[wisnon]

LoL

OK.

[morganc]

Hi Jim,
   I have  nice Lampi for sale that I need to move as I need the cash......PM me if interested.
Morgan

[playntheblues]

Thanks for the offer, I would order one from Lukasz and customize it to my system, Duelands, volume etc.

[wisnon]

Start above and read down.  It's really simple.  I do look forward to your wonderful experience though.   

Actually, you are being duplicitous here as you are busy bashing the L6 for poor build quality and being overpriced ( in a DSD only Dac thread at CompAudiophile). Berto's instincts were correct:


Originally Posted by wisnon

I dont think that was the price in the Group buy.
 
However, if you want, it can be wrapped up in a Goldmund case and you buy for $40K if that suits you better...

Jtwrace: No, just properly built would be fine. Wood plank as a base isn't proper. I'm sorry. Actually, it's pretty scary.

Just be upfront and dont hide behind innuendos. You are free to have your own opinion, even if you never heard the product.

[jtwrace]

Just be upfront and dont hide behind innuendos. You are free to have your own opinion, even if you never heard the product.

As I posted, I'd love to see some actual measurements of this great unit.  As many in this thread say it sounds great (subjectively) I'd like to see objectively how great it could sound.  A little bit of science goes a long way. 

[dminches]

As I posted, I'd love to see some actual measurements of this great unit.  As many in this thread say it sounds great (subjectively) I'd like to see objectively how great it could sound.  A little bit of science goes a long way.

Isn't it all subjective?  I never look at measurements.  I let my ears be my guide.

[wisnon]

As I posted, I'd love to see some actual measurements of this great unit.  As many in this thread say it sounds great (subjectively) I'd like to see objectively how great it could sound.  A little bit of science goes a long way.

That is not my point. You were dropping innuedos and when Berto addressed it, you sidestepped the issue. You posted that Big6 picture for a reason and now we all know why. You should have just said so upfront and direct!

[jtwrace]

Isn't it all subjective?  I never look at measurements.  I let my ears be my guide.

No, it's not.  Everyone has a choice on how they choose to decide whether a product is good or not.  I'm fine with that.  For me, I choose to rely heavily on objective data too.  As someone who does rely on objective data during the day it would be completely asinine to not at least look at well collected objective data. 


At the end of the day, if you like it and it's worth whatever you paid, enjoy it. 

[wisnon]

Isn't it all subjective?  I never look at measurements.  I let my ears be my guide.

Ther very best measuring tool. jtwrace uses Gedlee speakers and Mr Geddes is on record as saying that we dont measure the right things commonly, so it leads to bad design decisions. There are an infitity of parameters to measure. the trick is to understand which ones are IMPORTANT and most relevant to achieve a certain goal.

I would have thought by now that big box amp manufacturers who post vanishingly low distortion figures and sound awful would serve as a warning that there is far more to this than the limited specs we see referred to everywhere.

[dminches]

For me, I choose to rely heavily on objective data too.  As someone who does rely on objective data during the day it would be completely asinine to not at least look at well collected objective data. 

I do too (I am an actuary) but I have never translated that to my audio hobby.

At the end of the day, if you like it and it's worth whatever you paid, enjoy it.

Agreed.

[wisnon]

Dr Geddes interview excerpt (very balanced aned nuanced comments):

LB: One of your areas of research concerns the psychoacoustics of distortion. Please first explain the various types of distortion, and the distinction between linear and non-linear distortion.
 
EG: According to the strict dictionary definition of distortion, any change in the waveform shape is distortion. This means that any change in the frequency response, which would distort the shape of a complex waveform, is distortion. Mere frequency response changes are called “linear” distortion because they act the same regardless of the signal level of the signal and no new frequency content is created.
 
On the other hand there is nonlinear distortion which does create new frequencies not present in the original signal and this type of distortion is level dependent. For example, clipping has no effect until the clipping limit is reached and then the signal gets distorted. A crossover nonlinearity has a large effect on a small signal but a small effect on a large signal. Linear distortion is well understood, and it is the most significant audible form of distortion, but nonlinear distortion has not been studied in any depth (probably because it is far more complex and hence difficult to study than linear distortion).
 
LB: What prompted you to study these phenomena?
 
