Jump to content

Newman

Members
  • Content count

    5,825
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

1 Follower

About Newman

  • Rank
    Newman speaks

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Adelaide
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

11,296 profile views
  1. Audio Music 833M mono blocks

    If you want those real instruments to sound like real instruments, then you *won't* want to replay them through a coloured amp/speaker combination. [emoji16]
  2. Audio myths and misconceptions

    Yes, Chris, agree with all your points. Speaker has to be competent, has to be positioned in a competent manner, then room treatment. But after completing 2, don't just keep repeating it in order to avoid 3.
  3. StereoNET Kii Three Review

    Stereophile Recommendations have a lot of sins to repent, but if this recommendation led to the beginning of acceptance of DSP active speakers, it would earn them a small atonement.
  4. Audio myths and misconceptions

    Ah, my myth! It would be better, but room treatments aren't cheap. Not good ones. To your list I would add equalisation, especially of the bass, and also of the other frequencies in many cases. Moving the speakers around is an attempt to do bass EQ in a very sloppy way. Sometimes it is also an attempt to manage reflections above the bass zone, but that would be better handled with room treatments. Yes, no doubt, if your only concern is obtaining the most likeable sound waves. But once we entertain the reality of non-sonic factors hugely influencing our perceptions of the sound, then anything goes. I have sometimes (example) written of how the contextual information overwhelms the sound waves in creating our integrated perception, and that we cannot ignore it in making our personal audio choices, because we don't listen at home in blind (controlled) conditions. So, even if a thick metal faceplate in warm champagne with Marantz written on it makes not a jot of perceptible difference to the sound waves, if I can't stop myself from integrating a total perception that it is sounding smoother and more musical, then I should go ahead and buy it! No point in punishing oneself just because one objectively knows it can't make any difference sonically. Where I am trying to draw the line, however, is in attributing that impression of musicality to the sound waves produced by the gear itself. It's jolly hard work though, just read this thread.... Although if you are like me, you might find that you say things that shouldn't be controversial, only to be treated like you just turned the world upside down.
  5. Audio myths and misconceptions

    Again, the key *learning* point is that good sound *is* the same for all people. It's non-sonic factors that makes everyone think that their sonic preference is individual.
  6. Audio myths and misconceptions

    Hmm, my thoughts on that here, explain that. Plus, they could both be bad, in different ways. Nobody says you have to like all bads in the same preference order. Same thoughts as above. The Flower Power People were right after all: there is such a thing as universal goodness for all.
  7. Audio Music 833M mono blocks

    I think these were on demo in combination with Osborne Grands at the Oct 2016 Melbourne show. I went to a couple of audition sessions, people were raving about the combo, but I just couldn't get into them, something seemed off. Interesting graph.
  8. I tried the Google get-by and gave up. Lousy situation. Must have been better software options -- for users. Oh well. Can't wait for the improvement.
  9. Audio myths and misconceptions

    Sure. You are imo talking about sighted listening. There is no correlation between measurement and sighted listening impressions. The correlation that your correspondent means is wrt controlled listening.
  10. Audio myths and misconceptions

