What irony, just this morning I was going to post on your frequency response thread how enjoyable it was to read and ask if your ears had told you more than your meter had.

Didn't know it was actually about my blind consumerism by not adding technical info.

Apologies.

Quote:
What irony, just this morning I was going to post on your frequency response thread how enjoyable it was to read and ask if your ears had told you more than your meter had.

Didn't know it was actually about my blind consumerism by not adding technical info.

Apologies.

Funny, you weren't one of the few that actually know something technical that I was referring to. You're one of the ones I wanted to piss off. Now, come back and state you weren't offended. And I'll come back with something witty too. Bought any nice equipment you can tell us how it works other than how much you paid for it or where you bought it? Buddha the Consumer.

Edit:

Oh crap, I forgot to ask. Do YOU know of any informative books, forums or websites concerning audio equipment?

Not offended, and not trying to make witty retorts.

I really did like that thread. I was wondering if those meters served people well or not.

I like learning about what other audiophiles like, but I've never been much into meters other than seeing how they portray what we already hear, not telling me how to set things up. That's always been more of a "by ear" thing for me.

Culpeper, I don't really recall you posting anything you've liked about this place or the people here...why act like a troll at a site you don't like?

Try this place:

http://www.audioasylum.com/index.html

You can hang in the technical forums and not ever have to see anyone talk about what they hear in non-technical terms.

Fair enough. But why subscribe to a magazine that relies heavily on measured data to rate an instrument if you can't decipher the information? I have to admit it is over my head and the best place to start would be with a basic meter, making your own graphs of your own equipment, compare it to factory graphs, and so forth. Stereophile magazine even recommends owning at least the basic meters. I don't see any prerequisite that the average member needs to get through a review of piece of equipment in the magazine. It isn't like reading Popular Mechanics while waiting to get your haircut. At first I was a little put off by this until I realized that it was contempt prior to investigation. In hindsight, I wish there had been a FAQ type of post explaining some technical basics and resources. I only see a few people actually discussing technical topics. Stereophile magazine is called Stereophile Magazine. Not Stereophile Consumer Reports. Even DUP knows his shit if you can decipher his English. Mostly all I get out of this forum is what to buy and where to buy it with only a few people willing to venture as far as to discuss basic response, distortion, and ohms data. Three basics I'm beginning to find out you need to be familar with in order to understand half of what is published in the magazine. There is nothing wrong with discussing how something sounds to your ears. There is something wrong with discussing how something sounds to your ears and not understand the data to support or refute. I would much rather hear something I like and look at the specs and be able to know something is right or isn't right. If something isn't right than I should be able to determine that I have bad audio taste or avoiding making a costly purchasing mistake. Thanks for the link.

"There is something wrong (my italics) with discussing how something sounds to your ears and not understand the data (again, mine) to support or refute." To support or refute WHAT? What I hear? Do I need data to "support or refute" what a cello at a live concert sounds like? Data is for designers/manufacturers, who must fix in time what they hear and repeat it many times over. If this is something you have to know to reinforce what your ears hear directly, go for it. Data is for the recording of abstract measurements that may or may not bring the science closer to the art. Data is for hobbyists who want to, again, repeat results in their own designs and tweaks. Data is not for arguing the superiority of one musical imitation over another, unless one prefers to "perform" a Bach fugue on an oscilloscope (an instrument, I believe, he omitted from his canon). Data is not for "proving" one approach to musical reproduction is superior to another. I would rather hear the music than read about how it measures. You would rather do both. Fine. While you are fumbling with your meters, I'll do the music. There are no "wrongs" and "rights," no "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" in musical enjoyment. And, after you have compiled all your data, you can go find someone else to argue with, or convince of the superiority of your data to his. "Know something technical"? Yes, indeed. I know that Haydn wrote 104 symphonies, and I'm gonna go hear one right now. I'm somehow at ease with the fact that I feel absolutely no compulsion to measure what I hear. I have no problem if you want to measure every sound in the universe. Good luck. Let's just not go into the "wrong" and "right" of it, okay?

