72 posts / 0 new
Last post
busb's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 14/06/2011 - 20:08
Posts: 929
RE: incorrectly matched Ohms?

davedotco wrote:

namefail wrote:

davedotco wrote:

...

As an aside.

Some years ago a loudspeaker manufacturer explained it like this.

"Imagine you go to a concert and find that the band (orchestra whatever) is not very good. You can move your seat elswhere in the hall and the sound changes each time you move, but the quality of the performance stays the same".

 

He may well have said that Dave and I'm sure a gentleman of your experience smelt the BS. I don't see the validity of his proposition comparing Hi-Fi reproduction of recordings to a bunch of under rehearsed asses that can't start and stop at the same time.

 

The designer in question was not being entirely serious, it was a remark made after work and over drinks.

However the idea that you can change the 'sound' without actually changing the 'quality' of the musical playback did actually strike a chord.

Seems perfectly feasible to me as does your clarification. I don't have a problem with with your manufacturer's beer soaked analogy neither!

As an aside, I have trouble with what I consider to be extreme objectivism that all similarly spec'd amps must sound the same - justified by the fact that DB ABX "prove" the case, despite the fact that such tests are always skewed in that they can't prove a false negative, only false positives! I've been banging on about the weakness of such tests - one forum member stated that they were the best we have. How can a faulty methodology be the best we have?! DB ABX tests on whether a wine is red or white fail to differentiate between the two but few believe they taste the same! Many people just don't want to recognise ABX is fairly pointless - it lets the looney flat-earthers off the hook!

CnoEvil's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 8 min ago
Joined: 21/08/2009 - 18:01
Posts: 12579
RE: incorrectly matched Ohms?

....and here's me avoiding this thread 'cause it looked dull.....how wrong was I.

For those who don't already know, I'm with the view that speakers are only as good as the system they're in ie. need a good source and properly driven.

"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we should let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines."  Nelson Pass

davedotco's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 42 min ago
Joined: 24/04/2013 - 10:02
Posts: 3542
RE: incorrectly matched Ohms?

busb wrote:

davedotco wrote:

namefail wrote:

davedotco wrote:

...

As an aside.

Some years ago a loudspeaker manufacturer explained it like this.

"Imagine you go to a concert and find that the band (orchestra whatever) is not very good. You can move your seat elswhere in the hall and the sound changes each time you move, but the quality of the performance stays the same".

 

He may well have said that Dave and I'm sure a gentleman of your experience smelt the BS. I don't see the validity of his proposition comparing Hi-Fi reproduction of recordings to a bunch of under rehearsed asses that can't start and stop at the same time.

 

The designer in question was not being entirely serious, it was a remark made after work and over drinks.

However the idea that you can change the 'sound' without actually changing the 'quality' of the musical playback did actually strike a chord.

Seems perfectly feasible to me as does your clarification. I don't have a problem with with your manufacturer's beer soaked analogy neither!

As an aside, I have trouble with what I consider to be extreme objectivism that all similarly spec'd amps must sound the same - justified by the fact that DB ABX "prove" the case, despite the fact that such tests are always skewed in that they can't prove a false negative, only false positives! I've been banging on about the weakness of such tests - one forum member stated that they were the best we have. How can a faulty methodology be the best we have?! DB ABX tests on whether a wine is red or white fail to differentiate between the two but few believe they taste the same! Many people just don't want to recognise ABX is fairly pointless - it lets the looney flat-earthers off the hook!

As I have said many times, blind testing (conventional or ABX) helps tremendously in 'grounding' peoples opinions, seeing (hearing?) 'night and day differences' virtually disappear when the visual stimulus is removed is a salutary experience for anyone taking part.

This is not to say that amplifiers can not be told apart in blind tests, quite clearly in some cases they can, but the differences are much smaller than most people imagine.

There is the 'other' issue to deal with too, mant people, myself included, think that the 'feel', the communicative qualities of an amplifier can only be truly evaluated over time, yet such scientific experiments that have been carried out suggest very strongly that our hearing memory is not reliable and that we, mostly, simply adapt to the sounds we are used to having lived with them

 

busb's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 14/06/2011 - 20:08
Posts: 929
RE: incorrectly matched Ohms?

davedotco wrote:

busb wrote:

davedotco wrote:

namefail wrote:

davedotco wrote:

...

As an aside.

Some years ago a loudspeaker manufacturer explained it like this.

"Imagine you go to a concert and find that the band (orchestra whatever) is not very good. You can move your seat elswhere in the hall and the sound changes each time you move, but the quality of the performance stays the same".

