Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
Whilst googling I happened across this slide-show presented
at the University of Texas at Austin as part of an engineering seminar series in 2001, presented by one Dr. THomas D. Kite of AudioPrecision Inc. -- thought it might be of interest to some he "Debunking Audio Myths: Directional cables, tube amplifiers, and analog vs. digital" http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminar...AudioMyths.pdf -- -S. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Whilst googling I happened across this slide-show presented at the University of Texas at Austin as part of an engineering seminar series in 2001, presented by one Dr. THomas D. Kite of AudioPrecision Inc. -- thought it might be of interest to some he "Debunking Audio Myths: Directional cables, tube amplifiers, and analog vs. digital" http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminar...AudioMyths.pdf Excellent synopsis. Thanks. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
Not bad but I have two comments.
One - does this person actually listen to and love music or is he just annoyed by esoterica... Two - I think it is shortsighted to state that diminishing returns on speakers set in at $1500. In my personal experience I have listened to speakers that were absolutely worth the 8K/pair asking price and markedly improved over plenty of less expensive ones. However...I've seldom heard much more expensive ones (15K~40K) that seemed worth the price of a new car. "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message . net... Whilst googling I happened across this slide-show presented at the University of Texas at Austin as part of an engineering seminar series in 2001, presented by one Dr. THomas D. Kite of AudioPrecision Inc. -- thought it might be of interest to some he "Debunking Audio Myths: Directional cables, tube amplifiers, and analog vs. digital" http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminar...AudioMyths.pdf -- -S. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
Unfortunately we are not comparing speakers to automobiles, so a
speaker that is $15k-40k can be signifcantly better than one that is 8k as well. That $32k buys a lot of volume and surface area as well as machinery or man hours to work it. - Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "S. Brook" wrote in message ... Not bad but I have two comments. One - does this person actually listen to and love music or is he just annoyed by esoterica... Two - I think it is shortsighted to state that diminishing returns on speakers set in at $1500. In my personal experience I have listened to speakers that were absolutely worth the 8K/pair asking price and markedly improved over plenty of less expensive ones. However...I've seldom heard much more expensive ones (15K~40K) that seemed worth the price of a new car. "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message . net... Whilst googling I happened across this slide-show presented at the University of Texas at Austin as part of an engineering seminar series in 2001, presented by one Dr. THomas D. Kite of AudioPrecision Inc. -- thought it might be of interest to some he "Debunking Audio Myths: Directional cables, tube amplifiers, and analog vs. digital" http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminar...l/AudioMyths.p df -- -S. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
Agreed, speakers and cars are apples and lawnmowers. However...I think the
difference between 10K speakers and 40K speakers is better spent on room customization and season tickets to the philharmonic - if you are lucky enough to live near a 1st tier philharmonic orchestra. JMHO ;-) "Uptown Audio" wrote in message ... Unfortunately we are not comparing speakers to automobiles, so a speaker that is $15k-40k can be signifcantly better than one that is 8k as well. That $32k buys a lot of volume and surface area as well as machinery or man hours to work it. - Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "S. Brook" wrote in message ... Not bad but I have two comments. One - does this person actually listen to and love music or is he just annoyed by esoterica... Two - I think it is shortsighted to state that diminishing returns on speakers set in at $1500. In my personal experience I have listened to speakers that were absolutely worth the 8K/pair asking price and markedly improved over plenty of less expensive ones. However...I've seldom heard much more expensive ones (15K~40K) that seemed worth the price of a new car. "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message . net... Whilst googling I happened across this slide-show presented at the University of Texas at Austin as part of an engineering seminar series in 2001, presented by one Dr. THomas D. Kite of AudioPrecision Inc. -- thought it might be of interest to some he "Debunking Audio Myths: Directional cables, tube amplifiers, and analog vs. digital" http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminar...l/AudioMyths.p df -- -S. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
With my budget I could not agree with you more. If I were more well