EG: I had long realized that nonlinear distortion was a characteristic of the system and was not about the signal being used to test for it. THD and IMD are simply different ways of looking at the same problem – system nonlinearity – using different signals. They are not different “types” of distortion. I wanted to find a way to quantify the system’s nonlinearity in a signal-independent manner, and one that I could show was correlated with perception. (I have had my suspicions about THD and IMD for a long time.)
 
In the study that Lidia and I did we confirmed that THD and IMD were basically useless indictors of sound quality because the measured values for either of these metrics did not correlate with the perception of music played through the system.
 
LB: An issue that engenders a great deal of ill will in the high-end audio community is the role of measurements. On the one hand are those who feel that measurements are indispensable and tell the entire story, while on the other are those who believe that measurements are of limited utility, and that all that matters is “how it sounds.” One of your important findings is that the perception of nonlinear distortion does not correlate with commonly used metrics of distortion, thus apparently lending support to the latter group. However, a strong correlation was found with the “GedLee metric.” Please tell us more about this.
 
EG: I have always thought that if someone’s measurements do not “tell the whole story” then they are the wrong measurements. Technology has simply come too far to believe that “there are things that we cannot measure.” I have also never believed that all that matters is “how it sounds,” because this is such an unstable and personal opinion. Sound quality opinions can and will differ from person to person, system to system and most importantly even within the same person on different days (as I said before, I have personally witnessed this in well regarded “reviewers”). Personal preferences have such a low stability as to be an almost completely pointless thing to stake a claim to. “Hi-Fi” does not mean “pleasant” — it means “accurate”; accuracy, as opposed to preference, is absolutely quantifiable and extremely stable – as stable as I care to control in my lab from day to day or test to test (but in any case its uncertainty is easy to quantify and understand). Decisions based on accuracy are therefore much more likely to be valid than decisions based on “how it sounds.” I do not see how one could ever support a position that “preference” trumps “accuracy.” That’s simply taking a giant step backwards in the evolution of Hi-Fi.
 
I am not saying that measurements are infallible, and I don’t believe that measurements are likely to ever be 100% reliable, but that does not mean that we cannot obtain measurements that are far better than the unstable subjective opinions that are so often relied upon. One has to know what measures are important and to what degree of resolution we need to know the results to be meaningful. What I see most people do are either the wrong things or not accurate enough to “tell the story.” And there are some things that I think are crucial to sound quality that are not measured by anyone I know of (myself excluded) at the present time.
 
All too often audio measurements are taken as an all or nothing proposition – “they aren’t perfect or completely reliable so why take them? I know what I hear so why not just listen and evaluate?” It is necessary to understand the importance of what you are measuring in the final analysis and how any particular aberration enters into the whole. An aberration at 12 kHz is not the same as an aberration at 3 kHz. Good measurements are all about finding those things to measure that matter, focusing on those and optimizing the design for the important things at the sake of the lesser importance ones. It is not always easy to know how these tradeoffs are to be made and that is where psychoacoustics comes in. The measurements that I usually see done certainly do not tell the whole story, they tend to be woefully inadequate.
 
One other problem with “listening tests” is what many designers and researchers have come to know as “acclimation.” We know that listeners will get used to or acclimated to a particular sound signature and that this signature then gets imprinted on their expectation. Expectation is a powerful bias in perception, maybe too powerful. This expectation problem tends to stunt the growth of real improvements because they can be counter to expectation. Accurate reproduction can often make a favorite sound recording be perceived as less than the expectation. This is then put down as a “flaw,” which may not be the case. Once the masses become acclimated to a particular sound signature it can be very difficult to change them from this path. I find this all the time with my speakers. They don’t sound like other speakers, yet I can prove that they are objectively more accurate. Over time my customers and I have come to appreciate the open and transparent sound that accuracy provides. Now all other speakers sound colored and distorted. One could argue that we have all become “acclimated” to the sound signature of our loudspeakers, but at least this signature can objectively be shown to be free from significant sonic aberrations. If you are going to get acclimated to a particular sound, then it only makes sense to get acclimated to the most accurate one.
 