 

He may well have said that Dave and I'm sure a gentleman of your experience smelt the BS. I don't see the validity of his proposition comparing Hi-Fi reproduction of recordings to a bunch of under rehearsed asses that can't start and stop at the same time.

 

The designer in question was not being entirely serious, it was a remark made after work and over drinks.

However the idea that you can change the 'sound' without actually changing the 'quality' of the musical playback did actually strike a chord.

Seems perfectly feasible to me as does your clarification. I don't have a problem with with your manufacturer's beer soaked analogy neither!

As an aside, I have trouble with what I consider to be extreme objectivism that all similarly spec'd amps must sound the same - justified by the fact that DB ABX "prove" the case, despite the fact that such tests are always skewed in that they can't prove a false negative, only false positives! I've been banging on about the weakness of such tests - one forum member stated that they were the best we have. How can a faulty methodology be the best we have?! DB ABX tests on whether a wine is red or white fail to differentiate between the two but few believe they taste the same! Many people just don't want to recognise ABX is fairly pointless - it lets the looney flat-earthers off the hook!

As I have said many times, blind testing (conventional or ABX) helps tremendously in 'grounding' peoples opinions, seeing (hearing?) 'night and day differences' virtually disappear when the visual stimulus is removed is a salutary experience for anyone taking part.

This is not to say that amplifiers can not be told apart in blind tests, quite clearly in some cases they can, but the differences are much smaller than most people imagine.

There is the 'other' issue to deal with too, mant people, myself included, think that the 'feel', the communicative qualities of an amplifier can only be truly evaluated over time, yet such scientific experiments that have been carried out suggest very strongly that our hearing memory is not reliable and that we, mostly, simply adapt to the sounds we are used to having lived with them

 

I always smile when people say "night & day differences" as much as when that other over-used term: "It sounds like the band is playing in my livingroom!" gets used.

Your "other" issue, I find fascinating. I can remember buying a particular amplifier many years ago. It intially didn't sound much better than the one it replaced. It went out of my mind & I got on with listening to music through it. After a month or two, I noticed aspects of particular LPs I hadn't previously. We pay good money for fairly subtle but still tangible improvements! When is the "running in" of electronics merely acclimatisation to a slightly different presentation? When I hear "improvements" to SQ, I have in the back of my mind just how damned clever our brains are at interpreting sounds & question if it's just imagined.

Vladimir's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 20 min ago
Joined: 26/12/2013 - 19:17
Posts: 1970
RE: incorrectly matched Ohms?

CnoEvil wrote:

....and here's me avoiding this thread 'cause it looked dull.....how wrong was I.

For those who don't already know, I'm with the view that speakers are only as good as the system they're in ie. need a good source and properly driven.

 

// Sources and electronics are only as good as the speakers they output through.

// Speakers are only as good as the source and electronics feeding them.

 

We are speaking the same things here, the chicken or the egg first... pointless?  :?

 

What does make sense is from engineering perspective to ponder which component benefits most from improvements before it hits the wall of marginal returns. Sort of engineering ROI (return on investment). 

In this Hi-Fi debate there are 2 transducers camps, Source first or Speakers first. Electronics camp were almost nonexistent, until valve amps had their recent revival. For SS amps there isn't much you can do except with few of them you can upgrade the PSU. usually its buying a different one or biamping.

In camp Source first they are mostly flat earths with turntables. They all sorted their amps and speakers quickly but they enjoy the masochistic, income burning, loooong fiddling and fine tuning when it comes to their decks. They buy the speakers, position them to the single possible available position in their room (usually the worst for room acoustics) and start upgrading the turntables and phono pre's.

When the source is digital, people go to Speakers first camp for higher ROI. Theres not much you can do here except keep buying different ones.

In the Speakers first camp there are the speaker fetishists, engineering and specs geeks, including "don't forget room acoustics treatment" nags. You can fiddle here as well till you go mental. Spikes, stands, positioning, cables (oh god the cables), cable platforms and other accessories, room treatments, even interchange different speakers if they are mini monitors so you keep more than one pair.

No one ever from the Source first camp ever needed a special listening room. They all usually deport themselves in basements where they can stack wall to wall vinyl shelves. The Speakers first camp break down walls, dedicate special listening rooms etc. 

 

Which path is the right for the original poster of this thread?

 

Irelevant! He has Eltax speakers. Its a no brainer!

