If every variable is controlled, what numbers would the Naim items get?

Consciousmess posted:

plot a graph (price vs REALISM)

Give us a reliable, repeatable, and objective measure of REALISM. Please!

And do tell, what is this real sound?

Plenty of folks here have reported temporarily upgrading from a Nait 5 (etc) only to go back for the musicality.

Yes price vs enjoyment would be an interesting one...

This forum isn't the "HiFi Media" then.

joerand posted:

The greatest quandary facing reviewers is that despite what they actually think, they always have to put a positive spin on any gear they are sent for fear that a wholly negative (and perhaps objective) review will result in manufacturers no longer willing to send them their products, thereby cutting off the reviewers lifeblood.

Been doing this for 30+ years, and never once felt, or been put, under the kind of pressure you mention.

james n posted:

Mags are just a good read to see what's new and a guide to where you may want to go. We tend to align ourselves with people of similar tastes (whether music, equipment etc) and probably do the same with reviewers in magazines. 

Exactly.

Jan-Erik Nordoen posted:

Good luck putting numbers on it.

Reality is a mental construct, which when combined with state of mind, makes 'closeness to reality' a moving target. 

I'm sure that Martin Colloms' numbering system makes complete sense to him. Unfortunately, it cannot be reliably exported to another human brain.

IMHO of course,

Jan

People reading this thread may care to look up the meaning of "Private Language" (philosophy: Ludwig Wittgenstein); it neatly summarises the problem.

naim_nymph posted:

But on this planet that's six times nine (which shows that there's something fundamentally wrong with the planet - i.e. contamination of the programme by the Golgafrinchans), thus invalidating the entire principle.

Huge posted:

Jan-Erik Nordoen posted:

Good luck putting numbers on it.

Reality is a mental construct, which when combined with state of mind, makes 'closeness to reality' a moving target. 

I'm sure that Martin Colloms' numbering system makes complete sense to him. Unfortunately, it cannot be reliably exported to another human brain.

IMHO of course,

Jan

People reading this thread may care to look up the meaning of "Private Language" (philosophy: Ludwig Wittgenstein); it neatly summarises the problem.

But doesn't he conclude that "a language in principle unintelligible to anyone but its originating user is impossible" ?

As an aside . . . . as we know this thread needs one . . . I am interested in the concept of the use of numbers, for example, to somehow supposedly make "clearer" (less ambiguous) concepts that are, inherently, unclear (ambiguous).

We do this in business risk analysis a lot.  What are the chances that we'll win a lawsuit?  While the outcome of many lawsuits is binary (one party will win and one will lose), the risk is unclear.  Which lawyers will the judge or jury like better? Which witnesses will appear more believable and honest?  There are so many variables . . . yet business leaders ask for, are used to hearing, a number . . . a percentage.  People often feel better about their understanding of ambiguity when ambiguity is expressed in less ambiguous ways (eg, numbers), yet such is more than a bit intellectually dishonest.

-------------> Padded Cell

Jan-Erik, Precisely:  The meaning of a numeric value in this context is different to each person, therefore no valid information concerning the object under consideration is transferred.  (However, information about the other individual may possibly be inferred.)

As the transfer of information from one individual to another is one of the primary criteria for the usual definitions of 'a language', it thus fails the primary requirements needed to be considered 'a language'.

Hence I agree with "Good luck putting numbers on it".

When it comes to considering high end naim equipment the scale goes well beyond 100, probably as high as 130 or 140. Reality isn’t the goal, but, propelling the listener into a state of hyperreality is.

 (philosophy: fatcat)

You'd have to take a standing position on a revolving ice rink to make that presumption.

fatcat posted:

When it comes to considering high end naim equipment the scale goes well beyond 100, probably as high as 130 or 140. Reality isn’t the goal, but, propelling the listener into a state of hyperreality is.

 (philosophy: fatcat)

But their amps STILL don't go to 11.

Bart posted:

But their amps STILL don't go to 11.

