Harbeth Designer Alan Shaw In KL on 3rd-6th May

CN-Yee, OK, condascendings aside, how would you go about substantiating those 1%, 5%, 20% figures that you so gloriously put up as your points or factual statements ?

Percentage of WHAT here ??

How do you justify your "%" of distortion ? is the percentage some -XXdB of a bunch of higher order harmonics over the fundamental harmonic frequencies from 40Hz all the way to 8KHz and beyond .. or what ?

And if you're a curious soul who wants to find out more about how things tick & tock, then why stop at hefty price tags (maybe just as an excuse) or other excuses after you've settled on your heavenly Harbeths already.

Using the car analogy again:
Heck, people may have found their perfect dream car in a Toyota Vios or Honda City (and nothing wrong with that, just to set the record straight) , but if they are truly pasionate about cars, they'd would still keep their thirst for knowledge and get-in-the-know of the new hybrid engines, Dual-clutch gearboxes , active suspension mechanisms, and etc etc etc. Instead of shutting out all the "oh look at those pricey cars, bah, don't bother!" attitude here? Smacks of Hypocrisy? Hope not. Giving it the benefit of doubt here again.

BTW, Cn Yee, don't get so hung up on test tones and "frequencies" alone. This definitely is not just what the human ear hears (at least in earnestly good intentions for your ears as well). There are also other factors like phase effects and also wavefront effects, and at differing volume levels like your beloved FM-curves. Instead of just A freq - X distortion, B freq - Y distortion. Such an incomplete part to the whole picture!

Seriously, why limit your own audible experiences based on some article posted somewhere sometime ago ? Does this mean that world renowned hifi writer Julian Hirsch (god bless his soul) once wrote that "All CD Players sound the same" so you'd take it at face value and parrot the same point? If all CD players sound the same, you got to really give it to the mfgs who have been able to con the entire human race for the longest time running to date.

Actually, if one subscribes to CN Yee's point (actually someone else's point that he bought into 100%) that the human ear is so woefully inadeduate in discerning sonic distortions, then ALL CD Players should sound the same to 99.9% of the human population, given all the clinically perfect specs of most if not all CD Players on this planet.

At the end of the day, you the hifi audience decide if u can hear the diff between a Marantz or a Sony CD player, the diff between MIT cables vs QED cables, and the list goes on... Not based on some clinical labtest environment with test tones and some fancy table, graph and chart figures.

http://www.chesky.com/core/body_librarydetails.cfm?newsid=160

MF.. It is more than obvious that you do not agree with CN or with Alan Shaw's take on things. Maybe you are right who knows. Maybe since you know so much (evident from your post count), you are the hifi messiah that the industry is looking for. Who knows..All that I know, for me, I dont care.

But for the sake of everything decent and good... do you REEEAAALLLYY need to labour and force your point of view on every single mf issue on this forum? CN is merely trying to echo the point made by Alan Shaw that most of us who went that night subscribe to which you dont agree to. Ok we geddit. No need to psychoanalyse every single thing. Contrary to Alan's take on the capabilities of human hearing, you have the hearing range of an amazonian vampire bat. Good for you. We get it, you feel Alan Shaw has made sweeoing unsubstantiated generalisation which you dont agree to. OK. Do not buy his speakers.

WongKN, as moderator.. can I suggest that a special title be given to MF? Instead of 'frequent contributor' which, for have posted more than 1500 posts in a year IS an understatement, we should now just label him as, 'hifi GOD'. ...jeez...

dear sleme, i don't really care for titles or stars. Maybe you do.
I just enjoy the typing. If it bothers you so much, just don't read or respond to my postings .... simple right ?

And if u really follow my postings, i don't disagree with alan shaw's stand. He's out to make good speakers within a certain budget to serve a certain market segment. But its the danger of taking this point to represent it as the all encompassing view in speaker design/construction or hifi for that matter.

Same goes for Roy Gandy that states VTA adjustments are a neurosis. Hey, Rega makes great TTs for its price range. And perhaps VTA adjustments don't really matter for Rega record players. But would you apply that sweeping principle to other makes in various price ranges and serving dif mkt segments ?

I knew at one point of time there would be the bat's ears/golden ears vs. broken ears debate in perceiving sonic differences between equipment.

