Dunlavy SC-IVA controversy
Steve Zipser
measuring the Dunlavy Audio Labs SC-IVA's, I thought it might be germane
to post a review that just came out in PRO AUDIO REVIEW - a respected
professional audio engineering publication. The review was written by
Tom Jung, one of the best recording engineers in the country, and the
owner of DMP recording. Here are some excerpts:
Cheers
Zip
************************
Regarding frequency response, Tom Jung comments:
"Dunlavy speakers are famous for their accurate
frequency response. The SC-IV/A is rated within
plus or minus 1dB from 25 Hz to 20 kHz - now
that's flat. Diffraction is almost eliminated
with a Dunlavy-patented process that uses heavy
felt surrounding the midrange and tweeter drivers."
Regarding the absolute accuracy of the speaker, Jung had this to say:
"The SC-IV/A is one of the most accurate speakers
I know of, with extended frequency response usable
down to 20 Hz. Impedance is 5 ohms nominal, with a
minimum of 3 ohms and a maximum of 7.5 ohms. This,
when combined with a sensitivity of 91 dB at
1watt/1meter, makes the Dunlavys relatively easy
to drive. Each pair of Dunlavys is matched within
plus or minus 1/4 dB!"
As far as the actual listening tests, it is interesting to read what Jung
has to say:
"I listened to many styles of music with two different
amplifiers over several days. The source was mostly SACD
from a Sony SCD--1 player. Much to my surprise I found
the amplifiers to have a much different presentation
due to the extreme sense of inner detail and the revealing
characteristics of the SC-IV/As. I started listening with
a pair of Monoblock Legacy bipolar amplifiers, which made
the Dunlavys sound extended both top and bottom, very
natural and smooth. The low end was very tight and
well controlled even with the fattest acoustic bass.
John Atkinson had made a point that he found the SC-IVA's bright, but
this is not born out in measurements, not has any other reviewer ever
noticed this - in fact, Jung mentions the speakers were anything but!
"This is one of the great attributes of a sealed enclosure.
The midrange and top end were detailed but not harsh or hard
sounding. You might think 800 Watts is a bit much for a 91 dB
sensitivity speaker, but think of all that headroom."
When comparing amps through the speakers, Jung again makes mention of the
sweet top end!
"Next I tried an interesting amplifier from Denmark
called the GamuT. This amp is a MOSFET design and
sounds remarkably like vacuum tubes. (With this amp)
The Dunlavys sounded a bit softer on the bottom but
with a midrange and top-end liquidity that sounded
like tubes without the distortion."
In fact, Jung makes a major point of the LISTENABILITY of the Dunlavy SC-
IVA's, which is something one would never know from John Atkinson's
comments - comments that have nothing to do with the reality of the DAL's
performance:
"One can listen to the Dunlavy SC-IV/A for hours without
fatigue and hear things you never heard before due to the
great inner detail. It is actually fun to listen to DSD
sources through these speakers."
Jung's summary of the speakers is succinct and to the point:
"I still stand by my guns in that loudspeakers are
the weak link in the reproduction chain, but the
Dunlavy SC-IV/A's are possibly the most accurate
loudspeakers out there."
I will add a little commentary here. I have supplied DAL speakers to
SONY/CBS NY, The Record Plant (in LA), Criteria Studios, MasterSound, and
MasterMedia, and South Beach Studios, all here in Miami.
Several of the engineers that I have supplied Dunlavy designed speakers
to have won Grammys - like Umberto Gattica and Eric Schilling. The
reason so many engineers are using them is because of their extreme
accuracy, their listenibility over hours and hours of extended listening
sessions, their very full range response, and the fact that they are very
easy to drive. None of this is mentioned in Atkinson's puzzling
commentary. In fact, Robert Deutsch - the reviewer that originally wrote
about the speakers absolutely raved and I mean RAVED about them.
Deutsch's review reflects the reality of the SC-IVA's sound and
performance - John Atkinson's comments do not!
--
Sunshine Stereo, Inc http://www.sunshinestereo.com Tel: 305-757-9358
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores, FL 33138 Fax: 305-757-1367
Conrad Johnson Cal Audio Labs Spectron Parasound PASS Labs Gallo Davis
Audible Illusions Straightwire Niles Oracle Graham Rega Benz-Micro EMT
Dunlavy Lexicon Volksamp VUTEC EAD CleanLines Monster RUNCO ESP PS Audio
Nakamichi Genelec Solid Steel Camelot Salamander Audio Logic Seleco PSB
People Joining hand in hand, while the music plays the band,
Howard Ferstler
>
> After seeing the controversy between John Dunlavy and John Atkinson, re:
> measuring the Dunlavy Audio Labs SC-IVA's, I thought it might be germane
> to post a review that just came out in PRO AUDIO REVIEW - a respected
> professional audio engineering publication. The review was written by
> Tom Jung, one of the best recording engineers in the country, and the
> owner of DMP recording. Here are some excerpts:
I thought this was a pretty thoughtful review, although I
also believe that some of the comments about amplifier sound
were a bit extreme. I would not be in a position to believe
some of them unless Jung actually did the comparisons with a
quick switchover, level-matched, and possibly blind
technique. Well, you would have expected that kind of
comment from me. Right, Zip?
Still, Jung has some good points about the speaker, and I
find it odd that Atkinson seems to have exhibited some
resentment towards John Dunlavy and his products for some
reason. I do hope that the reason is not the result of Mr.
Dunlavy's occasional support of my opinions about wires,
etc.
Howard Ferstler
Steve Zipser
says...
> Steve Zipser wrote:
> >
> > After seeing the controversy between John Dunlavy and John Atkinson, re:
> > measuring the Dunlavy Audio Labs SC-IVA's, I thought it might be germane
> > to post a review that just came out in PRO AUDIO REVIEW - a respected
> > professional audio engineering publication. The review was written by
> > Tom Jung, one of the best recording engineers in the country, and the
> > owner of DMP recording. Here are some excerpts:
>
> also believe that some of the comments about amplifier sound
> were a bit extreme. I would not be in a position to believe
> some of them unless Jung actually did the comparisons with a
> quick switchover, level-matched, and possibly blind
> technique. Well, you would have expected that kind of
> comment from me. Right, Zip?