Our study of distortion showed not only that what was being measured was the wrong thing, but that if you added some psychoacoustics to the situation one could develop a measurement that did correlate with perception. This result is completely consistent with I have been saying here – if your measurements don’t work then fix them. But don’t claim that something “can’t be measured.” That’s just a cop-out to doing the real work of finding which measurements matter and which ones don’t.
 
LB: Is it currently possible to incorporate the GedLee metric into speaker design?
 
EG: Well it is and I do, but perhaps not in the way that you might think. I do not use this metric to measure my speakers, in fact I don’t measure nonlinear distortion in my speakers at all. Our research taught me that nonlinearity in a loudspeaker is not all that important and that’s how it was used in my speaker designs. The GedLee Metric was shown to be a better way to analyze nonlinear distortion. It uses the actual nonlinear transfer curve that is the root cause of nonlinear distortion instead of some symptom of this nonlinearity like THD. By weighting the orders of the nonlinear transfer function according to how our ear perceives them we were able to show a much higher degree of correlation to subjective perception that any of the traditional metrics such as THD. Basically, for a loudspeaker the GedLee Metric is most likely to be very low except for problems like “Rub and Buzz” which are very high order and quite perceptible.
 
Our studies indicated that distortion in a loudspeaker is not likely to be a major factor as long as the loudspeaker is operated within its design limits. This is because low orders of distortion (2nd, 3rd, etc.) are not highly audible because of masking. Loudspeakers can essentially only exhibit low orders of distortion because the higher orders require large accelerations, i.e. large forces. Loudspeakers do exhibit very large amounts of low order distortion but not high orders of distortion (6th, 7th, etc.) – as long as they are not overdriven or have design flaws like Rub and Buzz – but the low orders are simply not audible. Using a well-made driver within its design limits lets one completely ignore the issue of nonlinear distortion in a loudspeaker.
 
This is not true at all for electronics. Electronics can generate very high orders of nonlinearity such as crossover distortion or clipping. One must be very careful in electronics design to prevent these higher orders from occurring especially at low levels. The problem is that this problem is never evaluated for electronics (well certainly never shown) and I doubt that it is even tested very often. What they do show is THD as a function of level but fail to note if the low level result is for crossover distortion or noise. If it is crossover distortion (which is very high order at very low levels) then it is highly audible even at fractions of a percent. That’s the problem with THD, it just does not show what we need to know.

Several years back I developed a test for amplifiers that used a special signal and form of synchronous averaging to measure the nonlinearity of the amp well down below the amplifier’s noise floor. This test revealed significant differences in the amplifiers as the signal level was reduced into the noise floor (the THD as the signal level is raised is again not important because it is masked and “THD + noise” at low levels, as usually shown, could be all noise). These amps all had excellent “normal” specs, but under my test they were vastly different.
 
Again the lesson here is that if your tests don’t work then fix them. Don’t blame the philosophy and hide behind the dogma.

LB: High-end audio is characterized by products with unsubstantiated claims; examples include a wide variety of (typically very expensive) cables, cryo-treatments, resonators that attach to walls and ceilings, anti-resonance devices upon which gear sits, amongst others. While it is admittedly unfair to lump all these products together, what are your thoughts about them? Is it possible that they have subtle sonic properties that we simply have not yet measured?
 
EG: I cannot be convinced that in this day-and-age there is anything that we cannot measure. The question is what to measure and are we asking the right questions. Are we able to accurately quantify the question and the answers? My position is that if some manufacturer claims an improvement in some sonic property, subtle or not, then it is their obligation to measure this (even if they have to figure out how to do that) and show in a statistically significant way that it makes an audible difference. Otherwise, I just don’t pay much attention to it because it’s just an unsubstantiated opinion. There are so many things that can be measured that have been shown to make significant sonic differences that paying attention to ones that don’t is simply a waste of time and money.
 
A comprehensive set of data for all my speakers is shown on my website – far more comprehensive than one normally finds. I can show how every aspect of what is measured and displayed has been found to be sonically important. It can also be shown how the tests I do not do regularly, like THD or waterfalls, are not that sonically significant. Close attention is paid to those things that matter and not those things that don’t. This is why Geddes speakers are in a class by themselves as far as value goes. They may not be the best, but they are certainly not the most expensive either (nor the cheapest I suppose), but I do claim that they are the best bang-for-the-buck in their price range.
 
