Budget distortion analyzer/signal generator

[ruffrecords]

I suspect Arny has spent so long arguing with intractable audiophools that he is having a little bit of difficulty acclimatising to such a friendly forum as this. Personally I would ask him to head over to gearslutz and help me  sort out DrTechno.

Cheers

Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

It might be far more effective if you google my name: Arny Krueger  and find out for yourself.

Commentary should be self-contained and free standing, not require some call to authority to accept without question. If useful to explain some personal opinion please share within the post.
-------
;D ;D ;D  There are many fans here of double-blind testing (ABX) , you could have led with that.

I knew Dave Clark (SMWTMS) back in the day, before I escaped from the audio-phool market. I did not see any cause and effect correlation between price-performance and market success in that community.  I gravitated toward larger scale sound reinforcement where BS has less currency and the laws of physics help separate the wheat from the chaff.

---------

We don't care who you think you are, please follow the rules. We have voted people off the island before for similar behavior.

JR

 

[audiomixer]

Does any HiFi dealer have repair capabilities, or do they just send the kit back to the manufacturer for repair?

I do know - well: did know a well reputed HiFi dealer here in Switzerland who had a real workshop, repairing Krell, Classé, and what not Amplifiers, CD players cassette decks - you guys remember when you would go to the Radio Shack ore equivalent and look thru a drawer of rubberbands for your cassette deck?

they closed the shop after 30+ Years of operation a few years back, just no more business in there. We used to go there after school, listen to Ricky Lee Jones an other 'Hi End' records and test different speakers, cables, CD players, Amplifiers and what not. It was a golden age - listening to nice music thru a pair of Wilson Grand Slam MKI / MKII / Alexandria, and Yes, John - id did make a difference when we changed components or even cables.... I don't hear that any more though....

The service technician had a scope, a proper meter, a weller soldering iron, he knew the designs  in and out. I am not sure if he had a distortion meter though, I would not expect it.  maybe old school viewing (the amplified residual ) distortion products on the scope and fiddling with the bias adjustment with the tongue at the right angle?

these time are long gone. I am pretty sure that most distributors, dealers, Ebay sellers and Aliexpress merchants do not have any clue nor any interest in THD vs THD+N.....

cheers,

Michael

 

[JohnRoberts]

and Yes, John - id did make a difference when we changed components or even cables.... I don't hear that any more though....

--clipped==

cheers,

Michael

I did write a piece about funny wire for my "Audio Mythology" magazine column (in RE/P back in the '80s).

I won't paraphrase the whole column but long story short speaker wire resistance can be audible if high enough due to interaction with the loudspeaker's changing impedance load with frequency.

Low power signal cables can alter the frequency response from high impedance sources due to excessive cable capacitance (think lead guitar pickups).

While not a wire problem per se, but old school MM phono cartridges were sensitive to the capacitive termination they were loaded by.  It is completely understandable that different capacitance phono cables could alter the top octave frequency response (even just different length of the same wire cables). So much so that I sold a capacitance termination kit to go along with my phono preamp kits that could adjust capacitance in 25pF increments to dial in a phono playback system.

Some (most) audiophool reviewers did not bother to adjust cartridge termination when reviewing phono preamps so it was a matter of chance  (or educated guess about their rig). The typical reviewer's phono cartridge + termination + loudspeakers + room acoustics,  were each orders of magnitude less accurate than decent preamps in the market. An accurate preamp just allowed the reviewer to hear the combined errors in his personal reference (?) system.  (One of the reasons I escaped that business decades ago).

So yes wires "can" make a difference but no magic involved, all well understood phenomenon.

JR 

 

[abbey road d enfer]

id did make a difference when we changed components or even cables.... I don't hear that any more though....

Really? It is still Monster cable, Vovox, QED, Cardas, Audioquest and countless other's stock-in-trade.

 

[audiomixer]

I believe it's just because I don't bother that much any more or just because of my pronounced hf hearing loss, who knows ;-)

did not mean to disrupt the thread, just wanted to tickle John a bit..... sort of adding some distortion....

Michael

 

[abbey road d enfer]

I believe it's just because I don't bother that much any more or just because of my pronounced hf hearing loss, who knows ;-)

did not mean to disrupt the thread, just wanted to tickle John a bit..... sort of adding some distortion....

Michael

I guess we all love a hint of distortion, to a certain point...

 

[arnyk]

I believe it's just because I don't bother that much any more or just because of my pronounced hf hearing loss, who knows ;-)

did not mean to disrupt the thread, just wanted to tickle John a bit..... sort of adding some distortion....

