Re: Ears vs. Instruments [Archive]

Harry Lavo

July 12th 03, 02:24 AM

"Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
et...
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
news:<mopPa.27198$OZ2.4772@rwcrnsc54>...
> > Thought you guys might find the following interesting.
> >
> > http://www.rogernichols.com/EQ/EQ_2000_02.html
> >
> > I also suspect that responses will be predictable, but perhaps not.
>
> As I mentioned in my previous response, Harry provided the first
> "predictable response" to his own post, simply in what I would
> assert is his clear mischaracterization of the topic as "Ears vs
> Instruments."
>
> In reading Mr. Nichols' text, we find, in fact, no such conflict
> between ears an instruments. Why, because nowhere does he mention
> any attempt to use the relevant measurements. I have no doubt that
> Mr. Nichols' experienmce is quite real, and, from other sources,
> I have no doubt of the problem in the stamper that could lead to
> the problems. But Mr. Nichols simply failed to carry out any relevant
> measurements. He talks about looking for gross errors and finding none.
>
> He jumps to the conclusion, based on almost no objective data, that
> the problem is jitter. He may well be right, but he has no confirming
> evidence.
>
> There would be plenty of ways to confirm his diagnosis: simply looking
> at the noise floor would be one way, and actually (gasp! horrors! zut
> alors!) actually MEASURING the jitter would, i might humbly suggest,
> be yet another.
>
> But that was NEVER DONE!
>
> So where, Harry, is the supposed conflict between "ear" and
> "instrument" that you see, when, in effect, no "instrument" was
> used? He never said that appropriate instrument measurement failed
> to reveal the problem. What he DIDN'T say was most eloqient: he never
> made ANY relevant measurement.
>
> A completely similar argument could be raised if he measured the
> bejeebers out of it and never once listened to it. If jitter was the
> problem, you'd see it trivially in a high-resolution spectral plot,
> you'd see it trivially in a straight jitter measurement. Now, with
> that in hand, where is it reasonable to title a post "Instrument vs.
> Ear"?
>
> Again, I am sure Mr. Nichols' experience is quite real. I am also
> sure that the conclusion you seem to want people to infer is simply
> unsupportable from his data, because he has NO data on "instruments."
> Indeed, he does not state otherwise.
>
> Where's the conflict?
>

The conflict, Dick, was that SONY and the production plants were all using
conventional measurements that they *thought* provided adequate quality
control to insure that the finished product would sound like the master.
And these measurements were all based on the "bits is bits" assumption.
But the ear/brain combo said "something doesn't sound right". And by
eliminating possibilities, the problem was narrowed down to the point where
the *important* variables creating the problem were eliminated because
somebody else had apparently determined the same thing and made sure those
variables were eliminated. Apparently that Denon plant and the JVC K2
people (that's their XRCD24 line, btw, I believe) trusted their ears too, at
least the JVC people claim to use rigorous listening as well as measurement
in setting up their system and Denon is routinely praised by Audiophiles for
their sound quality (and where John Eargle is (or was?) chief engineer).

So, could it be measured? I'm sure, if one knew what could cause the
problems in the first place and then track them down. But were the right
variables measured? Not routinely by the production engineers convinced
that "bits is bits" and if you don't measure bit errors "do we really have
to listen?" Yep, when all is said and done, there is no substitute....at
least until one has proven that *all* the audible variables are under
control.

p.s. the "they weren't dbt'd and probably the differences were imagined"
chorus has started. But I am pleased that your are focused on the measuremen
ts, because that was my own focus. As I am sure you will yourself agree,
sometimes their *are* large differences so apparent to a group of trained
people that the differences can be accepted as a given. In the antidotes
portrayed, there were tests and comparisons done which resulted in a "no
difference" when it would have been quite possible to have been biased in
favor of finding a difference...for that would allow the problem to be
solved. Instead, "no difference" was declared and the search continued. I
frankly am convinced that in this case the differences were real, and am
more interested in the QA measurement scenario.

Nousaine

July 12th 03, 04:42 AM

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

...large snips about tests, measurements and jitter .....

> Again, I am sure Mr. Nichols' experience is quite real. I am also
>> sure that the conclusion you seem to want people to infer is simply
>> unsupportable from his data, because he has NO data on "instruments."
>> Indeed, he does not state otherwise.
>>
>> Where's the conflict?
>>
>
>The conflict, Dick, was that SONY and the production plants were all using
>conventional measurements that they *thought* provided adequate quality
>control to insure that the finished product would sound like the master.
>And these measurements were all based on the "bits is bits" assumption.
>But the ear/brain combo said "something doesn't sound right". And by
>eliminating possibilities, the problem was narrowed down to the point where
>the *important* variables creating the problem were eliminated because
>somebody else had apparently determined the same thing and made sure those
>variables were eliminated. Apparently that Denon plant and the JVC K2
>people (that's their XRCD24 line, btw, I believe) trusted their ears too, at
>least the JVC people claim to use rigorous listening as well as measurement
>in setting up their system and Denon is routinely praised by Audiophiles for
>their sound quality (and where John Eargle is (or was?) chief engineer).

Unless something has happened I don't know about I am unaware of John Eargle's
(IMO probably the finest recording engineer that has ever lived) association
with Denon. Perhaps you are confusing Delos with Denon.

But that's not why I'm posting. I want to convey another anecdote. I know a
fellow who wons a cd production facility. He recounted a story where a large
Japanese company complained about production samples having 'inferior' sound
quality.

He copied the defective samples returned to him, reproduced same, relabeled
some of the 'defective' product and sent them all back. The client then found
them all to have acceptable sound quality and was happy that he had 'fixed' the
problems.

These anecdotes have no end but by themselves deserve no evidentiary status.

Harry Lavo

July 12th 03, 06:36 AM

"Nousaine" > wrote in message
news:4tLPa.37141$GL4.8369@rwcrnsc53...
> "Harry Lavo" wrote:
>
> ..large snips about tests, measurements and jitter .....
>
> > Again, I am sure Mr. Nichols' experience is quite real. I am also
> >> sure that the conclusion you seem to want people to infer is simply
> >> unsupportable from his data, because he has NO data on "instruments."
> >> Indeed, he does not state otherwise.
> >>
> >> Where's the conflict?
> >>
> >
> >The conflict, Dick, was that SONY and the production plants were all
using
> >conventional measurements that they *thought* provided adequate quality
> >control to insure that the finished product would sound like the master.
> >And these measurements were all based on the "bits is bits" assumption.
> >But the ear/brain combo said "something doesn't sound right". And by
> >eliminating possibilities, the problem was narrowed down to the point
where
> >the *important* variables creating the problem were eliminated because
> >somebody else had apparently determined the same thing and made sure
those
> >variables were eliminated. Apparently that Denon plant and the JVC K2
> >people (that's their XRCD24 line, btw, I believe) trusted their ears too,
at
> >least the JVC people claim to use rigorous listening as well as
measurement
> >in setting up their system and Denon is routinely praised by Audiophiles
for
> >their sound quality (and where John Eargle is (or was?) chief engineer).
>
> Unless something has happened I don't know about I am unaware of John
Eargle's
> (IMO probably the finest recording engineer that has ever lived)
association
> with Denon. Perhaps you are confusing Delos with Denon.
>

Oops, my bad! I did make that mistake and in retrospect I know better.
But glad we agree on mr. Eargle's credentials and reputation...although I
might put Marc Aubort up there with him.

> But that's not why I'm posting. I want to convey another anecdote. I know
a
> fellow who wons a cd production facility. He recounted a story where a
large
> Japanese company complained about production samples having 'inferior'
sound
> quality.
>
> He copied the defective samples returned to him, reproduced same,
relabeled
> some of the 'defective' product and sent them all back. The client then
found
> them all to have acceptable sound quality and was happy that he had
'fixed' the
> problems.
>
> These anecdotes have no end but by themselves deserve no evidentiary
status.
>

No doubt people can be fooled but that wasn't the case in the article I
referenced.

Dennis Moore

July 12th 03, 04:39 PM

Mr. Nousaine,

Care to do like Harry and gives names and company details.

Whether it is or not I don't know. But your anecdote has all
the markings of something made up.

Wonder what the large Japanese company would have thought
of this tactic if they had found out? Wonder if something had
been amiss and they decided this CD plant couldn't fix the problems?
Wonder if owners of CD plants handle other complaints this way?
By doing nothing more than a little sleight of hand.

Dennis

>__________________________________________________ ___
__________________________________________________ __---
But that's not why I'm posting. I want to convey another anecdote. I know a
fellow who wons a cd production facility. He recounted a story where a large
Japanese company complained about production samples having 'inferior' sound
quality.

He copied the defective samples returned to him, reproduced same, relabeled
some of the 'defective' product and sent them all back. The client then
found
them all to have acceptable sound quality and was happy that he had 'fixed'
the
problems.

Nousaine

July 12th 03, 06:10 PM

"Dennis Moore" wrote:

>Mr. Nousaine,
>
>Care to do like Harry and gives names and company details.

No. But Harry made up some of his now didn't he? John Eargle was not, as is not
new, Chief Engineer of Denon.

>
>Whether it is or not I don't know. But your anecdote has all
>the markings of something made up.

It was related to me by the owner of a cd making facility. I cannot vouch for
its truthfulness. But Harry can't vouch for the truthfulness of his anecdote
either. On the other hand, I know an engineer at a BMG facility who has related
similar "your product sounds bad" experiences.

>
>Wonder what the large Japanese company would have thought
>of this tactic if they had found out?

'Dunno but if the 'new' ones sounded better than 'themselves' perhaps they
would have apologized. Probably not :)

Wonder if something had
>been amiss and they decided this CD plant couldn't fix the problems?
>Wonder if owners of CD plants handle other complaints this way?

I'm guessing only in those cases where investigation revealed there was nothing
wrong with the original product.

>By doing nothing more than a little sleight of hand.
>
>Dennis

Why do you consider that sleight of hand. They investigated the 'problem',
found none and satisfied a customer.

>But that's not why I'm posting. I want to convey another anecdote. I know a
>fellow who wons a cd production facility. He recounted a story where a large
>Japanese company complained about production samples having 'inferior' sound
>quality.
>
>He copied the defective samples returned to him, reproduced same, relabeled
>some of the 'defective' product and sent them all back. The client then
>found
>them all to have acceptable sound quality and was happy that he had 'fixed'
>the
>problems.

Dennis Moore

July 13th 03, 01:54 AM

So changing labels on a product, giving the same product to a
customer, who you have gone out of your way to mislead into
thinking is a different product when it is the same isn't sleight
of hand? Okay, what is it? It isn't truthful.

Harry's comment about John Eargle falls under a mistake.
Doesn't appear to be made up, simply a mistake.

Dennis

"Nousaine" > wrote in message
...
> "Dennis Moore" wrote:
>
> >Mr. Nousaine,
> >
> >Care to do like Harry and gives names and company details.
>
> No. But Harry made up some of his now didn't he? John Eargle was not, as
is not
> new, Chief Engineer of Denon.
>
> >
> >Whether it is or not I don't know. But your anecdote has all
> >the markings of something made up.
>
> It was related to me by the owner of a cd making facility. I cannot vouch
for
> its truthfulness. But Harry can't vouch for the truthfulness of his
anecdote
> either. On the other hand, I know an engineer at a BMG facility who has
related
> similar "your product sounds bad" experiences.
>
> >
> >Wonder what the large Japanese company would have thought
> >of this tactic if they had found out?
>
> 'Dunno but if the 'new' ones sounded better than 'themselves' perhaps they
> would have apologized. Probably not :)
>
> Wonder if something had
> >been amiss and they decided this CD plant couldn't fix the problems?
> >Wonder if owners of CD plants handle other complaints this way?
>
> I'm guessing only in those cases where investigation revealed there was
nothing
> wrong with the original product.
>
> >By doing nothing more than a little sleight of hand.
> >
> >Dennis
>
> Why do you consider that sleight of hand. They investigated the 'problem',
> found none and satisfied a customer.
>
> >But that's not why I'm posting. I want to convey another anecdote. I know
a
> >fellow who wons a cd production facility. He recounted a story where a
large
> >Japanese company complained about production samples having 'inferior'
sound
> >quality.
> >
> >He copied the defective samples returned to him, reproduced same,
relabeled
> >some of the 'defective' product and sent them all back. The client then
> >found
> >them all to have acceptable sound quality and was happy that he had
'fixed'
> >the
> >problems.
>

Steven Sullivan

July 13th 03, 02:54 AM

Dennis Moore > wrote:
> So changing labels on a product, giving the same product to a
> customer, who you have gone out of your way to mislead into
> thinking is a different product when it is the same isn't sleight
> of hand? Okay, what is it? It isn't truthful.

You're complaining about THIS, in the face of the rather
dubious claims routinely made in the advertisements
found every month in audio magazines?

--
-S.

Steven Sullivan

July 13th 03, 03:09 AM

Dennis Moore > wrote:
> Mr. Nousaine,

> Care to do like Harry and gives names and company details.

> Whether it is or not I don't know. But your anecdote has all
> the markings of something made up.

Hardly. If you like, I will seek out the online diary
of a recording engineer, where he recounts the commonplace
occurrence of 'sweetener' knobs in control rooms, which
exist ONLY to placate annoying record producers looking for
that 'extra something'.

The knob isn't connected to anyting, but careful
adjustment, in sight of said producer, accompanied
by asking 'Does that sound better?" seems to always
do the trick.

IIRC I once found a website *selling* such flimflammery
to studios, with a knowing wink.

--
-S.

Aaron J. Grier

July 16th 03, 04:04 AM

Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> IIRC I once found a website *selling* such flimflammery to studios,
> with a knowing wink.

Funk Logic: http://www.funklogic.com/

my favorite is the palindrometer:
http://www.funklogic.com/palindrometer.htm

but the Digilog Dynamicator and Algorhythmic Prosecutor are amusing as
well:
http://www.funklogic.com/dd301.htm
http://www.funklogic.com/ap302.htm

for those who master digitally, there is the masterizer plug-in:
http://www.funklogic.com/mastererizer.htm

I'm sure there have to be more.

--
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." |
"Isn't an OS that openly and proudly admits to come directly from Holy
UNIX better than a cheap UNIX copycat that needs to be sued in court
to determine what the hell it really is?" -- Michael Sokolov

Daniel

July 16th 03, 03:09 PM

Steven Sullivan > wrote in message >...
> Dennis Moore > wrote:
> > So changing labels on a product, giving the same product to a
> > customer, who you have gone out of your way to mislead into
> > thinking is a different product when it is the same isn't sleight
> > of hand? Okay, what is it? It isn't truthful.
>
> You're complaining about THIS, in the face of the rather
> dubious claims routinely made in the advertisements
> found every month in audio magazines?

Care to name a few?

Steven Sullivan

July 16th 03, 07:41 PM

Daniel > wrote:
> Steven Sullivan > wrote in message >...
>> Dennis Moore > wrote:
>> > So changing labels on a product, giving the same product to a
>> > customer, who you have gone out of your way to mislead into
>> > thinking is a different product when it is the same isn't sleight
>> > of hand? Okay, what is it? It isn't truthful.
>>
>> You're complaining about THIS, in the face of the rather
>> dubious claims routinely made in the advertisements
>> found every month in audio magazines?

> Care to name a few?

I'll be happy to, when I have the magazines at hand, later.

But before we start, do you *seriously* believe that hi-fi advertising
does *not* routinely include dubious claims? Have you ever seen *any* ads
for high end cables? Do you believe the ad copy therein?

Heck, read the white papers at high-end cable mfr sites, which
presumably are more rigorously worded than ad copy.
For example

http://www.taralabs.com/white_papers/Science_Design1.asp

Lots of claims about audible effects, and even a claim about a testing
methodm, but no proof offered-- NONE -- that the effects are really
audible.

---MIKE---

July 17th 03, 06:12 PM

Quite a few years ago there was a magazine called "CD Review". The
editor, Wayne Green, advertised a device called "Balonium" for I believe
$3.95. It was a green marker pen for the edge of CDs. As the name
indicates, Wayne was not serious (but I think the device COULD be
ordered)!

-MIKE

Daniel

July 17th 03, 11:44 PM

(---MIKE---) wrote in message news:<YNARa.74595$GL4.18651@rwcrnsc53>...
> Quite a few years ago there was a magazine called "CD Review". The
> editor, Wayne Green, advertised a device called "Balonium" for I believe
> $3.95. It was a green marker pen for the edge of CDs. As the name
> indicates, Wayne was not serious (but I think the device COULD be
> ordered)!
>
> -MIKE

I had a friend who not only used the green pen, he froze his CDs for
an hour before he played them. He thought it made a difference. I
thought it was, well, a guy who freezes CDs is pretty funny. But who
cares? If he thinks it works, it's no sweat off my brow.

Daniel

July 17th 03, 11:48 PM

Steven Sullivan > wrote in message >...
> Daniel > wrote:
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote in message >...
> >> Dennis Moore > wrote:
> >> > So changing labels on a product, giving the same product to a
> >> > customer, who you have gone out of your way to mislead into
> >> > thinking is a different product when it is the same isn't sleight
> >> > of hand? Okay, what is it? It isn't truthful.
> >>
> >> You're complaining about THIS, in the face of the rather
> >> dubious claims routinely made in the advertisements
> >> found every month in audio magazines?
>
> > Care to name a few?
>
> I'll be happy to, when I have the magazines at hand, later.
>
> But before we start, do you *seriously* believe that hi-fi advertising
> does *not* routinely include dubious claims? Have you ever seen *any* ads
> for high end cables? Do you believe the ad copy therein?

Um, nope...don't believe in cable. Not part of the cable cabal. I'm
happy with what comes in the box, especially after having a salesman
*swear* to me some cable (long name beginning with "C") he was going
to insert between my CD player and amp was going to be my "happily
ever after" cable.

SO not true. Couldn't tell the difference over Matrix 805s.

I don't even look at the cable ads. Though I do notice flat ones that
*look* cool, and I think that's a good enough reason as any to choose
a piece of equipment.

>
> Heck, read the white papers at high-end cable mfr sites, which
> presumably are more rigorously worded than ad copy.
> For example
>
> http://www.taralabs.com/white_papers/Science_Design1.asp
>
> Lots of claims about audible effects, and even a claim about a testing
> methodm, but no proof offered-- NONE -- that the effects are really
> audible.

Again, you're barking up the wrong tree trying to start a fight with
me over cable. Never gonna happen. We're playing for the same team.

I'm not all that interested in "proof," though. Anecdotal experience
is more meaningful to me. I can't read those charts. Science bores me
to death.

Richard D Pierce

July 17th 03, 11:53 PM

In article <YNARa.74595$GL4.18651@rwcrnsc53>,
---MIKE--- > wrote:
>Quite a few years ago there was a magazine called "CD Review". The
>editor, Wayne Green, advertised a device called "Balonium" for I believe
>$3.95. It was a green marker pen for the edge of CDs. As the name
>indicates, Wayne was not serious (but I think the device COULD be
>ordered)!

Uh, unfortunately, there was (is?) a real product called "CD
Toplight" which is precisely that. Additionally some CD
manufacturers had CD's with pre-printed green edges.

And it all started in rec.audio some years ago as an April
Fool's joke.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Rich Andrews

July 21st 03, 07:38 PM

(Daniel) wrote in :

> Steven Sullivan > wrote in message
> >...
>> Daniel > wrote:
>> > Steven Sullivan > wrote in message
>> > >...
>> >> Dennis Moore > wrote:
>> >> > So changing labels on a product, giving the same product to a
>> >> > customer, who you have gone out of your way to mislead into
>> >> > thinking is a different product when it is the same isn't sleight
>> >> > of hand? Okay, what is it? It isn't truthful.
>> >>
>> >> You're complaining about THIS, in the face of the rather
>> >> dubious claims routinely made in the advertisements
>> >> found every month in audio magazines?
>>
>> > Care to name a few?
>>
>> I'll be happy to, when I have the magazines at hand, later.
>>
>> But before we start, do you *seriously* believe that hi-fi advertising
>> does *not* routinely include dubious claims? Have you ever seen *any*
>> ads for high end cables? Do you believe the ad copy therein?
>
> Um, nope...don't believe in cable. Not part of the cable cabal. I'm
> happy with what comes in the box, especially after having a salesman
> *swear* to me some cable (long name beginning with "C") he was going
> to insert between my CD player and amp was going to be my "happily
> ever after" cable.
>
> SO not true. Couldn't tell the difference over Matrix 805s.
>
> I don't even look at the cable ads. Though I do notice flat ones that
> *look* cool, and I think that's a good enough reason as any to choose
> a piece of equipment.
>
>>
>> Heck, read the white papers at high-end cable mfr sites, which
>> presumably are more rigorously worded than ad copy.
>> For example
>>
>> http://www.taralabs.com/white_papers/Science_Design1.asp
>>
>> Lots of claims about audible effects, and even a claim about a testing
>> methodm, but no proof offered-- NONE -- that the effects are really
>> audible.
>
> Again, you're barking up the wrong tree trying to start a fight with
> me over cable. Never gonna happen. We're playing for the same team.
>
> I'm not all that interested in "proof," though. Anecdotal experience
> is more meaningful to me. I can't read those charts. Science bores me
> to death.
>

Just because science does not interest you does not make it any less of a
discipline and it does not discount mathematic provability. The difference
between scientific data and anecdote is that anecdote is not data and without
data, one can have no proof. One can spout anecdote like Joe Vialls at
http://geocities.com/vialls but that does not make it true.

r

--
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic."

Arthur C. Clarke (1917 - ), "Technology and the Future"

Penury

July 22nd 03, 06:40 PM

Hi Gang:
For one person's (Lynn Olson) take on the "Ears vs. Instruments"
subject check the URL:
http://www.aloha-audio.com/library/FindingCG.html
Make sense ? Or is it blasphemy to prefer tubes ? The sand vs.
glass debate aside, the approach on seeking better measurments makes
some sense I think.
Comments ?

-=Bill Eckle=-

Vanity Web pages at:
http://www.wmeckle.com

Penury

July 22nd 03, 06:40 PM

Daniel

July 23rd 03, 02:15 AM

Rich Andrews > wrote in message >...
> (Daniel) wrote in :
>
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> Daniel > wrote:
> >> > Steven Sullivan > wrote in message
> >> > >...
> >> >> Dennis Moore > wrote:
> >> >> > So changing labels on a product, giving the same product to a
> >> >> > customer, who you have gone out of your way to mislead into
> >> >> > thinking is a different product when it is the same isn't sleight
> >> >> > of hand? Okay, what is it? It isn't truthful.
> >> >>
> >> >> You're complaining about THIS, in the face of the rather
> >> >> dubious claims routinely made in the advertisements
> >> >> found every month in audio magazines?
>
> >> > Care to name a few?
> >>
> >> I'll be happy to, when I have the magazines at hand, later.
> >>
> >> But before we start, do you *seriously* believe that hi-fi advertising
> >> does *not* routinely include dubious claims? Have you ever seen *any*
> >> ads for high end cables? Do you believe the ad copy therein?
> >
> > Um, nope...don't believe in cable. Not part of the cable cabal. I'm
> > happy with what comes in the box, especially after having a salesman
> > *swear* to me some cable (long name beginning with "C") he was going
> > to insert between my CD player and amp was going to be my "happily
> > ever after" cable.
> >
> > SO not true. Couldn't tell the difference over Matrix 805s.
> >
> > I don't even look at the cable ads. Though I do notice flat ones that
> > *look* cool, and I think that's a good enough reason as any to choose
> > a piece of equipment.
> >
> >>
> >> Heck, read the white papers at high-end cable mfr sites, which
> >> presumably are more rigorously worded than ad copy.
> >> For example
> >>
> >> http://www.taralabs.com/white_papers/Science_Design1.asp
> >>
> >> Lots of claims about audible effects, and even a claim about a testing
> >> methodm, but no proof offered-- NONE -- that the effects are really
> >> audible.
> >
> > Again, you're barking up the wrong tree trying to start a fight with
> > me over cable. Never gonna happen. We're playing for the same team.
> >
> > I'm not all that interested in "proof," though. Anecdotal experience
> > is more meaningful to me. I can't read those charts. Science bores me
> > to death.
> >
>
> Just because science does not interest you does not make it any less of a
> discipline and it does not discount mathematic provability. The difference
> between scientific data and anecdote is that anecdote is not data and without
> data, one can have no proof. One can spout anecdote like Joe Vialls at
> http://geocities.com/vialls but that does not make it true.
>
> r

I'm not saying anything is or isn't a discipline, nor do I discount
mathematic anything. I just don't care about it.