Glad you liked the link! They have some guys there who rock the world, technically. Sometimes I just read and see how many replies into a technical thread I can go before they lose me!

With Stereophile, I try to pick one review each issue that I read and re-read and try to correlate the subjective review with the measurements, and slowly try to understand what the heck it all means. Right now I'm still just trying to learn how to relate the measurements to the sound, but I'm still clueless as to being proactive about how to do it all or being able to tell people what to do.

Don't rat me out, but I'm still dubious about alot of power cable and interconnect things and would REALLY like to see someone approach measurements with those babies!

As far as the magazine goes...

The November 05 review by Wes Phillips of the Thiel speakers was a really good one to use to compare what he described and what the measurements showed.

Last month, I tried it with the Eico amp and couldn't get the numbers to match the review.

Mike Fremer is a good read because he will go out on a limb with trying to openly describe what he hears and letting the numbers fall where they may.

Anyway, with your thread, I was sharing your frustration because I didn't think the meter readings looked trustworthy (not on your part, but the meter's.)

It's still a small forum, but the techies will come and make it more to your liking, I bet.

I really hope I haven't been one of the "here's what I own" guys. I will take your disdain for that kind of boasting to heart. For me, it's a hobby that's about what I'm hearing, whether I own the gear or not. Then, here, we can all compare what we hear. I do admit to some AVA/Legacy fatigue that I let get to me once in a while!

Hope we can get off on better footing.

Stereophile has put together a ton of reference information that includes technical articles on a wide range of subjects. Each month or so they add to the reference section, sometimes from older articles and sometimes with recent stuff. Anyway, you can find several on speaker measurements here .

Okay, both of those posts reflect how we each define audiophile I suppose. I do enjoy listening to music. I've been doing it since my first stereo system, which was a hand-me-down from my brother. Nevertheless, the magazine can be very technical. I can't stand reading an article I can't understand. I either throw it in the trash, which is obsessive behavior on my part or go to the extreme after bitching about it and study it until I understand it backwards and forward. Clifton, you didn't get all that education by studying only the parts you enjoy so I find it hard to believe you aren't that interested in the technical data in the reviews. My guess is that you just don't want to overly share your knowledge because it is a pain in the ass, and after all, you already know it so to hell with everyone else, which is your prerogative. I've just reached a point where I want to learn what the equipment is doing other just sounding good. There is nothing wrong with small talk and socialization on a message board forum. But the socialization and the technical banter are not in proportion with the technical information be fed to us in the magazine. Am I assuming correctly that this is a relatively young message board? If so, then my original criticism when I first arrived was totally out of line and as the board matures the technical threads will become proportionate to the General Rants & Raves forum as Buddha intimated. Bottom line is we all share a general interest in the same thing and egos will get in the way. You know my education amounts to a entry level BA in Liberal Arts. I'm no rocket scientist. That doesn't mean I can't pick up something and over a period of time become knowledgeable on a topic that at first is totally over my head. I was overwhelmed with my first issue of Stereophile Magazine. I had no idea that there was equipment out there like that. None whatsoever. I guess what I am trying to get at is that there are going to be a lot of readers that feel the same way I do. I just don't have the resources to go out and buy the good equipment haphazardly. I need to grasp the science of reproduced audio to make an educated decision before I replace what I currently have, which is basically junk. Dependable but junk just the same. I don't know shit about what is going on. In the course of all this playing around I realized with toying around with my basic meters that my so-called 100W receiver is delivering what amounts to 1W to my loudspeakers to reproduce 98dB of sound or the speed of the pressure going in and out of a port hole in a speaker cabinet. WTF, is up with that? Despite my original childish criticisms the magazine has peaked my interest and raised a lot questions about mainstream audio systems. I don't see the point of having a basic department store component system that sounds good and then playing a high quality 180gram album whose source was the original master tapes. It's like drinking a fine wine out of a coffee cup if you ask me. To make a long story short, I need to understand the fancy graphs and technical data as an economical necessity for my own peace-of-mind, which is a complete turnaround of how I felt when I first started posting here, which in the end brings me back to consumerism. Not to mention the more I read the more interested I become. I realize I can be a real asshole. I take my, "Look at me! Look at me!" syndrome just as seriously as Clifton takes his profile. Now I have become an audiophile snob. Enough about me. Let's talk about you. What do you think about me?