    Hi John, I read your post with concern and compassion. I am fully sympathetic to any complaints regarding people not feeling safe here. To me, it is top priority that bullying does not occur and that people feel safe to participate on StereoNET forums. We are a community of like interest and what is supposed to be a fun hobby, so to bully participants is an horrendous outcome. The community will invariably attract many personalities including those without high confidence, either technically or socially, and those without combative inclination, who look in mild horror at big personalities locking horns and dismissing one another and using debating tricks and point scoring, etc etc. It is entirely likely that getting belittled or mocked here could bring on episodes of mental conditions for some people. And I contend that a kind and gentle community needs to take them into account too. I am also aware that you probably read the above while thinking, "but you are part of that problem, Newman, have you no self awareness?" And now you have your answer: I do indeed. And I hope -- very sincerely -- that my most obstreperous posts are reserved for situations where others are also loud and bold and outspoken.... and in their case, wrong, and recalcitrant. But I am sincere in my first paragraph. And would like to make a special comment on your request for "acknowledgement and respect for the experience others." Everyone is entitled to that IMO, yet some of that acknowledgement must consider that hifi experiences are routinely mistaken, or actually, misdirected. Hifi, as a listening experience, has a peculiar dimension to it, which is at the core of a lot of disputation. Specifically, that when we listen, some of the impression we gain of a listening experience is independent of the sound waves. And I don't mean "ah, this pleasant red is enhancing my enjoyment of the music". I mean much more directly than that, where our perception process convinces us that some component or change in the playback system is causing an audible (better or worse) change in the sound waves, even when it isn't. In fact, this process is so strong, that we can routinely become convinced of an improvement when things have actually gotten sonically worse, and vice versa. (And please don't debate this as 'my opinion' -- it is not my opinion so much as what the evidence says). If you think about it, this is pretty dramatic for this hobby's popular side-pursuit of component analysis. One has to be very careful in what one claims is due to a change in the sound waves. We are all prone to be routinely grossly mistaken if we think that uncontrolled listening has any credence as a method for determining the sonic merits of a component. Which brings us to your request for acknowledgement and respect for the experiences of others. Granted. But. In turn, people posting such experiences could return the favour and show some acknowledgement and respect for the scientific understanding of human perception, and what that means about the (lack of) reliability of the experiences that they are relating here. Acknowledgement that -- to put it clearly -- these uncontrolled listening experiences are literally worse than nothing when it comes to assessing the merit of a component. I don't notice much of that acknowledgement when people post their listening experiences. After all, it almost makes the relating of one's experience assessing components pointless. Which take all the fun out of it. Well! Hmpf! So people gaily go ahead and post their experiences of some pretty dubious technology, as if the technology is definitely causing all sorts of sonic outcomes in the sound waves in the air. Again and again and again and again and again this happens. The readers who understand how perception works read it all and they know what has probably (extremely probably) happened here. And they might know that, in an ideal world, they should respond by posting some long variety of all I have written above -- but, seriously? So, they choose a sarcastic one-liner instead - which is unfortunate, but kind of understandable, especially if the listening experience was related in a particularly cocky and arrogant manner regarding causes and effects. A lot of this could have been avoided with thorough, controlled listening tests of every single component or tweak, but that is an unreasonably massive task for the casual hobbyist, and one the industry has zero stomach for, since (I can say with extreme confidence) almost every single scientifically-curious product will turn out to have no perceptible effect on sound waves -- or worse. So most hifi hobbyists want to say things here that are completely indefensible, but they want to be treated gently while they insist that they are right when challenged, even getting defensive and stroppy along the way. And indeed, you are right, they should be engaged kindly, but how hard is it if they are not to bring a learning mentality and attitude to joining the community, some of whom really know their stuff. It takes two to avoid treading on toes in a tango.
  11. Audio myths and misconceptions

    Let's just say that I once preferred to listen with the loudness button engaged and the volume high, but the amount of bass I heard that way was far less than what I get in my current setup, which is within the target curve for most-preferred sound. I never had the opportunity to measure my old receiver systems, but happy to wager that they would have been both lumpy and wimpy, even with loudness button on.
  12. Audio myths and misconceptions

    Sorry, I misconstrued your earlier comment to be about TV sonics as well as video. With audio, my 'TV audio' comment still applies to what you wrote above. The speakers on those receivers probably lacked a smooth and extended bass FR measured in room at the listener, so cranked bass was the least worst setting available to users.
  13. Audio myths and misconceptions

    If StereoNET had a search function that was slightly useful, you (or I) would be quickly able to find my previous posts on this topic. But alas..... Long story short.... Toole and numerous others have concluded that there is a target curve response that un-deaf listeners universally prefer, except in the deepest bass, where the preferred level varies by a few dB to taste -- but they still prefer it to be smooth and extended. For the longer version, you will have to dig long and hard in the archives, sadly. But for your TV set story, remember that the 'flat' setting is horrendously anything but flat at the listener's ear and hardly a sign that people want their bass boosted.
  14. Audio myths and misconceptions

    Me?? They are not disagreeing with me. I think you missed the point entirely. They are disagreeing with all the reliable evidence. And if they choose to do that, they don't deserve the respect they gained, and should give it all back. Being respected doesn't mean much in audiophile circles. There are a lot of absolute loony mythmakers who seem to be regarded as well respected equipment designers. If the fellows you mentioned want to steer clear of joining the loons, they need to either fall in line with the evidence gained through controlled listening tests, or advance audio knowledge with equally rigorous evidence that moves the state of the art further in the direction called rational progress. It's got nothing to do with me.
×