There's no way to start an argument with me over this. I cave
instantly. I imagine you're right with all your scientific hoo-hah.
I'm even *glad* there are people like you who care about and
comprehend all the science. There wouldn't be audio without science.
I'm just not one of those who understand or care to understand.

Again, no argument here (except, please, stop trying to drag me into
one). None exists.

Nousaine

July 23rd 03, 05:43 AM

(Daniel) wrote:

>> >> methodm, but no proof offered-- NONE -- that the effects are really
>> >> audible.
>> >
>> > Again, you're barking up the wrong tree trying to start a fight with
>> > me over cable. Never gonna happen. We're playing for the same team.
>> >
>> > I'm not all that interested in "proof," though. Anecdotal experience
>> > is more meaningful to me. I can't read those charts. Science bores me
>> > to death.
>> >
>>
>> Just because science does not interest you does not make it any less of a
>> discipline and it does not discount mathematic provability. The difference
>
>> between scientific data and anecdote is that anecdote is not data and
>without
>> data, one can have no proof. One can spout anecdote like Joe Vialls at
>> http://geocities.com/vialls but that does not make it true.
>>
>> r
>
>I'm not saying anything is or isn't a discipline, nor do I discount
>mathematic anything. I just don't care about it.
>
>There's no way to start an argument with me over this. I cave
>instantly. I imagine you're right with all your scientific hoo-hah.
>I'm even *glad* there are people like you who care about and
>comprehend all the science. There wouldn't be audio without science.
>I'm just not one of those who understand or care to understand.
>
>Again, no argument here (except, please, stop trying to drag me into
>one). None exists.

OK but can you agree to be skeptical about amp/wire sound until some one, any
one, produces a replicable experiment that shows any nominally competent device
operating within its power limits has any 'sound' of its own in a normally
reverberant environment?

If so, then we are in total agreement. If not, then folks are rightly going to
ask for verification.

Daniel

July 23rd 03, 04:23 PM

(Nousaine) wrote in message >...
> (Daniel) wrote:
>
> >> >> methodm, but no proof offered-- NONE -- that the effects are really
> >> >> audible.
> >> >
> >> > Again, you're barking up the wrong tree trying to start a fight with
> >> > me over cable. Never gonna happen. We're playing for the same team.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not all that interested in "proof," though. Anecdotal experience
> >> > is more meaningful to me. I can't read those charts. Science bores me
> >> > to death.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Just because science does not interest you does not make it any less of a
> >> discipline and it does not discount mathematic provability. The difference
>
> >> between scientific data and anecdote is that anecdote is not data and
> without
> >> data, one can have no proof. One can spout anecdote like Joe Vialls at
> >> http://geocities.com/vialls but that does not make it true.
> >>
> >> r
> >
> >I'm not saying anything is or isn't a discipline, nor do I discount
> >mathematic anything. I just don't care about it.
> >
> >There's no way to start an argument with me over this. I cave
> >instantly. I imagine you're right with all your scientific hoo-hah.
> >I'm even *glad* there are people like you who care about and
> >comprehend all the science. There wouldn't be audio without science.
> >I'm just not one of those who understand or care to understand.
> >
> >Again, no argument here (except, please, stop trying to drag me into
> >one). None exists.
>
> OK but can you agree to be skeptical about amp/wire sound until some one, any
> one, produces a replicable experiment that shows any nominally competent device
> operating within its power limits has any 'sound' of its own in a normally
> reverberant environment?
>
> If so, then we are in total agreement. If not, then folks are rightly going to
> ask for verification.

You keep trying to drag me into an argument and I don't want to argue.
I'm not in disagreement with either of you on the issue of wire.

The *only* thing I said about wire is that I don't believe one sounds
any better than any other. I'm *beyond* skeptical. I tried different
speaker wires, and found no difference, even while using a pair of
very revealing B&Ws.

I didn't say word one about amps.

All I asked -- and which you have edited out -- was for the OP, Steven
Sullivan, to tell us in which ads companies made "dubious claims." I
wanted more facts, and instead of providing any beyond the link to
taralabs.com, he assumed all sorts of things about me and what I do
and don't believe.

Here. Read the original text. In case you can't tell, what with all
these layers of quotes, what I said were "Care to name a few?" and
then the two paragraphs beginning "Um, nope..."

I thought it was interesting, and wanted to go through some of my
magazines and see what was "dubious." I had hoped SS would provide
some examples. He hasn't as of yet, or at least I haven't seen them. I
would still like to know.

Original text:
<<<<<Steven Sullivan > wrote in message >...
> Daniel > wrote:
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote in message >...
> >> Dennis Moore > wrote:
> >> > So changing labels on a product, giving the same product to a
> >> > customer, who you have gone out of your way to mislead into
> >> > thinking is a different product when it is the same isn't sleight
> >> > of hand? Okay, what is it? It isn't truthful.
> >>
> >> You're complaining about THIS, in the face of the rather
> >> dubious claims routinely made in the advertisements
> >> found every month in audio magazines?
> > Care to name a few?
>
> I'll be happy to, when I have the magazines at hand, later.
>
> But before we start, do you *seriously* believe that hi-fi advertising
> does *not* routinely include dubious claims? Have you ever seen *any* ads
> for high end cables? Do you believe the ad copy therein?

Um, nope...don't believe in cable. Not part of the cable cabal. I'm
happy with what comes in the box, especially after having a salesman
*swear* to me some cable (long name beginning with "C") he was going
to insert between my CD player and amp was going to be my "happily
ever after" cable.

SO not true. Couldn't tell the difference over Matrix 805s.

I don't even look at the cable ads. Though I do notice flat ones that
*look* cool, and I think that's a good enough reason as any to choose
a piece of equipment.

>
> Heck, read the white papers at high-end cable mfr sites, which
> presumably are more rigorously worded than ad copy.
> For example
>
> http://www.taralabs.com/white_papers/Science_Design1.asp
>
> Lots of claims about audible effects, and even a claim about a testing
> methodm, but no proof offered-- NONE -- that the effects are really
> audible.
>>>>

Wylie Williams

July 23rd 03, 05:34 PM

Being an old guy I remember Julian Hirsch telling us time and again that any
amplifier with good specs sounded just like all the other amps with good
specs.

Was he right? Or have we discovered better testing methods than existed in
his time?

"Nousaine" > wrote in message
...
> (Daniel) wrote:
>
> >> >> methodm, but no proof offered-- NONE -- that the effects are really
> >> >> audible.
> >> >
> >> > Again, you're barking up the wrong tree trying to start a fight with
> >> > me over cable. Never gonna happen. We're playing for the same team.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not all that interested in "proof," though. Anecdotal experience
> >> > is more meaningful to me. I can't read those charts. Science bores me
> >> > to death.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Just because science does not interest you does not make it any less of
a
> >> discipline and it does not discount mathematic provability. The
difference
> >
> >> between scientific data and anecdote is that anecdote is not data and
> >without
> >> data, one can have no proof. One can spout anecdote like Joe Vialls at
> >> http://geocities.com/vialls but that does not make it true.
> >>
> >> r
> >
> >I'm not saying anything is or isn't a discipline, nor do I discount
> >mathematic anything. I just don't care about it.
> >
> >There's no way to start an argument with me over this. I cave
> >instantly. I imagine you're right with all your scientific hoo-hah.
> >I'm even *glad* there are people like you who care about and
> >comprehend all the science. There wouldn't be audio without science.
> >I'm just not one of those who understand or care to understand.
> >
> >Again, no argument here (except, please, stop trying to drag me into
> >one). None exists.
>
> OK but can you agree to be skeptical about amp/wire sound until some one,
any
> one, produces a replicable experiment that shows any nominally competent
device
> operating within its power limits has any 'sound' of its own in a normally
> reverberant environment?
>
> If so, then we are in total agreement. If not, then folks are rightly
going to
> ask for verification.
>

Steven Sullivan

July 23rd 03, 06:09 PM

Daniel > wrote:
> The *only* thing I said about wire is that I don't believe one sounds
> any better than any other. I'm *beyond* skeptical. I tried different
> speaker wires, and found no difference, even while using a pair of
> very revealing B&Ws.

> I didn't say word one about amps.

> All I asked -- and which you have edited out -- was for the OP, Steven
> Sullivan, to tell us in which ads companies made "dubious claims." I
> wanted more facts, and instead of providing any beyond the link to
> taralabs.com, he assumed all sorts of things about me and what I do
> and don't believe.

Sorry, it looked to me like you weren't really that interested in reading the
ad copy. If I'm goign to do the work of skimming through the ad copy
of back issues, I want to know that you really care. IN the meantime,
you could just visit the websites of high-end cable manufacterers,
one example of which I gave. Another would be www.cardas.com
How many examples will you require?

> I thought it was interesting, and wanted to go through some of my
> magazines and see what was "dubious." I had hoped SS would provide
> some examples. He hasn't as of yet, or at least I haven't seen them. I
> would still like to know.

Very well, then, I'll get you some. What will be my reward for
my educational efforts, I wonder?

Steven Sullivan

July 23rd 03, 07:14 PM

Wylie Williams > wrote:
> Being an old guy I remember Julian Hirsch telling us time and again that any
> amplifier with good specs sounded just like all the other amps with good
> specs.

> Was he right?

Most of the time, he probably was.

Daniel

July 23rd 03, 11:11 PM

Steven Sullivan > wrote in message news:<zjzTa.126977$N7.18539@sccrnsc03>...
> Daniel > wrote:
> > The *only* thing I said about wire is that I don't believe one sounds
> > any better than any other. I'm *beyond* skeptical. I tried different
> > speaker wires, and found no difference, even while using a pair of
> > very revealing B&Ws.
>
> > I didn't say word one about amps.
>
> > All I asked -- and which you have edited out -- was for the OP, Steven
> > Sullivan, to tell us in which ads companies made "dubious claims." I
> > wanted more facts, and instead of providing any beyond the link to
> > taralabs.com, he assumed all sorts of things about me and what I do
> > and don't believe.
>
> Sorry, it looked to me like you weren't really that interested in reading the
> ad copy. If I'm goign to do the work of skimming through the ad copy
> of back issues, I want to know that you really care. IN the meantime,
> you could just visit the websites of high-end cable manufacterers,
> one example of which I gave. Another would be www.cardas.com
> How many examples will you require?
>
> > I thought it was interesting, and wanted to go through some of my
> > magazines and see what was "dubious." I had hoped SS would provide
> > some examples. He hasn't as of yet, or at least I haven't seen them. I
> > would still like to know.
>
> Very well, then, I'll get you some. What will be my reward for
> my educational efforts, I wonder?

I guess my hope was that you'd have other types of equipment -- amps,
speakers, CD players -- to tell about. I'm already on your side when
it comes to cable and wire. I'm somewhat down on high-end audio as a
hobby and, even more, as a way to spend money, and wanted to know
about dubious claims in these other areas.

Thanks, in any case.

Bob Marcus

July 23rd 03, 11:13 PM

(Nousaine) wrote in message >...
>
> I received a call from a class-action lawyer a couple moths ago wondering if I
> thought that there was a case in the wire promotion.
>
> I told him that I thought not because although the 'white papers' and web-sites
> might be actionable the ads relied mostly on testimonial copy. And that anybody
> that spent good money on wire without investigating first probably was
> deserving of everything he got.
>
I wonder who he'd get for clients. Everyone I know who buys this snake
oil actually believes in it. The class of plaintiffs who spent
megabucks on cables and then decided they were ripped off must be
vanishingly small.

Besides, the defendants would have no trouble finding oodles of
witnesses to insist that the cables really did sound better, exactly
like the white papers promised. (Funny thing, that.) It's hard to
prove consumer fraud when you're facing a boatload of satisfied
customers.

Cables promise to increase your enjoyment of your audio system, and
all evidence suggests that the people who buy them do indeed enjoy
their audio systems more for having done so. They may be foolish to
believe this, but selling things that make foolish people happy is not
fraud.

bob

All Ears

July 24th 03, 12:38 AM

Ahh..This makes the choice so much easier, just line up the specs, and
choose "most bang for the buck"
This philosophy will also save future audiophiles a bundle of trouble and
money! If it does not sound right, just look at the specs and say to
yourself: "I can't trust my ears, the specs are good, the sound must be
good" Repeat until total satisfaction is obtained.

BTW Those who are still convinced that cables does not matter, try using a
well oxidized copper wire as speaker cable. This will sound "great"

KE

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> Wylie Williams > wrote:
> > Being an old guy I remember Julian Hirsch telling us time and again that
any
> > amplifier with good specs sounded just like all the other amps with good
> > specs.
>
> > Was he right?
>
> Most of the time, he probably was.

Steven Sullivan

July 24th 03, 12:44 AM

Daniel > wrote:
> Steven Sullivan > wrote in message news:<zjzTa.126977$N7.18539@sccrnsc03>...
>> Daniel > wrote:
>> > The *only* thing I said about wire is that I don't believe one sounds
>> > any better than any other. I'm *beyond* skeptical. I tried different
>> > speaker wires, and found no difference, even while using a pair of
>> > very revealing B&Ws.
>>
>> > I didn't say word one about amps.
>>
>> > All I asked -- and which you have edited out -- was for the OP, Steven
>> > Sullivan, to tell us in which ads companies made "dubious claims." I
>> > wanted more facts, and instead of providing any beyond the link to
>> > taralabs.com, he assumed all sorts of things about me and what I do
>> > and don't believe.
>>
>> Sorry, it looked to me like you weren't really that interested in reading the
>> ad copy. If I'm goign to do the work of skimming through the ad copy
>> of back issues, I want to know that you really care. IN the meantime,
>> you could just visit the websites of high-end cable manufacterers,
>> one example of which I gave. Another would be www.cardas.com
>> How many examples will you require?
>>
>> > I thought it was interesting, and wanted to go through some of my
>> > magazines and see what was "dubious." I had hoped SS would provide
>> > some examples. He hasn't as of yet, or at least I haven't seen them. I
>> > would still like to know.
>>
>> Very well, then, I'll get you some. What will be my reward for
>> my educational efforts, I wonder?

> I guess my hope was that you'd have other types of equipment -- amps,
> speakers, CD players -- to tell about. I'm already on your side when
> it comes to cable and wire. I'm somewhat down on high-end audio as a
> hobby and, even more, as a way to spend money, and wanted to know
> about dubious claims in these other areas.

OK, I'll specifically look for amp and digital player ads. I haven't
seen any crazy speaker ads lately, aside from which, it's possible
for speakers to sound very different from each other.

If you don't mind, I might also throw in some typically unsupported
claims from reviews and editorials.

--
-S.

Stewart Pinkerton

July 24th 03, 03:42 PM

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 16:34:46 GMT, "Wylie Williams"
> wrote:

>Being an old guy I remember Julian Hirsch telling us time and again that any
>amplifier with good specs sounded just like all the other amps with good
>specs.
>
>Was he right? Or have we discovered better testing methods than existed in
>his time?

What, we have developed better *ears* in the last 30 years? :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

All Ears

July 24th 03, 03:45 PM

"Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
news:XgGTa.131481$Ph3.16434@sccrnsc04...
> In article >,
> All Ears > wrote:
> >Ahh..This makes the choice so much easier, just line up the specs, and
> >choose "most bang for the buck"
> >This philosophy will also save future audiophiles a bundle of trouble and
> >money! If it does not sound right, just look at the specs and say to
> >yourself: "I can't trust my ears, the specs are good, the sound must be
> >good" Repeat until total satisfaction is obtained.
>
> Great, the typical response of the anti-science bruigade is to
> trump out irrelevancies, absurdities and thinly veiled snide
> comments, instead of dealing with the actual content of the
> post.
>
> >BTW Those who are still convinced that cables does not matter, try using
a
> >well oxidized copper wire as speaker cable. This will sound "great"
>
> Really, and what does THAT have to do with anything. Has anyone
> here refuted the notion that oxidized or corroded connections
> have no audible effects? Well, has anyone? Seems not, so why
> bring up an utterly irrelevant strawman, otherv thna to knock it
> down?
>
> --
> | Dick Pierce |
> | Professional Audio Development |
> | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
> | |
>

I admit that it was meant partly as a provocation. However the subject is
interesting to me. There seems to be a problem in the way that we measure or
rate the measurements, today.

Otherwise, why would equipment with similar specifications sound different?

I will also question the value of double blind tests, in connection to audio
equipment. This is because that any kind of pressure or stress to the test
persons, will affect the perception of the sound presented.
I would think that it would be much more interesting to collect statistical
material, like letting a fairly large amount of people (one by one, or in
small groups) listen to different equipment, in a relaxed atmosphere. To get
a good reference point, I would suggest using a live concert piano, in a
separate room with a microphone, feeding the signal to the equipment in the
other rooms.

With regard to cables, I am not speaking of poor connections, even if the
connections are good, but the cables are oxidized, it will give a noticeable
harsh sound. Anyway, a good quality speaker cable will sound a lot better
than a lamp cord, even in a blind test. Those who cannot hear this, are
probably not comparing the right speaker cable to the lamp cord.

KE

Norman Schwartz

July 24th 03, 03:47 PM

"Daniel" > wrote in message
...

>
> I'm somewhat down on high-end audio as a
> hobby and, even more, as a way to spend money, and wanted to know
> about dubious claims in these other areas.
>
My free advice, therefore worthless to begin with, is to get completely
involved listening to music, entirely ignoring the equipment for a *long
while*. Eventually you will be drawn back to a secondary part of the hobby,
(the equipment). Who knows, perhaps this might save you a lot of time,
effort and money in the long run. New technologies, new models of almost
everything out there, so you avoid dealing with the intervening stuff.

Steven Sullivan

July 24th 03, 05:37 PM

All Ears > wrote:
> Ahh..This makes the choice so much easier, just line up the specs, and
> choose "most bang for the buck"

If you trust the specs....not always easy to do, e.g. with power ratings.

But my underlying point was that nominally competent amps *should*
sound pretty much the same, if not identical.

> This philosophy will also save future audiophiles a bundle of trouble and
> money! If it does not sound right, just look at the specs and say to
> yourself: "I can't trust my ears, the specs are good, the sound must be
> good" Repeat until total satisfaction is obtained.

That's one approach. The other, and perhaps more definitive, would
be for them to really do a test where they have to 'trust their ears'.

The approach audiophiles tend to take, isntead is to , 'burn in '
the amp until total satisfaction is obtained, or to keep
trading up/sideways under the guidance of dubious magazine reviews
and marketing hype,
until total satisfaction is obtained. For awhile.

> BTW Those who are still convinced that cables does not matter, try using a
> well oxidized copper wire as speaker cable. This will sound "great"

Hint: if you don't want to appear desperate, don't offer strawman
examples.

--
-S.

S888Wheel

July 24th 03, 05:43 PM

>There's no problem in discarding amps that really do sound bad (and
>there's plenty of them out there - the SETs, for one whole class!).

Bad is subjective. It does seem that many people prefer them in their systems.
I'm guessing they will claim they sound quite good.

>The trick is to ignore the specs (and the price tag) and actually
>*listen* under controlled conditions, whereupon you discover that most
>halfway decent amps actually *do* sound the same.

Most but not all? depending on your definition of a "halfway decent amp" that
may be a different claim than what Nousaine claims. I am curious, do you think
the differences you have heard in your controled listening tests were actual
differences or do you think that Nousaine's position that such amps are all
identicial in sound is not entirely acurate?

Steven Sullivan

July 24th 03, 05:44 PM

All Ears > wrote:
> "Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
> news:XgGTa.131481$Ph3.16434@sccrnsc04...
>> In article >,
>> All Ears > wrote:
>> >Ahh..This makes the choice so much easier, just line up the specs, and
>> >choose "most bang for the buck"
>> >This philosophy will also save future audiophiles a bundle of trouble and
>> >money! If it does not sound right, just look at the specs and say to
>> >yourself: "I can't trust my ears, the specs are good, the sound must be
>> >good" Repeat until total satisfaction is obtained.
>>
>> Great, the typical response of the anti-science bruigade is to
>> trump out irrelevancies, absurdities and thinly veiled snide
>> comments, instead of dealing with the actual content of the
>> post.
>>
>> >BTW Those who are still convinced that cables does not matter, try using
> a
>> >well oxidized copper wire as speaker cable. This will sound "great"
>>
>> Really, and what does THAT have to do with anything. Has anyone
>> here refuted the notion that oxidized or corroded connections
>> have no audible effects? Well, has anyone? Seems not, so why
>> bring up an utterly irrelevant strawman, otherv thna to knock it
>> down?
>>
>> --
>> | Dick Pierce |
>> | Professional Audio Development |
>> | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
>> | |
>>

> I admit that it was meant partly as a provocation. However the subject is
> interesting to me. There seems to be a problem in the way that we measure or
> rate the measurements, today.

> Otherwise, why would equipment with similar specifications sound different?

> I will also question the value of double blind tests, in connection to audio
> equipment. This is because that any kind of pressure or stress to the test
> persons, will affect the perception of the sound presented.
> I would think that it would be much more interesting to collect statistical
> material, like letting a fairly large amount of people (one by one, or in
> small groups) listen to different equipment, in a relaxed atmosphere. To get
> a good reference point, I would suggest using a live concert piano, in a
> separate room with a microphone, feeding the signal to the equipment in the
> other rooms.

Are you sure this doesn't involve *any kind of presssure or stress*?

> With regard to cables, I am not speaking of poor connections, even if the
> connections are good, but the cables are oxidized, it will give a noticeable
> harsh sound.

I the cable is 'well oxidized', the connected is not likely to be 'good'.

> Anyway, a good quality speaker cable will sound a lot better
> than a lamp cord, even in a blind test.

Oh, really? Can you describe the blind tests that support this claim,
and contrast them, perhaps, with Greenhill's report?

> Those who cannot hear this, are
> probably not comparing the right speaker cable to the lamp cord.

Those who make this claim have yet to provide evidence of its
accuracy.

--
-S.

Steven Sullivan

July 24th 03, 05:45 PM

C. Leeds > wrote:
> Nousaine wrote:

>> Oh that's not an issue with class-action guys. They're often more corrupt than
>> the guys they sue. Last year a bunch of attorneys filed a class action suit
>> against speaker manufacturers arguin that a 12-inch woofer that didn't have a
>> true 12-inch piston (just a 12-inch basket) was a fraudulent claim. And they
>> got a settlement mostly because the companies figured it was easier to settle
>> than to fight in court.

> This sure sounds like urban legend. That Mr. Nousaine doesn't cite the
> names of the litigants only fuels the suspicion.

> Mr. Nousaine original claim - that he'd been contacted for advice by an
> attorney regarding a possible class action suit against cable
> manufacturers - also seems dubious. Lacking logic and without any names
> or background information, these assertions sound bogus, frankly.

LOL..you live in the UK, yes? Perhaps you aren't aware of just how
litigious things can get over here in the colonies.

--
-S.

Stewart Pinkerton

July 24th 03, 06:55 PM

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:43:24 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

>>There's no problem in discarding amps that really do sound bad (and
>>there's plenty of them out there - the SETs, for one whole class!).
>
>Bad is subjective. It does seem that many people prefer them in their systems.
>I'm guessing they will claim they sound quite good.

OK, I'll requalify that to sounding different from their input signal.
As you say, some people do *prefer* that distinctive sound.

>>The trick is to ignore the specs (and the price tag) and actually
>>*listen* under controlled conditions, whereupon you discover that most
>>halfway decent amps actually *do* sound the same.
>
>Most but not all? depending on your definition of a "halfway decent amp" that
>may be a different claim than what Nousaine claims.

Tom and I disagree to a minor degree on this point.

> I am curious, do you think
>the differences you have heard in your controled listening tests were actual
>differences or do you think that Nousaine's position that such amps are all
>identicial in sound is not entirely acurate?

