Newman

Members
  • Content count

    5,636
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

1 Follower

About Newman

  • Rank
    Newman speaks

Uncategorized

  • Location
    Adelaide SA
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

10,595 profile views

Display Name History

  1. GTG

    I would have enjoyed it more if I had remembered to take the cable lock off the front wheel of my bike before charging off on the gravel driveway to leave. Somehow managed to get myself home, dope up with panadeine, which is working now, and wait for the swelling to start in my left wrist and ankle.
  2. GTG

    I once went to some of these. Still interested in an occasional one if others are. Sent from my HTC_0P6B using Tapatalk
  3. The Canon 70-200/4 I understood to be very low in distortion....
  4. See? You just took the term 'musical' completely out of the realm of equipment. Quite rightly too. And now you put it right back on the equipment. Exactly the point I gave up making: it has nothing to do with equipment, but we think it must be and repeatedly mis-attribute the predominantly non-sonic impression to the sound waves. That is why the debate is 'endless': not because the topic is inherently so, but our perceptual mechanism can't stop itself from thinking it must be in the sound waves, hence a property of the equipment, when it isn't. And some of us are resistant to learning this point, seemingly because of an unbreakable attachment to the idea that the ear is unfoolable. Which is a very big mistake.
  5. GTG

    Lower F15 and F16 for a friend and I
  6. Good memory! I did start a thread on this topic. It's probably one of the earliest discussions to raise the issues. Still a great read if you just read my posts (LOL) -- I would have preferred less arguing and miscomprehension in the discussion. You are right, the DR database and scale are completely misleading and unreliable, and relying on it is a massive mistake. I initially thought the worst of the issues related to its use on vinyl -- as validated by Ian Shepherd (the guy you mentioned), see this post in my thread. But as the thread progressed it became evident that even digital DR scores using that tool are completely unreliable. See this post. Just avoid the tool (that's my tool tip for the day).
  7. "Preference" is the good term, because it attributes the difference where it belongs, in the listener, not the gear. The entire point!
  8. I don't think you have absorbed any of the lessons in this thread. You couldn't possibly write the above if you had.
  9. You're joking of course? 95% of hifi gear is a fashion industry, and is reported on, hyped, assessed and purchased on that basis. You have to realise that sighted listening and auditioning creates imagined sonic differences that are actually integrated experiences where sonic factors are dominated by non-sonic factors but the integrated perception is mis-attributed to sonics. On that basis there is a thriving industry in diversity and price ranges, successfully extracting plastic from our pockets over and over.
  10. @Briz Poor analogy because a car is not performing a reproduction. It is more like an instrument in the music production process in the Toole quote above. Exactly what I was warning about.
  11. Let's hear from Toole himself. Of course the following quote is no more useful to you than if he just says 'musicality is everything', because the exact experimental percentages are not provided, therefore useless, LOLOL what a disgrace. You do yourself no favours with such 'poor loser', 'show me the proof' nonsense. Anyway, to the quote (my emphasis added): "It is important to differentiate between the production of a musical event and the subsequent reproduction of that musical event. Subjectivity – pure opinion– is the only measure of whether music is appealing, and it will necessarily vary among individuals. Analysis involves issues of melody, harmony, lyrics, rhythm, tonal quality of instruments, musicianship, and so on. In the recording studio, the recording engineer becomes a major contributor to the art by adjusting the contribution of each musician to the overall production, adjusting the total balance and timber of each of the contributors, and adding reflected and reverberated sounds or other processed versions of captured sounds to the mix. This too is judged subjectively, on the basis of whether it reflects the artists intent and, of course, how it might appeal to consumers. "The evaluation of reproduced sound should be a matter of judging the extent to which any and all of these elements are accurately replicated or attractively reproduced. It is a matter of trying to describe the respects in which audio devices add to or subtract from the desired objective. A different vocabulary is needed. However, most music lovers and audiophiles lack this special capability in critical listening, and as a consequence, art is routinely mingled with technology. In subjective equipment reviews, technical audio devices are often imbued with musical capabilities. Some are described as being able to euphonically enhance recordings, and others to do the reverse. It is true that characteristics of technical performance must be reflected in the musical performance, but it happens in a highly unpredictable manner, and such a commentary is of no direct assistance in our efforts to improve sound reproduction. "In the audio industry, progress hinges on the ability to identify and quantify technical defects in recording and playback equipment while listening to an infinitely variable signal: music. Add to this the popular notion that we are all "hear differently," that one person's meat might be another person's poison, and we have a situation where are universally satisfying solution might not be possible. Fortunately reality is not so complex, and although tastes in music are highly personal and infinitely variable, we discover that recognising the most common deficiencies in reproduced sounds is a surprisingly universal skill. To a remarkable extent we seem to be able to separate the evaluation of reproduction technology from that of the program. It is not necessary to enjoy the program to be able to recognise that it is, or is not, well reproduced." Totally meaningless without exact experimental numbers and details of models of loudspeaker used -- apparently! And if I make similar statements to the above and mention that I am referring to scientific research, I don't have to account to you! P.S. get the book if you want more -- but you will be disappointed because he doesn't provide the numbers. Which is all that you need to dismiss it all as 'meaningless', oh yes.
  12. I would have been one of those writers. Dirac is good, for sure. But believing that the work is done when Dirac is done.... that is exactly what I was warning about. When Dirac sees a peak repeated in 5 locations, or a dip repeated in 5 locations, or a dip occurring in 3 of 5 locations, it still doesn't know the truth about what the causes are, and makes some pretty bold guesses, and acts on them. IME it still tends to over-boost dips, and boost dips better left alone. Dare I say it, but, it's hard to get right. The good thing about Dirac Done Easy is that it is on the right path, adjusting sound in the right direction from 'naked'. Whereas dialing a standard graphic equaliser by ear is dire. No doubt there!
  13. P.S. that's a disgrace, says a lot.
  14. What you don't seem to understand is that those 'issues' (which you seem to invent on the run and proclaim real by decree and in need of proof that they now don't exist by dedicated fresh experimentation) would royally stuff up the experiments that were conducted. How would they get high statistical confidence in flat frequency response if the subjects had a range of different listening priorities?
  15. Being cheap and being used in pro audio are two major barriers to serious credibility in audiophile circles! No-one would touch them with a barge pole unless an accredited guru finds one being used in a $20,000 exotica amp designed by a legend. That changes everything! DIY audio is completely different world where personal experimentation yields personal 'finds', and I think that's great.