Anyway I believe Mugenfoo's comments here are not directed at the credibility of Harbeth speakers or Alan for that matter but on CN Yee's generalisations which are supported by Harbeth's philosophies as he keeps pontificating on the same point both here and on HUG. As much as I love Harbeth speakers and most of Alan's views and philosophies, I find that my thoughts cannot coincide with CN Yee's in that all amplifiers will sound similar irrespective of brand at various price points. The same goes for CD players I guess. The Bruce Coppola link on "All Amplifiers Sound The Same" was posted here once and also on HUG as continuous disparagement of higher-end gears keeps happening.

I respect CN Yee's views that he is enjoying his system a lot and have no issues about it. But the way he keeps putting down gears and equipment that are of higher quality(to him they all don't make a difference) is what gets to me. While I enjoy the sound of my system I do not criticise other cheaper gears which I personally have not listened to unlike some others. What I highlight in my reviews of equipment are from my own experience, the gears which I have personally listened to, and I reckon some may be annoyed when I write amplifier A blows away amplifier B or amplifier C wipes the floor with amplifier D etc. Then again, the same issue that may be brought up is those who can hear differences have bat's ears and those who can't have broken ears.

My comment is not directed at anyone in particular but to clarify some things that I feel is much needed. Healthy discussion is still appreciated and I can see some good signs here. Please feel free to disagree with me(or Mugenfoo) but do it in a nice way please. A lot of views put forth by Mugenfoo have sense, and it is just that his way of putting his message across can sometimes irk some people IMO. If he can improve on this aspect I reckon more people would welcome his thoughts and opinions. Anyway I can see he has toned that down a bit lately. :-)

Just to add. Although the topic of amplifiers does not interest Alan, he does acknowledge that there are differences between amplifiers. It is just that he feels the differences are negligible and not worth looking at.

By the way, if I hadn't changed a couple of amplifiers when my SHL5s were in use and stuck with only one amplifier throughout my ownership, I reckon the Harbeth will no longer be with me anymore.

..............
....................................

By the way, if I hadn't changed a couple of amplifiers when my SHL5s were in use and stuck with only one amplifier throughout my ownership, I reckon the Harbeth will no longer be with me anymore

.

Isn't it like changing the car to fit the tires you like? Did you buy Quad?

Uncle Vic, already listened to Sam's system few months ago while I was reapiring my car near his place. Nice gentleman and said that's the best sound you can get anywhere but I wasn't impressed. I am free on Monday to visit your best Harbeth setup.

monday evening la, abt 9pm. not daylight hours. that is the best i heard within few km of my place la. There are others in Klang, in kajang, usj, etc., do pm me, will give u my hp

I agree with ryder's assertions above.
As for differences in amps, i used to think that the differences can be very little that requires very detailed and repeated listening to discern the differences.

A recent experience changed that. A friend swapped in a Hi-end power amp into his already high-end system with very revealing speakers(everything else remains the same), and the difference is astounding (you hear the difference immediately and positively....and is not subtle at all)


I found a gem in MugenFoo's post above, which is the link below:-
http://www.chesky.com/core/body_librarydetails.cfm?newsid=160

>>>Assembling the right components to achieve this balance involves an intricate trial & error process. The learning curve is usually a long (and expensive) one as we discover our own sonic likes and dislikes that will eventually allow us to listen in a relaxed state. This "journey" may prove painful for some-- the audiophile who is perpetually dissatisfied, who is constantly buying and selling components, has placed himself in an audio hell. The only solution to this dilemma is to STOP, reassess goals, and develop a new plan. A good first step is to reset one's internal reference with the only true "absolute sound": live unamplified music. After that, it's simply(?) a matter of deciding which qualities you wish to "take home". Dynamics, bass power and extension, fine...you'll give up some midrange purity, OK? If you want the right answers, you need to ask the right questions. The best systems represent a series of intelligent compromises.<<<<


Many audiophile make the mistake of starting from an arbitary point, and then take baby steps in their journey on upgrades, only to find themselves dissatisfied everytime they hear something better.