They were heard to a confidence level of better than 15 correct
identifications out of 20 trials, under level-matched double-blind
conditions. I believe them to have been real sonic differences. OTOH,
my speakers (Apogee Duetta Signatures) are both highly transparent and
a fairly tough load.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Daniel

July 24th 03, 09:12 PM

Steven Sullivan > wrote in message news:<e5FTa.130211$ye4.91902@sccrnsc01>...
> Daniel > wrote:
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote in message news:<zjzTa.126977$N7.18539@sccrnsc03>...
> >> Daniel > wrote:
> >> > The *only* thing I said about wire is that I don't believe one sounds
> >> > any better than any other. I'm *beyond* skeptical. I tried different
> >> > speaker wires, and found no difference, even while using a pair of
> >> > very revealing B&Ws.
>
> >> > I didn't say word one about amps.
>
> >> > All I asked -- and which you have edited out -- was for the OP, Steven
> >> > Sullivan, to tell us in which ads companies made "dubious claims." I
> >> > wanted more facts, and instead of providing any beyond the link to
> >> > taralabs.com, he assumed all sorts of things about me and what I do
> >> > and don't believe.
> >>
> >> Sorry, it looked to me like you weren't really that interested in reading the
> >> ad copy. If I'm goign to do the work of skimming through the ad copy
> >> of back issues, I want to know that you really care. IN the meantime,
> >> you could just visit the websites of high-end cable manufacterers,
> >> one example of which I gave. Another would be www.cardas.com
> >> How many examples will you require?
> >>
> >> > I thought it was interesting, and wanted to go through some of my
> >> > magazines and see what was "dubious." I had hoped SS would provide
> >> > some examples. He hasn't as of yet, or at least I haven't seen them. I
> >> > would still like to know.
> >>
> >> Very well, then, I'll get you some. What will be my reward for
> >> my educational efforts, I wonder?
>
> > I guess my hope was that you'd have other types of equipment -- amps,
> > speakers, CD players -- to tell about. I'm already on your side when
> > it comes to cable and wire. I'm somewhat down on high-end audio as a
> > hobby and, even more, as a way to spend money, and wanted to know
> > about dubious claims in these other areas.
>
> OK, I'll specifically look for amp and digital player ads. I haven't
> seen any crazy speaker ads lately, aside from which, it's possible
> for speakers to sound very different from each other.
>
> If you don't mind, I might also throw in some typically unsupported
> claims from reviews and editorials.

Hey, that'd be great. I mean, don't go to a *huge* amount of trouble,
but it would be interesting to see examples of what you were talking
about. Thanks.

All Ears

July 25th 03, 01:02 AM

Here is an interesting link :)
http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/speakerphysics/speakerphysics2.html

KE

"Daniel" > wrote in message
news:o4XTa.121293$GL4.32412@rwcrnsc53...
> Steven Sullivan > wrote in message
news:<e5FTa.130211$ye4.91902@sccrnsc01>...
> > Daniel > wrote:
> > > Steven Sullivan > wrote in message
news:<zjzTa.126977$N7.18539@sccrnsc03>...
> > >> Daniel > wrote:
> > >> > The *only* thing I said about wire is that I don't believe one
sounds
> > >> > any better than any other. I'm *beyond* skeptical. I tried
different
> > >> > speaker wires, and found no difference, even while using a pair of
> > >> > very revealing B&Ws.
> >
> > >> > I didn't say word one about amps.
> >
> > >> > All I asked -- and which you have edited out -- was for the OP,
Steven
> > >> > Sullivan, to tell us in which ads companies made "dubious claims."
I
> > >> > wanted more facts, and instead of providing any beyond the link to
> > >> > taralabs.com, he assumed all sorts of things about me and what I do
> > >> > and don't believe.
> > >>
> > >> Sorry, it looked to me like you weren't really that interested in
reading the
> > >> ad copy. If I'm goign to do the work of skimming through the ad copy
> > >> of back issues, I want to know that you really care. IN the
meantime,
> > >> you could just visit the websites of high-end cable manufacterers,
> > >> one example of which I gave. Another would be www.cardas.com
> > >> How many examples will you require?
> > >>
> > >> > I thought it was interesting, and wanted to go through some of my
> > >> > magazines and see what was "dubious." I had hoped SS would provide
> > >> > some examples. He hasn't as of yet, or at least I haven't seen
them. I
> > >> > would still like to know.
> > >>
> > >> Very well, then, I'll get you some. What will be my reward for
> > >> my educational efforts, I wonder?
> >
> > > I guess my hope was that you'd have other types of equipment -- amps,
> > > speakers, CD players -- to tell about. I'm already on your side when
> > > it comes to cable and wire. I'm somewhat down on high-end audio as a
> > > hobby and, even more, as a way to spend money, and wanted to know
> > > about dubious claims in these other areas.
> >
> > OK, I'll specifically look for amp and digital player ads. I haven't
> > seen any crazy speaker ads lately, aside from which, it's possible
> > for speakers to sound very different from each other.
> >
> > If you don't mind, I might also throw in some typically unsupported
> > claims from reviews and editorials.
>
> Hey, that'd be great. I mean, don't go to a *huge* amount of trouble,
> but it would be interesting to see examples of what you were talking
> about. Thanks.
>

S888Wheel

July 25th 03, 03:26 PM

Pinkerton said

>
>>>The trick is to ignore the specs (and the price tag) and actually
>>>*listen* under controlled conditions, whereupon you discover that most
>>>halfway decent amps actually *do* sound the same.

I said

>> Most but not all? depending on your definition of a "halfway decent amp"
>that
>> may be a different claim than what Nousaine claims. I am curious, do you
>think
>> the differences you have heard in your controled listening tests were
>actual
>> differences or do you think that Nousaine's position that such amps are all
>> identicial in sound is not entirely accurate?
>

Steven said

>That's not Nousaine's position, AFAICT. He specifies nominal competency
>(which means it would measure well),
>operation within the amp's limits, a normally reverberant listening
>environment (which perhaps rules out headphones), as conditions under
>
>which amps sound the same.

Was it not obvious that when I said "depending on your definition of 'halfway
decent amp'" that this was what I meant?

Steven said

> He may also be referring
>to musical/complext material, rather than test tones; I don't recall.

My recollection is that he is reffering to what he deems as competently
designed and built amps playing speakers in a nominally reverberant room
whatever such a room may be. The room bit was added to the list of conditions
fairly recently so it seems.

Richard D Pierce

July 25th 03, 03:59 PM

On 24 Jul 2003 14:45:43 GMT, "All Ears" > wrote:
>There seems to be a problem in the way that we measure or
>rate the measurements, today.

What do you mean "we?" Whuch "we" are YOU talkign about.

If you mean the way the popular press "measures", maybe. If you
mean the way manufacturers "maesure, then you simply don't
understand why the measure the way theu do: it's to sell
equipment.

>Otherwise, why would equipment with similar specifications sound different?

"Specifications" ARE NOT MEASUREMENTS! When will people in this
business grasp that concept?

I can find two units with IDENTICAL specification that measure
VASTLY differently. That pretty much throws a monkey wrench in
your basic premise, doesn't it?

Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily
find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
will claim they sound identical. What does THAT do to your
"theory?"

The point being is you are erroneously equating "specifications"
and "measurements," and you are further implicitly assuming that
the data often presented in specifications is, indeed, a
complete or even sufficient set of data for a unit. That notion
is prepostreously wrong, and it is from that wrong premise that
the rest of your arguments proceed.

Beyond that, you make your statement:

"equipment with similar specifications sound different"

as if it is axiomatic. It assuredly is not. It is an assertion
an, as such, is subject to challenge, testing and verification.
Where is such that supports the assertion?

>With regard to cables, I am not speaking of poor connections, even if the
>connections are good, but the cables are oxidized, it will give a noticeable
>harsh sound.

Agin, you make the assertion as if simply making it is proof of
its correctness. Support that assertion, if you please, with
some facts. Why would oxidization on the surface of a cable
cause such an effect? [hint: if you're inclined to use
arguuments like 'microdiodes' or "strand-jumping'" or such,
don't" they're nonses]

>Anyway, a good quality speaker cable will sound a lot better
>than a lamp cord, even in a blind test. Those who cannot hear this, are
>probably not comparing the right speaker cable to the lamp cord.

Again, nothing more than an opinion, and, as yet, one completely
unsupported by any facts.
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

S888Wheel

July 25th 03, 05:30 PM

>Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily
>find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
>will claim they sound identical. What does THAT do to your
>"theory?"

I know of a few retailers that say otherwise. One time I was told that if you
hear a particular amp from one particular manufacturer that you like that you
should buy that unit. the rest will sound different. One should be careful not
to build arguments on shakey premises.

C. Leeds

July 25th 03, 07:15 PM

I questioned Nousaine's dubious claim that he'd been contacted for
advice by an attorney regarding a possible class action suit against
cable manufacturers.

Steven Sullivan answers:

> LOL..you live in the UK, yes? Perhaps you aren't aware of just how
> litigious things can get over here in the colonies.

I live in the U.S. Nousaine's claim lacked any names or proof. Neither
can anyone name a victim, nor answer the question of why an attorney
would call Nousaine for an opinion as to whether cable advertising is -
to use Nousaine's word -
"actionable".

Absent some proof, it sounds like pure fiction.

chung

July 25th 03, 08:12 PM

S888Wheel wrote:
>>Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily
>>find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
>>will claim they sound identical. What does THAT do to your
>>"theory?"
>
> I know of a few retailers that say otherwise. One time I was told that if you
> hear a particular amp from one particular manufacturer that you like that you
> should buy that unit. the rest will sound different.

How does that contradict what Dick was saying? Of course there are
manufacturers who cannot produce amps with consistency (like SET's that
employ no global feedback so that the performance is a strict function
of the tubes and the bias adjustments, etc.). And BTW, would you trust
the opinion of "a few retailers", or someone like Dick Pierce who has
been an engineer and a designer for decades?

>One should be careful not
> to build arguments on shakey premises.

This seems to describe your position.

Stewart Pinkerton

July 25th 03, 08:13 PM

On 25 Jul 2003 16:30:19 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

>>Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily
>>find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
>>will claim they sound identical. What does THAT do to your
>>"theory?"
>
>I know of a few retailers that say otherwise. One time I was told that if you
>hear a particular amp from one particular manufacturer that you like that you
>should buy that unit. the rest will sound different.

That is commonly known as shoddy quality control...............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Steven Sullivan

July 25th 03, 10:07 PM

C. Leeds > wrote:
> I questioned Nousaine's dubious claim that he'd been contacted for
> advice by an attorney regarding a possible class action suit against
> cable manufacturers.

> Steven Sullivan answers:

>> LOL..you live in the UK, yes? Perhaps you aren't aware of just how
>> litigious things can get over here in the colonies.

> I live in the U.S.

Ah, my mistake, sorry. So, you haven't heard of
class action suits for trivial reasons?

> Nousaine's claim lacked any names or proof. Neither
> can anyone name a victim, nor answer the question of why an attorney
> would call Nousaine for an opinion as to whether cable advertising is -
> to use Nousaine's word -
> "actionable".

> Absent some proof, it sounds like pure fiction.

Absent proof, Tom's story sounds *possible* to me.

And more likely true than , say, the average claim of
'amazing difference' between the way cables sound.

--
-S.

S888Wheel

July 26th 03, 04:28 AM

Dick said

>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>>Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily
>>>find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
>>>will claim they sound identical. What does THAT do to your
>>>"theory?"

I said

>
>> I know of a few retailers that say otherwise. One time I was told that if
>you
>> hear a particular amp from one particular manufacturer that you like that
>you
>> should buy that unit. the rest will sound different.

Mr. Chung said

>
>How does that contradict what Dick was saying?

Isn't it obvious? He said "expert" listeners will claim that amps of the same
model will claim they sound identical. That is not always the case.

Mr. Chung said

>Of course there are
>manufacturers who cannot produce amps with consistency (like SET's that
>employ no global feedback so that the performance is a strict function
>of the tubes and the bias adjustments, etc.).

Fine but not what I was talking about. The amps in question were solid state
from a highly reputable manufacturer.

Mr. Chung said

>And BTW, would you trust
>the opinion of "a few retailers", or someone like Dick Pierce who has
>been an engineer and a designer for decades?
>

I trust their honesty but I do not rely on their opinions. That isn't the issue
however. the issue for me was an argument was being built on a flawed premise.
Whether or not I trust the opinions of those particular retailer does not in
any way affect the fact that they have them and that contradicts Dick's
premise. I have no doubt that many audiophiles think amps of the same model
sound the same but clearly some believe there are sonic variations within the
same models of certain amps as well. I think Dick has made a hasty
generaization. that is all.

I said

>
>>One should be careful not
>> to build arguments on shakey premises.
>

Mr. Chung said

>
>This seems to describe your position.

I think you are wrong for reasons stated above. Maybe you can cite the shakey
premise I have used in my argument.

Richard D Pierce

July 26th 03, 08:53 AM

In article >,
All Ears > wrote:
>I admit that it was meant partly as a provocation. However the subject is
>interesting to me. There seems to be a problem in the way that we measure or
>rate the measurements, today.

No, the problem is the high-end realm, the hi-fi popular press,
and, to be honesty, sales types who insist on a simple set of
single-value "figures of merit" numbers that people ASSUME
constitute complete "measurements." These are numbers like
damping factor, THD, S/N, "frequency response" and all the
common sets of numbers. I have no argument that this paltry set
of numbers is absolutely useless as indicators of audibility,
but they hardly constitute the full range of available technical
measurements that are available.

Face it, the high-end audio industry is DECADES behind behind
the state of the art in many areas, and this is just one
example. I'm not going to give a tutorial on the current range
of available measurements, because it is a vast topic, but the
information is their for anyone interested in getting off their
duff and looking for it.

>Otherwise, why would equipment with similar specifications
>sound different?

I answered this elsewhere, but, again, you make several bold but
unsupported assumptions:

1. That the "specifications" canstitute a large enough subset of
available measurements to be meaningful,

2. That "similar" means the same as "indentical" in the sense
that you discount ANY differences that would make something
similar as unimportant,

3. That they do, indeed, sound different.

The first two are not only unsupported, they are unsupportable.
The third remains unsupported until you or whoever is claiming
that there is a difference can show that such a difference is
due to the sound produced by the units under question. YOu
haven't done that at all.

>I will also question the value of double blind tests, in connection to audio
>equipment. This is because that any kind of pressure or stress to the test
>persons, will affect the perception of the sound presented.

That's your assertion, where's the support of it. Your argument,
as above, suffers from several flaws:

1. You claim that such tests induce undue stress. Where's
the support for this claim?

2. You claim that the stress influences the perception. Where's
the support for your claim?

And if someone makes a claim about the ability to hear a
difference, THEY HAVE ALREADY INTRODUCED THE BASIS OF THE STRESS
IN MAKING THE CLAIM, it could be argued. They have put their
opinion on the line. If a "test" exacerbates the stress, it may
well be because the subject now has doubts as to whether the
original claim is uspportable.

I also doubt that you understand what is meant by "double blind
testing." Certainly the arguments you see in this forum where
people cite problems with "listening to quick snipets" or "the
test is not under the user's control" or "the subject can't
listen to material he is familiar with" and more are all
indication thatv those making the arguments really haven't got
the faintest clue as to what they are talking about.

The definition of "double blind" is very simple, neither the
listener nor the administrator of the test has any indication
OTHER THAN THE CSOUND OF THE UNIT what unit they are listening
to. That's it. Very simple. It DOES NOT include any of the myths
and untruths members of the high-end community commonly raise..

>I would think that it would be much more interesting to collect statistical
>material, like letting a fairly large amount of people (one by one, or in
>small groups) listen to different equipment, in a relaxed atmosphere.

And, how is such excluded by double blind testing? (hint: IT
ISN'T)

>To get
>a good reference point, I would suggest using a live concert piano, in a
>separate room with a microphone, feeding the signal to the equipment in the
>other rooms.

That's been done. And the results, I suspect, are not to your
liking because they may well not fit your preconceived notion of
what the results SHOULD be.

That's the entire point behind careful protocol design: it
removes the influence of everything BUT the sound form the
experiment. It removes the influence of preconceived notions and
the like.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

chung

July 26th 03, 04:04 PM

S888Wheel wrote:
> Dick said
>
>>
>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily
>>>>find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
>>>>will claim they sound identical. What does THAT do to your
>>>>"theory?"
>
> I said
>
>>
>>> I know of a few retailers that say otherwise. One time I was told that if
>>you
>>> hear a particular amp from one particular manufacturer that you like that
>>you
>>> should buy that unit. the rest will sound different.
>
> Mr. Chung said
>
>>
>>How does that contradict what Dick was saying?
>
> Isn't it obvious? He said "expert" listeners will claim that amps of the same
> model will claim they sound identical. That is not always the case.
>

Please read carefully, that's not what Dick was saying. Dick was saying
that there are some measureable differences that "expert listeners"
cannot detect. He did not say anything about amps of the same model, or
that expert listeners would always say two amps of the same model sound
the same. Those are your erroneous extrapolations.

What Dick was saying is that some differences in equipment are
measureable, but not perceivable via listening for most people. What
your "few retailers" are saying is that there are companies who make
products that have the same specs, being the same model, but have
perceivable differences in performance. That is not unusual since those
products may actually measure very differently, if the quality control
is poor. There is no contradiction between what Dick said and what your
retailers said.

What Dick was also stressing was the fact that specs of an audio product
do not necessarily predict actual performance. It is easy to find
products that have same specs with different measurement results,
although those differences may not be audible.

For instance, an amp may spec a -3dB frequency of 20KHz. I may find two
amps of that model, one with a 36KHz -3dB point, and one with a 18KHz
-3dB point. The mesasurements are clearly different, right? But an
expert listener may still not be able to tell these two apart in a
listening test.

> Mr. Chung said
>
>>Of course there are
>>manufacturers who cannot produce amps with consistency (like SET's that
>>employ no global feedback so that the performance is a strict function
>>of the tubes and the bias adjustments, etc.).
>
> Fine but not what I was talking about. The amps in question were solid state
> from a highly reputable manufacturer.
>

First, you did not specify highly reputable manufacturers before. BTW,
"highly reputable" by whose standards? Your retailers'? Second, how do
you know that those "highly reputable" manufacturers have excellent
quality control? In fact, if they are indeed highly reputable, why would
different units of the same model sound different? By definition, if the
manufacturer cannot make a product consistently, it should not be
"highly reputable".

> Mr. Chung said
>
>>And BTW, would you trust
>>the opinion of "a few retailers", or someone like Dick Pierce who has
>>been an engineer and a designer for decades?
>>
>
> I trust their honesty but I do not rely on their opinions. That isn't the issue
> however. the issue for me was an argument was being built on a flawed premise.
> Whether or not I trust the opinions of those particular retailer does not in
> any way affect the fact that they have them and that contradicts Dick's
> premise. I have no doubt that many audiophiles think amps of the same model
> sound the same but clearly some believe there are sonic variations within the
> same models of certain amps as well. I think Dick has made a hasty
> generaization. that is all.

You don't understand Dick's "generalization" now, do you? Dick was
saying that differences can be measureable by instruments and yet be not
perceivable by some, if not all, people. Why is this a hasty
generalization? Don't we all know that instruments can be much more
sensitive than human hearing? Seems to me you are the only who is
drawing a hasty conclusion.

>
> I said
>
>>
>>>One should be careful not
>>> to build arguments on shakey premises.
>>
>
> Mr. Chung said
>
>>
>>This seems to describe your position.
>
> I think you are wrong for reasons stated above. Maybe you can cite the shakey
> premise I have used in my argument.

The shaky premise you used is not understanding what Dick was saying.
What exactly do you think was Dick's premise, BTW?

All Ears

July 26th 03, 04:06 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard D Pierce" >
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: Ears vs. Instruments

> In article >,
> All Ears > wrote:
> >I admit that it was meant partly as a provocation. However the subject is
> >interesting to me. There seems to be a problem in the way that we measure
or
> >rate the measurements, today.
>
> No, the problem is the high-end realm, the hi-fi popular press,
> and, to be honesty, sales types who insist on a simple set of
> single-value "figures of merit" numbers that people ASSUME
> constitute complete "measurements." These are numbers like
> damping factor, THD, S/N, "frequency response" and all the
> common sets of numbers. I have no argument that this paltry set
> of numbers is absolutely useless as indicators of audibility,
> but they hardly constitute the full range of available technical
> measurements that are available.

That is what I meant by what is "commenly" rated as being important
measurements. From these parameters it is impossible for me to explain why a
modern OTL tube amplifier is able to perform the way it does, I haven't
heard anything that even comes close in sonic performance, with the right
speakers. We are not talking lush tube sound here, but fast like a bat out
of hell, deep well articulated bass and a reproduction of voices and
acoustic instruments like nothing I have heard before.

>
> Face it, the high-end audio industry is DECADES behind behind
> the state of the art in many areas, and this is just one
> example. I'm not going to give a tutorial on the current range
> of available measurements, because it is a vast topic, but the
> information is their for anyone interested in getting off their
> duff and looking for it.

I would be very interested in your findings of really relevant measurements.
Another thing I do feel is needed, is some sort of industry standard in
audio reproduction, that goes all the way from the recording studio to the
manufactures of audio equipment. I think this would make it a lot easier to
set the appropriate design goals.

>
> >Otherwise, why would equipment with similar specifications
> >sound different?
>
> I answered this elsewhere, but, again, you make several bold but
> unsupported assumptions:
>
> 1. That the "specifications" canstitute a large enough subset of
> available measurements to be meaningful,
>
> 2. That "similar" means the same as "indentical" in the sense
> that you discount ANY differences that would make something
> similar as unimportant,
>
> 3. That they do, indeed, sound different.
>
> The first two are not only unsupported, they are unsupportable.
> The third remains unsupported until you or whoever is claiming
> that there is a difference can show that such a difference is
> due to the sound produced by the units under question. YOu
> haven't done that at all.

Sorry for mixing up specifications and measurements, as you say yourself,
there are more relevant measurements, than what are used as marketing
arguments today (right?)

>
> >I will also question the value of double blind tests, in connection to
audio
> >equipment. This is because that any kind of pressure or stress to the
test
> >persons, will affect the perception of the sound presented.
>
> That's your assertion, where's the support of it. Your argument,
> as above, suffers from several flaws:
>
> 1. You claim that such tests induce undue stress. Where's
> the support for this claim?
>
> 2. You claim that the stress influences the perception. Where's
> the support for your claim?

Personally, I find it difficult to enjoy listening to music, unless there is
the necessery atmosphere to relax.

>
> And if someone makes a claim about the ability to hear a
> difference, THEY HAVE ALREADY INTRODUCED THE BASIS OF THE STRESS
> IN MAKING THE CLAIM, it could be argued. They have put their
> opinion on the line. If a "test" exacerbates the stress, it may
> well be because the subject now has doubts as to whether the
> original claim is uspportable.

I try to keep an open mind, and are not stoubernly defending any specific
ideals, brands etc. I listen to a lot of different equipment and music, and
makes my personal experiences from this. This is not a universal truth, and
other ears or measuring instruments may have another opinion. We must also
bare in mind that there are different "generic" listening types, who all
focus on their specific areas of the sound image.
>
> I also doubt that you understand what is meant by "double blind
> testing." Certainly the arguments you see in this forum where
> people cite problems with "listening to quick snipets" or "the
> test is not under the user's control" or "the subject can't
> listen to material he is familiar with" and more are all
> indication thatv those making the arguments really haven't got
> the faintest clue as to what they are talking about.
>
> The definition of "double blind" is very simple, neither the
> listener nor the administrator of the test has any indication
> OTHER THAN THE CSOUND OF THE UNIT what unit they are listening
> to. That's it. Very simple. It DOES NOT include any of the myths
> and untruths members of the high-end community commonly raise..
>
> >I would think that it would be much more interesting to collect
statistical
> >material, like letting a fairly large amount of people (one by one, or in
> >small groups) listen to different equipment, in a relaxed atmosphere.
>
> And, how is such excluded by double blind testing? (hint: IT
> ISN'T)
>
> >To get
> >a good reference point, I would suggest using a live concert piano, in a
> >separate room with a microphone, feeding the signal to the equipment in
the
> >other rooms.
>
> That's been done. And the results, I suspect, are not to your
> liking because they may well not fit your preconceived notion of
> what the results SHOULD be.
>
> That's the entire point behind careful protocol design: it
> removes the influence of everything BUT the sound form the
> experiment. It removes the influence of preconceived notions and
> the like.

As stated before, I try not to have any preconceived opinions, but to keep
an open mind to what I hear, and I do not go with my first opinion, I often
swap equipment back and forth, to verify my findings. The goal for me, is to
find pleasure in listening to music, if I find that a mass loading puck, ERS
material or a specific cable to increase my listening pleasure, I'll use it.
Not saying that I am not interested in finding out why this particular
component apears to be working for me, but I don't see why I should retain
myself from using it, if I find it useful.