>
> Still, Jung has some good points about the speaker, and I
> find it odd that Atkinson seems to have exhibited some
> resentment towards John Dunlavy and his products for some
> reason. I do hope that the reason is not the result of Mr.
> Dunlavy's occasional support of my opinions about wires,
> etc.
>
> Howard Ferstler
Howard:
It is a shame that you have such trouble staying on topic. Mr. Jung does
conduct blind testing. So does John Dunlavy, who you respect, and they
both hear clear differences in amplifiers. You do not. I believe them
over you.
Mr. Atkinson is sensitive to the fact that John Dunlavy corrected him re:
bass measurements in the SC-IVA. That has nothing to do with wires or
any other silly off topic stuff you wish to believe. Mr. Dunlavy does
not support you on anything - he supports himself with engineering and
science.
Cheers
Zip
Russell Lichter
a self-interested Dunlavy dealer, and everything
you quote from Tom Jung is his subjective
experience, I find it disingenuous to conclude:
"Deutsch's review reflects the reality of the
SC-IVA's sound and performance - John Atkinson's
the Dunlavy's is just as "real" (an absurd choice
of word) as yours, Jung's, or Deutsch's. Or mine
for that matter: I consider the Dunlavy one of the
finest loudspeakers in the world.
Steve Zipser wrote:
>
> After seeing the controversy between John Dunlavy and John Atkinson, re:
> measuring the Dunlavy Audio Labs SC-IVA's, I thought it might be germane
> to post a review that just came out in PRO AUDIO REVIEW - a respected
> professional audio engineering publication. The review was written by
> Tom Jung, one of the best recording engineers in the country, and the
> owner of DMP recording. Here are some excerpts:
> Cheers
> Zip
>
> [snip]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Computers are useless. They only give answers."
-=Picasso
auplater
> After seeing the controversy between John Dunlavy and John Atkinson, re:
> measuring the Dunlavy Audio Labs SC-IVA's, I thought it might be germane
> to post a review that just came out in PRO AUDIO REVIEW - a respected
> professional audio engineering publication. The review was written by
> Tom Jung, one of the best recording engineers in the country, and the
> owner of DMP recording. Here are some excerpts:
> In fact, Robert Deutsch - the reviewer that originally wrote
> about the speakers absolutely raved and I mean RAVED about them.
> Deutsch's review reflects the reality of the SC-IVA's sound and
> performance - John Atkinson's comments do not!
Having spent the better part of last Friday afternoon 7/7/00 at
Dunlavy Labs, I'd have to agree with most of Tom Jung's assessments
as to the accuracy of Dunlavy speakers. John was a most gracious
host, and regaled my family and I with numerous stories of his
multifaceted technical and personal history. We also listened to
many of his fine speaker creations (including some yet-to-be
released) and I found them to be exquisitely accurate in perceived
imaging, frequency response, and dynamics. I can't comment on the
reviews with different amplifier sounds Jung observed (John's
equipment included the Spectron, and various mono blocks driving
different setups), but in every case, within the limits of the
associated systems and speakers I heard, the sound was phenomenal.
John's facility looks to be every bit what he states, what with
multiple large anechoic chambers, MLSSA testing of components and
x-over tweaking of individual speaker drivers as assembled into
cabinets built to exacting tolerances to meet his well documented
specs.... all in all a highly professional and honest approach to a
well engineered production and research facility, with none of the
glitz and hype associated with many lesser operations I've seen. His
operation has a classic down to business look of someone obsessed
with getting it right from an optimal engineering and aesthetic
standpoint.
Thanks again for taking the time to both entertain and inform my
family and myself as to your many interests and quality products.
When I upgrade my system (again!) I'll be seriously considering your
fine line of loudspeaker designs.
John Lichtenberger
auplater
Howard Ferstler
> > I thought this was a pretty thoughtful review, although I
> > also believe that some of the comments about amplifier sound
> > were a bit extreme. I would not be in a position to believe
> > some of them unless Jung actually did the comparisons with a
> > quick switchover, level-matched, and possibly blind
> > technique. Well, you would have expected that kind of
> > comment from me. Right, Zip?
> >
> > Still, Jung has some good points about the speaker, and I
> > find it odd that Atkinson seems to have exhibited some
> > resentment towards John Dunlavy and his products for some
> > reason. I do hope that the reason is not the result of Mr.
> > Dunlavy's occasional support of my opinions about wires,
> > etc.
> Howard:
> It is a shame that you have such trouble staying on topic. Mr. Jung does
> conduct blind testing.
Did he do that in this case? No mention was made of it in
the excerpted review. I have compared a few amps with other
amps, and while some subtle differences were apparent with
one of them (an old, rebuilt job that was probably in
trouble), the kind of differences Mr. Jung appeared to hear
when doing his comparisons seemed a bit more extreme than
what one should hear when comparing top-end amps. I think
that your experience with Nousaine and Maki and the Yamaha
integrated vs Pass monoblocks comparisons should have clued
you into that fact of life.
> So does John Dunlavy, who you respect, and they
> both hear clear differences in amplifiers. You do not. I believe them
> over you.
Well, it would be a strange world if everybody agreed about
everything. My experience has been that it is difficult as
can be to compare amps effectively with musical program
material, even when the levels are matched and quick
switching is employed, because the program material itself
fluctuates so erratically. I think that because of this we
can come to the following conclusion: amps generally sound
so much alike (power differences taken into consideration)
that it is nearly impossible to actually say for sure that
one model sounds different from another with musical program
material.
> Mr. Atkinson is sensitive to the fact that John Dunlavy corrected him re:
> bass measurements in the SC-IVA. That has nothing to do with wires or
> any other silly off topic stuff you wish to believe.
