses. Not strong enough to be accepted as "the way". People think evolution means that science claims to know the origin of life which is simply not true.Evolution points to the evolution of life, not its origin or genesis. Now there's a lot more evidence for microevolution, macroevolution. So in this case, evolution has become a pillar of science. Science for a long time guessed that the Higgs Boson or a variation likely existed. They finally discovered it. But until they did, it remained a well-educated guess, not a proven thing. We are in agreement, and..... If the laws of thermodynamics are correct then the universe will one day come to an end. What has an ending has a beginning [finite]. That's the question, how can something come from nothing [creation ex nihilo]? And then magically arrange itself from nothing into something especially w/out reason? Say randomness, and well, I'll yield back and out of the discussion for not enough time exists waiting around for a monkey to beat on the keyboard in hopes of producing an intelligent coherent sentence let alone a paragraph or book. By the way, if the laws of thermodynamics are incorrect then science hasn't even a basic understanding of the universe. As far as educated guesses I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Sounds more like a fancy way to hang a piece of paper on the wall to back an assumption. Intelligence was begotten by intelligence. That is, the Logi-Cause begot the Logos. Creation received the logos, that is, the necessary faculties of intelligence, reason, logic, and wisdom. Such faculties needed to receive not only the Creator [the uncaused first cause] but to explore the created universe. Such is 'why' I believe the Creator welcomes rational investigation not only into His existence but also His creation. After all, we have the faculties to even explore the notion through science, for without the logos, not even science exists. If science means a rejection of the Creator or Intelligent design then science doesn't know the origins of the universe nor life let alone the origins of intelligence, reason, logic, wisdom, etc. Furthermore, micro-evolution is quite different than macro-evolution. Even among Creationist camps of scientist no one disputes micro-evolution. But it is a giant leap in faith or an assumption to suggest the macro functions the same way as micro [Darwinian Evolution]. A genus has always produced w/in the genus and has never evolved into another genus [kind]. If by evolution one means minor variation or environmental adaptations then that is quite different then say, breeding dogs until resulting into monkeys. By the way dogs have been bred every which way and have never produced anything but dogs. Still waiting for the "missing links" in the fossil record. IMO, if evolution means species and genus go extinct then the fossil record really proves that nicely. If interested, don't know if you caught the latest in physics but some are entertaining this idea: Physicist: The Entire Universe Might Be a Neural NetworkEven as such the basic questions asked in the beginning of this post are left unanswered. Enjoy |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Oct 6, 2020 12:00:03 GMT -5
And you shouldn't possess that kind of faith in science. So we are in agreement. Unless it has been scientifically shown using some form of evidence in a robust way and accepted by scientific consensus, it remains a guess. Depends on what you mean by origins. Origins of the universe? of the universe? Life? Human life? Science has educated guesses on some of these. And nothing on others. For instance how did life first come to being. Science does not have enough evidence to show how life came from nonlife. But they have some educated guesses. Not strong enough to be accepted as "the way". People think evolution means that science claims to know the origin of life which is simply not true.Evolution points to the evolution of life, not its origin or genesis. Now there's a lot more evidence for microevolution, macroevolution. So in this case, evolution has become a pillar of science. Science for a long time guessed that the Higgs Boson or a variation likely existed. They finally discovered it. But until they did, it remained a well-educated guess, not a proven thing. If the laws of thermodynamics are correct then the universe will one day come to an end. Also what does it mean for the universe to end? Not according to science. The most educated guesses posits a big chill not an end. An educated guess is that there has been some evidence, hopefully some robust repeatable evidence to suggest that this is the most likely explanation. However, with an educated guess, it can be wrong due to insufficient conclusive "proof". There is a whole range of educated guesses. From ones that are barely worth considering, to ones with so much robust evidence that support plausible mechanisms that there is a good chance it is the correct explanation. Lumping everything in to a âguessâ is very different from how we would casually guess things in real life. There is real science there. [/quote] Does it? Is the universe finite timewise? How do we know? Instead of declaring something, why not find out what science has to say? This is astrophysicist ethan siegel about the finite or infiniteness of the universe www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/10/14/ask-ethan-is-the-universe-finite-or-infinite/#4f443c4a4967Here is him talking about what we know about before the big bang. Do we really know? Spoiler alert not really! medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/what-happened-before-the-big-bang-ef36f2bb2ad1You gotta define what âsomethingâ is. Is something matter? Is nothing energy? Or is nothing a