As the chesky website advised, the better way is to start with the very best, that is, Live Unamplified Music. Or maybe the 2nd best, which is Live Amplified Music. Then find a system that matches your preference and budget, with reference to Live Music. If you look from the top, you get a better perspective, and have a better understanding on what you like, and what is available out there.

I think going for accuracy by comparing live to the sound you get at home is great for some.

For me, there are just too many variables. The acoustics of the hall or studio may be different to your room. So if i take a good system that when placed in the same hall, produces identical sound to live, and then take this system and put it in my room, i may not get the same sound.

But sound per say is just the physical and external aspect of it. To me, it is not the end goal. It is a measurement of how close we are to the goal, but not the goal itself.

When this sound hits your ear, your brain interprets it, and hopefully, you can extract the musical meaning of the performer and composer. This is the goal, to arrive at the core of the sound, the message of the sound.

Don't get me wrong, an accurate system greatly helps to access this message. For example, if you listen to a double bass, subtle tones and overtones depending on how the bassist pluck or bow the strings, become apparent in a system with great resolution and accuracy. And this detail, allows us to appreciate the technique of the bassist, and how he must have been emphasising certain notes or nuances or time scales. So it makes a more satisfying experience of the message of the sound, which is the music.

But to chase after the sound alone, should not be the most important thing. It is very important, but in so far as its a means to access the even more important stuff.

Ever heard some audiophile CD's which sound stunning and real, but somehow, you never play it again after a while because the music is boring or doesn't excite/satisfy you.

So actually, for me at least, we all know when it sounds right. Because you get goose bumps and get drawn into the music. Of course our listening becomes sharper over time and we start picking even subtle things we never notice before, but when its right for you, you know it and it doesn't have to be right for everyone.

Its just like movies and literature, when we watch an Almodovar film or read a Murakami novel, the picture and words are perfectly sharp. But how the story relates to us depends on our past and character, and everyone leaves the theater or book with different feelings. So long as some feelings were invoked, i think it would've been a worthwhile exercise. So it is with music through a decent hifi set.

uncle_vic wrote:monday evening la, abt 9pm. not daylight hours. that is the best i heard within few km of my place la. There are others in Klang, in kajang, usj, etc., do pm me, will give u my hp

Can i join the audition of best Ｈarbeth sound. I like Harbeth setup in Ｒyder &　Ｂｉｔｅ　ｐｌａｃｅ．Ｉ wish to know how best the harbeth can perform.

f8,
You seem to disagree to using Live Music as a "reference benchmark". If that is so, what would you think is a GOOD "reference benchmark" ??

>>>But to chase after the sound alone, should not be the most important thing. It is very important, but in so far as its a means to access the even more important stuff.<<

I didn't say that it is an end, but it is something you have to get right for the utmost musical enjoyment, and access your music (the important stuff, as you said) accurately.

>>Ever heard some audiophile CD's which sound stunning and real, but somehow, you never play it again after a while because the music is boring or doesn't excite/satisfy you.<<

The problem then is the music or the musician here right ?

>>Of course our listening becomes sharper over time and we start picking even subtle things we never notice before<<

But isn't this approach from the bottom going up, a long drawn trial and error approach? With this approach, you get better through listening to better and better hifi systems through many years; all of which are arbitary standards, some maybe far from really accurate.

Why not start from the top, with live music as a "reference standard" ? Then you will know far sooner what should really accurate and good, and cut through all the trial and errors.

When is the quote boxes going to get fixed?!?!?

Blue is the colour then ...

f8. wrote:I think going for accuracy by comparing live to the sound you get at home is great for some.

live aka "original" should should always be the point of reference. It should be the reference for the re-produced sound to be compared against. Harry Pearson would refer to this as "The Absolute Sound". Anything else and its a flavour or colouration already, although as human beings , some types of colourations would definitely sound more pleasing the the ears. So if the recording was make live in Cargenie hall, when u play it back on your decent hifi system, u should get the illusion of Carnegie Hall as well...

For me, there are just too many variables. The acoustics of the hall or studio may be different to your room. So if i take a good system that when placed in the same hall, produces identical sound to live, and then take this system and put it in my room, i may not get the same sound.

The fun part of hifi is to control these variables to the best of one's practicality at home. So that your hifi system would reproduce the best-illusion of the original actual live sound that was recorded.

