PDA

View Full Version : "Subjective" v. "Objective" in Audio



EricW
19-05-2010, 08:27 AM
Here's a take on the debate from a well-known amplifier designer (Nelson Pass) that I found amusing and sane:


"That is a matter of opinion. I have seen pieces in Stereo Review and elsewhere stating outright that measurements have already adequately defined performance and that the subjectivists are fooling themselves. The opposite viewpoint is stated just as dogmatically. Both sides are emotional, and neither side is particularly reasonable.

Obviously, reality sits somewhere in between. Some measurements do tell you something about the sound, but not very reliably, and there are clearly some phenomena going on that are not being measured. On the other hand, I have witnessed blind tests where the participants could not hear a difference, or heard wild differences that could not have existed.

Me, I don't care that much; in fact, I find the subject kind of boring. We build amplifiers that sound good and measure reasonably well and don't break. If you want to get a machine to listen to them for you, be my guest!"

kittykat
19-05-2010, 09:10 AM
Me, I don't care that much; in fact, I find the subject kind of boring. We build amplifiers that sound good and measure reasonably well and don't break. [/INDENT]


That’s his escape clause? Perhaps his standards for “reasonable” is someone else's unacceptable (especially at the prices he is asking)?

Have a look here

http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/1103pass/index4.html

Umm. Think a 5 month old baby can draw a straighter line than his freq response curves. Umm, also looks like a Harbeth supertweeter would be a bit under utilised using this amp. And those harmonics, umm, warm and fuzzy. Nice….

Ok, then have a look here

http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/674/index9.html


another pass lab amp. Look at how flat it is. I find it a bit bizarre coming from the same designer. Consistencies? Philosophy? Zero. No wonder so many of you think there are differences in the sound of amps. That is because the amp designer is perversed and not really an engineer. He is a DSP machine with a soldering iron in his hand and trays of components in from of him.

What’s consistent about Pass amps? Go to the bottom and you’ll see… harmonics . Nice. Tubes in a solid state. Supercool.

Bring out the MRI machine!

Ok, you wanna see real amps? Go here…

http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/508mar11s1/index4.html

this is a working tool, a real amplifier. People talk about a straightwire with gain but they dont want to work hard enough to look for it. Want to see another working tool? Search Bryston, any model and look at how it measures.

MRI machine time!

EricW
19-05-2010, 09:21 AM
kittykat:

What I liked was Pass's philosophy - I'm not knowledgable at all about his amps. I assume there are people who like them, as he's been in business a long time. But I agree, for a bulletproof, well-engineered, high performance amplifier at a non-ridiculous cost, I think a Bryston is pretty much unbeatable.

Oh, and I've been in an MRI machine. Have you? Personally, I didn't think the acoustics were all that good.

Eric

yeecn
19-05-2010, 10:01 AM
Obviously, reality sits somewhere in between. Some measurements do tell you something about the sound, but not very reliably, and there are clearly some phenomena going on that are not being measured. On the other hand, I have witnessed blind tests where the participants could not hear a difference, or heard wild differences that could not have existed.
There is no 'in between' in a blind test. It is either you choose A or B as being your preference. It is just that simple. It is to establish whether there is any basis to claim that A is better than B (or vise versa). It is not about the what differences you hear or why you made your choice.

Nelson Pass is either incompetently ignorant - or irresponsibly trying to confuse the issue.

kittykat
19-05-2010, 10:02 AM
Hi Eric

Sorry, the MRI wasnt meant for you. (no i havent been in one before. touch wood). The MRI was rolled out in this forum yesterday (by Yeecn) and will be used from now on to read the brains of those who need some serious realignment. eg If anyone buys a Pass after this*, electroshock therapy from the outputs of their Pass Labs amp (playing Def Leppard) would be in order, followed by MRI scans to check if all the gunk has fallen out from their brains.