KE

>
> --
> | Dick Pierce |
> | Professional Audio Development |
> | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
> | |
>

Richard D Pierce

July 26th 03, 05:46 PM

In article >,
All Ears > wrote:
>> No, the problem is the high-end realm, the hi-fi popular press,
>> and, to be honesty, sales types who insist on a simple set of
>> single-value "figures of merit" numbers that people ASSUME
>> constitute complete "measurements." These are numbers like
>> damping factor, THD, S/N, "frequency response" and all the
>> common sets of numbers. I have no argument that this paltry set
>> of numbers is absolutely useless as indicators of audibility,
>> but they hardly constitute the full range of available technical
>> measurements that are available.
>
>That is what I meant by what is "commenly" rated as being important
>measurements. From these parameters it is impossible for me to explain why a
>modern OTL tube amplifier is able to perform the way it does, I haven't
>heard anything that even comes close in sonic performance, with the right
>speakers. We are not talking lush tube sound here, but fast like a bat out
>of hell, deep well articulated bass and a reproduction of voices and
>acoustic instruments like nothing I have heard before.

If, by "OTL tube amplifier" your mean a transformerless output,
then, my goodness, the measurable differences between this type
of amplifier and, say, any given solid state amplifier when
driving the same loudspeaker are ENORMOUS, simply because of the
substantially higher output impedance of the OTL amplifier. That
difference, again when measured with specific speaker loads,
leads to a HUGE difference in the frequency response of the
system. I'm not talking a quarter dB here or there, I'm talking
about MANY dB of difference. Just that difference alone is
hugely audible and I would not be the least suprised to find
that, in fact, the "specs" of such an amplifier, when measured
in situ, are unlike any other amplifier around.

So, one point of your basic premise is immediately falsified: an
tube OTL amplifier CANNOT have the same simple measurements like
frequency response: they simply cannot. Thus, claiming that two
amplifiers, one OTL, one solid state have similar specs but
sound different falls apart simply because they don't behave
even remotely similarily.

Let's look at the details: it is not uncommon for these sorts of
amplifiers to have output impedances measuring several ohms.
That's a substantial part of the impedance of the load and,
worse, that load varies over a wide range in a frequency
dependent fashion. It is not in the least uncommon to see a
speaker impedance vary from a low of 6 ohms (in the upper
midbass) to a high of 15 ohms (around the crossover point) to a
high of 40 ohms (at the low frequency system resonance. With an
output impedance of, say, 5 ohms, the raw frequency response of
the amplifier/speaker SYSTEM is now going to be altered due to
this variable attenuation ratio. At the high point of 40 ohms,
the attenuation will be 40/(40+5) or about 1 dB, at the midrange
impedance peak of 15 ohms, it will be 15/(15+5) or 2.5 dB, while
at it's low point of 6 ohms, the attenuation will be 6/(6+5) or
5.3 dB.

Now, what we end up with is an amplifier which, when used with a
given speaker, will introduce frequency response variations over
a 4.3 dB range, just like adding a graphic equalizer and kicking
the bass up a bit, pulling the 200 Hz region down about 4 dB,
and giving a midrange a boost, and so on, comapred to hooking
the same speaker up to a sommon solid state or even transformer
coupled tube amplifier. The specs ARE NOT the same, and not un
any subtle way, but rather in a very GROSS, trivially measurable
way.

And this may well not be the only difference: such an output
impedance is MORE than enough to substantially reduce the
damping of the entire amplifier/speaker system, possibly
DOUBLING its Qt at resonance, which could intriduce ANOTHER 3 dB
of frequency respose error all by itself. You have a system
which has frequency response differences approaching +-4 dB
compared to a driving it with a solid state or even transroemr
coupled tube a,mplifier with appropriate feedback.

With this information in hand, that the OTL amplifier introduces
frequency response variations ranging over +-4 dB compared to a
sommon solid state amplifier, how can you say they meaure the
same? They clearly cannot and DO not.

>I would be very interested in your findings of really relevant measurements.

Well, here's a perfect example: the performance of an amplifier
in situ: when driving a speaker, this amplifier performs WILDLY
different in non-subtle ways then the manufacturer specs it, or
at least as you understand the manufacturer specs it. And such
an amplifier is going to perform RADICALLY different with each
different speaker that's attached to it.

Now, the high-end pundits, the magazine wonks and all the rest
will claim this is some magical property of "treansparency."
"Look," they intone, "this amplifier reveals the differences
between speakers more than any other: it must, therefore, be
MOST transparent." In fact, such a notion is at best naively
wrong: by designing an amplifier with such a radically high
output impedance, the designer has violated the basic operating
assumptions of how speaker are supposed to work: driven from
voltage sources, NOT current sources. In other words, plain and
simple, such amplifiers are introducing FREQUENCY RESPONSE AND
DAMPING ERRORS. You may prefer the results of those errors, but
they are response errors thatw er NOT intended by the speaker
manufacturer, any more than the speaker manufacturer intended
you to start re-equalizing them on your own. An OTL amplifier
used under these conditions is behaving just like a high-power
equalizer, except it doesn't come with a "cancel" switch.

You may not like to entertain the notion that you prefer having
an equalizer in your system, but that is, in it's technical
essence, EXACTLY what you have.

>Another thing I do feel is needed, is some sort of industry standard in
>audio reproduction, that goes all the way from the recording studio to the
>manufactures of audio equipment. I think this would make it a lot easier to
>set the appropriate design goals.

There are such standards, though there is not an all-
encompassing standard for the entire chain (the AES has 40 some
standards, the ISO has the entire realm of 60268, for example),
but, to be frank with you, THE most egregious violators of these
standard is, in fact, the high-end audion industry, ESPECIALLY
when it comes to realistic comparable performance
specifications.

>Sorry for mixing up specifications and measurements, as you say yourself,
>there are more relevant measurements, than what are used as marketing
>arguments today (right?)

Indeed, especially in the high-end audio industry. Your OTL
amplifier is one such glaring example.

>> 1. You claim that such tests induce undue stress. Where's
>> the support for this claim?
>>
>> 2. You claim that the stress influences the perception. Where's
>> the support for your claim?
>
>Personally, I find it difficult to enjoy listening to music, unless there is
>the necessery atmosphere to relax.

And why is simply eliminating the direct knowledge of what
equipment is playing a hindernace to relaxation? If you HAVE to
know that you are listening to your OTL amplifier in order to
relax, guess, what: YOUR ENJOYMENT ISN'T ABOUT SOUND, IT'S ABOUT
BRAND NAMES!

>> And if someone makes a claim about the ability to hear a
>> difference, THEY HAVE ALREADY INTRODUCED THE BASIS OF THE STRESS
>> IN MAKING THE CLAIM, it could be argued. They have put their
>> opinion on the line. If a "test" exacerbates the stress, it may
>> well be because the subject now has doubts as to whether the
>> original claim is uspportable.
>
>I try to keep an open mind, and are not stoubernly defending any specific
>ideals, brands etc.

But if you HAVE to know what the brand is to relax, which is one
implication of your staement above, then you are NOT keeping an
open mind.

>an open mind to what I hear, and I do not go with my first opinion, I often
>swap equipment back and forth, to verify my findings. The goal for me, is to
>find pleasure in listening to music, if I find that a mass loading puck, ERS
>material or a specific cable to increase my listening pleasure, I'll use it.

All that double blind is asking is that you detect the
difference BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE. That's all. Thus, if you
think that a mass loading puck is going to make a difference and
YOU are interested in seeing if this is the case, all that blind
testing is asking is that you see if you can HEAR the difference
BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE.

Why is that stressful?

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

S888Wheel

July 26th 03, 06:36 PM

Dick said

<<
>>>>Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily
>>>>find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
>>>>will claim they sound identical. What does THAT do to your
>>>>"theory?"
> >>

<<
> I said
>
>>
>>> I know of a few retailers that say otherwise. One time I was told that if
>>you
>>> hear a particular amp from one particular manufacturer that you like that
>>you
>>> should buy that unit. the rest will sound different.
> >>

<<
> Mr. Chung said
>
>>
>>How does that contradict what Dick was saying?
> >>

I said

<<
> Isn't it obvious? He said "expert" listeners will claim that amps of the same
> model will claim they sound identical. That is not always the case.
> >>

Mr. Chung said

<<

Please read carefully, that's not what Dick was saying. Dick was saying >>

Here is the quote..."Further, I can find two samples of the same model and
easily find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners will
claim they sound identical " I think it is pretty clear that it is exactly what
he is saying.

Mr. Chung said

<< Dick was saying
that there are some measureable differences that "expert listeners"
cannot detect. >>

I suggest you take your own advice and read the quote above carefully.

Mr. Chung said

<<
cannot detect. He did not say anything about amps of the same model, or
that expert listeners would always say two amps of the same model sound
the same. >>

I suggest you read the quote and take your own advice . "Further, I can find
two samples of the same model and easily find measurable differences between
them, yet "expert" listeners will claim they sound identical " I think it is
pretty clear that it is exactly what he is saying.

Mr. Chung said

<< Those are your erroneous extrapolations. >>

They are quotes.

chung

July 26th 03, 10:34 PM

S888Wheel wrote:

>
> Here is the quote..."Further, I can find two samples of the same model and
> easily find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners will
> claim they sound identical " I think it is pretty clear that it is exactly what
> he is saying.
>
>

What exactly do you think Dick was saying?

Dick was *not* saying that all expert listeners will find that all
models of a given amplifier will sound the same.

Dick was saying that there are some measureable differences between
audio equipment of the same model that cannot be detected by "expert"
listeners. (I even provided you an example of such differences in the
last post.)

Dick was saying that he can find two units of the same model that have
measureable differences that cannot be differentiated by expert
listeners. He was *not* saying that *all* units that measure differently
will sound the same to expert listeners. It should be obvious that some
measureable differences are hard to detect, and of course, some are very
easy to detect via listening. Dick was *not* saying that *all*
measureable differences are hard to detect.

Dick also made the point that specs are not measurements, and that
similar specs do not necessarily lead to similar measurements, since
specs are a small subset of possible measurements. Different units of
the same model of equipment may have identical specs and yet measure
differently, and *some* (NOT necessarily ALL) of those differences are
not detectible by expert listeners.

What your retailers were saying was that there are amps of the same
model that sound different. Ignoring the veracity of that statement for
the purpose of this discussion, why do you think it contradicts what
Dick was saying?

Dick never said that all amps of the same model will sound the same. He
only said that there are some differences in some models that are
measureable and yet not detectible via listening.

Got it?

Stewart Pinkerton

July 27th 03, 12:32 AM

On 26 Jul 2003 15:06:32 GMT, "All Ears" > wrote:

>That is what I meant by what is "commenly" rated as being important
>measurements. From these parameters it is impossible for me to explain why a
>modern OTL tube amplifier is able to perform the way it does, I haven't
>heard anything that even comes close in sonic performance, with the right
>speakers. We are not talking lush tube sound here, but fast like a bat out
>of hell, deep well articulated bass and a reproduction of voices and
>acoustic instruments like nothing I have heard before.

Actually, that's exactly the same result that you'll get from any
halfway decent solid-state amp, at around a fifth of the price, and no
need to replace the active devices every couple of years...........

Of course, if you choose the tubed OTL amp, you also need to ensure
that the speakers have a flat impedance curve, because otherwise the
sonic differences will be far from subtle.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

All Ears

July 27th 03, 12:34 AM

"Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> All Ears > wrote:
> >> No, the problem is the high-end realm, the hi-fi popular press,
> >> and, to be honesty, sales types who insist on a simple set of
> >> single-value "figures of merit" numbers that people ASSUME
> >> constitute complete "measurements." These are numbers like
> >> damping factor, THD, S/N, "frequency response" and all the
> >> common sets of numbers. I have no argument that this paltry set
> >> of numbers is absolutely useless as indicators of audibility,
> >> but they hardly constitute the full range of available technical
> >> measurements that are available.
> >
> >That is what I meant by what is "commenly" rated as being important
> >measurements. From these parameters it is impossible for me to explain
why a
> >modern OTL tube amplifier is able to perform the way it does, I haven't
> >heard anything that even comes close in sonic performance, with the right
> >speakers. We are not talking lush tube sound here, but fast like a bat
out
> >of hell, deep well articulated bass and a reproduction of voices and
> >acoustic instruments like nothing I have heard before.
>
> If, by "OTL tube amplifier" your mean a transformerless output,
> then, my goodness, the measurable differences between this type
> of amplifier and, say, any given solid state amplifier when
> driving the same loudspeaker are ENORMOUS, simply because of the
> substantially higher output impedance of the OTL amplifier. That
> difference, again when measured with specific speaker loads,
> leads to a HUGE difference in the frequency response of the
> system. I'm not talking a quarter dB here or there, I'm talking
> about MANY dB of difference. Just that difference alone is
> hugely audible and I would not be the least suprised to find
> that, in fact, the "specs" of such an amplifier, when measured
> in situ, are unlike any other amplifier around.
>
> So, one point of your basic premise is immediately falsified: an
> tube OTL amplifier CANNOT have the same simple measurements like
> frequency response: they simply cannot. Thus, claiming that two
> amplifiers, one OTL, one solid state have similar specs but
> sound different falls apart simply because they don't behave
> even remotely similarily.
>
> Let's look at the details: it is not uncommon for these sorts of
> amplifiers to have output impedances measuring several ohms.
> That's a substantial part of the impedance of the load and,
> worse, that load varies over a wide range in a frequency
> dependent fashion. It is not in the least uncommon to see a
> speaker impedance vary from a low of 6 ohms (in the upper
> midbass) to a high of 15 ohms (around the crossover point) to a
> high of 40 ohms (at the low frequency system resonance. With an
> output impedance of, say, 5 ohms, the raw frequency response of
> the amplifier/speaker SYSTEM is now going to be altered due to
> this variable attenuation ratio. At the high point of 40 ohms,
> the attenuation will be 40/(40+5) or about 1 dB, at the midrange
> impedance peak of 15 ohms, it will be 15/(15+5) or 2.5 dB, while
> at it's low point of 6 ohms, the attenuation will be 6/(6+5) or
> 5.3 dB.
>
> Now, what we end up with is an amplifier which, when used with a
> given speaker, will introduce frequency response variations over
> a 4.3 dB range, just like adding a graphic equalizer and kicking
> the bass up a bit, pulling the 200 Hz region down about 4 dB,
> and giving a midrange a boost, and so on, comapred to hooking
> the same speaker up to a sommon solid state or even transformer
> coupled tube amplifier. The specs ARE NOT the same, and not un
> any subtle way, but rather in a very GROSS, trivially measurable
> way.
>
> And this may well not be the only difference: such an output
> impedance is MORE than enough to substantially reduce the
> damping of the entire amplifier/speaker system, possibly
> DOUBLING its Qt at resonance, which could intriduce ANOTHER 3 dB
> of frequency respose error all by itself. You have a system
> which has frequency response differences approaching +-4 dB
> compared to a driving it with a solid state or even transroemr
> coupled tube a,mplifier with appropriate feedback.
>
> With this information in hand, that the OTL amplifier introduces
> frequency response variations ranging over +-4 dB compared to a
> sommon solid state amplifier, how can you say they meaure the
> same? They clearly cannot and DO not.

I do not disagree with what you are saying, but if this was the real audible
truth, these amplifiers should sound really bad and unnatural, the point is,
they are not, even compared to very good solid state amplifiers. As I said,
acoustic instruments (also bass) and voices are the most realistic
reproduced I have heard so far!

>
> >I would be very interested in your findings of really relevant
measurements.
>
> Well, here's a perfect example: the performance of an amplifier
> in situ: when driving a speaker, this amplifier performs WILDLY
> different in non-subtle ways then the manufacturer specs it, or
> at least as you understand the manufacturer specs it. And such
> an amplifier is going to perform RADICALLY different with each
> different speaker that's attached to it.
>
> Now, the high-end pundits, the magazine wonks and all the rest
> will claim this is some magical property of "treansparency."
> "Look," they intone, "this amplifier reveals the differences
> between speakers more than any other: it must, therefore, be
> MOST transparent." In fact, such a notion is at best naively
> wrong: by designing an amplifier with such a radically high
> output impedance, the designer has violated the basic operating
> assumptions of how speaker are supposed to work: driven from
> voltage sources, NOT current sources. In other words, plain and
> simple, such amplifiers are introducing FREQUENCY RESPONSE AND
> DAMPING ERRORS. You may prefer the results of those errors, but
> they are response errors thatw er NOT intended by the speaker
> manufacturer, any more than the speaker manufacturer intended
> you to start re-equalizing them on your own. An OTL amplifier
> used under these conditions is behaving just like a high-power
> equalizer, except it doesn't come with a "cancel" switch.
>
> You may not like to entertain the notion that you prefer having
> an equalizer in your system, but that is, in it's technical
> essence, EXACTLY what you have.

Actually, the speakers I use are all designed by tube lovers, furthermore,
the only speaker design that will act in a close to linear way to a voltage
source, are one way speakers or headphones. All the rest are compromises. A
speaker reacts in a quite linear way to the current you put into it, not the
voltage. There are ways of compensating, I know, but again, it is a
compromise.

I'll get some solid state current amplifiers next week, this will be
interesting......

>
> >Another thing I do feel is needed, is some sort of industry standard in
> >audio reproduction, that goes all the way from the recording studio to
the
> >manufactures of audio equipment. I think this would make it a lot easier
to
> >set the appropriate design goals.
>
> There are such standards, though there is not an all-
> encompassing standard for the entire chain (the AES has 40 some
> standards, the ISO has the entire realm of 60268, for example),
> but, to be frank with you, THE most egregious violators of these
> standard is, in fact, the high-end audion industry, ESPECIALLY
> when it comes to realistic comparable performance
> specifications.

It would be an interesting goal to persue, to get one useful standard for
the entire chain.

>
> >Sorry for mixing up specifications and measurements, as you say yourself,
> >there are more relevant measurements, than what are used as marketing
> >arguments today (right?)
>
> Indeed, especially in the high-end audio industry. Your OTL
> amplifier is one such glaring example.

There are almost no specifications available for the OTL's, since they would
not give an objective idea of the end result.

>
> >> 1. You claim that such tests induce undue stress. Where's
> >> the support for this claim?
> >>
> >> 2. You claim that the stress influences the perception. Where's
> >> the support for your claim?
> >
> >Personally, I find it difficult to enjoy listening to music, unless there
is
> >the necessery atmosphere to relax.
>
> And why is simply eliminating the direct knowledge of what
> equipment is playing a hindernace to relaxation? If you HAVE to
> know that you are listening to your OTL amplifier in order to
> relax, guess, what: YOUR ENJOYMENT ISN'T ABOUT SOUND, IT'S ABOUT
> BRAND NAMES!

Absolutely nonsence, I have plenty of other good equipment worthy of serious
listening. I had no idea that the OTL's were this good, before I actually
listened to them. Actually, I would REALLY wish that I could get the same
listening pleasure from a solid state amplifier. This would save me the
trouble to bios and also save quite a lot of energy.

>
> >> And if someone makes a claim about the ability to hear a
> >> difference, THEY HAVE ALREADY INTRODUCED THE BASIS OF THE STRESS
> >> IN MAKING THE CLAIM, it could be argued. They have put their
> >> opinion on the line. If a "test" exacerbates the stress, it may
> >> well be because the subject now has doubts as to whether the
> >> original claim is uspportable.
> >
> >I try to keep an open mind, and are not stoubernly defending any specific
> >ideals, brands etc.
>
> But if you HAVE to know what the brand is to relax, which is one
> implication of your staement above, then you are NOT keeping an
> open mind.

Again, I could not care less about the brand, I only care about enjoying
music the best I can.
>
> >an open mind to what I hear, and I do not go with my first opinion, I
often
> >swap equipment back and forth, to verify my findings. The goal for me, is
to
> >find pleasure in listening to music, if I find that a mass loading puck,
ERS
> >material or a specific cable to increase my listening pleasure, I'll use
it.
>
> All that double blind is asking is that you detect the
> difference BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE. That's all. Thus, if you
> think that a mass loading puck is going to make a difference and
> YOU are interested in seeing if this is the case, all that blind
> testing is asking is that you see if you can HEAR the difference
> BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE.

If you "know" there is no difference in the sound, would it be likely that
you would actually hear it?

Even, if my imagination only, can change a sound image from being harsh, to
being pleasing, why not use this tweak?

>
> Why is that stressful?

A test situation is stressful to many people, not all, but many. The real
challenge is to find a way to do this, to a large number of people, in way
that would not be "test like" but more in an amusing or relaxing way.

KE

>
> --
> | Dick Pierce |
> | Professional Audio Development |
> | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
> | |

S888Wheel

July 27th 03, 03:28 AM

I said

>> Here is the quote..."Further, I can find two samples of the same model and
>> easily find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
>will
>> claim they sound identical " I think it is pretty clear that it is exactly
>what
>> he is saying.

Mr. Chung said

>
>
>What exactly do you think Dick was saying?
>

I think he was saying.."Further, I can find two samples of the same model and
easily find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners wil
claim they sound identical "

Mr. Chung said

>
>Dick was *not* saying that all expert listeners will find that all
>models of a given amplifier will sound the same.

I didn't say he said that.

Mr. Chung said

>
>Dick was saying that there are some measureable differences between
>audio equipment of the same model that cannot be detected by "expert"

No, he definitely did not say that in this quote. He talked about claims not
about what can or cannot be heard. I am confident that Dick does not believe
that claims of what can and cannot be heard are not always the same as what can
and cannot actually be heard.

Mr. Chung said

>
>Dick was saying that he can find two units of the same model that have
>measureable differences that cannot be differentiated by expert
>listeners.

Again that is not what he was saying.

Mr. Chung said

>He was *not* saying that *all* units that measure differently
>will sound the same to expert listeners.

Nor did I say he was saying that.

Mr. Chung said

> It should be obvious that some
>measureable differences are hard to detect, and of course, some are very
>easy to detect via listening.

While I suspect this is quite true it is also quite irrelevent to the issue.

Mr. Chung said

>Dick was *not* saying that *all*
>measureable differences are hard to detect.

There were a lot of things he didn't say. I don't think you got the point of
what he did say. He was attacking the "claims" of the "experts" based on a
false premise that these "experts" claim to hear differences between amps of
different models but "claim" to not hear differences of different units of the
same model even though they measure differently. I simply pointed out that the
group of listeners he was trying to discredit did not always follow the premise
he laid down for his argument. He was building his attack on a manufactured
stereotype. It seems you didn't get that.

Mr. Chung said

>Dick also made the point that specs are not measurements, and that
>similar specs do not necessarily lead to similar measurements, since
>specs are a small subset of possible measurements. Different units of
>the same model of equipment may have identical specs and yet measure
>
>differently, and *some* (NOT necessarily ALL) of those differences are
>not detectible by expert listeners.
>

All of whch is irrelevent to my original post.

Mr. Chung said

>
>What your retailers were saying was that there are amps of the same
>model that sound different.

Yes, which is in conflict with Dick's statement.."Further, I can find two
samples of the same model and easily find measurable differences between them,
yet "expert" listeners will claim they sound identical " Maybe some will maybe
some won't. He is making a prediction based on an ill opinion of a large group
of diverse audiophiles that has not always been the case in the real world. It
is a flawed premise.

Mr. Chung said

>Ignoring the veracity of that statement for
>the purpose of this discussion, why do you think it contradicts what
>Dick was saying?

See above.

Mr. Chung said

>
>Dick never said that all amps of the same model will sound the same.

Did I say he did?

Mr Chung said

>He
>only said that there are some differences in some models that are
>measureable and yet not detectible via listening.

That is not what he was saying in the quote I cited and it was not the point he
was making.

Mr. Chung said

>
>Got it?

I got it a long time ago. Let me know when you get it.

All Ears

July 27th 03, 03:29 AM

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 Jul 2003 15:06:32 GMT, "All Ears" > wrote:
>
> >That is what I meant by what is "commenly" rated as being important
> >measurements. From these parameters it is impossible for me to explain
why a
> >modern OTL tube amplifier is able to perform the way it does, I haven't
> >heard anything that even comes close in sonic performance, with the right
> >speakers. We are not talking lush tube sound here, but fast like a bat
out
> >of hell, deep well articulated bass and a reproduction of voices and
> >acoustic instruments like nothing I have heard before.
>
> Actually, that's exactly the same result that you'll get from any
> halfway decent solid-state amp, at around a fifth of the price, and no
> need to replace the active devices every couple of years...........

