|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Dec 30, 2017 12:20:00 GMT -5
O.k. but exaggeration is relative and subjective!  |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Dec 30, 2017 12:20:23 GMT -5
People are subjective, electronic equipment is objective. There is a logical scientific reason, sometimes hard to locate, for every tendency of an audio electrical component to sound different than another similar component. Subjective people don't care to dig for the reason, they just willy nilly buy something else. I'm leaving speakers out of this because they come in many various forms and interact with rooms and furnishings differently, so objectiveness is hard to achieve. Room tuning circuitry can perhaps restore speaker objectivity, but only at one point in a room and that at the detriment to other points in the room. That's why changing a speaker position or even the furnishings of a room do more to the sound than changing components. The thing is, no matter how objective a person is, their subjective PREFERENCES are going to steer them in a particular direction. You can't have one without the other when it comes to making a choice. In the end, the choice ought to be that which pleases the end user the most, and you can never get away from the subjective aspect. Sad is a situation in which a person prefers the sound of component A but chooses B because on paper the latter is objectively better. |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,489
|
Post by DYohn on Dec 30, 2017 12:22:48 GMT -5
And, once again, if objective measures were all that mattered to the user experience, every single piece of gear and every single system would be the same unless they were created by insane people.
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Dec 30, 2017 12:51:34 GMT -5
And, once again, if objective measures were all that mattered to the user experience, every single piece of gear and every single system would be the same unless they were created by insane people. Instead, some of the stuff that is created is bought by insane people.  |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Dec 30, 2017 13:27:32 GMT -5
People are subjective, electronic equipment is objective. There is a logical scientific reason, sometimes hard to locate, for every tendency of an audio electrical component to sound different than another similar component. Subjective people don't care to dig for the reason, they just willy nilly buy something else. I'm leaving speakers out of this because they come in many various forms and interact with rooms and furnishings differently, so objectiveness is hard to achieve. Room tuning circuitry can perhaps restore speaker objectivity, but only at one point in a room and that at the detriment to other points in the room. That's why changing a speaker position or even the furnishings of a room do more to the sound than changing components. The thing is, no matter how objective a person is, their subjective PREFERENCES are going to steer them in a particular direction. You can't have one without the other when it comes to making a choice. In the end, the choice ought to be that which pleases the end user the most, and you can never get away from the subjective aspect. Sad is a situation in which a person prefers the sound of component A but chooses B because on paper the latter is objectively better. It is not important what sound an individual prefers, but what sound most accurately reproduces the original. That is why measurements matter. Any respectable audio designer must pursue a measurably better product. Now, if you have no interest in recreating the original sound and simply want to twirl knobs until you are pleased (example the Schiit Loki), then you are one of nature's creative sensitive souls who dwell in their own world and could care less about reality. Subjectivity should be reserved for the source material! |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Dec 30, 2017 13:47:22 GMT -5
The thing is, no matter how objective a person is, their subjective PREFERENCES are going to steer them in a particular direction. You can't have one without the other when it comes to making a choice. In the end, the choice ought to be that which pleases the end user the most, and you can never get away from the subjective aspect. Sad is a situation in which a person prefers the sound of component A but chooses B because on paper the latter is objectively better. It is not important what sound an individual prefers, but what sound most accurately reproduces the original. That is why measurements matter. Any respectable audio designer must pursue a measurably better product. Now, if you have no interest in recreating the original sound and simply want to twirl knobs until you are pleased (example the Schiit Loki), then you are one of nature's creative sensitive souls who dwell in their own world and could care less about reality. Subjectivity should be reserved for the source material! I agree that measurements matter; without them how can anyone design a product properly? But it is just as important what sound an individual prefers because the purpose of a product, at least in a capitalist world, is to make a profit on it. You can't make a profit if no one buys it. I believe audio gear should ideally be a straight wire with gain, but even if that were the case, it would be reproducing original sources that themselves varied in terms of how they were engineered. Some recordings are bass heavy, some are more prominent in the upper end, etc., and that might be a function of how it was engineered or that might be a function of how the performers arranged themselves so it would sound a certain way. When you listen to a recording you have no idea how closely it resembles the "original" performance because of how it has been processed from then to your ears. Even though people have an interest in recreating the "original" sound doesn't necessarily mean they will like what they hear. That's why you have stuff like a Loki. Or that's why some folks like to turn up the bass on their sub (or turn it down). Or why they prefer certain speakers over others. Measurements do matter but in the end everyone has different preferences. |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Dec 30, 2017 14:40:42 GMT -5
Yes,
who ever brought sample size into it was telling true. I saw 2 mentions from 2 different persons.