* I know we live in a democracy and are free to choose, but this is also the process which has resulted in some people voting for governments which have invaded other countries to kill innocent civilians. Its off topic but relevant. The commonality is smokescreens, circus sideshow type mirrors, confusion and as yeecn has said irresponsibly trying to confuse. Actually NP might himself be very confused.

Gan CK
19-05-2010, 10:04 AM
Perhaps Nelson Pass is a legendary amp designer but i never quite got into the sound of Passlabs & its earlier incarnation, Threshold from the 80s. I recall one shootout where a very expensive passlab preamp didn't even manage to sound more musically convincing that the pre amp section of the cheap but venerable Nad 3020. That comparison was quite an eye opener for those who only believe in American exotica. Many Audiophiles here with deep pockets look down on brit amps, always placing them below the big names but i prefer the musicality of a simple brit amp anytime of the day.

kittykat
19-05-2010, 10:24 AM
Sound and measurements are important. cool.

Philosophy and Consistency of the company (which indicates discipline, and equipment measurements will tell you this) are also just as important. Remember, it is an article, an actual physical item we are doshing out our hard earned cash for, not some subjective (although that is the end result) thing.

How are we going to practically do a listening comparison of hundreds of different amps under so many different conditions and variables. If you had listened to pass labs amp x above and then pass labs amp y above, that alone would have made you confused enough. So everytime someone asks how does amp x sound with Harbeth M30's, its again time to bring out the MRI machine. The answer doesnt mean anything very much really. i think most of the time we recommend something its self appeasement (and i am guilty of this) for the choices we've made. some dumb, some even dumber i admit.

honmanm
19-05-2010, 10:45 AM
Eric, thanks for starting this thread... the previous discussion was getting interesting but I felt a bit bad that we'd invaded Alan's Harbamp announcement thread!

I'd pretty much agree with the opening quote from Nelson Pass, especially

Obviously, reality sits somewhere in between. Some measurements do tell you something about the sound, but not very reliably, and there are clearly some phenomena going on that are not being measured.

The objective/subjective divide is really about what do with these "phenomena" - the extreme subjectivist approach is to treat them as "magic" imparted by religious artifacts like Mystic Meg capacitors, and extreme-objectivists will deny the effect because there is no known way of measuring it.

We all have philosophies somewhere on this continuum... and then into the mix we throw taste, so that even two objectivits may not agree on whether one objectively well-designed component sounds "better" than another (because really we should be saying "I prefer that one" instead of "that one is better").

And it also seems that designers have two approaches to managing the "phenomena" - objective designers tend to prioritise stable, repeatable perfomance despite the effect of these not-yet-measurable effects (even at the cost of complexity), subjectivists often produce designs that are intentionally less complex - with fewer components to contibute an effect.

honmanm
19-05-2010, 10:54 AM
And kittykay's liks to the amp graphs was very useful... the first "wiggly" one is a classic - 0.5dB is not much of a wiggle but if you add it to wiggles in speaker, room, and weird cables the amp probably sounds sublime in some settings and pretty horrible in others.

My take on this is, if buying costly equipment a subjective comparison of objectively designed products is the way to go. For cheap stuff subjective designs are fine, but one just has to keep in mind that the product is affected by everything around it and wil always be prime suspect if the system is sounding "wrong".

kittykat
19-05-2010, 11:15 AM
For cheap stuff subjective designs are fine,

Hi honmanm, the beauty of it is that you can find incredible consistency in some brands which dont need to cost a lot eg. Marantz. The SM11 example is extreme. i personally cant justify spending that much. if you have time, do try and look for some of their other models, they measure just as consistently, good and decent, even down to their humble 5003's. Please note however that the 5003 was faulty (damaged in transit?) when it was being measured at stereophile and golden ears couldnt pick it up! The print version (think it was one issue after) has a re-measurement (not on the web unfortunately) of another 5003 supplied by Marantz USA. The measurements were pretty much typical Marantz, good.

