[miklorsmith]

Further, if you're into measurements, go check out Audioholics.  I participated in a 20-page thread there where the vast majority of opinion was that amplifiers literally all sound the same.  That was the core of the thread, not an auxiliary topic. These guys will tell you that if you didn't personally participate in an ABX/DBT test to assert your position that your observations are worthless.

They do seem to be well versed in the latest DVD players and  multichannel receivers from big boys Sony, Pioneer, Yamaha, and Harmon Kardon.  Forgive me if I've left out anyone important.

And, as you can see I hang out here now.  Sorry, not one to bash usually, but I really had a tough time over there.

[John Ashman]

I've actually had people pronounce it like the fish in my store.  I don't laugh, but I do crack a smile.  

Of course, what's really funny is the pronunciation of Bose -

Boiss, Bozé, Bos, Boss, Bozie, Boisee, etc, etc.  Why wouldn't the obvious pronunciation be how it's spelled?  Kills me that the product is *that* well known, but people can't pronounce it.

[Tweaker]

I grew up with Stereo Review and Julian-I never met a speaker I didn't like-Hirsch. Because of that I was of the opinion that "all properly designed and functioning electronic sound the same". (That is also the mantra of Peter Aczel of the Audio Critic). And of course there was never any discusion about interconnects or cables. Fortunately I trust my ears and discovered, against my expectations, that Julian Hirsch and Peter Aczel are knuckleheads.
 On the other side of the coin I can appreciate the sarcasm directed at the overblown "liquid midrange" type of prose that is practiced by some  reviewers.
   (What does liquid midrange mean, exactly? My toilet flushing makes a liquid sound. Does the reviewer mean that the midrange sounds like a flushing toilet?)

[YoungDave]

I think one of my pet peeves is listening to the Subjectivists who insist that audio quality is way too subtle for any measurement to capture.

My second peeve, associated closely with the above, is the Objectivists' arguments that, if it didn't measure, it didn't happen.  Not much common ground, to hear these two groups.

If it's there, it's measurable - IF we know how.  We often don't know how, or even what parameter to measure.

I have a lab full of measurement equipment.  When I make a measurable improvement (say, a 20dBV reduction in power supply ripple), I can certainly hear it.  And when I hear some other improvement that I didn't or can't measure, I rather think it is there allright - but the metrology just isn't good enough to capture it.

I am always trying to develop new measurement techniques, because what we do goes way beyond THD+N.  

Why bother though - half the world says measurements are meaningless, and half thinks the currently available measurement techniques are perfectly adequate.

[_scotty_]

YoungDave, I think you would interested in the collected essays of Richard C. Heyser, the father Time Domain Spectrometery measurement. He was intimately involved with trying to understand how what we measure
correlates with what we hear. I think his work is available from The  Audio Engineering Society, the title is Time Delay Spectrometry: An Anthology of the Works of Richard C. Heyser on Measurement Analysis and Perception (Paperback)
by John Prohs  
you might be able to get this from   http://www.aes.org/  
Some of his work may also be available online.
Scotty

[timbley]

What does liquid midrange mean, exactly? My toilet flushing makes a liquid sound. Does the reviewer mean that the midrange sounds like a flushing toilet?)

 

That's funny, I just was explaining to somebody that my speakers don't have what I'd call a liquid midrange. I've never heard that liquid midrange from real, acoustic musical instruments either. But I do think I know what they're talking about, having sat around in some audio salons listening to mega-expensive speaker systems. You might also describe it as greasy, or slick as snot. I also think it helps if the speaker has a glassy smooth finish. If you stare at that glassy, smooth finish while you are listening, it will help you to perceive the liquid midrange. If the speaker has a satin finish, then you may perceive the sound as velvety smooth.

[Steve]

I think a couple of the guys hit the nail on the head. Extremism, whether leftwing or righwing is almost never correct.

The truth/best always seems to lie somewhere in the middle.

[John Ashman]

Or worse - brandism  

[MaxCast]

One of my peeves is when someone walks into a room and comments on one component in a system they have never heard before and tells anyone how that one component was great, open, transparant, huge soundstage, great imaging blah, blah, puke.  And I thought it was power cords that could make a system do that.

[lcrim]

I have followed this thread with some interest.  It seems that these "pet peeves" are not about audio at all but rather about the "opinions" posted by other people on this board or others on the internet with regard to things audio.
Everyone has the right to be wrong.  It would be nice if the fools would stop wasteing bandwidth and allow those of us with proper, correct opinions to waste all the bandwidth.

[John Ashman]

Here's another of my favorites:

"the Amphetimine Mark III Junior Plus Special Edition has better bass control, a smidge more detail and is more refined than the Amphetamine Mark III Junior Plus that I heard 5 years ago on a completely different system in a completely differnt house with completely different music"

I also get the people that come in and say "I'd like to hear that NAD CD player" and I say "sure, let me pull it out for you to take home" and they say "no, it's okay, I can tell on your system" and I say "well, you can't *really*, but I'd be glad to play it for you".  Fortunately for me, my demo system is generally better than theirs, so they hear the sound and buy the player, but how anyone can think they can hear the sound of one item though the sound of different speakers, ancillaries and room is beyond me.  