So much for life in the 1980s and earlier.

How about that calendar app running in the lower right hand corner of my screen that says "2016"?

Anybody here ever at least visit modern times? 

My home playback system uses only HDMI cables for interconnects.  Unfortunately the DSP-based speakers have only analog inputs, but they are full-balanced XLRs with the low impedances  required to overcome cable capacitance and delive solicr flat response.

Modern audio systems for recording and playback can easily be digital  from microphone preamp  to speaker. 

Modern audiophiles and studiophiles can still claim to hear differences, but the old-time frequency response variations can't and (if you bother to try to measure them) don't exist...

 

[JohnRoberts]

So much for life in the 1980s and earlier.

Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. I see myths from older than that still around.

How about that calendar app running in the lower right hand corner of my screen that says "2016"?

There is a date at the top of each post if you lose your time reference.

Anybody here ever at least visit modern times? 

pejorative

My home playback system uses only HDMI cables for interconnects.  Unfortunately the DSP-based speakers have only analog inputs, but they are full-balanced XLRs with the low impedances  required to overcome cable capacitance and delive solicr flat response.

Not familiar with "solicr" flat response, must be something new.  8) I have an optical feed to my dirt cheap surround decoder and most of the time it sounds good... occasionally it gets stupid and sounds bad, but you get what you pay for (or less) buying very cheap gear, analog or digital. 

Modern audio systems for recording and playback can easily be digital  from microphone preamp  to speaker. 

Yes, they could, (beginning at the preamp gain stage and ending at the loudspeaker amp and drivers), but that doesn't mean all consumers will embrace that.

Modern audiophiles and studiophiles can still claim to hear differences, but the old-time frequency response variations can't and (if you bother to try to measure them) don't exist...

Unclear what you mean. Uncontrolled listening tests are unreliable and arguing with people about what they claim to hear in not productive use of time. I have never encountered things that I could hear that I couldn't measure, while I have measured things that I cannot hear. (Maybe I just have sh__ for ears).

JR

 

[ruffrecords]

Modern audiophiles and studiophiles can still claim to hear differences, but the old-time frequency response variations can't and (if you bother to try to measure them) don't exist...

A claim, like an opinion, is worth just what you paid for it.

Cheers

Ian

 

[arnyk]

A claim, like an opinion, is worth just what you paid for it.

Even when there is abundant hard physical evidence behind a claim like this one, it is not uncommon for there to be a tiny minority of  people who deny it, anyway. 

We still have  those who believe the earth is flat, right?

 

[arnyk]

Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.

We have many examples of that in modern society.

I see myths from older than that still around.

Yes, AFAIK there is still a Flat Earth Society. OTOH, how many times have I personally witnessed clear visual evidence of the curvature of the earth?  Lost count decades ago.

I have an optical feed to my dirt cheap surround decoder and most of the time it sounds good... occasionally it gets stupid and sounds bad, but you get what you pay for (or less) buying very cheap gear, analog or digital.

The claim "You get what you pay for" is far from being always true. If you are discerning enough, you realize that you end up  at least occasionally with the experience where you pay good money and get badly designed and built junk.  I find it is more correct is to say that you get what you pay for if you are knowledgeable, careful and lucky.

Yes, they could, (beginning at the preamp gain stage and ending at the loudspeaker amp and drivers), but that doesn't mean all consumers will embrace that.

There's that pesky word "all". Any sentence with the word all in it that refers to the physical world is false. All generalities are false, even this one.  So statements like the one above can be criticized on the ground that they make flawed claims, apparently to create a false impression.

Out in the real world a very high proportion of consumers  to have audio systems that are wall-to-wall digital from the mic preamp output to the input to the power amp in their speakers. Frankly, most of them don't know and most of the rest don't care.


Its like pointing out a guy driving a classic car and saying that not all drivers embrace modern automotive technology.  Fact is that most classic car owners have more modern cars that are their daily drivers. Another emerging trend is the "Retro Mod" which is the skin and shallow depth of the car appearing to be classic, and the operational parts like engine, transmission, suspension, brakes etc. being near-SOTA.

In audio we have so-called tubed digital (most CD)  players that are modern circuits with a thin veneer of legacy vacuum tube technology spiced onto it.

Audiophiles who claim to prefer legacy media and playback technology often end up doing most of their listening with modern digital gear.  Even a high percentage of legacy LPs are from the late 1970s an onward, when the big recording companies had already invented heavily in digital mastering.