Well, I do not think I was off topic at all. The Jung review
you posted mentioned amplifier-sound differences, and I
commented upon that "topic." I also offered an opinion of
why it is possible that Mr. Atkinson appears to have it in
for Mr. Dunlavy: Mr. Dunlavy has supported my views of wires
and interconnects on several occasions, and Mr. Atkinson
disagrees with me on a large variety of topics and probably
feels that I am out to get his magazine. I will also note
that Mr. Dunlavy's and my views of wires are different from
yours. So, you differ as much from John on one topic (wires)
as Mr. Atkinson differs from him on another (speakers).
> Mr. Dunlavy does
> not support you on anything - he supports himself with engineering and
> science.
I believe that on a number of occasions Mr. Dunlavy has come
right out and said that he supports my views of speaker
wires. Perhaps you have been filtering any comments about me
by him and missed what he said.
Howard Ferstler
BEARlabs
And, you didn't get the chance to audition the SAME speaker with two
different amps, on John's DBT system?? What a shame!
It would have been useful to know your unbiased impression! I for one
would love to have known if the speakers sounded in any way different
with two different amps. Hmmm... it seems to me that Tom Jung thought
they did.
Gee, that would mean (if he is correct) that A) Tom Jung is using one
or more amplifiers that are not 'accurate.', or B) that the amps do
sound different. Of course, Dunlavy couldn't possibly be using any
amps that were not completely tested and 'accurate.' So, that
possibility is left out of the picture as a given.
Perhaps you can go back and try this? Or perhaps the next rahe
participant who visits Dunlavy will not "forget" to do this simple
test and report back??
But, you could simply let us know if you "thought" that you might
have heard any difference between the sound produced by the speakers
using the Spectron and the mono-blocks - strictly on the basis of a
purely subjective impression??
_-_-BEAR Labs
"Art Meets Technology" (tm)
auplater wrote:
> Steve Zipser wrote:
>
> > After seeing the controversy between John Dunlavy and John Atkinson, re:
> > measuring the Dunlavy Audio Labs SC-IVA's, I thought it might be germane
> > to post a review that just came out in PRO AUDIO REVIEW - a respected
> > professional audio engineering publication. The review was written by
> > Tom Jung, one of the best recording engineers in the country, and the
> > owner of DMP recording. Here are some excerpts:
>
> > In fact, Robert Deutsch - the reviewer that originally wrote
> > about the speakers absolutely raved and I mean RAVED about them.
> > Deutsch's review reflects the reality of the SC-IVA's sound and
> > performance - John Atkinson's comments do not!
>
auplater
> Really?
>
> And, you didn't get the chance to audition the SAME speaker with two
> different amps, on John's DBT system?? What a shame!
this is the typical snide response one could expect... I wasn't there
to pursue your agenda....
> It would have been useful to know your unbiased impression!
useful to who??
> I for one would love to have known if the speakers sounded in any way
> different
> with two different amps. Hmmm... it seems to me that Tom Jung thought
> they did.
then go to Col. Springs (as I did) and arrange such a test
yourself... you'd have argued unendingly with whatever I presented,
no matter what the situation, anyway, so what's your point??? Since
you fail to grasp the meaning and usefulness of statistical
methodology, you seem unable to grasp that my unbiased impresions of
what I could have (or have not) heard would be irrelevant to you
anyway...
(to restate what should be the obvious... statistics don't apply to
individual experiences... only to populations...)
> Gee, that would mean (if he is correct) that A) Tom Jung is using one
> or more amplifiers that are not 'accurate.',
another strawman w/o substance...
> or B) that the amps do sound different. Of course, Dunlavy couldn't possibly
> be using any amps that were not completely tested and 'accurate.' So, that
> possibility is left out of the picture as a given.
I think John uses whatever amps he feels like using that meet his
needs at any given moment in time. I also believe he is rigorous in
what he does and does not attribute to the "sound" of the music he
listens to.
> Perhaps you can go back and try this? Or perhaps the next rahe
> participant who visits Dunlavy will not "forget" to do this simple
> test and report back??
This is rather presumptive on your part, randi... I didn't visit
Dunlavy's establishment on your behalf.... I had no "agenda" to prove
or disprove anything, as you seem to have.... the fourth note of the
treble clef in the key of C comes to mind here....
perhaps YOU should do this, since you're the one so incredibly
critical of honest observations and rational engineering methods.
In fact, John invited me back for extended listening sessions, and
was more than willing to setup various test scenarios, including
direct vs. reproduced live piano/synthesizer... but that's not why I
visited his facility on this trip...
> But, you could simply let us know if you "thought" that you might
> have heard any difference between the sound produced by the speakers
> using the Spectron and the mono-blocks - strictly on the basis of a
> purely subjective impression??
What if I "thought" that I did not hear any differences??? Would that
also satisfy your agenda here??? You'd simply dismiss such
observations as flawed and the result of obviously untrained ears, I
think....
from a purely subjective standpoint I didn't hear any differences in
the presentation of the sound quality (imaging, spectral harmony,
dynamics, all excellent) attributable to different amplifiers, other
than a slight background buzz while listening to SACD's through the
spectron on the larger systems...may have been an artifact in the
SACD recording itself, I think...
> _-_-BEAR Labs
> "Art Meets Technology" (tm)
auplater
MetaPlate Inc.
"Advanced Electrochemical Engineering for the 21st Century" (tm)
ROBERT C. LANG
> I believe that on a number of occasions Mr. Dunlavy has come
> right out and said that he supports my views of speaker
> wires. Perhaps you have been filtering any comments about me
> by him and missed what he said.
>
> Howard Ferstler
Howard,
You got that one right (Of course, you are right on other stuff
too).
On December 21, 1999, Mr. Dunlavy posted the following to this group:
"As I and many others have stated many times, a complete set of the
most accurate laboratory measurements do not confirm that any audible
differences should exist between Radio Shack quality interconnect
cables and the most expensive ones currently being marketed by the
hi-end industry.