heeled, a set of full-range, super high fidelity speakers would make as much sense to me as a new automobile. Perhaps more as I enjoy music and they would last a lot longer than a car with no worries about collisions with idiots! I have heard some pretty amazing speaker sets. It is an awesome experience to be before a pair of Utopia or Kingdom speakers. I have also heard the 7' tall Evidence, which was pretty cool as well, if not quite as earth shaking. We all have to make choices based upon our values and circumstances; some of us just have a few more options! - Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "S. Brook" wrote in message ... Agreed, speakers and cars are apples and lawnmowers. However...I think the difference between 10K speakers and 40K speakers is better spent on room customization and season tickets to the philharmonic - if you are lucky enough to live near a 1st tier philharmonic orchestra. JMHO ;-) "Uptown Audio" wrote in message ... Unfortunately we are not comparing speakers to automobiles, so a speaker that is $15k-40k can be signifcantly better than one that is 8k as well. That $32k buys a lot of volume and surface area as well as machinery or man hours to work it. - Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "S. Brook" wrote in message ... Not bad but I have two comments. One - does this person actually listen to and love music or is he just annoyed by esoterica... Two - I think it is shortsighted to state that diminishing returns on speakers set in at $1500. In my personal experience I have listened to speakers that were absolutely worth the 8K/pair asking price and markedly improved over plenty of less expensive ones. However...I've seldom heard much more expensive ones (15K~40K) that seemed worth the price of a new car. "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message . net... Whilst googling I happened across this slide-show presented at the University of Texas at Austin as part of an engineering seminar series in 2001, presented by one Dr. THomas D. Kite of AudioPrecision Inc. -- thought it might be of interest to some he "Debunking Audio Myths: Directional cables, tube amplifiers, and analog vs. digital" http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminar...l/AudioMyths.p df -- -S. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
S. Brook wrote:
Not bad but I have two comments. One - does this person actually listen to and love music or is he just annoyed by esoterica... Ad hominem argument noted and file appropriately. (And gee whiz, could a devotion to *esoterica* be a mark of an audiophile as well? A perusal of any issue of any audiophile mag would seem to indicate the answer is *yes*.) Two - I think it is shortsighted to state that diminishing returns on speakers set in at $1500. In my personal experience I have listened to speakers that were absolutely worth the 8K/pair asking price and markedly improved over plenty of less expensive ones. However...I've seldom heard much more expensive ones (15K~40K) that seemed worth the price of a new car. But the question is, *as a rule*, will 8K speakers tend to be a marked improvement over $1500 ones. I don't know, myself, not having had a chance to audition many properly. -- -S. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
Uptown Audio wrote:
Unfortunately we are not comparing speakers to automobiles, so a speaker that is $15k-40k can be signifcantly better than one that is 8k as well. That $32k buys a lot of volume and surface area as well as machinery or man hours to work it. Again, the issue as I understood it from the presentation is not whether spending more *could* result in getting a 'better' speaker, based on objective measurements -- an occurrence no one would deny is possible. It's whether it's *likely to* have that result, beyond a certain price point ($1500 in this case), by *objective* criteria of audio performance. Mr. Kite, whose company appears to specialize in audio equipment measuring devices, seems to think not. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
I don't believe that anyone who has heard a pair of the speakers that
I mentioned really gives a rat's tail about what mr kite thinks. It is not even remotely logical to argue what *could* result or is *likely to* result in a better speaker at those prices either objectively or subjectively as many designs have proven to be both. You should hear them for yourself or reserve comment for others that have. - Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Uptown Audio wrote: Unfortunately we are not comparing speakers to automobiles, so a speaker that is $15k-40k can be signifcantly better than one that is 8k as well. That $32k buys a lot of volume and surface area as well as machinery or man hours to work it. Again, the issue as I understood it from the presentation is not whether spending more *could* result in getting a 'better' speaker, based on objective measurements -- an occurrence no one would deny is possible. It's whether it's *likely to* have that result, beyond a certain price point ($1500 in this case), by *objective* criteria of audio performance. Mr. Kite, whose company appears to specialize in audio equipment measuring devices, seems to think not. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
