Steely Dan Re: The Absolute Sound
Steven Sullivan
fan email archives. (What ever happened to old Siegfried D-B anyway?)
http://www.steelydan.com/steelymail.01.html
Subj: Future Steely Dan recordings
Date: 95-11-27 13:37:06 EST
From: SDuraybito
To: STEELY DAN
In Issue 99 of The Absolute Sound magazine, I surveyed Steely Dan's superbly-recorded LPs from
the 1970s. In each case, the LPs outperform the CD re-issues in terms of sonic quality with a
sense of "you-are-there" that CDs can't match.
On behalf of audio enthusiasts and Steely Dan lovers around the world, I urge you to record
subsequent Steely Dan works all-analogue (preferably through tube mastering decks) and to
issue coincident LP versions of all releases.
Thanks for your time,
Siegfried P. Duray-Bito
Dear Siegfried:
Yeah, and maybe we should write the lyrics with a quill pen on parchment?
Thanks for your lavish praise and your no-doubt scholarly appraisal of our recorded ouvre.
Think we'll pass on the "all-analogue (preferably through tube mastering decks)" deal. MCA is
interested in rereleasing some of our catalog on vinyl, and this may indeed happen soon. I'll
hang on to my CD's - just the thought of that flimsy little phono stylus twitching along in
that scratchy plastic groove makes my fillings hurt.
By the way Absolute Sound is, IMHO, one nutty mag. Fads, feuds, crackpot tweeks, purple
prose-laden gear reviews - it's all there. Although I am not familiar with your work
specifically, I salute you for the great work you are doing on behalf of "golden ear"
audiophiles and followers of the "high end". If there's any coupons left after you shell out
for those x-thousand dollar speaker cables, you might want to consider buying yourself a life.
--
-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy <thats...@excite.co>
goFab.com
Sullivan stated:
>By the way Absolute Sound is, IMHO, one nutty mag. Fads, feuds, crackpot tweeks,
>purple
>prose-laden gear reviews - it's all there. Although I am not familiar with your
>work
>specifically, I salute you for the great work you are doing on behalf of "golden
>ear"
>audiophiles and followers of the "high end". If there's any coupons left after
>you shell out
>for those x-thousand dollar speaker cables, you might want to consider buying
>yourself a life.
It's all true! The "cult of Harry" is as weird as ever.
Unfortunately, Stereophile also grows progressively less readable with each
passing issue, IMHO. Part of the problem is that Mr. Atkinson seems reluctant
to exercise his editorial prerogatives; there is a definite sense of an absence
of strong leadership and the absence of an adult, guiding hand. As a result,
writers like Dudley, "Aural Robert" and certain others are devoting seemingly
ever-greater portions of their columns to political rants, domestic soap operas
and the like. Stereophile writers shouldn't write about irrelevancies such as
politics for the same reason IBM shouldn't diversify into making truck tires --
readers and shareholders can diversify their magazine and newspaper purchases
(or stock holdings) a lot more efficiently than an audio reviewer can learn
enough to become a value-adding political pundit (or even an entertaining
writer), or computer makers can learn how to make treads. But Mr. Atkinson lets
it all continue. I increasingly value writers like Damkroger who stick to the
knitting and do a really fine job, minus the doo-dads.
In addition, the equipment reviews seem have become, at last, totally unmoored
from reality. A recent review of an absurd $350,000 tube amplifier from Wavac
results in the predictable "takes things to a whole new level of heart-stopping
reality" praise from the reviewer. We then find out in Mr. Atkinson's technical
sidebar that this amplifier, costing as much as 3 Porsche 911s and rated at an
already-modest 150 W/ch, actually only reaches 2 W/ch before clipping. There
are some other eye opening measuremens as well, reminding one of Mr. Atkinson's
comment in another recent review (I believe about an amplifier Dudley was raving
about) that amplifiers that test like this are usually described as "broken."
Yet the Wavac review is unreservedly positive in recommending the expenditure of
readers' $350K. My point is not that this amplifier has nothing to recommend it
-- no doubt it is a real work of art if not of engineering. But if a review of
the most expensive home audio component in the world (?) is all sweetness and
light when the thing can only put out 1/75th of its rated power before clipping
and has no other obvious severe measured flaws, one wonders if equipment reviews
have any function at all -- besides providing backing pages for advertisements.
Oh, well. At least Stereophile publishes Mr. Atkinson's sidebars so that the
intrepid reader can see the foolishness of the accompanying review -- with the
Absolute Sound we have nothing but the Golden Ears to trust (you know, the ones
that declared any number of products -- e.g., the Hovland premamp, the
Hurricanes -- to be the Second Coming of Christ, only to run away from those
claims very rapidly because a few capacitors or some such were changed).
I'm growing to appreciate the British style of audio journalism a bit more. On
the whole, it seems decidedly more analytical and less emotional than its US
counterpart. There's a good degree of skepticism, and a feeling of balance in
the reviews. There's also less of a feeling of outright hostility toward the
readership. It isn't hard to detect in both the Absolute Sound and Stereophile
a real kind of "f*** you" attitude towards their readers, whether it be in
responses to letters in both magazines in which notable reviewers routinely
display childish pique, the tone of Mr. Pearson's periodic descents from Valhal
-- er, Sea Cliff -- or in Stereophile's recent arrogant response to numerous
reader complaints about too much Musical Fidelity -- "you don't like Musical
Fidelity coverage? Here's tons more!" -- including paragraphs spilled reviewing
Musical Fidelity's first watch. Yes, wristwatch. You read that right.
Sorry to take this thread so far afield! Cheers.
Steven Sullivan
> On 1 Jul 2004 00:54:32 GMT, in article <cbvnc...@news4.newsguy.com>, Steven
> Sullivan stated:
actually, Becker and/or Fagan stated this; I simply quoted it.
> >By the way Absolute Sound is, IMHO, one nutty mag. Fads, feuds, crackpot tweeks,
> >purple
> >prose-laden gear reviews - it's all there. Although I am not familiar with your
> >work
> >specifically, I salute you for the great work you are doing on behalf of "golden
> >ear"
> >audiophiles and followers of the "high end". If there's any coupons left after
> >you shell out
> >for those x-thousand dollar speaker cables, you might want to consider buying
> >yourself a life.
> It's all true! The "cult of Harry" is as weird as ever.
> Unfortunately, Stereophile also grows progressively less readable with each
> passing issue, IMHO. Part of the problem is that Mr. Atkinson seems reluctant
> to exercise his editorial prerogatives; there is a definite sense of an absence
> of strong leadership and the absence of an adult, guiding hand. As a result,
> writers like Dudley, "Aural Robert" and certain others are devoting seemingly
> ever-greater portions of their columns to political rants, domestic soap operas
> and the like.
Better that, than endorsements of ridiculous audio tweaks/equipment, e.g.
Dudley's recent qualified rave for the magical 'Audio Collimator'.
--
-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth
Dennis Moore
Stereophile would have had one notable review if I had been
writing one on the most expensive amp. If it were an inexpensive
product, I would simply say it broken. If it had been this one
for $350K and it was apparent they meant it to be this way,
the review would have redefined the term scathing.
I believe I recall some part of the review mentioned, "a listening
experience like no other, a way of hearing the music different
than any other". I should think so, considering the broken
manner it was operating most of the time. To be very generous
and say higher levels of second harmonic only aren't too bad,
wasn't it like sqarewaving at 10 watts?
JA did comment on it in the "AS WE Hear It" section. Commenting
on a very expensive system that was so good, and would have
left one with enough money for some very expensive cars too.
I just wonder if JA still owned the magazine rather than working
for a large publishing owner, would he have said differently? More
assertively declared the amp broken as designed.
I know he reads this newsgroup. But cannot think of how he
could defend that product or the review of it. If he said he
has an employer to satisfy I would accept that, but don't think
he would admit it. Otherwise, I see no defense for it.
When learning electronic circuits, I built a simple pre-amp
circuit on a bread board with a decent power supply on it.
It had one jfet, cap coupled at both ends. Was
operated single ended. Cheap bulk jfets being what they are
it only had about one volt of clean output before heavy
second harmonic distortion set in. I even experimented
with using it that way, and padding down the output to hear
different amounts of second harmonic distortion. And it
sounded surprisingly good even when you could see the
distortion on an o-scope. But it wasn't high fidelity and it
wasn't an improvement. And I could have paralleled a few
of them and put out the power that darn $350k amp would
with similar operating characteristics although I don't suppose
it would have the voltage swing to keep putting out the higher
voltage and wattage levels well past the point of heavy distortion.
I have been unhappy with Stereophile, and that pretty much
does it for me I think. Lunacy for sure.
Dennis
"goFab.com" <tpl...@aol.com> wrote in message >
S888Wheel
>Date: 7/6/2004 8:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <ccei1...@news1.newsguy.com>
>
>Got to say amen goFab,
>
>Stereophile would have had one notable review if I had been
>writing one on the most expensive amp. If it were an inexpensive
>product, I would simply say it broken. If it had been this one
>for $350K and it was apparent they meant it to be this way,
>the review would have redefined the term scathing.
That is your POV. I find it interesting that you would take such a POV without
actually listening to the product.
>
>I believe I recall some part of the review mentioned, "a listening
>experience like no other, a way of hearing the music different
>than any other".
It went on to say that it was like no other in that it sounded so much more
like live unamplified music. Some people like that.
I should think so, considering the broken
>manner it was operating most of the time.
Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me, broken means
it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all.
To be very generous
>and say higher levels of second harmonic only aren't too bad,
>wasn't it like sqarewaving at 10 watts?
>
>JA did comment on it in the "AS WE Hear It" section. Commenting
>on a very expensive system that was so good, and would have
>left one with enough money for some very expensive cars too.
>
>I just wonder if JA still owned the magazine rather than working
>for a large publishing owner, would he have said differently? More
>assertively declared the amp broken as designed.
I doubt it. He didn't review the product.
>
>I know he reads this newsgroup. But cannot think of how he
>could defend that product or the review of it.
He does not have to defend it. that would be MF's job. His defense seems
obvious. he listened to the product and in his opinion it made the system sound
more like the real thing for most recordings.
If he said he
>has an employer to satisfy I would accept that, but don't think
>he would admit it. Otherwise, I see no defense for it.
People see what they want to see.
>
>When learning electronic circuits, I built a simple pre-amp
>circuit on a bread board with a decent power supply on it.
>It had one jfet, cap coupled at both ends. Was
>operated single ended. Cheap bulk jfets being what they are
>it only had about one volt of clean output before heavy
>second harmonic distortion set in. I even experimented
>with using it that way, and padding down the output to hear
>different amounts of second harmonic distortion. And it
>sounded surprisingly good even when you could see the
>distortion on an o-scope. But it wasn't high fidelity and it
>wasn't an improvement.
IYO.
And I could have paralleled a few
>of them and put out the power that darn $350k amp would
>with similar operating characteristics although I don't suppose
>it would have the voltage swing to keep putting out the higher
>voltage and wattage levels well past the point of heavy distortion.
>
Hey, if you can design and build a power amplifier that can reproduce all the
characteristics of the WAVAC I suggest you consider doing so and marketing it
on that premise. It worked for Carver. You might be filling a niche.
John Atkinson
> I just wonder if JA still owned the magazine rather than working
> for a large publishing owner, would he have said differently?
in the review and in my "As We See It." With respect, I believe you all
need to remember just how it was you learned this ridiculous amplifier
had such poor measured performance.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro
> In addition, the equipment reviews seem have become, at last, totally unmoored
> from reality. A recent review of an absurd $350,000 tube amplifier from Wavac
> results in the predictable "takes things to a whole new level of heart-stopping
> reality" praise from the reviewer. We then find out in Mr. Atkinson's technical
> sidebar that this amplifier, costing as much as 3 Porsche 911s and rated at an
> already-modest 150 W/ch, actually only reaches 2 W/ch before clipping.
Stereophile July 2004
http://www.stereophile.com/contents704/
Wavac Audio Lab SH-833 monoblock power amplifier
Michael Fremer
As We See It
Triggered by Mikey Fremer's review of the $350k/pair Wavac amplifier
in this issue, John Atkinson ponders problems of fidelity and value
for money.
I suppose in a couple of months these articles will be available
on the website.
> There are some other eye opening measuremens as well, reminding
> one of Mr. Atkinson's comment in another recent review (I believe
> about an amplifier Dudley was raving about) that amplifiers that
> test like this are usually described as "broken."
That one I couldn't find. Can you give some more detail ?
.pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94
Dennis Moore
the tests that showed the real performance. And such is about
all that has been keeping me a reader of Stereophile the last
couple of years.
Dennis
"John Atkinson" <Stereophi...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:9vMGc.36713$%_6.6021@attbi_s01...
Buster Mudd
> it only had about one volt of clean output before heavy
> second harmonic distortion set in. I even experimented
> with using it that way, and padding down the output to hear
> different amounts of second harmonic distortion. And it
> sounded surprisingly good even when you could see the
> distortion on an o-scope. But it wasn't high fidelity and it
> wasn't an improvement.
Circa 1979 my roommate, an EE @ MIT, happened into a half dozen old
used McIntosh tube monoblock amps (I think the model was MC30...little
chrome 30 watt jobbers) that needed some TLC. After retubing & biasing
these amps, we brought them into the recording studio for extensive
listening & testing.
The results of both were elucidating:
- These amps measured between 8 & 10% 2nd harmonic distortion!
- And everyone who heard them loved the sound! So much so that my
roommate was able to sell off 4 of the amps for an order of magnitude
more money than he'd bought all 6 for.
No one ever accused these amps of being "broken". Everyone who bought
them considered them an "improvement" over whatever they previously
owned (my roommate kept 2 of the amps to replace his Dynaco 70, & we
both certainly agreed it was a major "improvement").
Was it "high fidelity"? Who cares?
goFab.com
S888Wheel stated:
>>I know he reads this newsgroup. But cannot think of how he
>>could defend that product or the review of it.
>
>He does not have to defend it. that would be MF's job.
I believe what you are saying is plainly wrong on both counts. First, MF's "job"
is not to defend Wavac or its products, but to provide a useful, neutral, lucid
account of the product's performance to Stereophile's readers.
Second, the editor of Stereophile is responsible for every editorial word of
every issue. It is the editor's job to edit. One can argue about which
editorial style is best and whether a light or heavy hand is the right way to go
in any particular situation. But to state that the editor "does not have to
defend" what his writers say is simply wrong. He's responsible for what they
say! An editor should address legitimate questions about his magazine's content
as much as the writer of that content does.
>His defense seems
>obvious. he listened to the product and in his opinion it made the system sound
>more like the real thing for most recordings.
If it's just about one man's opinion, and not about any objectively
ascertainable facts, reasonably repeatable experiences or about accumulated
knowledge, memory and expertise being brought to bear, then let's just can all
the professional writers and let Stereophile's subscribers take turns reviewing
equipment and giving their "opinions." When the substance of a review is so
deeply at odds with the measured results, one must question what useful purpose
these qualitative reviews are serving (beyond informing us of the mere existence
of a particular product).
And maybe that's enough. Just so there is no misunderstanding, I continue to
consider Stereophile to be a useful publication that delivers excellent value
for the money.
Dennis Moore
news:JkMGc.36668$%_6.31340@attbi_s01...
> From: "Dennis Moore" dmo...@bham.rr.com
> >Date: 7/6/2004 8:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <ccei1...@news1.newsguy.com>
> >
> >Got to say amen goFab,
> >
> >Stereophile would have had one notable review if I had been
> >writing one on the most expensive amp. If it were an inexpensive
> >product, I would simply say it broken. If it had been this one
> >for $350K and it was apparent they meant it to be this way,
> >the review would have redefined the term scathing.
>
> That is your POV. I find it interesting that you would take such a POV
without
> actually listening to the product.
Oh I don't like clipping amplifiers. Well past needing to listen
to clipping amps to know I don't like them.
>
> >
> >I believe I recall some part of the review mentioned, "a listening
> >experience like no other, a way of hearing the music different
> >than any other".
>
> I should think so, considering the broken
> >manner it was operating most of the time.
>
> Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me, broken
means
> it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all.
Ever heard the term B.A.D. (broken as designed)?
Or approaching from another angle, considering the
measured performance of the $350K amp of 150 watts,
short of it being completely dead, how could you differeniate
its normal performance from a broken product?
chung
> From: "Dennis Moore" dmo...@bham.rr.com
>>Date: 7/6/2004 8:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <ccei1...@news1.newsguy.com>
>>
>>Got to say amen goFab,
>>
>>Stereophile would have had one notable review if I had been
>>writing one on the most expensive amp. If it were an inexpensive
>>product, I would simply say it broken. If it had been this one
>>for $350K and it was apparent they meant it to be this way,
>>the review would have redefined the term scathing.
>
> That is your POV. I find it interesting that you would take such a POV without
> actually listening to the product.
I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.
>
>>
>>I believe I recall some part of the review mentioned, "a listening
>>experience like no other, a way of hearing the music different
>>than any other".
>
> It went on to say that it was like no other in that it sounded so much more
> like live unamplified music. Some people like that.
Yeah, but the fact that someone may like it does not mean that it is not
necessarily bad. There's no accounting for taste.
>
> I should think so, considering the broken
>>manner it was operating most of the time.
>
> Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me, broken means
> it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all.
If as goFab says, the rated power is 150W/ch and it clips at 2W, it's
broken. It certainly is not working as it's supposed to.
>
snip the rest...
Steven Sullivan
Then again, the very fact that they were spiffy
little chrome McIntosh tube amps may have affected their judgement.
Looks and brand have such effects. It would have been interesting
to see which amp people would prefer in level-matched trials,
without knowing which one they were listening to. In that case
the sound would have been the deciding factor.
Dennis Moore
I have owned some of those. Pleasant to listen to of course.
But 8-10% indicates a problem, probably a tube of course.
Mac's had lower measured distortion than many tube amps.
And would run clinics to bring them up to the spec if they
weren't. And the spec was way lower than 8-10% unless
you were overdriving them.
Dennis
"Buster Mudd" <mr_fu...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:cch4a...@news1.newsguy.com...
Norman Schwartz
> used McIntosh tube monoblock amps (I think the model was MC30...little
> chrome 30 watt jobbers) that needed some TLC. After retubing & biasing
> these amps, we brought them into the recording studio for extensive
> listening & testing.
>
> The results of both were elucidating:
>
> - These amps measured between 8 & 10% 2nd harmonic distortion!
>
> - And everyone who heard them loved the sound! So much so that my
> roommate was able to sell off 4 of the amps for an order of magnitude
> more money than he'd bought all 6 for.
>
> No one ever accused these amps of being "broken". Everyone who bought
> them considered them an "improvement" over whatever they previously
> owned (my roommate kept 2 of the amps to replace his Dynaco 70, & we
> both certainly agreed it was a major "improvement").
>
> Was it "high fidelity"? Who cares?
1979 amps, OK. Tell us when happened in following years when those buyers
wanted to drive the new breeds of 2 to 4 ohm resistive speakers that came
along and were to their liking. Wait, I know... they refurbished their old
outdated and antiquated speakers.
John Atkinson
news:<cch3d...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>> Wavac Audio Lab SH-833 monoblock power amplifier (Michael Fremer)
>> As We See It ( Triggered by Mikey Fremer's review of the $350k/pair
>> Wavac amplifier in this issue, John Atkinson ponders problems of
>
> I suppose in a couple of months these articles will be available
> on the website.
www.stereophile.com on Monday July 12.