For interconnects, the two most important performance attributes are
shielding and capacitance. Thus, even standard 95 Ohm (char. imp.)
"RG" types provide a level of measured and audible performance that
not even the most expensive cables can surpass.
A few of the more honest audiophile mag writers, like Howard
Ferstler, are now stating this truth (well known to competent
engineers) on the INTERNET.
Best regards,
John D."
fmrxsmoker
>Date: 7/11/00 2:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8kg2v...@news1.newsguy.com>
>And, you didn't get the chance to audition the SAME speaker with two
>different amps, on John's DBT system?? What a shame!
>
>
>It would have been useful to know your unbiased impression! I for one
>would love to have known if the speakers sounded in any way different
>with two different amps. Hmmm... it seems to me that Tom Jung thought
>they did.
Certainly amps can be DESIGNED to sound a certain way. Most seem to
be designed for flat response, perhaps the ones Jung mentioned were
made to emulate tube sound. Makes you wonder if they have a higher
than usual output impedance.
>Gee, that would mean (if he is correct) that A) Tom Jung is using one
>or more amplifiers that are not 'accurate.', or B) that the amps do
>sound different.
Who said amps don't sound different?
Some do, most don't.
>Of course, Dunlavy couldn't possibly be using any
>amps that were not completely tested and 'accurate.' So, that
>possibility is left out of the picture as a given.
I would think so.
Jesus Saves, I prefer to invest.
Mitch Alsup
> Certainly amps can be DESIGNED to sound a certain way. Most seem to
> be designed for flat response, perhaps the ones Jung mentioned were
> made to emulate tube sound. Makes you wonder if they have a higher
> than usual output impedance.
There are generally 4 main differences between Tube power amps
and solid state power amps; A) distortion harmonics, B) clipping,
C) output transformer D) mass.
Most Tube Power Amps use a triode in push/pull configuration
through an output transfromer. The output transformer is used
to convert from the impedence of Tubes (350 Volts 1 Amp)
to the impedence of speakers (50 Volts, 7 Amps: ~= 8 Ohms).
This transformer has sound characteristics all its own.
Transformers cannot operate down to DC, nor can they operate
at extrememly high frequencies (MHz). Thus output transformers
bandlimit the spectrum of amplifiers which use them.
A push/pull arrangement of the output devices (triodes) and
a center tapped transformer produces even ordered distortion
harmonics. An emitter/source follower of a direct coupled
solid state amplifier produces odd ordered distortion
harmonics. Odd order distortion products are `easier' to
`put up with' than even order harmonic distortion products.
So if you want to compare tube amps to transistor amps, one
needs to individually compare the even order products with
even order products and then compare the odd order products
with respect to odd order products. You can't just lump them
into one term (THD)!
Tubes begin to Clip consideably before `rail' and softly compress
the clipped peak. Solid state devices begin to clip at the
power supply rail and `flat line' (clip hard). Bipolar transistors
may delay exit from clipping as the base-collector junction loads
up with excess stored charge during the cliping event, and
depending upon the output impedence of the predriver stage
may take a considerabe time to recover from clipping. Soft
clipping is not generally disagreeable as the distortion
products are low in harmonic content. Hard clipping contains
many more harmonics and of higher amplitude.
The active area of a solid state device contains less than
0.01 grams of mass*, consequently when operating the the active
region, it can heat up fast, it can also cool down fast. As
the device heats and cools, its operating parameters change.
Thus, the feedback network in a (typical) solid state amp
is required to control the operating condition of the
devices and the amplification transfer characteristic
simultaneously.
The active region of a tube is a vaccuum, but the plate has
an effective mass considerably larger than that of its solid
state cousin. This extra effective mass makes the tube gain and
shed heat at a slower rate than the lowest frequency of the
amplifier. This, in turn, allows somewhat lesser feedback
in a tube amplifier to retain stable operating conditions
and frequency response.
One can design solid state amplifiers that sound like tubes,
and one can design tube amplifiers which sound like solid state.
What we highly praise is amplifiers which sound as little as
possible.
Mitch
(* the active region of a bipolar transistor is that region
where the base dopant transitions to the collector dopant.
Since this layer is on-the-order-of a few Angstrons thick, even
very large power transistors have very small active region
mass. Another active region exists between the base dopant and
the emitter dopant and is of similar thickness but operates
at approximately 0.8 V rather than the 50-odd V of the collector.
The ret of the collector, base and emitter regions act like
resistors and capacitors. It is the temperature of the active
region which governs the operating parameters of the junction,
not the operating condition measured outside of the package.)
Steve Zipser
> The active area of a solid state device contains less than
> 0.01 grams of mass*, consequently when operating the the active
> region, it can heat up fast, it can also cool down fast. As
> the device heats and cools, its operating parameters change.
> Thus, the feedback network in a (typical) solid state amp
> is required to control the operating condition of the
> devices and the amplification transfer characteristic
> simultaneously.
>
Hwoever, most high quality solid state amplifiers run class A,with
constant bias to the transistors - so their parameters are far more
stable than most tubes.
Stewart Pinkerton
>In article <8ko17...@news1.newsguy.com>, mi...@beast.amd.com says...
>> The active area of a solid state device contains less than
>> 0.01 grams of mass*, consequently when operating the the active
>> region, it can heat up fast, it can also cool down fast. As
>> the device heats and cools, its operating parameters change.
>> Thus, the feedback network in a (typical) solid state amp
>> is required to control the operating condition of the
>> devices and the amplification transfer characteristic
>> simultaneously.
>>
>
>Hwoever, most high quality solid state amplifiers run class A,with
>constant bias to the transistors - so their parameters are far more
>stable than most tubes.
That's not actually true. The *vast* majority of high quality
solid-state amps run in class AB, fairly high bias in the case of say
the Adcom 5802 or Krell FPBs (yes I know Krell *claim* class A
operation, but it's really sliding bias trickery), but only a *tiny*
number of SS amps run enough bias to be class A at their rated 8 ohm
power. The best known of these in the US market would of course be the
horrifically inefficient semi-single-ended Pass Alephs (although even
here, the new X series are class AB designs).