vacuum? Are you asking how did matter come from energy? Or are you asking how energy came in to being? Or are you more talking about a complex life form like a human. The answer for the latter is that a human didn't come from nothing. It came from another human. For the other two, science does have some really interesting things to say about it, with some impressive evidence. If you're asking about where the original energy of the universe came from, science does not have a whole lot of educated ideas about it though plenty of suppositions. Except itâs not. It uses evidence, observation, repeatability standards, and consensus. To science that is not correct. It sounds insulting, but it's not meant to be. Here is where religious topics come in to play. The forum rules are against religious discussions. I donât have much to contribute to religious topics. I am fine discussing science though. Science has little to say about a creator. Thereâs also a great deal of things that science does not know, but people think that science claims to know. For instance, despite all our expertise science doesn't know what electricity is or gravity. We also don't know why time moves at all or why the speed light - or the speed of reality is what it is. All very common things that we don't know the answers to. if we did, it would be revolutionary. Macroevolution has plenty of evidence. I hope you know what macroevolution is. Speciation, which is an example of macroevolution has been found and observed in labs in different experiments. Here's some: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5Macroevolution is supported throughout multiple observations, some being in lab speciation, genetics, fossil records, geology, age-dating, and taxonomy. Macroevolution is one of the outcomes of microevolution. Microevolution has several things that cause it and it is no way random selection. The evidence for micro and macroevolution is so strong that it is a pillar of science. Evolution is considered a scientific fact and a scientific theory - both very strong terms supported by substantial evidence and broad consensus. Science doesnât have all the answers. But what it does have is significantly better informed due to its methods. Those methods are boring, laborious, but at the heart of what makes this a more accurate way of obtaining answers. Also of interest is that it has a reasonable idea of what science really does not know and by how much they donât or are not sure. Good information to know. If you want to get to the weird part of science, it comes down to the effect of the observer on reality and the speed limit of light. Thatâs where things become really interesting. Check out the Youngâs Double Slit Experiemnt. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment We have all sorts of research papers discussing âwhat ifsâ. But for something revolutionary like this to be truly accepted as a good explanation, it would require extraordinary evidence and scientific consensus, which the paper does not have. These are just fun research ideas that popscience websites pounce on because it inspires oneâs imagination. Gets us discussing the what-ifs, which is fun, but just donât mistake it for it being accepted as real by scientists. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Oct 6, 2020 13:19:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Oct 6, 2020 16:18:00 GMT -5
"What if" is my ex girlfriend's favorite quote đ If the laws of thermodynamics are correct then the universe will one day come to an end. Also what does it mean for the universe to end? Not according to science. The most educated guesses posits a big chill not an end. An educated guess is that there has been some evidence, hopefully some robust repeatable evidence to suggest that this is the most likely explanation. However, with an educated guess, it can be wrong due to insufficient conclusive "proof". There is a whole range of educated guesses. From ones that are barely worth considering, to ones with so much robust evidence that support plausible mechanisms that there is a good chance it is the correct explanation. Lumping everything in to a âguessâ is very different from how we would casually guess things in real life. There is real science there. Does it? Is the universe finite timewise? How do we know? Instead of declaring something, why not find out what science has to say? This is astrophysicist ethan siegel about the finite or infiniteness of the universe www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/10/14/ask-ethan-is-the-universe-finite-or-infinite/#4f443c4a4967Here is him talking about what we know about before the big bang. Do we really know? Spoiler alert not really! medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/what-happened-before-the-big-bang-ef36f2bb2ad1You gotta define what âsomethingâ is. Is something matter? Is nothing energy? Or is nothing a vacuum? Are you asking how did matter come from energy? Or are you asking how energy came in to being? Or are you more talking about a complex life form like a human. The answer for the latter is that a human didn't come from nothing. It came from another human. For the other two, science does have some really interesting things to say about it, with some impressive evidence. If you're asking about where the original energy of the universe came from, science does not have a whole lot of educated ideas about it though plenty of suppositions. Except itâs not. It uses evidence, observation, repeatability standards, and consensus. To science that is not correct. It sounds insulting, but it's not meant to be. Here is where religious topics come in to play. The forum rules are against religious discussions. I donât have much to contribute to religious topics. I am