But sound per say is just the physical and external aspect of it. To me, it is not the end goal. It is a measurement of how close we are to the goal, but not the goal itself.

The goal perhaps is to enjoy the music in closest to its original form possible ? But this is difference in "just enjoy the music". Because if someone just wanted to "enjoy the music", an iPod with a pair of earphones would more than suffice already...


When this sound hits your ear, your brain interprets it, and hopefully, you can extract the musical meaning of the performer and composer. This is the goal, to arrive at the core of the sound, the message of the sound.

Of course, provided that the re-produced sound that hits your ear is pretty darn close to the real thing. And to know if its pretty darn close or not to the real thing, well, you just gotta have heard and experience the real McCoy before right ?

Don't get me wrong, an accurate system greatly helps to access this message. For example, if you listen to a double bass, subtle tones and overtones depending on how the bassist pluck or bow the strings, become apparent in a system with great resolution and accuracy. And this detail, allows us to appreciate the technique of the bassist, and how he must have been emphasising certain notes or nuances or time scales. So it makes a more satisfying experience of the message of the sound, which is the music.

But to chase after the sound alone, should not be the most important thing. It is very important, but in so far as its a means to access the even more important stuff.

Mebbe professional sound engineers would chase for this. But the "audiophile" would chase for some certain sound quality, so that he/she can enjoy his/her music better, or not ?

Ever heard some audiophile CD's which sound stunning and real, but somehow, you never play it again after a while because the music is boring or doesn't excite/satisfy you.

Yup, some of us might be guilty of buying a CD just for that 2 minute duration of that nice cymbal or chimes.. and never listen to the remaining 60+ minutes of the other content. But thats's another topic for discussion there...

So actually, for me at least, we all know when it sounds right. Because you get goose bumps and get drawn into the music. Of course our listening becomes sharper over time and we start picking even subtle things we never notice before, but when its right for you, you know it and it doesn't have to be right for everyone.

This is on personal tastes. Some people like to hear their music with more midrange colouration, some might like it with bass-overload colouration, etc. But this detracts from the true intent from the point of reference (the absolute sound).

Its just like movies and literature, when we watch an Almodovar film or read a Murakami novel, the picture and words are perfectly sharp. But how the story relates to us depends on our past and character, and everyone leaves the theater or book with different feelings. So long as some feelings were invoked, i think it would've been a worthwhile exercise. So it is with music through a decent hifi set.

So along this same example, its not really the job of the projectionist to ensure that you leave the cineplex with some pre-set determined emotional response. The projectionist's job should be to ensure that the picture is clear, the sound is crisp, and the celluloid reel doesn't snap while u are in the audience seat enjoying the movie and forming your dearest emotions.
Along these lines, thats the job of a darn good hifi system and its setup & ambient/room conditions: To deliver you a good, clean and honest presentation of the music that was originally recorded.

well said mugen, but dont use dark blue lah, hard to see on monitor. Light blue is better

Hi carz and mugenfoo,

I can respect that you want to achieve live sound in your hifi, and i wish you the best of luck in your endeavour.

I'm just saying it's not the ultimate goal for me for hifi. The live sound is the the shell, i'm after the content. I enjoy listening to music. And you are right, at work, I listen to Dave Brubeck or Return to Forever over a pair of earphones, and I do enjoy the music. In fact, it makes me impatient to go home and listen to it presented by the Maggies for the size and scale.

And my system at home, is not reproducing anything like live music by any stretch of the imagination. Live music is really dynamic and big and actually doesn't image all that great. But that doesn't stop me from enjoying music, and buying more music. In fact, I've not upgraded anything for a long while, but have instead gone deeper into music. Sure there are systems out there which sound more accurate and more hifi and more impressive, but thats not my objective. I like the journey of discovery through music.

As an example, if you find Pink Martini's music palatable, its actually a good spring board to go into classical because they often play excerpts from Schubert and Chopin. And because of Pink Martini, I've discovered Chopin's Grand Pollonaise Brillante Op22 (PM: La Soledad), Schubert's Fantasy in F Minor (PM: And Then You're Gone).