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
BEARlabs
> fmrxsmoker wrote:
>
> > Certainly amps can be DESIGNED to sound a certain way. Most seem to
> > be designed for flat response, perhaps the ones Jung mentioned were
> > made to emulate tube sound. Makes you wonder if they have a higher
> > than usual output impedance.
>
> There are generally 4 main differences between Tube power amps
> and solid state power amps; A) distortion harmonics, B) clipping,
> C) output transformer D) mass.
>
> Most Tube Power Amps use a triode in push/pull configuration
> through an output transfromer. The output transformer is used
> to convert from the impedence of Tubes (350 Volts 1 Amp)
> to the impedence of speakers (50 Volts, 7 Amps: ~= 8 Ohms).
> This transformer has sound characteristics all its own.
> Transformers cannot operate down to DC, nor can they operate
> at extrememly high frequencies (MHz). Thus output transformers
> bandlimit the spectrum of amplifiers which use them.
>
> A push/pull arrangement of the output devices (triodes) and
> a center tapped transformer produces even ordered distortion
> harmonics. An emitter/source follower of a direct coupled
> solid state amplifier produces odd ordered distortion
> harmonics. Odd order distortion products are `easier' to
> `put up with' than even order harmonic distortion products.
Absolutely wrong, and backwards. Odd ordered harmonics are hard to
listen to and dissonant. Even order harmonics are "natural" and easy
to listen to. In fact the higher levels of even order harmonics are
considered to be euphonic when found in tube gear. The ONLY
reason that odd order harmonics can be tolerated is that they are
at such a low level, especially in solid state amps.
>
> So if you want to compare tube amps to transistor amps, one
> needs to individually compare the even order products with
> even order products and then compare the odd order products
> with respect to odd order products. You can't just lump them
> into one term (THD)!
This seems entirely incorrect to me, the comparison is not so simple,
it depends upon the audibility threshold, which in turn is based
upon the relative level of the distortion compared to signal - which
has to with the ratio of even to odd, the order of the harmonics and
their ratios, and importantly, any masking effects.
>
>
> Tubes begin to Clip consideably before `rail' and softly compress
> the <snip>
--
_-_- BEAR Labs
"Art Meets Technology" (tm)
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
BEARlabs <bear...@coollink.net> wrote:
>Absolutely wrong, and backwards. Odd ordered harmonics are hard to
>listen to and dissonant.
There must be some instruments you really dislike then.
>Even order harmonics are "natural" and easy
>to listen to.
Randall, you're going way way WAY overboard here.
>In fact the higher levels of even order harmonics are
>considered to be euphonic when found in tube gear.
As are low-order odd harmonics. The only difference really
is that obviously the second harmonic is lower than the third,
but in fact the 19 th harmonic is not a lot more desirable than the
18th, for instance. Or less, for that matter.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 2000, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
Joe Duffy
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist <j...@research.att.com> wrote:
>In article <8l76k...@news2.newsguy.com>,
>BEARlabs <bear...@coollink.net> wrote:
>>Absolutely wrong, and backwards. Odd ordered harmonics are hard to
>>listen to and dissonant.
>
>There must be some instruments you really dislike then.
We wouldn't always want to eat ice
cream, would we?
>
>>Even order harmonics are "natural" and easy
>>to listen to.
>
>Randall, you're going way way WAY overboard here.
>
>>In fact the higher levels of even order harmonics are
>>considered to be euphonic when found in tube gear.
>
>As are low-order odd harmonics. The only difference really
Thanks for stressing the low-order, jj.
For us amateurs this issue of harmonics is
fascinating.
Something about those 300B tubes without
any feedback is very warm and comfortable
sounding.
>is that obviously the second harmonic is lower than the third,
>but in fact the 19 th harmonic is not a lot more desirable than the
>18th, for instance. Or less, for that matter.
>
Great discussion!
Joe
Richard D Pierce
BEARlabs <bear...@coollink.net> wrote:
>Absolutely wrong, and backwards. Odd ordered harmonics are hard to
>to listen to. In fact the higher levels of even order harmonics are
>considered to be euphonic when found in tube gear. The ONLY
>reason that odd order harmonics can be tolerated is that they are
>at such a low level, especially in solid state amps.
Utter, preposterous, uninformed claptrap, Randy.
If your assertion were true, people would universally find
clarinets, stopped flutes, guitar strings plucked closed to the
bridge, organ stops such as the Kornet, sesquialtera, tierce and
quints "hard to listen to and dissonant."
This assertion is simply absurd in the face of the fact that
MUSIC contains HUGE amounts of odd-order harmonics.
>This seems entirely incorrect to me, the comparison is not so simple,
>it depends upon the audibility threshold, which in turn is based
>upon the relative level of the distortion compared to signal - which
>has to with the ratio of even to odd, the order of the harmonics and
>their ratios, and importantly, any masking effects.
Yes, and that alone suggest your above assertion is ill-founded.
Given the level of odd harmonics found in ACTUAL music, you need
to seriously revise your claim above considering the masking
effects of the musical harmonics themselves.
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| DPi...@world.std.com |
---MIKE---
harmonic is 1320 -which is "not quite' E. The fourth harmonic is 1760
-A, the fifth harmonic is 2200 - "not quite D flat". The even
harmonics are octaves of the fundamental and are quite musical even if
not part of the original. The odd harmonics are unmusical IF not part
of the fundamental. If an instrument produces odd harmonics - then it
is part of the character of the instrument.
-MIKE
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>harmonic is 1320 -which is "not quite' E.
Actually, it's a perfect fifth (3/2). It IS 'E' if we're being strict
about being in a perfect scale of the key of 'A' here.
I would suggest a tour through Jorgensen for you. The amount of
'error' you think you see is due to the use of a tempered scale
instead of a perfect scale.