Uncontrolled listening tests are unreliable and arguing with people about what they claim to hear in not productive use of time.

It's usually not productive, but for ethical reasons, I feel that many poorly informed people may deserve one more well-prepared serving on the truth, and they can take it or leave it.

I have never encountered things that I could hear that I couldn't measure, while I have measured things that I cannot hear. (Maybe I just have sh__ for ears).

At this time the differences between the threshold of normal hearing and the current limits of measurement are generally so great that being able to easily measure differences that can't be reliably detected by listening  is the expected result.

 

[JohnRoberts]

We have many examples of that in modern society.

Yes, AFAIK there is still a Flat Earth Society. OTOH, how many times have I personally witnessed clear visual evidence of the curvature of the earth?  Lost count decades ago.

I don't know if that is the appropriate example. I was speaking of popular audio myths. Many than I debunked in my magazine column 35 years ago, and numerous times since, are still in circulation.

The claim "You get what you pay for" is far from being always true. If you are discerning enough, you realize that you end up  at least occasionally with the experience where you pay good money and get badly designed and built junk.  I find it is more correct is to say that you get what you pay for if you are knowledgeable, careful and lucky.

I was referring to my experience with buying the "cheapest" surround decoder I could find. I had low expectations and was not disappointed.

There is an old saying among professionals "buy once cry once" suggesting that cheap tools will usually end up being replaced so a false economy. In my case I was just looking to get something that worked well enough to get my home system making noise.

I spent 15 years designing product and marketing for a large (value) manufacturer,  with stints before and after running my own businesses, so I have some experience in product pricing.

The vagaries of price point perception and actual value (another squishy perception) would involve a  long and involved discussion. 

There's that pesky word "all". Any sentence with the word all in it that refers to the physical world is false. All generalities are false, even this one.  So statements like the one above can be criticized on the ground that they make flawed claims, apparently to create a false impression.

Out in the real world a very high proportion of consumers  to have audio systems that are wall-to-wall digital from the mic preamp output to the input to the power amp in their speakers. Frankly, most of them don't know and most of the rest don't care.

Back in the '80s I was an early defender of digital audio (not very popular in many recording circles), and digital  back then wasn't near as good as it is now.

Its like pointing out a guy driving a classic car and saying that not all drivers embrace modern automotive technology.  Fact is that most classic car owners have more modern cars that are their daily drivers. Another emerging trend is the "Retro Mod" which is the skin and shallow depth of the car appearing to be classic, and the operational parts like engine, transmission, suspension, brakes etc. being near-SOTA.

I'd rather have a kit car cobra than a real one that I would be afraid to drive because of the risk of an costly accident.

In audio we have so-called tubed digital (most CD)  players that are modern circuits with a thin veneer of legacy vacuum tube technology spiced onto it.

also well discussed around here... and a current topic with people who also pursue adding transformers to their audio paths pursuing euphonic distortion.

Audiophiles who claim to prefer legacy media and playback technology often end up doing most of their listening with modern digital gear.  Even a high percentage of legacy LPs are from the late 1970s an onward, when the big recording companies had already invented heavily in digital mastering.

It used to be ironic to hear audiophiles complain about the sound of a single switch or single op amp in an audio path. They have never looked under the hood of contemporary recording consoles that have many switches and many op amps. Perhaps a bad switch or faulty op amp could be audible.

It's usually not productive, but for ethical reasons, I feel that many poorly informed people may deserve one more well-prepared serving on the truth, and they can take it or leave it.

The truth can be presented without argument and insult. Calling people who disagree with you flat- earthers is not a way to encourage dialog and mutual understanding (or sympathy from mods). 

At this time the differences between the threshold of normal hearing and the current limits of measurement are generally so great that being able to easily measure differences that can't be reliably detected by listening  is the expected result.

Add that hearing thresholds shift situationally. The science of psycho-acoustics studies the multiple moving parts around human audition. Design of dynamics processors leans heavily on psycho-acoustics (at least the better ones). 

JR

PS: Please tone down you argumentative and dismissive posts. Most here who are willing to engage with you are speaking from decades of experience, and deserve respect too..

 

[arnyk]

I was speaking of popular audio myths. Many than I debunked in my magazine column 35 years ago, and numerous times since, are still in circulation.

We've shared similar experiences here, even to the extent of writing for ReP back in the day.  I sold them an article about power amp reactive load handling for a nominal fee, but they closed up shop shortly after it was published and never paid me.  Their online archives are here: http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Recording_Engineer_Producer.htm . I've found a number of your articles there, but not mine.