This is what has gotten lost in the High-end audio world – value. Why would someone want to pay for something, often a lot, that is not supported by scientific evidence of any kind? This just doesn’t make sense to me. Of course there are those who completely discount science and as such their beliefs are all they have to go on. It appears to me that the High-end market is going after this rather small and select group – those who don’t require proof for what they believe or purchase – and as such a premium is charged to this unique market for being so unique. But I don’t think that there is much future in that. Sure it exists, but it seems to me that it is shrinking.

[wisnon]

I do too (I am an actuary) but I have never translated that to my audio hobby.

I started out on the same track (Actuarial math) but bailed early to business studies and investment analysis.

[rollo]

It really shouldn't matter to you one way or the other since you did not think it was NY RAVE and it was Manufacturer's RAVE.

Thx

     It was posted on the Rave thread on Audionervosa. be careful what you wish for. Manufactures go through expense and hurdles to come and demo their wares. Dealers as well.
     Most are interested in new stuff. A wonderful venue for all. Good food , company and new gear oh my. Back in the day when the Rave was in full swing many manufactures were members. Everyone got along and many got to hear components they would never experience. It was cool no politics just fun as it it should be. A bit clicky but still fun.


charles
     

[Charles Xavier]

the New York rave died a long time ago come up with a new name and move on

[rollo]

   Here we go again.The measurement crew again. Measurements are key to a solid design. No question. What to measure to achieve ones goal is still not there.
    Saying that at the end of the day the component is listened to. the perception of the outcome [ potential buyer } is the whole deal. OK we look at the specs and measurements and hope the Engineer knows his stuff and designs a circuit that meets his or her requirements. Great.
     When a component or speaker is added to an existing system the potential buyer must determine if the different component sounds good in the system at hand. That perception or subjective decision is key to sales. No likey no buyie.
      Can one by specs determine the outcome of the newly added component ? Do not know. With Engineering of stress on materials or failure of such say in car design is critical. Someone could die. In audio with so much subjection as to the sound desired the "sound" had is all that really matters. Well to me and my customers anyway.



charles

[jtwrace]

Great job using the search engine of your choice.  Also, if you're going to post someone else's papers on two forums you should post the link where it's from. 


You should really read more of Dr. Geddes papers though..

[wisnon]

Great job using the search engine of your choice.  Also, if you're going to post someone else's papers on two forums you should post the link where it's from. 


You should really read more of Dr. Geddes papers though..

Stop making assumptions.

I have been following the views of Dr G. for a long time and happen to agree with him about many things.

I only posted andexcerpt as I said at the start of the post and I got it from a link prominently displayed at the GedLee website.

Please deal with the content and not with me or my actions. I am not against you, just some of your recent actions that could have been more forthright. I dont dislike you at all, as I have seen you make great contributions in the past. I dont even mind you having contrary opinions, if they are well elaborated and defended.

Lukasz is a high-voltage power engineer and you act as if he is some kind of novice in the engineering world. That is not right or correct.

[jtwrace]

Stop making assumptions.

I have been following the views of Dr G. for a long time and happen to agree with him about many things.

I only posted andexcerpt as I said at the start of the post and I got it from a link prominently displayed at the GedLee website.

Please deal with the content and not with me or my actions. I am not against you, just some of your recent actions that could have been more forthright. I dont dislike you at all, as I have seen you make great contributions in the past. I dont even mind you having contrary opinions, if they are well elaborated and defended.

What Geddes is talking about is looking at the spectral harmonic distortion carefully, which is what a dbScope or AP does. Looking at THD alone is useless as it's just a number.

Also, just to be clear, Dr. Geddes isn't an electronics engineer.  I'm sure you know that though since you've read his papers and know his background. 

Lukasz is a high-voltage power engineer

Great, then lets see some scientific data on his dac.  That's all I'm asking for. 

[shadowlight]

Let's keep the discussion on Lampizator products please and keep it on track.

Thx

[shadowlight]

the New York rave died a long time ago come up with a new name and move on

Can I request that you try to keep your views on how/where NY RAVE is doing out of the thread.  I have heard it multiple times and really do not need to hear it in every thread.

Thank You