 

The mu-so does (count the circumferential bars)

Bart posted:

As an aside . . . . as we know this thread needs one . . . I am interested in the concept of the use of numbers, for example, to somehow supposedly make "clearer" (less ambiguous) concepts that are, inherently, unclear (ambiguous).

We do this in business risk analysis a lot.  What are the chances that we'll win a lawsuit?  While the outcome of many lawsuits is binary (one party will win and one will lose), the risk is unclear.  Which lawyers will the judge or jury like better? Which witnesses will appear more believable and honest?  There are so many variables . . . yet business leaders ask for, are used to hearing, a number . . . a percentage.  People often feel better about their understanding of ambiguity when ambiguity is expressed in less ambiguous ways (eg, numbers), yet such is more than a bit intellectually dishonest.

-------------> Padded Cell

This strikes me as a better approach to knowing whether a given component will bring us closer to whatever is it that we are seeking. In essence, we are using opinions (forum members, friends, reviewers, sales staff), along with their individual credibility and the frequency of various opinions, in a type of risk analysis where we hope to minimise the risk of getting it wrong. 

I've long thought that there is a wealth of information in this forum's collective wisdom that could be cleaned, mined and built into a predictive model for the desired outcome. While I was working, we were looking into predictive modelling that would, for example, provide a probability that a given worker would injure himself, given the job title, age, sex, years of experience, work location, nature of task, and so on. I've always wondered if Naim is mining the information in this forum in the same way to better measure and predict trends. It's obviously done informally (Hi Paul!), but it just seems that so much more could be gained from it from a user point of view, and move the forum away from the endless 'What to upgrade next' questions.

Jan

I would think that comparisons of components must be done on multiple dimensions.  So, if expressed as number, not one number 0-100, but several numbers.  Jan-Eric did this in an interesting post a while back.  To distill these several dimensions down to a single number would require that a specific weight be given to the various dimensions of performance.  It is this "weighting" that distinguishes one listener's personal preferences from those of another.

Charlie

CharlieP posted:

I would think that comparisons of components must be done on multiple dimensions.  So, if expressed as number, not one number 0-100, but several numbers.  Jan-Eric did this in an interesting post a while back.  To distill these several dimensions down to a single number would require that a specific weight be given to the various dimensions of performance.  It is this "weighting" that distinguishes one listener's personal preferences from those of another.

Charlie

We still need to define what the dimensions are, and additionally we need to underpin them with a specific shared underlying experience for each one, so that all people can understand them.  It's only this way the terms used to define them can be truly understood by everyone.

If we experience the same piece of music in different ways, then the specific shared underlying experience doesn't exist, and we'll not understand the dimensions in the same way and the results will be inconsistent individual by individual, meaning different things to different people.

It's odd ; music is the universal language (a universally shared experience), yet we have yet to find the vocabulary to completely express it. Apart from dancing.

As for reproducible and measurable effects, there are few candidate variables, but the 'chills' (goosebump) reaction seems to hold up well, although it only measures one aspect of our reactions to music.

'Engagement with the music' regularly crops up as a useful indicator in my listening sessions. It could be subdivided into a scale spanning 'Interesting' to 'Stopped me in my tracks'. 

Another is the time-expanding effect that the SuperLumina interconnect does so well. This has happened to me with a few other components and is quite repeatable (for me anyway) in A/B comparisons. I'm not sure how universal it is though, as the 'How to expand time' thread demonstrated.

Jan

Huge posted:

CharlieP posted:

I would think that comparisons of components must be done on multiple dimensions.  So, if expressed as number, not one number 0-100, but several numbers.  Jan-Eric did this in an interesting post a while back.  To distill these several dimensions down to a single number would require that a specific weight be given to the various dimensions of performance.  It is this "weighting" that distinguishes one listener's personal preferences from those of another.

Charlie

We still need to define what the dimensions are, and additionally we need to underpin them with a specific shared underlying experience for each one, so that all people can understand them.  It's only this way the terms used to define them can be truly understood by everyone.