Not according my experiences.....This is very special. Anyway, in theory,
almost any solid state amplifier should be superior in sonic performance,
compared to someting of this construction, and by a big margin.....This is
defenitely not the case.

>
> Of course, if you choose the tubed OTL amp, you also need to ensure
> that the speakers have a flat impedance curve, because otherwise the
> sonic differences will be far from subtle.

They do indeed have a flat impedance curve.....

KE

> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Steven Sullivan

July 27th 03, 03:42 AM

Daniel > wrote:
> Steven Sullivan > wrote in message news:<e5FTa.130211$ye4.91902@sccrnsc01>...
>> > it comes to cable and wire. I'm somewhat down on high-end audio as a
>> > hobby and, even more, as a way to spend money, and wanted to know
>> > about dubious claims in these other areas.
>>
>> OK, I'll specifically look for amp and digital player ads. I haven't
>> seen any crazy speaker ads lately, aside from which, it's possible
>> for speakers to sound very different from each other.
>>
>> If you don't mind, I might also throw in some typically unsupported
>> claims from reviews and editorials.

> Hey, that'd be great. I mean, don't go to a *huge* amount of trouble,
> but it would be interesting to see examples of what you were talking
> about. Thanks.

I'm about to embark on this lit review, but I thought I'd throw
in first an exchange that I found on the
http://www.stevehoffman.tv forum today. In the interests of full
disclosure , I should mention that I got banned again from
posting to that forum yesterday, after I'd advised a fellow who
started a thread called "Buying premium speaker cables when you
don't believe in them. Need help!!! " He wondered why he couldn't
hear differences between some cables, and I suggested that maybe
there were no audible differences between the cables. That seems
to have violated the forum's rule against 'objective versus
subjective debate'.

The quotes below comes from a different thread, called "New
Interconects that I love!!!!!", itself apparently an
answer/offshoot of another called "Steve has finally found some
interconnects he loves! ". I'd avoided these threads heretofore
because I pretty much knew they'd be clusterf*cks of 'believers'
whose minds are inimical to scientific standards of proof
(whereas at least the 'Need help!" thread offered the possibility
of reason.) The beloved interconnects in question are from
Cardas (www.cardas.com) and Grover (available through the Hoffman
site), respectively. What's interesting here, as it relates to
mfr and advertising hype, is that we have a relatively rare
example of the maker of a cable actually engaging fans of another
cable. As is typical of advertising/mfr/reviewer hype, IME, the
cable maker offers a mix of essentially unarguable assertions
(e.g., that cables should be neutral) , with utterly dubious ones
(e.g. "copper haze', and the 'severe problem' of nonlinearity in
'most' cables), along with a promise of tremendous audible
improvement. The combination of the reasonable assertions and
the use of scientific jargon like 'linearity' gives the rest of
the claims a glaze of pseudo-authority. (It's also amusing that
Grover and his supporters are touting his $75 interconnects as
low-cost, 'better sounding' alternatives to Cardas' $800 ones,
wihtout having demonstrated that the $75 ones are any better
*sounding* than $5-$15 ones you can buy at Radio Shack.)

from
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?s=cad78d5ec4b5ea9d9f97b41fe1b275e3&threadid=18892)

"Cardas Cables are to die for!!!
Cardas Neatral Reference Excellent!!!
Cardas Quadlink 5C Excellent!!!
Entry Level 300B Microtwin an incredible value!!!
I tried many cables (not all).....
Cardas Rules!!!!! Nebin"

"Recently, I've purchased a pair of Kimber Hero interconnects
with WBT connectors based on a recommendation from Absolute Sound
magazine. After burning in the cables for about a week and a half
I set about some active listening. I was definitely impressed
with the degree of detail and wide sound-staging that these
cables provided. The Cardas cables are a bit softer at the
frequency extremes but the Kimber seems to offer a bit more
detail as compared to the Microtwins. ultron9"

"Its interesting to see your bold assertions and pride regarding
cardas $800+ interconnects. I assure you that your system will
dramatically improve replacing the cardas with my $75
interconnect. Give them a try. Grover"

"You Cardas guys are hilarious. The Highs a bit Soft!! Next to
the Kimbers? Good Grief the Kimbers have been history for a
while. Why afraid to try the Grovers and see how you have wasted
you money. Ha Ha!! Oh by the way just saw the Cardas $60 Din
connector looks like its made in China like their cables! Grover"

"Gentlemen, You have it wrong. You do not pick cables to aid
deficiencies in your system, you find the clearest neutral cables
so you can hear where you must upgrade your system. Most cables
are hazy especially copper ones and nonlinearity is always a
severe problem. Cables should never be looked upon as a method to
blend components. They must be clear as glass. Only as a last
resort should they be used to modify a weakness. Grover"

-- -S.

chung

July 27th 03, 04:46 PM

I find some of these opinions/testimonials amazingly similar in tone to
those endless spam ads promoting pills that enlarge a certain part of
one's anatomy...

Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
>
> > from
> http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?s=cad78d5ec4b5ea9d9f97b41fe1b275e3&threadid=18892)
>
> "Cardas Cables are to die for!!!
> Cardas Neatral Reference Excellent!!!
> Cardas Quadlink 5C Excellent!!!
> Entry Level 300B Microtwin an incredible value!!!
> I tried many cables (not all).....
> Cardas Rules!!!!! Nebin"
>
> "Recently, I've purchased a pair of Kimber Hero interconnects
> with WBT connectors based on a recommendation from Absolute Sound
> magazine. After burning in the cables for about a week and a half
> I set about some active listening. I was definitely impressed
> with the degree of detail and wide sound-staging that these
> cables provided. The Cardas cables are a bit softer at the
> frequency extremes but the Kimber seems to offer a bit more
> detail as compared to the Microtwins. ultron9"
>
> "Its interesting to see your bold assertions and pride regarding
> cardas $800+ interconnects. I assure you that your system will
> dramatically improve replacing the cardas with my $75
> interconnect. Give them a try. Grover"
>
> "You Cardas guys are hilarious. The Highs a bit Soft!! Next to
> the Kimbers? Good Grief the Kimbers have been history for a
> while. Why afraid to try the Grovers and see how you have wasted
> you money. Ha Ha!! Oh by the way just saw the Cardas $60 Din
> connector looks like its made in China like their cables! Grover"
>
> "Gentlemen, You have it wrong. You do not pick cables to aid
> deficiencies in your system, you find the clearest neutral cables
> so you can hear where you must upgrade your system. Most cables
> are hazy especially copper ones and nonlinearity is always a
> severe problem. Cables should never be looked upon as a method to
> blend components. They must be clear as glass. Only as a last
> resort should they be used to modify a weakness. Grover"
>
> -- -S.
>

Stewart Pinkerton

July 27th 03, 04:47 PM

On 27 Jul 2003 02:29:18 GMT, "All Ears" > wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
>> On 26 Jul 2003 15:06:32 GMT, "All Ears" > wrote:
>>
>> >That is what I meant by what is "commenly" rated as being important
>> >measurements. From these parameters it is impossible for me to explain why a
>> >modern OTL tube amplifier is able to perform the way it does, I haven't
>> >heard anything that even comes close in sonic performance, with the right
>> >speakers. We are not talking lush tube sound here, but fast like a bat out
>> >of hell, deep well articulated bass and a reproduction of voices and
>> >acoustic instruments like nothing I have heard before.
>>
>> Actually, that's exactly the same result that you'll get from any
>> halfway decent solid-state amp, at around a fifth of the price, and no
>> need to replace the active devices every couple of years...........
>
>Not according my experiences.....This is very special.

Certainly, the price of a tubed OTL amp is special...........

>Anyway, in theory,
>almost any solid state amplifier should be superior in sonic performance,
>compared to someting of this construction, and by a big margin.....This is
>defenitely not the case.

If in fact there really *is* a sonic difference (and that's a big
'if'), then it's a fundamental fact of life that the tubed amp must be
*adding* something that wasn't in the input signal. You may very well
*like* that sound, but it ain't high fidelity!

I'd hazard a guess that *if* there is any real difference, you're
hearing a little extra 'ambience' generated by reverberation within
the tubes.

>> Of course, if you choose the tubed OTL amp, you also need to ensure
>> that the speakers have a flat impedance curve, because otherwise the
>> sonic differences will be far from subtle.
>
>They do indeed have a flat impedance curve.....

That should make a blind level-matched comparison with a good SS amp
much easier. Try it, you may be surprised....
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

All Ears

July 27th 03, 06:40 PM

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
> On 27 Jul 2003 02:29:18 GMT, "All Ears" > wrote:
>
> >"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 26 Jul 2003 15:06:32 GMT, "All Ears" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >That is what I meant by what is "commenly" rated as being important
> >> >measurements. From these parameters it is impossible for me to explain
why a
> >> >modern OTL tube amplifier is able to perform the way it does, I
haven't
> >> >heard anything that even comes close in sonic performance, with the
right
> >> >speakers. We are not talking lush tube sound here, but fast like a bat
out
> >> >of hell, deep well articulated bass and a reproduction of voices and
> >> >acoustic instruments like nothing I have heard before.
> >>
> >> Actually, that's exactly the same result that you'll get from any
> >> halfway decent solid-state amp, at around a fifth of the price, and no
> >> need to replace the active devices every couple of years...........
> >
> >Not according my experiences.....This is very special.
>
> Certainly, the price of a tubed OTL amp is special...........

Right, but this is not the point here.....

>
> >Anyway, in theory,
> >almost any solid state amplifier should be superior in sonic performance,
> >compared to someting of this construction, and by a big margin.....This
is
> >defenitely not the case.
>
> If in fact there really *is* a sonic difference (and that's a big
> 'if'), then it's a fundamental fact of life that the tubed amp must be
> *adding* something that wasn't in the input signal. You may very well
> *like* that sound, but it ain't high fidelity!
>
> I'd hazard a guess that *if* there is any real difference, you're
> hearing a little extra 'ambience' generated by reverberation within
> the tubes.
>
> >> Of course, if you choose the tubed OTL amp, you also need to ensure
> >> that the speakers have a flat impedance curve, because otherwise the
> >> sonic differences will be far from subtle.
> >
> >They do indeed have a flat impedance curve.....
>
> That should make a blind level-matched comparison with a good SS amp
> much easier. Try it, you may be surprised....

A good SS amp does indeed sound great with these speakers, especially with
the right pre amp. The end result is however a bit more sterile and not
quite as realistic a reproduction. I was a bit surprised to experience this
as well, but that is how it is.

KE

> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Wylie Williams

July 27th 03, 07:12 PM

I keep seeing the following quote:

> >>>>Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily
> >>>>find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
> >>>>will claim they sound identical.

I don't know what differences are being referred to. There are all sorts of
possible differences, like small but measurable variations in color, weight,
etc., that I think almost everyone would agree are irrelevant to hearing.
Could it be that some of the other small differences that are being measured
are irrelevant to hearing as well?

Norman Schwartz

July 27th 03, 07:13 PM

"Richard D Pierce" wrote:

>
> Face it, the high-end audio industry is DECADES behind behind
> the state of the art in many areas, and this is just one
> example. I'm not going to give a tutorial on the current range
> of available measurements

Measurements haven't led to the construction of great sounding concert
halls, pianos or violins and it appears useful to refer to that which was
done CENTURIES ago.

S888Wheel

July 27th 03, 07:14 PM

Dick said

>
>If, by "OTL tube amplifier" your mean a transformerless output,
>then, my goodness, the measurable differences between this type
>of amplifier and, say, any given solid state amplifier when
>driving the same loudspeaker are ENORMOUS, simply because of the
>substantially higher output impedance of the OTL amplifier. That

>
>difference, again when measured with specific speaker loads,
>leads to a HUGE difference in the frequency response of the
>system. I'm not talking a quarter dB here or there, I'm talking
>about MANY dB of difference. Just that difference alone is
>hugely audible and I would not be the least suprised to find

>
>that, in fact, the "specs" of such an amplifier, when measured
>in situ, are unlike any other amplifier around.

>So, one point of your basic premise is immediately falsified: an
>tube OTL amplifier CANNOT have the same simple measurements like
>frequency response: they simply cannot. Thus, claiming that two
>amplifiers, one OTL, one solid state have similar specs but
>sound different falls apart simply because they don't behave
>even remotely similarily.

Would you say this is true of all OTLs or some OTLs?

S888Wheel

July 27th 03, 07:14 PM

Dick said

>>>>>Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily
>>>>>find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
>>>>>will claim they sound identical. What does THAT do to your
>>>>>"theory?"

>> I said
>
>>>
>>>> I know of a few retailers that say otherwise. One time I was told that if
>>>you
>>>> hear a particular amp from one particular manufacturer that you like that
>>>you
>>>> should buy that unit. the rest will sound different.

>
>> Mr. Chung said
>
>>>
>>>How does that contradict what Dick was saying?
>

I said

>
>
>> Isn't it obvious? He said "expert" listeners will claim that amps of the
>same
>> model will claim they sound identical. That is not always the case.
>

Steven said

>
>Isn't it obvious that he didn't say it was always the case?
>

No. His claim was not explicitly qualified nor do I see any implied
qualifications. He was building an argument on a flawed premise. He was
painting a large group of diverse listeners with a stereotype to ridicule them.
Further, when he replied to my comment he did not choose to make any such
qualifications of his statement as you are doing for him. Instead he chose to
attack my comment by lumping me into the same stereotype that he built on a
false premise. I find it particularly bad judgement on dick's part given his
tendency to object so intensely when others argue with him on what he believes
to be false premises about him.

Stewart Pinkerton

July 27th 03, 09:43 PM

On 27 Jul 2003 17:39:35 GMT, "All Ears" > wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...

>>Speakers are designed to respond
>> linearly to a constant voltage input, and most modern speakers assume
>> drive by a constant voltage source, i.e. an amp with very low output
>> impedance and high reserves of current. This is a fair description of
>> a good SS amp, but not at all of a tubed OTL amp, which can have
>> several *ohms* output impedance.
>
>So Ohms law does not apply to speakers, interesting....

Ohm's Law certainly does apply. I suggest that you read up on it.

>> In reality, those specifications would give you a *very* good idea of
>> how the sound will be affected. Putting a 3-ohm resistor in series
>> with the output of a SS amp will give a result which is probably
>> sonically indistinguishable from a well-designed tubed OTL amp (if
>> that's not an oxymoron).
>
>The OTLs has adjustable feed back, and thereby also output impedance, lowest
>setting is not the one that sounds best. Guess you could say that the sound
>becomes more like a solid state amp at max. feed back. A 3 ohm resistor in
>series with the output from a SS amp, would give a sloppy poor controlled
>bass. This is not the case with the OTL

Yeah, riiiiight..............

Time for a reality check? Why not actually try comparing the two under
level-matched blind conditions? I predict that your prejudices will
not be confirmed.

>> >A test situation is stressful to many people, not all, but many. The real
>> >challenge is to find a way to do this, to a large number of people, in way
>> >that would not be "test like" but more in an amusing or relaxing way.
>>
>> Actually no, the real challenge is to have the courage and honesty to
>> do it yourself, and let the results fall where they may.
>
>Well, that is what I think I am doing, I'm not trying to bull**** anybody,
>not even myself.

So try a blind test, and discover what *really* sounds
better/different.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton

July 27th 03, 09:44 PM

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:14:10 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

>Dick said

>>So, one point of your basic premise is immediately falsified: an
>>tube OTL amplifier CANNOT have the same simple measurements like
>>frequency response: they simply cannot. Thus, claiming that two
>>amplifiers, one OTL, one solid state have similar specs but
>>sound different falls apart simply because they don't behave
>>even remotely similarily.
>
>Would you say this is true of all OTLs or some OTLs?

I would say it's true of all commercially available tubed OTL amps.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

All Ears

July 27th 03, 11:40 PM

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
> On 27 Jul 2003 17:39:35 GMT, "All Ears" > wrote:
>
> >"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>Speakers are designed to respond
> >> linearly to a constant voltage input, and most modern speakers assume
> >> drive by a constant voltage source, i.e. an amp with very low output
> >> impedance and high reserves of current. This is a fair description of
> >> a good SS amp, but not at all of a tubed OTL amp, which can have
> >> several *ohms* output impedance.
> >
> >So Ohms law does not apply to speakers, interesting....
>
> Ohm's Law certainly does apply. I suggest that you read up on it.

The actual force, that the motor of the driver produces, depends on the
current induced into the coil, right? Does normal speakers have a totally
flat impedance curve? Assuming that the voltage is kept constant, and the
inpedance changes, will this not give an unlinear current, which results in
amplitude variations over the band? (Rehercing Ohms law:)

>
> >> In reality, those specifications would give you a *very* good idea of
> >> how the sound will be affected. Putting a 3-ohm resistor in series
> >> with the output of a SS amp will give a result which is probably
> >> sonically indistinguishable from a well-designed tubed OTL amp (if
> >> that's not an oxymoron).
> >
> >The OTLs has adjustable feed back, and thereby also output impedance,
lowest
> >setting is not the one that sounds best. Guess you could say that the
sound
> >becomes more like a solid state amp at max. feed back. A 3 ohm resistor
in
> >series with the output from a SS amp, would give a sloppy poor controlled
> >bass. This is not the case with the OTL
>
> Yeah, riiiiight..............

They are realistically reproducing drum kicks, bass etc. That is what I
expect from a high end system. They do not "slam" to the same extend as an
SS amp, but I can live with that.

>
> Time for a reality check? Why not actually try comparing the two under
> level-matched blind conditions? I predict that your prejudices will
> not be confirmed.
>
> >> >A test situation is stressful to many people, not all, but many. The
real
> >> >challenge is to find a way to do this, to a large number of people, in
way
> >> >that would not be "test like" but more in an amusing or relaxing way.
> >>
> >> Actually no, the real challenge is to have the courage and honesty to
> >> do it yourself, and let the results fall where they may.
> >
> >Well, that is what I think I am doing, I'm not trying to bull****
anybody,
> >not even myself.
>
> So try a blind test, and discover what *really* sounds
> better/different.

I will compare the OTLs to a set of SS current amplifiers next week, this
will be interesting.

KE

> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton

July 28th 03, 03:46 PM

On 27 Jul 2003 22:40:31 GMT, "All Ears" > wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
>> On 27 Jul 2003 17:39:35 GMT, "All Ears" > wrote:
>>
>> >"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> >>Speakers are designed to respond
>> >> linearly to a constant voltage input, and most modern speakers assume
>> >> drive by a constant voltage source, i.e. an amp with very low output
>> >> impedance and high reserves of current. This is a fair description of
>> >> a good SS amp, but not at all of a tubed OTL amp, which can have
>> >> several *ohms* output impedance.
>> >
>> >So Ohms law does not apply to speakers, interesting....
>>
>> Ohm's Law certainly does apply. I suggest that you read up on it.
>
>The actual force, that the motor of the driver produces, depends on the
>current induced into the coil, right? Does normal speakers have a totally
>flat impedance curve? Assuming that the voltage is kept constant, and the
>inpedance changes, will this not give an unlinear current, which results in
>amplitude variations over the band? (Rehercing Ohms law:)

Your first statement is correct. Almost all commercially available
'hi-fi' speakers have a very non-flat impedance curve. Such speakers
are however designed to have a flat amplitude response with constant
*voltage* input. This does indeed lead to some pretty wild variations
in current, but these are indications of varying efficiency, not
varying amplitude.

>I will compare the OTLs to a set of SS current amplifiers next week, this
>will be interesting.

Good. Be sure to match levels at the speaker terminals, and to do the
test under double-blind protocols, for best results.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Richard D Pierce

July 28th 03, 03:48 PM

In article <5EUUa.141533$OZ2.27789@rwcrnsc54>,
S888Wheel > wrote:
>Dick said

Mr. Wheel, Dick said one thing, Your paraphrasing of what Dick
said is something else entirely. I should know. I am Dick.

Please do NOT use YOUR paraphrasing of what I have said as a
substitute for what I actually said. You have demonstrated in
this thread you are not very good at it.

Thank you.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Richard D Pierce

July 28th 03, 03:51 PM

In article >,
All Ears > wrote:
>> And this may well not be the only difference: such an output
>> impedance is MORE than enough to substantially reduce the
>> damping of the entire amplifier/speaker system, possibly
>> DOUBLING its Qt at resonance, which could intriduce ANOTHER 3 dB
>> of frequency respose error all by itself. You have a system
>> which has frequency response differences approaching +-4 dB
>> compared to a driving it with a solid state or even transroemr
>> coupled tube a,mplifier with appropriate feedback.
>>
>> With this information in hand, that the OTL amplifier introduces
>> frequency response variations ranging over +-4 dB compared to a
>> sommon solid state amplifier, how can you say they meaure the
>> same? They clearly cannot and DO not.
>
>I do not disagree with what you are saying, but if this was the real audible
>truth, these amplifiers should sound really bad and unnatural, the point is,
>they are not, even compared to very good solid state amplifiers. As I said,
>acoustic instruments (also bass) and voices are the most realistic
>reproduced I have heard so far!

"Truth" is what you believe, and may be at odds with the facts.

Beyond that, I am not saying that the result is "bad and
unnatural," That's a judgement I will not make because it is a
preferential thing.

I am refuting your claim that such an amplifier could ever
possibly measure even remotely the same. My argument is not
whether the result saound good or bad, that's your decision to
make. My argument is to directly challenge your claim that this
amplifier could measure like any other IN SITU: they can't, it's
as simple as that.

Thus, your premise, or your question, as the case may be, "how
can two amplifier that have similar specs sound so different" is
is meaningless in the face of the fact that two such amps SIMPLY
CAN'T HAVE SIMILAR SPECS.

Do you understand the point?

>Actually, the speakers I use are all designed by tube lovers, furthermore,
>the only speaker design that will act in a close to linear way to a voltage
>source, are one way speakers or headphones. All the rest are compromises. A
>speaker reacts in a quite linear way to the current you put into it, not the
>voltage. There are ways of compensating, I know, but again, it is a
>compromise.
>
>I'll get some solid state current amplifiers next week, this will be
>interesting......

Sir, I believe yo do NOT understand the difference between the
terms "current source" and "voltage source" and, further, you
have a misunderstanding of the operation of loudspeakers, as I
pointed out and hopefully set you on a more correct path in a
different post.

>> There are such standards, though there is not an all-
>> encompassing standard for the entire chain (the AES has 40 some
>> standards, the ISO has the entire realm of 60268, for example),
>> but, to be frank with you, THE most egregious violators of these
>> standard is, in fact, the high-end audion industry, ESPECIALLY
>> when it comes to realistic comparable performance
>> specifications.
>
>It would be an interesting goal to persue, to get one useful standard for
>the entire chain.

But, with the appalling lack of technical expertise in the
high-end industry, they are the least able to follow such a
path.

>> >Sorry for mixing up specifications and measurements, as you say yourself,
>> >there are more relevant measurements, than what are used as marketing
>> >arguments today (right?)
>>
>> Indeed, especially in the high-end audio industry. Your OTL
>> amplifier is one such glaring example.
>
>There are almost no specifications available for the OTL's, since they would
>not give an objective idea of the end result.

Oh, precisely the opposite, a complete set of performance data
would give a VERY GOOD iobjective dea of the end result. The
manufacturer might not like the picture painted, but it would be
pretty precise.

>> And why is simply eliminating the direct knowledge of what
>> equipment is playing a hindernace to relaxation? If you HAVE to
>> know that you are listening to your OTL amplifier in order to
>> relax, guess, what: YOUR ENJOYMENT ISN'T ABOUT SOUND, IT'S ABOUT
>> BRAND NAMES!
>
>Absolutely nonsence,

Hardly, if you read your statement.

But your failed to answer the question:

Why is eliminatiung the direct knowledge of what equipment
is playing a hinderance to relaxation?

Please answer that question, as it is at the very root of your
complaints about DB testing.

>> >> And if someone makes a claim about the ability to hear a
>> >> difference, THEY HAVE ALREADY INTRODUCED THE BASIS OF THE STRESS
>> >> IN MAKING THE CLAIM, it could be argued. They have put their
>> >> opinion on the line. If a "test" exacerbates the stress, it may
>> >> well be because the subject now has doubts as to whether the
>> >> original claim is uspportable.
>> >
>> >I try to keep an open mind, and are not stoubernly defending any specific
>> >ideals, brands etc.
>>
>> But if you HAVE to know what the brand is to relax, which is one
>> implication of your staement above, then you are NOT keeping an
>> open mind.
>
>Again, I could not care less about the brand, I only care about enjoying
>music the best I can.

