• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Community Reputation

171 Excellent

About Camverton

  • Rank
  • Birthday Private

Personal Info

  • Location
  • Real Name

Wigwam Info

  • Turn Table
    In the garage!
  • Digital Source 1
    PC JRiver
  • Digital Source 2
  • DAC
    Chord 2Qute
  • Integrated Amp
    MBL C51, Hegel H360
  • Power Amp/s
    Quad 606 etc etc
  • My Speakers
    MBL126, BKS107, LS50
  • Headphones
    Stax, Sennheiser
  • Trade Status
    I am not in the Hi-Fi trade

Recent Profile Visitors

1,657 profile views
  1. What a narrow, limited view of what a loudspeaker and associated audio reproduction system can do. It is about recreating a convincing illusion of the original performance, assuming there was one, in one’s home. It can be done but not by designers without a vision of the entire reproduction chain from performance to listener’s brain. Odd that a dealer doesn’t seem to understand this. .
  2. Camverton

    Cognitive Bias

    I’d be interested to see your measurements of a pair of speakers on their own and with another pair next to them, especially if they have side drivers or acoustic vents.
  3. Camverton

    Cognitive Bias

    All this blind testing malarkey is all very well and doubtless sensible, but it is only really relevant if you carry on listening without any knowledge of what equipment you are using. The point is that we listen sighted, fully cognisant of the equipment we are using and with the influence of all the biases that make us human. As such any decisions regarding equipment need to take account of our biases. As an example, often people will associate valve amps with a certain type of sound particularly in comparison with SS. They may actually sound the same but that is irrelevant if we perceive them differently because of our biases. To not take into account the vagaries of our minds is to ignore, arguably, the most important part of the audio reproduction chain - us. If I compare my DACs sighted (let alone unsighted) I can’t hear a difference (thus no need to go blind). Yet in practice I have a distinct preference for one over the others. Is it because of some subtle actual difference or the sum of various biases? In essence it doesn’t matter a flying fig; if I enjoy listening to music more with one more than the others that is all that matters to me. Of course others might wish to patronisingly tell me of the error of my way, some numpties have even called my choice of equipment effect boxes , but why should I or anyone care about their incomplete and “blind” understanding of the audio reproduction process. Repeatedly wittering on about DBTs is incredibly boring after a while, I personally would rather hear about how people listen and what triggers their enjoyment of music.
  4. Camverton

    Cognitive Bias

    I wonder what Freud would have made of that!
  5. Camverton

    Cognitive Bias

    Jack, this is a fascinating subject, and whilst I am not a pscychologist I have taken an interest in the subject over the years, particularly the vagaries of what I would call the human belief system and whether we should encompass and enjoy delusions or fight against them. It is about thirty years since I read any Freud so forgive me if any references to him are distorted by memory - or maybe bias. " We are not at the mercy of, or helpless victims of bias." I tend to agree with you but would perhaps change "we are not" for "we don't necessarily have to be". I think that we are all glorious amalgams of the here and now comprehension of the Ego, the strict policing of the DBT () Super Ego and the best bit of all, the maelstrom of our emotional heart the Id. To deny the effects of this trio of influences would be to deny being human. Yes we can cognitively challenge our biases but it is quite hard work and are we any better off afterwards unless we are addressing serious mental health conditions which are affecting our day to day functioning? Now I am tempted to think of our devotion to hifi as something of a mental aberration, after all you would have to be insane to spend £8k on a DAC when a tenth of that spend would get the same result. The point is that by spending £8k we may be bringing into play our our various biases and using them to our advantage, not to mention feathering the cynical dealers wallet. I essence I think it is not what we actually hear, as a microphome might, but what we think we hear that really matters. It is what I think I hear that triggers my belief system to think that I have a string quartet playing in front of me in my living room. It is of course fascinating to try and work out how that triggering of my belief system works by analysis of measuremants but in the end it is futile exercise unless we include the processes in our mind. Given that those processes are probably different for all of us, such being the individuality of humans there is not much chance of agreement however much measuring DBT etc that may take place. In essence our perceptions are the product of many influences including all sorts of biases. Such it is to be human (howver much some may try to be inhuman in their posting!) enjoy it, encompass it, stop worrying about it and enjoy and experience the music howsoever your individual mind desires.
  6. Camverton

    Measuring the Effect of Extra Bass Traps

    A very well worth reduction in the decay, especially in the right channel. If one looks at Bob Stuart’s work on Meridian Room Correction, it is clear that he regards excessive decay more of a problem than uneven frequency response. Having moved from a house with a very dead room to a one with a lively room I have found that the biggest problem has been excessive decay at certain frequencies. From your plots it looks as if the best improvement might involve a combination of your bass traps and then some judicious DSP to even out the frequency plot a bit. In practice there is no need to have it ruler flat. As ever with these things if you are happy with the results thus far that is all that matters. Thanks for the interesting post.
  7. Camverton

    Recommendations For An, Ignoramus, Please!