Even with something which is STRICTLY measured with no 'wiggle room' of opinion, we needed 20 runs in a row, with the system Untouched (no adjustments permitted)
to begin a control chart. Control charts are used in manufacturing to monitor equipment performance. In this case, it was in a facility which was to be audited by the ISO people, and others.
If the equipment is repaired, it needed a 'test run' within control limits to be declared 'up for production'.
As for DBT? That's the opposite end of the spectrum. EVERY variable must be controlled, which is obviously impossible. Does the person sitting in the second row of listeners, Far Right, get the
same information as the guy sitting front row center? Nope. And how do you bias the result on that basis?
On that basis alone, DBT for stereo / hi fidelity is quite impractical. I'd LOVE it if that wern't so.
The number of experiments to be run goes UP in relation to the number of variables to be controlled, and THAN it gets weird. And a large number. I was using a computer aided Experimental Design program
and I entered what I wanted to do......Just experimenting with the program to see the magnitude of what I had to do. The number of tests to be run as a result was HUGE. Well over 100 tests, each of which took 3 to 4 hours
and had to be 'reset' before the next test. I could do 2x runs per day, certainly not 3. The test would have taken 2 months PLUS, than time to 'crunch' the numbers and run confirmation tests.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Dec 30, 2017 15:16:57 GMT -5
The thing is, no matter how objective a person is, their subjective PREFERENCES are going to steer them in a particular direction. You can't have one without the other when it comes to making a choice. In the end, the choice ought to be that which pleases the end user the most, and you can never get away from the subjective aspect. Sad is a situation in which a person prefers the sound of component A but chooses B because on paper the latter is objectively better. It is not important what sound an individual prefers, but what sound most accurately reproduces the original. That is why measurements matter. Any respectable audio designer must pursue a measurably better product. Now, if you have no interest in recreating the original sound and simply want to twirl knobs until you are pleased (example the Schiit Loki), then you are one of nature's creative sensitive souls who dwell in their own world and could care less about reality. Subjectivity should be reserved for the source material! Well the question is what is considered a measurably better product? The one that sounds better or more real or the one that measures at lower distortion but sounds worse? Dan D'Agostino mentions of his Momentum products that he's produced amps that are cheaper and measure better than his current ones. He's produced these for subjective sound quality. But (I assumes) he considers these his flagships. |
|
|
|
Post by socketman on Dec 30, 2017 15:28:12 GMT -5
The thing is, no matter how objective a person is, their subjective PREFERENCES are going to steer them in a particular direction. You can't have one without the other when it comes to making a choice. In the end, the choice ought to be that which pleases the end user the most, and you can never get away from the subjective aspect. Sad is a situation in which a person prefers the sound of component A but chooses B because on paper the latter is objectively better. That is why measurements matter. Any respectable audio designer must pursue a measurably better product. Now, if you have no interest in recreating the original sound and simply want to twirl knobs until you are pleased (example the Schiit Loki), then you are one of nature's creative sensitive souls who dwell in their own world and could care less about reality. Subjectivity should be reserved for the source material! Music is not just analytical for people , it is emotional as well. There are far too many things happening to the music between the time it is recorded and delivered to the end user. Many people have had their fingers in the pie so to speak. I have never been to a concert at the Philharmonic but i have an idea of how it should sound, and i have never seen Anne Murray live but i have an idea how she should sound the same for Metallica , we all know what they should sound like. No one system can do all this well so we compromise and look for equipment to closely simulate our favorite performers. Something i have to remind myself of is that everyone has an opinion and if it doesnt match mine thats ok, i try not to take it personal though i do get sucked in from time to time. Enjoy the music not the equipment. |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,489