But the question is, *as a rule*, will 8K speakers tend to be a
marked improvement over $1500 ones. I don't know, myself, not having had a chance to audition many properly. Why would one bother with such *rules* except to feel better about their speakers on a budget? If one really wants to know if they may or may not like any particular speakers they need to listen to them. Then they need to decide if they are worth the money. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
Uptown Audio wrote:
I don't believe that anyone who has heard a pair of the speakers that I mentioned really gives a rat's tail about what mr kite thinks. It is not even remotely logical to argue what *could* result or is *likely to* result in a better speaker at those prices either objectively or subjectively as many designs have proven to be both. You should hear them for yourself or reserve comment for others that have. Gosh. If you read my post carefully, you'd see thtat I was relating my understanding of what Mr. Kite wrote, not what I have experienced. So, how do you know Mr. Kite *hasn't* heard them? And why does the idea that speakers above $1500 might display diminishing returns, in terms of OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE -- which is the idea I believe Mr. Kite is promoting -- set you off? ___ -S. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
. net... Whilst googling I happened across this slide-show presented at the University of Texas at Austin as part of an engineering seminar series in 2001, presented by one Dr. THomas D. Kite of AudioPrecision Inc. -- thought it might be of interest to some he "Debunking Audio Myths: Directional cables, tube amplifiers, and analog vs. digital" http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminar...AudioMyths.pdf -- -S. I wonder how much he has looked into the area he debunks. Myth 12 about directional cables is wrong. There are directional cables in that one end does not have a connection to the shield. I have not reason to accept that these directional cables work, but they do exist and should be debunked properly. Oversights like this can destroy the credibility of his other pontifical statements. Another person implied that he claimed that there was little improvement over $1500K on loudspeakers. He actually said that $1500K was where dramatic improvements ended, not that all improvements ended. On the whole, I tend to agree with many of his statements, but begin wondering when there are statements of fact that are based on an incorrect understanding of what is being marketed. Dave |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
S888Wheel wrote:
But the question is, *as a rule*, will 8K speakers tend to be a marked improvement over $1500 ones. I don't know, myself, not having had a chance to audition many properly. Why would one bother with such *rules* except to feel better about their speakers on a budget? I guess that applies to the 'rule' that more expensive speakers tend to sound better -- whihc is implicit in audiophilia and in Mr. Uptown Audio's reply, for example -- eh? If one really wants to know if they may or may not like any particular speakers they need to listen to them. Then they need to decide if they are worth the money. Again, Mr Kite , who apparently maks a living doign audio measurment, appears to me to be talking a btou *OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE* as it relates to price. Of course, whether a speaker is 'worht the money' may depend on non-objective data as well. ANd lsitening in store does not necessarily give a good idea of what speakers will sound like at home, nor is it always , or even commonly, possible to audition speakers at home. Therefore some sort of 'rules' can be helpful. So, what's your beef? -- -S. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
harrison wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message . net... Whilst googling I happened across this slide-show presented at the University of Texas at Austin as part of an engineering seminar series in 2001, presented by one Dr. THomas D. Kite of AudioPrecision Inc. -- thought it might be of interest to some he "Debunking Audio Myths: Directional cables, tube amplifiers, and analog vs. digital" http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminar...AudioMyths.pdf -- -S. I wonder how much he has looked into the area he debunks. Myth 12 about directional cables is wrong. There are directional cables in that one end does not have a connection to the shield. I have not reason to accept that these directional cables work, but they do exist and should be debunked properly. Oversights like this can destroy the credibility of his other pontifical statements. It's a slide show....one might expect he ex[pands on the points in the actual talk. Another person implied that he claimed that there was little improvement over $1500K on loudspeakers. He actually said that $1500K was where dramatic improvements ended, not that all improvements ended. Exactly. He's talkign abotu diminishign returns on objective measures of performance, if I read him correctly. On the whole, I tend to agree with many of his statements, but begin wondering when there are statements of fact that are based on an incorrect understanding of what is being marketed. I htink you're expecting too much from a posting of *bullet points*. -- -S. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
