Do all amplifiers sound the same?
Steve
on blind a/b tests between different amplifiers - I saw a reprint
here;
http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf
After a hiatus of many years I am now putting together a system and
every one I talk to tells me there is a difference between amplifier
sounds. I am sceptical and in a recent audition could not tell a Creek
EVO from a NAD 325 BEE (through EPOS M12.2 speakers with a Creek cd
source).
Has any more work been done on this subject, esp. blind a/b tests?
Steve
Randy Yates
I can't answer your question, but in my opinion, output impedance is one
of the most important distinguishing features. The lower the amp's
output impedance is over frequency, the better, although this (as
anything) can be taken to extremes. Unfortunately, I don't believe
many manufacturers publish their output impedance, especially over
frequency.
--
% Randy Yates % "She's sweet on Wagner-I think she'd die for Beethoven.
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % She love the way Puccini lays down a tune, and
%%% 919-577-9882 % Verdi's always creepin' from her room."
%%%% <ya...@ieee.org> % "Rockaria", *A New World Record*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
bear
Amplifiers do not all sound the same.
Some may.
Some do not.
They certainly do not measure the same.
The THD or IM specs do *not* tell the story.
Those who are still doubters, may review Dr. Earl Geddes research on
this subject. It provides the necessary scientific and engineering
basis for the above assertion.
There are a few other 'confounding" factors to account for when
an individual is trying to decide these things:
- there may be masking effects from other parts of the system
(for example a perfectly blameless amp could not be discriminated
from one that was not blameless, if there was sufficient "objectionable"
harmonic signature produced by another element in the system).
- the listener may or may not have physical deficits that prevent
such a discrimination.
- the listener may never have heard a system without many of the
typical "objectionable" artifacts (no basis for comparison).
- there may be other factors, including subsonic sound and ultrasonic
sounds in the environment, excessive reverberation, etc. that
interfere.
As far as "A/B" or "ABX" tests, they are usually valid for the specific test
condition, as made. Suitability of those tests for generalized
application, if they lack controls for at minimum the above factors, and
some others (such as basic THD, IM, polar response, room reverberence,
noise floor, etc...) makes the ones that I have seen published
so far - that is a preponderance of those I am aware of - not meaningful.
Others will disagree, I am sure.
The key to assembling a system that one enjoys listening to depends on
one's thresholds for certain types of "irritants" (and avoiding them),
a bit of luck, serendipity, and in some cases knowledge of matters
technical and acoustic. Money, per se, does not play the major role
in this respect, since there is lots of excellent used gear, and the
possibility of DIY... :_)
_-_-bear
Greg Wormald
Steve <goldst...@gmail.com> wrote:
Steve,
This is two of the topics most likely to generate a lot of heat--amps
sounding different and blind a-b tests.
Before it gets too wild let me put my two cents (Australian) in.
Of course different amplifiers sound different. Since they are made
differently, with different components, and they measure differently,
how could it be otherwise? Whether the differences are significant is a
matter of personal decision. You make your decision and plonk down your
money.
Some will argue that well-made amps that measure the same will sound the
same. This is necessarily true--it is a tautology--assuming that we
measure everything that can be heard.
Blind a-b testing is the gold standard of testing for difference. It
does however have to be done well and usually isn't. Some of the subtle
differences in music reproduction are very difficult to pick, and often
require extensive experience or training to distinguish. As well, some
differences show up after long trials (days, weeks, or months!) and
testing of this longitude are as rare as hen's teeth.
Our auditory memory is very short, and often very inaccurate, and that
is an argument NOT for short duration tests, but for using something
that is longer lasting and more reliable, namely the emotional response
to the music.
I know from my own experience swapping interconnect cables that while I
couldn't pick which cable was in my system at any one listening session,
over months I came to prefer one set--based on my desire to put on
another record and listen more, or turn the music off and do something
else. These preferences were a surprise to me and I performed enough
swaps to make certain.
If you can, audition each amplifier on your list for long enough to know
whether you enjoy the way it produces music. After all, you will be
using it to produce music, not listen to sound.
Greg
jwvm
The reprint is a nice summary of the eternal battle between magic and
engineering. Inexpensive but well-engineered amplifiers have
performance specifications that are very similar to (or perhaps even
better than) than very expensive audiophile amplifiers and under
double blind testing will be essentially indistinguishable. The really
weak link in sound reproduction is with respect to loudspeakers. Money
is best spent on good speakers rather than exotic amplifiers.
Similar disputes also continue with D/A converters, cables,
preamplifiers, etc. in which measurements indicate little or no
improvement with high-priced hardware.
Steven Sullivan
> Some time ago the now defunct stereo review had an interesting article
> on blind a/b tests between different amplifiers - I saw a reprint
> here;
> http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf
> After a hiatus of many years I am now putting together a system and
> every one I talk to tells me there is a difference between amplifier
> sounds.
Maybe you should talk to more people.
> I am sceptical and in a recent audition could not tell a Creek
> EVO from a NAD 325 BEE (through EPOS M12.2 speakers with a Creek cd
> source).
If levels are matched on all channels, and the system isn't being driven to
distortion, your result is not unusual.
> Has any more work been done on this subject, esp. blind a/b tests?
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htm
see also
E . Brad Meyer
Stereo Review 1991
Are your speakers turning your amplifier into a tone control?
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/features/651/the-ampspeaker-interface.html
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
Steven Sullivan
> Of course different amplifiers sound different. Since they are made
> differently, with different components, and they measure differently,
> how could it be otherwise? Whether the differences are significant is a
> matter of personal decision. You make your decision and plonk down your
> money.
THe logical fallacy here is that 'measuring different', or using
'different components' must lead to audible difference. It doesn't.
> Some will argue that well-made amps that measure the same will sound the
> same. This is necessarily true--it is a tautology--assuming that we
> measure everything that can be heard.
> Blind a-b testing is the gold standard of testing for difference. It
> does however have to be done well and usually isn't. Some of the subtle
> differences in music reproduction are very difficult to pick, and often
> require extensive experience or training to distinguish. As well, some
> differences show up after long trials (days, weeks, or months!) and
> testing of this longitude are as rare as hen's teeth.
So, where are the careful blind test results done by 'amps sound
different' believers? WHo is doing the assuming here?
Let us take the case of John Atkinson, editor of Stereophile. By his own
account , his Damascene conversion to 'subjectivistm' came after he chose
the 'lesser' of two amps, after he failed to hear a difference between
them in a DBT. After a few weeks of living with it he was dissatisfied,
and upon swapping in the other amp, found it sounded much better. His
conclusion was the blind testing misled him, while living with the gear
-- a 'long trial -- revealed the truth. But he didn't bother to do what
wold be obvious to a scientist -- re-take the blind test *after* the
'acclimation period'. Surely the effect of long expsire doesn't 'go away'
under blind conditions, right?
Btw, Tom Noisaine has done 'long term' trials, and the results were
negative when levels were matched and amps were driven below their limits.
> Our auditory memory is very short, and often very inaccurate, and that
> is an argument NOT for short duration tests, but for using something
> that is longer lasting and more reliable, namely the emotional response
> to the music.
You have managed to actually reverse the implication of short aural
memory. It points to using short sound samples during a trial, to gain
best dscrimination of difference.
However, if acclimation is thought to be necessary for best
discrimination, I ask again -- where are the blind test results from
people who make such claims?
> I know from my own experience swapping interconnect cables that while I
> couldn't pick which cable was in my system at any one listening session,
> over months I came to prefer one set--based on my desire to put on
> another record and listen more, or turn the music off and do something
> else. These preferences were a surprise to me and I performed enough
> swaps to make certain.
And then you did a blind test, after you were sure you could hear the
diference...right?
THe fact is, your typical audiophile or high-end magainze reviewer is SURE
they hear a difference, often without any long-term trial. So, are they
folling themselves, or likely to be right?
> If you can, audition each amplifier on your list for long enough to know
> whether you enjoy the way it produces music. After all, you will be
> using it to produce music, not listen to sound.
And again, it's as easy to 'fool' yourself -- perhpas easier, given
possible emotional investment -- after a long trial, as short one, *if*
the comparison is sighted.
Steven Sullivan
> Steve wrote:
> > Some time ago the now defunct stereo review had an interesting article
> > on blind a/b tests between different amplifiers - I saw a reprint
> > here;
> >
> > http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf
> >
> > After a hiatus of many years I am now putting together a system and
> > every one I talk to tells me there is a difference between amplifier
> > sounds. I am sceptical and in a recent audition could not tell a Creek
> > EVO from a NAD 325 BEE (through EPOS M12.2 speakers with a Creek cd
> > source).
> >
> > Has any more work been done on this subject, esp. blind a/b tests?
> >
> > Steve
> Amplifiers do not all sound the same.
> Some may.
> Some do not.
> They certainly do not measure the same.
> The THD or IM specs do *not* tell the story.
> Those who are still doubters, may review Dr. Earl Geddes research on
> this subject. It provides the necessary scientific and engineering
> basis for the above assertion.
Hopefully it provides the blind test results to demonstrate audible
difference.
> There are a few other 'confounding" factors to account for when
> an individual is trying to decide these things:
> - there may be masking effects from other parts of the system
> (for example a perfectly blameless amp could not be discriminated
> from one that was not blameless, if there was sufficient "objectionable"
> harmonic signature produced by another element in the system).
> - the listener may or may not have physical deficits that prevent
> such a discrimination.
> - the listener may never have heard a system without many of the
> typical "objectionable" artifacts (no basis for comparison).
> - there may be other factors, including subsonic sound and ultrasonic
> sounds in the environment, excessive reverberation, etc. that
> interfere.
or, the two amps really do not sound different, when used within their
limits.
> As far as "A/B" or "ABX" tests, they are usually valid for the specific test
> condition, as made. Suitability of those tests for generalized
> application, if they lack controls for at minimum the above factors, and
> some others (such as basic THD, IM, polar response, room reverberence,
> noise floor, etc...) makes the ones that I have seen published
> so far - that is a preponderance of those I am aware of - not meaningful.
Double Blind tests have been and continue to be used by Harman for
generalized application in loudspeaker development.
And amplifier (and cable, btw -- mentioned because you sell 'high end'
cable that you claim sounds better than plain cable) difference tests have
been done where the listener who claimd to hear difference between *his*
gear and others, was tested with his gear, against other gear. And failed
the test.
> Others will disagree, I am sure.
> The key to assembling a system that one enjoys listening to depends on
> one's thresholds for certain types of "irritants" (and avoiding them),
> a bit of luck, serendipity, and in some cases knowledge of matters
> technical and acoustic. Money, per se, does not play the major role
> in this respect, since there is lots of excellent used gear, and the
> possibility of DIY... :_)
Have you ever ABX'd differences in amps, and if so, under what conditions,
and what scores did yuou obtain?
Steven Sullivan
blind tests
http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Chapter4.pdf
"If one accepts the fact that subjective evaluations are less reliable
than we would like, then it should be obvious how objective measurements
would play a crucial role in audio. Whatever one might say about
measurements, for the most part they are stable and yield the same results
over and over. something that subjective assessments have trouble doing. I
used to believe that objective measurements alone were all that one
needed, and I still believe that objective measurements can tell us most
of what we need to know about a system or component. I believe that I
could predict the judgement of a panel of blind listeners with an accuracy
of about 90-95% correct from objective data alone. I know one company that
claims a 99.9% accuracy in correlation between objective data and panel
judgements. Objective data should always be the place where one starts
when looking for system components. That is, if one knows how to interpret
the measurements that are available or the data that they are shown. I
find that most people shy away from objective data simply because they
don.t really understand it.
As far as believing that objective data is all that we need, at the
moment, that probably isn.t the case. There are things that we are
learning day-to-day that have a strong bearing on the correlation between
measurements and subjective preference. But that.s also not to say that we
can.t ever get to the point where objective data alone is sufficient. In
fact this point may be closer than you think. What I do find ridiculous is
the position of many that because measurements don.t tell us the complete
story that they are of no use at all, that listening alone is the only way
to truth - that 'Measurements can.t tell us what we hear'.. I personally
love that one."
In other words, Geddes finds the mainstream 'audiophile' view of
evaluation, where 'sighted listening trumps all' , to be *ridiculous*.
Me too.
Sonnova
(in article <fkrbo...@news1.newsguy.com>):
> Steve <goldst...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Some time ago the now defunct stereo review had an interesting article
>> on blind a/b tests between different amplifiers - I saw a reprint
>> here;
>>
>> http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf
>>
>> After a hiatus of many years I am now putting together a system and
>> every one I talk to tells me there is a difference between amplifier
>> sounds. I am sceptical and in a recent audition could not tell a Creek
>> EVO from a NAD 325 BEE (through EPOS M12.2 speakers with a Creek cd
>> source).
>>
>> Has any more work been done on this subject, esp. blind a/b tests?
>
> I can't answer your question, but in my opinion, output impedance is one
> of the most important distinguishing features. The lower the amp's
> output impedance is over frequency, the better, although this (as
> anything) can be taken to extremes. Unfortunately, I don't believe
> many manufacturers publish their output impedance, especially over
> frequency.
>
Output impedance is one of many criteria. Mostly, it affects damping factor
for the loudspeakers. The way I understand it is If a dynamic speaker is
looking down it's cable into the output stage of an amplifier and sees, what
is in essence, a dead short, the cone will stop instantly when the signal
stops, because of the back EMF being generated by the shorted voice coil in
the speaker's magnetic field (try this experiment: Get a raw driver and flex
the cone by hand at the dust cap. Then connect the terminals of the speaker
together with a jumper and flex the cone again. Notice how much more
difficult the cone is to move this time. That's the phenomenon behind
regenerative dampening) But even this is an oversimplification. In reality,
most speaker voice coils are looking into an inductor in the crossover and
the resistance of the speaker cable before it sees the output stage, so its
anybody's guess how much a low output impedance actually affects the overall
result.
Frankly, I think that the sound of an amplifier is more a result of the
complex load presented by the speaker system that it's driving than the
speaker's sound is influenced by the amplifier.
Sonnova
(in article <wuSdnXCWiP7gruza...@pghconnect.com>):
> Steve wrote:
>> Some time ago the now defunct stereo review had an interesting article
>> on blind a/b tests between different amplifiers - I saw a reprint
>> here;
>>
>> http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf
>>
>> After a hiatus of many years I am now putting together a system and
>> every one I talk to tells me there is a difference between amplifier
>> sounds. I am sceptical and in a recent audition could not tell a Creek
>> EVO from a NAD 325 BEE (through EPOS M12.2 speakers with a Creek cd
>> source).
>>
>> Has any more work been done on this subject, esp. blind a/b tests?
>>
>> Steve
>
> Amplifiers do not all sound the same.
> Some may.
> Some do not.
> They certainly do not measure the same.
That is true.
>
> The THD or IM specs do *not* tell the story.
That is correct. Up to a certain point, both seem to be relatively
unimportant. Research has shown that humans aren't very sensitive to the
harmonic and IM distortion produced by amplifying devices. Back in the
"golden era" of tube hi-fi, manufacturers would outdo themselves trying to
get the most zeros between the decimal point and the numbers. This made them
bias their tubes far into the linear portion of the tube's transfer curve.
This lowered distortion all right, but it made the tubes run very hot and
self-destruct with alarming rapidity. After it was found in double-blind
tests that levels up to over 1% in amplifiers were undetectable by humans,
manufacturers started backing off on output bias. over the last thirty years
or so, we have seen the life of output tubes increase dramatically from a
mere few hours to many thousands of hours over a number of years. Of course,
the tradeoff is that harmonic and IM levels have gone from 0.001% to 0.1% or
even higher. Nobody notices.
Sonnova
(in article <n7qdnZfpOJutqeza...@pghconnect.com>):
Isn't that the "rub" as Shakespeare would say?
> Blind a-b testing is the gold standard of testing for difference. It
> does however have to be done well and usually isn't. Some of the subtle
> differences in music reproduction are very difficult to pick, and often
> require extensive experience or training to distinguish. As well, some
> differences show up after long trials (days, weeks, or months!) and
> testing of this longitude are as rare as hen's teeth.
>
> Our auditory memory is very short, and often very inaccurate, and that
> is an argument NOT for short duration tests, but for using something
> that is longer lasting and more reliable, namely the emotional response
> to the music.
Exactly. People talk about "calibrating their ears" by listening to as much
live music as possible. Human auditory memory is so short, that it has been
found that just a couple of hours after a concert, the listener has already
reverted to his personal "taste" in sound, I.E. what type of bass he likes,
how much presence in the midrange, what kind of highs ring his bell, etc. It
has also been suggested that the female of the species has a far better
auditory memory than the male....