If we experience the same piece of music in different ways, then the specific shared underlying experience doesn't exist, and we'll not understand the dimensions in the same way and the results will be inconsistent individual by individual, meaning different things to different people.

For any numerical rating system to be useful, the number of dimensions must be small.  So there is a tradeoff between complexity and simplicity.  How much can this rating be simplified, while still being at least a little bit useful?

Using only a single number, as suggested by OP, would seem to me of very limited value.  I recall that Jan-Eric used 6 dimensions in his review of Naits.  Facial recognition, I think, (comparing the eigenvectors of facial images) can distinguish faces with about 10 dimensions or so.

Perhaps a modest rating system could be of some use if there were many "reviewers."  With many listeners rating (comparing) components using the same performance dimensions, one could see how those ratings "cluster" - what are average ratings and how do they scatter?  The relative importance of the different performance "dimensions" would then apply for each individual.

Charlie

I hasten to add that I personally think that numerical ratings and musical inspiration are nearly orthogonal.  But, in support of the OP, there is some justification for some kind of rating system(s).  Few of us have the opportunity to listen and compare many different components. We perhaps read equipment reviews in magazines (or web sites) or peruse forum posts prior to doing our auditioning of audio gear.  

Charlie

Conscious posted:..........

Assume every variable is controlled but ONE and I'll call that ''CLOSENESS TO REALITY''.  

So If the scale is from 0 to 100, where would you place Naim Items with respect to each other on THIS VARIABLE.  Assume 100 = reality (or a recording studio).

About 10 years ago, no problem with a post like this! Flat Earth vs Round Earth!  Remember:

""DON ATKINSONMEMBER

12/28/06 4:30 PM

Flat Earth 

People stuck in the old traditional way of thinking. Unable to move with the times and recognise that the earth is actually round and you won't actually fall off the edge.

Also applies to hifi. People who like the sort of sound from hifi that Naim (and possibly a couple of other firms) produce. Sound concentrates mainly on Pace, Rythm and Timing. Even to the point of ignoring soundstage, timbre, texture, real bass etc etc ie they ignore a lot of things that can help to make hifi a joy to listen to. Enthusiatic to prove that white is black and black is white etc. Live by the seat of their pants, non-conformists, think they're exciting, but in reality could be considered a bunch of PRaTs, living in the dark ages with anoraks.

Round Earth

Modern people who are willing to accept the evidence before their eyes that the earth really is round and you don't fall of at the edges (there aren't any)

Also applies to hifi. People who like the sort of sound delivered by Krell and a few other firms. Sound probably compromises on Pace Rythm and Timing in order to deliver deep bass, wide soundstage, full texture of instruments. Safe and solid. Sound is loved by more than 85% of the poulation. Know black and white can co-exist nicely. Conformists, so no need to argue, be a PraT or wear an anorak.

Hope this helps""

Naim was definitely, under the umbrella of Flat Earthers!

Linn Middle Earth!

Naim's sound, has evolved, the New DR technology has repositioned Naim.

Yes, the PRAT, is still there, but perhaps a more spacious presentation, better imagery.

But a Flat Earther, was all about hearing what the Musicians was doing, whilst a Round Earther, was about presentation, and seeing with your ears. 

So, closeness to reality, appears to Belong to the Flat Earth Camp of NAIM, which is evolving this very moment!

Just my Nickels worth!

Allante93!

Conscious posted:..........

Assume every variable is controlled but ONE and I'll call that ''CLOSENESS TO REALITY''.  

So If the scale is from 0 to 100, where would you place Naim Items with respect to each other on THIS VARIABLE.  Assume 100 = reality (or a recording studio).

About 10 years ago, no problem with a post like this! Flat Earth vs Round Earth!  Remember:

""DON ATKINSONMEMBER

12/28/06 4:30 PM

Flat Earth 

People stuck in the old traditional way of thinking. Unable to move with the times and recognise that the earth is actually round and you won't actually fall off the edge.

