- May 20, 2014
- 3,043
- 3,712
- 148
- HiFi Trade?
-
- No
I agree, and would like to think it was aimed at the customer who was being bamboozled by measurement filled reviews. I recall doing a demo of a Linn speaker to a customer, who expressed surprise at how good they sounded to him, as the magazine review in his hand had told him he wouldn’t like them… He left, very confused, but came back to buy them.
’troll
Clearly not.
Reminds me of the Picasso anecdote:
A guy is riding in the first-class cabin of a train in Spain and to his delight, he notices that he is sitting next to Pablo Picasso. Gathering up his courage, he turns to the master and says,
“Senor Picasso, you are a great artist, but why is all your art, all modern art, so screwed up? Why don’t you paint reality instead of all these distortions?”
Picasso hesitates for a moment and asks, “So what do you think reality looks like?”
The man grabs his wallet and pulls out a picture of his wife. “Here, like this. It’s my wife.”
Picasso takes the photograph, looks at it, and grins. “Really? She’s very small. And flat, too.”
There may be some people here who think that engineers can design this stuff without measuring. Measuring is essential to engineering. Also, end users have no business measuring (none do). Reviewer shouldn't
I think that the whole "measurement vs listening" debate is very much a case of personal preference. To clarify, on investigation of a question on another thread, I came across this:
https://www.stereophile.com/content...fier-klimax-twin-power-amplifier-measurements
It related to a certain extent to my system, however, I will freely admit that I barely understood any of it (to paraphrase Red Dwarf - "I was with you all the way 'til Simply").
That's not to denigrate any of us who place emphasis on technical measurements, nor those of us who (for whatever reason) rely on our ears alone. For me, I'd love to try to gain a greater understanding of the technicalities but I recognise my own limitations of brainpower and time, so have to fall back on just what sounds good.
https://www.stereophile.com/content...fier-klimax-twin-power-amplifier-measurements
It related to a certain extent to my system, however, I will freely admit that I barely understood any of it (to paraphrase Red Dwarf - "I was with you all the way 'til Simply").
That's not to denigrate any of us who place emphasis on technical measurements, nor those of us who (for whatever reason) rely on our ears alone. For me, I'd love to try to gain a greater understanding of the technicalities but I recognise my own limitations of brainpower and time, so have to fall back on just what sounds good.
Linn's marketing department does a pretty fine job selling what their engineering department produces. The fact that they can sell god knows how many upgraded Karousel bearings (among other upgrades) and make a "thing" out of it, displays pretty awesome aligned corporate synergy.
I think that the overwhelming majority of hifi listeners do not understand much electronic science. When I had my stereo store in Vermont, USA I called it Scientific Stereo. But I have virtually no scientific training or knowledge so I'm necessarily confined to listening. But some of us illiterates can lead happy and useful lives.
On the other hand listening back and forth is a type of science. We had a facility to switch between any two pairs of speakers and even switch amplifiers keeping everything else constant.
All that is necessary to compare interconnects is two identical CDs and two identical CD players wired to different inputs on an integrated amplifier. We'd let the customer do the switching without knowing what cable (or amplifier) they were comparing.
The problem of measurements is that I don't know which measurements are relevant. There probably are measurements that ought to be interpreted in tandem with each other but I have no idea.
So the vast majority are subjectivists by necessity. To try to educate us in a few minutes is futile and would lead to gross oversimplification. Someone who tries educating the illiterate in a few minutes is likely to be a charlatan. If he knows some science he also know that acquiring and applying that knowledge takes years.
There used to be a useless magazine called Stereo Review. Every review was a rave review. They made much of measurements. Even I was able to perceive that this is nonsense. Over the years some of us illiterates discover reviewers and magazines that we trust.
An argument between two scientifically literate individuals about which measurements are important would not be enlightening to the scientifically illiterate. How could we know who is right, if anybody?
Best,
John Hirsch
On the other hand listening back and forth is a type of science. We had a facility to switch between any two pairs of speakers and even switch amplifiers keeping everything else constant.