If you listen to Dave Brubeck's Time Out Track 5, there's a part which really sounds like Beatles All My Loving. Except Dave Brubeck wrote that song earlier, so maybe Beatles were inspired by Dave Brubeck? And in Rachmaninov's Piano Concerto 2, it sounds like All By Myself was derived off it.

Anyway, its these kinds of tiny musical discoveries you make when enjoying music, which makes you seek out new music, even old music you've never heard. And I love this discovery/learning journey. And I'm glad I have a hifi set at home that I can sit and thoroughly enjoy music for hours and expose myself to more music.

The irony is, when i discover a piece of 'new' old music, i realise man this was written decades ago and i realise the world is really very big, and i really know nothing at all. That we're blessed to have had such gifted musicians in our civilisations before, and they deserve to be more widely known rather than some of the commercial stuff on radio.

The bad thing is, it makes you buy all sorts of random music you wouldn't normally buy, which leaves little for hifi upgrades. Jazz is another interesting area that links all over. And its a fascinating and colourful ride! It even links to Murakami

no worries.. but i bet you'll find your maggies to be really close to being almost lifelike as compared to a pair of dinky earphones , right ?

Curious. which Maggies are u using? And what do u use to drive then ?
I'm a strong proponent of Maggie speakers as well, after having being smitten by a pair of SMGb (or c, can't remember) many many years ago.

Yes, the Maggies give a nicer presentation with a greater sense of space compared to earphone.

My simple system consists of old dinosaur equipment:
Denon DCD-S1
DIY passive pre
Plinius SA50
Maggie MG1.6QR

The previous owner of my Maggie moved on to Harbeth SHL5

f8. wrote:Yes, the Maggies give a nicer presentation with a greater sense of space compared to earphone.

My simple system consists of old dinosaur equipment:
Denon DCD-S1
DIY passive pre
Plinius SA50
Maggie MG1.6QR

The previous owner of my Maggie moved on to Harbeth SHL5

So... in this respect, the Maggies do give a more "closer to life" sonic illusion right?

Herein, rests the case.

Nice setup. The plinius is a decent piece of equipment too. Just might be curious on the DIY passive pre. Do u know if its a step attenuator, or a Transformer coupled type (like the Promitheus Audio passive pre, or actually the Promitheus itself) ?

Nice denon player too. But not as "dinosaur" as my DCD-570 (circa 1991).

Hi Musicmusic..........u have set "no private" mail.......so unable to reach u. much regret.

The test result I quoted, How much distortion we can hear with music, was carried out by Axiom Audio - a well known name in the audio industry. Should that carry enough weight as to the authenticity of its findings?

Let me repeat the result. The human threshold for detection of noise/distortion is as follows:
8 kHz 1%
5 kHz 3%
500Hz
10%
280Hz 20%
40Hz 100%
<40Hz >100% (i.e.
distortion/noise has to be louder than the music itself!)

The test method and procedures are documented fully, and can be repeated anywhere on earth. The article is easy to understand - so you don't really need to ask me any question.

Nevertheless - to specially answer mugenfoo: The “noise” or distortion test signal consisted of pure tones at fixed
frequencies of 20 Hz, 40 Hz, 80, 120, 160, 200, 240 Hz and so on up to a
high-frequency limit of 10 kHz. The test signals were chosen to simulate what loudspeakers would do
under normal operating conditions.

The test result is absolutely devastating to the audiophile claims of golden ears all other bullshits. Has anybody seen any experiment to counter this? The experiment is easily to setup, and can be repeated anywhere on earth - and it can refuted even more easily. There is complete freedom to choose the shape of the noise to make it the most audible, and all it take is to show that ONE SINGLE person can do better than that and the golden ear legend is uphold! I search up and down and cannot find ONE SINGLE refutation. Is it because it is simply irrefutable?

Axiom did a similar experiment a decade ago. This is the second time they carried out the experiment, with more refined techniques. You can say that this is one experiment that stood the test of time. It has a lot to do with psychoacoustics - the masking effect of human hearing, which is the basis of Dolby Digital encoding techniques.

I will take this result as being definitive about the limitations of human hearing - until I find a refutation. I mean an experiment that can be repeated, not just a barrage of derogatory and emotionally charged words.