BTW i dont have a vested interest or own any shares in DNM. dont want any misunderstandings about going on about this brand. As such we shall from now on just know this brand as Big M.

honmanm
19-05-2010, 01:03 PM
As such we shall from now on just know this brand as Big M.

No harm in praising the good-value consistent brands, sort of like the inverse of naming and shaming! (although that said, 10 years ago when I last bought a CD player it was demonstrated on a nasty sounding Marantz AV amp). Not sure what you mean by DNM, do you mean Mr Morecroft (www.dnm.co.uk)?

It'll probably be several years before there is any serious amplification in this system but in the meantime it has been fun discovering the "British-but-not-Quad" type of electronics that were made in a garden shed and can be picked up quite cheaply secondhand. But Quad (well, Peter Walker's Quad) is still my most admired brand and one day I'd like to get my hands on one of their 500 series "pro" amps.

I guess my vintage/DIY perspective is a bit unusual here, my only defence is that the Harbeth journey started with hearing a pair of old HL-P3s, and how they portrayed the kind of music I love. And the discovery that even in the UK they are like the proverbial hen's teeth!

tozen
19-05-2010, 01:45 PM
The objective/subjective divide is really about what do with these "phenomena" - the extreme subjectivist approach is to treat them as "magic" imparted by religious artifacts like Mystic Meg capacitors, and extreme-objectivists will deny the effect because there is no known way of measuring it.
.

I am not so sure. The divide is really about on what basis we make evaluations and distinctions between pieces of audio equipment. Do we distinguish by measuring or do we distinguish by listening? The extreme subjectivist might be happy to be clueless about what gives rise to the sonic differences. He doesn't need to resort to magic, though of course he might. The subjectivist feels no urge to explain the phenomena - he is just enjoying the music and how it makes him feel.

honmanm
19-05-2010, 04:15 PM
he is just enjoying the music and how it makes him feel
Well hopefully we are all aiming to enjoy music!

As a customer I don't distinguish by measurement (how could any customer outside of the broadcasting industry?) But in a system that consists of source, amplification, speakers, and room (at least!) that is not performing as it should, how do you pin down the source of the problem when the components have not been designed for consistent performance with a wide variety of partnering equipment? You end up swapping components trying to find that magical mix where their failings cancel each other out.

And when one tries to upgrade a component in that kind of system, it becomes so hard to find a replacement that gels with the other equipment - and I find I end up listening so hard to the system, trying to evaluate the component match, that the joy of the music is lost.

As someone (Daved Lovel?) posted a while back, IMO the sensible thing is to use objective criteria to narrow the field, then use one's taste to make the final choice. Upgrades then become comparatively painless.

EricW
19-05-2010, 06:27 PM
There is no 'in between' in a blind test. It is either you choose A or B as being your preference. It is just that simple. It is to establish whether there is any basis to claim that A is better than B (or vise versa). It is not about the what differences you hear or why you made your choice.

Nelson Pass is either incompetently ignorant - or irresponsibly trying to confuse the issue.

Mr. Yee, I did not understand Nelson Pass to be arguing against blind tests. In fact, in the quote he makes it quite clear that he's used them and that, under those conditions, people will often either hear no differences, or (same thing) "hear differences which could not possibly exist". Either way, I read that as an affirmation of the methodology, not a repudiation, and I'm not sure why you think otherwise.

kittykat
19-05-2010, 11:52 PM
Not sure what you mean by DNM

sorry honmanm, serious typo. meant D&M holdings. denon marantz group, think its under one unbrella now. but feel their philosophies (and marketing) are perceptually still distinctive enough.

DNM? lets not go there. dont get me started on them. MRI brain scans wont be enough for people who want them. Lobotomies as well sending owners my bank account number would be more befitting.