[MaxCast]

....but how anyone can think they can hear the sound of one item though the sound of different speakers, ancillaries and room is beyond me.

Exaaactly!

[Mal P]

*Sniff* It's great to come to a forum where people have... common sense! Ahhhh.

Sincerely,
Mal

[John Casler]

*Sniff* It's great to come to a forum where people have... common sense! Ahhhh.

Sincerely,
Mal

Hi Mal,

Welcome to AC.  

Stick around, we do "lose it" sometimes    (common sense that is)

[lgeis]

Well, I don't know about all that, but I would like to relate a test experience of my own.

After purchasing some expensive Vandersteens, which according to the higher echelons of audio gear review (a position established in part by Vandersteen's own advertising dollars) are extremely desirable, I decided to run my own tweak reviews. I based my methodologies upon conventional wisdoms of the day.

While the 'Steens are know for sounding "sweet," I wanted to determine if there was potential for more "sweetness." After all, if some is good, would not more be even better? I listened critically to the song "Sweet Emotion" by Aerosmith, then dissolved some pure cane sugar and some powdered sugar in separate pots of water. I sprayed the solutions upon the midrange cones of the 'Steens and let it dry into a crystalline coating: Granular sugar on the left and powdered sugar on the right. True to reason, the speakers sounded sweeter, although I am hesitant to conclude that the change was a technical improvement. The left speaker (granular) did seem to have a sharper, more defined nature. The right speaker (powdered) seemed a bit cloudy and choked.

Encouraged by my newfound ability to make quality transducers perform differently by doing senseless, destructive things to them, I decided to treat the woofers cryogencically. I surely did sense a brittle, fragile nature to the sound following the exercise. I was, of course, unable to provide a subzero ambience for extended playing periods, and was in fact frustrated by the fact that my CD player seemed stuck on "Hot Blooded" by Foreigner.

Wanting to reinstate the booming bass of the pre-cryogenic woofers, I borrowed a truck mounted pumpkin cannon and discharged a round into each of the woofers, within my listening room. This certainly did restore, at least for a portion of a second, the subsonic nature of my beloved 'Steens. However, the local constabulary dedicated much of the next few days of my life to some rather pointless incarceration and review, and I was unable to provide much followup listening.

I understand that tweeters also benefit from various, apparently random "tweaks" and manipultions. High frequencies, being quite directional and therefore critical to a soundstage/spatial presentation, seem natural targets for treatment by very directional, coherent light. Therefore, I acquired a 2,000 watt laser for the afternoon. It took a very short treatment period...perhaps 1/1,500th of a second, and sure enough, the tweeters did emit a most certain effect that distributed quickly and evenly throughout the room. After silencing the fire alarms and resetting circuit breakers, I had to spend some time consoling my family who had decided to take an unanounced vacation to another state...but that's a different story.

In considering the damage to my Vandersteen trophies, which was considerable (due mostly to the effects of the pumpkin cannon treatment), I purchased yet another pair. After all, what is $17K to an audio purist?

Further experiments included the pursuit of a "tight" sound, achieved by wrapping the speakers in shrink wrap and duct tape, a "clarity of detail" best sensed inside of my new hyperbaric room, and a 'bright, but not metallic" high frequency performance established by flooding the speakers with heatlamps while playing "Blinded by the Light" ("wrapped up like a douche in the middle of the night"), which seemed oddly appropriate because it makes absolutely no sense at all.

I also experimented with some issues that are perhaps less acceptable to the high fidelity audio community than those already listed. For example, we sacrificed a selection of chickens, lizards, and small rodents from a neighboring field in a fairly contemporary Wiccan ritual for sonic health, but the odors of the sacrifices necessitated evacuating the listening room and thus cut short our party. Channeling the first pair of Vandersteens (from beyond the landfill, so to speak) only produced mysterious suggestions to pour molten metal onto my neighbor's Thiels and Apogees and then smother them in the processed remains of diseased cattle. This I really couldn't decipher, but I'm relieved that my KEF's escaped mention. Wow...just wait 'til he gets home, though, eh?!

Next: What we do to repair our amplifiers when they sound "flat", and how peanut butter can be used to stabilize turntable platter speeds.

[Zero]

waaaaaaaaaaaaa!! GOLD!!    

[miklorsmith]

Just when you think you've heard it all.  I've tried every EMF/RFI/vibration/chaka/optical/placement/damping/cable/connector/capacitor/basstrap/platter/tonearm/cartridge/cryo/tube/AC/transformer/voodoo tweak and they're all the best I've ever heard, but now I've got a whole new crop of possiblities.

Just what we need around here, fresh talent.  

[kbuzz3]

the highs were detailed but never bright edgy or "etched grainy"

I hate that one

[sts9fan]

"these speakers are very musical sounding"  No shit your playing music through them....

[fabaudio]

Igeis
  Thanks for sharing.
  I await your observations on peanut butter stabilizing turntable platter speeds with much anticipation!