Sonnova
(in article <TvydnZl85vbyqeza...@pghconnect.com>):
> On Dec 24, 11:32 am, Steve <goldstarst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Some time ago the now defunct stereo review had an interesting article
>> on blind a/b tests between different amplifiers - I saw a reprint
>> here;
>>
>> http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf
>>
>> After a hiatus of many years I am now putting together a system and
>> every one I talk to tells me there is a difference between amplifier
>> sounds. I am sceptical and in a recent audition could not tell a Creek
>> EVO from a NAD 325 BEE (through EPOS M12.2 speakers with a Creek cd
>> source).
>>
>> Has any more work been done on this subject, esp. blind a/b tests?
>>
>> Steve
>
> The reprint is a nice summary of the eternal battle between magic and
> engineering. Inexpensive but well-engineered amplifiers have
> performance specifications that are very similar to (or perhaps even
> better than) than very expensive audiophile amplifiers and under
> double blind testing will be essentially indistinguishable. The really
> weak link in sound reproduction is with respect to loudspeakers. Money
> is best spent on good speakers rather than exotic amplifiers.
Agreed. Many component manufacturers are, I believe, aware that there is
little difference above a certain engineering level and seek to distinguish
their brand (and justify its price) by using every "expensive" looking
cosmetics. Thick, brushed aluminum front panels, chromed transformer
end-bells, fancy receptacles and jacks, etc.
> Similar disputes also continue with D/A converters, cables,
> preamplifiers, etc. in which measurements indicate little or no
> improvement with high-priced hardware.
Now it's not true that everything sound alike and an outboard D/A converter
might very well sound better than the D/A that comes in a stand-alone CD
player because the D/A in the player is fraught with design compromises that
the outboard D/A may not be.
Arny Krueger
news:n7qdnZfpOJutqeza...@pghconnect.com
> Of course different amplifiers sound different. Since
> they are made differently, with different components, and
> they measure differently, how could it be otherwise?
Two amplifiers can be different, but sound the same, if their deficiencies
are smaller than that which can be reliably heard. This happens all the
time.
> Whether the differences are significant is a matter of
> personal decision.
Not if the differences are too small to be audible. You have no choice -
they have no audible signficance to you.
> Some will argue that well-made amps that measure the same
> will sound the same.
The myth here is that two amps could measure the same. Even each channel of
a stereo amplifier will measure differently, given sufficiently accurate
measuring gear.
>This is necessarily true--it is a
> tautology--assuming that we measure everything that can
> be heard.
Reality is that we can readily measure things that we have not a chance of
hearing. There have been no reliably observable exceptions for decades.
> Blind a-b testing is the gold standard of testing for
> difference. It does however have to be done well and
> usually isn't.
Compare that to sighted evaluation with is never done well, because there is
no way to do it well.
> Some of the subtle differences in music
> reproduction are very difficult to pick, and often
> require extensive experience or training to distinguish.
Interesting that people don't seem to need any extensive training or
experience to hear differences in sighted evaluations.
> As well, some differences show up after long trials
> (days, weeks, or months!) and testing of this longitude
> are as rare as hen's teeth.
The point is that people obsess over the problems with blind tests, and the
inherently flawed results of sighted evaluations with nary a concern.
> Our auditory memory is very short, and often very
> inaccurate, and that is an argument NOT for short
> duration tests,
?????????????????
> but for using something that is longer
> lasting and more reliable, namely the emotional response
> to the music.
That's an unproven assertion.
> I know from my own experience swapping interconnect
> cables that while I couldn't pick which cable was in my
> system at any one listening session, over months I came
> to prefer one set--based on my desire to put on another
> record and listen more, or turn the music off and do
> something else. These preferences were a surprise to me
> and I performed enough swaps to make certain.
Yet another unproven assertion.
> If you can, audition each amplifier on your list for long
> enough to know whether you enjoy the way it produces
> music. After all, you will be using it to produce music,
> not listen to sound.
If one is not listening to sound, what is one listening to?
jwvm
<snip>
> > Similar disputes also continue with D/A converters, cables,
> > preamplifiers, etc. in which measurements indicate little or no
> > improvement with high-priced hardware.
>
> Now it's not true that everything sound alike and an outboard D/A converter
> might very well sound better than the D/A that comes in a stand-alone CD
> player because the D/A in the player is fraught with design compromises that
> the outboard D/A may not be.
Are you saying that D/A converters that provide essentially the same
measurements will still sound different and can be differentiated in
double-blind tests?
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
> Our auditory memory is very short, and often very inaccurate, and that
> is an argument NOT for short duration tests, but for using something
> that is longer lasting and more reliable, namely the emotional response
> to the music.
Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. Before the data passes
into long-term memory, it MUST pass through short-term
memory. If you assertion is that short-term auditory memory
is defective in some way, than long-term memory cannot be
better.
And, in fact, contrary to the fantasies and wishes of any
number of audiophiles, this property of auditory memory
is supported by quite a bit of actual research.
Randy Yates
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 08:39:58 -0800, Randy Yates wrote
> (in article <fkrbo...@news1.newsguy.com>):
>
>> Steve <goldst...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Some time ago the now defunct stereo review had an interesting article
>>> on blind a/b tests between different amplifiers - I saw a reprint
>>> here;
>>>
>>> http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf
>>>
>>> After a hiatus of many years I am now putting together a system and
>>> every one I talk to tells me there is a difference between amplifier
>>> sounds. I am sceptical and in a recent audition could not tell a Creek
>>> EVO from a NAD 325 BEE (through EPOS M12.2 speakers with a Creek cd
>>> source).
>>>
>>> Has any more work been done on this subject, esp. blind a/b tests?
>>
>> I can't answer your question, but in my opinion, output impedance is one
>> of the most important distinguishing features. The lower the amp's
>> output impedance is over frequency, the better, although this (as
>> anything) can be taken to extremes. Unfortunately, I don't believe
>> many manufacturers publish their output impedance, especially over
>> frequency.
>>
>
> Output impedance is one of many criteria.
That's why I said it's one of the most important distinguishing
features and not "it's the only distinguishing feature."
> Mostly, it affects damping factor for the loudspeakers.
I think damping factor was an attempt at simplifying output impedance,
so this is a little circular.
> The way I understand it is If a dynamic speaker is looking down it's
> cable into the output stage of an amplifier and sees, what is in
> essence, a dead short, the cone will stop instantly when the signal
> stops, because of the back EMF being generated by the shorted voice
> coil in the speaker's magnetic field
I have heard of this effect and admit I do not fully understand the
dynamics between back-EMF and output impedance. However, it seems that
such effects are secondary. What seems even more important is that the
correct output voltage is applied to the speaker. A zero output
impedance makes an amplifier an ideal voltage source, i.e., the correct
output voltage will be maintained up to the limits of the current-sourcing
ability of the amplifier.
--
% Randy Yates % "She tells me that she likes me very much,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % but when I try to touch, she makes it
%%% 919-577-9882 % all too clear."
%%%% <ya...@ieee.org> % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
codifus
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 08:44:45 -0800, bear wrote
Part of the reason could be coming from the other end: the source has
gotten much cleaner. Before it was vinyl and cassette recordings with
distortion levels magnitudes higher than with digital lossless files
we play today.
On a slightly different note, I found one way to easily distinguish a
lossy audio file from its lossless counterpart: distortion. The
Lossless file will play much louder and cleaner than the lossy file on
the same system.
CD
Signal
Some amplifiers sound different, some don't, depending on what they
are connected to. Don't get hung up about others opinions and blind
tests, there is no definitive answer. Select a few well regarded units
to audition and make up your own mind. With those speakers, the
differences between amps will be subtle compared to a speaker upgrade.
I used to own Epos ES11, worked well with Audiolab 8000A, but I can't
recommend NAIM.
--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
jeffc
news:GJidnSl7jtKxQvLa...@pghconnect.com...
What was your recent "audition"? These things have to be done carefully,
with the exact same system (I assume it was) but also well volume matched
(use a test tone and multimeter to check the voltage output from the amp.)
Also, you'll want to use material that you're very familiar with.
Ultimately the overall resolving power of the entire system (the system
includes the room acoustics) will determine if you can tell a difference (as
well as if there is any discernible difference between the amps, of course.)
Sometime of course you can tell a slight difference, but is one really
better than the other, or just slightly different? Is the difference worth
paying for?
I was able to tell the difference between an Adcom 545 and 555 (voltage
matched of course) every time. Both were operating well below max capacity.
That was enough to convince me there are differences between amps (I don't
even think the company intended there to be any difference here.)
jeffc
news:fku1p...@news4.newsguy.com...
>
>> Some will argue that well-made amps that measure the same
>> will sound the same.
>
> The myth here is that two amps could measure the same. Even each channel
> of
> a stereo amplifier will measure differently, given sufficiently accurate
> measuring gear.
I don't believe the measuring tests are really that accurate. If you doubt
this, consider: voice recognition is extremely difficult for even the most
sophsticated equipment, yet trivially easy for even children. The same is
true for image recognition. Measurements might be good enough for the cell
phone generation, but that ain't sayin' much.
Theoretically, if it can't be measured it can't be heard. But just because
it can be measured doesn't mean it is being measured.
jeffc
news:fl0kr...@news1.newsguy.com...
> On Dec 25, 11:47 am, Greg Wormald <greg.worm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Our auditory memory is very short, and often very inaccurate, and that
>> is an argument NOT for short duration tests, but for using something
>> that is longer lasting and more reliable, namely the emotional response
>> to the music.
>
> Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. Before the data passes
> into long-term memory, it MUST pass through short-term
> memory. If you assertion is that short-term auditory memory
> is defective in some way, than long-term memory cannot be
> better.
Well, short term memory is defective in some way. These things are very
simple and have been known forever. For example, drive to work and when you
get there you can't remember anything about your trip.
The point is not that long term memory is "better", the point is that we
take a lot of things for granted when saying that a short term test (of
anything really) is going to be reliable. Lots of people get buyer's
remorse, or after a time start appreciating new aspects of a product.
Another simple example: look at a picture but just don't see what's there.
Then one day you realize it's a picture of Jesus. It could take a minute it
could take a year. But once you see it, you can't not see it.
This isn't rocket science, or voodoo, or snake oil marketing. These are
well known phenomenon.
Having said that, when an advertiser claims "dramatic, obvious, jaw
dropping,
my-non-audiophile-wife-could-tell-immediately-from-across-the-street
differences, and you are straining to hear any difference at all, be it long
or short term, then something is obviously not as claimed.
jeffc
news:fku0m...@news4.newsguy.com...
>. I
> used to believe that objective measurements alone were all that one
> needed, and I still believe that objective measurements can tell us most
> of what we need to know about a system or component.
Well, try looking objectively at a chess board at the beginning of a game
and determine who will win - black or white. Objective computers
measurements can't figure out that one either.
There is a lot in this world that isn't known or understood, trust me.
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
> Output impedance is one of many criteria. Mostly,
> it affects damping factor for the loudspeakers.
Mostly, it does not at all.
> The way I understand it is If a dynamic speaker is
> looking down it's cable into the output stage of an
> amplifier and sees, what is in essence, a dead
> short, the cone will stop instantly when the signal
> stops, because of the back EMF being generated
> by the shorted voice coil in the speaker's magnetic
> field (try this experiment: Get a raw driver and flex
> the cone by hand at the dust cap. Then connect the
> terminals of the speaker together with a jumper and
> flex the cone again. Notice how much more difficult
> the cone is to move this time.
Unless you're moving the cone VERY fast, you're not
going to see any difference.
Now, try the experiment REALISTICALLY: Try doing
it and trying to sense the difference between a 0.4 ohm
resistor across the terminals vs a 0.1 ohm resistor
across the terminals.
> That's the phenomenon behind regenerative
> dampening)
There is no "regenerative damping." It's just damping.
> But even this is an oversimplification.
Yes, it is an oversimplification to the point of being
wrong.
> In reality, most speaker voice coils are looking into
> an inductor in the crossover and the resistance of
> the speaker cable before it sees the output stage,
And, in oversimplifying, you neglected the fact that
the single LARGEST resistance is ALWAYS there,
and that's the DC resistance of the voice coil. The
inductor might add a fraction of an ohm, same with
the leads, but the DC resistance of a typical niminal
8 ohm driver is in the realm of 6-7.5 ohms, and
THAT resistance completely dominates all others,
including the amplifier's output resistance, and it
is the voice coil resistance that essentially determines
the damping of the system.
> so its anybody's guess how much a low output
> impedance actually affects the overall result.
Actually, it's not guesswork at all. The series resistance
the voice coil dominates, and unless the other series
resistances are pathologically large and the so-called
damping factor is larger than 10-20, the amplifier's
output resistance will have NO appreciable effect on
the damping of the system.
> Frankly, I think that the sound of an amplifier is more
> a result of the complex load presented by the speaker
> system that it's driving than the speaker's sound is
> influenced by the amplifier.
That may be the case, but, again, it's something that
can be determined. If we have an amplifier whose
damping factor is "low" by contemporary standards,
say, 20 at 8 ohms, and we connect it to a speaker
whose impedance varies from 6 to 30 ohms. The
result is that the voltage at the speaker terminals
varies by 0.44 db between the minimum and maximum
impedance.
Now, get yourself an amplifier with an alledged damping
factor of, oh. 200. The resulting error is now on the order
of 0.05 dB. Do you think that you can hear the difference
resulting from a smooth change in broadband frequency
response of about 0.4 dB in a room with dynamically
changing music?
Sonnova
(in article <fl0kv...@news1.newsguy.com>):
That could be true, but "source" distortions tend to sound very different
from amplifier distortion. For instance, I would never mistake an over
modulated audio tape for amplifier distortion. They do not sound the same.
> On a slightly different note, I found one way to easily distinguish a
> lossy audio file from its lossless counterpart: distortion. The
> Lossless file will play much louder and cleaner than the lossy file on
> the same system.
That is very true. A friend recently gave me an 340k MP3 of the end title cut
for the movie soundtrack "The Mummy Returns". When I got it home, I was
disappointed at how distorted it sounded. I then borrowed the CD from him and
did my own "rip" using Apple Lossless. The end result was as clean as the CD.
I still maintain that compression artifacts are clearly audible and very
nasty sounding, but others keep telling me that it's my imagination. These
same people also tell me that all amplifiers sound the same and that redbook
CD is perfect and indistinguishable from SACD or 96 KHz/24-bit DVD-A. One
thing is sure, though. Either I'm deluding myself or they can't hear and I'm
betting on the latter. :->
Sonnova
(in article <fl0kr...@news1.newsguy.com>):
I dunno about that. I find that directly after a live concert my critical
listening facilities seem sharpened. I can listen to some of my best
recordings and hear obvious faults in the sound of many of the instruments.
But as that memory becomes less fresh, these keen insights into the
shortcomings of reproduced sound fade with the memory. That's why I try to
hear as much live music as is practicable.
Sonnova
(in article <fl0k7...@news1.newsguy.com>):
I don't see anything in my quoted post above about the D/A converters in
question measuring the same, but my stand-alone converter definitely sounds
better than the one in my pro Otari DAT recorder or the one in my TASCAM
CDR-7000P CD burner/player.
Andrew Barss
: "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
:>
:>> Some will argue that well-made amps that measure the same
:>> will sound the same.
:>
:> The myth here is that two amps could measure the same. Even each channel
:> of
:> a stereo amplifier will measure differently, given sufficiently accurate
:> measuring gear.
: I don't believe the measuring tests are really that accurate. If you doubt
: this, consider: voice recognition is extremely difficult for even the most
: sophsticated equipment, yet trivially easy for even children.
Very bad analogy.
Voice recognition requires hearing the same person speaking
on two occasions, and matching them -- i.e. it's Uncle Jimmy
on the phone, the same guy that called on Thanksgiving. The equipment
he's calling on (if you're hearing a phone call -- the other factors
obtain if he's right in front of you), how much mucous he has
in his vocal tract, how loud he's speaking, and a lot of other factors make his voice
objectively different on each speaking occasion. These differences
can be measured. The problem of this sort of recognition
is thus: taking two *acoustically different* signals and somehow
extracting the components that are unique identifiers of the
source system.
In audio equipmnt land, this would be like doing the following: taking
an amplifier, and on two different occasions hooking it up to
very different components (speakers, wires, rooms), fiddling with the volume,
and maybe changing the voltage running through it, maybe
corroding some of the connectors, turn one speaker so it's facing the wall, and put th
other one in the kitchen, and so on, and still being able to identify the
specific amp out of all the amps you've ever heard.
A more correct parallel in voice recognition to the equipment issue
in this thread would be: take two copies of one recording of Uncle Jimmy's voice,
measure them, and make sure they're identical on all measures. Then label one file
JIMMY1, the other JIMMY2. Play them. Do they sound different to
you? And can you tell them apart when you're not looking at the file name on the computer
screen?