Euler
20-05-2010, 03:42 AM
IMHO the purely objective approach fails to capture the essence:


Grownups love numbers. When you tell them that you have made a new friend [Amplifier A], they never ask you any questions about essential matters. They never say to you, “What does his voice sound like? What games does he love best? Does he collect butterflies?” Instead they demand: “How old is he? How many brothers has he? How much does he weigh? How much money does his father make?” Only from these numbers do they think they have learned anything about him. [The Little Prince, Saint-Exupéry]

But the purely subjective approach cannot yield credible statements, since, as Alan has pointed out,


My point (again) is that you are not able to draw any valid conclusions that are worthwhile (i.e. as a piece or rational science) unless you equalise the levels and frequency responses exactly and make instantaneous switchovers between the amps. And when you do take the trouble to set up and construct a rational scientific test, those differences that you're sure that you hear and you'd swear on your grandmother's grave are tangible, suddenly diminish to virtually nothing or less.

I'm reminded of the poor parents of autistic children, parents who were absolutely convinced that their autistic child, with a parent's hands on the child's, could communicate using a ouija board. Imagine the joy in becoming convinced that your autistic child could now express her intelligent thoughts. Sadly, several blind tests confirmed that the parents, not the children, were, without realizing it, the ones doing the communicating.

The nature and value of real scientific testing, and blind tests in particular, are severely under appreciated in the general population.

Bruce

EricW
20-05-2010, 04:18 AM
While we're all on this topic of blind testing, I'm wondering if the distinction between single and double-blind testing is that important, at least in audio.

As I understand it, in a single-blind test, the test subject is not aware which of the two products (let's assume it's an amplifier test) he/she is listening to at any given point. The person administering the test does know, however, and presumably says something like "this is amplifier A" or "this is now amplifier B".

In a double-blind test, neither the tester nor the subject is aware of which of the two amplifiers is being listened to - all anyone knows is that a switch is occurring, and the results are analyzed later.

Presumably the double-blind test is considered preferable because it elimates the possibility of the tester unwittingly influencing the choice of the test subject, even if the influence is unconscious.

So my question is this: do we know for a fact that the influence of the tester's knowledge in a single-blind test is so significant that it will skew the results, as compared to a double-blind test? If so, how do we know this? Is there data confirming the effect, or is it just supposition? And does it make a difference whether the tester has any feeling one way or another about the alternatives on offer? Suppose it's a non-audiophile tester who has no feelings either way about, say, whether the amplifier is a Bryston or a Sony - how then is any influence possible?

Thanks in advance for any input.

yeecn
20-05-2010, 02:37 PM
IMHO the purely objective approach fails to capture the essence:


Grownups love numbers. When you tell them that you have made a new friend [Amplifier A], they never ask you any questions about essential matters. They never say to you, “What does his voice sound like? What games does he love best? Does he collect butterflies?” Instead they demand: “How old is he? How many brothers has he? How much does he weigh? How much money does his father make?” Only from these numbers do they think they have learned anything about him. [The Little Prince, Saint-Exupéry]

Not like that at all. Let me describe one particular form of blind test - the ABX test. There are two channels connected to equipment A and B respectively. And there is a third channel X, which is connected to either to A or B. The participants are asked to determine whether X is A or B. The participants are allowed to switch freely between the channels for repeated listening. There is no time limit in ABX test. Theoretically it can take days or months.

This is basically sound matching. No numbers, no calculations and no rational thinking process is involved at all. It you can't get that right - whatever 'essence' you attribute to the equipment is pure imagination.

EricW - I hope this answer your question as well.

EricW
20-05-2010, 05:26 PM
EricW - I hope this answer your question as well.

It doesn't, actually. What I was curious about is whether there was any evidence that a double-blind protocol would lead to a significantly different results to a single-blind protocol, in which only the person undergoing the test does not know which of the two products he/she is evaluating at any moment, but the tester does know.

yeecn
20-05-2010, 05:52 PM
It doesn't, actually. What I was curious about is whether there was any evidence that a double-blind protocol would lead to a significantly different results to a single-blind protocol, in which only the person undergoing the test does not know which of the two products he/she is evaluating at any moment, but the tester does know.
Sorry - I mean your earlier question regarding Nelson Pass.