|
Post by DYohn on Dec 30, 2017 15:42:32 GMT -5
It is not important what sound an individual prefers, but what sound most accurately reproduces the original. This is ridiculous for two reasons. 1) a listener will always choose what they prefer. Period. Unless they are masochists, idiots or ideologues. So preference is paramount in sound system choice. 2) System measurements can determine if the electronics are accurate, yes, but no one can possibly design a system that will "accurately reproduce the original" acoustically. There are simply too many variables, So any good system designer will choose a design that adds as little noise and other distortions as is possible within the constrains of their price point, but once it leaves the test bench all bets are off. So it will be "accurate" only within the limits of design. Once it is in use, it becomes impossible to know. Plus, many designers I know will tell you that not all systems that measure well sound good, and not all systems that sound good measure well. The subjective element of the human receiver is the key to achieving the desirable end result. This is why most good designers have people listen to and use their prototypes before they are released (many never being released) and why some brands always tend to sound worse than other similar priced and measured brands (because they don't beta test with real world listeners.) Audio is a science and every aspect of acoustics that matters can be measured, but measurements alone simply do not tell the whole story. You may disagree and that's fine. I suggest you purchase all your gear only based on published specs and I wish you all the best. But when you think, "Hmm, I don't like that" remember me. |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Dec 30, 2017 20:32:46 GMT -5
It is not important what sound an individual prefers, but what sound most accurately reproduces the original. This is ridiculous for two reasons. 1) a listener will always choose what they prefer. Period. Unless they are masochists, idiots or ideologues. So preference is paramount in sound system choice. 2) System measurements can determine if the electronics are accurate, yes, but no one can possibly design a system that will "accurately reproduce the original" acoustically. There are simply too many variables, So any good system designer will choose a design that adds as little noise and other distortions as is possible within the constrains of their price point, but once it leaves the test bench all bets are off. So it will be "accurate" only within the limits of design. Once it is in use, it becomes impossible to know. Plus, many designers I know will tell you that not all systems that measure well sound good, and not all systems that sound good measure well. The subjective element of the human receiver is the key to achieving the desirable end result. This is why most good designers have people listen to and use their prototypes before they are released (many never being released) and why some brands always tend to sound worse than other similar priced and measured brands (because they don't beta test with real world listeners.) Audio is a science and every aspect of acoustics that matters can be measured, but measurements alone simply do not tell the whole story. You may disagree and that's fine. I suggest you purchase all your gear only based on published specs and I wish you all the best. But when you think, "Hmm, I don't like that" remember me. I would add that VOICING is paramount in the high-end world. It's a game of inches played over the heads of the rest of us. And no matter how well something 'benches', all bets are off when it gets in MY hot little hands. Awful room? Marginal Speakers? Poor setup / placement? I've been guilt of any and all of those at one time or another over the years. Please remember what I said several posts back, which mirrors what DY said, but is more easily remembered: Everything that Can be measured doesn't necessarily matter. Everything that Matters, can't necessarily be measured. To which I'd add 'yet', since the art is constantly advancing. |
|
|
|
Post by Talley on Dec 30, 2017 22:15:50 GMT -5
We can argue over the amps specs all day long.... ..in the end I realize that installing my second sub today offered WAY more benefit than any "comparable" amp difference does. These thing rock!  |
|
|
|
Post by socketman on Dec 30, 2017 22:41:16 GMT -5
You wont get any argument here, they can really even out and round out the system. I run 2x12's in a small car, there is no replacement for displacement with subs or engines.