    They are both big and long works so for anyone new to this repertoire I would tend to try and get to know one movement at a time. Perhaps start the Shostakovich at the third movement and the Beethoven with fourth movement, particularly as it was that that featured in the video.
  8. Camverton

    Recommendations For An, Ignoramus, Please!

    Is this an avante garde genre to which you are referring
  9. Camverton

    Recommendations For An, Ignoramus, Please!

    You’ve chanced upon one of the towering pinnacles of the symphonic repertoire! They are playing part of the last movement of Beethoven’s 9th symphony aka his choral symphony. It’s a pretty good test piece for any hifi system with its large dynamic range and multitude of aural colours. The second movement has some rather good tympani (drum) bits and the third movement is one of the most sublime things ever written for an orchestra. Where to go from there? The classical repertoire is enormous with an extremely wide range of styles. You could try Berlioz’s Symphonie Fantastique, the last movement. For incredible drama try the third movement of Shostakovich 8th symphony in the recording by Bernard Haitink; play it loud, feel the hairs on the back of your neck and elsewhere stand on end at the onslaught of percussion and watch your roof lift off at the end. For something a bit quirky try Thomas Ades’ Chamber symphony; the version with Marin Alsop has a particularly good recording and is full of striking instrumental colour and rythyms. Good luck, let us know how you get on.
  10. And isn’t that what it’s all about? Or as Robert Plant might once have wished he hadn’t said “does anybody remember enjoyment”; not quite the same ring as laughter!
  11. Right, I've had my snooze but your first sentence still makes no sense. Now I know I shouldn't feed the ..... but a chap needs a hobby! Effects? Using a cardioid response on a loudspeaker so that it doesn't make full use of the room, as any other sound producing item in that room does, is an effect, IME a rather unnatural one. I can see that if you are mixing a recording and using the speakers as a tool that might be beneficial but as an end user I want something that sounds natural in my room without the effect of replicating a recording studio or going part way to an anechoic chamber (the ultimate in removing the influence of a room). They can work very well for studio created recordings but sound unnatural for recordings of acoustic events where we want a natural, truthful sound and aural perspective. Absolutely fine with you believing that fine measuring equipment always sounds good, although some of us are looking for better than mere good and I have found fine measuring equipment such as the Benchmark DAC does not sound so good on long term listening. Needless to say all your beliefs, opinions and dogma should come with the proviso that you have a vested interest. To add that "one might prefer to add effects and that is your prerogative" is pompous and rude. I realise that you consider my speakers effects boxes but have you measured them? Have you heard them in the domestic setting for which they are designed? You certainly haven't heard them in my house as I have them set up! In short you are making suppositions. One thought before I potter off for my afternoon nap, paulssurround seems to be enjoying his hifi a lot more than some of his mealy mouthed detractors!
  12. Do excuse a delay in reply; I need a snooze before Line of Duty, and that is far more important than your, erm,
  13. Oh what a paragon of virtue! That measurements lead to long term satisfaction is only true for those who know how to correlate the measurements with how they sound in practice. You are recommending products which may well suit some punters, but they are not right for everyone, however you dress it up. You are advertising within discussion threads, that is not ethical; however right you think your opinion is - and whilst your opinion is right for some it isn’t right for everyone.
  14. In a way I agree, but there is a difference between promotion and sharing experience. Does the OP make money as a result of his posts? As a dealer you do make money from promoting the products you sell within discussion threads. It is that which is surely wrong. You may have confidence in the superiority of the speakers you sell, but that is opinion. Blathering on about measurements, and being Toole’s sycophant, will not tell the discerning listener whether or not they will be right for them (the speakers you promote weren’t for me). The less discerning might fall for your verbiage. Some time down the line they may be pleased they fell for your in thread patter but they might not, and then it will be a costly mistake. As ever, if anyone is thinking of spending money as the result of a forum post(s) caveat emptor. In short you are not in a position to state what is “surely wrong”.
  15. You are quite correct but, as is so often the case, missing the point. We live with sighted stimulus, it is part of what makes us human (unless blind of course). To remove input from one sense may be of interest to the scientist and people who argue the toss on forums, but if we are susceptible to sighted, and various other psycological influences and stimuli then it makes sense to encompass and accept them. When we are listening to music our hearing is our main input but to deny the input from our other senses is, for normal people, too much of an effort to be worthwhile. It really doesn't matter a gnats fart if you think someone cannot actually hear a difference if they are getting pleasure from their experiences as a human being. The bottom line, talking as I was of gnats farting, and it has been my tagline on this forum for a while now, it's what you think you hear that really matters.