EricW
20-05-2010, 06:45 PM
Sorry - I mean your earlier question regarding Nelson Pass.

Nope - but that's okay. I won't lose sleep over it.

I didn't actually have a question about Nelson Pass. Whether or not one likes his amps, I was just struck by an attitude in his quote that was somewhat open-minded and free from zealotry. I found that attitude sensible and attractive. Others may disagree.

A.S.
20-05-2010, 09:50 PM
As I step onto an aircraft I always take a look to see if the engines have the sliver RR (Rolls Royce) logo sticker. As a boy I vividly remember the bankruptcy of RR Engines because of the frozen chicken/carbon fibre problem, of how the British Government rescued the company in the national interest (rightly so), of the Spitfire Merlin engine from WW2, the beautiful engineering of RR cars. So the mental stage is set for me to have strong emotional - subjective - attachment to the RR engine, and to feel reassured and safe when flying their aero engines.

It occurred to me on the British Airways flight back from Hong Kong (I discarded my Virgin ticket and bought a new ticket from a real airline) that although I felt snug in my RR equipped 747, I actually knew nothing whatever about the engines technical performance, design, reliability or any other hard fact. My subjective feelings of safety were based solely on seeing the logo on the engine casing, and then creating a mental fantasy based on my preconceptions of the RR engineering quality - of their cars.

It further occurred to me that, if I was an industry insider, I might, or might not have an entirely different and conceivably contradictory insider's perspective of the engine situation. Data analysis of in-service records might prove that another brand of aero engine - say, a GE unit - had in fact a much better in-service reliability, lower operating cost, was quieter and lighter with less moving parts to go wrong. So my fact-less attachment to the RR engine could be nothing more than a romantic fantasy. I could even by flying in an aircraft fitted with RR engines but not displaying the RR logo on the casings and feel less safe. In other words, the visual cue of the logo was associated with positive feelings towards the engines, and when deprived of the visuals, my illusory feeling of safety evaporated or even reversed. But the actual factual performance of the engine would remain the same.

How does this apply to audio equipment? We must not underestimate the impact that seeing a piece of audio equipment has on how we subjectively feel about it - positive or negative. But in a blind test, we are unable to link to our preconceptions; we are forced to evaluate based on what we hear alone. And under those conditions, deprived of (visual) preconceptions, our preferences may be neutral or even reversed. Even though all I know about aero engines is their power output - one specification amongst thousands - I am as ill informed as the well intentioned neighbour who believes that that power output of his amplifier is the sole defining characteristic.

In fact - Rolls Royce aero engines are a hugely successful business with cutting-edge technology and a full order book which again, in the absence of any facts, reassures me on the basis that 600 airlines can't be wrong. But see how we confuse and substitute subjective opinions for objective facts? We do it so effortlessly that we're not aware we're doing it.

Rolls Royce Trent 900 used on Airbus 380 video here (http://rolls-royce-stream.dc1.coull.biz/rolls_royce_content/Intranet/DV3671_Trent900.wmv). Boeing Dreamliner Trent 1000 here (http://rolls-royce-stream.dc1.coull.biz/rolls_royce_content/Intranet/DV3568%20General.wmv). Note in particular the resistance to the explosive detachment of a front blade (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j973645y5AA&feature=related) at 3000rpm and the bird strike (frozen chicken) testing which in the case of the 1970's RB211 destroyed the engine, and the company. My emotional preconceptions reinforced by RR's recent success with the A380 and Dreamliner merely reinforce my subjective feelings towards the product, based on not a shred of hard evidence.

honmanm
20-05-2010, 11:32 PM
The great thing with aircraft being not only costly to make but also costly to operate is that an incredible amount of research effort goes into their development - and everything that can be measured, is. The prime goal for airliner engine designers is efficiency, and even a fractional of a percent improvement in efficiency is enough to swing the market behind a manufacturer. This is because less fuel is needed, resulting in a lower take off weight, resulting in less fuel being needed, etc... a truly virtuous cycle.