Now take a look at what Roger Russell has to say about amplifiers:

(Referring to the Ian Masters in the January 1987 issue of Stereo Review titled “Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same”) But for now, the evidence would seem to suggest that distinctive amplifier sounds, if they exist at all, are so minute that they form a poor basis for choosing one amplifier over another.

Certainly there are still differences between amps, but we are unlikely to hear them.

Differences are understandable. An amplifier having 0.1% distortion and one having 0.001% distortion are clearly not the same but the are way below audibility. An amplifier having a damping factor of 10 and one having a damping factor of 1000 are also not the same but once again the difference is not audible.

I have personally completed several blind A-B listening tests over the years between good amplifiers, tube or transistor. Although I thought I could hear a difference each time, my choice was only correct about 50% of the time. I have also conducted blind listening tests for other people. I have learned how important it is to set the amplifier gains to be exactly equal and that the amplifiers should not be seen or identified for the listener. The slightly louder amplifier often is preferred. Comparison must be instantaneous or the listener forgets. If the identity of the amplifiers is known, the listener often gets preoccupied with identifying which amplifier is playing instead of the sound quality. The questions asked of the listener about the sound quality are also very important. I even hide the speakers as well as the amplifiers behind an acoustically transparent curtain.

Now who is this Roger Russell guy? "Author, Artist, Engineer, Inventor, Photographer, Collector, and formerly Director of Acoustic Research at McIntosh Laboratory, Inc. and the originator of McIntosh Loudspeakers"

Does that carry enough weight for you? He has a lot more criticisms of the audiophile bullshits here.

BTW - do you know that a guy named James Randi, through his foundation, has offered a prize of
$1 million to anyone who can demonstrate that $7,250 audio cables "are
any better than ordinary audio cables". I am eagerly waiting for a golden ear to come forward to claim the price!

It's been a grueling one year for me find my bearing amongst the bullshits in the audiophile industry. I owe a lot to Alan Shaw and the Harbeth User Group for sharing his thoughts and in providing tons of research materials done by BBC. It is about time for me to move on with other aspects of life.

CN Yee wrote:
Does that carry enough weight for you? He has a lot more criticisms of the audiophile bullshits here.

It's been a grueling one year for me find my bearing amongst the bullshits in the audiophile industry. I owe a lot to Alan Shaw and the Harbeth User Group for sharing his thoughts and in providing tons of research materials done by BBC. It is about time for me to move on with other aspects of life.

It appears that you have a knack of compiling test results from the internet and post them here to back up your assertions. May I ask if you can list down all the audiophile bull***ts so as we do not make the wrong interpretations on what is in your mind so that we don't make the wrong assumptions in our follow-up responses? Apart from having a firm belief that different grade of amplifiers all sound the same, does this apply to CD players as well?

If you don't mind me asking, may I ask what CD player do you own in your system? Is your main source CDs or DVDs since you use a Denon AVR amp in your main rig? Is it true to say that you have not listened to any other amplifiers in your own system(or at dealers, hifi shows etc.) apart from your Denon?

The above information would be useful so that I can make a more informed judgement and respond accordingly.

CN Yee wrote:It's been a grueling one year for me find my bearing amongst the bullshits in the audiophile industry. I owe a lot to Alan Shaw and the Harbeth User Group for sharing his thoughts and in providing tons of research materials done by BBC.

Your ability to seek refuge in the HUG does not mean that you have claimed absolute truth or superiority. BBC is a broadcasting company and their research is concentrated on loudspeaker designs. Harbeth was founded by Dudley Harwood, a former senior engineer in BBC's research department which was taken over by Alan later throughout the years. That was the reason why Harbeth has been associated with BBC due to Harwood's roots. Alan is a speaker designer and not an amplifier designer, hence is it comprehensible the topic of amplifiers does not interest him. There are many respectable amplifier and equipment designers who sit on the other side of the fence that will have a different viewpoint.

You can bring up facts and figures and compile stuff from the net for argument sake. The golden question is whether you have actually listened and exposed yourself to the audiophile bull***ts before coming up with such conclusions. Or you simply refuse to expose yourself as you truly believe the whole audio industry is a snake-oil, and only Harbeth is genuine in making genuine products.

I would appreciate your enlightenment.