>The fourth harmonic is 1760
>-A,
>the fifth harmonic is 2200 - "not quite D flat". The even
It's a perfect third. A perfect third is 5/4.
Not a tempered third.
>harmonics are octaves of the fundamental and are quite musical even if
>not part of the original.
NO
THEY
ARE
NOT
1 2 4 8 16 32 64 is the ratios of the OCTAVES, not 1 2 4 6 8 10...
>The odd harmonics are unmusical IF not part
>of the fundamental.
A perfect 5th is unmusical? Wow, man, like if you can't
see the sarcasm here, like, um, yinno.
Um, for your information, the major chord, in perfect
(as opposed to equal) tempered is 1, 5/4, 3/2, and 2.
>If an instrument produces odd harmonics - then it
>is part of the character of the instrument.
Most do, in fact.
But most major chords do, too.
Jorgensen, "Tuning", 1991, Michigan State University Press, East
Lansing, Mi, ISBN 0-87013-290-3
BEARlabs
> In article <8l76k...@news2.newsguy.com>,
> BEARlabs <bear...@coollink.net> wrote:
> >Absolutely wrong, and backwards. Odd ordered harmonics are hard to
> >listen to and dissonant. Even order harmonics are "natural" and easy
> >to listen to. In fact the higher levels of even order harmonics are
> >considered to be euphonic when found in tube gear. The ONLY
> >reason that odd order harmonics can be tolerated is that they are
> >at such a low level, especially in solid state amps.
>
> Utter, preposterous, uninformed claptrap, Randy.
>
> If your assertion were true, people would universally find
> clarinets, stopped flutes, guitar strings plucked closed to the
> bridge, organ stops such as the Kornet, sesquialtera, tierce and
> quints "hard to listen to and dissonant."
Well, actually people can and do consider these things hard to
listen to and dissonant!
I agree that musical instruments are NOT composed of only even order
harmonics. However, the **ratios** of harmonics that they do produce
form the difference between "good" sounding instruments and "HORRID"
sounding instruments.
Consider how a beginner at violin usually sounds on a cheap student
instrument! What's the diff between that student and Heifitz?
(harmonically speaking?)
That's the key.
The better your hearing too, the better the chance that those high
harmonics are really going to be bugging you.
Did the sound of a grinder or table saw bother you ever? It used to
be unbearable for me as a youth... I've lost some of the upper end,
and all of the ultrasonics that I used to detect, so it isn't quite
to bad now...
>
>
> This assertion is simply absurd in the face of the fact that
> MUSIC contains HUGE amounts of odd-order harmonics.
yeah, but when the ratios get messed about or wierd products are
produced is when there is a problem. Somehow, bad speakers and bad
amps seem to exacerbate this sort of problem.
>
>
> >This seems entirely incorrect to me, the comparison is not so simple,
> >it depends upon the audibility threshold, which in turn is based
> >upon the relative level of the distortion compared to signal - which
> >has to with the ratio of even to odd, the order of the harmonics and
> >their ratios, and importantly, any masking effects.
>
> Yes, and that alone suggest your above assertion is ill-founded.
> Given the level of odd harmonics found in ACTUAL music, you need
> to seriously revise your claim above considering the masking
> effects of the musical harmonics themselves.
If the balance and ratios made no difference in practice, as I have
noted, there would be no difference in the quality of musical
instruments and all hi-fi systems would sound equally good - or is
that what you are saying?? : )
Gary Eickmeier
>
> Richard D Pierce wrote:
>
> > In article <8l76k...@news2.newsguy.com>,
> > BEARlabs <bear...@coollink.net> wrote:
> > >Absolutely wrong, and backwards. Odd ordered harmonics are hard to
> > >listen to and dissonant. Even order harmonics are "natural" and easy
> > >to listen to. In fact the higher levels of even order harmonics are
> > >considered to be euphonic when found in tube gear. The ONLY
> > >reason that odd order harmonics can be tolerated is that they are
> > >at such a low level, especially in solid state amps.
> >
> > Utter, preposterous, uninformed claptrap, Randy.
and:
> I agree that musical instruments are NOT composed of only even order
> harmonics. However, the **ratios** of harmonics that they do produce
> form the difference between "good" sounding instruments and "HORRID"
> sounding instruments.
and:
> > This assertion is simply absurd in the face of the fact that
> > MUSIC contains HUGE amounts of odd-order harmonics.
Excuse please my ignorance, fellas, but shouldn't we be talking about even or
odd order harmonic DISTORTION in audio systems, not harmonics of musical
instruments?
Gary Eickmeier
Richard D Pierce
BEARlabs <bear...@coollink.net> wrote:
>Richard D Pierce wrote:
>
>> In article <8l76k...@news2.newsguy.com>,
>> BEARlabs <bear...@coollink.net> wrote:
>> >Absolutely wrong, and backwards. Odd ordered harmonics are hard to
>> >listen to and dissonant. Even order harmonics are "natural" and easy
>> >to listen to. In fact the higher levels of even order harmonics are
>> >considered to be euphonic when found in tube gear. The ONLY
>> >reason that odd order harmonics can be tolerated is that they are
>> >at such a low level, especially in solid state amps.
>>
>> Utter, preposterous, uninformed claptrap, Randy.
>>
>> clarinets, stopped flutes, guitar strings plucked closed to the
>> bridge, organ stops such as the Kornet, sesquialtera, tierce and
>> quints "hard to listen to and dissonant."
>
>listen to and dissonant!
>
>I agree that musical instruments are NOT composed of only even order
>harmonics. However, the **ratios** of harmonics that they do produce
>form the difference between "good" sounding instruments and "HORRID"
>sounding instruments.
So, with a single sentence, Randy basically declares a HUGE
range of musical instruments and there associated musicto be
"horrid sounding instruments" simply because HE feels that the
ratio of odd to even harmonics is wrong.
He basically states, categorically and unequivocally, that ALL
covered organ stops, for example, are "HORRID sounding." He
states that organ mixtures with quints and tierces are "HORRID
sounding. In fact, he thus declares pretty much the ENTIRE realm
of classical organ mussic as "HORRID sounding."