Fine, then you why would you have any objections to listening
without having prior knowledge of what you were listening to
equipment-wise?

>> All that double blind is asking is that you detect the
>> difference BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE. That's all. Thus, if you
>> think that a mass loading puck is going to make a difference and
>> YOU are interested in seeing if this is the case, all that blind
>> testing is asking is that you see if you can HEAR the difference
>> BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE.
>
>If you "know" there is no difference in the sound, would it be likely that
>you would actually hear it?

But you DON'T know there is no difference. Why claim otherwise.
The idea is to see IF you CAN detect a difference by sound
alone. If you can, guess what, there are audibly detectable
differences!

>Even, if my imagination only, can change a sound image from being harsh, to
>being pleasing, why not use this tweak?

Then, very simply, it's not about sound. It might be about
perception, but it is about perception in the absebce of the
sonic stimuli to produce the perception. You are perfectly
welcome to use any tweaks for any reason you want, I certainly
don't care.

But the issue comes when someone makes the claim, "it makes a
difference in the SOUND." You just admitted that a tweak may
work on imagination only, so you just stated that, in such a
case IT ISN'T ABOUT THE SOUND.

>> Why is that stressful?
>
>A test situation is stressful to many people, not all, but many.

You keep asserting this without any data or hypothesis to back
it up.
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Richard D Pierce

July 28th 03, 04:03 PM

In article >,
S888Wheel > wrote:
>Dick said
>
>>So, one point of your basic premise is immediately falsified: an
>>tube OTL amplifier CANNOT have the same simple measurements like
>>frequency response: they simply cannot. Thus, claiming that two
>>amplifiers, one OTL, one solid state have similar specs but
>>sound different falls apart simply because they don't behave
>>even remotely similarily.
>
>Would you say this is true of all OTLs or some OTLs?

Can you point out a specific OTL tube amplifier that has a
broadband output impedance of less than 0.05 times the nominal
impecance of the loudspeaker connected to it?

It's as simple as that. Show us the data, and your question is
answered.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Richard D Pierce

July 28th 03, 04:22 PM

In article >,
All Ears > wrote:
>"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
>> On 27 Jul 2003 17:39:35 GMT, "All Ears" > wrote:
>>
>> >"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> >>Speakers are designed to respond
>> >> linearly to a constant voltage input, and most modern speakers assume
>> >> drive by a constant voltage source, i.e. an amp with very low output
>> >> impedance and high reserves of current. This is a fair description of
>> >> a good SS amp, but not at all of a tubed OTL amp, which can have
>> >> several *ohms* output impedance.
>> >
>> >So Ohms law does not apply to speakers, interesting....
>>
>> Ohm's Law certainly does apply. I suggest that you read up on it.
>
>The actual force, that the motor of the driver produces, depends on the
>current induced into the coil, right? Does normal speakers have a totally
>flat impedance curve? Assuming that the voltage is kept constant, and the
>inpedance changes, will this not give an unlinear current, which results in
>amplitude variations over the band? (Rehercing Ohms law:)

First, what you desribed is NOT Ohm's law.

Second your analysis falls WOEFULLY short of anything even
barely adequate to describe how speakers work.

You analysis, for example, predicts that under a constant
current, the speaker MUST, below resonance, have a response
which is independent of frequency, i.e., the speaker does not
roll off. Since it does, your analysis in that region is
incorrect.

Secondly, your analysis predicts that even considering the naive
and simple model of current only, the efficiency at resonance
MUST go down, since the impedance rises at resonance, yet it can
be trivially arranged by non-electrical means that even as the
current goes down, the efficiency and the output of the driver
go UP.

Basically, your basic premise is completely flwed because it
simply ignores the fact that speakers are mechncially resonant
devices, that the simple static model you are relying on fails
immediately once you get out of the region of DC exitation
(which, if you sit down and think it through, is the hidden
assumption in your premise).

Be that as it may, speakers which have flat impedance curve get
there by having complex conjugate circuits tto concel the
impedance variations in the drivers. That means that while they
may have a constant current vs frequency profile AS A SYSTEM,
the drivers themselves do not: they STILL have a current that is
frequency dependent on their individual impedance vs frequency
properties. I would suggest that you get your head out of the
"Ohm's Law" hole and start studying Thevenin, Kirchoff and, once
that's under your belt, start studying Thiele and Small.

Besically, your assertion is wrong, is what it comes down to.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

All Ears

July 28th 03, 08:17 PM

"Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> All Ears > wrote:
> >> And this may well not be the only difference: such an output
> >> impedance is MORE than enough to substantially reduce the
> >> damping of the entire amplifier/speaker system, possibly
> >> DOUBLING its Qt at resonance, which could intriduce ANOTHER 3 dB
> >> of frequency respose error all by itself. You have a system
> >> which has frequency response differences approaching +-4 dB
> >> compared to a driving it with a solid state or even transroemr
> >> coupled tube a,mplifier with appropriate feedback.
> >>
> >> With this information in hand, that the OTL amplifier introduces
> >> frequency response variations ranging over +-4 dB compared to a
> >> sommon solid state amplifier, how can you say they meaure the
> >> same? They clearly cannot and DO not.
> >
> >I do not disagree with what you are saying, but if this was the real
audible
> >truth, these amplifiers should sound really bad and unnatural, the point
is,
> >they are not, even compared to very good solid state amplifiers. As I
said,
> >acoustic instruments (also bass) and voices are the most realistic
> >reproduced I have heard so far!
>
> "Truth" is what you believe, and may be at odds with the facts.
>
> Beyond that, I am not saying that the result is "bad and
> unnatural," That's a judgement I will not make because it is a
> preferential thing.
>
> I am refuting your claim that such an amplifier could ever
> possibly measure even remotely the same. My argument is not
> whether the result saound good or bad, that's your decision to
> make. My argument is to directly challenge your claim that this
> amplifier could measure like any other IN SITU: they can't, it's
> as simple as that.
>
> Thus, your premise, or your question, as the case may be, "how
> can two amplifier that have similar specs sound so different" is
> is meaningless in the face of the fact that two such amps SIMPLY
> CAN'T HAVE SIMILAR SPECS.
>
> Do you understand the point?

Yes I think we agree about this point, but I am still wondering how an OTL
can obtain such a good tonal balance and speaker control with such a high
output impedance, I am even using 4 ohm speakers, which presents no problem
at all. I would guess that you have listend to a few OTLs yourself, and
could have had the same thoughts.
>
> >Actually, the speakers I use are all designed by tube lovers,
furthermore,
> >the only speaker design that will act in a close to linear way to a
voltage
> >source, are one way speakers or headphones. All the rest are compromises.
A
> >speaker reacts in a quite linear way to the current you put into it, not
the
> >voltage. There are ways of compensating, I know, but again, it is a
> >compromise.
> >
> >I'll get some solid state current amplifiers next week, this will be
> >interesting......
>
> Sir, I believe yo do NOT understand the difference between the
> terms "current source" and "voltage source" and, further, you
> have a misunderstanding of the operation of loudspeakers, as I
> pointed out and hopefully set you on a more correct path in a
> different post.

These amplifiers monitors the impedance at the speaker terminals, and
adjusts the feed back loop accordingly, so the term current source applies
very well.

>
> >> There are such standards, though there is not an all-
> >> encompassing standard for the entire chain (the AES has 40 some
> >> standards, the ISO has the entire realm of 60268, for example),
> >> but, to be frank with you, THE most egregious violators of these
> >> standard is, in fact, the high-end audion industry, ESPECIALLY
> >> when it comes to realistic comparable performance
> >> specifications.
> >
> >It would be an interesting goal to persue, to get one useful standard for
> >the entire chain.
>
> But, with the appalling lack of technical expertise in the
> high-end industry, they are the least able to follow such a
> path.

It should be possible to find a few serious manufactures in the industry,
anyway, a standard would give a goal to persue for the serious ones. It
could be implemented like the ISO or similar standard.

>
> >> >Sorry for mixing up specifications and measurements, as you say
yourself,
> >> >there are more relevant measurements, than what are used as marketing
> >> >arguments today (right?)
> >>
> >> Indeed, especially in the high-end audio industry. Your OTL
> >> amplifier is one such glaring example.
> >
> >There are almost no specifications available for the OTL's, since they
would
> >not give an objective idea of the end result.
>
> Oh, precisely the opposite, a complete set of performance data
> would give a VERY GOOD iobjective dea of the end result. The
> manufacturer might not like the picture painted, but it would be
> pretty precise.

I haven't really seen anybody disliking the sound of the few serious OTSs on
the market, but you may be an exception

>
> >> And why is simply eliminating the direct knowledge of what
> >> equipment is playing a hindernace to relaxation? If you HAVE to
> >> know that you are listening to your OTL amplifier in order to
> >> relax, guess, what: YOUR ENJOYMENT ISN'T ABOUT SOUND, IT'S ABOUT
> >> BRAND NAMES!
> >
> >Absolutely nonsence,
>
> Hardly, if you read your statement.
>
> But your failed to answer the question:

Even if I close my eyes, the OTLs sound great :)

>
> Why is eliminatiung the direct knowledge of what equipment
> is playing a hinderance to relaxation?
>
> Please answer that question, as it is at the very root of your
> complaints about DB testing.
>
> >> >> And if someone makes a claim about the ability to hear a
> >> >> difference, THEY HAVE ALREADY INTRODUCED THE BASIS OF THE STRESS
> >> >> IN MAKING THE CLAIM, it could be argued. They have put their
> >> >> opinion on the line. If a "test" exacerbates the stress, it may
> >> >> well be because the subject now has doubts as to whether the
> >> >> original claim is uspportable.
> >> >
> >> >I try to keep an open mind, and are not stoubernly defending any
specific
> >> >ideals, brands etc.
> >>
> >> But if you HAVE to know what the brand is to relax, which is one
> >> implication of your staement above, then you are NOT keeping an
> >> open mind.
> >
> >Again, I could not care less about the brand, I only care about enjoying
> >music the best I can.
>
> Fine, then you why would you have any objections to listening
> without having prior knowledge of what you were listening to
> equipment-wise?
>
> >> All that double blind is asking is that you detect the
> >> difference BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE. That's all. Thus, if you
> >> think that a mass loading puck is going to make a difference and
> >> YOU are interested in seeing if this is the case, all that blind
> >> testing is asking is that you see if you can HEAR the difference
> >> BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE.
> >
> >If you "know" there is no difference in the sound, would it be likely
that
> >you would actually hear it?
>
> But you DON'T know there is no difference. Why claim otherwise.
> The idea is to see IF you CAN detect a difference by sound
> alone. If you can, guess what, there are audibly detectable
> differences!
>
> >Even, if my imagination only, can change a sound image from being harsh,
to
> >being pleasing, why not use this tweak?
>
> Then, very simply, it's not about sound. It might be about
> perception, but it is about perception in the absebce of the
> sonic stimuli to produce the perception. You are perfectly
> welcome to use any tweaks for any reason you want, I certainly
> don't care.
>
> But the issue comes when someone makes the claim, "it makes a
> difference in the SOUND." You just admitted that a tweak may
> work on imagination only, so you just stated that, in such a
> case IT ISN'T ABOUT THE SOUND.

As a music lover, I am merely reporting observations, not writing sceintific
reports. I can only encurage people to use their own ears, and judge for
themselves.

>
> >> Why is that stressful?
> >
> >A test situation is stressful to many people, not all, but many.
>
> You keep asserting this without any data or hypothesis to back
> it up.
> --
> | Dick Pierce |
> | Professional Audio Development |
> | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
> | |
>

All Ears

July 28th 03, 09:40 PM

"Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
. net...
> In article >,
> All Ears > wrote:
> >"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 27 Jul 2003 17:39:35 GMT, "All Ears" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >> >>Speakers are designed to respond
> >> >> linearly to a constant voltage input, and most modern speakers
assume
> >> >> drive by a constant voltage source, i.e. an amp with very low output
> >> >> impedance and high reserves of current. This is a fair description
of
> >> >> a good SS amp, but not at all of a tubed OTL amp, which can have
> >> >> several *ohms* output impedance.
> >> >
> >> >So Ohms law does not apply to speakers, interesting....
> >>
> >> Ohm's Law certainly does apply. I suggest that you read up on it.
> >
> >The actual force, that the motor of the driver produces, depends on the
> >current induced into the coil, right? Does normal speakers have a totally
> >flat impedance curve? Assuming that the voltage is kept constant, and the
> >inpedance changes, will this not give an unlinear current, which results
in
> >amplitude variations over the band? (Rehercing Ohms law:)
>
> First, what you desribed is NOT Ohm's law.

I replaced resistance with inductance, but the end result will be almost the
same.

>
> Second your analysis falls WOEFULLY short of anything even
> barely adequate to describe how speakers work.

Compromises are made to correct for this issue, but they are compromises.

>
> You analysis, for example, predicts that under a constant
> current, the speaker MUST, below resonance, have a response
> which is independent of frequency, i.e., the speaker does not
> roll off. Since it does, your analysis in that region is
> incorrect.

Of course it rolls off at some point, I used a simplified model.

>
> Secondly, your analysis predicts that even considering the naive
> and simple model of current only, the efficiency at resonance
> MUST go down, since the impedance rises at resonance, yet it can
> be trivially arranged by non-electrical means that even as the
> current goes down, the efficiency and the output of the driver
> go UP.

To my knowledge, a typical ported speaker goes down in impedance around the
port resonance point, and raises in impedance around the cross over points.
Guess it is a typing error from your side, since the rest of the statement
seems correct.
>
> Basically, your basic premise is completely flwed because it
> simply ignores the fact that speakers are mechncially resonant
> devices, that the simple static model you are relying on fails
> immediately once you get out of the region of DC exitation
> (which, if you sit down and think it through, is the hidden
> assumption in your premise).
>
> Be that as it may, speakers which have flat impedance curve get
> there by having complex conjugate circuits tto concel the
> impedance variations in the drivers. That means that while they
> may have a constant current vs frequency profile AS A SYSTEM,
> the drivers themselves do not: they STILL have a current that is
> frequency dependent on their individual impedance vs frequency
> properties. I would suggest that you get your head out of the
> "Ohm's Law" hole and start studying Thevenin, Kirchoff and, once
> that's under your belt, start studying Thiele and Small.

Variations of transmission line speakers, can obtain a quit flat impedance
curve, with out complex circuits.
>
> Besically, your assertion is wrong, is what it comes down to.
>
> --
> | Dick Pierce |
> | Professional Audio Development |
> | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
> | |
>

Richard D Pierce

July 28th 03, 10:55 PM

In article <5EUUa.141533$OZ2.27789@rwcrnsc54>,
S888Wheel > wrote:
>No. His claim was not explicitly qualified nor do I see any implied
>qualifications. He was building an argument on a flawed premise. He was
>painting a large group of diverse listeners with a stereotype to ridicule them.

Mr. Wheel, this preposterous misinterpretation borders on out
and out dishonesty if you ask me.

My claim is very simple: there have been specific examples where
people making the claim of being expert listeners have presented
me with two pieces of equipment that sounded different, and they
claim that no measurable differences exist: I have quickly and
easily found large measurable differences. They have alson
presented me with equipment that they claim sounded identical,
and I have also found measurable differences, though not as
large.

The rest of your sorry monologue is simply more agenda-laden
nonsense that has nothing to do with what I said.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

chung

July 28th 03, 10:55 PM

All Ears wrote:
>
>
> Even if I close my eyes, the OTLs sound great :)
>

My youngest son always thinks that music sounds better when the bass and
treble controls are boosted. To him, the music is much more alive and
dynamic that way:).

The point is that having a not-flat frequency response can be euphonic.
A small boost in the mid-range can make human voices more pleasant, and
certain harmonic distortions can make some instruments sound fuller.

The other thing to keep in mind is that if one amp sounds different than
all others, while all the others sound very similar among themselves,
there is high probability that the one that sounds different is not
accurate.

Richard D Pierce

July 28th 03, 10:57 PM

In article >,
All Ears > wrote:
>> Beyond that, I am not saying that the result is "bad and
>> unnatural," That's a judgement I will not make because it is a
>> preferential thing.
>>
>> I am refuting your claim that such an amplifier could ever
>> possibly measure even remotely the same. My argument is not
>> whether the result saound good or bad, that's your decision to
>> make. My argument is to directly challenge your claim that this
>> amplifier could measure like any other IN SITU: they can't, it's
>> as simple as that.
>>
>> Thus, your premise, or your question, as the case may be, "how
>> can two amplifier that have similar specs sound so different" is
>> is meaningless in the face of the fact that two such amps SIMPLY
>> CAN'T HAVE SIMILAR SPECS.
>>
>> Do you understand the point?
>
>Yes I think we agree about this point,

It is clear to me we do not, because I feel you are still
laboring under a set of fundamental misunderstandings qbout how
things work.

>but I am still wondering how an OTL
>can obtain such a good tonal balance and speaker control with such a high
>output impedance,

I did NOT say "good" or "bad." I said, in direct refutation of
your point, that they cannot measure the same. Thus your premise
that "they measure the same but sound different" is entirely
refuted on its face.

>I am even using 4 ohm speakers, which presents no problem
>at all.

BY this statement alone, it is clear to me you do not understand
the technical imlications of the issue of OTL output impedance,
because it is more significant with 4 ohm speaker than with 8
ohm speakers.

>I would guess that you have listend to a few OTLs yourself, and
>could have had the same thoughts.

Why would you assume so?

>> >Actually, the speakers I use are all designed by tube lovers,

A comment on this: there are really VERY few really competent
speaker designers. Just being a lover of tubes does not qualify
one to design speakers for them.

>> Sir, I believe yo do NOT understand the difference between the
>> terms "current source" and "voltage source" and, further, you
>> have a misunderstanding of the operation of loudspeakers, as I
>> pointed out and hopefully set you on a more correct path in a
>> different post.
>
>These amplifiers monitors the impedance at the speaker terminals, and
>adjusts the feed back loop accordingly, so the term current source applies
>very well.

No, it os no ABUNDANTLY clear that your do not understand the
meaning of the term "current source" or "voltage source." It has
NOTHING to do with what you are desribing, which, by the way,
you are not describing correctly anyway.

The DEFINITION of a current source is very simple: a current
source is one whose effective Thevenin source impedance is
substantially larger than the load impedance. A voltage source
os one whose effective Thevenin source impedance is
substantially smaller than the load impedance. Period. All the
other hooey and hoopla and handwaving is nonsense.

And the result is real simple: driving a frequency dependent
load impedance from a current source will ALWAYS result in the
imposition of frequency response variations on the output of
that source and thus on the system as a whole in a way that is a
function of the load impedance.

Period. This is not some narrow-minded high-end agenda-driven
pseudo-definition, this is a precise technical description of
the physical behavior of the system.

>It should be possible to find a few serious manufactures in the industry,
>anyway, a standard would give a goal to persue for the serious ones. It
>could be implemented like the ISO or similar standard.

You missed the point, the standard ALREADY exist: it is the
high-end audio industry that is most guilty of egregious
violations of these standards. The high-end industry seems also
to be the least technically competent to follow such standards.

>> >There are almost no specifications available for the OTL's, since they
>would
>> >not give an objective idea of the end result.
>>
>> Oh, precisely the opposite, a complete set of performance data
>> would give a VERY GOOD iobjective dea of the end result. The
>> manufacturer might not like the picture painted, but it would be
>> pretty precise.
>
>I haven't really seen anybody disliking the sound of the few serious OTSs on
>the market, but you may be an exception

Excuse me, sir, that is NOT what I said, and that is NOT the
questyion you posed. You stated:

"There are almost no specifications available for the OTL's,
since they would not give an objective idea of the end
result."

And my refutation is that such specification, properly done,
would precisely lead to and exact idea of their objective
performance. You may like listening to the result. You may not.

But when, sir did I say, at ANY point, whether I did or did not
LIKE the result? (Hint: I never did and I object to you claiming
otherwise.)

>> >Absolutely nonsence,
>>
>> Hardly, if you read your statement.
>>
>> But your failed to answer the question:
>
>Even if I close my eyes, the OTLs sound great :)

You failed to answer the question yet again. Methinks you cannot
answer the question.

>> Why is eliminatiung the direct knowledge of what equipment
>> is playing a hinderance to relaxation?
>>
>> Please answer that question, as it is at the very root of your
>> complaints about DB testing.
>As a music lover, I am merely reporting observations, not writing sceintific
>reports. I can only encurage people to use their own ears, and judge for
>themselves.

But, if you KNOW the brand, if you KNOW what wires and what
amplifiers, guess what YOU AREN'T JUST USING YOUR EARS!

You are contradicting yourself: you say for people to trust
their ears and then you tell them not to.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Richard D Pierce

July 28th 03, 11:00 PM

In article >,
All Ears > wrote:
>> >> Ohm's Law certainly does apply. I suggest that you read up on it.
>> >
>> >The actual force, that the motor of the driver produces, depends on the
>> >current induced into the coil, right? Does normal speakers have a totally
>> >flat impedance curve? Assuming that the voltage is kept constant, and the
>> >inpedance changes, will this not give an unlinear current, which results
>in
>> >amplitude variations over the band? (Rehercing Ohms law:)
>>
>> First, what you desribed is NOT Ohm's law.
>
>I replaced resistance with inductance, but the end result will be almost the
>same.

In your case, yes, the end result will be the same: the wrong
answer.

>> Second your analysis falls WOEFULLY short of anything even
>> barely adequate to describe how speakers work.
>
>Compromises are made to correct for this issue, but they are compromises.

And they are clearly leading you down the wrong path.

>> You analysis, for example, predicts that under a constant
>> current, the speaker MUST, below resonance, have a response
>> which is independent of frequency, i.e., the speaker does not
>> roll off. Since it does, your analysis in that region is
>> incorrect.
>
>Of course it rolls off at some point, I used a simplified model.

But your simplified model predicts that it should NOT roll off,
therefore YOUR MODEL AND ANY CONCLUSIONS DRAWN THEREFROM ARE
WRONG.

Don't yet get this simple yet powerful concept?

>> Secondly, your analysis predicts that even considering the naive
>> and simple model of current only, the efficiency at resonance
>> MUST go down, since the impedance rises at resonance, yet it can
>> be trivially arranged by non-electrical means that even as the
>> current goes down, the efficiency and the output of the driver
>> go UP.
>
>To my knowledge, a typical ported speaker goes down in impedance around the
>port resonance point, and raises in impedance around the cross over points.
>Guess it is a typing error from your side, since the rest of the statement
>seems correct.

Sir, again, with all due respect, you really have absolutely NO
idea what you are talking about. I do not mean this as an
insult, and I do not say it lightly, but in all ernest
honestyand with no malice intended. Your really do not
understand in the most fundamental way how loudspeakers operate.
Your notion of the relation of current and acceleration and such
in loudspeakers is so fundamentally flawed that is is leading
you down a path from which you will be unable to make any sound
predictions of the way a speaker operates.

>> Basically, your basic premise is completely flwed because it
>> simply ignores the fact that speakers are mechncially resonant
>> devices, that the simple static model you are relying on fails
>> immediately once you get out of the region of DC exitation
>> (which, if you sit down and think it through, is the hidden
>> assumption in your premise).
>>
>> Be that as it may, speakers which have flat impedance curve get
>> there by having complex conjugate circuits tto concel the
>> impedance variations in the drivers. That means that while they
>> may have a constant current vs frequency profile AS A SYSTEM,
>> the drivers themselves do not: they STILL have a current that is
>> frequency dependent on their individual impedance vs frequency
>> properties. I would suggest that you get your head out of the
>> "Ohm's Law" hole and start studying Thevenin, Kirchoff and, once
>> that's under your belt, start studying Thiele and Small.
>
>Variations of transmission line speakers, can obtain a quit flat impedance
>curve, with out complex circuits.

Sorry, my friend, but you arte completely wrong here, I don't
know where you got this notion about the behavior of
transmission lines, but it is simply incorrect in the most
fundamental of ways.

It will be very hard to continue a productive conversation
from this point forward if you insist on holding fast to your
understandings of how loudspeakers work. Rather than continue
and have you lead yourself into some very embarrasing dead ends,
I'd rather one of us simply withdraw.

I have to say that this is a clear case where 22 years in a
hi-fi store did not make you an expert on loudspeakers (assuming
I have my attributions correct, I apologize if I have confused
you with someone else), indeed, I am sorry to say and again,
with no intent to insult, you are simply repeating some
ill-founded myths at best.

