[Dan Banquer]

Since this thread is titled Design Award, and the design award was given to the CLC, I have a question for the "subjectivists" on this forum, and especially the ones participating in this thread.
The general sujectivist belief set appears to be; If it sounds good to me I'll use it and the heck with anything else. Now if that is a generally correct assumption, where do you draw the line, if at all, between the CLC and any other passive or active component?

Enquiring minds want to know!
                 d.b.

[Steve Eddy]

If you're willing to come to my place in CT with a power amp in hand to emulate, then we'll talk. Otherwise, what do you envision as happening with a circuit I'd build?

Why do you need an amp? I already laid out some basic distortion characteristics of a low feedback SET amp.

Who would try it and say if it sounds the same as your amp?

Who said anything about sound? You said you could exactly emulate the distortion characteristics of a low feedback SET amp. Just need distortion measurements to see if you've accomplished it.

Agreed 100 percent. Again, my objection is when products are promoted fraudulently, where the very high prices are justified by nonsense and pseudo-science intended to trick the uneducated. So while I put everything Shunyata makes in that category, I don't do so for an $80,000 car.

So why not just address products that are promoted fraudulently instead of painting "boutique products" with that broad brush?

I'm sure there are. In that case they're just overpriced but not incompetent too.

Isn't it the individual consumer who decides what is "overpriced"?

But it really isn't higher quality. Rather, it's the placebo effect at work. Or comb filtering. Nobody can hear the difference between 0.001 and 0.002 percent distortion. Or between a circuit that's down 0.1 dB at 20 KHz versus another down 0.2 dB there. So in this case even if "quality" can be shown to be higher, it's irrelevant.

So you mean a low feedback SET amp doesn't sound any different than your professional amps?

Yes, I think so. I mean, what else do you think there is?!

Gee, maybe how it sounds? Just for starters.

Still not sure what you're getting at. I'm sure GM did more than "plunk down" some microphones. (Actually Geoff Emerick was the engineer.)

I detailed what I was getting at several posts back with regard to what the recording itself represents. I can't put it any plainer than that so I'll just leave it to speak for itself.

I recently saw a funny quote from Fletcher, one of the more colorful characters in the pro audio forums. Some newbie was asking about toob gear, and Fletcher pointed out that back in the 1960s engineers tried very hard to get away from a "tube" sound. The goal then (as now) was to capture a performance as clearly and cleanly as possible! Over the years since, old audio equipment and technology has become glamorized and even romanticized.

So? As long as you're free to choose whichever path you want, what's the problem?

se

[Steve Eddy]

Since this thread is titled Design Award, and the design award was given to the CLC, I have a question for the "subjectivists" on this forum, and especially the ones participating in this thread.
The general sujectivist belief set appears to be; If it sounds good to me I'll use it and the heck with anything else. Now if that is a generally correct assumption, where do you draw the line, if at all, between the CLC and any other passive or active component?

I stick just to what's needed to play music.

se

[Daygloworange]

I've often wondered where I fall in the subjectivist/objectivist camp. Over the years, what I've found is that generally the things that are reportedly good sounding and good measuring, are what I gravitate towards. But that is not a steadfast rule. I've pretty much always used my ears as the ultimate judge.

I draw the line when something makes claims that I see as having no logical reason to matter. The CLC scores high on the "are you f*!%ing kidding me?" BS meter. But, if someone were selling a program of relaxation or a mental preparedness exercises aimed at helping me clear my mind to better enjoy my listening experience, that I'd take a whole lot more seriously that a "token" gizmo like the CLC.

Cheers

[miklorsmith]

Nice answer, Dayglow.

First, I don't think subjectivists can be lumped into one convenient group any more than, say, religious people.  Some believe in cables, some don't.  Some believe in The Mighty Power of Clocks, some don't.  Others probably don't find amplifiers to vary much in sound and focus on speakers.  And so on.

The central element is whether you trust what you hear or not.  If a clock makes the listening experience better, a pure subjectivist would weigh the improvement vs. cost and go from there.  A doubting subjectivist might hide the clock and not tell their friends about it.

[Dan Banquer]

Nice answer, Dayglow.

First, I don't think subjectivists can be lumped into one convenient group any more than, say, religious people.  Some believe in cables, some don't.  Some believe in The Mighty Power of Clocks, some don't.  Others probably don't find amplifiers to vary much in sound and focus on speakers.  And so on.

The central element is whether you trust what you hear or not.  If a clock makes the listening experience better, a pure subjectivist would weigh the improvement vs. cost and go from there.  A doubting subjectivist might hide the clock and not tell their friends about it.