He declares many if not most brass instruyments as "HORRID
sounding" by his criteria simply because they have too high a
ratio of odd to even harmonics.
What nonsensical, unmusical pish-posh.
>Consider how a beginner at violin usually sounds on a cheap student
>instrument! What's the diff between that student and Heifitz?
>(harmonically speaking?)
Fairly little. There are HUGE differencs in techique (or lack
thereof) that result in discordant chords, i.e., those that are
NOT at simple integer ratios.
>That's the key.
>The better your hearing too, the better the chance that those high
>harmonics are really going to be bugging you.
So that the high harmonics found in trumpets MUST bug us if we
have good ears? The high harminic Zimbels and Scharffs found in
North European organs MUST bother us.
>Did the sound of a grinder or table saw bother you ever? It used to
>be unbearable for me as a youth... I've lost some of the upper end,
>and all of the ultrasonics that I used to detect, so it isn't quite
>to bad now...
Uh, I wear prtective headphones when using these devbices, NOT
because of their high harmonics, but because of their high sound
pressure levels. Maybe you should have done the same! :-)
BEARlabs
> BEARlabs wrote:
> >
> > Richard D Pierce wrote:
> >
> > > In article <8l76k...@news2.newsguy.com>,
> > > BEARlabs <bear...@coollink.net> wrote:
> > > >Absolutely wrong, and backwards. Odd ordered harmonics are hard to
> > > >listen to and dissonant. Even order harmonics are "natural" and easy
> > > >to listen to. In fact the higher levels of even order harmonics are
> > > >considered to be euphonic when found in tube gear. The ONLY
> > > >reason that odd order harmonics can be tolerated is that they are
> > > >at such a low level, especially in solid state amps.
> > >
> > > Utter, preposterous, uninformed claptrap, Randy.
>
> and:
>
> > I agree that musical instruments are NOT composed of only even order
> > harmonics. However, the **ratios** of harmonics that they do produce
> > form the difference between "good" sounding instruments and "HORRID"
> > sounding instruments.
>
> and:
>
> > > This assertion is simply absurd in the face of the fact that
> > > MUSIC contains HUGE amounts of odd-order harmonics.
>
> Excuse please my ignorance, fellas, but shouldn't we be talking about even or
> odd order harmonic DISTORTION in audio systems, not harmonics of musical
> instruments?
>
> Gary Eickmeier
We are!
The issue is what happens to sound when the harmonics produced by
said audio system are imperfect, thus causing a "shift" in the ratios
of the original! We are also talking about the effects of extra even
order harmonics from things like tube amps vs. low level odd order
harmonics from "low distortion" soiled state amps...
Suggest you read back in the thread before commenting...
Arny Krueger
news:8lhjou$v9j$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> BEARlabs wrote:
> >
> > Richard D Pierce wrote:
> >
> > > In article <8l76k...@news2.newsguy.com>,
> > > BEARlabs <bear...@coollink.net> wrote:
> > > >Absolutely wrong, and backwards. Odd ordered harmonics are hard to
> > > >listen to and dissonant. Even order harmonics are "natural" and easy
> > > >to listen to. In fact the higher levels of even order harmonics are
> > > >considered to be euphonic when found in tube gear. The ONLY
> > > >reason that odd order harmonics can be tolerated is that they are
> > > >at such a low level, especially in solid state amps.
> > >
> > > Utter, preposterous, uninformed claptrap, Randy.
>
> and:
>
> > I agree that musical instruments are NOT composed of only even order
> > harmonics. However, the **ratios** of harmonics that they do produce
> > form the difference between "good" sounding instruments and "HORRID"
> > sounding instruments.
>
> and:
>
> > > This assertion is simply absurd in the face of the fact that
> > > MUSIC contains HUGE amounts of odd-order harmonics.
>
> Excuse please my ignorance, fellas, but shouldn't we be talking about even or
> odd order harmonic DISTORTION in audio systems, not harmonics of musical
> instruments?
Not at all. I'm sure that you are aware of the fact that if the
fundamental note were thought of as a pure tone, and everything else
thought of as distortion (of course it is not since it is part of the
original signal) then the amounts of "distortion" in musical notes is
often way over 100%.
This is one reason why amazingly large amounts of nonlinear
distortion can disguise itself and be masked by the ear so that it is
not reliably perceived.
I provide a large number of demonstrations of this at
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/nonlinear/index.htm .
IME the intermodulation effects may be the major means by which
nonlinear distortion in equipment is heard with music.
Probably the worst cases for audibility are those where there are a
large number of musical fundamentals, harmonics and other tones in a
group that is close, spectrally, and a "hole" in the spectrum where
the intermediation effects "land" and not being masked., become easy
to hear.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Gary Eickmeier <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>Excuse please my ignorance, fellas, but shouldn't we be talking about even or
>odd order harmonic DISTORTION in audio systems, not harmonics of musical
>instruments?
Gary, even order distortions create a maximum harmonic that
even ordered. Ditto odd order distortions.
In general, an nth order nonlinearity is likely to create
all harmonics up to 'n', although other situations can
be arranged with combinations of polynomial distortions, indeed.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>listen to and dissonant!
Look at the structure of a major chord. Does, in fact, that
sound dissonant, when played on a piano? If the answer is
"no" then odd harmonics are not necessarily dissonant.
>I agree that musical instruments are NOT composed of only even order
>harmonics. However, the **ratios** of harmonics that they do produce
>form the difference between "good" sounding instruments and "HORRID"
>sounding instruments.
Unh. Not really.
>The better your hearing too, the better the chance that those high
>harmonics are really going to be bugging you.
Um, "high harmonics" is not the same thing as "odd harmonics".
In general, except for very low pitches, very high harmonics
are indeed not so great, but that has nothing to do with
odd harmonics.