Steven said
But the question is, *as a rule*, will 8K speakers tend to be a marked improvement over $1500 ones. I don't know, myself, not having had a chance to audition many properly. I said Why would one bother with such *rules* except to feel better about their speakers on a budget? Steven said I guess that applies to the 'rule' that more expensive speakers tend to sound better -- whihc is implicit in audiophilia and in Mr. Uptown Audio's reply, for example -- eh? That wasn't my read of what he meant. What you are saying he said would just amount to another rule of thumb that would have no use for someone who might actually be considering where to draw the line with his or her budget. I said If one really wants to know if they may or may not like any particular speakers they need to listen to them. Then they need to decide if they are worth the money. Again, Mr Kite , who apparently maks a living doign audio measurment, appears to me to be talking a btou *OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE* as it relates to price. Yes he is. But most people buy speakers to listen to them not to measure them. Steven said Of course, whether a speaker is 'worht the money' may depend on non-objective data as well. Agreed. Whole heartedly. Steven said ANd lsitening in store does not necessarily give a good idea of what speakers will sound like at home, Very much agreed. Steven said nor is it always , or even commonly, possible to audition speakers at home. Not commonly? I have yet to run into this problem ever. Steven said Therefore some sort of 'rules' can be helpful. I think such a rule of thumb is more likely to be misleading than helpful. It could discourage someone from considering speakers that they may think are well worth the extra money were they to here them at home. Steven said So, what's your beef? Rules of thumb on diminishing returns. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
I htink you're expecting too much from a posting of *bullet points*.
-- -S. Not really. I have to make up similar charts as part of my work. These were not good, having semi-truths in them. Dave |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
S888Wheel wrote:
Steven said But the question is, *as a rule*, will 8K speakers tend to be a marked improvement over $1500 ones. I don't know, myself, not having had a chance to audition many properly. I said Why would one bother with such *rules* except to feel better about their speakers on a budget? Steven said I guess that applies to the 'rule' that more expensive speakers tend to sound better -- whihc is implicit in audiophilia and in Mr. Uptown Audio's reply, for example -- eh? That wasn't my read of what he meant. What you are saying he said would just amount to another rule of thumb that would have no use for someone who might actually be considering where to draw the line with his or her budget. Who are you to say this? Do you have a direct line to everyone who might be buying speakers on a budget? If one really wants to know if they may or may not like any particular speakers they need to listen to them. Then they need to decide if they are worth the money. Again, Mr Kite , who apparently maks a living doign audio measurment, appears to me to be talking a btou *OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE* as it relates to price. Yes he is. But most people buy speakers to listen to them not to measure them. Most people don't have unlimited resources to listen to all the speakers available. So they might like to have some sort of guideline. Every day, I see people on the internet asking questions about buying speakers on a limited budget. Steven said Of course, whether a speaker is 'worht the money' may depend on non-objective data as well. Agreed. Whole heartedly. Including factors such as size and finish. Steven said ANd lsitening in store does not necessarily give a good idea of what speakers will sound like at home, Very much agreed. Steven said nor is it always , or even commonly, possible to audition speakers at home. Not commonly? I have yet to run into this problem ever. Good for you. How many different speakers are you allowed to take home at one go? Steven said Therefore some sort of 'rules' can be helpful. I think such a rule of thumb is more likely to be misleading than helpful. It could discourage someone from considering speakers that they may think are well worth the extra money were they to here them at home. They could, but the whole idea of such a recommendation is to reduce the *likelihood* of overspending. YOu places your bets and you takes your chances. Steven said So, what's your beef? Rules of thumb on diminishing returns. Life is often a gamble. You can gamble intelligently, or ignorantly. Good rules of thumb help you do the former. -- -S. ______ "You're an abuser Sullivan....a base beast with intellect but little intelligence to show for it" -- KENNEH! |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