fine discussing science though. Science has little to say about a creator. Thereâs also a great deal of things that science does not know, but people think that science claims to know. For instance, despite all our expertise science doesn't know what electricity is or gravity. We also don't know why time moves at all or why the speed light - or the speed of reality is what it is. All very common things that we don't know the answers to. if we did, it would be revolutionary. Macroevolution has plenty of evidence. I hope you know what macroevolution is. Speciation, which is an example of macroevolution has been found and observed in labs in different experiments. Here's some: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5Macroevolution is supported throughout multiple observations, some being in lab speciation, genetics, fossil records, geology, age-dating, and taxonomy. Macroevolution is one of the outcomes of microevolution. Microevolution has several things that cause it and it is no way random selection. The evidence for micro and macroevolution is so strong that it is a pillar of science. Evolution is considered a scientific fact and a scientific theory - both very strong terms supported by substantial evidence and broad consensus. Science doesnât have all the answers. But what it does have is significantly better informed due to its methods. Those methods are boring, laborious, but at the heart of what makes this a more accurate way of obtaining answers. Also of interest is that it has a reasonable idea of what science really does not know and by how much they donât or are not sure. Good information to know. If you want to get to the weird part of science, it comes down to the effect of the observer on reality and the speed limit of light. Thatâs where things become really interesting. Check out the Youngâs Double Slit Experiemnt. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment We have all sorts of research papers discussing âwhat ifsâ. But for something revolutionary like this to be truly accepted as a good explanation, it would require extraordinary evidence and scientific consensus, which the paper does not have. These are just fun research ideas that popscience websites pounce on because it inspires oneâs imagination. Gets us discussing the what-ifs, which is fun, but just donât mistake it for it being accepted as real by scientists. [/quote] |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,089
|
Post by klinemj on Oct 6, 2020 21:35:30 GMT -5
Can you guys start a new thread on this topic? I'm sure it's interesting to you, but it's interfering with me learning what new crazy experiments Boomzilla is conducting. Given it's near Halloween, I'm looking forward to his review of putting Halloween-themed Peeps into the ports on his speakers, and I surely don't want to miss that. I mean...how will the modified Heathkits do with that treatment vs. the PA-1's? Inquisitive audiofools want to know! Nay...DEMAND to know! Thank you in advance! Mark |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Oct 8, 2020 0:11:16 GMT -5
The initial impressions of the Starke Sound AD4.320 power amplifier are HIGHLY positive. I've only tried it so far in 4-channel, unbalanced mode, but WOW.
|
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Oct 8, 2020 10:35:02 GMT -5
Can you guys start a new thread on this topic? I'm sure it's interesting to you, but it's interfering with me learning what new crazy experiments Boomzilla is conducting. Given it's near Halloween, I'm looking forward to his review of putting Halloween-themed Peeps into the ports on his speakers, and I surely don't want to miss that. I mean...how will the modified Heathkits do with that treatment vs. the PA-1's? Inquisitive audiofools want to know! Nay...DEMAND to know! Thank you in advance! Mark What he said, get a room.... |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Oct 24, 2020 22:45:00 GMT -5
Well today my audio amigo had his Thiel 5i speakers set up and I took the opportunity to take the Starke Sound AD4.320 power amplifier there and see if the amp survived. Before I leak the results, let me tell you about the Thiel 5i. The speaker is a 5-way, 6-driver tower. Their crossover uses 87 elements (implemented with 114 components). Their impedance drops to just below 2-Ohms in the bass. Their "rated sensitivity" of 87dB / 2.83V / 1m is actually equivalent to 82dB when the low impedance is taken into account. This speaker is "Shiva, destroyer of AV-receiver worlds." In fact, there are a LOT of "audiophile" amplifiers that QUICKLY smoke when presented with this speaker's "nominal 3-Ohm" impedance as well. In short, only muscular, arc-welder amps need apply AND they'd better sound GOOD doing it, because the Thiel's 23-20kHz frequency response (+/- ONE Decibel) and +/- 5-degrees phase response will quickly reveal any poseurs! And into this killing floor wanders the Starke AD4.320 power amplifier priced at about $1,000. A highly unusual design with a conventional power supply & custom-designed & manufactured Starke Class-D modules for output to 4 channels. Kidding, right? A cheap Class-D amp from an unknown manufacturer is going to challenge the top-of-the-line Krell, Crown, or Quicksilver amps that have been driving these Thiels? Really ? Really ?!? Well the bottom line is: The Starke AD4.320 held its own and sounded damned good doing it! Want the details? You'll have to wait for the November review to get posted! Boomzilla PS: Thiel information - www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs5-loudspeaker-specifications-0[   |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Oct 26, 2020 14:11:55 GMT -5
And now I need to go back to the Emotiva PA-1 amps to see how they compare to the Starke...