> > There are some other eye opening measuremens as well, reminding
> > one of Mr. Atkinson's comment in another recent review (I believe
> > about an amplifier Dudley was raving about) that amplifiers that
> > test like this are usually described as "broken."
>
> That one I couldn't find. Can you give some more detail ?
Stereophile's on-line archives.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
S888Wheel
>Date: 7/7/2004 7:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Gl2Hc.41762$%_6.17984@attbi_s01>
>
>On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 06:01:13 GMT, in article
><JkMGc.36668$%_6.31340@attbi_s01>,
>S888Wheel stated:
>
>>>I know he reads this newsgroup. But cannot think of how he
>>>could defend that product or the review of it.
>>
>>He does not have to defend it. that would be MF's job.
>
>I believe what you are saying is plainly wrong on both counts. First, MF's
>"job"
>is not to defend Wavac or its products, but to provide a useful, neutral,
>lucid
>account of the product's performance to Stereophile's readers.
I am wrong on one count. It isn't his job to defend WAVAC and that wasn't what
i meant. It is his job to defend his review. He is the one who used the amps.
>
>Second, the editor of Stereophile is responsible for every editorial word of
>every issue. It is the editor's job to edit. One can argue about which
>editorial style is best and whether a light or heavy hand is the right way to
>go
>in any particular situation. But to state that the editor "does not have to
>defend" what his writers say is simply wrong.
Not in this case. MF did not do anything in his review that went against
editorial policy that I know of. When all is said and done it is MF's opinions
that are being disputed and it is up to him to defend them.
He's responsible for what they
>say! An editor should address legitimate questions about his magazine's
>content
>as much as the writer of that content does.
He is not responsible for their opinions on sound quality.
>
>>His defense seems
>>obvious. he listened to the product and in his opinion it made the system
>sound
>>more like the real thing for most recordings.
>
>If it's just about one man's opinion, and not about any objectively
>ascertainable facts, reasonably repeatable experiences or about accumulated
>knowledge, memory and expertise being brought to bear, then let's just can
>all
>the professional writers and let Stereophile's subscribers take turns
>reviewing
>equipment and giving their "opinions."
That would be up to JA. He chose the writers. The writers offer one person's
opinion in every review they write. This did not begin with the WAVAC review.
It is often stated in Stereophile that a review is just one person's opinion
and that it should not be taken as gospel. Stereophile recomends that readers
audition products themselves before making a purchase.
When the substance of a review is so
>deeply at odds with the measured results, one must question what useful
>purpose
>these qualitative reviews are serving (beyond informing us of the mere
>existence
>of a particular product).
No one is suggesting that you agree with MF. But one has to wonder if you are
letting your biases get the best of your opinion given you have never listened
to the amps in question.
>
>And maybe that's enough. Just so there is no misunderstanding, I continue to
>consider Stereophile to be a useful publication that delivers excellent value
>for the money.
Here is a question for you. You listen to a product like the WAVACs. You know
you don't like the measurements but you really did think what you heard sounded
more like live music. What do you report in your review?
S888Wheel
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>> From: "Dennis Moore" dmo...@bham.rr.com
>>>Date: 7/6/2004 8:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <ccei1...@news1.newsguy.com>
>>>
>>>Got to say amen goFab,
>>>
>>>Stereophile would have had one notable review if I had been
>>>writing one on the most expensive amp. If it were an inexpensive
>>>product, I would simply say it broken. If it had been this one
>>>for $350K and it was apparent they meant it to be this way,
>>>the review would have redefined the term scathing.
>>
>> That is your POV. I find it interesting that you would take such a POV
>without
>> actually listening to the product.
>
>I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
>course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.
Maybe not. But you are making presumptions without actually listening.
>
>>
>>>
>>>I believe I recall some part of the review mentioned, "a listening
>>>experience like no other, a way of hearing the music different
>>>than any other".
>>
>> It went on to say that it was like no other in that it sounded so much more
>> like live unamplified music. Some people like that.
>
>Yeah, but the fact that someone may like it does not mean that it is not
> necessarily bad.
It does for that person and anyone else who has a similar response.
There's no accounting for taste.
I thought taste was considered subjective by objectivists. Are you now saying
that MF may simply have inferior taste?
>
>>
>> I should think so, considering the broken
>>>manner it was operating most of the time.
>>
>> Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me, broken
>means
>> it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all.
>
>If as goFab says, the rated power is 150W/ch and it clips at 2W, it's
>broken. It certainly is not working as it's supposed to.
Or they are not giving straight info on the power rating. All amps clip at a
certain point. Doesn't mean they are broken. Even if their power output is
grossly misrepresented by the marketing.I'm not really clear about this
clipping issue though. The amp is clipping at 2 watts? The sort of clipping
that can damage speakers? I thought clipping was what happened when the signal
exceeds the amps output cpacity and the wave is cut off before it gets to it's
apex? Is that not what clipping is? Is this really happening at 2 watts?
>
>>
>
>snip the rest...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
S888Wheel
>
>"S888Wheel" <s888...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:JkMGc.36668$%_6.31340@attbi_s01...
>> From: "Dennis Moore" dmo...@bham.rr.com
>> >Date: 7/6/2004 8:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <ccei1...@news1.newsguy.com>
>> >
>> >Got to say amen goFab,
>> >
>> >Stereophile would have had one notable review if I had been
>> >writing one on the most expensive amp. If it were an inexpensive
>> >product, I would simply say it broken. If it had been this one
>> >for $350K and it was apparent they meant it to be this way,
>> >the review would have redefined the term scathing.
>>
>> That is your POV. I find it interesting that you would take such a POV
>without
>> actually listening to the product.
>
>Oh I don't like clipping amplifiers. Well past needing to listen
>to clipping amps to know I don't like them.
I didn't realize you could tell what the WAVACs sound like without listening to
them. I am skeptical that you can.
>
>>
>> >
>> >I believe I recall some part of the review mentioned, "a listening
>> >experience like no other, a way of hearing the music different
>> >than any other".
>>
>> I should think so, considering the broken
>> >manner it was operating most of the time.
>>
>> Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me, broken
>means
>> it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all.
>
>Ever heard the term B.A.D. (broken as designed)?
No I haven't. But I see no need to mischaracterize a product to be critical of
it. It wasn't broken. It worked.
>
>Or approaching from another angle, considering the
>measured performance of the $350K amp of 150 watts,
>short of it being completely dead, how could you differeniate
>its normal performance from a broken product?
I already explained that to you. If it doesn't work at all it is broken. That
would make for an easily detectable difference. If a product is not working as
it is supposed to work it is broken. Again it would be easy to tell the
difference.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
goFab.com
S888Wheel stated:
> When the substance of a review is so
>>deeply at odds with the measured results, one must question what useful
>>purpose
>>these qualitative reviews are serving (beyond informing us of the mere
>>existence
>>of a particular product).
>
>No one is suggesting that you agree with MF. But one has to wonder if you are
>letting your biases get the best of your opinion given you have never listened
>to the amps in question.
And what biases would those be? You think I'm a shill for a competing $350K
audio amplifier? :-) FYI, I'm not in the business (audio or audio press) and I
don't have any particular axe to grind. I'm a Stereophile subscriber; that's
the extent of my stake in the quality of the magazine.
You keep talking about "listening to the amps in question" -- if everyone could
personally listen to every product, there would be little need for a magazine
that reviews them. A review, IMHO, is supposed to impart information, and it
would be good if there was some articulable basis on which to rely on the
information imparted.
>Here is a question for you. You listen to a product like the WAVACs. You know
>you don't like the measurements but you really did think what you heard sounded
>more like live music. What do you report in your review?
I would report that I personally liked them but I would also prominently add,
"Warning Warning Will Robinson: these amps did not test well at all." And I
would certainly temper the statements made in my review. I'm not saying the
review had to be negative, but I'd probably hold off on going to the lengths
that MF did -- apotheosis, eureka, and all that stuff -- for something that
didn't sport such obvious defects on the bench.
And if I really believed that it "sounded more like live music" despite the
obvious existence of high levels of distortion and other anomalies in the
measurements, I would start asking myself serious questions about whether this
repeated mantra of today's audio reviewers really does have any objective
meaning at all. If I were an audio reviewer, I'd think I'd have a strong
interest in firmly establishing the informational value of what I was writing,
so personally there would be some serious self-examination going on. Maybe
there is, but if it is, you don't see it discussed in the audio press (outside
of the letters column occasionally).
normanstrong
news:8m2Hc.40996$a24.23645@attbi_s03...
> S888Wheel wrote:
> > From: "Dennis Moore" dmo...@bham.rr.com
> >>Date: 7/6/2004 8:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >>Message-id: <ccei1...@news1.newsguy.com>
> >>
> >>Got to say amen goFab,
> >>
> >>Stereophile would have had one notable review if I had been
> >>writing one on the most expensive amp. If it were an inexpensive
> >>product, I would simply say it broken. If it had been this one
> >>for $350K and it was apparent they meant it to be this way,
> >>the review would have redefined the term scathing.
> >
> > That is your POV. I find it interesting that you would take such a
POV without
> > actually listening to the product.
>
> I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
> course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.
I guess the ultimate question is, what can you say about an amplifier
from just listening to it? You have to have a signal at the input
and a transducer (speaker) at the output. But if you're familiar with
the sound of your system with its existing amplifier, and you simply
replace that amplifier with the new $350K amp, you certainly should be
able to say something about it without knowing that it cost $350K. I
would expect a reviewer to be able to say that it's an improvement or
not. You rarely see that happen, however. Once the reviewer knows
that he's listening to the world's most expensive amplifier, that fact
dominates all subsequent remarks. Indeed, he can probably write the
entire review without ever turning the amplifier on.
In this particular case of the Wavac did the reviewer note that the
amplifier could only output modest power before distorting the signal
beyond recognition? Not that I noticed.
Norm Strong
goFab.com
chung stated:
>> I should think so, considering the broken
>>>manner it was operating most of the time.
>>
>>Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me, broken means
>> it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all.
>
>If as goFab says, the rated power is 150W/ch and it clips at 2W, it's
>broken. It certainly is not working as it's supposed to.
When I originally used the term "broken" in my post, it was not my choice of
words but a particularly quotable quote of Mr. Atkinson in a technical sidebar
to a review from several issues ago (I believe the review was by Dudley of some
flea powered amps). I was going by memory, so sorry if I mischaracterized those
words.
Buster Mudd
> Buster Mudd <mr_fu...@mail.com> wrote:
> > Circa 1979 my roommate, an EE @ MIT, happened into a half dozen old
> > used McIntosh tube monoblock amps (I think the model was MC30...little
> > chrome 30 watt jobbers) that needed some TLC. After retubing & biasing
> > these amps, we brought them into the recording studio for extensive
> > listening & testing.
>
> > The results of both were elucidating:
>
> > - These amps measured between 8 & 10% 2nd harmonic distortion!
>
> > - And everyone who heard them loved the sound! So much so that my
> > roommate was able to sell off 4 of the amps for an order of magnitude
> > more money than he'd bought all 6 for.
>
> > No one ever accused these amps of being "broken". Everyone who bought
> > them considered them an "improvement" over whatever they previously
> > owned (my roommate kept 2 of the amps to replace his Dynaco 70, & we
> > both certainly agreed it was a major "improvement").
>
> > Was it "high fidelity"? Who cares?
>
> Then again, the very fact that they were spiffy
> little chrome McIntosh tube amps may have affected their judgement.
> Looks and brand have such effects. It would have been interesting
> to see which amp people would prefer in level-matched trials,
> without knowing which one they were listening to. In that case
> the sound would have been the deciding factor.
While I have no doubt the McIntosh brand added quite a bit of cache to
the eventual sell price, you will note I never used the word "spiffy".
In fact, these amps had apparently spent the previous year in the
trunk of a Buick, and looked it. No one who participated in the
listening evaluations mistook them for anything other than the pile of
tubes in desperate need of a refurb job that they were.
Dennis Moore
Real event that happened. Picked up an old Fisher integrated amp.
Tubes all light up. Hooked up to some small speakers, it sounds
soft, but pretty good. Hooked up to larger speakers it still sounds
pretty good, but weak. Checking with an O-scope, becomes
obvious one tube in the output pair is doing next to nothing. And
that anything over about 3 watts is very distorted. However this
was supposed to be an 18 wpc amp.
Do I assume marketing hubris, and say it sounds awfully good
for such a thing? Or do I consider it broken and fix it? I mean
it worked, does that mean it wasn't broken? Of course not,
it was broken and once fixed put out something near its rated
power.
If a tremendously expensive amp of huge mass hogs up a good deal
of power, claims to be 150 wpc and then tests more like 2 wpc,
do I say hey it works or not? Me, no I say broken as designed.
Have I heard the Wavac? No. Do I know what it sounds like
without listening to it? No. Have I heard other weak amps clipping?
Yes. Do they sound different from each other or the same? Usually
different. Do I benefit from listening to an amp that acts like an
amp grossly overdriven past 2 watts? No, I do not. Much better
to simply get an amp that doesn't need over-driving to use.
If it somehow sounded 'good' this way what would I do if a reviewer.
I would explain that it must be due to the output behaviour, and suggest
a similary distorting pre-amp, connected to a low distortion truly
150 wpc amp would get you the same effect for far less money with
lots more power.
Anybody caring to try this approach, I have a suggestion. The
Antique Sound Labs MG-DT Head headphone amp. One half of a
12AX7 per channel, one 6BQ5 per channel in SET connection.
Option of transformer coupling or OTL. Volume control
right up front. This decent little unit puts out something
like 1 or 2 watts itself. Plug in a source, get some Radio Shack
adaptors to connect RCA's to the headphone outupt jack. Feed
your amp. Voila', you have smooth, warm, fairly seductive
SET sound from whatever SS amp you are using. All for far
less than $500 even if you get some NOS tubes to replace the
stock tubes. Pretty nice headphone amp too.
Dennis
chung
> From: chung chun...@covad.net
>>Date: 7/7/2004 7:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <8m2Hc.40996$a24.23645@attbi_s03>
>>
>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>> From: "Dennis Moore" dmo...@bham.rr.com
>>>>Date: 7/6/2004 8:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: <ccei1...@news1.newsguy.com>
>>>>
>>>>Got to say amen goFab,
>>>>
>>>>Stereophile would have had one notable review if I had been
>>>>writing one on the most expensive amp. If it were an inexpensive
>>>>product, I would simply say it broken. If it had been this one
>>>>for $350K and it was apparent they meant it to be this way,
>>>>the review would have redefined the term scathing.
>>>
>>> That is your POV. I find it interesting that you would take such a POV
>>without
>>> actually listening to the product.
>>
>>I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
>>course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.
>
> Maybe not. But you are making presumptions without actually listening.
How am I making presumptions? If the measurements show that the amp
clips at a low output voltage, then the amp will distort at low output
voltages. Are you saying that I may like the clipped sound?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I believe I recall some part of the review mentioned, "a listening
>>>>experience like no other, a way of hearing the music different
>>>>than any other".
>>>
>>> It went on to say that it was like no other in that it sounded so much more
>>> like live unamplified music. Some people like that.
>>
>>Yeah, but the fact that someone may like it does not mean that it is not
>> necessarily bad.
>
> It does for that person and anyone else who has a similar response.
>
> There's no accounting for taste.
>
> I thought taste was considered subjective by objectivists.
And your point being?
> Are you now saying
> that MF may simply have inferior taste?
>
"Simply"? It is obvious that someone who can rave about the wonderful
sound of an amp that clips at 2W has, uh, unconventional, taste.
>>
>>>
>>> I should think so, considering the broken
>>>>manner it was operating most of the time.
>>>
>>> Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me, broken
>>means
>>> it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all.
>>
>>If as goFab says, the rated power is 150W/ch and it clips at 2W, it's
>>broken. It certainly is not working as it's supposed to.
>
> Or they are not giving straight info on the power rating.
You mean as in lying?
>All amps clip at a
> certain point.
You buy an amp that is rated at 150W. You find out that it clips at less
than 1/10 of that. It sounds (pun inteneded) broken to me.
> Doesn't mean they are broken. Even if their power output is
> grossly misrepresented by the marketing.I'm not really clear about this
> clipping issue though. The amp is clipping at 2 watts? The sort of clipping
> that can damage speakers? I thought clipping was what happened when the signal
> exceeds the amps output cpacity and the wave is cut off before it gets to it's
> apex? Is that not what clipping is? Is this really happening at 2 watts?
>>
I am glad that now you are realizing the enormity of the problem....
Harry Lavo
John can (and probably should) speak for himself on this. But AFAIK
Stereophile has reviewers testing/listening to the equipment and writing
their review completely separate from (and usually ahead of) John's testing
of the equipment. As RAHE participants, you should appreciate that this is
done in part to *prevent* inadvertent listening bias...so the reviewer knows
nothing about how the piece under review "measures" before giving their
opinion. So, MF's enthusiasm may have been justified by his subjective
listening...or he may have been influenced by the price. It's hard to tell.
But testing first, then reviewing would definitely have damped his
enthusiasm but also corrupted the reviewing process.
If you are going to measure first, you could only justify it by throwing out
without review anything that measured bad. And we don't as yet seem to
have enough correlation to do that.
S888Wheel
>Date: 7/8/2004 8:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <VaoHc.50782$Oq2.19921@attbi_s52>
>
>On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:47:35 GMT, in article <HUeHc.12796$WX.4645@attbi_s51>,
>S888Wheel stated:
>
>> When the substance of a review is so
>>>deeply at odds with the measured results, one must question what useful
>>>purpose
>>>these qualitative reviews are serving (beyond informing us of the mere
>>>existence
>>>of a particular product).
>>
>>No one is suggesting that you agree with MF. But one has to wonder if you
>are
>>letting your biases get the best of your opinion given you have never
>listened
>>to the amps in question.
>
>And what biases would those be?
The one you have already expressed about the measurments of this amp.
You think I'm a shill for a competing $350K
>audio amplifier? :-)
This might be another one. The price.
FYI, I'm not in the business (audio or audio press)
>and I
>don't have any particular axe to grind.
You may not be in the audio press( I never said or implied you were) But I am
skeptical about the axe.
I'm a Stereophile subscriber; that's
>the extent of my stake in the quality of the magazine.
>
>You keep talking about "listening to the amps in question" -- if everyone
>could
>personally listen to every product, there would be little need for a magazine
>that reviews them.
I disagree on two counts. One of the benefits of audiophile magazines is to
alert audiophiles to the existance of products the magazine sees as a potential
interest. The second count is the notion that such magazines are "needed."
A review, IMHO, is supposed to impart information, and it
>would be good if there was some articulable basis on which to rely on the
>information imparted.
If one is relying on a review and skipping any audition before making a
purchase I would say they are creating their own problems should they be
dissatisfied. If you rely on the *opinions* of others, you get what they like.
>
>>Here is a question for you. You listen to a product like the WAVACs. You
>know
>>you don't like the measurements but you really did think what you heard
>sounded
>>more like live music. What do you report in your review?
>
>I would report that I personally liked them but I would also prominently add,
>"Warning Warning Will Robinson: these amps did not test well at all."
And this is unlike what Stereophile did in what way?
And I
>would certainly temper the statements made in my review.
You would? You mean you would let your biases regarding the measurements affect
your honest impression of the sound you experienced? I would not like that at
all. I would want the most honest review of the sonic impressions.
Interestingly MF was not aware of how the amp measured before writing his
review. maybe it was for the best. Maybe the measurements would have tempered
his review which would have been less true to his impressions. IMO Stereophile
may have out done what you would have done yourself.