An aero engineer colleague once remarked that a rule of thumb in aircraft design is "when the weight of the paperwork equals the take-of-weight of the aircraft being developed, it is ready to fly" (oh BTW the chicken gun fires thawed chickens, otherwise it wouldn't be a fair contest...).

Oddly enough at the time (or just before) there had been a bone of contention amongst engineers, not unlike our present debate - the HP vs Texas Instruments calculator wars. A bit like tubes vs. transistors, that one!

EricW
21-05-2010, 12:13 AM
... in a blind test, we are unable to link to our preconceptions


It's actually an ancient idea. This is why Justice is traditionally depicted as being blind - so as not to be influenced by things that don't (i.e. shouldn't) matter. See attached image, here (http://alchemistpoonam.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/blind-justice.jpg)

A good symbol for double-blind testers, perhaps?

kittykat
21-05-2010, 01:13 AM
This is why Justice is traditionally depicted as being blind

hear hear, very apt and a beautiful example, EricW. Unfortunately that is how we pick our leaders who then pick our pockets with their eyes wide open.

A.S.
21-05-2010, 08:38 AM
...Unfortunately that is how we pick our leaders who then pick our pockets with their eyes wide open.One problem is the rise in the importance of oration as a primary skill amongst our leaders. President Obama is a master orator, as was Edward Kennedy, who spoke with more emotion and, in my opinion, created a bigger vision.

Our new Foreign Secretary, William Hague is an example of how fickle the pubic are about electing their leaders. Haig was briefly leader of the Conservative (now ruling) party, but never found his feet. He is an exceptionally bright man and a very good communicator. His handicap is that he speaks with a northern English accent (Yorkshire) which to those in the elite south makes him sound like a displaced farmer amongst those speaking the Queen's English. So, on the basis of accent alone he didn't survive as leader. Cameron's souther accent sound much more acceptable.

I have the highest regard for William Haig as a typical tell-it-like-it-is Yorkshireman and providing our overseas friends can understand him, we are in safe hands indeed.

Haig at his best here (http://demo.prismotube.com/video/qWEXv3C90TU/Tory-Party-Conference-William-Hague-lists-Labour-failings.html). What he has to say about thirteen years of failed governance is an absolute outrage. Now we have a new Government - long overdue.

EricW
21-05-2010, 08:59 AM
...

His handicap is that he speaks with a northern English accent (Yorkshire) which to those in the elite south makes him sound like a displaced farmer amongst those speaking the Queen's English. So, on the basis of accent alone he didn't survive as leader. Cameron's southern accent sounds much more acceptable.

I have the highest regard for William Haig as a typical tell-it-like-it-is Yorkshireman and providing our overseas friends can understand him, we are in safe hands indeed.



Well, I can tell you he sounds quite comprehensible to me. I don't think you need to worry. Having the "right" accent, which seems to be so important in Britain, is an almost complete non-issue in the rest of the English-speaking world. I can tell that he's not using RP, but aside from that he sounds just fine.

Labarum
21-05-2010, 09:48 AM
His handicap is that he speaks with a northern English accent (Yorkshire) which to those in the elite south makes him sound like a displaced farmer amongst those speaking the Queen's English. So, on the basis of accent alone he didn't survive as leader. Cameron's souther accent sound much more acceptable.

This Yorkshireman says "Ouch!"

William Haig's leadership failed, I think, because the time for the Tories to advance had not yet arrived.

But read this

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/ben_macintyre/article7129129.ece




Cameron and Clegg: who is more upper crust?
It’s an intriguing, very British – and entirely pointless – pastime to work out which of our leaders is the posher

Of more concern is the fact that a very high proportion on MPs from all parties were educated, not in Government financed schools, but in Independent, fee taking schools.