The PA-1 amps are one of the three best-sounding amplifiers from Emotiva that I've heard. The other two are the XPA-1, generation 2 and the XPA-2, generations 1 or 2. That said, I haven't heard ALL the Emotiva amps, but the ones that I've heard (or owned) include:
XPR-2
XPA-3, Gen 1
XPA-1L, Gens 1 & 2
XPA-5, Gen ?
XPA1, Gen. 2
BasX A300
SA-300
TA-100
and more that I don't remember...
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Oct 27, 2020 21:36:43 GMT -5
Emotiva PA-1 vs. Starke AD4.320 -
BASS: The PA-1 amplifiers are slightly lighter in the bass than the Starke amplifier, and the Starke sounds as if it has better control of the woofers. Even if I bump up the bass with the Schiit Loki, the PA-1s can't match the Starke performance. Win = Starke
MIDRANGE: The PA-1 amps are warmer in the midrange than the Starke. While the Starke has more detail and clarity in the midrange, the Starke is also slightly more harmonically thin than the PA-1s. You choose your speaker, you favor one or the other. Tie.
TREBLE: Both the PA-1s and the Starke amplifier have slight treble issues. The PA-1s sound slightly sibilant, the Starke, somewhat less so. This was true with multiple speakers. Both amps sounded slightly rolled-off on the high top end (lacking air). Win = Starke (but only by a slight margin)
IMAGING: The PA-1s have some width and depth, but so does the Starke. Depending on material, the lead shifts back and forth. Tie
PRICE: Does not apply. Emotiva no longer makes the PA-1s. The Starke is about $1,000.
HUM: Used with balanced circuitry, both the PA-1s and the Starke are dead quiet. Used with unbalanced leads, the PA-1s have slightly more tendency to hum than the Starke. But keep all components close together and neither hums audibly. Tie.
LOAD TOLERANCE: The Starke is stable to 2 Ohms. The PA-1s are not. But for 99.99% of speaker owners, this is academic. Does not apply
POWER OUTPUT: The 4-channel Starke can be bridged into a super-amp while retaining its 2-Ohm stability. The PA-1s are not bridgeable. But since we all normally listen at <1 watt, I call this one: Does not apply
Overall, both of these amplification products are absolutely EXCELLENT. You can't go wrong with either. Depending on the speakers you're using, you might prefer one or another, but totally ignoring their Class-D technology, they both sound amazing!
Boom
PS - Upcoming reviews:
Marantz Class-D integrated amp
Tekton Design Double Impact speakers
Audioquest Dragonfly 2.0 Black DAC
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Oct 29, 2020 3:58:14 GMT -5
Passing comments on the value of reviews:
I try very hard to say what I hear, but many feel that subjective reviews, such as mine, are worthless because they don't back up the impressions with enough measurements. I get paid a token fee for my reviews, but I'm not a "professional reviewer," because I don't do this for a living - only as a hobby.
I've always contended that the value of a review is dependent on the reader's familiarity with the writer. If a reader is familiar enough with me to know my preferences, my strengths, and my weaknesses, then the review becomes more meaningful because the reader can then compare what the reviewer has said with the reader's own audio preferences. For example, since I normally listen at less than 90 decibels, my reviews may not mean much to someone who consistently likes to listen at 100 or more. My appreciation of imaging may be less of concern to someone who doesn't much care about it. Speaker performance in my (relatively large) listening room may be less informative to someone who listens in a 10x12 foot room. It's also valuable to know what other equipment the writer has owned, what equipment the writer thought was good, and what specific characteristics the writer thought made that equipment "good."