Also applies to hifi. People who like the sort of sound from hifi that Naim (and possibly a couple of other firms) produce. Sound concentrates mainly on Pace, Rythm and Timing. Even to the point of ignoring soundstage, timbre, texture, real bass etc etc ie they ignore a lot of things that can help to make hifi a joy to listen to. Enthusiatic to prove that white is black and black is white etc. Live by the seat of their pants, non-conformists, think they're exciting, but in reality could be considered a bunch of PRaTs, living in the dark ages with anoraks.

Round Earth

Modern people who are willing to accept the evidence before their eyes that the earth really is round and you don't fall of at the edges (there aren't any)

Also applies to hifi. People who like the sort of sound delivered by Krell and a few other firms. Sound probably compromises on Pace Rythm and Timing in order to deliver deep bass, wide soundstage, full texture of instruments. Safe and solid. Sound is loved by more than 85% of the poulation. Know black and white can co-exist nicely. Conformists, so no need to argue, be a PraT or wear an anorak.

Hope this helps""

Naim was definitely, under the umbrella of Flat Earthers!

Linn Middle Earth!

Naim's sound, has evolved, the New DR technology has repositioned Naim.

Yes, the PRAT, is still there, but perhaps a more spacious presentation, better imagery.

But a Flat Earther, was all about hearing what the Musicians was doing, whilst a Round Earther, was about presentation, and seeing with your ears. 

So, closeness to reality, appears to Belong to the Flat Earth Camp of NAIM, which is evolving this very moment!

Just my Nickels worth!

Allante93!

Huge, you are quite correct that the usefulness of any rating system is dependent upon a shared understanding.  The "shared language," if there is any, limits our ability to communicate our experiences of musical enjoyment from HiFi music reproduction.  If, as I suggested above, one could have ratings or descriptions from a large number of listener - this would be very helpful.  For example, there have been many reports about, and descriptions of, the benefit to musical enjoyment from the Naim DR series of amplifiers.  

While I feel we would benefit from a shared language, and perhaps from a shared understanding of performance dimensions, I remain dubious about the value of assigning numbers to them.  It is one thing to say that compnent A is prefered over component B in a particular performance dimension.  It is another to say that A is 33% better than B.  Also the 0-100 scale proposed by the OP is problematic.  I think Martin Collums started with a rating scale of 0-10, but now rates the NAP500DR at 375.  Progress!

Charlie

Simple, you go out to your favorite intimate night club, that has live performances. 

Grady's Tate Percussionist is performing, Female Vocalist is killing it, seasoned Pianist and Bass player, the  ultimate experience. Not like Flat earth, the musicians are actually there, in a acoustically sound environment. 

That's what we do, we spend thousands of dollars, to mimic these rare occasions! 

Then we go home, to our 500, Classic, series, and Speakers of your Choice, that you chose to mimic these rare instances. 

Now, on a Scale from 1-10 with a 10 being that night club experience, how does your system compare!  1- 100, or better yet 1-4, you chose the scale. The OP choose the common scale of 100, with 100 representing reality itself, the night club experience! 

Hence, Closeness To Reality! 

JMHO! 

Allante93! 

SongStream posted:

In terms of 'CLOSENESS TO REALITY' one of the biggest variables is all the gear and the trickery that goes on at the recording studio.  Perhaps you mean purely reality in terms of recreating the master recording, and let's be fair, that's all you can ask of a hifi system, but that itself may bear little resemblance to the reality of what a musical instrument, or human voice, actually sounds like.  From top of the range down to the Qb thing, there will be recordings that come across relatively believable, and many that do not.  That has to be accepted, so the only important thing is whether you're able to enjoy the way that they are delivered, regardless of any deviation from reality, and that is something that all of the Naim products seem to score very well on.  Personally I couldn't put a number on it, either for a system as a whole, or individual bits of one, and I certainly wouldn't care what number anyone else assigned.

 

Let's say it deviated 10%, ok 90, an low A, but still excellent, that's Something that Naim products seem to do very well! 

I agree! SongStream