Steven said
But the question is, *as a rule*, will 8K speakers tend to be a marked improvement over $1500 ones. I don't know, myself, not having had a chance to audition many properly. I said Why would one bother with such *rules* except to feel better about their speakers on a budget? Steven said I guess that applies to the 'rule' that more expensive speakers tend to sound better -- whihc is implicit in audiophilia and in Mr. Uptown Audio's reply, for example -- eh? I said That wasn't my read of what he meant. What you are saying he said would just amount to another rule of thumb that would have no use for someone who might actually be considering where to draw the line with his or her budget. Steven said Who are you to say this? Another guy on RAHE with opinions. i would think someone with a PhD would be able to figure that out. Steven said Do you have a direct line to everyone who might be buying speakers on a budget? No. Did you understand what I said? I said If one really wants to know if they may or may not like any particular speakers they need to listen to them. Then they need to decide if they are worth the money. You see when you cut in the middle of my point you are bound to fail to understand it. I was simply pointing out that if one follows a rule of thumb like this one they "may" miss out on getting something they would be happier with even at a higher price. I was not speaking for all people on a budget. Steven said Again, Mr Kite , who apparently maks a living doign audio measurment, appears to me to be talking a btou *OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE* as it relates to price. I said Yes he is. But most people buy speakers to listen to them not to measure them. Steven said Most people don't have unlimited resources to listen to all the speakers available. What does that have to do with my point that people buy speakers to listen to them and not measure them? Steven said So they might like to have some sort of guideline. And I am simply saying that this particular guideline is of no help and may be misleading. If one has a budget of only $1500.00 then the guideline is irrelevant. that person cannot spend more on another speaker system even if they do think it is worth the money. OTOH someone with more to spend "may" read something like this and based on this rule of thumb choose to not audition speakers that could be afforded and "may" be far more enjoyable. I see no scenerio inwhich this rule of thumb helps and I see a clear scenerio inwhich it hurts. Steven said Every day, I see people on the internet asking questions about buying speakers on a limited budget. That is different. If the budget is set then we help them with specific recomendations. that is not what this rule of thumb is doing. Steven said Of course, whether a speaker is 'worht the money' may depend on non-objective data as well. I said Agreed. Whole heartedly. Steven said Including factors such as size and finish. Agreed still. Steven said ANd lsitening in store does not necessarily give a good idea of what speakers will sound like at home, I said Very much agreed. Steven said nor is it always , or even commonly, possible to audition speakers at home. I said Not commonly? I have yet to run into this problem ever. Steven said Good for you. How many different speakers are you allowed to take home at one go? Interesting question. I don't know? I've never asked for more than one. Steven said Therefore some sort of 'rules' can be helpful. I said I think such a rule of thumb is more likely to be misleading than helpful. It could discourage someone from considering speakers that they may think are well worth the extra money were they to here them at home. Steven said They could, but the whole idea of such a recommendation is to reduce the *likelihood* of overspending. YOu places your bets and you takes your chances. What do you mean the likelyhood of overspending? Are you saying that if someone auditions to speakers costing more than $1500.00 they may accidentally buy them? Overspending on speakers? if one auditions speakers that cost more than $1500.00 having listened to others that cost $1500.00 and less and thinks the more expensive speakers are worth the money, one has not overspent. Steven said So, what's your beef? I said Rules of thumb on diminishing returns. Steven said Life is often a gamble. You can gamble intelligently, or ignorantly. Good rules of thumb help you do the former. This rule of thumb doesn't help with anything IMO for reasons I have explained. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
S888Wheel wrote:
So they might like to have some sort of guideline. And I am simply saying that this particular guideline is of no help and may be misleading. If one has a budget of only $1500.00 then the guideline is irrelevant. that person cannot spend more on another speaker system even if they do think it is worth the money. OTOH someone with more to spend "may" read something like this and based on this rule of thumb choose to not audition speakers that could be afforded and "may" be far more enjoyable. I see no scenerio inwhich this rule of thumb helps and I see a clear scenerio inwhich it hurts. Scott, it might be of help to some, for reasons I outlined. Everyone isn't like you. They could, but the whole idea of such a recommendation is to reduce the *likelihood* of overspending. YOu places your bets and you takes your chances. What do you mean the likelyhood of overspending? Are you saying that if someone auditions to speakers costing more than $1500.00 they may accidentally buy them? Overspending on speakers? if one auditions speakers that cost more than $1500.00 having listened to others that cost $1500.00 and less and thinks the more expensive speakers are worth the money, one has not overspent. One the one hand, you have the rather common perception that the more you spend on something the better it is likely to perform. On the other hand you have a guy who works in audio for a living, sayign that as you go beyond $1500 you don't necessarily get better peformance in proportion to price. If you choose to believe him, you could save yourself some auditioning time and money. Your final decision may not be *Scott-approved*, or even *audiophile-approved*, but the guy's whole point is that much of what passes for 'common knowledge; in audiophilia, is dubious. Life is often a gamble. You can gamble intelligently, or ignorantly. Good rules of thumb help you do the former. This rule of thumb doesn't help with anything IMO for reasons I have explained. Again, not everyone is you, Scott. -- -S. ______ "You're an abuser Sullivan....a base beast with intellect but little intelligence to show for it" -- KENNEH! |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
IME, the price/performance curve begins to flatten out between $1,500 and
$2,000. I discovered this while auditioning for my last purchase which was a pair of Paradigm Studio 100 v.2. I thought (and still believe) that these Paradigms represented the best sounding speaker sub $4,000. There were speakers at the $4k price point that sounded worse, but there were a few that sounded marginally better. It wasn't until I heard the $20,000+ B&W N800 Signature that I decided that you could spend more money for more speaker. How much more is entirely subjective, but I don't believe that I could ever be worth enough money to justify the improvement that $13,000 would yield in my listening room. Back to the point of the price/performance curve, there were very small improvements made along the way between my Paradigms and the B&Ws. Based on this experience, I'd have to agree that if you listen to best values at $1,500-2,000, any incremental dollars spent above that may or may not yield improved performance. "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... S888Wheel wrote: So they might like to have some sort of guideline. And I am simply saying that this particular guideline is of no help and may be misleading. If one has a budget of only $1500.00 then the guideline is irrelevant. that person cannot spend more on another speaker system even if they do think it is worth the money. OTOH someone with more to spend "may" read something like this and based on this rule of thumb choose to not audition speakers that could be afforded and "may" be far more enjoyable. I see no scenerio inwhich this rule of thumb helps and I see a clear scenerio inwhich it hurts. Scott, it might be of help to some, for reasons I outlined. Everyone isn't like you. They could, but the whole idea of such a recommendation is to reduce the *likelihood* of overspending. YOu places your bets and you takes your chances. What do you mean the likelyhood of overspending? Are you saying that if someone auditions to speakers costing more than $1500.00 they may accidentally buy them? Overspending on speakers? if one auditions speakers that cost more than $1500.00 having listened to others that cost $1500.00 and less and thinks the more expensive speakers are worth the money, one has not overspent. One the one hand, you have the rather common perception that the more you spend on something the better it is likely to perform. On the other hand you have a guy who works in audio for a living, sayign that as you go beyond $1500 you don't necessarily get better peformance in proportion to price. If you choose to believe him, you could save yourself some auditioning time and money. Your final decision may not be *Scott-approved*, or even *audiophile-approved*, but the guy's whole point is that much of what passes for 'common knowledge; in audiophilia, is dubious. Life is often a gamble. You can gamble intelligently, or ignorantly. Good rules of thumb help you do the former. This rule of thumb doesn't help with anything IMO for reasons I have explained. Again, not everyone is you, Scott. -- -S. ______ "You're an abuser Sullivan....a base beast with intellect but little intelligence to show for it" -- KENNEH! |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
Bruce Abrams wrote in message ...
