And they also believe that running music through 100 OP amps (each with many internal transistors, resistors etc), in their consoles, is ok; since that is the kind of equipment they use in their studios.

(You realize one needs Not any degree to be called a "Recording Engineer".)

"An apparently insurmountable objection to the existence of non-measurable amplifier quirks is that recorded sound of almost any pedigree has passed through a complex mixing console at least once; prominent parts like vocals or lead guitar will almost certainly have passed through at least twice, once for recording and once at mix-down. More significantly, it must have passed through the potential quality-bottleneck of an analogue tape machine or more likely the A-D converters of digital equipment. In its long path from here to ear the
audio passes through at least

a hundred op-amps,
dozens of connectors and
several hundred metres of ordinary screened cable."
Source: http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/pseudo/subjectv.htm#6

Real credible DUP.

Quote:
And they also believe that running music through 100 OP amps (each with many internal transistors, resistors etc), in their consoles, is ok; since that is the kind of equipment they use in their studios.

(You realize one needs Not any degree to be called a "Recording Engineer".)

"An apparently insurmountable objection to the existence of non-measurable amplifier quirks is that recorded sound of almost any pedigree has passed through a complex mixing console at least once; prominent parts like vocals or lead guitar will almost certainly have passed through at least twice, once for recording and once at mix-down. More significantly, it must have passed through the potential quality-bottleneck of an analogue tape machine or more likely the A-D converters of digital equipment. In its long path from here to ear the
audio passes through at least

a hundred op-amps,
dozens of connectors and
several hundred metres of ordinary screened cable."
Source: http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/pseudo/subjectv.htm#6

Real credible DUP.

"...If mystical degradations can occur, it defies reason to insist that those introduced by the last 1% of the path are the critical ones."

Not sure where you were going with that one, 301, but you seemed to have missed the final sentence of that paragraph you quoted.

I also must add that the article you quote from makes an excellent effort in debunking some of the esoteric audiophile voodoo theorems pervading this forum.

Bravo!

"...If mystical degradations can occur, it defies reason to insist that those introduced by the last 1% of the path are the critical ones."

"Not sure where you were going with that one, 301, but you seemed to have missed the final sentence of that paragraph you quoted."

>>Point is that the recordings are crap. If you think the music is not going to be degraded by 100 op amps, hundreds of feet of wire, connectors; then no further discussion will be beneficial.

"I also must add that the article you quote from makes an excellent effort in debunking some of the esoteric audiophile voodoo theorems pervading this forum."

>>Not in the least. Are you crazy? Do some studying man. Another PR guy?

>>But it does explain why so many recordings sound so crappy. And a bad recording can still be made worse by crappy components, wire etc.

Or are you saying that amplification equipment is perfect??? Now that is a good one.

Good bye.

Quote:
"...If mystical degradations can occur, it defies reason to insist that those introduced by the last 1% of the path are the critical ones."

"Not sure where you were going with that one, 301, but you seemed to have missed the final sentence of that paragraph you quoted."

>>Point is that the recordings are crap. If you think the music is not going to be degraded by 100 op amps, hundreds of feet of wire, connectors; then no further discussion will be beneficial.

"I also must add that the article you quote from makes an excellent effort in debunking some of the esoteric audiophile voodoo theorems pervading this forum."

>>Not in the least. Are you crazy? Do some studying man. Another PR guy?

>>But it does explain why so many recordings sound so crappy. And a bad recording can still be made worse by crappy components, wire etc.

Or are you saying that amplification equipment is perfect??? Now that is a good one.

Good bye.

Now, now, 301. Don't go putting words in my mouth (post?). I don't recall mentioning anything about "perfect amplification" If the aforementioned article you quoted is fatally flawed, I'd be interested in being enlightened.

Hey, if 100 op amps don't affect the sound, then I guess the control panel is perfect. So would the playback system according to the author. That would be a pretty stupid belief though. But if 100 op amps do change the sound, then why wouldn't another stage or two change the sound?

There is so much half truths, and outright nonsense, it would take considerable time to discuss each sentence. Mixing truth with half truth is a good way to screw up people.

There are some things you might ponder. No arguement intended.