All that is necessary to compare interconnects is two identical CDs and two identical CD players wired to different inputs on an integrated amplifier. We'd let the customer do the switching without knowing what cable (or amplifier) they were comparing.
The problem of measurements is that I don't know which measurements are relevant. There probably are measurements that ought to be interpreted in tandem with each other but I have no idea.
So the vast majority are subjectivists by necessity. To try to educate us in a few minutes is futile and would lead to gross oversimplification. Someone who tries educating the illiterate in a few minutes is likely to be a charlatan. If he knows some science he also know that acquiring and applying that knowledge takes years.
There used to be a useless magazine called Stereo Review. Every review was a rave review. They made much of measurements. Even I was able to perceive that this is nonsense. Over the years some of us illiterates discover reviewers and magazines that we trust.
An argument between two scientifically literate individuals about which measurements are important would not be enlightening to the scientifically illiterate. How could we know who is right, if anybody?
Best,
John Hirsch
I have Akurate Radikal. The construction of the Akurate case represents a light construction compared to the Klimax case, which allows a more attractive price. I tried Akurate with the housing in reverse position on 3 plastic feet of 3cm diameter, all perfectly stable, I found this better; I also tested with the housing in normal position with a granite plate on the cover, I find the result similar with the inverted Akurate. I have found that when the cover plate is firmly wedged: either when it rests on feet, or normally positioned but with an anti-vibration plate on the cover, the listening is more accurate.
It seems normal that the 10kg solid aluminum Klimax box is better on its feet than on the ground. The shape of the Klimax imposes the fixing of the circuits in the upper part of the case.
It seems normal that the 10kg solid aluminum Klimax box is better on its feet than on the ground. The shape of the Klimax imposes the fixing of the circuits in the upper part of the case.
Inside an Akurate DSM, the power cable sits in a metal trough along the side of the casing. A couple of years ago I gently eased the cable out of this trough so it wasn't in contact with it. The cable is stiff enough to stay put in this position. I then slid the casing back on, ensuring the cable didn't touch it. After I made this change to my 2013 Akurate DSM there was a noticeable improvement in every aspect of SQ
I first tried this when I had a 2013 Klimax DSM for home dem that a dealer was keen to have me upgrade to. Before I made the adjustment the Klimax DSM was clearly superior to the Akurate DSM. But I didn't upgrade in the end because after making the adjustment to the Akurate DSM and listening blind, I was hard pushed to tell the difference the two and didn't feel the Klimax DSM was worth the extra cost.
Perhaps its possible to do a similar thing to a Klimax DSM but I've never looked inside one.
However, even if you can, I suspect the relative improvement in SQ will be greater with an Akurate DSM because of the flimsier casing.
I've never looked inside an Akurate or Klimax Radikal but it might be worth trying this tip to see if the improvement is similar to or better than you get from inverting the Akurate Radikal or placing a weight on top?
I first tried this when I had a 2013 Klimax DSM for home dem that a dealer was keen to have me upgrade to. Before I made the adjustment the Klimax DSM was clearly superior to the Akurate DSM. But I didn't upgrade in the end because after making the adjustment to the Akurate DSM and listening blind, I was hard pushed to tell the difference the two and didn't feel the Klimax DSM was worth the extra cost.
Perhaps its possible to do a similar thing to a Klimax DSM but I've never looked inside one.
However, even if you can, I suspect the relative improvement in SQ will be greater with an Akurate DSM because of the flimsier casing.
I've never looked inside an Akurate or Klimax Radikal but it might be worth trying this tip to see if the improvement is similar to or better than you get from inverting the Akurate Radikal or placing a weight on top?
As already noted in this thread listening to music at home is, or should be, about enjoyment not measurements. But there have to be some objective criteria when designing a piece of gear and then the measurements to show the goal is achieved so Linn's banana is pure marketing. Even though most are subjectivists it seems we all want to know how something works and what makes it special so there will always be a technical story and I suspect that deep down subjectivists still want their equipment to be 'objectively good' because if they chose it, it must be 'good'.