-- Andy Barss
Randy Yates
> [...]
> And, in oversimplifying, you neglected the fact that
> the single LARGEST resistance is ALWAYS there,
> and that's the DC resistance of the voice coil. The
> inductor might add a fraction of an ohm, same with
> the leads, but the DC resistance of a typical niminal
> 8 ohm driver is in the realm of 6-7.5 ohms, and
> THAT resistance completely dominates all others,
> including the amplifier's output resistance, and it
> is the voice coil resistance that essentially determines
> the damping of the system.
Dick,
I suppose it's difficult to improve the electromechanical system due to
the physics of the situation? E.g., enlarging the voice coil wire
diameter increases the driver mass, which then degrades the mechanical
damping.
What if you super-cooled the voice coil? Yeah, that's probably
expensive.
Or what if you used a small voice coil and a large magnet?
--
% Randy Yates % "Though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % you still wander the fields of your
%%% 919-577-9882 % sorrow."
%%%% <ya...@ieee.org> % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Randy Yates
> Actually, it's not guesswork at all. The series resistance
> the voice coil dominates, and unless the other series
> resistances are pathologically large and the so-called
> damping factor is larger than 10-20, the amplifier's
> output resistance will have NO appreciable effect on
> the damping of the system.
You're speaking in static, DC terms. What about dynamically? For
example, when the voice-coil is traveling and the back-emf is opposing
the amplifier's output voltage? Yes, there is still the DC resistance of
the coil in series, but the amplifier is working harder than under DC
conditions.
--
% Randy Yates % "I met someone who looks alot like you,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % she does the things you do,
%%% 919-577-9882 % but she is an IBM."
%%%% <ya...@ieee.org> % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
willbill
> Some time ago the now defunct stereo review had an interesting article
> on blind a/b tests between different amplifiers - I saw a reprint
> here;
>
> http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf
interesting ref, although 3.76MB is a bit much
fwiw, the tubes vs solid state "squabble"
went well beyond the '60's and in fact
likely continues to this day
in my own not too distant past, tubes still
sounded better; bleeding problem is their
lack of practicality, not to mention that
they now cost so much more than in the 60's
>
> After a hiatus of many years I am now putting together a system and
> every one I talk to tells me there is a difference between amplifier
> sounds. I am sceptical and in a recent audition could not tell a Creek
> EVO from a NAD 325 BEE (through EPOS M12.2 speakers with a Creek cd
> source).
>
> Has any more work been done on this subject, esp. blind a/b tests?
believe nothing that you read
trust your ears
i can add that imho solid state has
come a very very long way forward
in the last 20/25 years. :)
bill
Steven Sullivan
> "Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:fku0m...@news4.newsguy.com...
> >. I
> > used to believe that objective measurements alone were all that one
> > needed, and I still believe that objective measurements can tell us most
> > of what we need to know about a system or component.
> Well, try looking objectively at a chess board at the beginning of a game
> and determine who will win - black or white. Objective computers
> measurements can't figure out that one either.
That's an absurd argument. We're not talking about predicting the future.
> There is a lot in this world that isn't known or understood, trust me.
Why should I trust you?
There are lots of things that are known. One of them is that
our senses are easily fooled. That's why blind tests are valuable.
ScottW
news:fl398...@news4.newsguy.com...
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:fku1p...@news4.newsguy.com...
>>
>>> Some will argue that well-made amps that measure the same
>>> will sound the same.
>>
>> The myth here is that two amps could measure the same. Even each channel
>> of
>> a stereo amplifier will measure differently, given sufficiently accurate
>> measuring gear.
>
> I don't believe the measuring tests are really that accurate. If you doubt
> this, consider: voice recognition is extremely difficult for even the most
> sophsticated equipment, yet trivially easy for even children. The same is
> true for image recognition.
This equivalent to claiming that DSPs are characterized in a similar
manner as op-amps. They are not.
ScottW
Steven Sullivan
> > lossy audio file from its lossless counterpart: distortion. The
> > Lossless file will play much louder and cleaner than the lossy file on
> > the same system.
> That is very true.
It's very not true.
> A friend recently gave me an 340k MP3 of the end title cut
> for the movie soundtrack "The Mummy Returns". When I got it home, I was
> disappointed at how distorted it sounded. I then borrowed the CD from him and
> did my own "rip" using Apple Lossless. The end result was as clean as the CD.
Then there was something wrong with your friend's mp3.
> I still maintain that compression artifacts are clearly audible and very
> nasty sounding, but others keep telling me that it's my imagination.
You've never presented good evidence to the contrary. As in, performance
on an ABX test, with a good mp3 vs. source.
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
> dpierce.cartchunk....@gmail.com writes:
> > Actually, it's not guesswork at all. The series resistance
> > the voice coil dominates, and unless the other series
> > resistances are pathologically large and the so-called
> > damping factor is larger than 10-20, the amplifier's
> > output resistance will have NO appreciable effect on
> > the damping of the system.
>
> You're speaking in static, DC terms. What about dynamically? For
> example, when the voice-coil is traveling and the back-emf is opposing
> the amplifier's output voltage? Yes, there is still the DC resistance of
> the coil in series, but the amplifier is working harder than under DC
> conditions.
Think Mr. Thevenin.
That resistance is ALWAYS there, under ALL conditions.
There is absolutely NOTHING special about the
"back-EMF" that makes the situation in any way
unique. A mechanically resonant system with electrical
coupling behaves electrically exactly the same way
a straightforward parallel RLC resonant tank circuit
with a series resistance behaves.
The onl;y time the "back-EMF" exactly opposes
the amplfier's voltage is when the two are exactly
in phase, and that occurs at the fundamental
mechanical resonant frequency. At that point, the
electrical impedance is at its highest and dominated
by the series combination of the DC resistance and
the reflected mechanical and (to a very small degree)
acoustical losses.
And by "DC resistance" of the voice coil, I do not
mean that it's only valid at DC, rather that this
resistance, for the purpose of discussion, has no
appreciable frequency dependence. In other words
measure its value at DC and at, say, 100 Hz and you
will find no significant difference.
Sonnova
(in article <fl3a1...@news4.newsguy.com>):
> On Dec 26, 11:57 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
>> Output impedance is one of many criteria. Mostly,
>> it affects damping factor for the loudspeakers.
>
> Mostly, it does not at all.
>
>> The way I understand it is If a dynamic speaker is
>> looking down it's cable into the output stage of an
>> amplifier and sees, what is in essence, a dead
>> short, the cone will stop instantly when the signal
>> stops, because of the back EMF being generated
>> by the shorted voice coil in the speaker's magnetic
>> field (try this experiment: Get a raw driver and flex
>> the cone by hand at the dust cap. Then connect the
>> terminals of the speaker together with a jumper and
>> flex the cone again. Notice how much more difficult
>> the cone is to move this time.
>
> Unless you're moving the cone VERY fast, you're not
> going to see any difference.
>
> Now, try the experiment REALISTICALLY: Try doing
> it and trying to sense the difference between a 0.4 ohm
> resistor across the terminals vs a 0.1 ohm resistor
> across the terminals.
Well, of course. That's what I was saying about "real world results" But
while one cannot tell the difference between an output impedance of 0.1 and
0.4 ohms. one can certainly tell the difference (in the bass) between an amp
with an output impedance of less than an ohm and one with an impedance of
output transformer!
>
>> That's the phenomenon behind regenerative
>> dampening)
>
> There is no "regenerative damping." It's just damping.
The damping occurs because of the regenerative back EMF.
>
>> But even this is an oversimplification.
>
> Yes, it is an oversimplification to the point of being
> wrong.
No, it's not wrong. It just isn't as great an effect as the classic
demonstration would have one believe.
>
>> In reality, most speaker voice coils are looking into
>> an inductor in the crossover and the resistance of
>> the speaker cable before it sees the output stage,
>
> And, in oversimplifying, you neglected the fact that
> the single LARGEST resistance is ALWAYS there,
> and that's the DC resistance of the voice coil. The
> inductor might add a fraction of an ohm, same with
> the leads, but the DC resistance of a typical niminal
> 8 ohm driver is in the realm of 6-7.5 ohms, and
> THAT resistance completely dominates all others,
> including the amplifier's output resistance, and it
> is the voice coil resistance that essentially determines
> the damping of the system.
I would have thought that was a given.
>
>> so its anybody's guess how much a low output
>> impedance actually affects the overall result.
I agree. I was merely explaining the "shorted turn phenomenon".
> Actually, it's not guesswork at all.
Not if you know all the factors, no. Then it becomes a simple matter of the
combination of the various DC resistances, and the various inductive and
capacitive reactances involved
The series resistance
> the voice coil dominates, and unless the other series
> resistances are pathologically large and the so-called
> damping factor is larger than 10-20, the amplifier's
> output resistance will have NO appreciable effect on
> the damping of the system.
Modern Solid state amps can have damping factors of greater than 200.
>> Frankly, I think that the sound of an amplifier is more
>> a result of the complex load presented by the speaker
>> system that it's driving than the speaker's sound is
>> influenced by the amplifier.
>
> That may be the case, but, again, it's something that
> can be determined. If we have an amplifier whose
> damping factor is "low" by contemporary standards,
> say, 20 at 8 ohms, and we connect it to a speaker
> whose impedance varies from 6 to 30 ohms. The
> result is that the voltage at the speaker terminals
> varies by 0.44 db between the minimum and maximum
> impedance.
>
> Now, get yourself an amplifier with an alledged damping
> factor of, oh. 200. The resulting error is now on the order
> of 0.05 dB. Do you think that you can hear the difference
> resulting from a smooth change in broadband frequency
> response of about 0.4 dB in a room with dynamically
> changing music?
I'm not arguing about broadband frequency response, I'm talking about the
amp's ability to damp (or stop) a large, high mass magnetic bass driver
abruptly when the signal stops. This determines, to some extent, the quality
of the bass in a system.
Sonnova
(in article <fl398...@news4.newsguy.com>):
And since even if everything we hear could be preceisly quantified and
weighted according to the requirements of human perception, that still
doesn't mean that the ordinary audiophile would have access to the equipment
with which to make those measurements for himself. We have two instruments we
can use when choosing audio equipment and we carry them with us everywhere we
go. Use 'em!
Sonnova
(in article <fl5ta...@news2.newsguy.com>):
> Steve wrote:
>
>> Some time ago the now defunct stereo review had an interesting article
>> on blind a/b tests between different amplifiers - I saw a reprint
>> here;
>>
>> http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf
>
> interesting ref, although 3.76MB is a bit much
>
> fwiw, the tubes vs solid state "squabble"
> went well beyond the '60's and in fact
> likely continues to this day
Likely? Based upon the twin facts that there are more companies building
tubed audio components today than at probably any other time since the
transistor came on the scene in the middle 1960's and that recognized tube
brands like Audio Research, VTL, VAC, etc (even Dynaco), have much higher
resale value than SS gear of similar initial costs (with some exceptions),
I'd say that this particular "squabble" was very much still with us!
>
> in my own not too distant past, tubes still
> sounded better; bleeding problem is their
> lack of practicality, not to mention that
> they now cost so much more than in the 60's
I have a pair of VTL 140 tube monoblocs that I'm going to be buried with
(along with my Alfa Romeo GTV-6). That's the only way I'll give 'em up is to
be dead. Also I find my tube gear to be very practical. I bought out an old
ham operator of his stash of NOS JAN WWII vinatge 807s (each amp uses six of
them) for pennies each. They're better than newly manufactured 807s. Anyway,
I think I've replaced ONE tube in the last 10 years. I'd say that's pretty
practical! Modern tube components (my VTLs were manufactured in the early
1990's), unlike their 1950's and 1960's antecedents, are not biased so
heavily, so the tubes last a really long time.
>> After a hiatus of many years I am now putting together a system and
>> every one I talk to tells me there is a difference between amplifier
>> sounds. I am sceptical and in a recent audition could not tell a Creek
>> EVO from a NAD 325 BEE (through EPOS M12.2 speakers with a Creek cd
>> source).
>>
>> Has any more work been done on this subject, esp. blind a/b tests?
>
> believe nothing that you read
Oh. I think you can trust a math textbook :->
> trust your ears
Oh, yes. After all, they're the only "test instruments" that most of us
posses. They do require a bit of training, however.
> i can add that imho solid state has
> come a very very long way forward
> in the last 20/25 years. :)
That too is true. I still prefer tubes for music though. SS amps mostly sound
too clinical for my tastes, although they are probably more accurate. In an
ideal world, where recordings were perfect, perhaps the clinically accurate
solid state amps will sound "better" than the euphonically colored tube
equipment, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. I listen to music for
pleasure and tubes give me more. There is not, nor does there need to be. any
other justification than that.
> bill
Steve
> with the exact same system (I assume it was) but also well volume matched
> (use a test tone and multimeter to check the voltage output from the amp.)
>
> Also, you'll want to use material that you're very familiar with.
> Ultimately the overall resolving power of the entire system (the system
> includes the room acoustics) will determine if you can tell a difference (as
> well as if there is any discernible difference between the amps, of course.)
>
> Sometime of course you can tell a slight difference, but is one really
> better than the other, or just slightly different? Is the difference worth
> paying for?
>
> I was able to tell the difference between an Adcom 545 and 555 (voltage
> matched of course) every time. Both were operating well below max capacity.
> That was enough to convince me there are differences between amps (I don't
> even think the company intended there to be any difference here.)
This was at a dealers and I had no way to objectively set the volume
to equal. So I set the volume by ear changed the volume each time up
or down according to whim. Not very scientific but similar to what one
would do at home.
bear
Dick,
this argument frames the issue incorrectly.
therefore the conclusions are essentially wrong or meaningless.
the issue is not so much memory.
rather it is "processing."
this can be illustrated nicely with a car radio.
most people have had the experience of "flipping" to a station
and hearing an unrecognizable song - you're somewhere in the middle
of it and in the middle of a phrase - only to find that it is
something you "know like the back of your hand."
what is going on here?
simply this: it takes time for the brain to stitch sound together into
a recognizable form, and to make sense of it.
in practice this means that when sound is presented such that the brain
can recognize it more quickly, or conversely does not have to "strip off"
artifacts, that sound is adjudged "more natural sounding".
more importantly, the easier the process of "sonic decoding" that the brain
has to do in real time, the more time per "chunk" the brain has to "decode"
more "subtle" elements, or detail.
think about it. this explains rather simply why one can hear different
things in a given recording, one that objectively (especially if digital)
contains *exactly the same data* - when only the playback chain & environemnt
is a variable!
_-_-bear
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:59:42 -0800, dpierce.cartchunk....@gmail.com wrote
> (in article <fl3a1u01...@news4.newsguy.com>):
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 11:57 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
> >> Output impedance is one of many criteria. Mostly,
> >> it affects damping factor for the loudspeakers.
>
> > Mostly, it does not at all.
>
> >> The way I understand it is If a dynamic speaker is
> >> looking down it's cable into the output stage of an
> >> amplifier and sees, what is in essence, a dead
> >> short, the cone will stop instantly when the signal
> >> stops, because of the back EMF being generated
> >> by the shorted voice coil in the speaker's magnetic
> >> field (try this experiment: Get a raw driver and flex
> >> the cone by hand at the dust cap. Then connect the
> >> terminals of the speaker together with a jumper and
> >> flex the cone again. Notice how much more difficult
> >> the cone is to move this time.
>
> > Unless you're moving the cone VERY fast, you're not
> > going to see any difference.
>
> > Now, try the experiment REALISTICALLY: Try doing
> > it and trying to sense the difference between a 0.4 ohm
> > resistor across the terminals vs a 0.1 ohm resistor
> > across the terminals.
>
> Well, of course. That's what I was saying about "real world
> results"
Well, here you harp about "real world results" after someone
objects to your experiment which has nothing to do with
"real world result."
> But while one cannot tell the difference between an
> output impedance of 0.1 and 0.4 ohms. one can
> certainly tell the difference (in the bass) between an
> amp with an output impedance of less than an ohm
> and one with an impedance of output transformer!
And with the exception of some degenerative, patholoigcally
bad designed tube amplifiers, the typical tube amplifier with
it's output transformer exhibits effective output resistances
of an ohm or less.
> >> That's the phenomenon behind regenerative
> >> dampening)
> > There is no "regenerative damping." It's just damping.
>
> The damping occurs because of the regenerative back EMF.
There is no "regenerative." You are either misusuing the
term or misunderstanding the concept.
> >> But even this is an oversimplification.
>
> > Yes, it is an oversimplification to the point of being
> > wrong.
>
> No, it's not wrong. It just isn't as great an effect as the classic
> demonstration would have one believe.
No, your oversimplification is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE
off the mark, enough that your suggested demonstration,
which you implicitly admit is far from "real world," simply
does not reflect the real world AT ALL.
