Is it getting warm in here? Just kidding. Ethan might have some insight in to this article... David

David,

> Ethan might have some insight in to this article <

Actually, I started to read it yesterday but quickly gave up because it's boring and meandering. Today at your suggestion I tried again and this time got maybe 3/4 of the way through. I could have written that entire piece in two paragraphs. Though I admit I still have no idea what point the author is trying to make. I found a few things I mildly agreed with, and a few I mildly disagreed with.

What point is being made anyway? I am serious.

--Ethan

Thanks Ethan,
I couldn't wade through all of that article either. I got the sense they were saying that the approach to making hi-fi gear has been long wrong. They seemed to be saying that making comparisons of various types of gear is a waste of time... but I couldn't figure out why. I think this article is gibberish. David

I read through parts of the article again, and it seems like they are saying that MORE objective methods of analyzing home stereo equipment are needed. I think the writing style is long-winded and obscures what they are trying to say. David

David,

I am a big believer in double-blind testing. It's also important to change only one thing at a time, and to do so very quickly. I am certain that if more people tested stuff this way there would be far fewer arguments over which brand and model mike/speaker/pre/whatever sucks/is great.

--Ethan

I actually read the whole thing, and like you guys I wondered why it wasn't just a couple of paragraphs. I like a lot of what was said asnd I think the main point was that by varying only one element at a time as follows:

Take amp1 and listen to speaker 1 and speaker 2.
then use amp 2 to listen to the same 2 sets of speakers.

The amp that lets you hear the greatest difference between the speakers is the amp capable of more detail.

I agree that specs are marginally useful, since you do not know what exact set of circumstances there were when the spec was measured And more importantly you do not know what happens when any of the conditions is varied.

Steve

I read the whole thing too, although I admit, due to slipping into the tendency to "hurry up and finish", I found myself skipping ahead at points. I had to force myself to go back and re read parts a few times. It is not what I would call a "good read".

What I got out of it were 2 points..(I am sure there are more but like everyone, I take what I understand and leave the rest)

The first is that using specifications to make a judgment about a piece of gears performance, may not always be the best way to make a decision. This guy thinks that sometimes all that gets in the way of what is heard. I agree with that.

The second point and what I think is the crux of the whole article, is that we should use pieces/ performances that we a not familiar with and listen for the most contrast or differences in playback between the systems being compared, to discern which is the better. More contrast is better in the authors opinion.. This is a new idea to me and I have to let it sink in, perhaps try it, before I decide if I agree with it or not. Pretty interesting stuff..

I found the article to be very badly written - and i am one of those strange people who reads code books and engineering manuals like most people read a good novel....... so if it was a bad read for me - it had to be really REALLY badly written.

However - i get the same "read" out of it that Kurt does........ but I don't feel the need to think about the concept any further than i already have. I would argue that a very bad piece of gear can produce the exact same results as far as contrast goes - and thus - tis not contrast necessarily that would determine the better piece of equiptment.

However I have to agree with the concept that buying a piece of gear "blind" by using specs for the deciding factor does not make any sense at all.

Just MHO

Rod

I think this article was written with consumer level listeners in mind, and could have stood for a little editing. Still, as a title for a thread, I have to say "Are You On The Road To Audio Hell?" is one of my all time favorites. I was hoping it would be an AM Radio deep south preacher telling us we need to "drive the devil out" by defragging our hard drives and not be lured by the wickedness of making loud CDs... Oh well. :D David

Thank you guys! :)
I'm sure you will get very good results with comparing for contrast instead of refference.

Best regards ...!

Originally posted by Henrik Ammitsboel:
But I like your open mind Kurt! :)

Haha, hey, is that a first for you, Kurt? ;)

(Don't hurt me... ...too badly)

Originally posted by falkon2:

Originally posted by Henrik Ammitsboel:
But I like your open mind Kurt! :)

Haha, hey, is that a first for you, Kurt? :D

Henrick,
I don't understand why having more than one set of monitors in a studio is wrong. I think that having more than one monitoring path is essential, as is having a firm understanding of how the sound of those monitoring paths relate to the wide spectrum of gear used by consumers. Relying on one set of speakers, no matter how good, is risky- at some point ya gotta A/B. :) David

:td: Having more than one pair of speakers is wrong.
1. It's more confusing than giving.
2. It's a sine that shows you that you haven't found the right pair! so you have to have 2.

:tu: I'm working on one pair because that pair shows it all.

:p:

[ August 18, 2003, 03:04 AM: Message edited by: Henrik Ammitsboel ]

Henrick,
To each their own I guess. David

Your right David!
That's why it's good to have this message board :)
So we can learn by eachothers.
But I will stick to having only one pair of monitors ;)

Regards

Originally posted by Henrik Ammitsboel:
:td: Having more than one pair of speakers is wrong.
1. It's more confusing than giving.
2. It's a sine that shows you that you haven't found the right pair! so you have to have 2.

:tu: I'm working on one pair because that pair shows it all.

:p:

I am not sure the author meant that you should only have one set of monitors. I think he was referring to using 1 set of monitors to compare multiple pieces of gear upstream. But then again I may have fallen asleep reading it.

Steve

The article was about comparing different hi fi components. In that situation, yes having one set of speakers rather than two would be the best so you don't end up comparing apples to oranges.

However this has nothing to do with a production environment. In a recording studio, multiple sets of monitors is the accepted method..

I am eager to pick an additional pair of monitors (Dynaudio BM5/BM6´s) . It will be quite productive, helping us decide and listen to different "flavours".