I wrote approximately a half million posts to several audio groups on Usenet from about 1995 to 2005, many of which debunked audiophile myths.

I know of no audiophile myth that has been permanently or widely debunked, no matter who did the debunking  or when it  happened.

One strong influence is that  personal evidence supporting virtually very audio myth can be easily  obtained by intuitively reasonable experimentation, namely the non-bias controlled listening test, especially the sighted evaluation.  It seems obvious to most that the evidence of one's own ears is incontrovertable, but I believe we agree that is not so.

 

[arnyk]

The truth can be presented without argument and insult.

Words for many to apply to themselves.

Calling people who disagree with you flat- earthers is not a way to encourage dialog and mutual understanding (or sympathy from mods). 

Who did this John?  When?

Please provide a quote.

 

[JohnRoberts]

We've shared similar experiences here, even to the extent of writing for ReP back in the day.  I sold them an article about power amp reactive load handling for a nominal fee, but they closed up shop shortly after it was published and never paid me.  Their online archives are here: http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Recording_Engineer_Producer.htm . I've found a number of your articles there, but not mine.

So you put them out of business... I worried it was because I stopped writing my column. (kidding about both)  ;D

I wrote approximately a half million posts to several audio groups on Usenet from about 1995 to 2005, many of which debunked audiophile myths.

I know of no audiophile myth that has been permanently or widely debunked, no matter who did the debunking  or when it  happened.

Many have been widely debunked but very few permanently, because of the public's low scientific IQ.

One strong influence is that  personal evidence supporting virtually very audio myth can be easily  obtained by intuitively reasonable experimentation, namely the non-bias controlled listening test, especially the sighted evaluation.  It seems obvious to most that the evidence of one's own ears is incontrovertable, but I believe we agree that is not so.

We agree on that. I joke that I preferred large scale sound reinforcement because it's harder to confuse a stadium full of people that some crap sounds good. Much easier to persuade small groups who are receptive to believe in magic.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

Words for many to apply to themselves.

cute

Who did this John?  When?

um you

Please provide a quote.

We still have  those who believe the earth is flat, right?

You're lawyerly responses and argumentative behavior resemble troll-like behavior where somebody  argues for the sake of stirring up a personal response. You appear to know something so instead appear to be seeking authority.

Here you need to earn that authority by sharing knowledge over time, and not arguing every  single poster to the mat.

Some of the new millennials around here think I'm too harsh... sorry if I am offending you too. Just calling it like I see it.

Of course maybe I'm wrong. 

JR

 

[gridcurrent]

Audiophiles who claim to prefer legacy media and playback technology often end up doing most of their listening with modern digital gear.  Even a high percentage of legacy LPs are from the late 1970s an onward, when the big recording companies had already invented heavily in digital mastering.

not taking any sides in a cat fight but that statement deserves a  explaination.

regarding "audio myths":
anyone want to argue that a tube U47fet or 87 is "better" than a U47 or  U67?

 

[arnyk]

not taking any sides in a cat fight but that statement deserves a  explanation.

Fair enough.  Specifically, what requires a explanation?

 

[arnyk]

cuteum youYou're lawyerly responses and argumentative behavior resemble troll-like behavior where somebody  argues for the sake of stirring up a personal response. You appear to know something so instead appear to be seeking authority.

Here's a lawyerly response from a lawyer's mouth:

"People see what they want to see,  read what they want to read, and hear what they want to hear."

As applied to me John, you seem to want to think the worst about my posts, and say it just about every chance you get.

Again and again you come up with the harshest misinterpretations of my posts that I've ever seen in over over 20 years of computer conferencing.

Since I've been on this forum, you've reserve that for me.

Here you need to earn that authority by sharing knowledge over time, and

Which is exactly what I am doing, sharing knowledge over time.

Thing is with all the negativity, I many not be here much longer.  My story is that this forum was pointed out to me. I took a look at it and I could not believe the poor quality of the answers that some newbies were getting. Being a charitable type, I tried to give some more helpful answers without raising a fuss.  However, my answers were forcefully and illogically twisted like a pretzel.

I know that there are people who want to be the smartest people in the room, and accomplish this by driving off everybody new who arouses their paranoia.

Finding so much bad will, I'm shaking the dust off my sandals and leaving forever.

not arguing every  single poster to the mat.

That's incorrect since any number of of my posts have been in full agreement with other posters.  Others have been factual answers to factual questions.  I obviously am not arguing everybody to the mat.  I've even agreed  with you.  However, since you are now denying this ever happened, I have learned something.