Snip Back to the point of the price/performance curve, there were very small improvements made along the way between my Paradigms and the B&Ws. Based on this experience, I'd have to agree that if you listen to best values at $1,500-2,000, any incremental dollars spent above that may or may not yield improved performance. I entirely agree. When my son was in his school orchestra and wanted a silver clarinet I couldn't see spending "incremental dollars" on the small improvement in the sounds he would make. When I saw a sculpture I liked on a trip to Prague the price convinced me that I may just as well stay with the bust of Beethoven in gypsum on the mantlepiece. All those Glenn Goulds carrying their favourite pianos around the world, Pearlmans with their Stradivarius or Guarnieri they just haven't learnt to calculate the cost/benefit ratios properly. Ludovic Mirabel |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
"ludovic mirabel" wrote in message
... Bruce Abrams wrote in message ... Snip Back to the point of the price/performance curve, there were very small improvements made along the way between my Paradigms and the B&Ws. Based on this experience, I'd have to agree that if you listen to best values at $1,500-2,000, any incremental dollars spent above that may or may not yield improved performance. I entirely agree. When my son was in his school orchestra and wanted a silver clarinet I couldn't see spending "incremental dollars" on the small improvement in the sounds he would make. When I saw a sculpture I liked on a trip to Prague the price convinced me that I may just as well stay with the bust of Beethoven in gypsum on the mantlepiece. All those Glenn Goulds carrying their favourite pianos around the world, Pearlmans with their Stradivarius or Guarnieri they just haven't learnt to calculate the cost/benefit ratios properly. Ludovic Mirabel Your analogy would seem to imply that the price/performance curve and hence the point of diminishing returns is the same for audio loudspeakers as it is for sculpture, pianos and violins. This would be a ludicrous assumption at best, as the difference between a quality Japanese vertical piano at $7,500 and a Bosendorfer vertical at $20,000 is quite significant. Furthermore, the price points between those two represent significant incremental improvements as well. The case has simply been made by Mr. Kite that such is not the case in loudspeakers. Based on my own experiences, he may be correct to a point, in that speakers in the price range of $1,500 up to 3 or 4 times that will generally tend to perform like the best performing $1,500 speakers. Mr. Kite extended the idea to cost-no-object designs, and based on my own experiences, I don't agree with his extension. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
Bruce Abrams wrote:
Your analogy would seem to imply that the price/performance curve and hence the point of diminishing returns is the same for audio loudspeakers as it is for sculpture, pianos and violins. This would be a ludicrous assumption at best, as the difference between a quality Japanese vertical piano at $7,500 and a Bosendorfer vertical at $20,000 is quite significant. Furthermore, the price points between those two represent significant incremental improvements as well. I believe Mr. Kite was referring to an improvement in "objective (measurable) criteria" in which case the Bosendorfer may not represent a significant improvement. But then it comes down to what you measure, and how, doesn't it? The case has simply been made by Mr. Kite that such is not the case in loudspeakers. Based on my own experiences, he may be correct to a point, in that speakers in the price range of $1,500 up to 3 or 4 times that will generally tend to perform like the best performing $1,500 speakers. Mr. Kite extended the idea to cost-no-object designs, and based on my own experiences, I don't agree with his extension. Neither do I. From an observational listening perspective (not measuring or dbting) I would agree with Mr. Kite that the law of diminishing returns applies to audio equipment and loudspeakers. However, I would draw the line, say, at $6 - $10,000 for loudspeakers rather than his $1500. What you get for more money is better quality drivers, more extended bass response, and less resonant cabinets. At $1500, figuring the actual manufacturing cost at 20%, you are getting $300 worth of parts and labor. Hardly state-of-the-art regardless of how Mr. Kite measures them. Regards, Mike |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
My 2 cents on the whole analog/digital, tube/transistor, esoteric cable/lamp
cord business: People have stereo systems because they enjoy them, and listening to music is a subjective experience. So if owning an expensive tube amp makes you happy, and you think it sounds better, who's to argue? This was summed up best years ago in a motorcycle magazine, re. the Japanese bike (rice burner) vs. Harley Davidson (oil burner) debate. "We don't ride motorcycles because they run well, but because we like the way they run." --Paul |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
Paulfxfoley wrote:
My 2 cents on the whole analog/digital, tube/transistor, esoteric cable/lamp cord business: People have stereo systems because they enjoy them, and listening to music is a subjective experience. So if owning an expensive tube amp makes you happy, and you think it sounds better, who's to argue? No one, unless you start spouting technically dubious claims about *why* it sounds better. Or the ways in which it sounds better. This was summed up best years ago in a motorcycle magazine, re. the Japanese bike (rice burner) vs. Harley Davidson (oil burner) debate. "We don't ride motorcycles because they run well, but because we like the way they run." Do such people really understand 'the way they run' or do they merely *think* they understand it? -- -S. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
Just a note on the thread title: the University of Texas at Austin is
referred to as "UT". Texans would identify "UT-A" as the University of Texas at Arlington. Stephen |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 19:25:07 +0000, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Whilst googling I happened across this slide-show presented at the University of Texas at Austin as part of an engineering seminar series in 2001, presented by one Dr. THomas D. Kite of AudioPrecision Inc. -- thought it might be of interest to some he "Debunking Audio Myths: Directional cables, tube amplifiers, and analog vs. digital" http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminar...AudioMyths.pdf Interesting stuff, and it certainly states the scientific case well for the most part. I think there was one place where he may have missed the boat, though; the usefulness of gold in connectors. Gold is good because it doesn't tarnish, which is good for connections that are in place for a long time; it means that the quality of the connection doesn degrade. Gold, however, is soft, so it's not so great for connections that are made and broken frequently; the gold plating will wear off the connectors. The latter (and cost) is why gold connectors mostly aren't used in professional gear. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
In article , Nousaine wrote:
"Mark J. Dulcey" wrote: But for connections that don't involve metal-to-metal repeated cyclical contacts this level of reliability isn't an issue. As long as the metals are the same - different metals may lead to electrolytic corrosion. This is typically a problem with a lot more current running through the connectors than you'll see with audio, but I've seen this kind of problem with the (now illegal) Keith Monks version of the A&D mercury contact tone arm and in computers with motherboards using gold-plated power supply contacts into which a tinned connector is plugged. (The A&D arm used a different pin material and didn't have this problem, as I remember, although it would still be illegal under US laws governing the use and disposal of mercury). Mike Squires -- Mike Squires (mikes at cs.indiana.edu) 317 233 9456 (w) 812 333 6564 (h) mikes at siralan.org 546 N Park Ridge Rd., Bloomington, IN 47408 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
debunking audio myths at UT-A
(Michael Squires) wrote in message ...
In article , Nousaine wrote: "Mark J. Dulcey" wrote: But for connections that don't involve metal-to-metal repeated cyclical contacts this level of reliability isn't an issue. As long as the metals are the same - different metals may lead to electrolytic corrosion. This is typically a problem with a lot more current running through the connectors than you'll see with audio, but I've seen this kind of problem with the (now illegal) Keith Monks version of the A&D mercury contact tone arm and in computers with motherboards using gold-plated power supply contacts into which a tinned connector is plugged. (The A&D arm used a different pin material and didn't have this problem, as I remember, although it would still be illegal under US laws governing the use and disposal of mercury). While the general point here is correct, i.e., that of mismatch of dissimilar metals used in the conduction of electricity, the Kieth Monks problems was different. Here was simply a case of a stupid implementation as a result of the appaling ignorance of general chemistry. The arm in question used 4 baths of mercury arranged in sectors around the pivot point. 4 pins from the arm conducted the signal from the cartridge to the arm base, the idea being that such an arrangement avoided lead-out wire torque and friction. To implement anti-skating, two of the pins were normal steel, the others were a non-magnetic stainless steel (please, before someone gets all hot and bothered, not ALL statinless steels are non-magnetic), and a magnet below the baths provided the anti-skate force. The original design was somewhat problematic in that it's REAL hard to solder copper wires to stainless steel. Beyond that, when Kieth Monks started making the arm, the decided to substitute brass for stainless steel. They did this both for the pins and for the conductors at the bottom of the mercury cups. The result was unmitigated disaster (as unmitigated a disaster can be in high-end audio): the copper in the brass is soluble in mercury and it took anywhere from a few months or a year or two for the pins to crumble and fall off or, worse, the pins at the bottom of the cups to dissolve and cause mercury to leak all over hell's half acre. In at least one case that I am familiar with, the leaking mercury caused an amplifier to fail when it dripped onto its circuit board. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Audio Myths was "System I'm designing - two questions" | Car Audio | |||
Audio Myths was "System I'm designing - two questions" | Car Audio | |||
Crazy market saturation! | Car Audio | |||
FAQ: RAM LISTING OF SCAMMERS, SLAMMERS, AND N'EER DO WELLS! V. 8.1 | Audio Opinions | |||
science vs. pseudo-science | High End Audio |