How speakers REALLY work is a deeply fascinating topic, one
which your are SO far from viewing with your current position. I
only hope that at some point you can abandon some of your
ill-founded and technically incorrect views and start to
appreciate how things actually work. It's really quite neat when
the understanding REALLY clicks.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Stewart Pinkerton

July 29th 03, 12:20 AM

On 28 Jul 2003 19:17:34 GMT, "All Ears" > wrote:

>Yes I think we agree about this point, but I am still wondering how an OTL
>can obtain such a good tonal balance and speaker control with such a high
>output impedance,

It cannot and does not (with a nominally flat speaker), you just
*like* that particular combination of amp and speaker.

> I am even using 4 ohm speakers, which presents no problem
>at all. I would guess that you have listend to a few OTLs yourself, and
>could have had the same thoughts.

Quite so. What you are hearing *may* be a serendipitous combination of
a fundamentally inferior amp design and a normally non-flat speaker,
but it's much more likely that you just *like* that sound.

>> >I'll get some solid state current amplifiers next week, this will be
>> >interesting......
>>
>> Sir, I believe yo do NOT understand the difference between the
>> terms "current source" and "voltage source" and, further, you
>> have a misunderstanding of the operation of loudspeakers, as I
>> pointed out and hopefully set you on a more correct path in a
>> different post.
>
>These amplifiers monitors the impedance at the speaker terminals, and
>adjusts the feed back loop accordingly, so the term current source applies
>very well.

No, it doesn't, in fact you are (badly) describing an overall feedback
system which is trying to do an even better job of producing a
constant voltage source. It's not a new technique. Please avoid
getting into excessively deep technical water.

>> >There are almost no specifications available for the OTL's, since they would
>> >not give an objective idea of the end result.
>>
>> Oh, precisely the opposite, a complete set of performance data
>> would give a VERY GOOD iobjective dea of the end result. The
>> manufacturer might not like the picture painted, but it would be
>> pretty precise.
>
>I haven't really seen anybody disliking the sound of the few serious OTSs on
>the market, but you may be an exception

Count me in also. BTW, an OTL amp is *not* a 'serious' design......

>> >> And why is simply eliminating the direct knowledge of what
>> >> equipment is playing a hindernace to relaxation? If you HAVE to
>> >> know that you are listening to your OTL amplifier in order to
>> >> relax, guess, what: YOUR ENJOYMENT ISN'T ABOUT SOUND, IT'S ABOUT
>> >> BRAND NAMES!
>> >
>> >Absolutely nonsence,
>>
>> Hardly, if you read your statement.
>>
>> But your failed to answer the question:
>
>Even if I close my eyes, the OTLs sound great :)

No one is arguing with your personal preference, but that's not the
point at issue here, and you know it.

>> But the issue comes when someone makes the claim, "it makes a
>> difference in the SOUND." You just admitted that a tweak may
>> work on imagination only, so you just stated that, in such a
>> case IT ISN'T ABOUT THE SOUND.
>
>As a music lover, I am merely reporting observations, not writing sceintific
>reports. I can only encurage people to use their own ears, and judge for
>themselves.

So why are you so reluctant to use *only* your ears, without
*knowledge* of which amp is playing?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Richard D Pierce

July 29th 03, 04:09 AM

On 28 Jul 2003 19:17:34 GMT, "All Ears" > wrote:
>These amplifiers monitors the impedance at the speaker terminals, and
>adjusts the feed back loop accordingly, so the term current source applies
>very well.

One more point, Mr. "Ears," I fear also that your description
above demonstrates a seriously flawed misunderstanding of the
very behavior of feedback. Not, these amplifiers DO NOT "monitor
the impedance at the speakers terminals," and they most
certainly DO NOT "adjust the feedback loop accordingly," and,
further, the term "current source" most certainly DOES NOT apply
as a result. A "current source" DOES NOT MEAN the same thing as
"a source of current," as the correct definition has been given
elsewhere.

Frankly, feedback operation, as it applies to audio amplifiers,
is MUCH simpler and, indeed, much more powerful than your
description implies. And, it should be noted, feedback is one of
the most poorly understood concepts by the high-end community
almost as an intrinsic property of the industry. More out-and-
out hooey and bunkum has been promulgated about feedback by
high-end manufacturers, magazine writers and other
self-appointed but clueless experts than almost any other topic.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Arny Krueger

July 29th 03, 06:23 AM

"Norman Schwartz" > wrote in message
. net
> "Richard D Pierce" wrote:

>> Face it, the high-end audio industry is DECADES behind behind
>> the state of the art in many areas, and this is just one
>> example. I'm not going to give a tutorial on the current range
>> of available measurements

> Measurements haven't led to the construction of great sounding concert
> halls, pianos or violins and it appears useful to refer to that which
> was done CENTURIES ago.

I'm not really conversant with where the art of making musical instruments
is going, but there's no doubt that modern acoustical architecture, which
does have its triumphs, is heavily based on physical parameters and
measurements.

I don't think that anybody would argue that great concert halls must be
designed based on a detailed understanding of physical parameters and
measurements. However, many modern architects have found that understanding
physical parameters and measurements is of great benefit.

Traditional approaches to building concert halls definitely worked. However,
the rate of developing the necessary largely intuitive understandings was
slow involving centuries, and by the end of the 19th century only a few
working configurations were available. One benefit of modern approaches is
greater flexibility in the general configuration of performance rooms that
can be designed so they sound good.

Richard D Pierce

July 29th 03, 06:24 AM

S888Wheel wrote:
>>>measureable differences that cannot be differentiated by expert
>>>listeners.
>>
>> Again that is not what he was saying.

Mr. Wheel, do me and yourself a real big favor., You have made
claims about what I said and what I meant and, pretty much, you
got them ALL wrong. Please do NOT pretend that your
interpretation of what I said is the same as what I said, you're
demonstrably bad at it.

>>Dick was *not* saying that *all*
>>measureable differences are hard to detect.
>
> There were a lot of things he didn't say.

For example, most of your minsinterpretations of what I said
are, you are quite correct, not things that I said.

>I don't think you got the point of
> what he did say.

Mr. Wheel, you are about as far from the point as anyone can be.

>>He was attacking the "claims" of the "experts" based on a
>> false premise that these "experts" claim to hear differences between amps of
>> different models but "claim" to not hear differences of different units of the
>> same model even though they measure differently. I simply pointed out that the
>> group of listeners he was trying to discredit did not always follow
>the premise
>> he laid down for his argument. He was building his attack on a manufactured
>> stereotype. It seems you didn't get that.

Mr. WHeel, I would thank you not to build yet another of your
ridiculuous strawmen as you did above. Take from the horse's
mouth, sir, the above is your preposterous, agenda laden total
misinterpretation of my words, and I would thank you to
apologize for your arraogance in attempting to pass them off as
mine.

My point was VERY simple: In ALL cases where differences were
heard, LARGE and CONSISTent differences in measurements are to
be had.

An ALL cases where NO differences where heard, there were STILL
measurable differences.

This was to specifically refute the claim that where differences
where heard, none were measured.

Gentle readers, Mr. Wheel's completely bogus "interpretation"
not withstand, the principle is simple, there are NO cases in my
exyensive experience where a confirmed audible difference was
NOT accompanied by consistant measurement differences.

Mr. Wheel, please to not attempt to "quote" or "interpret" me in
the future, you've demonstrated that you are terrible at it.

Thank you.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Richard D Pierce

July 29th 03, 06:24 AM

In article <XBUUa.141519$GL4.36697@rwcrnsc53>,
Wylie Williams > wrote:
>I keep seeing the following quote:
>
>> >>>>Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily
>> >>>>find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
>> >>>>will claim they sound identical.
>
>I don't know what differences are being referred to. There are all sorts of
>possible differences, like small but measurable variations in color, weight,
>etc., that I think almost everyone would agree are irrelevant to hearing.
>Could it be that some of the other small differences that are being measured
>are irrelevant to hearing as well?

What IS it with you people? The principle, despite Mr Wheels
completely boluxed minsinterprations, is simple:

When audible differences are, in fact, shown to exist where
these differences are consistently detectable based on sound
alone, they are ALWAYS accompanied by non-subtle and
consistent differences in measurement of their electrical or
acoustical properties.

This is specifically to refute the common and, frankly,
uninformed myth that there are audible differences while there
are no measurable differences. If you want to add your
ansurdities of color and the likem, that's YOUR choice, and you
have done nothing but confuse the issue.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Richard D Pierce

July 29th 03, 06:45 AM

S888Wheel

July 29th 03, 08:00 AM

Dick said

>
>Mr. Wheel, do me and yourself a real big favor., You have made
>claims about what I said and what I meant and, pretty much, you
>got them ALL wrong. Please do NOT pretend that your
>interpretation of what I said is the same as what I said, you're
>demonstrably bad at it.

If you didn't mean what you said then say it better next time. You said that
"expert' listeners *will* claim they hear no differences between amps of the
same model that measure differently. Either you can back this claim with some
evidence or you are just stereotyping "expert" listeners.

Dick said

>
>For example, most of your minsinterpretations of what I said
>are, you are quite correct, not things that I said.
>

Cite an example of an actual *misrepresentation* of what you said.

Dick said

>
>Mr. Wheel, you are about as far from the point as anyone can be.
>

Prove it. Prove that my claim regarding your post inwhich you said..."Further,
I can find two samples of the same model and easily
find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
will claim they sound identical. What does THAT do to your
"theory?" is as far from the point as anyone can be. If you remember, all I
said about this was that not all "expert" listeners have made this claim. You
were, as I said before, building an argument on a false premise. that's it!
That's all I was saying! Now either prove that you prediction that "expert"
listeners *will* claim said amplifiers sound the same or deal with the fact
that you were caught building an argument on a false premise. It's that simple.

I said

>
>>>He was attacking the "claims" of the "experts" based on a
>>> false premise that these "experts" claim to hear differences between amps
>of
>>> different models but "claim" to not hear differences of different units of
>the
>>> same model even though they measure differently. I simply pointed out that
>the
>>> group of listeners he was trying to discredit did not always follow
>>the premise
>>> he laid down for his argument. He was building his attack on a
>manufactured
>>> stereotype. It seems you didn't get that.
>

Dick said

>Mr. WHeel, I would thank you not to build yet another of your
>ridiculuous strawmen as you did above.

>Take from the horse's
>mouth, sir, the above is your preposterous, agenda laden total
>misinterpretation of my words,

Ridiculous. I should take your word for it that my comments were agenda laden?
Implied mind reading noted. Tell me, how many fingers am I holding up?

Dick said

>and I would thank you to
>apologize for your arraogance in attempting to pass them off as
>mine.

Dick, it is laughable that you would find me arrogant. It is ironic that you
would build a straw man argument to argue that mine was a straw man argument. I
did not misrepresent your words. for the most part I have been quoting them.
You don't like my interpretation of your words? fine. work on saying what you
mean next time. You said...Further, I can find two samples of the same model
and easily
find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
will claim they sound identical. What does THAT do to your
"theory?" I pointed out that in real life this doesn't always happen. Your
"prediction" of what "expert" listeners *will* do is in direct conflict with
what some of them *have done.* Get it?

Dick said

>
>My point was VERY simple: In ALL cases where differences were
>heard, LARGE and CONSISTent differences in measurements are to
>be had.
>
>An ALL cases where NO differences where heard, there were STILL
>measurable differences.
>

>
>This was to specifically refute the claim that where differences
>where heard, none were measured.
>

Fine then say this nxt time insted of Further, I can find two samples of the
same model and easily
find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
will claim they sound identical. What does THAT do to your
"theory?" Which is different and looks quite antagonistic to me toward "expert"
listeners.

Dick said

>
>Gentle readers, Mr. Wheel's completely bogus "interpretation"
>not withstand, the principle is simple, there are NO cases in my
>exyensive experience where a confirmed audible difference was
>NOT accompanied by consistant measurement differences.

Which has nothing to do with my original comment.

Dick said

>
>Mr. Wheel, please to not attempt to "quote" or "interpret" me in
>the future, you've demonstrated that you are terrible at it.

I will do what I damn well please so long as the moderators have no problems
with it.

S888Wheel

July 29th 03, 08:01 AM

I said

>
>>No. His claim was not explicitly qualified nor do I see any implied
>>qualifications. He was building an argument on a flawed premise. He was
>>painting a large group of diverse listeners with a stereotype to ridicule
>them.

Dick said

>
>Mr. Wheel, this preposterous misinterpretation borders on out
>and out dishonesty if you ask me.
>

I didn't ask you. It is an honest opinion whether you like it or not.

Dick said

>
>My claim is very simple: there have been specific examples where
>people making the claim of being expert listeners have presented
>me with two pieces of equipment that sounded different, and they
>claim that no measurable differences exist: I have quickly and
>
>easily found large measurable differences. They have alson
>presented me with equipment that they claim sounded identical,
>and I have also found measurable differences, though not as
>large.

That is fine but what you actually said was quite different.

Dick said

>
>The rest of your sorry monologue is simply more agenda-laden
>nonsense that has nothing to do with what I said.

Bull****. This is what you said..."Further, I can find two samples of the same
model and easily
find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
will claim they sound identical. What does THAT do to your
"theory?"" I stand by my comments regarding this ridiculous claim.

S888Wheel

July 29th 03, 08:01 AM

>>Dick said
>
>Mr. Wheel, Dick said one thing, Your paraphrasing of what Dick
>said is something else entirely. I should know. I am Dick.
>
>Please do NOT use YOUR paraphrasing of what I have said as a
>substitute for what I actually said. You have demonstrated in
>this thread you are not very good at it.
>
>Thank you.
>
>--
>| Dick Pierce |
>| Professional Audio Development |

What are you talking about?

All Ears

July 29th 03, 04:21 PM

"Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
...
> On 28 Jul 2003 19:17:34 GMT, "All Ears" > wrote:
> >These amplifiers monitors the impedance at the speaker terminals, and
> >adjusts the feed back loop accordingly, so the term current source
applies
> >very well.
>
> One more point, Mr. "Ears," I fear also that your description
> above demonstrates a seriously flawed misunderstanding of the
> very behavior of feedback. Not, these amplifiers DO NOT "monitor
> the impedance at the speakers terminals," and they most
> certainly DO NOT "adjust the feedback loop accordingly," and,
> further, the term "current source" most certainly DOES NOT apply
> as a result. A "current source" DOES NOT MEAN the same thing as
> "a source of current," as the correct definition has been given
> elsewhere.
>
> Frankly, feedback operation, as it applies to audio amplifiers,
> is MUCH simpler and, indeed, much more powerful than your
> description implies. And, it should be noted, feedback is one of
> the most poorly understood concepts by the high-end community
> almost as an intrinsic property of the industry. More out-and-
> out hooey and bunkum has been promulgated about feedback by
> high-end manufacturers, magazine writers and other
> self-appointed but clueless experts than almost any other topic.

The SS amplifiers I am talking about are equipped with the Anagram Power
Loop module, and does exactely what I described.....

>
> --
> | Dick Pierce |
> | Professional Audio Development |
> | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
> | |

All Ears

July 29th 03, 04:22 PM

"Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> All Ears > wrote:
> >> And this may well not be the only difference: such an output
> >> impedance is MORE than enough to substantially reduce the
> >> damping of the entire amplifier/speaker system, possibly
> >> DOUBLING its Qt at resonance, which could intriduce ANOTHER 3 dB
> >> of frequency respose error all by itself. You have a system
> >> which has frequency response differences approaching +-4 dB
> >> compared to a driving it with a solid state or even transroemr
> >> coupled tube a,mplifier with appropriate feedback.
> >>
> >> With this information in hand, that the OTL amplifier introduces
> >> frequency response variations ranging over +-4 dB compared to a
> >> sommon solid state amplifier, how can you say they meaure the
> >> same? They clearly cannot and DO not.
> >
> >I do not disagree with what you are saying, but if this was the real
audible
> >truth, these amplifiers should sound really bad and unnatural, the point
is,
> >they are not, even compared to very good solid state amplifiers. As I
said,
> >acoustic instruments (also bass) and voices are the most realistic
> >reproduced I have heard so far!
>
> "Truth" is what you believe, and may be at odds with the facts.
>
> Beyond that, I am not saying that the result is "bad and
> unnatural," That's a judgement I will not make because it is a
> preferential thing.
>
> I am refuting your claim that such an amplifier could ever
> possibly measure even remotely the same. My argument is not
> whether the result saound good or bad, that's your decision to
> make. My argument is to directly challenge your claim that this
> amplifier could measure like any other IN SITU: they can't, it's
> as simple as that.

I never claimed that an OTL could measure the same as an SS amp, it is your
assumption. What I am saying is that these OTLs performs remarkable well
despite of their specifications. By well I mean that they sound very natural
to my ears, and that they reproduce voices and instruments as I would expect
them to sound.

>
> Thus, your premise, or your question, as the case may be, "how
> can two amplifier that have similar specs sound so different" is
> is meaningless in the face of the fact that two such amps SIMPLY
> CAN'T HAVE SIMILAR SPECS.
>
> Do you understand the point?

I do, and answered already.

>
> >Actually, the speakers I use are all designed by tube lovers,
furthermore,
> >the only speaker design that will act in a close to linear way to a
voltage
> >source, are one way speakers or headphones. All the rest are compromises.
A
> >speaker reacts in a quite linear way to the current you put into it, not
the
> >voltage. There are ways of compensating, I know, but again, it is a
> >compromise.
> >
> >I'll get some solid state current amplifiers next week, this will be
> >interesting......
>
> Sir, I believe yo do NOT understand the difference between the
> terms "current source" and "voltage source" and, further, you
> have a misunderstanding of the operation of loudspeakers, as I
> pointed out and hopefully set you on a more correct path in a
> different post.
>
> >> There are such standards, though there is not an all-
> >> encompassing standard for the entire chain (the AES has 40 some
> >> standards, the ISO has the entire realm of 60268, for example),
> >> but, to be frank with you, THE most egregious violators of these
> >> standard is, in fact, the high-end audion industry, ESPECIALLY
> >> when it comes to realistic comparable performance
> >> specifications.
> >
> >It would be an interesting goal to persue, to get one useful standard for
> >the entire chain.
>
> But, with the appalling lack of technical expertise in the
> high-end industry, they are the least able to follow such a
> path.

So you are saying that there really is no such thing as high-end, just a
bunch of crooks trying to rip poor misguided music lovers for their hard
earned money?

>
> >> >Sorry for mixing up specifications and measurements, as you say
yourself,
> >> >there are more relevant measurements, than what are used as marketing
> >> >arguments today (right?)
> >>
> >> Indeed, especially in the high-end audio industry. Your OTL
> >> amplifier is one such glaring example.
> >
> >There are almost no specifications available for the OTL's, since they
would
> >not give an objective idea of the end result.
>
> Oh, precisely the opposite, a complete set of performance data
> would give a VERY GOOD iobjective dea of the end result. The
> manufacturer might not like the picture painted, but it would be
> pretty precise.

Again, would you say, from a personal non sceintific point of view, that
OTLs sounds bad and unnatural?

>
> >> And why is simply eliminating the direct knowledge of what
> >> equipment is playing a hindernace to relaxation? If you HAVE to
> >> know that you are listening to your OTL amplifier in order to
> >> relax, guess, what: YOUR ENJOYMENT ISN'T ABOUT SOUND, IT'S ABOUT
> >> BRAND NAMES!
> >
> >Absolutely nonsence,
>
> Hardly, if you read your statement.
>
> But your failed to answer the question:
>
> Why is eliminatiung the direct knowledge of what equipment
> is playing a hinderance to relaxation?
>
> Please answer that question, as it is at the very root of your
> complaints about DB testing.

I have seen DB tests saying that all amplifiers sound the same, and similar
crazy stuff. So from my personal point of view DB test has proven that only
very significant changes in the sound are revealed in these tests.

>
> >> >> And if someone makes a claim about the ability to hear a
> >> >> difference, THEY HAVE ALREADY INTRODUCED THE BASIS OF THE STRESS
> >> >> IN MAKING THE CLAIM, it could be argued. They have put their
> >> >> opinion on the line. If a "test" exacerbates the stress, it may
> >> >> well be because the subject now has doubts as to whether the
> >> >> original claim is uspportable.
> >> >
> >> >I try to keep an open mind, and are not stoubernly defending any
specific
> >> >ideals, brands etc.
> >>
> >> But if you HAVE to know what the brand is to relax, which is one
> >> implication of your staement above, then you are NOT keeping an
> >> open mind.
> >
> >Again, I could not care less about the brand, I only care about enjoying
> >music the best I can.
>
> Fine, then you why would you have any objections to listening
> without having prior knowledge of what you were listening to
> equipment-wise?

I do not have any objections at all, however I don't see the point in doing
it. If I did it, the result would be questioned anyway.

>
> >> All that double blind is asking is that you detect the
> >> difference BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE. That's all. Thus, if you
> >> think that a mass loading puck is going to make a difference and
> >> YOU are interested in seeing if this is the case, all that blind
> >> testing is asking is that you see if you can HEAR the difference
> >> BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE.
> >
> >If you "know" there is no difference in the sound, would it be likely
that
> >you would actually hear it?
>
> But you DON'T know there is no difference. Why claim otherwise.
> The idea is to see IF you CAN detect a difference by sound
> alone. If you can, guess what, there are audibly detectable
> differences!
>
> >Even, if my imagination only, can change a sound image from being harsh,
to
> >being pleasing, why not use this tweak?
>
> Then, very simply, it's not about sound. It might be about
> perception, but it is about perception in the absebce of the
> sonic stimuli to produce the perception. You are perfectly
> welcome to use any tweaks for any reason you want, I certainly
> don't care.
>
> But the issue comes when someone makes the claim, "it makes a
> difference in the SOUND." You just admitted that a tweak may
> work on imagination only, so you just stated that, in such a
> case IT ISN'T ABOUT THE SOUND.
>
> >> Why is that stressful?
> >
> >A test situation is stressful to many people, not all, but many.
>
> You keep asserting this without any data or hypothesis to back
> it up.
> --
> | Dick Pierce |
> | Professional Audio Development |
> | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
> | |
>

All Ears

July 29th 03, 04:23 PM

"Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> All Ears > wrote:
> >> >> Ohm's Law certainly does apply. I suggest that you read up on it.
> >> >
> >> >The actual force, that the motor of the driver produces, depends on
the
> >> >current induced into the coil, right? Does normal speakers have a
totally
> >> >flat impedance curve? Assuming that the voltage is kept constant, and
the
> >> >inpedance changes, will this not give an unlinear current, which
results
> >in
> >> >amplitude variations over the band? (Rehercing Ohms law:)
> >>
> >> First, what you desribed is NOT Ohm's law.
> >
> >I replaced resistance with inductance, but the end result will be almost
the
> >same.
>
> In your case, yes, the end result will be the same: the wrong
> answer.
>
> >> Second your analysis falls WOEFULLY short of anything even
> >> barely adequate to describe how speakers work.
> >
> >Compromises are made to correct for this issue, but they are compromises.
>
> And they are clearly leading you down the wrong path.
>
> >> You analysis, for example, predicts that under a constant
> >> current, the speaker MUST, below resonance, have a response
> >> which is independent of frequency, i.e., the speaker does not
> >> roll off. Since it does, your analysis in that region is
> >> incorrect.
> >
> >Of course it rolls off at some point, I used a simplified model.
>
> But your simplified model predicts that it should NOT roll off,
> therefore YOUR MODEL AND ANY CONCLUSIONS DRAWN THEREFROM ARE
> WRONG.
>
> Don't yet get this simple yet powerful concept?
>
> >> Secondly, your analysis predicts that even considering the naive
> >> and simple model of current only, the efficiency at resonance
> >> MUST go down, since the impedance rises at resonance, yet it can
> >> be trivially arranged by non-electrical means that even as the
> >> current goes down, the efficiency and the output of the driver
> >> go UP.
> >
> >To my knowledge, a typical ported speaker goes down in impedance around
the
> >port resonance point, and raises in impedance around the cross over
points.
> >Guess it is a typing error from your side, since the rest of the
statement
> >seems correct.
>
> Sir, again, with all due respect, you really have absolutely NO
> idea what you are talking about. I do not mean this as an
> insult, and I do not say it lightly, but in all ernest
> honestyand with no malice intended. Your really do not
> understand in the most fundamental way how loudspeakers operate.
> Your notion of the relation of current and acceleration and such
> in loudspeakers is so fundamentally flawed that is is leading
> you down a path from which you will be unable to make any sound
> predictions of the way a speaker operates.