1) The author's (I see no name) initial attempt to intimidate by using anecdotes of other regions of science.

2) Assumptions made.

3) Outright dogmatic personal conclusions without evidence

4) Are the references he sites proper? How old are they? Can they withstand criticism?

5) Does the instrumentation actually have high enough resolution? i.e. his comment on global negative feedback. I would think he should easily be able to measure the time delay effects that feedback would impose. How could one miss it. Yet he never mentions it.

6) Lack of thinking things through, or purposefully. For instance:

"In fact such tests expose only well-known capacitor shortcomings such as dielectric absorption and series resistance, and perhaps the vulnerability of the dielectric film in electrolytics to reverse-biasing. No-one has yet shown how these imperfections could cause capacitor audibility in properly designed equipment."

Interesting that he could not measure any effects (DA, DF) of an electrolytic capacitor with his measuring equipment when the capacitor's DA (DA is quite high) can easily be measured with a simple volt meter. The DA decay rate can also be statistically calculated according to Phd Weber.

So why can't the author measure it with his equipment?

"No-one has yet shown how these imperfections could cause capacitor audibility in properly designed equipment."

Interesting since alot of exotic equipment is designed just like the midfi, properly designed equipment he exemplifies in his article; except higher quality components are used.

But the exotic equipment is misteriously, improperly designed and he doesn't explain how. He is good at double talk, I will say that.

And what would the sonic effects be of an electrolytic capacitor? Just what most concur when actually testing an electrolytic capacitor in an actual circuit and listening. Obviously, the author kind of exposes himself as one who doesn't experiment. I guess he is too scared as to what he might hear.

"Passing an audio signal through cables, PCB tracks or switch contacts causes a cumulative deterioration. This too is undetectable by tests for non-linearity. Concern over cables is widespread, but it can be said with confidence that there is as yet not a shred of evidence to support it."

Well, the scientists I know, who have done top secret, and still classified, work for NASA and the government sure knows about it. They were involved in Physics, electronics, and material sciences. I also wonder how is he measuring the non-linearity?

"Cables cannot be directional any more than 2 + 2 can equal 5. Anyone prepared to believe this nonsense won't be capable of designing amplifiers, so there seems no point in further comment."

Beg to differ, but it ain't necessarily so. Of course he doesn't understand what is actually involved when connecting two components together. It involves alot more than he knows.

"Negative feedback is not inherently a bad thing; it is an absolutely indispensable principle of electronic design, and if used properly has the remarkable ability to make just about every parameter better."

Unfortunately, he exposes his very limited knowledge of how feedback works. By the way, his instruments don't seem to measure the problems with feedback.

A good example that instruments don't tell all.

"More nonsense has been written on the subject of subtle PSU failings than on most audio topics; recommendations of hard-wiring the mains or using gold-plated 13A plugs would seem to hold no residual shred of rationality, in view of the usual processes of rectification and regulation that the raw AC undergoes. And where do you stop? At the local sub-station? Should we gold-plate the pylons?"

Again he shows a basic lack of understanding of physics, parts imperfections etc.

7) He generalizes after one example. Pretty pathetic.

8) DBT testing is accurate. It has already been demonstrated here that DBT testing is heavily skewed towards "no sonic difference". (Check out the medical disciplines (hearing), physics, and chemistry in more detail.)

9) "It is notable that in Subjectivist audio the 'correct' answer is always the more expensive or inconvenient one."

Of course that is an obvious fallacy. Check out this and other forums and one can easily find many many conclusions that debunk that conclusion.
Personally, I have tested alot of parts that were expensive and looked better, but sounded worse. I have also seen components that were simply ugly but outperformed beautiful looking components. But it is an easy way for the author to validate his beliefs, whether true or not.

Well, I went way too far, but what the heck. I could go alot further. But if the author won't sign his name, what does that tell you.

If you are serious in learning more, I urge you to contact the highest level individuals you can. I don't mean wannabes or even alot of college professors, as it is hard to keep up with advances in real science.

(I mean no disrespect to professors, as they teach what most need to know. And one needs to specialize and learn after college, just like after medical school.)

I mean top top level people. I won't spend anymore time on the article. Take care and all the best.