> >> In reality, most speaker voice coils are looking into
> >> an inductor in the crossover and the resistance of
> >> the speaker cable before it sees the output stage,
>
> > And, in oversimplifying, you neglected the fact that
> > the single LARGEST resistance is ALWAYS there,
> > and that's the DC resistance of the voice coil. The
> > inductor might add a fraction of an ohm, same with
> > the leads, but the DC resistance of a typical niminal
> > 8 ohm driver is in the realm of 6-7.5 ohms, and
> > THAT resistance completely dominates all others,
> > including the amplifier's output resistance, and it
> > is the voice coil resistance that essentially determines
> > the damping of the system.
>
> I would have thought that was a given.
No, in your discussion, it most assuredly WAS NOT a
given. If it was, you would have realized and hopefully
discussed the fact that the other resistances you cite are
simply insignificant by comparison.
> >> so its anybody's guess how much a low output
> >> impedance actually affects the overall result.
>
> I agree. I was merely explaining the "shorted turn
> phenomenon".
And you neglected to then point out that almost every
amplifier on the planet provides that "shorted turn,"
given that it is NOT a significant source of loop resistance.
> > Actually, it's not guesswork at all.
>
> Not if you know all the factors, no. Then it becomes a
> simple matter of the combination of the various DC
> resistances, and the various inductive and capacitive
> reactances involved
The inductive and capacitive reactances have no effect
on damping resonance.
> > The series resistance
> > the voice coil dominates, and unless the other series
> > resistances are pathologically large and the so-called
> > damping factor is larger than 10-20, the amplifier's
> > output resistance will have NO appreciable effect on
> > the damping of the system.
>
> Modern Solid state amps can have damping factors of
> greater than 200.
Try it again, a damping factor of 20 or so is sufficient
to control all resonances in a speaker. 200 will NOT
damp ten times better than 20, in fact, in most cases,
the difference is nearly unmeasurable.
> >> Frankly, I think that the sound of an amplifier is more
> >> a result of the complex load presented by the speaker
> >> system that it's driving than the speaker's sound is
> >> influenced by the amplifier.
>
> > That may be the case, but, again, it's something that
> > can be determined. If we have an amplifier whose
> > damping factor is "low" by contemporary standards,
> > say, 20 at 8 ohms, and we connect it to a speaker
> > whose impedance varies from 6 to 30 ohms. The
> > result is that the voltage at the speaker terminals
> > varies by 0.44 db between the minimum and maximum
> > impedance.
>
> > Now, get yourself an amplifier with an alledged damping
> > factor of, oh. 200. The resulting error is now on the order
> > of 0.05 dB. Do you think that you can hear the difference
> > resulting from a smooth change in broadband frequency
> > response of about 0.4 dB in a room with dynamically
> > changing music?
>
> I'm not arguing about broadband frequency response,
> I'm talking about the amp's ability to damp (or stop) a
> large, high mass magnetic bass driver abruptly when
> the signal stops.
And that was PRECISELY what I was talking about
earlier. Your dismissive comments that the
DC resistance "was a given," your inclusion
of inductive and capacitive reactances and your claim
that it is all"guesswork," clearly indicates
you're not grasping the true nature of "damping" in
it's formal electromechanical sense. And that very
mature is central to the operation of loudspeakers.
The damping of the entire system is determined
PRIMARILY by the DC resistance of the voice coil.
The output resistance of the amplifier has, at most
a MINOR effect.
In fact, if you look at the reciprocal of the damping
factor, THAT number gives a good indication of how
much of the electrical damping is provided by the
amplifier.
So take an amplifier with a damping factor of 10: only
1/10 of the total electrical damping of the system is
controlled by the amplifier, 90% is controlled by the
DC resistance of the speaker.
How about a damping factor of 100? Well, 1% of the
damping is provided by the amplifier, 99% is by that
DC resistance of the voice coil
In other words, the higher the damping factor, the LESS
the amplifier contributes to the damping of the speaker.
This is why the "damping factor" is such a useless
specification. It was born PURELY out of marketing.
And all this discussion ignored the fact that the
mechanical losses in the system provide more
damping than even the worst amplifier. Given that
in most high-quality electrodynamic woofers, the
mechanical losses are on the order of 1/5 to 1/2
the electrical damping due to the voice coil, it
further diminishes the contribution of the amplifier
output resistance.
Take a typical speaker with a Qt of 2 and a Qe of
0.7, and now we find that the amplifier with a damping
factor of 10 contributes only 5% or so of the total
damping.
At your leasure, try the following:
You can also google for my ame and "damping factor."
To reiterate: It is the voice coil DC resistance and
NOT the amplifier output resistance that determines
the damping of the VAST majority of amplifier and
speaker combinations "Experiments" such as trying
to see the difference between an open circuit and a
short circuit in terms of "observing" damping are
wholely unrealistic and flawed because they represent
comparisons that wuill NEVER occur in the "real world."
And all of this is quite well understood and not subject
to any guesswork at all, assuming the appropriate
compcepts and models are being used.
If not, then any guess is as bad as any other.
jeffc
>> What was your recent "audition"? These things have to be done carefully,
>> with the exact same system (I assume it was) but also well volume matched
>> (use a test tone and multimeter to check the voltage output from the
>> amp.)
>
> to equal. So I set the volume by ear changed the volume each time up
> or down according to whim. Not very scientific but similar to what one
> would do at home.
Unless you use a voltmeter at home :-) Available at Radio Shack, cheap.
Steven Sullivan
In using any tools, it's important to keep their limitations in mind.
The 'two instruments' you cite are part of a system whose well-known
inaccuracies and tendencies to error, tend to be ignored in audiophile
culture.
Sonnova
(in article <fl8ib...@news4.newsguy.com>):
> Sonnova <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 08:47:53 -0800, codifus wrote
>>> On a slightly different note, I found one way to easily distinguish a
>>> lossy audio file from its lossless counterpart: distortion. The
>>> Lossless file will play much louder and cleaner than the lossy file on
>>> the same system.
>
>> That is very true.
>
> It's very not true.
>
>> A friend recently gave me an 340k MP3 of the end title cut
>> for the movie soundtrack "The Mummy Returns". When I got it home, I was
>> disappointed at how distorted it sounded. I then borrowed the CD from him
>> and
>> did my own "rip" using Apple Lossless. The end result was as clean as the
>> CD.
>
> Then there was something wrong with your friend's mp3.
No there isn't. It's the same version of iTunes that I use and we set it to
320 KBPS ourselves, first.
>> I still maintain that compression artifacts are clearly audible and very
>> nasty sounding, but others keep telling me that it's my imagination.
>
> You've never presented good evidence to the contrary. As in, performance
> on an ABX test, with a good mp3 vs. source.
The point here is that I don't care that others say it's my imagination. I
know it isn't. I maintain that anybody who says that MP3 is as good as the
uncompressed original simply can't hear.
Some of you guys talk as if double-blind ABX tests are so easy to set-up and
perform that one would think that you hold such tests regularly. They are not
easy to set-up or perform and they require considerably more than one person
to perform them. They simply aren't practicable in most situations.
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 08:40:53 -0800, willbill wrote
> > trust your ears
>
> Oh, yes. After all, they're the only "test instruments"
> that most of us posses.
Any test instrument, including one's ears, has limitations.
Their proper use includes knowledge of and proper
consideration of their shortcomings.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of people seriously
over-trust their test instruments (meters and ears
equally) and thus are more than eager to be led to
appropriately erroneous conclusions as a result.
> They do require a bit of training, however.
And many people who say that assume that training
allows them to ignore the fundamental limitations
of the instrument, indeed, even "entitles" them to
ignore them.
No matter how much they are trained, one's ears has
pretty serious limitations. That they are backed by very
sophisticated brains is both a bug AND a feature. Those
brains allow one to supplant things the ears themselves
are incapable of.
Tynan Agviğr
news:GJidnSl7jtKxQvLa...@pghconnect.com:
> Some time ago the now defunct stereo review had an interesting article
> on blind a/b tests between different amplifiers - I saw a reprint
> here;
>
> http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf
>
> After a hiatus of many years I am now putting together a system and
> every one I talk to tells me there is a difference between amplifier
> sounds. I am sceptical and in a recent audition could not tell a Creek
> EVO from a NAD 325 BEE (through EPOS M12.2 speakers with a Creek cd
> source).
>
> Has any more work been done on this subject, esp. blind a/b tests?
>
> Steve
This is discussed regularly within the pages of Audio EXpress.
(www.audioeXpress.com) ..I will be glad to send you a copy of the pertinent
articles if you want...(I suggest subscribing...it is the only audio-
centric magazine that I read for facts instead of fiction)
just shoot me an email if you want the articles.
=Tynan
Steven Sullivan
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:52:02 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
> (in article <fl8ib...@news4.newsguy.com>):
> > Sonnova <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 08:47:53 -0800, codifus wrote
> >>> On a slightly different note, I found one way to easily distinguish a
> >>> lossy audio file from its lossless counterpart: distortion. The
> >>> Lossless file will play much louder and cleaner than the lossy file on
> >>> the same system.
> >
> >> That is very true.
> >
> > It's very not true.
> >
> >> A friend recently gave me an 340k MP3 of the end title cut
> >> for the movie soundtrack "The Mummy Returns". When I got it home, I was
> >> disappointed at how distorted it sounded. I then borrowed the CD from him
> >> and
> >> did my own "rip" using Apple Lossless. The end result was as clean as the
> >> CD.
> >
> > Then there was something wrong with your friend's mp3.
> No there isn't. It's the same version of iTunes that I use and we set it to
> 320 KBPS ourselves, first.
What mp3 codec does iTunes use?
> >> I still maintain that compression artifacts are clearly audible and very
> >> nasty sounding, but others keep telling me that it's my imagination.
> >
> > You've never presented good evidence to the contrary. As in, performance
> > on an ABX test, with a good mp3 vs. source.
> The point here is that I don't care that others say it's my imagination. I
> know it isn't. I maintain that anybody who says that MP3 is as good as the
> uncompressed original simply can't hear.
THe point is, the claim you make -- for 320 kbps mp3 no less, which when done *properly*,
is very difficult to tell from source, for untrained listeners --
is extraordinary, thus the evidence for it should be sound. Yours isn't.
> Some of you guys talk as if double-blind ABX tests are so easy to set-up and
> perform that one would think that you hold such tests regularly. They are not
> easy to set-up or perform and they require considerably more than one person
> to perform them. They simply aren't practicable in most situations.
Utterly wrong in this case. An mp3 vs source ABX is perhaps the most simple to set up, as software
'ABX boxes' have already been developed, and are free. MP3 codecs --LAME in particular,
considered the best -- have been developed using ABX tests to tweak them at every
step.
Sonnova
(in article <flb8i...@news3.newsguy.com>):
> On Dec 30, 11:59 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 08:40:53 -0800, willbill wrote
>> (in article <fl5tal02...@news2.newsguy.com>):
>>> trust your ears
>>
>> Oh, yes. After all, they're the only "test instruments"
>> that most of us posses.
>
> Any test instrument, including one's ears, has limitations.
> Their proper use includes knowledge of and proper
> consideration of their shortcomings.
That goes without saying. Everything has limitations.
>
> Unfortunately, the vast majority of people seriously
> over-trust their test instruments (meters and ears
> equally) and thus are more than eager to be led to
> appropriately erroneous conclusions as a result.
Agreed.
>
>> They do require a bit of training, however.
>
> And many people who say that assume that training
> allows them to ignore the fundamental limitations
> of the instrument, indeed, even "entitles" them to
> ignore them.
I suppose that's true.
> No matter how much they are trained, one's ears has
> pretty serious limitations. That they are backed by very
> sophisticated brains is both a bug AND a feature. Those
> brains allow one to supplant things the ears themselves
> are incapable of.
Exactly. But what do YOU propose in it's stead?
willbill
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 08:40:53 -0800, willbill wrote
>> fwiw, the tubes vs solid state "squabble"
>> went well beyond the '60's and in fact
>> likely continues to this day
> Likely? Based upon the twin facts that there are more companies building
> tubed audio components today than at probably any other time since the
> transistor came on the scene in the middle 1960's and that recognized tube
> brands like Audio Research, VTL, VAC, etc (even Dynaco), have much higher
> resale value than SS gear of similar initial costs (with some exceptions),
> I'd say that this particular "squabble" was very much still with us!
agreed <smiling>
>> in my own not too distant past, tubes still
>> sounded better; bleeding problem is their
>> lack of practicality, not to mention that
>> they now cost so much more than in the 60's
> I have a pair of VTL 140 tube monoblocs that I'm going to be buried with
> (along with my Alfa Romeo GTV-6). That's the only way I'll give 'em up is to
> be dead. Also I find my tube gear to be very practical. I bought out an old
> ham operator of his stash of NOS JAN WWII vinatge 807s (each amp uses six of
> them) for pennies each. They're better than newly manufactured 807s. Anyway,
> I think I've replaced ONE tube in the last 10 years. I'd say that's pretty
> practical! Modern tube components (my VTLs were manufactured in the early
> 1990's), unlike their 1950's and 1960's antecedents, are not biased so
> heavily, so the tubes last a really long time.
ok already
i've been thru the whole tube thing,
and i had more than a few qualms about
ditching not only my amps but also the
vintage tubes (unused)
oh well
>> trust your ears
> Oh, yes. After all, they're the only "test instruments" that most of us
> posses. They do require a bit of training, however.
it's interesting in how well most people
trust "new = better"
it's built into our learning system
.. and in general most new stuff
is better:
PC's being perhaps the best example,
closely followed by small/convenient
digital cameras, small/convenient
digital sound recorders, etc. etc.
>> i can add that imho solid state has
>> come a very very long way forward
>> in the last 20/25 years. :)
> That too is true. I still prefer tubes for music though.
ok and agreed
> SS amps mostly sound
> too clinical for my tastes, although they are probably more accurate. In an
> ideal world, where recordings were perfect, perhaps the clinically accurate
> solid state amps will sound "better" than the euphonically colored tube
> equipment, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. I listen to music for
> pleasure and tubes give me more. There is not, nor does there need to be. any
> other justification than that.
i don't know if you run 1 or 2 sound rooms
i run a modest hi-end <smiling at myself>
5.1 SS/dynamic driver setup in a large/quiet
living room; i can play as loud as i want
given a multichannel 5.1 setup, i'd appreciate
your opinion on:
1. i've thought for some time that the F/R/C
speakers are the most important in a 5.1
multichannel surround setup
agreed/disagreed?
2. of a tube preamp vs. tube amps, my best
guess is that tube amps driving the F/R/C
speakers is the best payoff for using tubes
agreed/disagreed?
all ears. :)
bill
Sonnova
(in article <flb8a...@news3.newsguy.com>):
But, when they're all you have.....
Tell me. How do you choose new audio components. Do you drag a lab full of
test equipment with you to the audio salon? (If so, I'll bet the store owner
just LOVES to see you coming :->) Or do you make your own components,
measuring everything as you go along?
Serge Auckland
news:fldps...@news1.newsguy.com...
In my case, for electronics I go by the specifications of equipment made by
manufacturers I trust.
What's the point is listening to the stuff?
For loudspeakers, I would look at the specs, check any measurement-based
reviews and finally, listen in my own room to check that the particular
inaccuracies of the loudspeakers are something I can live with.
Measurements come after I've bought it to make sure the manufacturer's
specification is being met.
S
Sonnova
(in article <fldp5...@news1.newsguy.com>):
That's a sociological "thing". Modern humans are so used to the always
accelerating pace of technological change that they assume that anything
"new" is a direct result of technological "breakthroughs" and therefore must
be better than the old.
>
> it's built into our learning system
Oh, yes.
>
> .. and in general most new stuff
> is better:
> PC's being perhaps the best example,
> closely followed by small/convenient
> digital cameras, small/convenient
> digital sound recorders, etc. etc.
And people extrapolate the rate of "improvement" from a few products to all
products.
>
>>> i can add that imho solid state has
>>> come a very very long way forward
>>> in the last 20/25 years. :)
>
>> That too is true. I still prefer tubes for music though.
>
> ok and agreed
>
>> SS amps mostly sound
>> too clinical for my tastes, although they are probably more accurate. In an
>> ideal world, where recordings were perfect, perhaps the clinically accurate
>> solid state amps will sound "better" than the euphonically colored tube
>> equipment, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. I listen to music
>> for
>> pleasure and tubes give me more. There is not, nor does there need to be.
>> any
>> other justification than that.
>
> i don't know if you run 1 or 2 sound rooms
>
> i run a modest hi-end <smiling at myself>
> 5.1 SS/dynamic driver setup in a large/quiet
> living room; i can play as loud as i want
>
> given a multichannel 5.1 setup, i'd appreciate
> your opinion on:
>
> 1. i've thought for some time that the F/R/C
> speakers are the most important in a 5.1
> multichannel surround setup
>
> agreed/disagreed?