BEARlabs
> In article <8ld2f...@news1.newsguy.com>,
> BEARlabs <bear...@coollink.net> wrote:
> >Richard D Pierce wrote:
> >
> >> In article <8l76k...@news2.newsguy.com>,
> >> BEARlabs <bear...@coollink.net> wrote:
> >> >Absolutely wrong, and backwards. Odd ordered harmonics are hard to
> >> >listen to and dissonant. Even order harmonics are "natural" and easy
> >> >to listen to. In fact the higher levels of even order harmonics are
> >> >considered to be euphonic when found in tube gear. The ONLY
> >> >reason that odd order harmonics can be tolerated is that they are
> >> >at such a low level, especially in solid state amps.
> >>
> >> Utter, preposterous, uninformed claptrap, Randy.
> >>
> >> If your assertion were true, people would universally find
> >> clarinets, stopped flutes, guitar strings plucked closed to the
> >> bridge, organ stops such as the Kornet, sesquialtera, tierce and
> >> quints "hard to listen to and dissonant."
> >
> >Well, actually people can and do consider these things hard to
> >listen to and dissonant!
> >
> >I agree that musical instruments are NOT composed of only even order
> >harmonics. However, the **ratios** of harmonics that they do produce
> >form the difference between "good" sounding instruments and "HORRID"
> >sounding instruments.
>
> So, with a single sentence, Randy basically declares a HUGE
> range of musical instruments and there associated musicto be
> "horrid sounding instruments" simply because HE feels that the
> ratio of odd to even harmonics is wrong.
>
> He basically states, categorically and unequivocally, that ALL
> covered organ stops, for example, are "HORRID sounding." He
> states that organ mixtures with quints and tierces are "HORRID
> sounding. In fact, he thus declares pretty much the ENTIRE realm
> of classical organ mussic as "HORRID sounding."
>
> He declares many if not most brass instruyments as "HORRID
> sounding" by his criteria simply because they have too high a
> ratio of odd to even harmonics.
>
> What nonsensical, unmusical pish-posh.
What a pile of cotton candy, Dick.. But, since you asked, YES,
there are a GREAT MANY HORRID SOUNDING INSTRUMENTS!
Ask any professional musician, or even a music teacher about this.
THAT IS WHY GOOD SOUNDING INSTRUMENTS **COST**
MORE!!! Duh.
And, yes there are better and worse sounding organs.
And, again, some people can hear nasty hf intermod effects and
sharp "edges" better than others...
>
>
> >Consider how a beginner at violin usually sounds on a cheap student
> >instrument! What's the diff between that student and Heifitz?
> >(harmonically speaking?)
>
> Fairly little. There are HUGE differencs in techique (or lack
> thereof) that result in discordant chords, i.e., those that are
> NOT at simple integer ratios.
BULL PUCKY. It is always true that a master can make a rotten
violin (in this case) sound credible, but that does not change the
inherent sound of the instrument, nor does it change the FACT that
some instruments sound MUCH better than others - AND they
are highly sought after for that reason.
I never said anything about *simple integer ratios* at all. I did
say ratios, however. Let's consider why a synthesiser does or does
not sound the *same* as a real instrument? Oh, gee, maybe they
do?? After all "amps is amps...", right?? ; )
>
>
> >That's the key.
>
> >The better your hearing too, the better the chance that those high
> >harmonics are really going to be bugging you.
>
> So that the high harmonics found in trumpets MUST bug us if we
> have good ears? The high harminic Zimbels and Scharffs found in
> North European organs MUST bother us.
No, but you leave us with the impression that nothing bothers you at
all, except for people who do not think like you do, perceive like
you do, and go along with *you*! : ).
I did not say that they *MUST* anything - YOU said that.
I said MAY or CAN, and *do*.
>
>
> >Did the sound of a grinder or table saw bother you ever? It used to
> >be unbearable for me as a youth... I've lost some of the upper end,
> >and all of the ultrasonics that I used to detect, so it isn't quite
> >to bad now...
>
> Uh, I wear prtective headphones when using these devbices, NOT
> because of their high harmonics, but because of their high sound
> pressure levels. Maybe you should have done the same! :-)
I'm sure you did that 40 years ago?? Right.
BTW, it bothered me from QUITE A DISTANCE AWAY... likely not
just the SPLs...ok??
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
BEARlabs <bear...@coollink.net> wrote:
>there are a GREAT MANY HORRID SOUNDING INSTRUMENTS!
>Ask any professional musician, or even a music teacher about this.
>THAT IS WHY GOOD SOUNDING INSTRUMENTS **COST**
>MORE!!! Duh.
Yes, but nearly any organ I've seen has some stopped pipes.
Are they all bad. Always?
>And, yes there are better and worse sounding organs.
No kidding.
>And, again, some people can hear nasty hf intermod effects and
>sharp "edges" better than others...
And this has what to do with odd harmonics vs. even harmonics?
>BULL PUCKY. It is always true that a master can make a rotten
>violin (in this case) sound credible, but that does not change the
>inherent sound of the instrument, nor does it change the FACT that
>some instruments sound MUCH better than others - AND they
>are highly sought after for that reason.
In fact, violins with MORE harmonics of both odd and even
are the winners, and those with a specific frequency shaping to the
set of harmonics that is MUCH broader than merely "odd/even"
are those that are prized the most.
Bruce G. Stewart
harmonic distortion of an amplifier is evidence of a limitation
of that amplifier.
The reason harmonic distortion is objectionable is that the same
mechanisms the give rise to harmonic distortion of a simple sine
wave are likely to cause more annoying effects on more complex
signals.
Because HD is an indirect measure of the quality of an amplifier,
the measured level of HD does not always correlate with the
perceived quality - in some amplifiers, at some power levels,
the non-linearity that causes HD may arise from clipping.
In others, it may come from bad behaviour around the zero-crossing.
In any event, it is just one measure that gives a clue about
amplifier quality. Comparisons of HD numbers are only particularly
telling if the amplifiers being compared are of similar design so
that the same mechanisms are causing the distortion in both cases.
Now I get off my soap box.