Look also at the undergraduates in science, maths, engineering and modern languages - the hard subjects - most come from the Independent Sector.

yeecn
21-05-2010, 10:29 AM
Mr. Yee, I did not understand Nelson Pass to be arguing against blind tests. In fact, in the quote he makes it quite clear that he's used them and that, under those conditions, people will often either hear no differences, or (same thing) "hear differences which could not possibly exist". Either way, I read that as an affirmation of the methodology, not a repudiation, and I'm not sure why you think otherwise.
Refer to my earlier post on ABX test. Blind test has a very simple procedure and a equally simple, well defined goal. There is no ambiguity whatsoever. Nelson Pass mentioned the term blind tests briefly - but what followed has nothing to do with blind tests whatsoerver. It gave a wrong impression of what blind tests was about. It is misleading. It certainly mislead you.

Either Nelson Pass passed the blind test on his own amplifiers, or he did not. He did not say. Why? That't everybody's guess.

EricW
21-05-2010, 05:27 PM
Mr. Yee, I am happy for you that you are no longer a neurotic, tormented audiophile.

But have you perhaps just exchanged one kind of obsession for a different kind of obsession?

ABX tests are the bee's knees. Nelson Pass is whatever you say he is. Now relax, put your feet up, have a drink, put on your favourite CD. Or go for a walk with your wife.

A.S.
21-05-2010, 05:36 PM
...Now relax, put your feet up, have a drink, put on your favourite CD. Or go for a walk with your wife.What a wonderful conclusion to this thread. It echoes what I said earlier about diverting a little of the pent-up angst away from ones own preconceptions and needs and towards others around us. Our families and our communities could benefit hugely if we devote a little more time to them, and a little less time to hardware. Failing that, a little more time listening alone at home and being satisfied with whatever equipment our economic status allows us to indulge in.

Life is so extremely short; do we really want to be remembered as nerds obsessed with cold hardware to be disposed of by our executors or could we leave a warm human memory as evidence that we walked this earth and tried to brighten someone else's day?

yeecn
21-05-2010, 06:45 PM
But have you perhaps just exchanged one kind of obsession for a different kind of obsession?
Well say Eric. I know I can find good company in HUG. Just came back from a night out with my family. But we choose an upmarket shopping mall. Did not really enjoy the noise and happening there. Next time we will choose better.

kittykat
24-05-2010, 03:50 AM
As I step onto an aircraft I always take a look to see if the engines have the sliver RR (Rolls Royce) logo sticker.

Rolls Royce is indeed iconic and hope it remains proudly so. The air crash investigation episode of the BA flight over the Indonesian volcano was shown here a few weeks back, probably to coincide with whats happening in Europe. Those Rolls Royce engines are indeed engineered to the n-th degree, to survive what it did. Really incredible.

From what I can understand there are technology and partnership divergences in the jet engine industry. There is a “revolution” ahead in engines led by Pratt & Whitney, with their GTF technology (geared turbo fan) which claims at least 10% fuel efficiency. They are betting the farm on it as P&W is the smallest player in the commercial jet field at the moment (they have slipped significantly through the years). They have been trialling GTX with Airbus.

GE (and partner Snecma under the CFM umbrella) have also a similar offering – LeapX in the pipeline.

Rolls Royce is apparently also developing something on their own as well, but has an alliance with P&W under the International Aero Engines group which supplies Airbus. Airbus says they will commit with Intl Aero and CFM on the long term.

It looks like the duopoly of Boeing and Airbus (and ultimately really the airlines with bottomline concerns) is turning up the heat on its suppliers for better technology (and possibly even fragment them?). Think there is a lot being invested in engine technology for what’s coming in the Chinese commercial jet manufacturing industry. The giant really has just awoken and shudder to think the demands it will place on energy.

honmanm
26-05-2010, 03:35 PM
An illuminating description of the difference between objective & subjective approaches here (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/72172-simple-killer-amp-listening-impressions-4.html#post807380)

The comments made by the 2 designers (Greg and Hugh) in the thread make a very interesting contrast.

See also posts 48 & 49 in the thread... if true, this might explain some of the "less accurate but sounds better" experiences with recorded music.