Quote:
Stereophile has put together a ton of reference information that includes technical articles on a wide range of subjects. Each month or so they add to the reference section, sometimes from older articles and sometimes with recent stuff. Anyway, you can find several on speaker measurements here .

Damn! I never spotted that before. Thanks for pointing it out.

Quote:
Okay, both of those posts reflect how we each define audiophile I suppose. I do enjoy listening to music. I've been doing it since my first stereo system, which was a hand-me-down from my brother. Nevertheless, the magazine can be very technical. I can't stand reading an article I can't understand. I either throw it in the trash, which is obsessive behavior on my part or go to the extreme after bitching about it and study it until I understand it backwards and forward. Clifton, you didn't get all that education by studying only the parts you enjoy so I find it hard to believe you aren't that interested in the technical data in the reviews. My guess is that you just don't want to overly share your knowledge because it is a pain in the ass, and after all, you already know it so to hell with everyone else, which is your prerogative. I've just reached a point where I want to learn what the equipment is doing other just sounding good. There is nothing wrong with small talk and socialization on a message board forum. But the socialization and the technical banter are not in proportion with the technical information be fed to us in the magazine. Am I assuming correctly that this is a relatively young message board? If so, then my original criticism when I first arrived was totally out of line and as the board matures the technical threads will become proportionate to the General Rants & Raves forum as Buddha intimated. Bottom line is we all share a general interest in the same thing and egos will get in the way. You know my education amounts to a entry level BA in Liberal Arts. I'm no rocket scientist. That doesn't mean I can't pick up something and over a period of time become knowledgeable on a topic that at first is totally over my head. I was overwhelmed with my first issue of Stereophile Magazine. I had no idea that there was equipment out there like that. None whatsoever. I guess what I am trying to get at is that there are going to be a lot of readers that feel the same way I do. I just don't have the resources to go out and buy the good equipment haphazardly. I need to grasp the science of reproduced audio to make an educated decision before I replace what I currently have, which is basically junk. Dependable but junk just the same. I don't know shit about what is going on. In the course of all this playing around I realized with toying around with my basic meters that my so-called 100W receiver is delivering what amounts to 1W to my loudspeakers to reproduce 98dB of sound or the speed of the pressure going in and out of a port hole in a speaker cabinet. WTF, is up with that? Despite my original childish criticisms the magazine has peaked my interest and raised a lot questions about mainstream audio systems. I don't see the point of having a basic department store component system that sounds good and then playing a high quality 180gram album whose source was the original master tapes. It's like drinking a fine wine out of a coffee cup if you ask me. To make a long story short, I need to understand the fancy graphs and technical data as an economical necessity for my own peace-of-mind, which is a complete turnaround of how I felt when I first started posting here, which in the end brings me back to consumerism. Not to mention the more I read the more interested I become. I realize I can be a real asshole. I take my, "Look at me! Look at me!" syndrome just as seriously as Clifton takes his profile. Now I have become an audiophile snob. Enough about me. Let's talk about you. What do you think about me?

I think it's rather presumptuous of you to assume things about Clifton's motives:

"...you just don't want to overly share your knowledge because it is a pain in the ass, and after all, you already know it so to hell with everyone else..."

Most, if not all of us regulars in this forum come here because we choose to, and most of us try to offer help when possible. I think it's odd that you seem to expect or demand more technical info from us members who come here by choice, just because you need satisfying. Who are you to dictate how and what we post? And, yes, this is a relatively new forum, in its infancy. It was launched in September 2005, and although things are a little slow here, I rather like most of the people that hang out here. I thought after your initial outburst, you chilled out and were fitting in. But, to see you post a message that says you were aiming to piss off people here leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I recall you made a mention of being bipolar in another thread or blog reply. Is this why you play Jekyll and Hyde with us?