If you can read the graphs in Stereophile you will realize that there is little correlation between good measured performance and good subjective performance. That said, pretty much everything gets well reviewed to the point that the measurements seem pretty futile but every now and again a piece of gear is especially noteworthy for how bad the measurements are but the subjective review is excellant (I feel sorry for JA trying to explain those discrepancies). This could mean that measurements don't tell the whole story - maybe so as there is no specification for human hearing though a lot of things are known. Or, it could mean that uneven frequency response plus a pinch of distortion is actually preferred. Is something better because it can pass through some quintessence of the signal that was there all along but not transmitted or is it because it adds something (noise or distortion) to the signal that makes it sound nicer? I think the latter is more likely. What if accurate and truly transparent reproduction is actually bland and we all like a bit of spice.
Let's take vinyl - as this is the LP12 forum. LP playback is rife with distortion, orders of magnitude larger than that added by amplifiers. Speakers are similar and this to me is the elephant in the listening room that the distortion is so high no one talks about it. Except HFN&RR who do publish distortion measurements of cartridges where a typical cartridge produces ~1% distortion up to 1kHz from where it climbs to ~10% at 10kHz (I don't know the details of their measurement set-up but I think it fair to assume we all get similar amounts from our rigs at home). That distortion is probably mostly 2nd and 3rd that are said to be relatively benign or even beneficial in that large amounts of low order distortion are not that audible in themselves but can mask more objectionable higher orders of distortion (this is one hearing mechanism that is understood).
In summary, you have to measure something to know that it does what you intended. Most manufacturers talk about voicing and, perhaps, tweaking with things after they are objectively correct yields something subjectively better. I would hope that measurements are made after voicing to show what changed and that might tell a story, though I would not expect a manufacturer to tell their secrets. Or, perhaps, it is all hype to spin a story about how the gear is properly designed and then black magic is added to make it sound special. I recently swapped from Cirkus to Karousel and am so happy with the result. I'd like to think Linn knew what to improve and could measure something to show the improvement was made. Or did they do a design of experiments of different bearings and picked the one they liked best? Or was it some combination of the two? At least, I hope no bananas were involved.
Regards,
13th Charlatan of Wymbourne
Or perhaps bamboozeled by the subjectivists' meaningless, hyperbole-filled, advertiser-supported, reviews?
Regarding OP again, there is definitely something about microphony. A rigid and shielded case for electronics is probably better than a thin sheet metal case. Did not Naim "prove" this long time ago? A second factor is the support, and it is probably many ways to introduce unwanted vibrations into circuit boards, if done wrongly (try to place it directly on the floor, you should hear a massive degradement of both music and sound). A third point is power supply, personally I am sceptical of switched PS, since I suspect they create more trouble than benefits. All of this are normally not measurable (or hard to measure), still these effects are clearly there. Hence it is easier to "just listen" if it is better or worse (the old banana, again) If you dont hear it, well then you dont have to bother about it
I have been doing this for years with the Akurate Radikal internal power cable as it does indeed make an improvement. But flipping the ARadikal over still improves things with the loose cable positioning. And the Klimax Radikal is still the most musical. The internal power cable in the KRadikal can not easily be positioned in open space as it goes through a machined channel, but it is not as tightly pressed into that channel as the ARadikal cable is. Then again there may be other options?
It was probably some combination of the two, but at least in the past they always listened to a number of possibilities, often a large number, and used the one that was most tuneful.
Definitely agree, at least as far as tubes are concerned. This was a well known phenomenon and it was also measurable. Whether this is the same for solid state electronics, interconnects, speaker cables, etc, I cant say.
Re: rigid and "shielded" for Naim equipment. This was well known at the time (my dealer said I was not the first who mentioned it to him) but I used to hear stray FM radio signals through my speakers when I had my Naim amp/preamp combo.
I'm sure you weren't the first to mention it to him. For years Naim worked on their NAT01 FM tuner before it came out. The running joke during the development time was that Naim already had a tuner - the NAC32!
Context is everything. For those not familiar with the "Lemon" ad, it was Linn's response to the type ad that Sony and Philips were using to promote the CD. Here is an example that makes the reference clear.
Attachments
Similar threads