I'm not saying the
>review had to be negative, but I'd probably hold off on going to the lengths
>that MF did -- apotheosis, eureka, and all that stuff -- for something that
>didn't sport such obvious defects on the bench.
IMO that would have been a mistake based on a prejudice due to the measured
performance. I think maybe Stereophile should be given their due for not
corrupting the honest impressions of the reviewer while giving a good
accounting of the measured performance of this unit.
>
>And if I really believed that it "sounded more like live music" despite the
>obvious existence of high levels of distortion and other anomalies in the
>measurements, I would start asking myself serious questions about whether
>this
>repeated mantra of today's audio reviewers really does have any objective
>meaning at all.
I do believe MF actually made such insinuations in his review.
If I were an audio reviewer, I'd think I'd have a strong
>interest in firmly establishing the informational value of what I was
>writing,
>so personally there would be some serious self-examination going on.
Maybe there was. MF knows for sure. I'm not sure that it belongs in a review of
a piece of equipment. I'm not sure it doesn't either. I know most of HP's
reviews had a lot of this going on. I tended to find his ramblings on the
matters of self-examination rather dull.
Dennis Moore
the equipment without knowing any measurements, I say bravo. The
philosophy is how something sounds in use is important. So doing it
this way only makes sense. I also say they show some integrity beyond
many other publications by also doing some basic measurements. And
publishing both.
However, I begin to think the subjective review process is broken
(yes, I know many have said so for so long) when an amp this bad
in terms of power output ability can get a pretty darn good review.
The reviewer had to be prejudiced by the price, it is the focus of the
first few paragraphes. And also by the idea these things are 150 watts.
Then the huge size and weight do nothing to make you ever believe it
really is only 2 watts or so of clean power.
I also believe many people prefer an amp that goes from neglible
distortion to a couple percent over the last 15-20 dB of output ability,
if that distortion is rising linearly with output and is of low harmonic
content. But this Wavac would be far beyond even that. It had to be
used pretty grossly overdriven for fair parts of the review process
considering it power output capabilities. Again if such was detectable
and preferred, I feel building a line level box to do this connected
in front of a clean power amp is much more cost effective. That such
gross behaviour wasn't perceived for what it was calls in to question
this type review process.
Dennis
Nousaine
This review and editor response looks mostly to me like an invented tempest to
sustain interest and an effort to keep the amp-myth going and convince readers
that the magazine is needed to keep readers abreast of things that ordinary,
mortal citizenry has no access.
Otherwise why waste print on this deplorable pile of junk? To show that the
magazines measurements are incredibly wasteful? That the reviewer cannot hear
frequency response errors or distortion? Or even worse infer that distorting
the input signal makes the sound more "live" at the speaker?
It would seem like that's unlikely; so what other reason that would be useful
to readers would there be? I think a thoughtful person would describe it as a
"mine is bigger than yours" (we test the most expensive products) exercise.
Along with inference that measurements do not correlate with sound quality so
you cannot get the best sound without "our" advice.
I think its a great marketing tool. But does it shine any light on improved
sound quality? Only in a perverse way....if a reviewer can't hear a
broke-as-designed product when he hears one perhaps he should be ready for
people to discount his advice (if not his poetry.)
If this is an instance where readers are supposed to be made "aware" of product
flaws through measurements along with the glowing description of apparently
excerable "sound" it seems charade-like to me. And certainly adds no
credibility to the editorial content.
It is as though the publication is laughing at its readers or engaged in a huge
self-delusion. The latter is quite unlikely. I think its brilliant marketing;
look at the length of this thread,.... but other than entertaining reading it
adds nothing to the quest of getting good sound.
It's kind of like reading an article in Automobile and finding a tester who
loved the incredible acceleration and cornering ability of a car that had 0-60
in 10 seconds and could pull 0.75g on the skidpad.
The review and "As We See It" seems to suggest that the magazine policy for
product selection is sometime left to reviewers, at least in this case. I don't
recall this being made public prior, although it may have.
For what its worth, (you do want to know this don't you? ) the only publication
that has ever allowed me to select products I review has been The $ensible
Sound (although this has been rare...and has been limited to products that I
have already acquired). The latter is noted in copy.
In every other case the editors have selected products (on rare occasion...and
I mean rare, they have included products I suggeted were of interest) which
were then delivered to me on assignment for testing.
I am sometimes asked by people if I would do a review on a given product and I
always tactfully suggest they contact the editorial staff.
It looks, from reading the aforementioned magazine, that reviewers speak with
manufacturers and either are solicited or solicit products for review on their
own. (p5,73 July Issue.)
There's not necessarily anything wrong with this. But, I cannot recall ever
seeing this policy disclosed in print and I cannot help but see the potential
conflict of interest.
Georg Grosz
> In addition, the equipment reviews seem have become, at last, totally unmoored
> from reality. A recent review of an absurd $350,000 tube amplifier from Wavac
> results in the predictable "takes things to a whole new level of heart-stopping
> reality" praise from the reviewer. We then find out in Mr. Atkinson's technical
> sidebar that this amplifier, costing as much as 3 Porsche 911s and rated at an
> already-modest 150 W/ch, actually only reaches 2 W/ch before clipping.
An amplifier that only reaches 2 W/ch before clipping is a 2 W/ch
amplifier, not a 150 W/ch amplifier. The problem is not with the
amplifier, but with the manufacturer's specs. If these 4 Watts sound
good to your ears, and you are willing to pay $87500 per Watt, then I
say it's a good deal. Also, from the manufacturer's website, this rig
draws 800 Watts, so its thermodynamic efficiency is somewhere around
half a percent.
In the sound reinforcement business, we are beginning to see
respectable power amps costing less than 50 cents per Watt.
Steven Sullivan
Yes, I will note that too, but the brand effect of Macintosh, to those
who care, maps well enough to 'spiffy'.
> In fact, these amps had apparently spent the previous year in the
> trunk of a Buick, and looked it. No one who participated in the
> listening evaluations mistook them for anything other than the pile of
> tubes in desperate need of a refurb job that they were.
Really? Did you do a product perception evaluation before the listening
sessions? Was the brand masked? HAd anyone mentioned the fact that they
were Macintoshes? DId any of the listeners have any particular positive
feelings about tube amps?
S888Wheel
>Date: 7/9/2004 9:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <PRzHc.50521$IQ4.19828@attbi_s02>
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>> From: chung chun...@covad.net
>>>Date: 7/7/2004 7:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <8m2Hc.40996$a24.23645@attbi_s03>
>>>
>>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>>> From: "Dennis Moore" dmo...@bham.rr.com
>>>>>Date: 7/6/2004 8:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>Message-id: <ccei1...@news1.newsguy.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>Got to say amen goFab,
>>>>>
>>>>>Stereophile would have had one notable review if I had been
>>>>>writing one on the most expensive amp. If it were an inexpensive
>>>>>product, I would simply say it broken. If it had been this one
>>>>>for $350K and it was apparent they meant it to be this way,
>>>>>the review would have redefined the term scathing.
>>>>
>>>> That is your POV. I find it interesting that you would take such a POV
>>>without
>>>> actually listening to the product.
>>>
>>>I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
>>>course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.
>>
>> Maybe not. But you are making presumptions without actually listening.
>
>How am I making presumptions?
You said you don't think the amp in question is worth listening to without
listening to it. I find that a bit presumptuous.
If the measurements show that the amp
>clips at a low output voltage, then the amp will distort at low output
>voltages. Are you saying that I may like the clipped sound?\
Obviously someone did in this particular case. Maybe you would too if you
didn't know ahead of time what you were listening to. Maybe you wouldn't. A lot
of maybes. I found an actual audition of a WAVAC amp to far more informative
than speculation and presumption.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I believe I recall some part of the review mentioned, "a listening
>>>>>experience like no other, a way of hearing the music different
>>>>>than any other".
>>>>
>>>> It went on to say that it was like no other in that it sounded so much
>more
>>>> like live unamplified music. Some people like that.
>>>
>>>Yeah, but the fact that someone may like it does not mean that it is not
>>> necessarily bad.
>>
>> It does for that person and anyone else who has a similar response.
>>
>> There's no accounting for taste.
>>
>> I thought taste was considered subjective by objectivists.
>
>And your point being?
Read the next line I wrote.
>
>> Are you now saying
>> that MF may simply have inferior taste?
>>
>
>"Simply"?
Yes, I said simply.
It is obvious that someone who can rave about the wonderful
>sound of an amp that clips at 2W has, uh, unconventional, taste.
How do you know? You have never heard the amp in question.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I should think so, considering the broken
>>>>>manner it was operating most of the time.
>>>>
>>>> Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me, broken
>>>means
>>>> it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all.
>>>
>>>If as goFab says, the rated power is 150W/ch and it clips at 2W, it's
>>>broken. It certainly is not working as it's supposed to.
>>
>> Or they are not giving straight info on the power rating.
>
>You mean as in lying?
No I didn't mean that. It may very well be a lie. I am in no position to make
that acusation.
>
>>All amps clip at a
>> certain point.
>
>You buy an amp that is rated at 150W. You find out that it clips at less
>than 1/10 of that. It sounds (pun inteneded) broken to me.
We seem to have very different understanding of the word broken.This is my
understanding...1 : violently separated into parts : SHATTERED
2 : damaged or altered by breaking: as a : having undergone or been subjected
to fracture <a broken leg> : disrupted by change
>
>> Doesn't mean they are broken. Even if their power output is
>> grossly misrepresented by the marketing.I'm not really clear about this
>> clipping issue though. The amp is clipping at 2 watts? The sort of clipping
>> that can damage speakers? I thought clipping was what happened when the
>signal
>> exceeds the amps output cpacity and the wave is cut off before it gets to
>it's
>> apex? Is that not what clipping is? Is this really happening at 2 watts?
>>>
>
>I am glad that now you are realizing the enormity of the problem....
>
You didn't answer the question. Lets put it another way. An amp that is rated
at 150 watts can produce about 111 db from a speaker that is rated at about 90
db in efficiency right? an amp that clips at 2 watts can do what?
Nousaine
From: chung chun...@covad.net
...snip to content....>>>>> That is your POV. I find it interesting that you
would take such a POV
>>>>without
>>>>> actually listening to the product.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
>>>>course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.
>>>
>>> Maybe not. But you are making presumptions without actually listening.
>>
>>How am I making presumptions?
>
>You said you don't think the amp in question is worth listening to without
>listening to it. I find that a bit presumptuous.
This attitude is typical of another high-end platitude "You are unqualified to
comment on a product that you've never listened to." This is simply another
merchandising technique to forestall critical comment. It assumes that there
are special evaluative qualities which only high-end promoters (including
buyers) possess. And only insiders can have access.
I have a friend, who was at one time as high-end as you could get (custom West
electrostatic loudspeakers and electronics plus a turntable system with a
custom $6k lead isolation stand) but was crushed when a $300 cd player "blew
away" his tt in sound quality.
However, in those days ALL of his equipment was custom or modified in some way
to "protect himself from audiophiles." His explanation: If he was touting the
sound of a given piece of equipment there would always be an audiophile who
would say "I've heard that piece and it sounds like crap." To which my friend
could reply "You haven't heard this one .... it's been modified."
To the uninitiated in high-end audio where "everything"can make a difference
modification can be as simple as putting a paperweight on an amplifier or
scratching your initials on the back plate.
chung
I find that you are the one who is extremely presumptious. I *know* that
I do not want to listen to a 2W amp. How could you possible assume that
I would find such an amp worth listening to?
>
> If the measurements show that the amp
>>clips at a low output voltage, then the amp will distort at low output
>>voltages. Are you saying that I may like the clipped sound?\
>
> Obviously someone did in this particular case.
But not me.
> Maybe you would too if you
> didn't know ahead of time what you were listening to.
There, you are being presumptious.
>Maybe you wouldn't. A lot
> of maybes. I found an actual audition of a WAVAC amp to far more informative
> than speculation and presumption.
Go ahead and listen for yourself, but please don't argue with me that I
may like a 2W amp.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I believe I recall some part of the review mentioned, "a listening
>>>>>>experience like no other, a way of hearing the music different
>>>>>>than any other".
>>>>>
>>>>> It went on to say that it was like no other in that it sounded so much
>>more
>>>>> like live unamplified music. Some people like that.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, but the fact that someone may like it does not mean that it is not
>>>> necessarily bad.
>>>
>>> It does for that person and anyone else who has a similar response.
>>>
>>> There's no accounting for taste.
>>>
>>> I thought taste was considered subjective by objectivists.
>>
>>And your point being?
>
> Read the next line I wrote.
Which was totally irrelevant to my statement that there is no accounting
for taste. Meaning you can't argue about someone else's taste. Meaning
there are many people with taste that you would consider poor.
>
>>
>>> Are you now saying
>>> that MF may simply have inferior taste?
>>>
>>
>>"Simply"?
>
> Yes, I said simply.
>
> It is obvious that someone who can rave about the wonderful
>>sound of an amp that clips at 2W has, uh, unconventional, taste.
>
> How do you know? You have never heard the amp in question.
Do you understand the meaning of "unconventional"? How many people you
know will rave about the sound of a 2W amp that is spec'ed at 150W?
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I should think so, considering the broken
>>>>>>manner it was operating most of the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me, broken
>>>>means
>>>>> it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all.
>>>>
>>>>If as goFab says, the rated power is 150W/ch and it clips at 2W, it's
>>>>broken. It certainly is not working as it's supposed to.
>>>
>>> Or they are not giving straight info on the power rating.
>>
>>You mean as in lying?
>
> No I didn't mean that. It may very well be a lie. I am in no position to make
> that acusation.
Well, if it's not lying, then it's gross incompetence. Or gross
negligence. Or cheating. Which is it? A typo?
>
>>
>>>All amps clip at a
>>> certain point.
>>
>>You buy an amp that is rated at 150W. You find out that it clips at less
>>than 1/10 of that. It sounds (pun inteneded) broken to me.
>
> We seem to have very different understanding of the word broken.This is my
> understanding...1 : violently separated into parts : SHATTERED
> 2 : damaged or altered by breaking: as a : having undergone or been subjected
> to fracture <a broken leg> : disrupted by change
It's really simple. An amp spec'ed at 150W that clips at 2W is broken
IMO. You can argue semantics all you want.
>
>>
>>> Doesn't mean they are broken. Even if their power output is
>>> grossly misrepresented by the marketing.I'm not really clear about this
>>> clipping issue though. The amp is clipping at 2 watts? The sort of clipping
>>> that can damage speakers? I thought clipping was what happened when the
>>signal
>>> exceeds the amps output cpacity and the wave is cut off before it gets to
>>it's
>>> apex? Is that not what clipping is? Is this really happening at 2 watts?
>>>>
>>
>>I am glad that now you are realizing the enormity of the problem....
>>
> You didn't answer the question.
The point is that now you are starting to realize the enormity of the
problem by trying to find out what clipping at 2W means. Now it's your
turn to do some research.
>Lets put it another way. An amp that is rated
> at 150 watts can produce about 111 db from a speaker that is rated at about 90
> db in efficiency right?
111.8 dB SPL at 1 meter.
>an amp that clips at 2 watts can do what?
>
93 dB SPL at 1 meter, or was that a rhetorical question?
You think an amp that clips at 93 dB SPL at 1m is good enough to handle
the dynamics of the kind of music you listen to? Well, it certainly
saves you a lot of money...unless you want this amp by WAVAC.
normanstrong
"Let" your biases affect your honest impressions? You can't prevent
it. That's why they're called biases. You have no control over them.
If I were the reviewer, just seeing the amplifiers, knowing what they
cost and that they are SETs, would make any review I might write
worthless. Clearly, Mr. Fremer's review WAS worthless.
Norm Strong
jjn...@sonic.net
> As for Stereophile's method of letting the reviewer use and write about
> the equipment without knowing any measurements, I say bravo. The
> philosophy is how something sounds in use is important. So doing it
> this way only makes sense. I also say they show some integrity beyond
> many other publications by also doing some basic measurements. And
> publishing both.
Yes, I agree with this.
> However, I begin to think the subjective review process is broken
> (yes, I know many have said so for so long) when an amp this bad
> in terms of power output ability can get a pretty darn good review.
> The reviewer had to be prejudiced by the price, it is the focus of the
> first few paragraphes. And also by the idea these things are 150 watts.
> Then the huge size and weight do nothing to make you ever believe it
> really is only 2 watts or so of clean power.
It is obvious that the subjective review process is broken because the
reviewers don't use bias controls, straight wire bypass tests, etc.
Publishing open ended listening subjective reviews is fine, they just
should be tempered by at least some modest attempt at objectivity. The
credibility of the magazine would be greater if they did this, but it
would be bad for business, which is exactly why it isn't done.
B&D
<chun...@covad.net> wrote:
>> It is obvious that someone who can rave about the wonderful
>>> sound of an amp that clips at 2W has, uh, unconventional, taste.
>>
>> How do you know? You have never heard the amp in question.
>
> Do you understand the meaning of "unconventional"? How many people you
> know will rave about the sound of a 2W amp that is spec'ed at 150W?
Yes, but if it clips at 2W - then it should be rated at 2W, yes?
B&D
<nous...@aol.com> wrote:
> I have a friend, who was at one time as high-end as you could get (custom West
> electrostatic loudspeakers and electronics plus a turntable system with a
> custom $6k lead isolation stand) but was crushed when a $300 cd player "blew
> away" his tt in sound quality.
Amazingly, the table, tonearm and cartridge make more difference than a
fancy isolation stand. If he had a bad turntable, or a mediocre one, with a
average tonearm and so-so cartridge, CD and Vinyl won't make much
difference.
It is only with the really high end turntable with the very best records
that make a difference - and then, only with time will the differences be
felt in a greater desire to listen to music.
S888Wheel
>Date: 7/10/2004 2:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <VBOHc.26874$WX.13205@attbi_s51>
This looks like a view that is highly slanted through the eyes of a reviewer
for a competing magazine. Are you suggesting the WAVAC also sounds like every
other amp when you refer to the "amp-myth?"
>
>Otherwise why waste print on this deplorable pile of junk?
Where is the scientific objectivity in name calling?
To show that the
>magazines measurements are incredibly wasteful?
Not sure what your point is here. Are you suggesting that the unit should not
have been measured for the review?
That the reviewer cannot hear
>frequency response errors or distortion?
The reviewer listened to music through the amps and described what he heard. He
did consider the possibility that his response to this amp was possibly due to
it's inaccuracies.
Or even worse infer that distorting
>the input signal makes the sound more "live" at the speaker?
And what if it does? If that is MF's honest impression would you suggest he not
report it? Would you suggest he or JA shelve the review becuase the
subjective impressions are IYO at odds with the measurements?
>
>It would seem like that's unlikely;
How on earth do you know? You never listened to this unit with the same
equipment as did MF. Where is the objectivity in that?
so what other reason that would be useful
>to readers would there be?
Well, gee, if we accept your assertion that MF is not reporting what he really
experienced then the review is indeed not of any use to the readers. When you
prove that MF is not accurately reporting his impressions then you get to ask
this question.
I think a thoughtful person would describe it as a
>"mine is bigger than yours" (we test the most expensive products) exercise.
I think a thoughtful person might not make the same assumptions about the
review being not so true to what the reviewer actually experienced.
>Along with inference that measurements do not correlate with sound quality so
>you cannot get the best sound without "our" advice.
If you drop your assumption about the "accuracy" of MF's reporting on his
subjective impressions you will see that Stereophile did a fine job of
reporting the apparent conflict between the measured performance and subjective
performance of the unit in question.
>
>I think its a great marketing tool. But does it shine any light on improved
>sound quality? Only in a perverse way...
