300b lovers

Snapsec, the unstated point of the Quanta article is that objective reality cannot be experienced directly ... the entire ear/nervous system/brain/mind system processes everything into mental images and impressions.

This is no little man watching a movie theater inside your head. It’s all signal processing, from the neurons in the ear to everything else, continually pattern-matching against memory, expectation, and emotion. Surprisingly, the brain can actually physically alter the hair cells in the cochlea with feedback mechanisms, altering perceptions right at the sensory level.

This is happening all the time ... there is no such thing as passive listening. For that matter, hearing and signal processing are still going on as you sleep, ready to wake up the rest of the fight-or-flight mammalian brain at a moment’s notice. Over the last 30,000 years, the powerful social experiences of speech, story-telling, and music gradually overlaid our mammalian brains, and made our species into the humans we are now.

This is why the notion of an Absolute Sound is inherently absurd. That’s like saying an Absolute Dream, or Absolute Taste. The entire hifi system is an illusion (and emotion) generator, and the quality of the illusion depends a great deal on the set and setting of the listener ... at that moment. Considering how vastly different our individual realities are, it’s amazing we can agree on anything at all.

@lynn_olson 

This is why the notion of an Absolute Sound is inherently absurd. That’s like saying an Absolute Dream, or Absolute Taste

Hmm, Well if that’s the case how do you determine or judge the sound quality of reproduced or recorded music via electronic audio components?

How did you reach the conclusion that your amplifier sounds “right “?

A reference point is needed to evaluate and judge against. In my opinion the late Harry Pearson was right when he strongly advocated listening to live acoustic instruments and human voice. 
 

What is a more thorough/better assessment of an audio component than a comparison with an authentic instrument (Un-amplified)? Are you exclusively reliant on your test measurements and dismissive of actual listening?

How do you determine your products mimic or come close to the sound of a real cello, saxophone, piano or human vocalist? I’m genuinely curious as to your approach striving for sonic realism (If you believe that it even exists).

Charles

Such an interesting thread. If I could only hit the Lotto I'd get in line for the coming Spatial amps, pre amp, and a quad of new W.E. 300B's. 

In relation to what @lynn_olson is sharing about the listening experience being a stimulus and the impression that can form resulting from the stimulus being encountered.

I have on many occasions been an invited party to offer a 'pair of ears', and to offer a assessment of how a New Design is evolving. There are devices experienced that have been built in parallel and a early prototype is kept as such, with a second prototype undergoing changes to see where there is improvements to be discovered. This method is sort of similar to a modern Photo Editing Software Tool where at the Click of a Button, the before image is immediately viewed.

There are also devices that are sole builds and the experiences of receiving demo's a a result of changes being made are in theory a variant of a previous device used. Much of this is reliant on recollection of previous experiences. This as a method is also quite dependent on the demo's not be too fart apart and the other devices in the system being consistent and not being exchanged.  

Relating to the first method, it is much easier to identify if the ongoing work, is able to create a improved impression. It is also much easier to suggest trying out a different supporting ancillary as the two Prototypes at hand enable a very useful evaluation of how the exchanges interface with other ancillaries.

Relating to the second method, I find written records of how the demo' was able to impress and sharing through discussion where it has been perceived attractors/repellents are present is a constructive approach. Follow up demo's usually reveal differences are developing, and where there is betterment being perceived.

There will be a time that a divisive situation evolves, as individuals are unique in their preferences for a sonic. The Range of Attraction for Lean/Transparent through to Overbearing/Muddy is what sets all individuals apart. No one can tell an individual where there attractors/repellents are in the scale, they choose these themselves.

When it comes to buying a Device designed/built by the hand of a Trusted EE with Time Served Experience in producing audio devices, it is not just the realised product being bought into, but the designer/builders philosophies for audio reproduction and their IP, the hooks utilised to create the sonic on offer. 

It is no secret such IP is classed as a asset, is their not Circuits that when, investigated there are no values to found on components, the printed info is removed to protect the design from being easily plagiarised.        

Reviewers and consumers are at a great disadvantage in assessing the sound of a product, because they have never directly auditioned single-parameter changes. For example, a change in operating point (quiescent current) of 20% up or down, or a shift in topology in one part of the circuit. I grade these with a simple metric of:

1) No audible change, or at least nothing at threshold level

2) Different, but neither better or worse, just different

3) Worse (and how quickly is it noticed ... 5 seconds, 5 minutes, or an overall quality of discomfort or dislike)

4) Better (how quickly is this noticed, or is it a change in mood)

There are probably twenty or more points of adjustment in an amplifier or loudspeaker where these changes can be made. Some affect measurements, but most don’t ... they’re purely subjective. Also, conflicts can occur ... a better measurement may result in worse sound. At that point, something has gone wrong, and you need to stop and see where you have gone off-track.

We have to address what can be measured at the current state of the art and what can’t. Here’s just one example: for the the purposes of electronic design, nearly all modern capacitors are perfect. There is nothing to choose between them except voltage capacity and long-term reliability. Distortion is vanishingly small, at or below the threshold of measurement.

But ... in a high-resolution system, they all sound different. They are not neutral sonically. Mylar sounds different from polypropylene which sounds different than Teflon which sounds different from waxed or oiled paper. Metallized film sounds different than solid foil. In a vacuum-tube circuit, there are circuit nodes that actually exaggerate the coloration. Worse, DA, DF, self-inductance, or even price have little or nothing to do with sonics.

Perhaps worst of all, the notorious "burn-in" phenomenon where XYZ parts sounds really bad for the first 5, 10, 20, or 50 hours. With no change in DA, DF, or distortion measurements, and no plausible physical mechanism responsible for this. Anything that slow must be electrochemical, but what is it? Just a lot of hand-waving and supposition from the manufacturer, with no data to back it up. But plainly and clearly audible.

Not only that, some parts have essentially no break-in at all (paper and wax) while others can take 50 hours or more (polypropylene or Teflon). No explanation offered, no measurements, no underlying physical mechanism. Well, it’s not ghosts or psychic energy. It’s physics. But what physics? Nobody’s saying anything.

In loudspeakers and vacuum tubes, break-in is real, measurable, and the reasons are well-documented in papers going back to the Fifties. Caps? Nope. Why does copper wire sound different than silver? Again, no explanation. I accept this, but it is not satisfactory. Something is going on, and it is not self-hypnosis or expectancy effect. Often, the most expensive part sounds the worst, and the cheapo part sounds quite good.