If I interpret your post as anything goes if it makes the "listening experience better"  is that a fair interpretation?

                                        d.b.

[Daygloworange]

The central element is whether you trust what you hear or not.  If a clock makes the listening experience better, a pure subjectivist would weigh the improvement vs. cost and go from there.  A doubting subjectivist might hide the clock and not tell their friends about it.

I trust what I hear, as well as what I don't hear. I've played around a little bit with IC's, PC's, and SC's. I haven't heard a difference as of yet. I trust that. But that doesn't mean I don't trust other people actually hearing a difference. I also believe that it's possible that with other components I might one day, hear differences. It doesn't keep me up at night, but an area of potential discovery that I find entertaining.

Music is my number one thing. The audio thing is a hobby.

Cheers

[aerius]

The way I see it is this, ideally, the equipment, whatever it may be, will measure well and sound great. 

However I think many of us can agree that this isn't always the case, sometimes gear will measure like crap and still sound good or it may measure well and still sound like poo, and that's where we have a problem.  The first questions of course are "are we hearing right?" and "are we measuring the right things?" and unfortunately there's no easy universal answer for this, each of us will have to make our own individual judgement calls based on our value systems and priorities.  One person might say "it sounds good so screw the measurements", another will go "I don't care how it sounds, it measures good", while yet another will say "ok, it sounds good and measures bad, so if I can fix it up and make it measure well it'll sound great", and of course there's a million different degrees & variations on the above.

Do measurements tell the whole story?  I honestly don't know, but they can tell you a lot, for example why many 300B amps have rolled off treble, poorly controlled bass, an overly rich midrange, and lots of distortion.  That's what happens when you use an underpowered tube to drive the 300B output tube, the driver tube can't pass the full audio bandwidth, it can't swing enough current & voltage, and it saturates & soft clips causing all kinds of distortion.  And you can measure all that by moving the test probes through each stage of the circuit to see where things go wrong.

So at the end of the day, where do I sit?  I want my system to sound good, to me.  If it doesn't measure well then I want to know the why and how so that I can gain a better understanding of my gear and hopefully make it sound better.  If it sounds bad but measures great, I don't want it since frankly I don't have the patience to put up with subpar sound while I try to figure out what's going on.  As for the CLC, frankly I have much bigger problems in my system to fix.  Besides, it's an ugly piece of crap, if I want a clock, it damn well better look like it's worth $200, it ought to be heavy, well built, and made of solid shiny metal.

[miklorsmith]

If I interpret your post as anything goes if it makes the "listening experience better"  is that a fair interpretation?

Well, almost, stuff like a comfyer chair would enhance the experience without providing better sound.  Each person must draw their own lines.  For me, I would question my sanity for some time before I subscribed to the clock.  Even more accepted stuff like wires and vibration control are further down the list for me.  Once I get my system really dialed to where I both Know it and Love it I'll start experimenting but my rig's been in constant flux for a long time and any of these minor changes would be like shifting chairs on the Titanic.

But, some folks live for the stuff and if that's how they best enjoy the hobby, more power to 'em - as long as it's not too high on my ridiculometer.   

[HiFiSoundGuy]

  You can get these clever little clocks for a lot cheaper over on the Audiogon Auctions, they don't have any for auction right now but sometimes you can get them for way under $100  http://buy.audiogon.com/cgia/fsb.pl?accstwek  If anyone does try these clocks be sure to try out the upgrades, putting memory foil on the battery in the clocks http://ubb.outlawaudio.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/ubb/get_topic/f/3/t/000113/p/7.html 

[macrojack]

hifisoundguy - You are relentless and rude. In case you haven't noticed this is an exchange of ideas and opinions. You are using it as a commercial venue. None of us seem to know who you are or what your stake in this could possibly be but I would vote to have you barred if anyone asked me. My reason for saying this is simple. You are ignoring us and our opinions while relentlessly pandering with your unwanted and unwarranted claims. You do not answer questions and you not honor the validity of our majority. You should be kicked off the island along with your clock.
Go get your foot out of the door and go find another neighborhood to worsen.

[Steve Eddy]

Awww c'mon, relax. He's harmless. He's had what, three or four posts in this entire 22 page thread? And look at the good discussions that have ultimately come of it.