CN Yee wrote:The test result I quoted, How much distortion we can hear with music, was carried out by Axiom Audio - a well known name in the audio industry. Should that carry enough weight as to the authenticity of its findings?

Let me repeat the result. The human threshold for detection of noise/distortion is as follows:
8 kHz 1%
5 kHz 3%
500Hz
10%
280Hz 20%
40Hz 100%
<40Hz >100% (i.e.
distortion/noise has to be louder than the music itself!)

The test method and procedures are documented fully, and can be repeated anywhere on earth. The article is easy to understand - so you don't really need to ask me any question.

Nevertheless - to specially answer mugenfoo: The “noise” or distortion test signal consisted of pure tones at fixed
frequencies of 20 Hz, 40 Hz, 80, 120, 160, 200, 240 Hz and so on up to a
high-frequency limit of 10 kHz. The test signals were chosen to simulate what loudspeakers would do
under normal operating conditions.

I dunno about CN Yee, but ALL of the music that i listen to do not consist of sinusoidal test tones, but its really a "wash of sound" of many overlapping tones, mutated with intermodulations, pitch variations, crescendos, start-stops, sustain and decay, etc etc and those intentional "distortions" that mr. Slash, Joe Satriani, Tom Morello, etc etc are so fond of creating.

Same goes for Paul Desmond when he's blowing into that metal pipe-looking instrument (oh yes, its called a saxophone) and making what i would call music, but perhaps to CN Yee, its probably all distortions as well, coz that darn metal pipe don't sound like no test tone , y'all hillbillies hear dat?

That axiom article doesn't prove jack except on how well people can hear between a "clean" test tone vs. a "distorted" test tone. What a load of crap, that's what that test really is.

Another analogy here: Is graphite the same as diamond? Both are made from the same carbon atoms, in case CN Yee didn't know this before....

mugenfoo - there is really no need to use condescending language. Read the research report before you start shooting blanks:

Indeed, some reviewers and listeners have claimed to detect audible
glitches at a fraction of this value. While previous researchers using
sine-wave test signals and headphone playback have reported thresholds
of detection well below the 1% level, research using actual program
material—music—and loudspeaker playback indicate that the masking
effects of music may conceal audible distortion until it increases to
levels well above the 1% level and our ears begin to detect its
presence.

The Test Procedure

Two selections of rock/pop music of limited dynamic
range—typical of modern-day rock recordings—were selected from Phil
Collins's Hits and Barenaked Ladies' Gordon albums.
The limited dynamic range of +/- 5 dB allowed us to introduce the noise
without having to follow the music level up and down throughout the
song.

The article is very specific in not using sine-wave test tone. It is actually A LOT easier to detect distortions using pure sine-wave test signals. So the experiment was conducted using actual music - or a wash of sounds, or whatever you want to call it.

I will stop here, and leave you to have the last say. I was trying to start a discussions based on verifiable, repeatable facts. The way it is going, the whole thread will ended being a jumble of emotional charged language masking all useful contents. It is already getting like that as it is.

CN Yee,

To you they are useful contents but to us they aren't.

_

From the way the discussion is going, there are two camps, right?

One:- the equipment is not going to make any big difference, its all about the same.
The other:- the equipment does make a difference, big or otherwise.


In the very, very short time of my hi-fi exposure, I have been to various shops to listen to their audio demo setups, but mostly with different brands of amps, cd players and speakers.

But one incident happened that will favour the other camp.

What I can vouch for is this one time that I was at Hi-way Laser to listen to a Krell - ATC setup with my own CDs.

For the first setup, I asked them to let me hear the Krell amp and ATC spks and being the salespeople that they are they connected the following: ( of course they use the best that they have, as I only asked for Krell and ATC, not the CD player)

Krell S-300i int amp
Ayre CX-7e CD player
ATC SCM 11 speakers
Interconnect Cable: balanced XLR between CDP and Amp
Spk cable: Cardas something... dunno wat but above RM1K i believe


The music was very good.
When I then enquired how much the CD Player cost, they replied, about RM20K. I then told them that I need to listen to the kind of CDPlayer that I will be able to afford and asked them to use a Marantz that was lying about.