Quote:

I think it's rather presumptuous of you to assume things about Clifton's motives:

"...you just don't want to overly share your knowledge because it is a pain in the ass, and after all, you already know it so to hell with everyone else..."

Most, if not all of us regulars in this forum come here because we choose to, and most of us try to offer help when possible. I think it's odd that you seem to expect or demand more technical info from us members who come here by choice, just because you need satisfying. Who are you to dictate how and what we post? And, yes, this is a relatively new forum, in its infancy. It was launched in September 2005, and although things are a little slow here, I rather like most of the people that hang out here. I thought after your initial outburst, you chilled out and were fitting in. But, to see you post a message that says you were aiming to piss off people here leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I recall you made a mention of being bipolar in another thread or blog reply. Is this why you play Jekyll and Hyde with us?

That's fine. I assume you don't know anything technical? BTW, you probably got me mixed up with some other member you don't like. Do you know of any informative books, forums, websites and so forth? And yes, I do harbor a small resentment against a certain clique that prefers to tell people what to do rather than be informative. But I'm trying real hard to come to an understanding.

What kind of technical expertise are you looking for? I designed and built the driver boards for my tube amps. That really is not something to be discussed on any of the threads here. You might want to check out some of the threads on Audio Asylum. There are technical discussions on there constantly. Most of us are here because this is a hobby and we like music. Who cares about graphs when there is the music. As far as books go, try the RCA Tube Manual. It has a very good primer on electronics and the thermionic valve in particular.

Wait-a-minute,Jeff is right.Aren't you the same guy who was mocking the "Vets" in another post and made me really angry.Stephen had to delete to message cause i was really pissed at you !

Quote:

Quote:

I think it's rather presumptuous of you to assume things about Clifton's motives:

"...you just don't want to overly share your knowledge because it is a pain in the ass, and after all, you already know it so to hell with everyone else..."

Most, if not all of us regulars in this forum come here because we choose to, and most of us try to offer help when possible. I think it's odd that you seem to expect or demand more technical info from us members who come here by choice, just because you need satisfying. Who are you to dictate how and what we post? And, yes, this is a relatively new forum, in its infancy. It was launched in September 2005, and although things are a little slow here, I rather like most of the people that hang out here. I thought after your initial outburst, you chilled out and were fitting in. But, to see you post a message that says you were aiming to piss off people here leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I recall you made a mention of being bipolar in another thread or blog reply. Is this why you play Jekyll and Hyde with us?

That's fine. I assume you don't know anything technical? BTW, you probably got me mixed up with some other member you don't like. Do you know of any informative books, forums, websites and so forth? And yes, I do harbor a small resentment against a certain clique that prefers to tell people what to do rather than be informative. But I'm trying real hard to come to an understanding.

I think the post I was thinking of may have been deleted, as Yiangos suggests. If not, I am misremembering the one below:

Quote:

Quote:
You seem eager to pounce on this one, Culpeper. I hope you find what you're looking for. Look under "P," not "S."

Dear Clifton:

Then you could understand my astonishment when I found "P" under "S"! Also, is it not the pot calling the kettle black with, "[my] eagarness to pounce", considering you thought about it for another sixty-five minutes to pounce on it again? I find your feeble attempt at deflection through the use of gay poetry just a little bit, well, gay. You wouldn't be one of those bi-polar intellectuals relying on a liberal arts degree "conferred" by MIT? Below the Mason-Dixon we call that, "owned".

In any case, here are a number of books that might be useful to you. I've found them quite interesting, even if I don't fully grasp everything. My apologies for the pic, but, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Well, I was an Electronics professor at a community college for 30 years and worked as an instrumentation technician in aerospace for 10 years before that; does that count?

So I do know some technical stuff. Can I be of some service then, or that really irrelevant to the topic, lol?

Technical knowledge can get you some places you may want to go, but the bottom line with audio equipment is still the bottom line; how good soes it sound?