Who was the last one with the bong? Load 'er up and pass it along to microjack here. 

se

[rollo]

I'll second that!

rollo

[Ethan Winer]

Steve,

> Why do you need an amp? I already laid out some basic distortion characteristics of a low feedback SET amp. <

Who is going to determine if I'm successful or not, and how? A listening test? That's too prone to error.

> So why not just address products that are promoted fraudulently instead of painting "boutique products" with that broad brush? <

Agreed, but with my consumerism caveat. If you don't mind paying $2,000 for something that is audibly identical to something else that costs only $50, that's fine with me.

> So you mean a low feedback SET amp doesn't sound any different than your professional amps? <

Not if both have a flat enough response and all artifacts sufficiently below the signal level. In that case they will sound the same by definition.

> Gee, maybe how it sounds? Just for starters. <

That's where the comb filtering comes in. This is one of those cases where "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof." The notion that some mysterious and as yet unknown audio parameter than can be heard but not measured is surely an extraordinary claim!

In case I wasn't clear enough earlier I'll state it again: I have no problem with someone buying whatever they want for however much it costs. The people I feel obliged to advise are those who are looking for honest and accurate information about what matters with audio gear and what does not matter. If someone comes to me and says they've heard that speaker cables make a difference, but they don't have enough education or personal experience to separate truth from nonsense, and they need to spend their money wisely, I'll tell them to skip the expensive cables every time. And I'll explain why as clearly and unemotionally as I can.

--Ethan

[Steve Eddy]

Who is going to determine if I'm successful or not, and how? A listening test? That's too prone to error.

No. As I said, I laid out the basic distortion characteristics of such an amp, so determining if you're successful or not should not require anything more than some basic measurements.

Not if both have a flat enough response and all artifacts sufficiently below the signal level. In that case they will sound the same by definition.

Ok, I guess I wasn't too clear. We need to backtrack here.

This stems from my asking if a product sounds better to someone if that wasn't a gauge of quality.

You replied saying it really isn't higher quality. That it's the placebo effect or comb filtering.

My reply was somewhat facetious.

We'd been talking about low feedback SET amps which can unarguably have actual audible differences. However you stated that the only reasons why someone would perceive a difference is by way of the placebo effect or comb filtering. That prompted me to ask if you were saying low feedback SET amps sounded the same as your professional amps.

So let me go back and rephrase the question.

If a low feedback SET amplifier with "bad" enough objective performance to actually be audible sounds better to a given person over your professional amplifiers, is that not a gauge of quality insofar as the listener is concerned?

That's where the comb filtering comes in.

Comb filtering in what?

This is one of those cases where "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof."

I don't see that "extraordinary claims" demand proof any more extraordinary than anything else.

The notion that some mysterious and as yet unknown audio parameter than can be heard but not measured is surely an extraordinary claim!

Sure. And the onus is on them to prove their claim. But I don't see that the proof need be any more extraordinary than that used to prove any other actual audible difference.

se

[miklorsmith]

Sure. And the onus is on them to prove their claim.

Almost, the onus for proof is on whoever's not invoking the need for it.  Just ask anybody who waves it around.

[Ethan Winer]

Steve,

> No. As I said, I laid out the basic distortion characteristics of such an amp, so determining if you're successful or not should not require anything more than some basic measurements.[/quote]

So now measurements are acceptable as proof?

> If a low feedback SET amplifier with "bad" enough objective performance to actually be audible sounds better to a given person over your professional amplifiers, is that not a gauge of quality insofar as the listener is concerned? <

Not really! If someone prefers the sound of an amplifier that has obvious distortion or some other such anomaly, I'd say that person needs better ear training.

> Comb filtering in what? <

www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html

--Ethan

[Steve Eddy]

So now measurements are acceptable as proof?

Yes, measurements are acceptable proof of a claim to be able to reproduce the distortion characteristics of a low feedback SET amplifier.

Not really! If someone prefers the sound of an amplifier that has obvious distortion or some other such anomaly, I'd say that person needs better ear training.

Hmmm. So subjective preference has no place in your world? Ideally we should all be part of some single-minded Borg collective when it comes to preference? And those whose preferences may be different will be assimila... er, I mean "trained" to like it?

www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html

Thanks.

se

[Daygloworange]

Hmmm. So subjective preference has no place in your world? Ideally we should all be part of some single-minded Borg collective when it comes to preference? And those whose preferences may be different will be assimila... er, I mean "trained" to like it?

Everyone is entitled to my opinion, is what I'm saying.....

Cheers

[miklorsmith]

Then there are those incorrigible types that just can't be broken of their bad habits no matter how many times they're called deaf and stupid - a sad state of affairs.