If you mean that F/R/C is Front/Rear/Center, you've described all of them
except the subwoofer(s). From that, I suspect that you are asking about the
importance of subwoofers. They are optional. If your right and left front
speakers have sufficient bass in and of themselves, then sunwoofers are
optional/superfluous.
>
> 2. of a tube preamp vs. tube amps, my best
> guess is that tube amps driving the F/R/C
> speakers is the best payoff for using tubes
>
> agreed/disagreed?
Yeah. Tube amps are probably more important (to the tube listening
experience) than is the preamp, although, I'd try to go with both.
Frankly, to be honest, my music system and my surround system are completely
separate. My music system is two-channel. It has tube equipment for the amp
and preamp and uses Martin-Logan electrostatic speakers. My surround system
is solid-state, uses all cone drivers and is only used in conjunction with my
video system (except when I'm listening to Sirius satellite radio which comes
with my TV satellite service). IOW, I rarely listen to music on it.
>
> all ears. :)
>
> bill
willbill
> On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 08:18:45 -0800, willbill wrote
>> i run a modest hi-end <smiling at myself>
>> 5.1 SS/dynamic driver setup in a large/quiet
>> living room; i can play as loud as i want
>>
>> given a multichannel 5.1 setup, i'd appreciate
>> your opinion on:
>>
>> 1. i've thought for some time that the F/R/C
>> speakers are the most important in a 5.1
>> multichannel surround setup
>>
>> agreed/disagreed?
> If you mean that F/R/C is Front/Rear/Center,
i screwed up (and did it a 2nd time below!)
i meant the 3 front speakers: L/R/C
> you've described all of them
> except the subwoofer(s). From that, I suspect that you are asking about the
> importance of subwoofers. They are optional. If your right and left front
> speakers have sufficient bass in and of themselves,
not quite
fwiw, they are a decent 2 way pair
of 10 year old Mission 782 speakers;
tweeter and two 5 5/8" midrange
(measured outside of the flexible
rubber that attaches to the cone.
dimensions: 20"H 13"D 10"W;
more efficient than my C speaker)
> then sunwoofers are
> optional/superfluous.
i have two Martin Logan Dynamo
subwoofers (placed front center
and back center). inexpensive
($600), but overall a nice addition
>> 2. of a tube preamp vs. tube amps, my best
>> guess is that tube amps driving the F/R/C
>> speakers is the best payoff for using tubes
>>
>> agreed/disagreed?
> Yeah. Tube amps are probably more important (to the tube listening
> experience) than is the preamp, although, I'd try to go with both.
does a 5.1 tube AVR even exist?
and what does it cost?
if anything, a SS AVR with 5.1 preamp
outputs (which don't all have to be used)
is almost surely the high volume choice
(meaning lowest cost; meaning that it could be
used with it's own SS amp power for rear L/R,
together with a stereo tube amp (for front L/R)
together with a mono tube amp (for front center)
is likely the low cost way of getting back
into tubes)
>
> Frankly, to be honest, my music system and my
> surround system are completely separate.
i had a sense of this, but wasn't sure
(i'm new to the rec.audio. newsgroups)
> My music system is two-channel. It has tube equipment for the amp
> and preamp and uses Martin-Logan electrostatic speakers.
i saw a pair at BB on my last visit (they'd
blown something out and i wasn't able to get
a demo). does Martin-Logan do more than
one electrostatic?
> My surround system
> is solid-state, uses all cone drivers and is only used in conjunction with my
> video system (except when I'm listening to Sirius satellite radio which comes
> with my TV satellite service). IOW, I rarely listen to music on it.
if i win the mega lotto, i'll be sure
to set up with two sound rooms. :)
right after i help fund a long term
health study (for t1 diabetes, of
which i am one)
bill, t1 since '57, hearing still aok. :)
Steven Sullivan
False dichotomy.
In fact I rarely audition gear; I would only seriously desire or feel the
need to do so, for loudspeakers, but that's rarely feasible to do at home
(and listening 'in store' is not a good substitute). And any such
auditions are prone to sighted bias effect. Solid state amps, preamps,
CD/hard media players, cables are commodity gear, more likely to sound
alike than not in a fair (blind) test when operated withing their limits.
(I don't deal with turntables or tube gear, gear that introduces
irreversible , supposedly 'euphonic', distortion). So I keep up on gear
evolution, decide what features I want, then I choose gear that has them,
based on manufacturer's information, and reviews, and published bench
tests. Appearance and price can also be factors in my final choice. I
mostly buy online, I don't often visit 'audio salons' except to sightsee.
At all times I'm aware that 'sighted' reviews and reports on sound are
suspect, including my own.
I put as much or more effort into speaker placement and room treatment. It
stands to both reason and practice that choice of loudspeaker, and
attention to room conditions, makes *BY FAR* the most difference in sound
quality. It really is just that simple, once you jettison all the nonsense
promulgated by audiophile culture.
Randy Yates
> [...]
An EXCELLENT summary of what matters and what doesn't in audio! We
are in complete agreement.
--
% Randy Yates % "And all that I can do
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % is say I'm sorry,
%%% 919-577-9882 % that's the way it goes..."
%%%% <ya...@ieee.org> % Getting To The Point', *Balance of Power*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Sonnova
(in article <flf5t...@news5.newsguy.com>):
> Sonnova wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 08:18:45 -0800, willbill wrote
>
>>> i run a modest hi-end <smiling at myself>
>>> 5.1 SS/dynamic driver setup in a large/quiet
>>> living room; i can play as loud as i want
>>>
>>> given a multichannel 5.1 setup, i'd appreciate
>>> your opinion on:
>>>
>>> 1. i've thought for some time that the F/R/C
>>> speakers are the most important in a 5.1
>>> multichannel surround setup
>>>
>>> agreed/disagreed?
>
>> If you mean that F/R/C is Front/Rear/Center,
>
> i screwed up (and did it a 2nd time below!)
>
> i meant the 3 front speakers: L/R/C
In that case, yes the front speakers are the most important, but surround
seems to work better when the rear speakers are at least RELATED to the front
ones - like being smaller versions of the same make that share a similar
sound signature. Bass in the rear speakers is not as important as it is in
the front because surround signals are often purposely limited in low
frequency response.
I dunno. I haven't seen one. But one could do it with individual tubed
components.
>
> and what does it cost?
>
> if anything, a SS AVR with 5.1 preamp
> outputs (which don't all have to be used)
> is almost surely the high volume choice
> (meaning lowest cost; meaning that it could be
> used with it's own SS amp power for rear L/R,
> together with a stereo tube amp (for front L/R)
> together with a mono tube amp (for front center)
> is likely the low cost way of getting back
> into tubes)
>
>>
>> Frankly, to be honest, my music system and my
>> surround system are completely separate.
>
> i had a sense of this, but wasn't sure
> (i'm new to the rec.audio. newsgroups)
>
>> My music system is two-channel. It has tube equipment for the amp
>> and preamp and uses Martin-Logan electrostatic speakers.
>
> i saw a pair at BB on my last visit (they'd
> blown something out and i wasn't able to get
> a demo). does Martin-Logan do more than
> one electrostatic?
They have a complete range of speakers from about $2000/pair up to about
$12000/pair.
>
>> My surround system
>> is solid-state, uses all cone drivers and is only used in conjunction with
>> my
>> video system (except when I'm listening to Sirius satellite radio which
>> comes
>> with my TV satellite service). IOW, I rarely listen to music on it.
>
> if i win the mega lotto, i'll be sure
> to set up with two sound rooms. :)
> right after i help fund a long term
> health study (for t1 diabetes, of
> which i am one)
>
> bill, t1 since '57, hearing still aok. :)
Good for you and good luck.
c. leeds
> In fact I rarely audition gear;... any such
> auditions are prone to sighted bias effect.
It's a pity to forsake listening entirely simply because a dubious
result is possible.
> I put as much or more effort into speaker placement and room treatment. It
> stands to both reason and practice that choice of loudspeaker, and
> attention to room conditions, makes *BY FAR* the most difference in sound
> quality. It really is just that simple, once you jettison all the nonsense
> promulgated by audiophile culture.
You don't cite an example, so I don't know what "nonsense" you're
talking about. It's certainly nonsensical to buy audio equipment without
listening. But, some people buy a new car without driving it first,
others buy clothes without trying them on. There's simply no accounting
for preference, which is all that you are stating.
Arny Krueger
> news:fku1p...@news4.newsguy.com...
>>
>>> Some will argue that well-made amps that measure the
>>> same will sound the same.
>>
>> The myth here is that two amps could measure the same.
>> Even each channel of
>> a stereo amplifier will measure differently, given
>> sufficiently accurate measuring gear.
> I don't believe the measuring tests are really that
> accurate.
That's too bad.
> If you doubt this, consider: voice recognition
> is extremely difficult for even the most sophsticated
> equipment, yet trivially easy for even children.
Even in the past few days I have transacted very exacting business with
computers, based entirely on voice recognition.
> The same is true for image recognition.
I have likewise completed several transactions based on image recognition.
> Measurements might
> be good enough for the cell phone generation, but that
> ain't sayin' much.
Am I missing something here, or do we have a case of attempted proof by
means of falsified assertions?
> Theoretically, if it can't be measured it can't be heard.
Practically speaking, appropriate measurements readily resolve differences
that have never been heard.
For example, there are no known instances of humans reliably perceiving 0.01
dB level differences even at the frequencies where the ear is most
sensitive, but 0.01 dB level differences are very easy to measure with a
great deal of reliability and certainty.
> But just because it can be measured doesn't mean it is
> being measured.
Irrelevant to the issues I raised. It is completely illogical to attempt to
falsifiy a claim about measruements that have been made on the grounds that
they might not have been made.
Arny Krueger
> And since even if everything we hear could be preceisly
> quantified and weighted according to the requirements of
> human perception, that still doesn't mean that the
> ordinary audiophile would have access to the equipment
> with which to make those measurements for himself.
There's nom chance that the "average audiophile" would have the knowlege or
motivation to make any reasonable set of audio measurements, or be able to
interpret them properly. After all, the various high end ragazines and web
sites have been making sport of audio measurements for more than 30 years.
Their motivation for attacking audio measurements is very clear - they have
created a new economy for audio evaluations where reviewers can simply claim
as the whole truth, whatever flies into their heads for whatever reason.
If a reviewer bases his claims on some measurement or other reliable
repeatable procedure, then interested parties could try to duplicate their
claimed results. By avoiding making claims that are justified by anything
but unsupported opinons, the reviewer can not be held accountable.
> We have two instruments we can use when choosing audio
> equipment and we carry them with us everywhere we go. Use
> 'em!
The fallacy here is the idea that any audiophile's unassisted ear is always
a realiable tool for discerning the performance of all kinds of audio
products.
Steven Sullivan
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > In fact I rarely audition gear;... any such
> > auditions are prone to sighted bias effect.
> It's a pity to forsake listening entirely simply because a dubious
> result is possible.
Who says I 'forsake listening'? I said I forsake auditioning gear.
I do *plenty* of listening to music, though.
> > I put as much or more effort into speaker placement and room treatment. It
> > stands to both reason and practice that choice of loudspeaker, and
> > attention to room conditions, makes *BY FAR* the most difference in sound
> > quality. It really is just that simple, once you jettison all the nonsense
> > promulgated by audiophile culture.
> You don't cite an example, so I don't know what "nonsense" you're
> talking about. It's certainly nonsensical to buy audio equipment without
> listening.
No, it's not. Because it's not often *certain* that gear intrinsically sounds
different, even when your 'ears' suggest it does. It's often *quite likely* that your
judgement of sound quality is not fairly based, in such 'auditions'.
The comparatively few cases where one can safely assume there's real audible difference,
include comparisons where electromechanical transducers are involved (loudspeakers, tt/cart).
Even there, of course, assessment of *sound quality* can be polluted by non-audio factors --
this is an elementary fact of human psychology -- which is why the CRC and Harman employ a
blind comparator setup for loudspeaker evaluation and development.
> But, some people buy a new car without driving it first,
> others buy clothes without trying them on. There's simply no accounting
> for preference, which is all that you are stating.
This is a false analogy. There's little a priori reason, from the technology and physiology
involved, to assume that different models of car WON'T 'drive' different in some way, and much
to assume the opposite. Contrast this to audible difference between amps, preamps, CD
players, cables. To make such an analogy you;'d have to completely ignore the idea that
perception of difference involves physiological thresholds; you'd have to assume that the
thresholds involved in *hearing* the measurable differences in audio gear, are at all
comparable to those involved in sensing a difference in 'driving' (which btw you haven't
defined; in what sense, exactly is 'driving' analogous to 'hearing'?)
Similarly, you need to define what the claim is you're making about clothes choice. In what
sense are 'different' clothes perceptibly different? IS a difference in fabric , in cut, in
color, between , say, two shirts, AT ALL comparable to the measurable difference between CD
players?
What I *am* stating, which audiophiles like you tend to gloss over, is that *preference for
sound* is not necessarily the result of the qualities of the *sound*. And thus it's
often self-delusional to be CERTAIN about it based on sighted comparisons.
Steven Sullivan
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > In fact I rarely audition gear;... any such
> > auditions are prone to sighted bias effect.
> It's a pity to forsake listening entirely simply because a dubious
> result is possible.
> > I put as much or more effort into speaker placement and room treatment. It
> > stands to both reason and practice that choice of loudspeaker, and
> > attention to room conditions, makes *BY FAR* the most difference in sound
> > quality. It really is just that simple, once you jettison all the nonsense
> > promulgated by audiophile culture.
> You don't cite an example, so I don't know what "nonsense" you're
> talking about.
By the way, Curtis, 'nonsense' would include neary every 'review' ever published
in the audio press, or on the interwebs, regarding the 'sound' of different
audio cables. Add to that the numerous reviews claiming striking , even soul-changing
differences between amplifiers and disc players. Not to mention the 'effects' of
risible 'tweaks' such as the 'LP demagnetizer' touted by your fellow vinylphile Michael
Fremer, or the 'Intelligent Chip' that has so excited certain excitable parties on Audio
Asylum. Or, hell, just page through the gear catalogs of Elusive Disc or Music Direct
This 'please provide examples' business can only be coyness on your part. Speaking of
certainties, RAHE and rec.audio.* veterans such as yourself are *certainly* well-aware of, and
usually conversant in, the rhetoric of audiophile culture.
Harry Lavo
news:flh8e...@news2.newsguy.com...
Except that Steven is very quick to accuse anybody who claims to hear what
they think is better sounding electronic gear of fooling themselves. It is
a very hypocritical position to take, it seems to me, for someone who
doesn't even bother to listen, yet claims to know that others can't hear
what he doesn't even bother to listen to or for.
Serge Auckland
Why is it nonsensical to audio equipment without listening first? There's
only a point in listening to electromechanical transducers that "can" sound
different, and then, in the case of loudspeakers, only in one's own
listening room. Electronics of modern competent design do not sound
different so why listen?
Regarding clothes, do you try on underwear, shirts, knitwear before buying?
Suits need to be fitted to the person so should either be made to measure
and fitted, or if bought ready-made then at least tried, and other items
like overcoats may need to be tried for comfort, but there's no analogy that
I can see between audio equipment and clothes. Cars, like outer garments,
will need checking for comfort and fit, i.e. do the seats adjust
comfortably, is the visibility suitable etc, so a test-drive is appropriate,
but again, what is the analogy between cars and audio equipment? A better
analogy perhaps is wine, as the suitability of wine is entirely subjective.
One might buy a bottle without tasting, but would you buy a crate? However,
the analogy with wine only applies to those components, like loudspeakers,
that *do* have a subjective component to their suitability, it fails in the
case of electronics that, excluding a few outre components like SET
amplifiers, don't have a subjective component to their suitablity.
S.
c. leeds
> Who says I 'forsake listening'? I said I forsake auditioning gear.
Exactly. In my opinion, it's silly to buy audio equipment without
auditioning it first. But, you are satisfied with buying based on
specifications and manufacturer "reputation." That's your preference,
and you're entitled to it.
> Because it's not often *certain* that gear intrinsically sounds
> different, even when your 'ears' suggest it does.
So, you throw the baby out with the bathwater and dispense with
auditioning equipment entirely. Again - that's your preference, and
you're entitled to it. I think it's silly.
> What I *am* stating, which audiophiles like you tend to gloss over, is that *preference for
> sound* is not necessarily the result of the qualities of the *sound*.
No, I do not gloss over this simple fact. I simply prefer to listen
before I buy. From this preference you have built a whole construct of
reasoning that is based on your fantasy.
As I said, some people will buy a car without driving it first; others
buy clothes without trying them on. So you are hardly alone in your
preference for selecting products without first evaluating them as they
will be used.