But you do write for a competing magazine.
.if a reviewer can't hear a
>broke-as-designed product when he hears one perhaps he should be ready for
>people to discount his advice (if not his poetry.)
Perhaps one should consider discounting the complaints of someone who works for
the competition. Of course we must remember you have not listened to the unit
in question and yet you are willing to attack a competing reviewer's
credibility. Personally I think the reviewer who draws conclusions without the
audition is the reviewer whose crediibility needs to be looked at.
>
>If this is an instance where readers are supposed to be made "aware" of
>product
>flaws through measurements along with the glowing description of apparently
>excerable "sound" it seems charade-like to me. And certainly adds no
>credibility to the editorial content.
This from the person who has not actually listened to the unit in question.
>
>It is as though the publication is laughing at its readers or engaged in a
>huge
>self-delusion. The latter is quite unlikely. I think its brilliant marketing;
>look at the length of this thread,.... but other than entertaining reading it
>adds nothing to the quest of getting good sound.
And let's not forget your position as someone who works for the competition.
>
>It's kind of like reading an article in Automobile and finding a tester who
>loved the incredible acceleration and cornering ability of a car that had
>0-60
>in 10 seconds and could pull 0.75g on the skidpad.
No it is not. But perhaps the analogy does tell us something about your
proccess of evaluating equipment.
>
>The review and "As We See It" seems to suggest that the magazine policy for
>product selection is sometime left to reviewers, at least in this case. I
>don't
>recall this being made public prior, although it may have.
>
>For what its worth, (you do want to know this don't you? ) the only
>publication
>that has ever allowed me to select products I review has been The $ensible
>Sound (although this has been rare...and has been limited to products that I
>have already acquired). The latter is noted in copy.
So? How do you think you know how it happened with the WAVAC? Hint, it was
reported in Stereophile in the actual reivew.
>
>In every other case the editors have selected products (on rare
>occasion...and
>I mean rare, they have included products I suggeted were of interest) which
>were then delivered to me on assignment for testing.
>
>I am sometimes asked by people if I would do a review on a given product and
>I
>always tactfully suggest they contact the editorial staff.
>
>It looks, from reading the aforementioned magazine, that reviewers speak with
>manufacturers and either are solicited or solicit products for review on
>their
>own. (p5,73 July Issue.)
>
>There's not necessarily anything wrong with this. But, I cannot recall ever
>seeing this policy disclosed in print and I cannot help but see the potential
>conflict of interest.
>
I don't see the conflict in interest. OTOH reviewing and consulting.....
Stewart Pinkerton
>On 7/11/04 1:37 AM, in article mm4Ic.66433$XM6.20336@attbi_s53, "Nousaine"
><nous...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I have a friend, who was at one time as high-end as you could get (custom West
>> electrostatic loudspeakers and electronics plus a turntable system with a
>> custom $6k lead isolation stand) but was crushed when a $300 cd player "blew
>> away" his tt in sound quality.
>
>Amazingly, the table, tonearm and cartridge make more difference than a
>fancy isolation stand.
That's not at all amazing - more like stating the bleedin' obvious...
> If he had a bad turntable, or a mediocre one, with a
>average tonearm and so-so cartridge, CD and Vinyl won't make much
>difference.
Why would you immediately assume that the owner of the above system
would possess a 'mediocre' vinyl replay system? That seems a
particularly unreasonable assumption. And you know what they say about
assumptions..............................
>It is only with the really high end turntable with the very best records
>that make a difference - and then, only with time will the differences be
>felt in a greater desire to listen to music.
Excuse me? Even with a Rockport Sirius III, vinyl will still be vinyl.
That's the *real* difference.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Greg Weaver
news:mm4Ic.66433$XM6.20336@attbi_s53...> I have a friend, ... but was crushed when a $300 cd player "blew
> away" his tt in sound quality.
Do you know how preposterous that sounds? I have been in and around this
game since the late sixties, and I've yet to hear ANY well set-up
table/arm/cart - like the Music Hall MMF-2.1 for instance - "blown away" by
any similarly priced digital front end.
How you choose to define sound quality MIGHT be the issue. While we may
agree to disagree on what we like in terms of our own listening biases, when
it comes to dimensionality, warmth, and harmonic texture, what you've
described just doesn't happen. With a poorly maintained record, scratched
and dirty, popping and clicking from opening to close, the masking that
would occur would not allow you to truly hear the recording, and you may
have some ground to stand on. Otherwise, this is just insanity.
You implied this person had dropped major bucks on his analog system. Either
it was badly set up or someone is hallucinating. C'mon. Let's get real hear
(pun intended).
--
Greg Weaver
On Sound and Music
http://www.onsoundandmusic.com
A Journal of Pro and High-End Audio,
Music, and other things that Matter
normanstrong
you
> > know will rave about the sound of a 2W amp that is spec'ed at
150W?
>
> Yes, but if it clips at 2W - then it should be rated at 2W, yes?
Does the Wavac actually clip at 2W? Generally speaking, if an
amplifier just begins to clip when the output is 2W, it will not put
out more than 4W--even when massively overdriven to a square wave.
I'm wondering how the designer came up with the figure 150W. Surely
he didn't pick it out of thin air. Could it be that this particular
sample became defective between the time it was reviewed by Fremer and
when it was tested by J.A? It wouldn't surprise me. With measured
performance like this I think that J.A. should have sent it back to
Fremer for a reappraisal. Somehow this yawning chasm should be
rationalized.
Norm Strong
S888Wheel
>Date: 7/10/2004 10:38 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <9n4Ic.66712$Oq2.50867@attbi_s52>
Oh, c'mon. You took a shot at MF's taste. You were asking about eaxamples of
people getting banged around on RAHE? here is a fine one. I suppose you
wouldn't feel insulted if I infered that you had poor taste because your
subjective impressions didn't fall in line with my presumptions?
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Are you now saying
>>>> that MF may simply have inferior taste?
>>>>
>>>
>>>"Simply"?
>>
>> Yes, I said simply.
>>
>> It is obvious that someone who can rave about the wonderful
>>>sound of an amp that clips at 2W has, uh, unconventional, taste.
>>
>> How do you know? You have never heard the amp in question.
>
>Do you understand the meaning of "unconventional"? How many people you
>know will rave about the sound of a 2W amp that is spec'ed at 150W?
I have asked for some clarification on this issue. No one has been forthcoming.
Let's take a practical example. My speakers are very inefficient, about 84db.
If this amp is clipping at 2 watts then I shouldn't be able to get much more
than 87db of sound from them with a test signal should I?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I should think so, considering the broken
>>>>>>>manner it was operating most of the time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me,
>broken
>>>>>means
>>>>>> it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>If as goFab says, the rated power is 150W/ch and it clips at 2W, it's
>>>>>broken. It certainly is not working as it's supposed to.
>>>>
>>>> Or they are not giving straight info on the power rating.
>>>
>>>You mean as in lying?
>>
>> No I didn't mean that. It may very well be a lie. I am in no position to
>make
>> that acusation.
>
>Well, if it's not lying, then it's gross incompetence. Or gross
>negligence. Or cheating. Which is it? A typo?
A question worth persuing I think. If it is a lie it is serious. For kicks lets
say I was purchasing this amp. Even with my inefficient speakers I would be
expecting to get over a 100 db pl;ayback levels if called for in the material I
am playing. If this amp is clipping at 87 db could it possibly even approach my
expected sound preasure levels at all much less do so an still sound anything
like music?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>All amps clip at a
>>>> certain point.
>>>
>>>You buy an amp that is rated at 150W. You find out that it clips at less
>>>than 1/10 of that. It sounds (pun inteneded) broken to me.
>>
>> We seem to have very different understanding of the word broken.This is my
>> understanding...1 : violently separated into parts : SHATTERED
>> 2 : damaged or altered by breaking: as a : having undergone or been
>subjected
>> to fracture : disrupted by change
>
>It's really simple. An amp spec'ed at 150W that clips at 2W is broken
>IMO. You can argue semantics all you want.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Doesn't mean they are broken. Even if their power output is
>>>> grossly misrepresented by the marketing.I'm not really clear about this
>>>> clipping issue though. The amp is clipping at 2 watts? The sort of
>clipping
>>>> that can damage speakers? I thought clipping was what happened when the
>>>signal
>>>> exceeds the amps output cpacity and the wave is cut off before it gets to
>>>it's
>>>> apex? Is that not what clipping is? Is this really happening at 2 watts?
>>>>>
>>>
>>>I am glad that now you are realizing the enormity of the problem....
>>>
>> You didn't answer the question.
>
>The point is that now you are starting to realize the enormity of the
>problem by trying to find out what clipping at 2W means. Now it's your
>turn to do some research.
>
>>Lets put it another way. An amp that is rated
>> at 150 watts can produce about 111 db from a speaker that is rated at about
>90
>> db in efficiency right?
>
>111.8 dB SPL at 1 meter.
>
>>an amp that clips at 2 watts can do what?
>>
>
>93 dB SPL at 1 meter, or was that a rhetorical question?
No. it wasn't.
>
>You think an amp that clips at 93 dB SPL at 1m is good enough to handle
>the dynamics of the kind of music you listen to? Well, it certainly
>saves you a lot of money...unless you want this amp by WAVAC.
Is it clear that the amp ain't gonna put out much more than 93 db of sound?
Here's a problem I am having with this though. When I auditioned a WAVAC amp
that WAVAC rated at 50 watts it was able to play louder than my Creek
integrated amp that is rated at 20 watts. Now if WAVAC is in the habbit of such
gross misrepresentations of power output one has to wonder what the true output
of 50 watt WAVAC is. Even if it is only doing as well as it's big. very big
brother it should not be able to play louder than the 20 watt Creek. But it did
without sounding *grossly* distorted. So what is going on here. Do you think
that the big WAVACs really won't produce much more than 87 db on my current
speakers that are about 84 db in efficiency?
S888Wheel
>Date: 7/10/2004 10:37 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <mm4Ic.66433$XM6.20336@attbi_s53>
>
>s888...@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
>
From: chung chun...@covad.net
>
>...snip to content....>>>>> That is your POV. I find it interesting that you
>would take such a POV
>>>>>without
>>>>>> actually listening to the product.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
>>>>>course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe not. But you are making presumptions without actually listening.
>>>
>>>How am I making presumptions?
>>
>>You said you don't think the amp in question is worth listening to without
>>listening to it. I find that a bit presumptuous.
>
>This attitude is typical of another high-end platitude "You are unqualified
>to
>comment on a product that you've never listened to."
Well, I suppose some people are comfortable forming opinions about sound they
haven't heard. I'm not one of those people.
This is simply another
>merchandising technique to forestall critical comment.
No. I am not involved in merchandising. I simply don't like to make
presumptions that you seem to be comfortable making. I am surprised that some
one who has spent so much time decrying audiophiles who let their biases affect
there purchasing decisions would so easily fall victim to his own biases.
It assumes that there
>are special evaluative qualities which only high-end promoters (including
>buyers) possess. And only insiders can have access.
No it doesn't. It presumes that the listening experience is the final
arbitrator of quality. For many of us that is the purpose of the hobby. To
listen. There is nothing wrong with being more interested in measurements than
listening pleasure if that is what intersts you. To each his own.
>
>I have a friend, who was at one time as high-end as you could get (custom
>West
>electrostatic loudspeakers and electronics plus a turntable system with a
>custom $6k lead isolation stand) but was crushed when a $300 cd player "blew
>away" his tt in sound quality.
>
>However, in those days ALL of his equipment was custom or modified in some
>way
>to "protect himself from audiophiles." His explanation: If he was touting the
>sound of a given piece of equipment there would always be an audiophile who
>would say "I've heard that piece and it sounds like crap." To which my friend
>could reply "You haven't heard this one .... it's been modified."
>
>To the uninitiated in high-end audio where "everything"can make a difference
>modification can be as simple as putting a paperweight on an amplifier or
>scratching your initials on the back plate.
I have several friends who have brought over their favorite CDs along with
there own CD players only to be blown away by how much better my turntable
sounded with my LP copies of the same titles. Every one of them had an obvious
bias in favor of CDs. Not one has ever prefered the CDs *after listening*. I
always give them full control of the volume settings. What does your story or
my story have to do with this thread?
S888Wheel
>Date: 7/11/2004 7:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <ccrka...@news3.newsguy.com>
Really? Bias controls don't work?
That's why they're called biases. You have no control over them.
Sure you do. Both ways. First would be to hide the information that causes the
bias. The second is to acknowledge the bias and go from there.
>If I were the reviewer, just seeing the amplifiers, knowing what they
>cost and that they are SETs, would make any review I might write
>worthless.
Really? wow! I guess it is a good choice for you not to review equipment. You
do realize that in the real world, people see the equipment they own or at
least know what is there as they listen in the dark.
Clearly, Mr. Fremer's review WAS worthless.
Clearly to those with certain biases.
Nousaine
Nousaine
Wrong myth. This unit doesn't look at all like an amplifier; it's an
uncontrolled equalizer and distortion generator.
>>Otherwise why waste print on this deplorable pile of junk?
>
>Where is the scientific objectivity in name calling?
>
> To show that the
>>magazines measurements are incredibly wasteful?
>
>Not sure what your point is here. Are you suggesting that the unit should not
>have been measured for the review?
No; I'm suggestimng the review was a waste of print space.
>
> That the reviewer cannot hear
>>frequency response errors or distortion?
>
>The reviewer listened to music through the amps and described what he heard.
>He
>did consider the possibility that his response to this amp was possibly due
>to
>it's inaccuracies.
>
> Or even worse infer that distorting
>>the input signal makes the sound more "live" at the speaker?
>
>And what if it does? If that is MF's honest impression would you suggest he
>not
>report it? Would you suggest he or JA shelve the review becuase the
>subjective impressions are IYO at odds with the measurements?
Oh no; it just confirms that I cannot rely on subjective impressions in those
reviews because apparently bad sound is not recognizable. In this case only the
measurements have value. Who cares if that magazine likes expensive,
hard-to-use poor performing amplifiers .... but this review means that readers
should suspect impressions of loudspeakers as well.
>
>>
>>It would seem like that's unlikely;
>
>How on earth do you know? You never listened to this unit with the same
>equipment as did MF. Where is the objectivity in that?
Why would I bother? If I want a high performance vehicle why should I test
drive a Lincoln Continental just because someone else admires one?
>
>so what other reason that would be useful
>>to readers would there be?
>
>Well, gee, if we accept your assertion that MF is not reporting what he
>really
>experienced then the review is indeed not of any use to the readers. When you
>prove that MF is not accurately reporting his impressions then you get to ask
>this question.
>
I'm not doubting his impressions; I just doubt their validity regarding sound
quality.
Examine all you want.
And do you have a valid complaint that you'd like to report?
B&D
Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 17:39:11 GMT, B&D <br...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/11/04 1:37 AM, in article mm4Ic.66433$XM6.20336@attbi_s53, "Nousaine"
>> <nous...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have a friend, who was at one time as high-end as you could get (custom
>>> West
>>> electrostatic loudspeakers and electronics plus a turntable system with a
>>> custom $6k lead isolation stand) but was crushed when a $300 cd player "blew
>>> away" his tt in sound quality.
>>
>> Amazingly, the table, tonearm and cartridge make more difference than a
>> fancy isolation stand.
>
> That's not at all amazing - more like stating the bleedin' obvious...
Sure I was. But Tom hadn't stated anything but the tweak. How are we to
take that? He could have used a beat up worn out turntable with a cartridge
with 2000 too many hours on it and a damaged tonearm for all that is written
in the post, actually.
>> If he had a bad turntable, or a mediocre one, with a
>> average tonearm and so-so cartridge, CD and Vinyl won't make much
>> difference.
>
> Why would you immediately assume that the owner of the above system
> would possess a 'mediocre' vinyl replay system? That seems a
> particularly unreasonable assumption. And you know what they say about
> assumptions..............................
*IS* it a bad assumption? Seems to me that you can read it several ways -
if you are a person that is pro-vinyl you would leap to my assumption - if
you are anti-vinyl you would draw the opposite conclusion.
No information was given about the system. Given my experience with vinyl,
my assumption is a reasonable assumption. Can you shed light upon the type
of system the guy was using - were you privy to Tom's experience? The
assumption seems reasonable enough to me - the bloke may have spend the
entire budget on an isolation platform for all I know!
>> It is only with the really high end turntable with the very best records
>> that make a difference - and then, only with time will the differences be
>> felt in a greater desire to listen to music.
>
> Excuse me? Even with a Rockport Sirius III, vinyl will still be vinyl.
> That's the *real* difference.
Vinyl would be *what* then? I am not sure what you are getting at? That it
is somehow bad? It *is* a pain in the butt to use - but a well adjusted
turntable system works rather well.
Nousaine
...snip.....
>>You think an amp that clips at 93 dB SPL at 1m is good enough to handle
>>the dynamics of the kind of music you listen to? Well, it certainly
>>saves you a lot of money...unless you want this amp by WAVAC.
>
> Is it clear that the amp ain't gonna put out much more than 93 db of sound?
>
>Here's a problem I am having with this though. When I auditioned a WAVAC amp
>that WAVAC rated at 50 watts it was able to play louder than my Creek
>integrated amp that is rated at 20 watts. Now if WAVAC is in the habbit of
>such
>gross misrepresentations of power output one has to wonder what the true
>output
>of 50 watt WAVAC is. Even if it is only doing as well as it's big. very big
>brother it should not be able to play louder than the 20 watt Creek. But it
>did
>without sounding *grossly* distorted. So what is going on here. Do you think
>that the big WAVACs really won't produce much more than 87 db on my current
>speakers that are about 84 db in efficiency?
No I think that you are liking distorted sound. And anyway how did you
establish SPL capability.
Nousaine
"The listening Experience" is the arbitratory of quality; I couldn't agree
more. But most people don't allow themselves the "listening only" experience.
I'm not "more" interested in measurements as you suggest: I just realize that
reasonable measurements are a prerequisite (perhaps not a qualification) for
good sound.
Unlike others, perhaps like you, who will be intersted in products that aren't
even qualified to be competent for a given application I just shrugg my
shoulders. I've heard waist high AM radios that sounded good to me too. So
what?
>>I have a friend, who was at one time as high-end as you could get (custom
>>West
>>electrostatic loudspeakers and electronics plus a turntable system with a
>>custom $6k lead isolation stand) but was crushed when a $300 cd player "blew
>>away" his tt in sound quality.
>>
>>However, in those days ALL of his equipment was custom or modified in some
>>way
>>to "protect himself from audiophiles." His explanation: If he was touting
>the
>>sound of a given piece of equipment there would always be an audiophile who
>>would say "I've heard that piece and it sounds like crap." To which my
>friend
>>could reply "You haven't heard this one .... it's been modified."
>>
>>To the uninitiated in high-end audio where "everything"can make a difference
>>modification can be as simple as putting a paperweight on an amplifier or
>>scratching your initials on the back plate.
>
>I have several friends who have brought over their favorite CDs along with
>there own CD players only to be blown away by how much better my turntable
>sounded with my LP copies of the same titles. Every one of them had an
>obvious
>bias in favor of CDs. Not one has ever prefered the CDs *after listening*. I
>always give them full control of the volume settings. What does your story
>or
>my story have to do with this thread?
They are equally represented; don't you think? That's the basic problem with
high-end; we get into the arguing over anecdotes even when the competence of
the Wavac amplifier has been shown to be ridiculous in print.
That's OK with me. I'll let rational people make up their own minds.