In other words, the better a reader knows the writer, the more information that can be gleaned from the limited-word-length published reviews. And the length of review has no relationship to the cost of the component, to the esteem that the writer holds for the equipment, or for any other factor other than raw word count. A component that I highly regard, and that I've lived with for an extended period of time could be better analyzed with a longer review, but the publisher (in this case, the Secrets website) has provided a template that, among other things, limits word count to between 3,000 and 3,500 words. What I wish to say must fit within that limit, or it will be edited out. It is a limit that sometimes seems very binding.
Although the ability to play instruments (or sing) does imply an ear for what live music should sound like, many who are not musically gifted listen to enough music that their ears are similarly "calibrated." I was fortunate to have access to the Baton Rouge Symphony Orchestra and live performances by the LSU School of Music in my youth, and that my daughter played violin both with both a chamber quartet and with the orchestra. I accompanied her once to an early violin lesson, sitting in the room while she played chromatic scales for her teacher. I couldn't resist offering occasional criticism (you're sharp...you're flat...etc.) until I realized that I was being rude to the teacher, apologized, and quit. The teacher asked me if I played an instrument myself, commenting "not many can do what you're doing."
I also, despite working in a loud, industrial environment for a living, was meticulous about wearing hearing protection (to the frequent scorn of my co-workers). I also got an annual audiogram, mandated by OSHA, and proved consistently that I could hear 20,000 Hz. (that many of the other men could not, even though they were much younger). In fact, the plant nurse eventually called me in to calibrate the sound booth before use. I still pay out of my own pocket for an audiogram every two or three years just to monitor my hearing acuity. The booth at the medical center I use doesn't graph hearing (like the audiometer at the plant did), so I can no longer guarantee that I can hear 20,000 Hz. - but the audiologist consistently assures me that I have the ears of a 20-year-old (I'm now 67).
I think that as I've been exposed to more and more audio equipment in all price ranges, that my appreciation for what is "good" at what price becomes ever more accurate.
And for further background, I offer the following three audio systems, all of which I thought offered exceptional performance. The first and third, I have owned and used in different rooms over the years, the second belongs to an audio amigo, whom I have visited over sufficient hours to be certain of the systemâs sound.
SYSTEM 1:
This system consisted of the following components:
Russell Coco-modified AR turntable
Infinity Black Widow uni-pivot tone arm
Denon DL-103s Shibata-stylus, low-output, moving-coil phono cartridge
Sony HAT-10 step-up transformers
Frank Van-Alstine-modified Dynaco PAS tube preamplifier
Adcom GFA-1 âpower cubeâ solid-state amplifier
Dahlquist DQ-10a mirror-imaged loudspeakers on factory stands
Kimber-Kable speaker wires & various interconnects
What made this system exceptional? In a word, transparency. This system was sufficiently revealing that both the detail and frequency mastering of every phonograph record was easily audible. I listened to this system for hours on end because it was so pleasant to hear. I used it in an apartment, in the living room and converted garage of my first house, and in the living room of my second house. In each location, the detail and ability to âsee intoâ the recording made this one of the best systems Iâd ever heard. The treble was delicate and extended, the midrange full and detailed, and the bass (thanks to a slight RIAA-equalization boost in the phono circuit) was more extended than the average DQ-10. Everyone who heard this system commented on its excellent sound. The system was a champion at imaging.
SYSTEM 2:
This system consists of the following components:
Jolida CD transport
Windows based HDD to system streaming using jRiver Media Center software
Black Ice tube DAC
Dahlquist DQ-LP1 crossover
Eagle 3a subwoofer amplifier
Crown 10â passive subwoofers (2)
Modified Crown PSA power amplifier
Thiel CS 5i loudspeakers or
Stacked Dahlquist DQ-10a loudspeakers
Carefully acoustically-treated dedicated listening room
What makes this system exceptional? Primarily, its dynamic range and seamless subwoofer integration. This is a system of wide range (fully <20 Hz. - >20k Hz.) and exceptional dynamic capability. The power of this system is startling, and the subwoofer integration is absolutely perfect. The system, in addition to being able to play cleanly at levels >100 decibels, is also exceptional at sounding dynamic at VERY soft levels. The combination of transparency, flat frequency response, and absolutely unlimited dynamic range makes this system sound more like live music than any Iâve heard. Additionally, the system is a champion at imaging.