> And thus it's
> often self-delusional to be CERTAIN about it based on sighted comparisons.
Of course, I never made any such assertion about certainty. I simply
prefer to try before I buy. It's a preference.
You're entitled to your preference. That we don't agree doesn't make me
"self-delusional," no matter how noisy your objection.
c. leeds
>>>It really is just that simple, once you jettison all the nonsense
>>> promulgated by audiophile culture.
I answered:
>> You don't cite an example, so I don't know what "nonsense" you're
>> talking about.
Steve responds:
> ...'nonsense' would include neary every 'review' ever published
> in the audio press, or on the interwebs, regarding the 'sound' of different
> audio cables. Add to that the numerous reviews claiming striking , even soul-changing
> differences between amplifiers and disc players.
"Soul-changing" differences????? Examples, please! And - what is the
"interweb?"
> Not to mention the 'effects' of
> risible 'tweaks' such as the 'LP demagnetizer' touted by your fellow vinylphile Michael
> Fremer,
Mr. Fremer is not a "fellow vinylphile" of mine and we are not
associated in any way. Neither am I familiar with the 'LP demagnetizer,'
so I don't know what you are talking about.
> ...or the 'Intelligent Chip' that has so excited certain excitable parties on Audio
> Asylum.
Again, I'm not familar with the 'Intelligent Chip,' so I don't know what
you're talking about.
> Or, hell, just page through the gear catalogs of Elusive Disc or Music Direct
I've never seen the Elusive Disc catalog. If there's something in Music
Direct that you find offensive, please provide a specific example.
> This 'please provide examples' business can only be coyness on your part.
So, it's "coyness" that I ask you to provide specific examples to
support your renderings here? Do you expect the group to swallow whole
your every assertion?
Arny Krueger
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>> In fact I rarely audition gear;... any such
>> auditions are prone to sighted bias effect.
> It's a pity to forsake listening entirely simply because
> a dubious result is possible.
One important lesson of our early days with ABX (now 30 years ago) was that
when auditioning modern non-acoustical gear, as most audiophiles and
reviewers do, biased or random results are *certain*.
>> I put as much or more effort into speaker placement and
>> room treatment. It stands to both reason and practice
>> that choice of loudspeaker, and attention to room
>> conditions, makes *BY FAR* the most difference in sound
>> quality.
Agreed.
>> It really is just that simple, once you
>> jettison all the nonsense promulgated by audiophile
>> culture.
Both recordists and live sound professionals tend to use the word audiophile
as a perjorative. Synonym with clueless and opinionated.
> You don't cite an example, so I don't know what
> "nonsense" you're talking about.
It is true that there is so much nonsense that is widely accepted as
revealed truth, that one might not know where to start. Here's a good
starting point:
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf
> It's certainly
> nonsensical to buy audio equipment without listening.
That might be a good candidate for the 11th lie. Choosing gear that can
logically be expected to sound alike, based on a listening test is certainly
nonsensical. The belief in universal audible differences among pieces of
good audio gear is nonsensical.
> But, some people buy a new car without driving it first,
Been there, done that and just about a year ago. Specifically, I bought a
Mercury Milan based only on a driving experience with a Ford Fusion.
Furthermore, the two cars differed in terms of a number of signficiant
pieces of optional equipment. The basis for doing this is called by some
"abstract reasoning". I recommend it when possible.
> others buy clothes without trying them on.
Hence the hi8storic popularity of clothing retailers such Lands End.
> There's simply no accounting for preference, which is all that you are
> stating.
There is no rational reason to prefer one audio component over another based
on sound quality when they cannot be distingushed based on sound quality.
Arny Krueger
news:fl5t9...@news2.newsguy.com
> dpierce.ca...@gmail.com writes:
>
>> Actually, it's not guesswork at all. The series
>> resistance the voice coil dominates, and unless the
>> other series resistances are pathologically large and
>> the so-called damping factor is larger than 10-20, the
>> amplifier's output resistance will have NO appreciable
>> effect on
>> the damping of the system.
> You're speaking in static, DC terms.
Agreed, that the statement was couched in static terms, but it applies
equally well to the dynamic properties of a loudspeaker.
> What about dynamically?
Because the loudspeaker is a dynamic system, its AC properties differ from
its DC properties. However, the dynamic properties of a loudspeaker enhance
Mr. Pierce's argument. Because a loudspeaker is a passive system, its AC
impedance is *always* higher than its DC impedance.
Simple math shows that increasing the impedance of a load minimizes the
effects of the impedance of the source.
Therefore, the effects of the amplifier's output impedance are less in the
audio band than they are at DC.
> For example, when the voice-coil is
> traveling and the back-emf is opposing the amplifier's
> output voltage?
The back-EMF increases the impedance of the loudspeaker. Therefore, in some
sense it decreases the importance of the source impdedance of the amplifier.
In practice, it is the variation between the ranges where the speaker's
impedance is high and low that makes us prefer power amplifiers that provide
a low source impedance.
> Yes, there is still the DC resistance of
> the coil in series, but the amplifier is working harder than under DC
> conditions.
Actual laboratory observations show otherwise. If you observe an amplifier
*working*, you can externally determine that it is drawing power and making
heat. In some cases the output devices and some internal inductors may even
*sing* a little. These effects are almost always maximized when driving a
resistive load that is equal or approximate to the DC resistance of the
speaker. A counter-example would be a capacitor with low ESR, but in
practice these are rarely hung across the output terminals of a loudspeaker
without some series resistor in place.
When you hook up the speaker, these effects are usually appreciably
lessened. Similar effects can be observed when you monitor voltages and
currents inside the amplifier's circuitry. Therefore, a resistive load whose
resistance is the same or approximates the DC resistance of a loudspeaker is
generally, across the audio band, a tougher load for an amplifier to drive
than the speaker itself.
I say almost always only because there are a few loudspeakers that present a
high impedance to DC. Such speakers usually have built-in series capacitors
that can act to enhance low frequency performance in some cases.
Very few people have operated power amplifiers under maximum output
conditions into a loudspeaker, and not been in the acoustical field of the
loudspeakers. The acoustical field of the loudspeaker operated under these
conditions tends to distract most people.
Arny Krueger
> "Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:fku0m...@news4.newsguy.com...
>> . I
>> used to believe that objective measurements alone were
>> all that one needed, and I still believe that objective
>> measurements can tell us most of what we need to know
>> about a system or component.
> Well, try looking objectively at a chess board at the
> beginning of a game and determine who will win - black or
> white.
This is relevant how?
For one thing, the two sides of a chess board are stipulated to give equal
chances to the competitors. They are designed to be functionally identical
when it comes to predicting the outcome of the game.
In contrast the two pieces of equipment are different from each othe, they
are different designs.
For another thing, the outcome of a chess game is dependent on the players,
not the board.
This example would die a certain death if presented in a 101-level middle
school class about rhetoric!
> Objective computers measurements can't figure out that one either.
Actually, they can especially when the differences are sufficiently large to
matter.
Here again we have an attempt at proof by means of a pair of ludcrous
assertions.
> There is a lot in this world that isn't known or
> understood, trust me.
True, but relevant how?
Arny Krueger
news:fl38q...@news4.newsguy.com
> Some amplifiers sound different, some don't, depending on
> what they are connected to.
Actually, all amplifiers sound different as typically evaluated by
audiophiles and high end reviewers.
The differneces are a consequnece of the absence of experimental controls
that have been repeatedly and reliably shown to make big differences.
> Don't get hung up about
> others opinions and blind tests, there is no definitive
> answer.
Actually, there are many definitive answers. One of them is that listening
tests in audio salons are designed to make amplifiers sound different.
> Select a few well regarded units to audition and
> make up your own mind. With those speakers, the
> differences between amps will be subtle compared to a
> speaker upgrade.
Agreed that speakers have a strong tendency to sound different. But among
speakers of a given quality level, the differences due to the differences in
the acoustics of various listening rooms are even stronger.
Reasonably good speakers of a kind, for example competitive bookshelf
speakers, sound more like the rooms they are listened to in, than they have
a characteristic sound of their own.
Arny Krueger
> The point here is that I don't care that others say it's
> my imagination. I know it isn't.
This statement can be distinguished from a statement of religious faith how?
> I maintain that anybody
> who says that MP3 is as good as the uncompressed original
> simply can't hear.
Given the lack of reliable evidence to back this up, and the goodly volumes
of reliable information that denies it...
> Some of you guys talk as if double-blind ABX tests are so
> easy to set-up and perform that one would think that you
> hold such tests regularly.
ABX tests of lossy-compression products and their parameters are among the
easiest listening tests there are to set up and perform. I daresay that
anybody who can't set one up and run it well has indicted their abilities to
use a computer effectively.
It's a three step process, easy as 1-2-3
(1) Compress .WAV file by whatever means you wish to evaluate
(2) Uncompress lossy-compressed file back into a .wav file.
(3) Compare pre-compression .wav file with post-compression .wav file using
readily-avilable DBT test software.
> They are not easy to set-up or
> perform and they require considerably more than one
> person to perform them.
What's easier than 1-2-3?
> They simply aren't practicable in most situations.
Agreed - and their lack of predictability is part of their charm. Why do a
test if the outcome is so easily predicted by you?
Steven Sullivan
> "c. leeds" <cle...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
> news:flh8e...@news2.newsguy.com...
> > Steven Sullivan wrote:
> >
> >> In fact I rarely audition gear;... any such auditions are prone to
> >> sighted bias effect.
> >
> > It's a pity to forsake listening entirely simply because a dubious result
> > is possible.
> >
> >> I put as much or more effort into speaker placement and room treatment.
> >> It stands to both reason and practice that choice of loudspeaker, and
> >> attention to room conditions, makes *BY FAR* the most difference in sound
> >> quality. It really is just that simple, once you jettison all the
> >> nonsense promulgated by audiophile culture.
> >
> > You don't cite an example, so I don't know what "nonsense" you're talking
> > about. It's certainly nonsensical to buy audio equipment without
> > listening. But, some people buy a new car without driving it first, others
> > buy clothes without trying them on. There's simply no accounting for
> > preference, which is all that you are stating.
> Except that Steven is very quick to accuse anybody who claims to hear what
> they think is better sounding electronic gear of fooling themselves.
No, not 'anybody'.
> It is
> a very hypocritical position to take, it seems to me, for someone who
> doesn't even bother to listen, yet claims to know that others can't hear
> what he doesn't even bother to listen to or for.
You apparently keep failing to understand the logic behind it. Even
after all this long time.
Steven Sullivan
Though critical comparisons of wine, of course, are often done blind.
And then there's the stories of 'connoisseurs' who could be fooled by
simple label switches....
Sonnova
(in article <fljrp...@news3.newsguy.com>):
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
>>>> It really is just that simple, once you jettison all the nonsense
>>>> promulgated by audiophile culture.
>
> I answered:
>>> You don't cite an example, so I don't know what "nonsense" you're
>>> talking about.
>
> Steve responds:
>> ...'nonsense' would include neary every 'review' ever published
>> in the audio press, or on the interwebs, regarding the 'sound' of different
>> audio cables. Add to that the numerous reviews claiming striking , even
>> soul-changing
>> differences between amplifiers and disc players.
>
> "Soul-changing" differences????? Examples, please! And - what is the
> "interweb?"
>
>> Not to mention the 'effects' of
>> risible 'tweaks' such as the 'LP demagnetizer' touted by your fellow
>> vinylphile Michael
>> Fremer,
>
> Mr. Fremer is not a "fellow vinylphile" of mine and we are not
> associated in any way. Neither am I familiar with the 'LP demagnetizer,'
> so I don't know what you are talking about.
Mr. Sullivan is talking about that portion of the audiophile community known,
lovingly, as the "lunatic fringe" - it seems that every hobby has them. In
the case of audio, its that section of the audiophile community who believe
that lifting their speaker cables off the floor will improve the sound, or
that $2000 for a 1-meter length of interconnect will buy them much better
reproduction than would a $30 interconnect or that expensive blocks of
myrtlewood sprinkled magically amongst their components will make the
resultant sound more REAL. And let's not forget to run a green Magic Marker
pen around the periphery of each of our CDs to absorb "laser scatter".
Where he and Mr, Kruger err here is to assume that those audiophiles who
differences in amps, preamps and CD players also subscribe to the tomfoolery
outlined above. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of us realize
that there is an awfully lot of snake-oil being peddled in high-end audio and
most of it is bunk.
Most of us seem to buy decently made quasi-balanced interconnects, and
speaker cable of sufficient wire size to carry the current to one's speakers
and that's about it. The rest is snake-oil and patent nostrums.
>> ...or the 'Intelligent Chip' that has so excited certain excitable parties
>> on Audio
>> Asylum.
>
> Again, I'm not familar with the 'Intelligent Chip,' so I don't know what
> you're talking about.
>
>> Or, hell, just page through the gear catalogs of Elusive Disc or Music
>> Direct
>
> I've never seen the Elusive Disc catalog. If there's something in Music
> Direct that you find offensive, please provide a specific example.
>
>> This 'please provide examples' business can only be coyness on your part.
>
> So, it's "coyness" that I ask you to provide specific examples to
> support your renderings here? Do you expect the group to swallow whole
> your every assertion?
Here, try these for a start: AudioPrism "Quietline" filters, "CD Stop-Light",
"Cable Elevators", Shakti Audio "Hallograph" stands. Cardas Audio Myrtlewood
blocks. "FryBaby Cable Burn-in tool, Shunyata Antares 1-m interconnect pair,
Nordest "Valhalla" speaker cables ($7000 for a 2-meter pair!) AudioQuest
"MontBlanc" speaker cables at $1800/8 ft pair. etc. The Musicdirect catalog
is full of this worthless mousemilk. They also sell some nice gear and some
fine recordings.
Steven Sullivan
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > Who says I 'forsake listening'? I said I forsake auditioning gear.
> Exactly. In my opinion, it's silly to buy audio equipment without
> auditioning it first.
In my opinion, it's silly to act as if one's 'ears' are always right...
when one is rarely using just one's ears.
> > Because it's not often *certain* that gear intrinsically sounds
> > different, even when your 'ears' suggest it does.
> So, you throw the baby out with the bathwater and dispense with
> auditioning equipment entirely.
Indeed, I usually do. But I don't dispense with *all* forms of research.
> > What I *am* stating, which audiophiles like you tend to gloss over, is that *preference for
> > sound* is not necessarily the result of the qualities of the *sound*.
> No, I do not gloss over this simple fact. I simply prefer to listen
> before I buy. From this preference you have built a whole construct of
> reasoning that is based on your fantasy.
In addition to this being yet another 'glossing over', this is also
remarkably incoherent of you.
First you mention *your* preference -- which is demonstrably error-prone,
based on the 'simple fact' you acknowledge to be true -- then for some
reason claim that *my* reasoning is based on a 'fantasy'.
> As I said, some people will buy a car without driving it first; others
> buy clothes without trying them on. So you are hardly alone in your
> preference for selecting products without first evaluating them as they
> will be used.
But as I'e explained, -- and you've glossed over -- buying without
trying is NOT always reasonable. It just happens to be, for much
audio gear.
> > And thus it's
> > often self-delusional to be CERTAIN about it based on sighted comparisons.
> Of course, I never made any such assertion about certainty. I simply
> prefer to try before I buy. It's a preference.
> You're entitled to your preference. That we don't agree doesn't make me
> "self-delusional," no matter how noisy your objection.
And mine's not based on a 'fantasy' then, is it?
Steven Sullivan
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> >>>It really is just that simple, once you jettison all the nonsense
> >>> promulgated by audiophile culture.
> I answered:
> >> You don't cite an example, so I don't know what "nonsense" you're
> >> talking about.
> Steve responds:
> > ...'nonsense' would include neary every 'review' ever published
> > in the audio press, or on the interwebs, regarding the 'sound' of different
> > audio cables. Add to that the numerous reviews claiming striking , even soul-changing
> > differences between amplifiers and disc players.
> "Soul-changing" differences?????
Would you prefer 'danceable' cables?
> Examples, please! And - what is the
> "interweb?"
It's a joke.
> > Not to mention the 'effects' of
> > risible 'tweaks' such as the 'LP demagnetizer' touted by your fellow vinylphile Michael
> > Fremer,
> Mr. Fremer is not a "fellow vinylphile" of mine and we are not
> associated in any way. Neither am I familiar with the 'LP demagnetizer,'
> so I don't know what you are talking about.
> > ...or the 'Intelligent Chip' that has so excited certain excitable parties on Audio
> > Asylum.
> Again, I'm not familar with the 'Intelligent Chip,' so I don't know what
> you're talking about.
So, it's *your* ignorance of audiophile claims, not mine, that we're dealing with here?