Stewart Pinkerton
<gr...@onsoundandmusic.com> wrote:
>"Nousaine" <nous...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:mm4Ic.66433$XM6.20336@attbi_s53...
>> s888...@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
>>
>> From: chung chun...@covad.net
>>
>> I have a friend, ... but was crushed when a $300 cd player "blew
>> away" his tt in sound quality.
>
>Do you know how preposterous that sounds?
Indeed - why on earth would he have been 'crushed' by something so
inevitable?
> I have been in and around this
>game since the late sixties, and I've yet to hear ANY well set-up
>table/arm/cart - like the Music Hall MMF-2.1 for instance - "blown away" by
>any similarly priced digital front end.
I have the same longevity as an audiophile, and I have yet to hear any
vinyl rig which could even approach the sound quality of an average CD
player. That includes the legendary Rockport Sirius III with
Clearaudio Insider cartridge - set up by Andy Payor himself. Of
course, it was still playing vinyl, and inescapably suffered the
result.
>How you choose to define sound quality MIGHT be the issue. While we may
>agree to disagree on what we like in terms of our own listening biases, when
>it comes to dimensionality, warmth, and harmonic texture, what you've
>described just doesn't happen. With a poorly maintained record, scratched
>and dirty, popping and clicking from opening to close, the masking that
>would occur would not allow you to truly hear the recording, and you may
>have some ground to stand on. Otherwise, this is just insanity.
Actually, insanity would be the notion that vinyl could even approach
the sound quality capability of CD, regardless of the cost of the
vinyl replay rig.
>You implied this person had dropped major bucks on his analog system. Either
>it was badly set up or someone is hallucinating. C'mon. Let's get real hear
>(pun intended).
Ineed, and let's not kid ourselves that vinyl has any place in a *high
fidelity* music replay system, apart from accessing performances
simply not available on CD.
Stewart Pinkerton
It can never work so well as even an average CD player, because the
problem with vinyl is that the *medium* is intrinsically flawed, to a
vastly greater degree than CD.
Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro
> Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro <r...@rena.mat.uc.pt> wrote in message
> news:<cch3d...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>>> Wavac Audio Lab SH-833 monoblock power amplifier (Michael Fremer)
>>> As We See It ( Triggered by Mikey Fremer's review of the $350k/pair
>>> Wavac amplifier in this issue, John Atkinson ponders problems of
>>> fidelity and value for money.)
>> I suppose in a couple of months these articles will be available
>> on the website.
> Both will be accessible in the free on-line archives at
> www.stereophile.com on Monday July 12.
http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/704wavac/
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/704awsi/
>> > There are some other eye opening measuremens as well, reminding
>> > one of Mr. Atkinson's comment in another recent review (I believe
>> > about an amplifier Dudley was raving about) that amplifiers that
>> > test like this are usually described as "broken."
>> That one I couldn't find. Can you give some more detail ?
> It was the Antique Sound Lab Explorer review, also available in
> Stereophile's on-line archives.
http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/304antique/
The quote by Mr. Atkinson is:
"I recommend that this amp be used from its 4 ohm output transformer
tap with sensitive speakers, but even then, "broken" is the word
most engineers would use to describe an amplifier that measures as
poorly as did the Antique Sound Lab Explorer 805 DT."
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
BTW, I wanted to compare Mr. Atkinson's measurements of these amplifiers
with some more normal models, so I tried to find reviews of amplifiers
by brands such as Denon, Marantz, Pioneer, Sony, Technics, Yamaha
and I only found one (links to others welcome):
Stereophile: Yamaha @PET RP-U100 personal receiver
http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/191/
I just found this list:
http://www.stereophile.com/images/masterindex/intamps.html
that confirms such brands are rarely (or never) reviewed.
I got the impression from this editorial:
Stereophile: "Where's the Real Magazine?"
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/313/
that the readers won't accept such reviews (because high-end Japanese
amplifiers/receivers are multi-channel ? * **), so Stereophile doesn't
review them. They are reviewed in Home Theater Magazine (sister magazine ?)
but not with the same detail:
http://www.hometheatermag.com/
* although they can be used with only 2 speakers connected.
** and there are some high-end stereo-only models. For instance,
the Yamaha MX-D1 (digital (PWM) amplifier).
Well, I suppose the
NAD C370 integrated amplifier
http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/633/index.html
is normal enough.
.pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94
S888Wheel
>Date: 7/11/2004 9:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <x5oIc.60967$IQ4.34768@attbi_s02>
Why would you make this misrepresentation of my view? Did I say I liked the
WAVAC?
And anyway how did you
>establish SPL capability.
By ear. It was pretty obvious at what point each amp ran out of gas and how
loud they were playing when it happened. Of course if the WAVAC was only
putting out two watts, a genreous assumption given the measurements of their so
called 150 watt amp, then there shouldn't be much chance of it putting out
anything near what the 20 watt Creek could put out comfortably, no? We'd expect
9 db difference wouldn't we? That's pretty easy to distinguish don't you think?
S888Wheel
>Date: 7/11/2004 7:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <ccssr...@news3.newsguy.com>
I guess I will have to consider your inability to distinguish a colored power
amplifier from an equilizer should I read any of your reivews. Or should I just
consider this another attempt at name calling towards the unit in question?
>
>>>Otherwise why waste print on this deplorable pile of junk?
>>
>>Where is the scientific objectivity in name calling?
>>
>> To show that the
>>>magazines measurements are incredibly wasteful?
>>
>>Not sure what your point is here. Are you suggesting that the unit should
>not
>>have been measured for the review?
>
>No; I'm suggestimng the review was a waste of print space.
Fine. But not every review is going to be of interest to every reader.
>
>>
>> That the reviewer cannot hear
>>>frequency response errors or distortion?
>>
>>The reviewer listened to music through the amps and described what he heard.
>>He
>>did consider the possibility that his response to this amp was possibly due
>>to
>>it's inaccuracies.
>>
>> Or even worse infer that distorting
>>>the input signal makes the sound more "live" at the speaker?
>>
>>And what if it does? If that is MF's honest impression would you suggest he
>>not
>>report it? Would you suggest he or JA shelve the review becuase the
>>subjective impressions are IYO at odds with the measurements?
>
>Oh no; it just confirms that I cannot rely on subjective impressions in those
>reviews because apparently bad sound is not recognizable.
"Apperently"??? And yet you still haven't heard the unit in question in the
system MF used. But you are willing to call the sound bad. Would I be any less
out of line if I were to say I think your system sounds bad based on what you
have and what I imagine it would sound like?
In this case only
>the
>measurements have value. Who cares if that magazine likes expensive,
>hard-to-use poor performing amplifiers .... but this review means that
>readers
>should suspect impressions of loudspeakers as well.
Really? Hmm maybe I should draw the same conclusions about your speakers given
you think almost every amp sounds the same with them. Maybe I should conclude
they are substandard and fail to reveal important information. Heck if we are
going to draw conclusions about speakers based on one person's impression of
amplification with those speakers premised on our beliefs about amps...
>
>>
>>>
>>>It would seem like that's unlikely;
>>
>>How on earth do you know? You never listened to this unit with the same
>>equipment as did MF. Where is the objectivity in that?
>
>Why would I bother?
To form an opinion based on experience rather than prejudice.
If I want a high performance vehicle why should I test
>drive a Lincoln Continental just because someone else admires one?
Why make a bad analogy.
>
>>
>>so what other reason that would be useful
>>>to readers would there be?
>>
>>Well, gee, if we accept your assertion that MF is not reporting what he
>>really
>>experienced then the review is indeed not of any use to the readers. When
>you
>>prove that MF is not accurately reporting his impressions then you get to
>ask
>>this question.
>>
>
>I'm not doubting his impressions; I just doubt their validity regarding sound
>quality.
OK fair enough. You are saying he is honestly incompetetant as a listener.
Funny how rwviewers from competing magazines have such views.
I have, and I have drawn my conclusions. They remain consistant with this
attack on Stereophile and all the others you have posted and I have read.
Nothing new.
B&D
Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Excuse me? Even with a Rockport Sirius III, vinyl will still be vinyl.
>>> That's the *real* difference.
>>
>> Vinyl would be *what* then? I am not sure what you are getting at? That it
>> is somehow bad? It *is* a pain in the butt to use - but a well adjusted
>> turntable system works rather well.
>
> It can never work so well as even an average CD player, because the
> problem with vinyl is that the *medium* is intrinsically flawed, to a
> vastly greater degree than CD.
What I have found that dollar for dollar you can get acceptable sound
performance from a CD at a much lower price point than vinyl. Vinyl,
though, if you are willing to put up with it and spend a lot more money
gives a much more satisfying result than even a comparably well executed CD
player - but it is rather fussy and not nearly as convenient as CD's.
Listening to my old Magnavox (c. 1985) CD player, the new NAD CD player, a
Bel Canto Box and my computer - I can see how it is possible to extract more
information from the CD and put it out in a well executed way. While people
may complain about CD players, it seems to me that it has been a question of
design execution rather than inherent limitations in the CD.
Still, with a well put together system, I would lean towards vinyl if money,
software availability and fussiness weren't considerations (as they always
are!). Overall, a good CD player will do it for me!
chung
Oh yeah? All I said is that there is no accounting for taste, which is
really a trusim, and which explains why some people like low wattage
amps, and you conclude that I was taking a shot at MF's taste? Wow!
On the other hand, you seem to be trying hard to get someone to take a
shot at MF's taste...
> You were asking about eaxamples of
> people getting banged around on RAHE? here is a fine one.
Actually MF does not post here, so that fails to apply as an example.
But if you think that being challenged for raving about a 2W amp that is
spec'd at 150W, and by the way, costs $350K, qualifies as being banged
around, well, he would not get any sympathy from me :).
>I suppose you
> wouldn't feel insulted if I infered that you had poor taste because your
> subjective impressions didn't fall in line with my presumptions?
Actually, I would have expected that you don't think much about my taste
in hi-fi equipment, but that is neither here nor there. IOW, totally
irrelevant to the discussion of whether the amp is broken or not.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Are you now saying
>>>>> that MF may simply have inferior taste?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Simply"?
>>>
>>> Yes, I said simply.
>>>
>>> It is obvious that someone who can rave about the wonderful
>>>>sound of an amp that clips at 2W has, uh, unconventional, taste.
>>>
>>> How do you know? You have never heard the amp in question.
>>
>>Do you understand the meaning of "unconventional"? How many people you
>>know will rave about the sound of a 2W amp that is spec'ed at 150W?
>
> I have asked for some clarification on this issue. No one has been forthcoming.
> Let's take a practical example. My speakers are very inefficient, about 84db.
> If this amp is clipping at 2 watts then I shouldn't be able to get much more
> than 87db of sound from them with a test signal should I?
Since you have the habit of not forming any opinion until you listen to
it first, I would recomend that you listen to it instead of worrying
about how much power you are getting out of it.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I should think so, considering the broken
>>>>>>>>manner it was operating most of the time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me,
>>broken
>>>>>>means
>>>>>>> it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If as goFab says, the rated power is 150W/ch and it clips at 2W, it's
>>>>>>broken. It certainly is not working as it's supposed to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or they are not giving straight info on the power rating.
>>>>
>>>>You mean as in lying?
>>>
>>> No I didn't mean that. It may very well be a lie. I am in no position to
>>make
>>> that acusation.
>>
>>Well, if it's not lying, then it's gross incompetence. Or gross
>>negligence. Or cheating. Which is it? A typo?
>
> A question worth persuing I think. If it is a lie it is serious.
If it's not a lie, then what is it?
> For kicks lets
> say I was purchasing this amp. Even with my inefficient speakers I would be
> expecting to get over a 100 db pl;ayback levels if called for in the material I
> am playing. If this amp is clipping at 87 db could it possibly even approach my
> expected sound preasure levels at all much less do so an still sound anything
> like music?
I have no idea what you consider "sounding anything like music". But for
me, an amp that can only produces 93dB SPL at 1 m (and a pretty
efficient speaker at that) is simply not acceptable.
Funny that you got close to the right answer with 150W but couldn't
figure out 2W.
>
>>
>>You think an amp that clips at 93 dB SPL at 1m is good enough to handle
>>the dynamics of the kind of music you listen to? Well, it certainly
>>saves you a lot of money...unless you want this amp by WAVAC.
>
> Is it clear that the amp ain't gonna put out much more than 93 db of sound?
Do you like clipping distortion? If you do, then maybe you can squeeze
out another couple of dB.
>
> Here's a problem I am having with this though. When I auditioned a WAVAC amp
> that WAVAC rated at 50 watts it was able to play louder than my Creek
> integrated amp that is rated at 20 watts. Now if WAVAC is in the habbit of such
> gross misrepresentations of power output one has to wonder what the true output
> of 50 watt WAVAC is. Even if it is only doing as well as it's big. very big
> brother it should not be able to play louder than the 20 watt Creek.
Now, do you understand why we said the amp is broken?
> But it did
> without sounding *grossly* distorted. So what is going on here. Do you think
> that the big WAVACs really won't produce much more than 87 db on my current
> speakers that are about 84 db in efficiency?
>
I'm afraid you have to do the research yourself. But if the measurements
indicate the amp clips at 2W, well, you got your answer right there.
Unless the amp clips at a different point with different load
impedances. But even then the differences are small, a few dB at the most.
S888Wheel
>Date: 7/11/2004 9:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <hsoIc.61068$IQ4.60224@attbi_s02>
OK when you have had such an experience with the WAVAC *then* get back to us
with your sonic impressions of the unit. So far your expressed sonic
impressions are based soley on your beliefs. Something you seem to be against
when you make statments such as this one about people only using your ears.
>I'm not "more" interested in measurements as you suggest: I just realize that
>reasonable measurements are a prerequisite (perhaps not a qualification) for
>good sound.
They can also serve as another bias. I would think this would be an obvious
issue for someone who claims to be interested in controlling biases.
>
>Unlike others, perhaps like you, who will be intersted in products that
>aren't
>even qualified to be competent for a given application I just shrugg my
>shoulders. I've heard waist high AM radios that sounded good to me too. So
>what?
I am interested in systems that make my music collection sound the most like
the real thing. My choice of path to this goal is not affected by prejudices
that you seem to hold about certain kinds of equipment. Like I said, the fianl
arbitrator is the listening experience.
Hard to say.
That's the basic problem with
>high-end; we get into the arguing over anecdotes even when the competence of
>the Wavac amplifier has been shown to be ridiculous in print.
You introduced the anecdote. I simply responded with another to point out the
futility of anecdotes. Unfortunately your impression of the WAVAC doesn't even
rise to the level of anecdote.
>
>That's OK with me. I'll let rational people make up their own minds.
This rational person did make up his own mind on one WAVAC amp based on an
audition.
Steven Sullivan
No more so that John Atkinson suggesting that some engineers might call
it 'broken'.
> >Oh no; it just confirms that I cannot rely on subjective impressions in those
> >reviews because apparently bad sound is not recognizable.
> "Apperently"??? And yet you still haven't heard the unit in question in the
> system MF used. But you are willing to call the sound bad. Would I be any less
> out of line if I were to say I think your system sounds bad based on what you
> have and what I imagine it would sound like?
I wonder if Michael Fremer would have opined that it sounded good, if he
knew the nasty facts about the device beforehand...other than its price,
I mean.
> >>equipment as did MF. Where is the objectivity in that?
> >
> >Why would I bother?
> To form an opinion based on experience rather than prejudice.
What sort of experience? A sighted experience of an amp costing
tens of thousands? What's that experience worth to someone who's
aware of the flaws of sighted evaluation?
> >I'm not doubting his impressions; I just doubt their validity regarding sound
> >quality.
> OK fair enough. You are saying he is honestly incompetetant as a listener.
> Funny how rwviewers from competing magazines have such views.
The funny thing is how reviewers who pooh-pooh the relevance of well-known
psychological biases (and Fremer, being a psychologist or psychiatrist, I forget which,
should certainly know better) can wind up with egg on their faces when they give a positive
review to a device that from an engineering standpoint is arguably 'broken'.
The funnier thing is how this episode changes nothing about audiophile culture, no
matter how many times it's repeated. Fertile grounds for psychological
study *there*, I'd say.
--
-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth
chung
> I just found this list:
> http://www.stereophile.com/images/masterindex/intamps.html
>
> that confirms such brands are rarely (or never) reviewed.
>
> I got the impression from this editorial:
>
> Stereophile: "Where's the Real Magazine?"
> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/313/
>
> that the readers won't accept such reviews (because high-end Japanese
> amplifiers/receivers are multi-channel ? * **), so Stereophile doesn't
> review them. They are reviewed in Home Theater Magazine (sister magazine ?)
> but not with the same detail:
> http://www.hometheatermag.com/
>
> * although they can be used with only 2 speakers connected.
>
> ** and there are some high-end stereo-only models. For instance,
> the Yamaha MX-D1 (digital (PWM) amplifier).
>
> Well, I suppose the
> NAD C370 integrated amplifier
> http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/633/index.html
> is normal enough.
>
A comparison with the NAD integrated amp shows how spectacularly bad
that WAVAC amp really is. Now there is one thing that I thought the
reviewer should have been able to catch: the line spurs (hum) of the
WAVAC. Looking at the measurements, the 180 Hz component is only 60dB
down, and the 420 Hz at -62dB. I would have expected these components to
be quite audible. Also note the strong 3rd and 5th harmonics, at a low
1W output. So much for the sweet even tube harmonics. Contrast those
numbers to the NAD's. You have to wonder if those heavy, expensive power
supplies weren't designed only for their looks and weights. No doubt we
have seen high school science-projects audio amps with better hum
performance. And lower distortion, too. And how about that 10dB peak at
70 Hz? Or the tremendous peaking at 100KHz and 150KHz? Is that what it
takes to sound like live music?
Nousaine
Wow we have a person who can distinguish to 1 dB accuracy SPL by ear in an open
listening session. You should get a job at OSHA.
Stewart Pinkerton
>On 7/12/04 1:04 PM, in article _wzIc.62960$%_6.26489@attbi_s01, "Stewart
>Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>What I have found that dollar for dollar you can get acceptable sound
>performance from a CD at a much lower price point than vinyl. Vinyl,
>though, if you are willing to put up with it and spend a lot more money
>gives a much more satisfying result than even a comparably well executed CD
>player - but it is rather fussy and not nearly as convenient as CD's.
That's simply your personal opinion - mine is quite the reverse.
S888Wheel
>Date: 7/12/2004 6:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <XYGIc.77308$Oq2.43472@attbi_s52>
Seems by the posts on RAHE thasn JA simply made a very accurate prediction.
>
>> >Oh no; it just confirms that I cannot rely on subjective impressions in
>those
>> >reviews because apparently bad sound is not recognizable.
>
>> "Apperently"??? And yet you still haven't heard the unit in question in the
>> system MF used. But you are willing to call the sound bad. Would I be any
>less
>> out of line if I were to say I think your system sounds bad based on what
>you
>> have and what I imagine it would sound like?
>
>I wonder if Michael Fremer would have opined that it sounded good, if he
>knew the nasty facts about the device beforehand...other than its price,
>I mean.
An interesting question. Would he have fallen prey to whatever biases the
measurements might have put in his mind?
>
>> >>equipment as did MF. Where is the objectivity in that?
>> >
>> >Why would I bother?
>
>> To form an opinion based on experience rather than prejudice.
>
>What sort of experience?
Listening.
A sighted experience of an amp costing
>tens of thousands?
Well, yes, his audition was sighted.
What's that experience worth to someone who's
>aware of the flaws of sighted evaluation?
It's worth whatever value you place on one person's opinion.