CnoEvil's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 8 min ago
Joined: 21/08/2009 - 18:01
Posts: 12579
RE: incorrectly matched Ohms?

Vladimir wrote:

// Sources and electronics are only as good as the speakers they output through.

// Speakers are only as good as the source and electronics feeding them.

We are speaking the same things here, the chicken or the egg first... pointless?  :?

I don't have a black and white view.

The source is very important, but with digital, doesn't need to eat up as big a percentage of the budget as a TT did......and a good streamer, even less than a CDP.

I am not of the view that sticking expensive speakers on a cheap amp is a good idea, and ime sounds a lot worse than cheap speakers on an expensive amp. Common sense and balance is what's needed.

I see 2 sensible approaches.

1. Choose the speakers first and then get an amp to drive them them to their potential, and to your taste.

2. Choose the amp first, which is important if you are into Valves, for example; and then get appropriate speakers that you like the sound of.

- Either approach will be eff'd up with a poor source or in a "poor" room. Conversely, an expensive source won't fully shine in a cheap system.

I'm basically saying that speakers are not necessarily the most important element, but it's the amp/speaker mix that counts (with an appropriate source and in a room that has reasonable acoustics).

"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we should let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines."  Nelson Pass

Vladimir's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 20 min ago
Joined: 26/12/2013 - 19:17
Posts: 1970
RE: incorrectly matched Ohms?

CnoEvil wrote:

I see 2 sensible approaches.

1. Choose the speakers first and then get an amp to drive them them to their potential, and to your taste.

2. Choose the amp first, which is important if you are into Valves, for example; and then get appropriate speakers that you like the sound of.

That's clever, I like it!

 

We should have a poll, Speakers & Rooms Acoustics  vs  Source & Preamps  vs  Amplification. Or just agree with whatever Dave says and ruin his day.  :grin:

CnoEvil's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 8 min ago
Joined: 21/08/2009 - 18:01
Posts: 12579
RE: incorrectly matched Ohms?

Vladimir wrote:

CnoEvil wrote:

I see 2 sensible approaches.

1. Choose the speakers first and then get an amp to drive them them to their potential, and to your taste.

2. Choose the amp first, which is important if you are into Valves, for example; and then get appropriate speakers that you like the sound of.

That's clever, I like it!

 

We should have a poll, Speakers & Rooms Acoustics  vs  Source & Preamps  vs  Amplification. Or just agree with whatever Dave says and ruin his day.  :grin:

Dave for Pope, I say!  :bounce:

"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we should let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines."  Nelson Pass

RobinKidderminster's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 27/05/2009 - 14:24
Posts: 2550
RE: incorrectly matched Ohms?

Pope & King. Sence prevails I say. Simply put, we need a balanced system. Waste of money spending shed loads on an amp if ur using a Dansette multichanger or vikky verky. With a tt system I would 'protect' my vinyl with the best deck/cartridge affordable within my overall final budget but with other sources it doesn't matter which upgrade path you choose. Speakers will (probably) influence the sound more than other things at any given price point so need to be demoed more neccessarily than an amp or player. But positioning and room acoustics are vital considerations giving the need for home demos if possible.

Here endeth the writing.  Smile

Yamaha V2065. MS Mezzo 5.1 Panasonic 42. Sony BD. Garrard 86SB. WD Live TV. SkyHD.

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/home-cinema/lounge-hc-signature-update-bass-traps

 

davedotco's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 42 min ago
Joined: 24/04/2013 - 10:02
Posts: 3542
RE: incorrectly matched Ohms?

CnoEvil wrote:

Vladimir wrote:

CnoEvil wrote:

I see 2 sensible approaches.

1. Choose the speakers first and then get an amp to drive them them to their potential, and to your taste.

2. Choose the amp first, which is important if you are into Valves, for example; and then get appropriate speakers that you like the sound of.

That's clever, I like it!

 

We should have a poll, Speakers & Rooms Acoustics  vs  Source & Preamps  vs  Amplification. Or just agree with whatever Dave says and ruin his day.  :grin:

Dave for Pope, I say!  :bounce:

Some of my pronouncements may be "ex cathedra" but I don't like dressing up.

I'll just tell you what I told the other bloke in the funny red hat, 'get someone else'........ Wink

Vladimir's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 20 min ago
Joined: 26/12/2013 - 19:17
Posts: 1970
RE: incorrectly matched Ohms?

davedotco wrote:

Some of my pronouncements may be "ex cathedra" but I don't like dressing up.

 

Yes, that is the best way.

Pages

Log in or register to post comments