> > Or, hell, just page through the gear catalogs of Elusive Disc or Music Direct
> I've never seen the Elusive Disc catalog. If there's something in Music
> Direct that you find offensive, please provide a specific example.
Easily done from the *front page of their website*:
CABLE ELEVATORS PLUS (SET OF 8)
Keep all your audio cables off the floor with our best-selling, reviewer-recommended Cable Elevators. These really work
wonders and come with our 100% Money Back Guarantee
here's what you learn when you click to the link
'Elevate' your musical experience with the best cable supports on the market! You can gain significant improvements in
the sound of your audio or home theater system by elevating your speaker and power cables off the floor. The
improvements you will hear in detail and dynamics are not subtle. Many of you have already reported tremendous
increases in clarity, tonal accuracy, and dynamics with Cable Elevators in place. Produced by a leading manufacturer of
porcelain isolators, Cable Elevators are then coated with a non-conductive glaze to further reduce noise and a special
non-slip foot for added stability with today's heavier cables. Cable Elevators are a simple, affordable tweak greatly
enhancing the sonic presentation of your entire system and helping with cable management.
'The damn things do lower noise, increase dynamics, remove haze, and open up the top octaves. Once you listen to their
effects, even a skeptic like me has to admit that it is hard to take them back out of the system. Music sounds more
like music with the Cable Elevators in place. I recommend them strongly, especially given their price!' Jonathan
Valin, The Absolute Sound
$159.99
//
That's laughable NONSENSE, sir.
> > This 'please provide examples' business can only be coyness on your part.
> So, it's "coyness" that I ask you to provide specific examples to
> support your renderings here? Do you expect the group to swallow whole
> your every assertion?
Well, let's ask 'the group'.
'Group' -- can *you* think of what claims I might be talking about when I refer to
'audiophile nonsense'?
Sonnova
(in article <fljrl...@news3.newsguy.com>):
> "c. leeds" <cle...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
> news:flh8e...@news2.newsguy.com...
>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>> In fact I rarely audition gear;... any such auditions are prone to
>>> sighted bias effect.
>>
>> It's a pity to forsake listening entirely simply because a dubious result
>> is possible.
>>
>>> I put as much or more effort into speaker placement and room treatment.
>>> It stands to both reason and practice that choice of loudspeaker, and
>>> attention to room conditions, makes *BY FAR* the most difference in sound
>>> quality. It really is just that simple, once you jettison all the
>>> nonsense promulgated by audiophile culture.
>>
>> You don't cite an example, so I don't know what "nonsense" you're talking
>> about. It's certainly nonsensical to buy audio equipment without
>> listening. But, some people buy a new car without driving it first, others
>> buy clothes without trying them on. There's simply no accounting for
>> preference, which is all that you are stating.
>
> Why is it nonsensical to audio equipment without listening first? There's
> only a point in listening to electromechanical transducers that "can" sound
> different, and then, in the case of loudspeakers, only in one's own
> listening room. Electronics of modern competent design do not sound
> different so why listen?
A point of view not supportable. I say that electronics of modern, competent
design DO sound different. The only question is do those differences mean
anything to you, personally? If not, fine, but to many they mean a great
deal, your scoffing notwithstanding.
> Regarding clothes, do you try on underwear, shirts, knitwear before buying?
> Suits need to be fitted to the person so should either be made to measure
> and fitted, or if bought ready-made then at least tried, and other items
> like overcoats may need to be tried for comfort, but there's no analogy that
> I can see between audio equipment and clothes. Cars, like outer garments,
> will need checking for comfort and fit, i.e. do the seats adjust
> comfortably, is the visibility suitable etc, so a test-drive is appropriate,
> but again, what is the analogy between cars and audio equipment? A better
> analogy perhaps is wine, as the suitability of wine is entirely subjective.
> One might buy a bottle without tasting, but would you buy a crate? However,
> the analogy with wine only applies to those components, like loudspeakers,
> that *do* have a subjective component to their suitability, it fails in the
> case of electronics that, excluding a few outre components like SET
> amplifiers, don't have a subjective component to their suitablity.
Perhaps you just can't hear that "subjective component".
Sonnova
(in article <fljs0...@news3.newsguy.com>):
Thanks for the reference. I agree with virtually EVERYTHING Peter says in
that article. The exceptions? Tubes vs transistors. I think tube amps sound
more like live music than solid-state. Digital vs Analog. We've been through
this before. The best recorded sound I've ever heard comes from vinyl, not
CD. No sense to rehash the argument here. Nothing will be served by it. I
also don't believe that double-blind or ABX testing is of much use in
comparing electronics. Certainly not in the way its usually done. One of my
projects this year is to build myself an ABX switching box and try to
correlate the results of long-term listening tests (like I do now) with ABX
testing where I have no pressures or boundaries inflicted upon me by outside
sources such as time constraints, peer pressure, unfamiliar ancillary
equipment (like speakers) and sources, etc. I really want to know.
Other than that he is spot-on. I've always maintained that anyone with the
interest can develop themselves a pair of "golden-ears" as it's merely an
educated way of listening. I also agree that cable peddlers are just one step
up from child molesters, or would be except for the phrase Caveat Emptor.
Adults buy this stuff and nobody holds a gun to their heads. While (as the
article says) it is important to choose quality connectors and conductors and
insulation, NONE of these have the slightest effect on the "sound", only upon
reliability and the integrity (perhaps) of the connection. Physics ensures
that, not any manufacturer's guarantee. Essentially, any $30 pair of Monster
interconnects provide the quality of quasi-balanced cables needed to assure a
good, trouble-free connection with minimum interference from other sources.
One needn't spend more than that (unless one wants to, that is).
But Mr. Aczel did not say that all electronics sound alike. Anywhere.
>> It's certainly
>> nonsensical to buy audio equipment without listening.
>
> That might be a good candidate for the 11th lie. Choosing gear that can
> logically be expected to sound alike, based on a listening test is certainly
> nonsensical. The belief in universal audible differences among pieces of
> good audio gear is nonsensical.
Sorry, but if one doesn't accept your premise (...gear that can logically be
expected to sound alike...) then one can hardly be expected to accept your
conclusion (that your expectations are self fulfilling).
>
>> But, some people buy a new car without driving it first,
>
> Been there, done that and just about a year ago. Specifically, I bought a
> Mercury Milan based only on a driving experience with a Ford Fusion.
> Furthermore, the two cars differed in terms of a number of signficiant
> pieces of optional equipment. The basis for doing this is called by some
> "abstract reasoning". I recommend it when possible.
Again, there is more to buying a car than that. The Ford and the Milan are
based on the same platform, are they not? They share the same suspension,
same brakes, etc, In such a case, there is no appreciable difference between
those two cars. It is easy to extrapolate the handling and performance of one
by driving the other when they are essentially the same vehicle.
On the other hand, if one likes certain handling characteristcs, the only way
to find a car that has those is to drive them. Suppose, I'm looking for a car
that is initially neutral, has quick turn-in with plenty of steering feedback
trough the steering wheel, and which can be induced to slight oversteer with
application of the throttle. Suppose further, that I'm looking for braking
performance that doesn't fade under repeated hard brakingbut can be made to
induce understeer or oversteer by judicious application under dynamic
driving situations. Are you going to say that these characteristics can be
gleaned without driving the cars?
>
>> others buy clothes without trying them on.
>
> Hence the hi8storic popularity of clothing retailers such Lands End.
>
>> There's simply no accounting for preference, which is all that you are
>> stating.
>
> There is no rational reason to prefer one audio component over another based
> on sound quality when they cannot be distingushed based on sound quality.
Again, your conclusions are based on accepting your premise. Those who do not
accept your premise are simply not going to agree with you on this point.
>
Steven Sullivan
> A point of view not supportable. I say that electronics of modern, competent
> design DO sound different. The only question is do those differences mean
> anything to you, personally? If not, fine, but to many they mean a great
> deal, your scoffing notwithstanding.
The real question is whether the 'audible' differences you believe you hear,
are likely to be real, and not just a figment from well-known psychological processes
that you have done NOTHING to rule out.
Arny Krueger
news:fljr0...@news3.newsguy.com
> Except that Steven is very quick to accuse anybody who
> claims to hear what they think is better sounding
> electronic gear of fooling themselves.
That is an assertion of his that generally will pass a carefully done
real-world test.
> It is a very
> hypocritical position to take, it seems to me, for
> someone who doesn't even bother to listen,
One does not need to bother to listen - we listen to various alternatives as
a matter of simply living in the modern world.
> yet claims to know that others can't hear what he doesn't even bother
> to listen to or for.
It's simple. Every time I or just about anybody else subject exceptional
claims about electronic audio gear to careful (non-casual) examination, they
evaporate. At this point, thosands or tens of thousands of people have
experienced this for themselves. Hence cultural icons such as the ASA, MPEG,
AES, SMWTMS, Hydrogen Audio Forum, etc.
My evaluation methodolgy clearly indicated many years ago that SACD and
DVD-A so-called high resolution formats should fail in the marketplace
because they offered nothing that was reliably audible. At this point the
general wisdom is that they failed. QED.
Serge Auckland
How can they? What aspect of modern design allows for a sound quality
difference? Is the difference between distortion figures sufficient to cause
a sound quality difference? Is the difference in frequency response
sufficient to cause a sound quality difference? Is the difference in
residual noise sufficient to cause a sound quality difference? I suggest
not, as the differences in all these is well below the threshold of hearing
for modern well designed equipment. If it's not any of those, then what can
it be? If there's a difference, then it has to be quantifiable, otherwise
it's down to imagination.
S.
willbill
> On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 21:02:31 -0800, willbill wrote
>>>> agreed/disagreed?
>>> If you mean that F/R/C is Front/Rear/Center,
>> i screwed up (and did it a 2nd time below!)
>>
>> i meant the 3 front speakers: L/R/C
> In that case, yes the front speakers are the most important, but surround
> seems to work better when the rear speakers are at least RELATED to the front
> ones - like being smaller versions of the same make that share a similar
> sound signature.
they're all cone speakers, and yes they're very
well "related" in that the sound field isn't
striking in any way
..if anything my rear speakers (PSB Alpha B1's)
are likely the standout, and even though somewhat
small (7/9/12" W/D/H, with a rear port), they
have adequate bass for "small" *rear* speakers
> Bass in the rear speakers is not as important as it is in
> the front because surround signals are often purposely limited in low
> frequency response.
fwiw, i've listened to more than a few movies
with some large low frequency rear response
>>>> 2. of a tube preamp vs. tube amps, my best
>>>> guess is that tube amps driving the F/R/C
>>>> speakers is the best payoff for using tubes
>>>>
>>>> agreed/disagreed?
>>> Yeah. Tube amps are probably more important (to the tube listening
>>> experience) than is the preamp, although, I'd try to go with both.
>> does a 5.1 tube AVR even exist?
> I dunno. I haven't seen one. But one could do it with individual tubed
> components.
anyway my view is it's down to 3 choices for my next
improvement: 1) tube amps for the front 3 speakers,
2) room sound treatment, or 3) better front L/R speakers
bill
Sonnova
(in article <flmgk...@news5.newsguy.com>):
Easy. I have three sets of amplifiers at my disposal: a pair of VTL tube
monoblocks, a pair of Denon transistor monoblocks made under license from
Nelson Pass using his "Stasis circuitry" and a pair (used to have 4) of
Rockford/Hafler TransNova 1500 power amps. The VTLs are 140 watts each, the
Denons 220, the Haflers 150 watts/channel. When I replace my "reference" VTLs
with the Denons (after using my trusty Hewlett-Packard 400D audio VTVM to
match output levels EXACTLY) I notice three things: The Denons have a much
more grainy sounding top end than the VTLs that's very noticeable on massed
strings. Live massed strings have this silken effortlessness to them that's
all but impossible to reproduce exactly. Any audiophile who attends live
symphonic concerts regularly, has surely noticed this sense of effortless
ease with a smooth resinous quality as a secondary sonic signature. My VTLs
approximate this sound much better than do the Denons or the Haflers. The
upper register of all instruments sounds smoother and more real. Whether the
VTLs accomplish this by being more accurate or by injecting some euphonious
colorations is not the point. The point is that they sound different. Also
with the Denons in the system, the sound stage collapses somewhat. The image
doesn't sound as wide or as deep as do the VTLs but the image specificity
doesn't seem to change appreciably. And finally, The Denons (and the Haflers)
have a bit more taut low bass than do my VTLs, but that's OK because in
actual listening (as opposed to auditioning amplifiers), I have a pair of
subwoofers with their own solid state amplifiers doing those honors.
> What aspect of modern design allows for a sound quality
> difference?
Surely you jest? The stiffness of the power supply, the quality of the
components, even the number of stages in the amp all have an effect on sound.
Don't believe me (of course you don't)? Try this play a CD player through
your regular preamp into your power amp and listen for a while. Now, remove
the preamp and run the CD player DIRECTLY into the power amp (after matching
levels, of course using instrumantation) without the preamp. If the removal
of the preamp doesn't sound IMMEDIATLY cleaner and better, then I suggest
that you can't hear.
> Is the difference between distortion figures sufficient to cause
> a sound quality difference?
Not that can be measured, no.
> Is the difference in frequency response
> sufficient to cause a sound quality difference?
Not in an of itself, no.
> Is the difference in
> residual noise sufficient to cause a sound quality difference?
No.
> I suggest
> not, as the differences in all these is well below the threshold of hearing
> for modern well designed equipment. If it's not any of those, then what can
> it be?
You tell me. I don't pretend to know. I'm just the messenger as it were.
> If there's a difference, then it has to be quantifiable, otherwise
> it's down to imagination.
I assume that if it's audible, it's quantifiable. But where we diverge is
that you think that everything quantifiable has been quantified. I'm not so
sure. The amps sound different. Load differences (both input and speakers)? I
dunno. But the effects aren't subtle.
Randy Yates
> [...]
> I also don't believe that double-blind or ABX testing is of much use in
> comparing electronics.
I don't belive a stop watch is of much use in comparing sports cars.
--
% Randy Yates % "Watching all the days go by...
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % Who are you and who am I?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Mission (A World Record)',
%%%% <ya...@ieee.org> % *A New World Record*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Steven Sullivan
If you read my psots, you saw that I excepted tube amps. There;s a good
chance they will sound different from other
amps, since they often (not always) purposely introduce euphonic distortion.
> Surely you jest? The stiffness of the power supply, the quality of the
> components, even the number of stages in the amp all have an effect on sound.
> Don't believe me (of course you don't)? Try this play a CD player through
> your regular preamp into your power amp and listen for a while. Now, remove
> the preamp and run the CD player DIRECTLY into the power amp (after matching
> levels, of course using instrumantation) without the preamp. If the removal
> of the preamp doesn't sound IMMEDIATLY cleaner and better, then I suggest
> that you can't hear.
Try doing that in a *double blind*, all-channels-level-matched comparison, 16 trials or more,
THEN let us know the results. Thanks.
Sonnova
(in article <flmu5...@news4.newsguy.com>):
> Sonnova <son...@audiosanatorium.com> writes:
>> [...]
>> I also don't believe that double-blind or ABX testing is of much use in
>> comparing electronics.
>
> I don't belive a stop watch is of much use in comparing sports cars.
>
You are right. It isn't of much use in comparing sports cars. However, as one
of a number of tools used in the process (some of which, like seating
position, steering feedback, turn-in, understeer and oversteer, are either
totally or largely subjective), can tell you all you need to know about
various sports cars. But the stop watch by itself? Almost useless.
Serge Auckland
Then I'm obviously deaf. I have done this many times, and I can't hear the
presence or absence of the pre-amp once level matched. I have also built a
number of purely passive pre-amps and provided the cable lengths are kept
sensibly short, there's no difference in sound between that and any active
pre-amp I've ever auditioned.
As to power supply stiffness, quality of components, number of stages etc,
none have ever made a difference that I could hear provided that the
measurements were sufficiently good. In my early years designing Broadcast
equipment, I would always listen to the designs as well as measure them. If
I ever heard anything untowards, it *always* showed up in the measurements.
>
>> Is the difference between distortion figures sufficient to cause
>> a sound quality difference?
>
> Not that can be measured, no.
>
>> Is the difference in frequency response
>> sufficient to cause a sound quality difference?
>
> Not in an of itself, no.
>
>> Is the difference in
>> residual noise sufficient to cause a sound quality difference?
>
> No.
>
>> I suggest
>> not, as the differences in all these is well below the threshold of
>> hearing
>> for modern well designed equipment. If it's not any of those, then what
>> can
>> it be?
>
> You tell me. I don't pretend to know. I'm just the messenger as it were.
>
>> If there's a difference, then it has to be quantifiable, otherwise
>> it's down to imagination.