So they then hooked up the following:

Krell S-300i int amp
ATC SCM11 speakers
Marantz SA7003 CDPlayer
Interconnect Cable: RCA between CDP and amp
Spk cable: Cardas something

The only thing that was changed was the CD Player and the Interconnects cable (from XLR to RCA)

I then used the same CD track to listen and there was an immediate difference. There is less soundstage and presence. Don't really have the words to describe it but it was so distinctly different. There was a quite a big loss of fidelity.

I could tell the difference because I listened to the slight change in the setup in a short space of time, so I was able to compare. I won't be able to do the same if I were to visit shop A and then later on go to shop B to listen to a different setup using the same CD. My short term memory is not that good.

Just my 2 cents.

happett, you have to make sure that the volume is exactly the same. Turn up the volume slightly, you will hear that much more treble, that much more bass. Human hearing is not linear. You need to do a blind test on a controlled environment to do meaningful comparison.

CN Yee wrote:happett, you have to make sure that the volume is exactly the same. Turn up the volume slightly, you will hear that much more treble, that much more bass. Human hearing is not linear. You need to do a blind test on a controlled environment to do meaningful comparison.

Just to stress another point: Listening and enjoying music is not about blind tests either.

But what Happet described is a very clear case of A/B test already. He went in with an OPEN MIND to discover what all the fuss is about with higher-priced tag machines. And all honesty can be said that if he could not hear the difference between that expensive CD player vs the Cheaper CD player ... Anyone in their right frame of mind would have straightaway gone for the cheaper CD player already. No question about it. Why pay more when there is no diff?

Is there a unit of measurement on the audio aspects/illusions of "soundstaging", "imaging", "depth", slam/dynamics, etc... ?

happett wrote:From the way the discussion is going, there are two camps, right?

One:- the equipment is not going to make any big difference, its all about the same.
The other:- the equipment does make a difference, big or otherwise.


In the very, very short time of my hi-fi exposure, I have been to various shops to listen to their audio demo setups, but mostly with different brands of amps, cd players and speakers.

But one incident happened that will favour the other camp.

What I can vouch for is this one time that I was at Hi-way Laser to listen to a Krell - ATC setup with my own CDs.

For the first setup, I asked them to let me hear the Krell amp and ATC spks and being the salespeople that they are they connected the following: ( of course they use the best that they have, as I only asked for Krell and ATC, not the CD player)

Krell S-300i int amp
Ayre CX-7e CD player
ATC SCM 11 speakers
Interconnect Cable: balanced XLR between CDP and Amp
Spk cable: Cardas something... dunno wat but above RM1K i believe


The music was very good.
When I then enquired how much the CD Player cost, they replied, about RM20K. I then told them that I need to listen to the kind of CDPlayer that I will be able to afford and asked them to use a Marantz that was lying about.

So they then hooked up the following:

Krell S-300i int amp
ATC SCM11 speakers
Marantz SA7003 CDPlayer
Interconnect Cable: RCA between CDP and amp
Spk cable: Cardas something

The only thing that was changed was the CD Player and the Interconnects cable (from XLR to RCA)

I then used the same CD track to listen and there was an immediate difference. There is less soundstage and presence. Don't really have the words to describe it but it was so distinctly different. There was a quite a big loss of fidelity.

I could tell the difference because I listened to the slight change in the setup in a short space of time, so I was able to compare. I won't be able to do the same if I were to visit shop A and then later on go to shop B to listen to a different setup using the same CD. My short term memory is not that good.

Just my 2 cents.

... and this is what hi-fi is all about. U buy/pay (within one's own affordability) for the differences u can hear and take home to enjoy.

Cheers to u Happet.

Unlike some other people who live in denial and pooh-pooh other stuff they either don't really go and hear for themselves first, because they've formed some corrupted opinion based of whatever stuff they read from elsewhere.

Nothing can substitute for your own experiences. If u hear it, good, if u don't hear it.. no problem.

But if u haven't even attempted to go and try-and-hear first ... but then condemn what u don't know, Then thats just pure self-conceit.

OK guys, time to stop the discussion on -this- thread. It has been deviated from the original discussion - i.e. Alan Shaw's visit. Please do continue your debate and discussion in a proper thread in the proper forum. That way, more people will be able to read it and benefit from the exchange of ideas and opinions. I will lock up this thread to facilitate this.