|
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Dec 31, 2017 1:13:58 GMT -5
You wont get any argument here, they can really even out and round out the system. I run 2x12's in a small car, there is no replacement for displacement with subs or engines. Largest Ford light duty truck engine is a 5.0 or about 300+ cubic inches. I'll bet a take rate of <15%. The smallest, is a 2.7 which is roughly 165 cubic inches. This has a 'take rate' of maybe 33% or 1/3 of F-150s being so equipped. Me? I'd go for the 3.5 EcoBoost which has well-north of 450ft/lb of twist and is an amazing TOW vehicle. This is just over 210 cubic inches and 'small' by historical standards. Neighbor had one in his '150 and it felt like it had plenty of 'go'. My brother owns one of the HUGE SuperDuty Ford Diesels, which is around 409 cubic inches, and maybe 900 ft/lb of torque. Now THAT'S an engine! It's a twin-turbo V-8 Diesel. |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Dec 31, 2017 7:39:10 GMT -5
What is a pleasant sound to you may not be an accurate sound (or closer to the original sound). You can twist knobs, add linear and parametric filtering and cause Donald Duck to sound like Frank Sinatra, and that may please you, but it not what sound reproduction is all about. I will buy audio components based upon specs at the value I can afford. The real variables that are hard to get right are speakers, rooms, and positions. But if an amp is crap, new speakers, and positioning and even new rooms will not satisfy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Talley on Dec 31, 2017 9:55:07 GMT -5
Largest Ford light duty truck engine is a 5.0 or about 300+ cubic inches. I'll bet a take rate of <15%. The smallest, is a 2.7 which is roughly 165 cubic inches. This has a 'take rate' of maybe 33% or 1/3 of F-150s being so equipped. Me? I'd go for the 3.5 EcoBoost which has well-north of 450ft/lb of twist and is an amazing TOW vehicle. This is just over 210 cubic inches and 'small' by historical standards. Neighbor had one in his '150 and it felt like it had plenty of 'go'. My brother owns one of the HUGE SuperDuty Ford Diesels, which is around 409 cubic inches, and maybe 900 ft/lb of torque. Now THAT'S an engine! It's a twin-turbo V-8 Diesel. Funny you say that. I drive a 11' ecoboost... tune only 13.5's best of 13.33. On the dyno put down 375rwhp and 514rwtq. |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Dec 31, 2017 16:27:48 GMT -5
My only point is that the paradigm is shifting.
Honda at one point sold ONLY the 4cyl Accord. Than came out with a 6cyl model. Now? 6cyl is GONE again, replaced by a 2.0 (!!) turbo motor while the 'base' engine is a 1.5 also a turbo.
My wife's Crap Box Hyundai came with a 1.6 way back when. The Civic SI using a 2.0 (source engine for new Accord) kicks out 300+hp and I'm guessing is quite a rocket.
They're all doing it. Small motors with Turbo. Better efficiency and same power / torque at lower revs. I hope people take CARE of these enignes or the repairs get Real Expensive.
Next to go MIGHT be the Flat Plane crank in the Mustang GT, to be replaced by a 4.0 V-8 Eco Boost of around 500hp. Now THAT would work for me.
I HAD been hoping for some small displacement Turbo Diesels, but VW screwed that up for EVERYBODY.
|
|
|
|
Post by socketman on Dec 31, 2017 16:44:04 GMT -5
Im doing an engine in a 2013 Taurus becasue the owner didnt do oil changes, less than 80,000 clicks on it. Turbo went out, metal in intercooler not going to be cheap. Maintenance folks, or your going pay the piper.
They have to turn to forced induction, only way to meet the ridiculous fuel economy standards set out by the EPA
|
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Dec 31, 2017 17:47:51 GMT -5
In early days of the 'modern' era of turbo, they had an OIL cooled center bearing, no water flow. People would drive like crazy, pull into garage at 30mph and do a 'hot' shutdown.
Oil in the center bearing of the Turbo would 'coke' or basically turn into charcoal.
Thus the bad reputation of Turbo Motors.
Mu brother was a long haul trucker. And never a turbo problem. He kept an eye on EGT (Exhaust Gas Temp) and would idle down before a shut down.
His new SuperDuty F-350 with that Monster V-8 twin Turbo Diesel is treated the same way, and I think it has both a boost AND and EGT gauge, but don't quote me.
|
|
|
|
Post by socketman on Dec 31, 2017 17:52:11 GMT -5
With modern electronics the computer can handle all that but it cant change its own oil LOL
|
|