>
>> >I'm not doubting his impressions; I just doubt their validity regarding
>sound
>> >quality.
>
>> OK fair enough. You are saying he is honestly incompetetant as a listener.
>> Funny how rwviewers from competing magazines have such views.
>
>The funny thing is how reviewers who pooh-pooh the relevance of well-known
>psychological biases (and Fremer, being a psychologist or psychiatrist, I
>forget which,
>should certainly know better) can wind up with egg on their faces when they
>give a positive
>review to a device that from an engineering standpoint is arguably 'broken'.
I'm not sure he has any egg on his face. What makes you so sure that the price
tag led him to like what he heard rather than the actual sound? How do you know
you wouldn't have liked it under blind conditions?
>The funnier thing is how this episode changes nothing about audiophile
>culture, no
>matter how many times it's repeated.
Why should this change anything? Why should one person's personal preference
make such a big difference?
Fertile grounds for psychological
>study *there*, I'd say.
I don't see it.
Harry Lavo
news:cIFIc.65610$IQ4.2692@attbi_s02...
> On 7/12/04 1:04 PM, in article _wzIc.62960$%_6.26489@attbi_s01, "Stewart
> Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>> Excuse me? Even with a Rockport Sirius III, vinyl will still be vinyl.
> >>> That's the *real* difference.
> >>
> >> Vinyl would be *what* then? I am not sure what you are getting at?
That it
> >> is somehow bad? It *is* a pain in the butt to use - but a well
adjusted
> >> turntable system works rather well.
> >
> > It can never work so well as even an average CD player, because the
> > problem with vinyl is that the *medium* is intrinsically flawed, to a
> > vastly greater degree than CD.
>
> What I have found that dollar for dollar you can get acceptable sound
> performance from a CD at a much lower price point than vinyl. Vinyl,
> though, if you are willing to put up with it and spend a lot more money
> gives a much more satisfying result than even a comparably well executed
CD
> player - but it is rather fussy and not nearly as convenient as CD's.
I find this the best balanced description of vinyl vs. cd that I have yet
read here or elsewhere. Even then, the high price of vinyl can be
ameliorated considerably by buying quality used equipment and having the
expertise (or getting it from friend or dealer) to set it up carefully and
critically. It must also have a line contact stylus, a great low output MC
cartridge, and a good preamp/headamp if it is to reach exalted status. (I
would judge from many comments here and elsewhere that many of the phono
systems being criticized do not meet this requirement).
Until recently I had a Linn Valhalla / Syrinx PU-2 / Accuphase AC-2 /
Modified Marcof PPA-2 setup that bested my Sony/DTI Pro/Proceed PDP player
and Sony C222ES SACD player on identically recorded music (Beethoven 5th
Symphony; Ormandy "Verdi Requiem; Szell's Rossini Overatures, Joplin's Cheap
Thrills, Dylan's Blonde on Blonde comparison disks).
In general, the vinyl and SACD have the best timbrel balance and either the
SACD or the vinyl the best "depth" of image. Of course, the silver disks
win on convenience and playing time and now demand most of the listening
time. Yet finding, cleaning, and listening to new old records that somehow
I missed buying in their day (usually for less than $2.00 each) is a fun
hobby and I happen to live in an area with several good stores for vinyl and
a good store for SACD / DVD-A (Media Play in Enfield, CT) as well as two
good public radio stations, so I am blessed with a perfect situation: the
medium doesn't matter musch anymore. Except that multi-channel trumps them
all.
>
> Listening to my old Magnavox (c. 1985) CD player, the new NAD CD player, a
> Bel Canto Box and my computer - I can see how it is possible to extract
more
> information from the CD and put it out in a well executed way. While
people
> may complain about CD players, it seems to me that it has been a question
of
> design execution rather than inherent limitations in the CD.
>
You've missed the "party line" here on RAHE, which is that there is
absolutely no sonic difference between your 1985 Magnavox, your new NAD, or
the Bel Canto. You are just imagining it. The technology has been perfect
since Magnavox/Phillips went to 4x oversampling in the mid-eighties.
> Still, with a well put together system, I would lean towards vinyl if
money,
> software availability and fussiness weren't considerations (as they always
> are!). Overall, a good CD player will do it for me!
>
And a good SACD or Universal player will do it even better for the future.
If you do want to get into vinyl cheap, try this:
* Dual 701 or 601 turntable in good shape (<$200)
* Accuphase AC-2 cartridge with stylus in good condition (rare but <$150)
and properly set up.
* Marcof PPA-2 headamp(<$100) and if you need a phono preamp, put it through
the phono section of an Audionics BT-2 (improved) preamp (<$100).
For four-five hundred dollars you can have a vinyl system equal/better than
upper-middle-class CD and SACD has to offer.
S888Wheel
>Date: 7/12/2004 5:27 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <V%FIc.42453$WX.34911@attbi_s51>
Yeah!
All I said is that there is no accounting for taste, which is
>really a trusim,
It's also a common way of taking a shot at someone's taste. You didn't know
that?
and which explains why some people like low wattage
>amps, and you conclude that I was taking a shot at MF's taste? Wow!
Yes I did. It is a common conclusion when one says there is no accounting for
taste in regards to an individual's taste. I am quite surprised you are unaware
of this conventional, common insult.
>
>On the other hand, you seem to be trying hard to get someone to take a
>shot at MF's taste...
Not at all. How on earth did you come to that conclusion? I am trying to point
out that no one who is taking shot's at his taste really know what they are
talking about since no one taking shots at his taste knows what he heard.
>
>> You were asking about eaxamples of
>> people getting banged around on RAHE? here is a fine one.
>
>Actually MF does not post here, so that fails to apply as an example.
Did I qualify my claim that people get knocked around on RAHE by limmiting it
to people who post here? No I did not. It applies as an example. What's the
point in citing examples if you cannot recognize an example when one is cited?
>But if you think that being challenged for raving about a 2W amp that is
>spec'd at 150W, and by the way, costs $350K, qualifies as being banged
>around, well, he would not get any sympathy from me :).
No I think comments like "there is no acounting for taste" which is a common
insult is being banged around.
>
>>I suppose you
>> wouldn't feel insulted if I infered that you had poor taste because your
>> subjective impressions didn't fall in line with my presumptions?
>
>Actually, I would have expected that you don't think much about my taste
>in hi-fi equipment, but that is neither here nor there. IOW, totally
>irrelevant to the discussion of whether the amp is broken or not.
That wasn't the point. The point was your comment was insulting to MF. Maybe
you really didn't realize it but it was quite insulting. At least I would have
been insulted by it. No big deal, it happens often on RAHE but an insult is
what it is.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you now saying
>>>>>> that MF may simply have inferior taste?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Simply"?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I said simply.
>>>>
>>>> It is obvious that someone who can rave about the wonderful
>>>>>sound of an amp that clips at 2W has, uh, unconventional, taste.
>>>>
>>>> How do you know? You have never heard the amp in question.
>>>
>>>Do you understand the meaning of "unconventional"? How many people you
>>>know will rave about the sound of a 2W amp that is spec'ed at 150W?
>>
>> I have asked for some clarification on this issue. No one has been
>forthcoming.
>> Let's take a practical example. My speakers are very inefficient, about
>84db.
>> If this amp is clipping at 2 watts then I shouldn't be able to get much
>more
>> than 87db of sound from them with a test signal should I?
>
>Since you have the habit of not forming any opinion until you listen to
>it first, I would recomend that you listen to it instead of worrying
>about how much power you are getting out of it.
So much for those who are more technical helping with technical information. By
the way, there is nothing subjective about my question. The answer does not
depend on me listening to anything. I'd have thought a technically inclined
fellow such as yourself would have seen that at first glance.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I should think so, considering the broken
>>>>>>>>>manner it was operating most of the time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me,
>>>broken
>>>>>>>means
>>>>>>>> it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If as goFab says, the rated power is 150W/ch and it clips at 2W, it's
>>>>>>>broken. It certainly is not working as it's supposed to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or they are not giving straight info on the power rating.
>>>>>
>>>>>You mean as in lying?
>>>>
>>>> No I didn't mean that. It may very well be a lie. I am in no position to
>>>make
>>>> that acusation.
>>>
>>>Well, if it's not lying, then it's gross incompetence. Or gross
>>>negligence. Or cheating. Which is it? A typo?
>>
>> A question worth persuing I think. If it is a lie it is serious.
>
>If it's not a lie, then what is it?
I'm trying to figure out just what it is. It would help if my questions were
answered. They are not rhetorical questions.
>
>> For kicks lets
>> say I was purchasing this amp. Even with my inefficient speakers I would be
>> expecting to get over a 100 db pl;ayback levels if called for in the
>material I
>> am playing. If this amp is clipping at 87 db could it possibly even
>approach my
>> expected sound preasure levels at all much less do so an still sound
>anything
>> like music?
>
>I have no idea what you consider "sounding anything like music". But for
>me, an amp that can only produces 93dB SPL at 1 m (and a pretty
>efficient speaker at that) is simply not acceptable.
Still not answering the questions, oh well. You could have ignored the issue of
what I consider 'sounding anything like musi' and gone with the first part. I'd
be expecting SPLs of over 100 db, could this amp produce any sound within a few
db of that if it clips at 2 watts?
I don't have much of any answer. I'll make the question really simple. Can a 2
watt amp possibly produce higher maximum SPL than a "competen" SS 20 watt amp
on the same speakers?
Nousaine
>From: nous...@aol.com (Nousaine)
>>Wrong myth. This unit doesn't look at all like an amplifier; it's an
>>uncontrolled equalizer and distortion generator.
>
>I guess I will have to consider your inability to distinguish a colored power
>amplifier from an equilizer should I read any of your reivews. Or should I
>just
>consider this another attempt at name calling towards the unit in question?
Consider it in any vein you think it fits. Just don't call me when you want an
opinion on sound quality.
>>>>Otherwise why waste print on this deplorable pile of junk?
>>>
>>>Where is the scientific objectivity in name calling?
I thought we were in high-end audio where science and objectivity don't count?
Why should the rules be changed for me?
>>>
>>> To show that the
>>>>magazines measurements are incredibly wasteful?
>>>
>>>Not sure what your point is here. Are you suggesting that the unit should
>>not
>>>have been measured for the review?
>>
>>No; I'm suggestimng the review was a waste of print space.
>
>Fine. But not every review is going to be of interest to every reader.
Sure; but I'm wondering why this would be of interest to any interest to audio
enthusiast readers ..... and not just to people like the reviewer, the staff
and the manufacturer? Save, perhaps you....but then you automatically advance
your interest above mine who paid exactly the same money for my subscription as
you did. Are your dollars greener than mine?
>>> That the reviewer cannot hear
>>>>frequency response errors or distortion?
>>>
>>>The reviewer listened to music through the amps and described what he
>heard.
>>>He
>>>did consider the possibility that his response to this amp was possibly due
>>>to
>>>it's inaccuracies.
>>>
>>> Or even worse infer that distorting
>>>>the input signal makes the sound more "live" at the speaker?
>>>
>>>And what if it does? If that is MF's honest impression would you suggest he
>>>not
>>>report it? Would you suggest he or JA shelve the review becuase the
>>>subjective impressions are IYO at odds with the measurements?
>>
>>Oh no; it just confirms that I cannot rely on subjective impressions in
>those
>>reviews because apparently bad sound is not recognizable.
>
>"Apperently"??? And yet you still haven't heard the unit in question in the
>system MF used. But you are willing to call the sound bad. Would I be any
>less
>out of line if I were to say I think your system sounds bad based on what you
>have and what I imagine it would sound like?
But that's the standard line. My car (system) is (better sounding) faster
than yours and you'll just have to accept my word for it because YOU haven't
driven (listened to) it.
In this case we need even something more advanced; a bias controlled listening
test that shows that this device (flawed in measurement as though it is)
actually sounds better than a competent amplifier.
Was this published in Stereophile? Did you conduct a similar test in your
audition?
> In this case only
>>the
>>measurements have value. Who cares if that magazine likes expensive,
>>hard-to-use poor performing amplifiers .... but this review means that
>>readers
>>should suspect impressions of loudspeakers as well.
>
>Really? Hmm maybe I should draw the same conclusions about your speakers
>given
>you think almost every amp sounds the same with them.
I don't "think" this. I have conducted bias controlled listening tests that
verify this.
Maybe I should conclude
>they are substandard and fail to reveal important information. Heck if we are
>going to draw conclusions about speakers based on one person's impression of
>amplification with those speakers premised on our beliefs about amps...
>
As stated above I don't have "beliefs" about amplifier sound. I have 25-years
of bias-controlled listening tests upon which to draw conclusions.
>>>>It would seem like that's unlikely;
>>>
>>>How on earth do you know? You never listened to this unit with the same
>>>equipment as did MF. Where is the objectivity in that?
>>
>>Why would I bother?
>
>To form an opinion based on experience rather than prejudice.
You can call it prejudice if you like; but nowhere in the record is there
evidence that an ampliifer such as the measured results show would sound "more
like" live music than a nominally competent amplifier.
> If I want a high performance vehicle why should I test
>>drive a Lincoln Continental just because someone else admires one?
>
>Why make a bad analogy.
I'd rather make a good one. But you are right in one important aspect ..... a
Contential is "more" like a real car than this dreck is like a real amplifier.
>>>so what other reason that would be useful
>>>>to readers would there be?
>>>
>>>Well, gee, if we accept your assertion that MF is not reporting what he
>>>really
>>>experienced then the review is indeed not of any use to the readers. When
>>you
>>>prove that MF is not accurately reporting his impressions then you get to
>>ask
>>>this question.
>>>
>>
>>I'm not doubting his impressions; I just doubt their validity regarding
>sound
>>quality.
>
>OK fair enough. You are saying he is honestly incompetetant as a listener.
>Funny how rwviewers from competing magazines have such views.
This is a fair point and one that any post reader will have accomodated.
>>> I think a thoughtful person would describe it as a
>>>>"mine is bigger than yours" (we test the most expensive products)
>exercise.
>>>
>>>I think a thoughtful person might not make the same assumptions about the
>>>review being not so true to what the reviewer actually experienced.
No one would have questioed his "experience." No one ever did. What was
questioned is the validity if the experience relative to the sound quality of
the devices in question.
>>>
>>>>Along with inference that measurements do not correlate with sound quality
>>>so
>>>>you cannot get the best sound without "our" advice.
>>>
>>>If you drop your assumption about the "accuracy" of MF's reporting on his
>>>subjective impressions you will see that Stereophile did a fine job of
>>>reporting the apparent conflict between the measured performance and
>>>subjective
>>>performance of the unit in question.
>>>
For pete's sake: it was made into a "Tempest in a Teapot" so that a certain
segment of readers could "decide for themselves" that their
amps/cables/bits/tweaks all sound "different" even if all rationally captured
evidence shows this isn't the case.
This is religion at its basic.
>>>>I think its a great marketing tool. But does it shine any light on
>improved
>>>>sound quality? Only in a perverse way...
>>>
>>>But you do write for a competing magazine.
Sure. And that's never been a secret. And I started being an interested party
and conducting bias controlled listening tests on my own 10 years before I
acquired any, however modest, professional income from my hobby.
A decade later I retired from my day-job. And now I make a moderate "living" as
a stringer for Hachette (Sound & Vision and Mobile Entertainment), The $ensible
Sound, The Audio Critic magazines, as a Trained Listener for DLC Design (where
I perform listening and measurement evaluation of autosound systems) and as an
operator of an un-advertised and un-promoted speaker measurement lab who will
measure any speaker sent in for an agreed-upon fee in advance.
Everybody who doesn't know my industry connections should take note.
You may also note that in my capacity at DLC Design I've listened to and
measured 500 OEM autosound systems including prototypes,
manufacturing-variations and production systems over the past 5 years.
In my capacity at Sound & Vision I've measured several hundred speaker systems
starting in the mid-90s (some of which were also "reviewed") and with Mobile
Entertainment (aka Car Stereo Review) I've both measured and "reviewed" all the
speaker systems since 1989.
There were other magazines that have passed through the hopper as well: I did
all the speaker coverage for Video and Sound & Image as long as those titles
lasted in the family.
But I've never been an Employee of any publication. Nor am I an employee of any
company that I now work with.
Nor have I ever "consulted" with a company beyond conducting measurements that
I would have conducted if that company were to be reviewed in Sound & Vision or
any other publication to which I submit copy.
You might legitimately ask why would anybody want you to do this? The nasower
to that question is ..... start-ups and smaller companies might not have the
capability of conducting parallel measurements (big companies all know how to
do this stuff; I wonder why so many of then don't bother) and I regularly
suggest that they don't need me to do this work.
Of course, the words above might suggest this happens more than sporadically.
It does not.
The 2nd such request I had was from a company that was looking for investors
and the investment folks wanted them to verify the claims of performance
improvements from a 3rd party (specifically me.)
I took the job; finished the report and ..... never got paid.
The moral to that story is payment before starting the job. But... so what?
Magazine work as a stringer is not well paid. My writers contract gives
Hachette an exclusive for competing consumer audio publications but nothing
else. So I'm free to work anywhere in any capacity otherwise.
So what does the writer's (or any other agreement) for Stereophile cover?
>>>.if a reviewer can't hear a
>>>>broke-as-designed product when he hears one perhaps he should be ready for
>>>>people to discount his advice (if not his poetry.)
>>>
>>>Perhaps one should consider discounting the complaints of someone who works
>>>for
>>>the competition. Of course we must remember you have not listened to the
>>unit
>>>in question and yet you are willing to attack a competing reviewer's
>>>credibility. Personally I think the reviewer who draws conclusions without
>>>the
>>>audition is the reviewer whose crediibility needs to be looked at.
>>>
>>
>>Examine all you want.
>
>I have, and I have drawn my conclusions. They remain consistant with this
>attack on Stereophile and all the others you have posted and I have read.
Sure and you have an opinion drawn on uncontrolled listening evaluations. So?
>>>>If this is an instance where readers are supposed to be made "aware" of
>>>>product
>>>>flaws through measurements along with the glowing description of
>apparently
>>>>excerable "sound" it seems charade-like to me. And certainly adds no
>>>>credibility to the editorial content.
>>>
>>>This from the person who has not actually listened to the unit in question.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>It is as though the publication is laughing at its readers or engaged in a
>>>>huge
>>>>self-delusion. The latter is quite unlikely. I think its brilliant
>>>marketing;
>>>>look at the length of this thread,.... but other than entertaining reading
>>>it
>>>>adds nothing to the quest of getting good sound.
>>>
>>>And let's not forget your position as someone who works for the
>competition.
That's pretty obvious; so? Everyone is free to debate my comments according to
my position. I'd hope that everyone does the same for you; Mr Atkinson and
everybody who "will" identify their source.
>>>>It's kind of like reading an article in Automobile and finding a tester
>who
>>>>loved the incredible acceleration and cornering ability of a car that had
>>>>0-60
>>>>in 10 seconds and could pull 0.75g on the skidpad.
>>>
>>>No it is not. But perhaps the analogy does tell us something about your
>>>proccess of evaluating equipment.
>>>
Actually in this case I think the analogy is perfectly relevant.
>>>>The review and "As We See It" seems to suggest that the magazine policy
>for
>>>>product selection is sometime left to reviewers, at least in this case. I
>>>>don't
>>>>recall this being made public prior, although it may have.
Note; the avoidance of the answer to that question.
>>>>For what its worth, (you do want to know this don't you? ) the only
>>>>publication
>>>>that has ever allowed me to select products I review has been The $ensible
>>>>Sound (although this has been rare...and has been limited to products that
>>I
>>>>have already acquired). The latter is noted in copy.