The system is often fed high-resolution digital signals, and for the first time, Iâve been able to actually hear and appreciate the differences between 44.1 digital and high-rez copies. After ripping digital source files to the HDD in this system, the owner normally remasters the original for noise reduction, frequency response, and dynamic range expansion. This system is sufficiently revealing to hear tape artifacts and dropouts in the original recording. In fact, the owner does a brisk business in creating remastered versions of older recordings for audio manufacturers to use as demo tracks at audio shows.
SYSTEM 3:
Oppo UDP-205 used as a CD player, streamer, & preamp
VTL "Compact 100" mono block tube amplifiers
Klipsch La Scala loudspeakers
What made this system exceptional? Dynamics! Even at whisper-soft volumes, this system sounded dynamic and "alive." Was it flat? No. But I could forgive the shortcomings just because of the dynamics and the wide volume range at which the system sounded like live music" I once went to my favorite stereo store and told them I wanted speakers with the flat frequency response of the Dahlquists and the dynamics of the La Scalas. The salesman laughed and said he'd like that too... This system could sound so good it literally brought tears to my eyes!
So despite the fact that one could duplicate these systems, component-by-component, without ever having the sound that Iâve heard, once fully-optimized for their venues, these are the best systems Iâve stumbled across. In common, they all have transparency, good to exceptional imaging, wide dynamic range, and (mostly) flat frequency response. Those are the specific virtues that I look for in every system that I review.
Boomzilla
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Nov 1, 2020 14:47:05 GMT -5
Switching back and forth between bi-wire and straight stereo speaker cables really keeps one on their feet remembering if the jumpers are installed on the speaker terminals or not... I don't know how many times I've listened to Sam Tellig's voice (suddenly a baritone) telling me "The dog you are about to hear should appear to come from the LEFT loudspeaker only..." The good news is that there's no harm done and replacing the jumpers fixes the problem. On the other hand, finding that the channels are reversed leads to a merry chase through the interconnects so see which pair is reversed. Good to have the equipment rack on rollers! I've also found that a strap-on LED light that you wear like a cap is VERY helpful in seeing what you're looking for behind the rack. An extension claw is most helpful in grabbing a specific interconnect or power cord out of the rat's nest - you know - the one that is always JUST out of reach otherwise? I've also mentioned these before, but they've proven less helpful to me than I thought they might. I change equipment on the rack so frequently that now I just have a flock of these stuck all over the back of the equipment rack with nothing in them. But for one who changes equipment less frequently, they can be a godsend. And finally, I find that there are ALWAYS more components needing power than there are sockets. Power splitters are mandatory, but if you want to power stuff that draws current (power amplifiers, tube equipment, etc.) be sure to buy ones with at least 14AWG conductors. Most equipment racks have weight limits. The limiting factor is usually either the sheet-metal tubing that the rack base is made out of or else the plastic casters. Double the weight limit of the rack by discarding the base metal, and bolting heavy-duty casters directly to the bottom shelf. Have you any equipment rack tricks & tips? Please share! Thanks - Boomzilla |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Nov 3, 2020 13:10:01 GMT -5
I just watched a YouTube about some guy's favorite vintage amplifiers. His choices were (in order of preference):
1. Dynamic Precision
2. Electrocompaniant
3. Krell
4. Pass Labs
5. Aragon
6. Carver
7. Acurus
8. Doxa (Norway) (lower power, more expensive)
9. Parasound HCA series
10. Denon POA series
Not having heard all of them, I couldn't strongly disagree, but I think somewhere in my top 10 would be:
Dynaco (tube models)
Audio Research (tube models)
Van Alstine Audio (tube models)
Rogue Audio (tube models)
Odyssey Audio (solid-state)
Emotiva (solid-state)
Audio-gd (solid state)
Adcom (solid-state)
I found another YouTuber who ventured a list of his top 10 vintage speakers (no particular order):
Frazier
Bozak
Wharfdale
Choral
Cerwin-Vega (HD & â50s lines)
Electro-Voice
Technics (SD-7000 models)
Jensen
KLH (pre-H models)
Marantz (pre Sony-Superscope)
Again, not having heard them all, I couldn't strongly disagree, but I think that in my "top 10" vintage list would also be:
Dahlquist
Thiel
Klipsch (Klipschorn, La Scala, & Belle Klipsch)
Quad (electrostatic)
Acoustat (electrostatic)
Allison
Snell
Infinity (IRS)
KEF
Avalon
Revel
My second tier would include:
Mission
B&W
Spendor
Advent
|
|