>
> I assume that if it's audible, it's quantifiable. But where we diverge is
> that you think that everything quantifiable has been quantified. I'm not
> so
> sure. The amps sound different. Load differences (both input and
> speakers)? I
> dunno. But the effects aren't subtle.
I'm glad you accept that if it's audible, it's quantifiable, as that's been
my experience. However, when it comes to audio, I can't think of anything
that isn't sufficiently well understood to have been fully characterised,
with the possible exception of data-reduced formats like MP3, AACplus etc
which are still evolving.
If you *are* genuinely hearing differences between your power amps, then
that's because there *is* a difference, measurable and quantifiable. In your
case, the VTL tube amps will have higher distortion and may well have a
sufficently higher output impedance that their frequency response into your
loudspeakers is noticeably affected when compared to the Solid State amps.
Depending on how loud you play, there could well be a difference in the
overload performance of the three amps, which will account for sonic
differences, which is why, when evaluating amplifiers, it is essential that
they be kept out of clipping, even for very brief instants. You don't say
what your loudspeakers are, as the impedance characteristic of the 'speakers
will have an effect on how the amplifiers are able to drive them.
In summary, it is my contention that all amplifiers *will* sound the same if
their measurements indicate a performance below the threshold of perception
for the common aspects of frequency response, noise and distortions, if they
are level matched, and if they are kept out of overload on your particular
'speakers. For example, if you are using Apogee Scintillas, there are only
a very few amplifiers which will drive the severe 1 or 2 ohms load
adequately, whilst if using 11 or 15 ohms LS3/5A, pretty much any amp will
drive these properly. I would therefore expect there to be no difference
between half-decent amps on LS3/5As, whilst large differences could be
audible on the Scintillas.
S
c. leeds
>>> ...'nonsense' would include neary every 'review' ever published
>>> in the audio press, ...even soul-changing
>>> differences between amplifiers and disc players.
I answered:
>
> "Soul-changing" differences????? Examples, please!
Sullivan responds:
> Would you prefer 'danceable' cables?
No. You mentioned "soul changing differences between amplifiers and disc
players " cited by the audio press, and I asked for an examples. Now,
you change the subject to cables. It is beginning to look like you are
simply making this up as you go along.
I also asked Sullivan:
>> - what is the
>> "interweb?"
he answers:
> It's a joke.
Oh. I don't get it. Is this whole argument of your's a joke, too?
> So, it's *your* ignorance of audiophile claims, not mine, that we're dealing with
Correct. You referenced fuzzy "audiophile claims" and I told you I don't
know what you're talking about. When questioned about alleged
"soul-changing differences between amplifiers and disc players," you
change the subject to cables. So I still don't know what you're talking
about.
He cites:
> CABLE ELEVATORS PLUS (SET OF 8)
> Keep all your audio cables off the floor with our best-selling, reviewer-recommended Cable Elevators. These really work
> wonders and come with our 100% Money Back Guarantee... $159.99
And Sullivan says:
> That's laughable NONSENSE, sir.
Perhaps. Surely, the claim is dubious, but I've never evaluated the
product. Have you? There's a money-back guarantee, so there's no risk on
your part.
> 'Group' -- can *you* think of what claims I might be talking about when I refer to
> 'audiophile nonsense'?
You're making the assertions, Sullivan... and now asking the group for
evidence? I get it, this is all just silly jive on your part.
c. leeds
> In my opinion, it's silly to buy audio equipment without
>> auditioning it first.
Sullivan answers:
> In my opinion, it's silly to act as if one's 'ears' are always right...
> when one is rarely using just one's ears.
I simply stated a preference: I prefer to listen to audio equipment
before buying. That is different than acting "as if one's 'ears' are
always right." Do you see the difference?
> First you mention *your* preference -- which is demonstrably error-prone,
> based on the 'simple fact' you acknowledge to be true
I made no such acknowledgment. Listening to audio equipment before
purchase is not "error-prone." It is simply listening - there is no
right or wrong. It's a preference to listen before you buy. A preference
doesn't require substantiation - it's a preference.
> But as I'e explained, -- and you've glossed over -- buying without
> trying is NOT always reasonable.
But here's what you wrote:
> So I keep up on gear
> evolution, decide what features I want, then I choose gear that has them,
> based on manufacturer's information, and reviews, and published bench
> tests. Appearance and price can also be factors in my final choice.
So it appears that you won't try before buying even when it's an option.
In my view, that's silly. But you're entitled to your preference, just
as some people will buy a new car without driving it first, or buy
c. leeds
without listening to it first):
> Except that Steven is very quick to accuse anybody who claims to hear what
> they think is better sounding electronic gear of fooling themselves. It is
> a very hypocritical position to take, it seems to me, for someone who
> doesn't even bother to listen, yet claims to know that others can't hear
> what he doesn't even bother to listen to or for.
Quite true, but here's what's sillier: that in a "high-end" newsgroup,
anyone would be criticized for simply preferring to listen to equipment
before purchase. Sullivan insists such listening is "error-prone."
c. leeds
> One important lesson of our early days with ABX (now 30 years ago) was that
> when auditioning modern non-acoustical gear, as most audiophiles and
> reviewers do, biased or random results are *certain*.
Congratulations, Arny. You've changed a discussion about a preference -
for listening to equipment before purchase - into an ABX discussion in
one simple, illogical step.
> Both recordists and live sound professionals tend to use the word audiophile
> as a perjorative. Synonym with clueless and opinionated.
Whatever.
> Choosing gear that can
> logically be expected to sound alike, based on a listening test is certainly
> nonsensical.
But I never said that I did that. I simply said that I prefer to listen
before I buy. This act of listening sure troubles a few of you on this
group, but that's your problem. Some people buy a new car without
driving it first, others buy clothes without tying them on. That's their
preference.
> There is no rational reason to prefer one audio component over another based
> on sound quality when they cannot be distingushed based on sound quality.
That's the logical fallacy known as "begging the question."
---MIKE---
---MIKE---
>>In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
>> (44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')
Steven Sullivan
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> >>> ...'nonsense' would include neary every 'review' ever published
> >>> in the audio press, ...even soul-changing
> >>> differences between amplifiers and disc players.
> I answered:
> >
> > "Soul-changing" differences????? Examples, please!
> Sullivan responds:
> > Would you prefer 'danceable' cables?
> No. You mentioned "soul changing differences between amplifiers and disc
> players " cited by the audio press, and I asked for an examples. Now,
> you change the subject to cables. It is beginning to look like you are
> simply making this up as you go along.
How do 'danceable' cables not qualify? IT's a rather famous recent
instance of audiophile overstatements and it's wholly of a piece with wild
claims about CD players and amps -- and it was challenged by James Randi
himself. Surely you hears about it? Look up 'Pear Anjou' and 'Randi' on
The Google.
> I also asked Sullivan:
> >> - what is the
> >> "interweb?"
> he answers:
> > It's a joke.
> Oh. I don't get it.
No kidding.
>Is this whole argument of your's a joke, too?
It appearsz to be becoming more and more about either your real ignorance
of audiophile 'culture' and claims, or about the sophistry you favor in
arguments.
> > So, it's *your* ignorance of audiophile claims, not mine, that we're dealing with
> Correct. You referenced fuzzy "audiophile claims" and I told you I don't
> know what you're talking about. When questioned about alleged
> "soul-changing differences between amplifiers and disc players," you
> change the subject to cables. So I still don't know what you're talking
> about.
So, let's get this this straight , you're claiming that the audiophile
press *doesn't* ever make claims of large, obvious difference between
different amps, and different CD players?
> > wonders and come with our 100% Money Back Guarantee... $159.99
> And Sullivan says:
> > That's laughable NONSENSE, sir.
> Perhaps. Surely, the claim is dubious, but I've never evaluated the
> product. Have you? There's a money-back guarantee, so there's no risk on
> your part.
I haven't evaluated perpetual motion machines either.
> > 'Group' -- can *you* think of what claims I might be talking about when I refer to
> > 'audiophile nonsense'?
> You're making the assertions, Sullivan... and now asking the group for
> evidence? I get it, this is all just silly jive on your part.
No, Curtis, you're the one shucking and jiving and playing the innocent
pedant here, as anyone who has any acquaintance with either your tactics,
or with the audiophile press, knows.
Steven Sullivan
> The most outrageous catalog is the "Audio Advisor"
Ah yes, how could I have neglected them -- the creme de la crazy, in a way.
And conveniently, they sometimes quote various audiophile reviews of their products.
Just for fun, let's pick an amp near the top of their price range -- price tends to
correlate with the purpleness of prose , in my experience pf audiophile reviews --and look at
the claims made for it, to see how close we get to a 'soul-changing experience'.
//
Parasound - JC-1 400-Watt Mono Amplifier - Each $3,499.95
...
Stereophile's Michael Fremer heaps on praise of his own. "Powerful, transparent, smooth,
organized, dynamic, transparent, and rhythmically supple, the JC1 offered a combination of
attributes that added up to many weeks of listening pleasure," he concludes in the February
2003 issue. "It was lightning-fast, delivering transients and sibilants with a speed and
clarity that were positively addictive."
...
The JC-1's true monoblock design, which dedicates a totally separate amplifier to each channel
of your A/V system, provides the absolute pinnacle of channel separation. The sound is so
clean, so well-defined, and so true, you will suddenly hear music you have never heard before
on even your most familiar CDs and DVD movie soundtracks.
...
"No matter what the dynamic demands were called for by the music, no subtleties were
sacrificed; the resulting performance was extended, smooth, and relaxed," reports Arnie
Goodman in Volume 11, Issue 2 of The Audiophile Voice. "The JC-1 always sounded completely in
control and provided luxuriant detail. Its ability to replicate every nuance of the musical
performance was a joy to hear."
....
"If you are a quester on the path toward the finest sound you can personally own, then you
must consider owning John Curl's latest JC-1 amplifier," urges Max Dudious in Positive
Feedback Online. "It has those 'magic' qualities that differentiate the best of breed from the
also-rans."
"It took but a few seconds for me to absolutely fall in love with the Halo JC1," confesses
Stereophile's Michael Fremer, who concludes: "A bargain, and highly recommended."
....
//
So,let's recap: upon auditioning this amplifier,
Michael Fremer got addicted and fell in love.
Max Dudious believed in magic.
Arnie Goodman became joyful.
and Audio Adviser promises us we'll hear music we never heard before, even from our
most beloved CDs.
Clearly this amp stands out from other amps in terms of sound...right?
Except, no actual evidence was provided for actual sonic difference from another amp.
Imagine if I took the time to read the copy for all of them.
Sonnova
(in article <flo9m...@news1.newsguy.com>):
Actually, this one is EASY to check - without making any purchase. Raid the
kitchen for eight regular ceramic coffee cups. Invert them and place them
under your speaker cable to get the cable up off the floor. Now, listen. Do
you hear any difference? Of course not, how could there be?
Sonnova
(in article <flojf...@news4.newsguy.com>):
They are all happy to sell you mousemilk if you are in the market for
mousemilk.
Sonnova
(in article <flo8d...@news2.newsguy.com>):
Sorry, I either missed that or didn't realize it was you. As for the euphonic
distortion, I agree that this is probably what's going on. I doubt, however,
if enough is known by any modern designer to purposely make an amp sound that
much more like music than the competition. Since they are selling to the
audiophile market, if how to do that reliably were well understood, everyone
would do it because it makes their products sound "better". OTOH, my VTL's
circuits are so simple that I really don't see how any calculated, built-in
coloration could possibly be applied. I think its just a characteristic of
tube circuitry. Whatever the reason, I find that the tube amps give me
immensely more pleasure than do either of my SS amps (which also sound
different from one another to my ears).
>
>> Surely you jest? The stiffness of the power supply, the quality of the
>> components, even the number of stages in the amp all have an effect on
>> sound.
>> Don't believe me (of course you don't)? Try this play a CD player through
>> your regular preamp into your power amp and listen for a while. Now, remove
>> the preamp and run the CD player DIRECTLY into the power amp (after
>> matching
>> levels, of course using instrumantation) without the preamp. If the removal
>> of the preamp doesn't sound IMMEDIATLY cleaner and better, then I suggest
>> that you can't hear.
>
> Try doing that in a *double blind*, all-channels-level-matched comparison, 16
> trials or more,
> THEN let us know the results. Thanks.
I have. The differences are less easy to discern in such a test, but are
there nonetheless. And what's wrong with just doing a single swap-out of the
preamp for a pair of cables? The result is immediate and not at all subtle.
c. leeds
> It appearsz to be becoming more and more about either your real
ignorance
> of audiophile 'culture' and claims, or about the sophistry you favor in
> arguments... you're the one shucking and jiving and playing the innocent
> pedant here, as anyone who has any acquaintance with either your
tactics,
> or with the audiophile press, knows.
Let's review the facts, shall we?
Here exactly what Sullivan wrote:
>>>>> ...'nonsense' would include neary every 'review' ever published
>>>>> in the audio press, ...even soul-changing
>>>>> differences between amplifiers and disc players.
>
when asked:
>>> "Soul-changing" differences????? Examples, please!
he responds:
>>> Would you prefer 'danceable' cables?... How do 'danceable' cables not qualify? IT's a rather famous recent
> instance of audiophile overstatements....
You specifically mentioned "soul-changing differences" between
amplifiers. When questioned for proof of your claim, you:
1.) change the subject to cables.
2. engage in personal attack against my "tactics" and make a vague
attack against the audiophile press.
So, now we know that some of the "audio culture nonsense" that you
reference are really "claims" you've fabricated. That closes this case
of "The World of Audio According To Sullivan But Falsely Attributed To
Others."
Harry Lavo
news:flqu...@news2.newsguy.com...
> ---MIKE--- <twinmo...@webtv.net> wrote:
>snip<
> So,let's recap: upon auditioning this amplifier,
>
> Michael Fremer got addicted and fell in love.
> Max Dudious believed in magic.
> Arnie Goodman became joyful.
>
> and Audio Adviser promises us we'll hear music we never heard before, even
> from our
> most beloved CDs.
>
> Clearly this amp stands out from other amps in terms of sound...right?
>
> Except, no actual evidence was provided for actual sonic difference from
> another amp.
>
> Imagine if I took the time to read the copy for all of them.
>
Have you ever owned high-powered monoblocks?
Have you ever even heard a high-end system with them in a favorable
environment, using other equipment you respect?
Well, I own a five channel system using high-power monoblocks, and I could
describe the changes I heard versus my other sterep SS amps and VTL amps
very much the same way....I would probably describe the changes as being a
bit more subtle...but many revieweres nowadays do. And I might not
attribute them totally to this equipment, but to the equipment as a
representative and high-quality example of the breed (one of my favorite
gripes against reviews these days is that folks are given equipment to
review without the requisite previous experience to separate out the unit
under test from the generic category).
May I suggest that once again you are taking a stand simply assuming you
know the truth. When you have no first-hand basis for doing so.
Randy Yates
You missed my point.
Stating (or at least implying) that ABX listening tests are not of much
use in comparing the sound of equipment is like stating that a stop
watch is not of much use in comparing the 0-60 MPH ET of sports cars. In
both cases, the tests give objective measurements instead of relaying on
subjective judgements.
--
% Randy Yates % "And all that I can do
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % is say I'm sorry,
%%% 919-577-9882 % that's the way it goes..."
%%%% <ya...@ieee.org> % Getting To The Point', *Balance of Power*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Steven Sullivan
> "Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:flqu...@news2.newsguy.com...
> > ---MIKE--- <twinmo...@webtv.net> wrote:
> >snip<
> > So,let's recap: upon auditioning this amplifier,
> >
> > Michael Fremer got addicted and fell in love.
> > Max Dudious believed in magic.
> > Arnie Goodman became joyful.
> >
> > and Audio Adviser promises us we'll hear music we never heard before, even
> > from our
> > most beloved CDs.
> >
> > Clearly this amp stands out from other amps in terms of sound...right?
> >
> > Except, no actual evidence was provided for actual sonic difference from
> > another amp.
> >
> > Imagine if I took the time to read the copy for all of them.
> >
> Have you ever owned high-powered monoblocks?
Certainly not.
> Have you ever even heard a high-end system with them in a favorable
> environment, using other equipment you respect?
Yes.
Are Fremer et al indulging in hyperbole? Quite possibly.
Is this common in audiophile reviews? Quite so. Thus my sarcastic
reference to 'soul changing' experiences with amps. But the
rhetoric nevertheless implies *unsubtle* audible difference ...
which usually* hasn't been established as real in the first place. Meanwhile,
we have the 'simple fact' of human error always operating
in the background.
So, the question remains, is there good reason to believe such claims
of difference AREN'T nonsense? Where's the data?
(* sometimes we'll be shown bench test data that indicates, indeed,
that the amp might well sound different ...because the measurements
are so poor compared to other amps, including mass-market ones)