>>>
>>>So? How do you think you know how it happened with the WAVAC? Hint, it was
>>>reported in Stereophile in the actual reivew.
>>>
Sure; but it was not "reported" but anecotalized (if you will) in 2 separate
pieces. If this qualifies as 'reporting' I think that Mr Atkinson should
retract his criticism that any other magazine hasn't openly "reported" its
editorial policy since Larry Klein did so at a Conference in 1990.
>>>In every other case the editors have selected products (on rare
>>>>occasion...and
>>>>I mean rare, they have included products I suggeted were of interest)
>>which
>>>>were then delivered to me on assignment for testing.
>>>>
>>>>I am sometimes asked by people if I would do a review on a given product
>>and
>>>>I
>>>>always tactfully suggest they contact the editorial staff.
>>>>
>>>>It looks, from reading the aforementioned magazine, that reviewers speak
>>>with
>>>>manufacturers and either are solicited or solicit products for review on
>>>>their
>>>>own. (p5,73 July Issue.)
>>>>
>>>>There's not necessarily anything wrong with this. But, I cannot recall
>ever
>>>>seeing this policy disclosed in print and I cannot help but see the
>>>potential
>>>>conflict of interest.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I don't see the conflict in interest. OTOH reviewing and consulting.....
>>
>>And do you have a valid complaint that you'd like to report?
>>
>Nothing new.
As I suggested; you have no legitimate complaints to report? No?
John Atkinson
> >>>>writing one on the most expensive amp. If it were an
> >>>>been this one for $350K and it was apparent they meant it to be
> >>>>this way, the review would have redefined the term scathing.
> >>>
> >>> That is your POV. I find it interesting that you would take such
> >>> a POV without actually listening to the product.
> >>
> >>I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
> >>course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.
> >
> > Maybe not. But you are making presumptions without actually
> > listening.
>
> clips at a low output voltage, then the amp will distort at low
> output voltages. Are you saying that I may like the clipped sound?
about the Wavac amplifier "clipping" at 2W can have read the
review (it's now available in the www.stereophile.com archives). If
you look at the graphs of output power vs THD+N percentage, you will
see that it does indeed put out 2W at 1% THD+N, which is our usual
definition of "clipping." However, it is important to note that the
Wavac is _not_ clipping at this level of distortion.
What happens is that as the output power increases, the waveform
becomes increasingly asymmetrical, meaning that the signal
increasingly suffers from second-harmoic distortion. While this
is indeed audible once the Wavac is putting out a watt or so, it
doesn't sound like clipping distortion, particularly as it is not
accompanied by catastrophic amounts of intermodulation distortion.
As I wrote in the review, true waveform clipping occurs at a few
tens of watts, depending on the output tap and load. So for anyone
to cast aspersions at Michael Fremer's hearing ability because he
didn't hear "clipping" is inappropriate, given the particular
nature of the Wavac's non-linear transfer function.
When I listened to the Wavac, the bass boost was immediately
apparent, but it didn't sound aggressively distorted. Partly
this is because the amount of power typically demanded from an
amplifier tends to be below 2W much of the time with music rather
than test tones; partly this is because second harmonic distortion
tends to fatten the sound in rather a pleasing manner, at least
until the intermodulation products reach threshold.
Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance.
I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its
sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
goFab.com
S888Wheel stated:
>
>From: "goFab.com" tpl...@aol.com
>>Date: 7/8/2004 8:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <VaoHc.50782$Oq2.19921@attbi_s52>
>>
>>On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:47:35 GMT, in article <HUeHc.12796$WX.4645@attbi_s51>,
>>S888Wheel stated:
>>
>>> When the substance of a review is so
>>>>deeply at odds with the measured results, one must question what useful
>>>>purpose
>>>>these qualitative reviews are serving (beyond informing us of the mere
>>>>existence
>>>>of a particular product).
>>>
>>>No one is suggesting that you agree with MF. But one has to wonder if you
>>are
>>>letting your biases get the best of your opinion given you have never
>>listened
>>>to the amps in question.
>>
>>And what biases would those be?
>
>The one you have already expressed about the measurments of this amp.
>
I urge you to read my posts again. The fact that this amp measured very poorly
in JA's test is not a bias, it is an objective fact. The fact that MF's review
was pretty much an unqualified rave is also not a bias, but an objective fact.
I've only sought to comment on the coexistence of those two things.
> You think I'm a shill for a competing $350K
>>audio amplifier? :-)
>
>This might be another one. The price.
I fail to see what the price has to do with an amplifier being reviewed as well
as can be imagined, on the one hand, and measuring so very poorly, on the other.
Perhaps the high price makes the situation a bit more interesting than would
otherwise be the case, but that's about it. I'm well aware of the law of
diminishing returns as it applies to very limited production luxury items like
the Wavac; the fit and finish and reliability of a $400K Ferrari is unlikely to
be as good as that of a $100K Benz. On the other hand, it is not likely that
when the Ferrari people advertise a top speed of 200 mph they deliver only 4
mph, to use a tenuous but not entirely inappropriate analogy.
> FYI, I'm not in the business (audio or audio press)
>>and I
>>don't have any particular axe to grind.
>
>You may not be in the audio press( I never said or implied you were) But I am
>skeptical about the axe.
That's fine for you to say, but I would just point out that you have no
discernible factual basis for your skepticism on this score.
Dennis Moore
Below is a reply from JA to one of my comments early in the thread. You
will
unambiguously find that he uses the term, "this ridiculous amplifier".
Dennis
"Dennis Moore" <dmo...@bham.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<ccei1...@news1.newsguy.com>...
> I just wonder if JA still owned the magazine rather than working
> for a large publishing owner, would he have said differently?
No. I said what I had to say just the way I intended to say it, both
in the review and in my "As We See It." With respect, I believe you all
need to remember just how it was you learned this ridiculous amplifier
had such poor measured performance.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"S888Wheel" <s888...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Q1UIc.80011$XM6.17480@attbi_s53...
S888Wheel
>Date: 7/13/2004 3:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cd1ok...@news3.newsguy.com>
I didn't say the measurements were a bias I said that you may be biased by the
measurements. Are you saying this is not true?
The fact that MF's
>review
>was pretty much an unqualified rave is also not a bias, but an objective
>fact.
Did I say his review was a bias? No.
>I've only sought to comment on the coexistence of those two things.
>
>
>> You think I'm a shill for a competing $350K
>>>audio amplifier? :-)
>>
>>This might be another one. The price.
>
>I fail to see what the price has to do with an amplifier being reviewed as
>well
>as can be imagined, on the one hand, and measuring so very poorly, on the
>other.
>Perhaps the high price makes the situation a bit more interesting than would
>otherwise be the case, but that's about it.
It has been infered that the high price could have created a bias in favor of
the unit in MF's case. It seems just as valid to suggest the price may manifest
a negative bias in you.
I'm well aware of the law of
>diminishing returns as it applies to very limited production luxury items
>like
>the Wavac; the fit and finish and reliability of a $400K Ferrari is unlikely
>to
>be as good as that of a $100K Benz. On the other hand, it is not likely that
>when the Ferrari people advertise a top speed of 200 mph they deliver only 4
>mph, to use a tenuous but not entirely inappropriate analogy.
The analogy is fair. I think the claim that the amp actually clips at 2 watts
is suspect.
>
>> FYI, I'm not in the business (audio or audio press)
>>>and I
>>>don't have any particular axe to grind.
>>
>>You may not be in the audio press( I never said or implied you were) But I
>am
>>skeptical about the axe.
>
>That's fine for you to say, but I would just point out that you have no
>discernible factual basis for your skepticism on this score.
Just your post.
>
>
>
>
>
>
chung
I did not read the measurements until they were posted on the website. I
agree that saying that this amp clips at 2W is not correct, since it is
possible to extract 10W at 5% distortion (8-ohm tap, 8-ohm load). But it
is clear that if one is interested in low-distortion power (and I am),
this amp provides very little more than 2W (at about 2.2% distortion).
Whether one can condemn its sound based on these and other measurements
without listening to it depends on what one wants in an amplifier. If
one is interested in high-fidelity, accurate, amps, then clearly one can
condemn its sound. Unless those measurements are wrong. On the other
hand, if one does not care about distortion or various frequency
response errors, then perhaps one would not necessarily eliminate this
amp as bad sounding. And clearly there is at least one person who loves
its sound.
B&D
Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
SO you think that vinyl is less expensive than CD's, less fussy than CD and
ultimately unsatisfying?
B&D
<s888...@aol.com> wrote:
>> The funnier thing is how this episode changes nothing about audiophile
>> culture, no
>> matter how many times it's repeated.
>
> Why should this change anything? Why should one person's personal preference
> make such a big difference?
It certainly will cause the polarization effect!
B&D
Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> I'm not doubting his impressions; I just doubt their validity regarding
>>> sound
>>> quality.
>
>> OK fair enough. You are saying he is honestly incompetetant as a listener.
>> Funny how rwviewers from competing magazines have such views.
>
> The funny thing is how reviewers who pooh-pooh the relevance of well-known
> psychological biases (and Fremer, being a psychologist or psychiatrist, I
> forget which,
> should certainly know better) can wind up with egg on their faces when they
> give a positive
> review to a device that from an engineering standpoint is arguably 'broken'.
> The funnier thing is how this episode changes nothing about audiophile
> culture, no
> matter how many times it's repeated. Fertile grounds for psychological
> study *there*, I'd say.
Except as a group is it we who speculate. We did not listen to it - all we
can do is look at the graphs and speculate as to its poor performance and
become polarized as audiophiles do! :-)
Georg Grosz
I read the article online, and the picture under the chassis caught my
eye. For $350k, the thing isn't even neatly wired. The electrical
service box for my house looks better inside, and it was probably
wired in less than an hour by a journeyman electrician.
B&D
<tpl...@aol.com> wrote:
>> You think I'm a shill for a competing $350K
>>> audio amplifier? :-)
>>
>> This might be another one. The price.
>
> I fail to see what the price has to do with an amplifier being reviewed as
> well
> as can be imagined, on the one hand, and measuring so very poorly, on the
> other.
> Perhaps the high price makes the situation a bit more interesting than would
> otherwise be the case, but that's about it. I'm well aware of the law of
> diminishing returns as it applies to very limited production luxury items like
> the Wavac; the fit and finish and reliability of a $400K Ferrari is unlikely
> to
> be as good as that of a $100K Benz. On the other hand, it is not likely that
> when the Ferrari people advertise a top speed of 200 mph they deliver only 4
> mph, to use a tenuous but not entirely inappropriate analogy.
IN some gear, however, if you spend a huge amount of money - you might get
something quite a bit worse than with less money. You see this in cars
above about $150k and audio amplifiers above about $20k
Dennis Moore
news:cd1on...@news3.newsguy.com...
Yes, Mr. Atkinson, you are correct, it doesn't clip at 2w. I was guilty of
a little hyperbole. Not out of place in this discussion of the $350K Wavac
I think.
I did read the review. And did note that it doesn't clip until a good deal
higher
wattage is output. And that the high levels of distortion are second
harmonic.
High levels of that will sound surprisingly benign to those who look at the
distortion curves, but haven't heard such a thing.
Hence my suggestion that for a small amount, roughly 1/1000th the Wavac
price,
one could get an ASL MG Head amp. Use it as a pre-amp feeding a low
distortion
amp, and get some experience of a similar sound. Slowly growing, low order
distortion of eventually fairly high amounts. Derived from the use of SET
connected
6BQ5's. No it won't be a replicant of the Wavac. But will bear some fair
similarity
I do believe.
Dennis
Greg Weaver
I just don't know what to say that could be taken constructively and not
appear to be some type of flaming, as that IS NOT how I want to come across.
However, in the past 22 years, since the CD format was readily available in
homes, not one time, NOT ONCE, has a musician (or any other music lover for
that matter) EVER picked CD over vinyl in a head-to-head, same recording
comparison. We are talking about hundreds of demonstrations over that time.
Hundreds! I just can't believe that anyone, especially on this forum, could
so adamantly argue that side of the coin.
Even Bob Harley, arguably one of (if not the) strongest proponents for
digital playback, has gone on record with this statement from his book "The
Complete Guide to High-End Audio," Second Edition, p-325. "This quandary --
LP vs. CD -- emerges from the fact that even today's state-of-the-art
digital audio doesn't approach the sound quality offered by a good LP
playback system. The very highest level of music reproduction, there's not
even a debate: LP is musically superior to CD."
With that thought, I close my thread. I shall neither comment further nor
expect any response. Again, this is not a "flame!" It is rather the honest
incredulity of someone who has spent virtually every day of his adult life
in and around this industry, the last 15 years of which have been as a
consultant and reviewer. Thanks.
--
Greg Weaver - http://home.comcast.net/~theaudioanalyst/
On Sound and Music
http://www.onsoundandmusic.com
A Journal of Pro and High-End Audio,
Music, and other things that Matter
"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:zwzIc.62959$%_6.5381@attbi_s01...
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 02:07:11 GMT, "Greg Weaver"
> <gr...@onsoundandmusic.com> wrote:
>
> >"Nousaine" <nous...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:mm4Ic.66433$XM6.20336@attbi_s53...
> >> s888...@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
> >>
> >> From: chung chun...@covad.net
> >>
> >> I have a friend, ... but was crushed when a $300 cd player "blew
> >> away" his tt in sound quality.
> >
> >Do you know how preposterous that sounds?
>
> Indeed - why on earth would he have been 'crushed' by something so
> inevitable?
>
> > I have been in and around this
> >game since the late sixties, and I've yet to hear ANY well set-up
> >table/arm/cart - like the Music Hall MMF-2.1 for instance - "blown away"
by
> >any similarly priced digital front end.
>
> I have the same longevity as an audiophile, and I have yet to hear any
> vinyl rig which could even approach the sound quality of an average CD
> player. That includes the legendary Rockport Sirius III with
> Clearaudio Insider cartridge - set up by Andy Payor himself. Of
> course, it was still playing vinyl, and inescapably suffered the
> result.
>
> >How you choose to define sound quality MIGHT be the issue. While we may
> >agree to disagree on what we like in terms of our own listening biases,
when
> >it comes to dimensionality, warmth, and harmonic texture, what you've
> >described just doesn't happen. With a poorly maintained record, scratched
> >and dirty, popping and clicking from opening to close, the masking that
> >would occur would not allow you to truly hear the recording, and you may
> >have some ground to stand on. Otherwise, this is just insanity.
>
> Actually, insanity would be the notion that vinyl could even approach
> the sound quality capability of CD, regardless of the cost of the
> vinyl replay rig.
>
> >You implied this person had dropped major bucks on his analog system.
Either
> >it was badly set up or someone is hallucinating. C'mon. Let's get real
hear
> >(pun intended).
>
> Ineed, and let's not kid ourselves that vinyl has any place in a *high
> fidelity* music replay system, apart from accessing performances
> simply not available on CD.
B&D
<nous...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> No; I'm suggestimng the review was a waste of print space.
>>
>> Fine. But not every review is going to be of interest to every reader.
>
> Sure; but I'm wondering why this would be of interest to any interest to audio
> enthusiast readers ..... and not just to people like the reviewer, the staff
> and the manufacturer? Save, perhaps you....but then you automatically advance
> your interest above mine who paid exactly the same money for my subscription
> as
> you did. Are your dollars greener than mine?
If you are horrified at every review you read in Stereophile - why on earth
do you subscribe?
B&D
<dmo...@bham.rr.com> wrote:
> Yes, Mr. Atkinson, you are correct, it doesn't clip at 2w. I was guilty of
> a little hyperbole. Not out of place in this discussion of the $350K Wavac
> I think.
>
> I did read the review. And did note that it doesn't clip until a good deal
> higher
> wattage is output. And that the high levels of distortion are second
> harmonic.
> High levels of that will sound surprisingly benign to those who look at the
> distortion curves, but haven't heard such a thing.
>
> Hence my suggestion that for a small amount, roughly 1/1000th the Wavac
> price,
> one could get an ASL MG Head amp. Use it as a pre-amp feeding a low
> distortion
> amp, and get some experience of a similar sound. Slowly growing, low order
> distortion of eventually fairly high amounts. Derived from the use of SET
> connected
> 6BQ5's. No it won't be a replicant of the Wavac. But will bear some fair
> similarity
> I do believe.
It escapes me why people are offended at a review (somewhat favorable) of a
really, really expensive amp that is basically a SET or very SET like?
We aren't ever likely to buy one new or used - and with a $350k budget, one
should be able to get a house, car and a decent music and video system. But
why should that high price, crappy specs, yet a pleasant sound be
scandalous? Sound coloration is one minor school of thought in sound
reproduction (like the horn and SET crowd)...
B&D
Atkinson" <Stereophi...@Compuserve.com> wrote:
> Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance.
> I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its
> sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark.
And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn
based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out.
chung
You missed the point. The data sheet actually says 150W. The
"condemnation" is based on measurements.
Stewart Pinkerton
No, no, and yes, to give serious answers to your sarcasm.
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>Stewart,
>
>I just don't know what to say that could be taken constructively and not
>appear to be some type of flaming, as that IS NOT how I want to come across.
>However, in the past 22 years, since the CD format was readily available in
>homes, not one time, NOT ONCE, has a musician (or any other music lover for
>that matter) EVER picked CD over vinyl in a head-to-head, same recording
>comparison. We are talking about hundreds of demonstrations over that time.
>Hundreds! I just can't believe that anyone, especially on this forum, could
>so adamantly argue that side of the coin.
That's absolute rubbish! I personally know at least five regular
concert-goers, and three semi-professional musicians, who prefer CD to
vinyl. Hence, your statement is both untrue *and* an obviously biased
flame.
>Even Bob Harley, arguably one of (if not the) strongest proponents for
>digital playback, has gone on record with this statement from his book "The
>Complete Guide to High-End Audio," Second Edition, p-325. "This quandary --
>LP vs. CD -- emerges from the fact that even today's state-of-the-art
>digital audio doesn't approach the sound quality offered by a good LP
>playback system. The very highest level of music reproduction, there's not
>even a debate: LP is musically superior to CD."
Remember the late, great Gabe Weiner, the legendary sound engineer
behind PGM Records? He *always* preferred CD, and would have dismissed
Harley's rant as sheer 'audiophile' drivel.
Indeed, one of Gabe's favourite tests was to play someone an LP, and
then a digital recording of that LP. No visitor to his studio could
*ever* tell the difference, thereby proving the sonic transparency of
CD pretty effectively.
>With that thought, I close my thread. I shall neither comment further nor
>expect any response. Again, this is not a "flame!" It is rather the honest
>incredulity of someone who has spent virtually every day of his adult life
>in and around this industry, the last 15 years of which have been as a
>consultant and reviewer. Thanks.
Shame then, that you only appear to have listened to those who agree
with your own prejudice. If you wanted to, you could find plenty of
quotes from top musicians and industry professionals, to the effect
that vinyl is a parody of the original performance, and CD is *vastly*
superior. Indeed, the first real breakthrough of CD in the mass market
was in the classical field, where the clarity and sheer musicality was
appreciated by that band of generally critical listeners. I also
remember comments from the CD release of Sgt Pepper, where reviewers
raved about all the background subtleties that they had never heard on
the LP version! Of course, that was before it became *fashionable* to
prefer the well-known artifacts of vinyl................
Dennis Moore
>
> It escapes me why people are offended at a review (somewhat favorable) of
a
> really, really expensive amp that is basically a SET or very SET like?
>
> We aren't ever likely to buy one new or used - and with a $350k budget,
one
> should be able to get a house, car and a decent music and video system.
But
> why should that high price, crappy specs, yet a pleasant sound be
> scandalous? Sound coloration is one minor school of thought in sound
> reproduction (like the horn and SET crowd)...
>
>
Well, I guess, because for $350 you might get similar sound. I don't have a
real
problem with the 'sound coloration' crowd. But if there are tremendously
cheaper
ways to do the same thing, why not do it?
Dennis
S888Wheel
>Date: 7/13/2004 6:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cd21k...@news1.newsguy.com>
I quite disagree. you had at least one other person convinced that the
manufaturers were lying outright about their product. Mr. Chung ask me what
else could the claim of 150 watts be other than a lie if it clips at 2 watts.
Bob Marcus
>On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article cd1on...@news3.newsguy.com, "John
>Atkinson" <Stereophi...@Compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> > Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance.
> > I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its
> > sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark.
>
>And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn
>based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out.
Some of us have heard highly distorting systems with massive bass humps
before. We don't need to listen to another one to know we won't like it.
bob
_________________________________________________________________
Get fast, reliable Internet access with MSN 9 Dial-up – now 2 months FREE!
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/
S888Wheel
>Date: 7/14/2004 8:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <1kcJc.76426$MB3.32199@attbi_s04>
>
>B&D wrote:
>
>>On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article cd1on...@news3.newsguy.com, "John
>>Atkinson" <Stereophi...@Compuserve.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance.
>> > I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its
>> > sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark.
>>
>>And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn
>>based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out.
>
>Some of us have heard highly distorting systems with massive bass humps
>before. We don't need to listen to another one to know we won't like it.
>
>bob
>
Let me get this straight, you can look at the the measurements of the WAVAC and
from those measurements you can determine with a reasonable level of certainty
that you have heard a *system* that sounded so similar to the *system* MF
reported on in his review that you wouldn't require an audition to form an
opinion on it's sonic merits?
Michael McKelvy
news:jnmIc.58223$MB3.51122@attbi_s04...
> "Nousaine" <nous...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:mm4Ic.66433$XM6.20336@attbi_s53...
> > s888...@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
> >
> > From: chung chun...@covad.net
> >
> > I have a friend, ... but was crushed when a $300 cd player "blew
> > away" his tt in sound quality.
>
> game since the late sixties, and I've yet to hear ANY well set-up
> table/arm/cart - like the Music Hall MMF-2.1 for instance - "blown away"
by
> any similarly priced digital front end.
>
CD is objectively inferior in terms of distortion, compression, signal to
noise, and all other technical specs related to fidelity.
> How you choose to define sound quality MIGHT be the issue. While we may
> agree to disagree on what we like in terms of our own listening biases,
when
> it comes to dimensionality, warmth, and harmonic texture, what you've
> described just doesn't happen.
You do realize that you are describing the results of the increased
compression and EQ applied to LP's that CD don't require.
With a poorly maintained record, scratched
> and dirty, popping and clicking from opening to close, the masking that
> would occur would not allow you to truly hear the recording, and you may
> have some ground to stand on. Otherwise, this is just insanity.
>
If you don't get good dimensionality, warmth, and harmonic texture from a
CD, then there is something wrong with the way you have things set up IMO.
I have compared several CD's to their LP counterparts and the LP has always
been found wanting. There have been some bad CD transfers of things first
released on LP but the overwhelming majority of music recorded these days
and issued on CD is many orders of magnitude better sounding than any LP IMO
and I've heard some very high quality Vinly rigs.
> You implied this person had dropped major bucks on his analog system.
Either
> it was badly set up or someone is hallucinating. C'mon. Let's get real
hear
> (pun intended).
>
The reality is that by objective technical standards, CD is a vastly
superior format to LP.
>
> Greg Weaver
Tat Chan
> Stewart,
>
> I just don't know what to say that could be taken constructively and not
> appear to be some type of flaming, as that IS NOT how I want to come across.
> However, in the past 22 years, since the CD format was readily available in
> homes, not one time, NOT ONCE, has a musician (or any other music lover for
> that matter) EVER picked CD over vinyl in a head-to-head, same recording
> comparison. We are talking about hundreds of demonstrations over that time.
> Hundreds! I just can't believe that anyone, especially on this forum, could
> so adamantly argue that side of the coin.
I'll let Stewart reply to that.
>
>
>
> Even Bob Harley, arguably one of (if not the) strongest proponents for
> digital playback, has gone on record with this statement from his book "The
> Complete Guide to High-End Audio," Second Edition, p-325.
what, the same Bob Harley who says this as well ...
http://www.monstercable.com/RobertHarley/ch11_p04.asp
Excerpt:
"One pitfall, however, is that cables and interconnects need time to
break in before they sound their best. Before break-in, a cable often
sounds bright, hard, fatiguing, congested, and lacking in soundstage
depth. These characteristics often disappear after several hours' use,
with days or weeks of use required for full break-in. You can't be sure,
however, if the cable is inherently bright- and hard-sounding, or if it
just needs breaking-in. Note that break-in wears off over time. Even if
a cable has had significant use, after a long period of not being used
it may not sound its best until you've put music through it for a few days."
Hmmmm ... could it be that it is the listener who gets broken in, and
not the cable itself ...
>"This quandary --
> LP vs. CD -- emerges from the fact that even today's state-of-the-art
> digital audio doesn't approach the sound quality offered by a good LP
> playback system. The very highest level of music reproduction, there's not
> even a debate: LP is musically superior to CD."
Define "musically superior". Sure, nothing wrong with *prefering* vinyl
to CD, but musically superior?
In terms of musical reproduction, CD has a ruler flat frequency
response, so by definition, has better music reproduction ...
jjn...@sonic.net
> I have been following this thread and I don't think those who talk
> about the Wavac amplifier "clipping" at 2W can have read the
> review (it's now available in the www.stereophile.com archives). If
> you look at the graphs of output power vs THD+N percentage, you will
> see that it does indeed put out 2W at 1% THD+N, which is our usual
> definition of "clipping." However, it is important to note that the
> Wavac is _not_ clipping at this level of distortion.
I looked at the graphs. I think you need to redefine your definition
of clipping. Clipping is when the distortion products (when viewed on a
scope with a nulled out fundamental) show the beginnings of an apparent
spike, which happens as an output device reaches saturation (or cutoff)
on signal peaks.
> What happens is that as the output power increases, the waveform
> becomes increasingly asymmetrical, meaning that the signal
> increasingly suffers from second-harmoic distortion. While this
> is indeed audible once the Wavac is putting out a watt or so, it
> doesn't sound like clipping distortion, particularly as it is not
> accompanied by catastrophic amounts of intermodulation distortion.
But it results in lots of effectively audible IM with music signals
as opposed to test tones. Some people like this, but I don't.
> As I wrote in the review, true waveform clipping occurs at a few
> tens of watts, depending on the output tap and load. So for anyone
> to cast aspersions at Michael Fremer's hearing ability because he
> didn't hear "clipping" is inappropriate, given the particular
> nature of the Wavac's non-linear transfer function.
I have no doubt of his ability to hear what he <likes>. What is
questionable is his ability (probably from lack of training and/or
interest) to identify defects that legitimately bother many/most
others. I can't speak for anybody else, but I just don't like these
kinds of amplifiers.
> When I listened to the Wavac, the bass boost was immediately
> apparent, but it didn't sound aggressively distorted. Partly
> this is because the amount of power typically demanded from an
> amplifier tends to be below 2W much of the time with music rather
> than test tones; partly this is because second harmonic distortion
> tends to fatten the sound in rather a pleasing manner, at least
> until the intermodulation products reach threshold.
It can also introduce dynamic effects that aren't in the original
signal. Some folks like this, others don't. Why do a lot of pop
musicians prefer to use compressors and expanders in their recordings?
I can't stand them because I prefer acoustic music. If someone likes
it, that's fine with them, no?
> Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance.
> I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its
> sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark.
Not really.
It's performance is actually fairly typical of single ended tube amplifiers,
(you likely know this, since you've tested some of them) but it has more
power than most because of the use of a large transmitting tube for the
finals. There's no mystery about this. It's simply a matter of a person
just liking (or not) this kind of amplifier. Most probably don't.
The 'rating' of 150W is vulgar, grossly deceptive and a joke by any
modestly reasonable standard.
normanstrong
> Stewart,
>
> I just don't know what to say that could be taken constructively and
not
> appear to be some type of flaming, as that IS NOT how I want to come
across.
> However, in the past 22 years, since the CD format was readily
available in
> homes, not one time, NOT ONCE, has a musician (or any other music
lover for
> that matter) EVER picked CD over vinyl in a head-to-head, same
recording
> comparison. We are talking about hundreds of demonstrations over
that time.
> Hundreds! I just can't believe that anyone, especially on this
forum, could
> so adamantly argue that side of the coin.
I'm not Stewart, but I challenge the accuracy of your statement, if
only because I'm both a musician and a music lover, and I've always
picked the CD in those cases when the comparison was possible. If you
can back up your statistics, I'd certainly be impressed.
Norm Strong
normanstrong
I became curious when I read that a Pillsbury bakeoff recipe contest
had generated over 200,000 recipes. How--I wondered--could the jury
possibly sample 200,000 samples of baked goods? Well, it appears
that culinary experts can evaluate a recipe simply by reading it. Is
this not analogous to evaluating the sound of an amp by looking at the
test results?
A note about 2nd harmonic distortion:
For centuries, pipe organ designers have known that one can't make the
organ louder by blowing harder on the pipes. Nor can they simply add
another identical pipe. This latter makes the organ twice as loud,
but it sure doesn't sound like it. Rather, the builder adds a stop
that speaks an octave higher than the fundamental--the 2nd harmonic.
This stop makes the sound recognizably louder and richer. So what an
amplifier with lots of 2nd harmonic distortion sounds like is an organ
with the 4' Octave added to the 8' Principal--whether you want it or
not!
Norm Strong
B&D
Moore" <dmo...@bham.rr.com> wrote:
Sure - but I doubt Stereophile parted with hard earned cash for it. I doubt
many will be sold either simply because even if it were the best amplifier
in the universe, most of us *still* could not afford it....
chung
>
>>>>>>> There's no accounting for taste.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought taste was considered subjective by objectivists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And your point being?
>>>>>
>>>>> Read the next line I wrote.
>>>>
>>>>Which was totally irrelevant to my statement that there is no accounting
>>>>for taste. Meaning you can't argue about someone else's taste. Meaning
>>>>there are many people with taste that you would consider poor.
>>>
>>> Oh, c'mon. You took a shot at MF's taste.
>>
>>Oh yeah?
>
> Yeah!
No sense wasting bandwidth arguing about what I said vs. what you think
I said. In any event that was totally irrelevant to why I said the amp
was not listening to.
(snip)
>>
>>> You were asking about eaxamples of
>>> people getting banged around on RAHE? here is a fine one.
>>
>>Actually MF does not post here, so that fails to apply as an example.
>
> Did I qualify my claim that people get knocked around on RAHE by limmiting it
> to people who post here? No I did not.
But I was asking for examples of when posters posted their opinions here
and got banged around. You did not provide any such examples, as of yet.
If you want to make a general claim that people got banged around on
this newsgroup, that example still does not qualify. Unless you believe
that criticizing someone's review is banging people around.
>It applies as an example. What's the
> point in citing examples if you cannot recognize an example when one is cited?
Irrelevant question since you are not citing examples that I was asking for.
>
>>But if you think that being challenged for raving about a 2W amp that is
>>spec'd at 150W, and by the way, costs $350K, qualifies as being banged
>>around, well, he would not get any sympathy from me :).
>
> No I think comments like "there is no acounting for taste" which is a common
> insult is being banged around.
I will remember that you have the ability to take a general truism as an
insult to a specific yet-unnamed person.
>
>>
>>>I suppose you
>>> wouldn't feel insulted if I infered that you had poor taste because your
>>> subjective impressions didn't fall in line with my presumptions?
>>
>>Actually, I would have expected that you don't think much about my taste
>>in hi-fi equipment, but that is neither here nor there. IOW, totally
>>irrelevant to the discussion of whether the amp is broken or not.
>
> That wasn't the point. The point was your comment was insulting to MF.
Only the way you want to interpret it. But we are wasting bandwidth here.
(snip)
> Maybe
> you really didn't realize it but it was quite insulting. At least I would have
> been insulted by it. No big deal, it happens often on RAHE but an insult is
> what it is.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you now saying
>>>>>>> that MF may simply have inferior taste?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Simply"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I said simply.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is obvious that someone who can rave about the wonderful
>>>>>>sound of an amp that clips at 2W has, uh, unconventional, taste.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know? You have never heard the amp in question.
>>>>
>>>>Do you understand the meaning of "unconventional"? How many people you
>>>>know will rave about the sound of a 2W amp that is spec'ed at 150W?
>>>
>>> I have asked for some clarification on this issue. No one has been
>>forthcoming.
>>> Let's take a practical example. My speakers are very inefficient, about
>>84db.
>>> If this amp is clipping at 2 watts then I shouldn't be able to get much
>>more
>>> than 87db of sound from them with a test signal should I?
>>
>>Since you have the habit of not forming any opinion until you listen to
>>it first, I would recomend that you listen to it instead of worrying
>>about how much power you are getting out of it.
>
> So much for those who are more technical helping with technical information. By
> the way, there is nothing subjective about my question. The answer does not
> depend on me listening to anything. I'd have thought a technically inclined
> fellow such as yourself would have seen that at first glance.
But you still want to listen to it first in any case, right? And why
would you assume that just because you asked the question someone has to
help you answer it? You have to do some research yourself at some time.
You know, like actually reading the measurements.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I should think so, considering the broken
>>>>>>>>>>manner it was operating most of the time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me,
>>>>broken
>>>>>>>>means
>>>>>>>>> it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If as goFab says, the rated power is 150W/ch and it clips at 2W, it's
>>>>>>>>broken. It certainly is not working as it's supposed to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or they are not giving straight info on the power rating.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You mean as in lying?
>>>>>
>>>>> No I didn't mean that. It may very well be a lie. I am in no position to
>>>>make
>>>>> that acusation.
>>>>
>>>>Well, if it's not lying, then it's gross incompetence. Or gross
>>>>negligence. Or cheating. Which is it? A typo?
>>>
>>> A question worth persuing I think. If it is a lie it is serious.
>>
>>If it's not a lie, then what is it?
>
> I'm trying to figure out just what it is. It would help if my questions were
> answered. They are not rhetorical questions.
Don't you have access to the measurements? Or do you simply not trust them?
>>
>>> For kicks lets
>>> say I was purchasing this amp. Even with my inefficient speakers I would be
>>> expecting to get over a 100 db pl;ayback levels if called for in the
>>material I
>>> am playing. If this amp is clipping at 87 db could it possibly even
>>approach my
>>> expected sound preasure levels at all much less do so an still sound
>>anything
>>> like music?
>>
>>I have no idea what you consider "sounding anything like music". But for
>>me, an amp that can only produces 93dB SPL at 1 m (and a pretty
>>efficient speaker at that) is simply not acceptable.
>
> Still not answering the questions, oh well. You could have ignored the issue of
> what I consider 'sounding anything like musi' and gone with the first part. I'd
> be expecting SPLs of over 100 db, could this amp produce any sound within a few
> db of that if it clips at 2 watts?
Again, read the measurements!
(snip)
>>>
>>>>
>>>>You think an amp that clips at 93 dB SPL at 1m is good enough to handle
>>>>the dynamics of the kind of music you listen to? Well, it certainly
>>>>saves you a lot of money...unless you want this amp by WAVAC.
>>>
>>> Is it clear that the amp ain't gonna put out much more than 93 db of
>>sound?
>>
>>Do you like clipping distortion? If you do, then maybe you can squeeze
>>out another couple of dB.
>>
>>>
>>> Here's a problem I am having with this though. When I auditioned a WAVAC
>>amp
>>> that WAVAC rated at 50 watts it was able to play louder than my Creek
>>> integrated amp that is rated at 20 watts. Now if WAVAC is in the habbit of
>>such
>>> gross misrepresentations of power output one has to wonder what the true
>>output
>>> of 50 watt WAVAC is. Even if it is only doing as well as it's big. very big
>>> brother it should not be able to play louder than the 20 watt Creek.
>>
>>Now, do you understand why we said the amp is broken?
>>
>>> But it did
>>> without sounding *grossly* distorted. So what is going on here. Do you
>>think
>>> that the big WAVACs really won't produce much more than 87 db on my current
>>> speakers that are about 84 db in efficiency?
>>>
>>
>>I'm afraid you have to do the research yourself. But if the measurements
>>indicate the amp clips at 2W, well, you got your answer right there.
>>Unless the amp clips at a different point with different load
>>impedances. But even then the differences are small, a few dB at the most.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> I don't have much of any answer. I'll make the question really simple. Can a 2
> watt amp possibly produce higher maximum SPL than a "competen" SS 20 watt amp
> on the same speakers?
>
Just read the measurements!
B&D
Marcus" <nab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> B&D wrote:
>
>> On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article cd1on...@news3.newsguy.com, "John
>> Atkinson" <Stereophi...@Compuserve.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance.
>>> I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its
>>> sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark.
>>
>> And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn
>> based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out.
>
> Some of us have heard highly distorting systems with massive bass humps
> before. We don't need to listen to another one to know we won't like it.
Right - but to condemn without a proper evaluation isn't good. TO say,
soberly, that based upon the measurements, you aren't likely to like it.
But as they say, there is not such thing as bad publicity - and we are all
being inadvertant promoters of Stereophile and TAS!
B&D
<chun...@covad.net> wrote:
Right - not listening to it, and a large dollop of resentment because no one
here could afford to expend money on luxuries (working, good or bad) like
that.
B&D
McKelvy" <desk...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>> Do you know how preposterous that sounds? I have been in and around this
>> game since the late sixties, and I've yet to hear ANY well set-up
>> table/arm/cart - like the Music Hall MMF-2.1 for instance - "blown away"
> by
>> any similarly priced digital front end.
>>
> Then it seems you have a preference for that type of sound. LP compared to
> CD is objectively inferior in terms of distortion, compression, signal to
> noise, and all other technical specs related to fidelity.
All other specs? Really? *ALL* of them?
George Deliz
To be fair the OP was talking specifically about direct comparisons between CD
and LP versions of the same recording. However, I have made a few such
comparisons: Dave Brubeck's 'Time Out', Joe Sample's 'Carmel', Weather Report's
'Heavy Weather', 'Monk Straight No Chaser', Rubenstein's versions of several
Chopin and Rachmaninov recordings, Van Cliburn's Rachmaninov 2nd concerto,
Richter's Tchaikovsky 1st, Heifitz' Beethoven violin concerto, and Karajan's 1963
Beethoven 9th are a few that come off the top of my head.
The only instance in which I preferred the LP version was the Brubeck where the
tom-tom and brushes sounded much better to me than in the CD version. Admittedly
these comparisons were not made under controlled conditions and I was only
satisfying my curiousity as I replaced LP's with CD's over the period of a decade
or so. But, if I qualify as a music lover, I guess I disprove the OP's thesis.
Then again , the OP may say that my vinyl rig wasn't high-end enough (it was a
DUAL tt with Schure V15 II). But none of my CD players have been high-end, by any
means either, so that comparison should be a wash :-).
George Deliz
chung
Let me modify the question to you then: If the rated power is 150 W and
the unit shows 2% distortion at 2 W, 5% distortion at 10 W, is the spec
a lie? If it is not a lie, what is it?