I may be wrong, if so, I appreciate that nice people like you are able to
guide me down the right path.

>
> >> Basically, your basic premise is completely flwed because it
> >> simply ignores the fact that speakers are mechncially resonant
> >> devices, that the simple static model you are relying on fails
> >> immediately once you get out of the region of DC exitation
> >> (which, if you sit down and think it through, is the hidden
> >> assumption in your premise).
> >>
> >> Be that as it may, speakers which have flat impedance curve get
> >> there by having complex conjugate circuits tto concel the
> >> impedance variations in the drivers. That means that while they
> >> may have a constant current vs frequency profile AS A SYSTEM,
> >> the drivers themselves do not: they STILL have a current that is
> >> frequency dependent on their individual impedance vs frequency
> >> properties. I would suggest that you get your head out of the
> >> "Ohm's Law" hole and start studying Thevenin, Kirchoff and, once
> >> that's under your belt, start studying Thiele and Small.
> >
> >Variations of transmission line speakers, can obtain a quit flat
impedance
> >curve, with out complex circuits.
>
> Sorry, my friend, but you arte completely wrong here, I don't
> know where you got this notion about the behavior of
> transmission lines, but it is simply incorrect in the most
> fundamental of ways.

So you would say that it is impossible to build a variation of a
transmission line speaker, that with out complex circuits, does indeed have
a quite flat impedance curve?

>
> It will be very hard to continue a productive conversation
> from this point forward if you insist on holding fast to your
> understandings of how loudspeakers work. Rather than continue
> and have you lead yourself into some very embarrasing dead ends,
> I'd rather one of us simply withdraw.

I am not a stoubern person, I can accept if I am wrong about something.

>
> I have to say that this is a clear case where 22 years in a
> hi-fi store did not make you an expert on loudspeakers (assuming
> I have my attributions correct, I apologize if I have confused
> you with someone else), indeed, I am sorry to say and again,
> with no intent to insult, you are simply repeating some
> ill-founded myths at best.

You confused me with Wylie, whos 22 years experience apparently was not
valid as arguments.

>
> How speakers REALLY work is a deeply fascinating topic, one
> which your are SO far from viewing with your current position. I
> only hope that at some point you can abandon some of your
> ill-founded and technically incorrect views and start to
> appreciate how things actually work. It's really quite neat when
> the understanding REALLY clicks.

Well, I like understanding how things work, I'll try to find the time to dig
further into the subject.

KE

>
> --
> | Dick Pierce |
> | Professional Audio Development |
> | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
> | |

All Ears

July 29th 03, 04:23 PM

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
> On 27 Jul 2003 22:40:31 GMT, "All Ears" > wrote:
>
> >"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 27 Jul 2003 17:39:35 GMT, "All Ears" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >> >>Speakers are designed to respond
> >> >> linearly to a constant voltage input, and most modern speakers
assume
> >> >> drive by a constant voltage source, i.e. an amp with very low output
> >> >> impedance and high reserves of current. This is a fair description
of
> >> >> a good SS amp, but not at all of a tubed OTL amp, which can have
> >> >> several *ohms* output impedance.
> >> >
> >> >So Ohms law does not apply to speakers, interesting....
> >>
> >> Ohm's Law certainly does apply. I suggest that you read up on it.
> >
> >The actual force, that the motor of the driver produces, depends on the
> >current induced into the coil, right? Does normal speakers have a totally
> >flat impedance curve? Assuming that the voltage is kept constant, and the
> >inpedance changes, will this not give an unlinear current, which results
in
> >amplitude variations over the band? (Rehercing Ohms law:)
>
> Your first statement is correct. Almost all commercially available
> 'hi-fi' speakers have a very non-flat impedance curve. Such speakers
> are however designed to have a flat amplitude response with constant
> *voltage* input. This does indeed lead to some pretty wild variations
> in current, but these are indications of varying efficiency, not
> varying amplitude.

Yes, this is of course one of the challanges in serious speaker design.
>
> >I will compare the OTLs to a set of SS current amplifiers next week, this
> >will be interesting.
>
> Good. Be sure to match levels at the speaker terminals, and to do the
> test under double-blind protocols, for best results.

Sure :)
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Wylie Williams

July 29th 03, 04:24 PM

Mr. Pierce,

I am sorry to have upset you. I wish I could have made myself more clear. I
was not trying to indicate the possibility that color, weight, etc, could
possible make an audible difference. The intent was to point out that since
you
> can find two samples of the same model and easily find measurable
differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
>will claim they sound identical
that maybe these measured differences (or the level at which they exist)
are not relevant to what people hear. I do not wish to attack measurements
and scientific inquiry as worthless; nor do I wish to attack subjective
listening experience as worthless. However I do feel that the professional
community has not quite reached the point of knowing all there is to know,
and that in the context of listening to high end audio there may be aspects
of reproduced music that are audible but for which measurement techniques
are not yet known or understood.

Wylie Williams

"Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
...
> In article <XBUUa.141519$GL4.36697@rwcrnsc53>,
> Wylie Williams > wrote:
> >I keep seeing the following quote:
> >
> >> >>>>Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily
> >> >>>>find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
> >> >>>>will claim they sound identical.
> >
> >I don't know what differences are being referred to. There are all sorts
of
> >possible differences, like small but measurable variations in color,
weight,
> >etc., that I think almost everyone would agree are irrelevant to hearing.
> >Could it be that some of the other small differences that are being
measured
> >are irrelevant to hearing as well?
>
> What IS it with you people? The principle, despite Mr Wheels
> completely boluxed minsinterprations, is simple:
>
> When audible differences are, in fact, shown to exist where
> these differences are consistently detectable based on sound
> alone, they are ALWAYS accompanied by non-subtle and
> consistent differences in measurement of their electrical or
> acoustical properties.
>
> This is specifically to refute the common and, frankly,
> uninformed myth that there are audible differences while there
> are no measurable differences. If you want to add your
> ansurdities of color and the likem, that's YOUR choice, and you
> have done nothing but confuse the issue.
>
> --
> | Dick Pierce |
> | Professional Audio Development |
> | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
> | |
>
>

All Ears

July 29th 03, 04:28 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stewart Pinkerton" >
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 1:20 AM
Subject: Re: Ears vs. Instruments

> On 28 Jul 2003 19:17:34 GMT, "All Ears" > wrote:
>
> >Yes I think we agree about this point, but I am still wondering how an
OTL
> >can obtain such a good tonal balance and speaker control with such a high
> >output impedance,
>
> It cannot and does not (with a nominally flat speaker), you just
> *like* that particular combination of amp and speaker.
>
> > I am even using 4 ohm speakers, which presents no problem
> >at all. I would guess that you have listend to a few OTLs yourself, and
> >could have had the same thoughts.
>
> Quite so. What you are hearing *may* be a serendipitous combination of
> a fundamentally inferior amp design and a normally non-flat speaker,
> but it's much more likely that you just *like* that sound.

I defenitely like the sound, even if we should go as far as to describe the
amplifier design as inferior. However, Julius Futterman will probably be
spinning in his grave :)

>
> >> >I'll get some solid state current amplifiers next week, this will be
> >> >interesting......
> >>
> >> Sir, I believe yo do NOT understand the difference between the
> >> terms "current source" and "voltage source" and, further, you
> >> have a misunderstanding of the operation of loudspeakers, as I
> >> pointed out and hopefully set you on a more correct path in a
> >> different post.
> >
> >These amplifiers monitors the impedance at the speaker terminals, and
> >adjusts the feed back loop accordingly, so the term current source
applies
> >very well.
>
> No, it doesn't, in fact you are (badly) describing an overall feedback
> system which is trying to do an even better job of producing a
> constant voltage source. It's not a new technique. Please avoid
> getting into excessively deep technical water.

Not talking about the OTLs here, but SS amps equipped with the Anagram power
loop module....

>
> >> >There are almost no specifications available for the OTL's, since they
would
> >> >not give an objective idea of the end result.
> >>
> >> Oh, precisely the opposite, a complete set of performance data
> >> would give a VERY GOOD iobjective dea of the end result. The
> >> manufacturer might not like the picture painted, but it would be
> >> pretty precise.
> >
> >I haven't really seen anybody disliking the sound of the few serious OTSs
on
> >the market, but you may be an exception
>
> Count me in also. BTW, an OTL amp is *not* a 'serious' design......
>
> >> >> And why is simply eliminating the direct knowledge of what
> >> >> equipment is playing a hindernace to relaxation? If you HAVE to
> >> >> know that you are listening to your OTL amplifier in order to
> >> >> relax, guess, what: YOUR ENJOYMENT ISN'T ABOUT SOUND, IT'S ABOUT
> >> >> BRAND NAMES!
> >> >
> >> >Absolutely nonsence,
> >>
> >> Hardly, if you read your statement.
> >>
> >> But your failed to answer the question:
> >
> >Even if I close my eyes, the OTLs sound great :)
>
> No one is arguing with your personal preference, but that's not the
> point at issue here, and you know it.

I am exactely talking about my personal preferences...

>
> >> But the issue comes when someone makes the claim, "it makes a
> >> difference in the SOUND." You just admitted that a tweak may
> >> work on imagination only, so you just stated that, in such a
> >> case IT ISN'T ABOUT THE SOUND.
> >
> >As a music lover, I am merely reporting observations, not writing
sceintific
> >reports. I can only encurage people to use their own ears, and judge for
> >themselves.
>
> So why are you so reluctant to use *only* your ears, without
> *knowledge* of which amp is playing?

I don't mind that, but who would consider the results trust worthy anyway?

>
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Richard D Pierce

July 30th 03, 04:27 AM

In article <RhwVa.6614$Oz4.1603@rwcrnsc54>,
All Ears > wrote:
>>
>> Frankly, feedback operation, as it applies to audio amplifiers,
>> is MUCH simpler and, indeed, much more powerful than your
>> description implies. And, it should be noted, feedback is one of
>> the most poorly understood concepts by the high-end community
>> almost as an intrinsic property of the industry. More out-and-
>> out hooey and bunkum has been promulgated about feedback by
>> high-end manufacturers, magazine writers and other
>> self-appointed but clueless experts than almost any other topic.
>
>The SS amplifiers I am talking about are equipped with the Anagram Power
>Loop module, and does exactely what I described.....

Well, according to Anagram Technology's website, it's IMPOSSIBLE
to say what it does and how it does it. There is no coherent
description, there is no theory of operation, it simply makes
some cryptic and irrelevant claims, such as "tension gain" and
such that are pretty meaningless.

Until a real technical description of what the thing does
technically, I think any such statement is pure speculation.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Arny Krueger

July 30th 03, 08:02 AM

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message

> I am sorry to have upset you. I wish I could have made myself more
> clear. I was not trying to indicate the possibility that color,
> weight, etc, could possible make an audible difference. The intent
> was to point out that since you
>> can find two samples of the same model and easily find measurable
> differences between them, yet "expert" listeners will claim they sound
identical
> that maybe these measured differences (or the level at which they
> exist) are not relevant to what people hear.

That is of course, very true. Test equipment is at least an order of
magnitude more sensitive to differences than ears with very few exceptions.
I can't think of one exception at the moment.

>I do not wish to attack
> measurements and scientific inquiry as worthless; nor do I wish to
> attack subjective listening experience as worthless. However I do
> feel that the professional community has not quite reached the point
> of knowing all there is to know, and that in the context of listening
> to high end audio there may be aspects of reproduced music that are
> audible but for which measurement techniques are not yet known or
> understood.

I think you'd be amazed at how complete our knowledge of audible differences
are, and how well we can measure them. For example, there are only a very
few things that can go wrong with an audio signal (i.e., there are very few
general kinds of noise and distortion, and they are well-understood, and
well-measured.). This is because an audio signal has only two dimensions,
time and amplitude. Therefore all distortion involves errors in either time
or amplitude or both. BTW everything discussed in this paragraph has been
understood at least mathematically since the late 1920s or early 1930s.
Nothing new along these lines has been discovered or even seriously
hypothesized since then.

What has changed and improved is our ability to measure and characterize
these relatively few well-known forms of noise and distortion. Our ability
to measure them generally exceeds the sensitivity of the ear by a factor of
10 or more.

Arny Krueger

July 30th 03, 08:03 AM

"All Ears" > wrote in message
news:%jwVa.6624$Oz4.1748@rwcrnsc54
> "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
> ...

>> Your first statement is correct. Almost all commercially available
>> 'hi-fi' speakers have a very non-flat impedance curve. Such speakers
>> are however designed to have a flat amplitude response with constant
>> *voltage* input. This does indeed lead to some pretty wild variations
>> in current, but these are indications of varying efficiency, not
>> varying amplitude.
>
> Yes, this is of course one of the challanges in serious speaker
> design.

It really isn't that much of a challenge. Modern power amplifiers generally
don't have serious problems with most loudspeaker loads. Loudspeaker design
procedures have progressed to the point where there is little or no
justification for making a loudspeaker that is excessively difficult to
drive.

Stewart Pinkerton

July 30th 03, 08:06 AM

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:28:00 GMT, "All Ears" >
wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
From: "Stewart Pinkerton" >
>Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
>Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 1:20 AM
>Subject: Re: Ears vs. Instruments
>
>> On 28 Jul 2003 19:17:34 GMT, "All Ears" > wrote:

>> >These amplifiers monitors the impedance at the speaker terminals, and
>> >adjusts the feed back loop accordingly, so the term current source applies
>> >very well.
>>
>> No, it doesn't, in fact you are (badly) describing an overall feedback
>> system which is trying to do an even better job of producing a
>> constant voltage source. It's not a new technique. Please avoid
>> getting into excessively deep technical water.
>
>Not talking about the OTLs here, but SS amps equipped with the Anagram power
>loop module....

Being unfamiliar with this device, I'll simply say that it *cannot*
change a conventional SS amp into a current source - nor should it.

>> >> >> And why is simply eliminating the direct knowledge of what
>> >> >> equipment is playing a hindernace to relaxation? If you HAVE to
>> >> >> know that you are listening to your OTL amplifier in order to
>> >> >> relax, guess, what: YOUR ENJOYMENT ISN'T ABOUT SOUND, IT'S ABOUT
>> >> >> BRAND NAMES!
>> >> >
>> >> >Absolutely nonsence,
>> >>
>> >> Hardly, if you read your statement.
>> >>
>> >> But your failed to answer the question:
>> >
>> >Even if I close my eyes, the OTLs sound great :)
>>
>> No one is arguing with your personal preference, but that's not the
>> point at issue here, and you know it.
>
>I am exactely talking about my personal preferences...

The point at issue is whether you can still hear the 'benefits' of the
OTL amp when you don't *know* that it's connected.

>> >As a music lover, I am merely reporting observations, not writing sceintific
>> >reports. I can only encurage people to use their own ears, and judge for
>> >themselves.
>>
>> So why are you so reluctant to use *only* your ears, without
>> *knowledge* of which amp is playing?
>
>I don't mind that, but who would consider the results trust worthy anyway?

Hopefully, you would. Does anyone else's opinion matter to you?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton

July 30th 03, 08:06 AM

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:22:39 GMT, "All Ears" >
wrote:

>Again, would you say, from a personal non sceintific point of view, that
>OTLs sounds bad and unnatural?

I would say that it sounds inaccurate. Good or bad are matters of
preference.

>I have seen DB tests saying that all amplifiers sound the same, and similar
>crazy stuff.

No, you have not seen any such claim. You may well have seen claims
that all *well-designed* amplifiers sound the same when used below
clipping, and there's plenty of good evidence to back *that* claim.

>So from my personal point of view DB test has proven that only
>very significant changes in the sound are revealed in these tests.

The reality, as is well-known to professionals in the fields of audio
and of psychoacoustic research, is that DBTs are the *only* way of
distinguishing extremly subtle - but *real* - sonic differences.

If there was a more sensitive test, then those who design
loudspeakers, amplifiers and codecs for a living would be using it.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Richard D Pierce

July 30th 03, 08:07 AM

In article >,
All Ears > wrote:
>> >Variations of transmission line speakers, can obtain a quit flat
>impedance
>> >curve, with out complex circuits.
>>
>> Sorry, my friend, but you arte completely wrong here, I don't
>> know where you got this notion about the behavior of
>> transmission lines, but it is simply incorrect in the most
>> fundamental of ways.
>
>So you would say that it is impossible to build a variation of a
>transmission line speaker, that with out complex circuits, does indeed have
>a quite flat impedance curve?

Yes, as a broad, categorical and technically defnesible
statement, it is indeed impossible to do as you claim. If you
say this because someone told you, then two possibilities exist:

1. The person was simply NOT telling you the truth or,
2. The person is not aware that what he was saying was false.

The frequency-dependent variation in impedance exhibited in
loudspeakers arise from two main sources:

1. Reflection through the electromagnetic system of the motional
(mechanical) impedance of the loudspeaker driver and
enclosure.
2. The voice coil inductance.

The second issue we can dismiss entirely as correctable: the
voice coil inductance arises simply because you have a length of
wire that is generating a magnetic field, energy is being stored
in that field and being reflected back as the fiueld collapses
or increases at a rate proportional to the time dependence of
the input current. There is NOTHING that cabinet loading can do
that wil change that. Absolutely nothing.

The first issue is most relevant and the most interesting anmd
complex source. The motional impedance is essentially the
mechanical analog of electrical impedance and, indeed, the voice
coil and magnet assembly together provide a direct translation
of one to the other by a transformation factor proportional to
the square of the product of the flux density and length of
voice coil wire (Bl^2). It, in fact, works out that mechanical
friction ends up looking EXACTLY like electrical resistance,
mechanical compliance looks exactly like electrical inductance,
and mechanical mass looks exactly like electrical capacitiance.

And, additionally, the enclosure has its own acoustical
impedance characteristics, which, are trabnsformed into
mechanical equivalents by the diaphragm and thus into electrical
terms.

So the ENTIRE impedance curve is the result of electrical (voice
coil), mechanical (driver) and acoustical (enclosure and
radiation load) properties.

Let's look at the mechanical: there are three dominant elements:
the driver's moving mass, the suspension compliance and the
frictional losses in the suspension. The driver mass and
complaiance together form a mechanically resonant system and,
like all such systems (electrical, mechanical, acoustical), it
forms a high impedance at resonance and a low impedance
elsewhere. That's why the ELCTRCIAL impedance is high at
resonance: it's reflecting the high MECHANICAL impedance. And,
we can say, that the lowest the impedance could be is the
electrical resistance of the voice coil. Can't get any lower
than that. ANd the higest it could be depends upon the amount of
mechanical friction in the suspension and the Bl product of the
motor assembly.

ALL drivers have this property NO MATTER WHAT ENCLOSURE THEY ARE
PLACED IN.

Now, at the frequencies of interest, i.e., low frequencies below
100 Hz, where the length of the line is less than 1/2
wavelength, despite what the likes of Bud Fried and others have
claimed, a transmission speaker IS NOT BEHAVING AS A TRUE
TRANSMISSION LINE. It's behaving as if its a large acoustical
inertance (mass) with loss (friction). and ther is a compliance
element to it as well. The result is that the impedance looks
remarkably like a off-tuned vented system.

There is NO physical way that such an enclosure can eliminate
the mechanical mass and compliance effects of the driver itself.
It is simply a physical impossibility. It can modify them by
changing their magnitude and thus the frequency at which they
are happening, but they are still their.

Even if we looked at a theoretically perfect impedance matched
transmission line where the line privides absolutely NO
inetrance or compiance reactance at all and is perfectly lossy,
you will have a system that STILL has the mechnical mass and
compliance of the driver itself, and just has slightly greater
losses. The ONLY effect will be to reduce the Q at resonance
slightly, and you'll end up with an impedance curve that looks
remarkably like the driver's free air impedance.

Anyone who claims to the contrary is either naive or dishonest.

>You confused me with Wylie, whos 22 years experience apparently was not
>valid as arguments.

No, it is not valid as a claim to expertise.

>> How speakers REALLY work is a deeply fascinating topic, one
>> which your are SO far from viewing with your current position. I
>> only hope that at some point you can abandon some of your
>> ill-founded and technically incorrect views and start to
>> appreciate how things actually work. It's really quite neat when
>> the understanding REALLY clicks.
>
>Well, I like understanding how things work, I'll try to find the time to dig
>further into the subject.

Make sure you dig in the right place.
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Steven Sullivan

July 30th 03, 08:27 AM

Norman Schwartz > wrote:
> "Richard D Pierce" wrote:

> >
> > Face it, the high-end audio industry is DECADES behind behind
> > the state of the art in many areas, and this is just one
> > example. I'm not going to give a tutorial on the current range
> > of available measurements

> Measurements haven't led to the construction of great sounding concert
> halls, pianos or violins and it appears useful to refer to that which was
> done CENTURIES ago.

but measurement of the old instruments seems to have produced some results.

see

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DyeHard/dyehard010328.html

and similar sites.

--
-S.

Steven Sullivan

July 30th 03, 08:27 AM

S888Wheel > wrote:
> >>Dick said
> >
> >Mr. Wheel, Dick said one thing, Your paraphrasing of what Dick
> >said is something else entirely. I should know. I am Dick.
> >
> >Please do NOT use YOUR paraphrasing of what I have said as a
> >substitute for what I actually said. You have demonstrated in
> >this thread you are not very good at it.
> >
> >Thank you.
> >
> >--
> >| Dick Pierce |
> >| Professional Audio Development |

> What are you talking about?

Again, it seems pretty clear to me: he thinks you
are misundestanding and misrepresenting what he said.

--
-S.

Steven Sullivan

July 30th 03, 08:28 AM

Wylie Williams > wrote:
> Mr. Pierce,

> I am sorry to have upset you. I wish I could have made myself more clear. I
> was not trying to indicate the possibility that color, weight, etc, could
> possible make an audible difference. The intent was to point out that since
> you
> > can find two samples of the same model and easily find measurable
> differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
> >will claim they sound identical
> that maybe these measured differences (or the level at which they exist)
> are not relevant to what people hear. I do not wish to attack measurements
> and scientific inquiry as worthless; nor do I wish to attack subjective
> listening experience as worthless. However I do feel that the professional
> community has not quite reached the point of knowing all there is to know,
> and that in the context of listening to high end audio there may be aspects
> of reproduced music that are audible but for which measurement techniques
> are not yet known or understood.

In other words you believe that the 'common, uninformed
myth' that Dick cites below, may nto be a myth. What evidence would you
put forward to suggest that it isn't a myth?

> > This is specifically to refute the common and, frankly,
> > uninformed myth that there are audible differences while there
> > are no measurable differences.

--
-S.

All Ears

July 30th 03, 08:39 AM

"chung" > wrote in message
...
> All Ears wrote:
> >
> >
> > Even if I close my eyes, the OTLs sound great :)
> >
>
> My youngest son always thinks that music sounds better when the bass and
> treble controls are boosted. To him, the music is much more alive and
> dynamic that way:).
>
> The point is that having a not-flat frequency response can be euphonic.
> A small boost in the mid-range can make human voices more pleasant, and
> certain harmonic distortions can make some instruments sound fuller.
>
> The other thing to keep in mind is that if one amp sounds different than
> all others, while all the others sound very similar among themselves,
> there is high probability that the one that sounds different is not
> accurate.

We all have our preferences in how we like music presented, we must not
forget that the most important thing is to enjoy listening to music, that is
what it is all about.

KE

Richard D Pierce

July 30th 03, 03:50 PM

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message
>...
> However I do feel that the professional
> community has not quite reached the point of knowing all there is to know,
> and that in the context of listening to high end audio there may be aspects
> of reproduced music that are audible but for which measurement techniques
> are not yet known or understood.

Mr. Williams, perhaps this is because you do not know what the
professionals know. Indeed, as has been said often before, the
high-end audio realm is far behind and so self-isolated from
the current state of the art in a wide array of topics. One area
of note in this respect is many in the high-end make grand
sweeping dogmatic declarations about the properties of human
hearing that have decades ago been studied to death and
refuted.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Wylie Williams

July 31st 03, 04:19 AM

Well, if I read the preceding posts correctly I must suppose that
everything that ever is to be known about human auditory perception is
known. And maybe the same for audio component measurement.
I have a question - Where can I find a list of those components that
have been shown to be good enough that the human ear cannot detect
improvement? Or if not a list, a chart of the specifications?

Wylie Williams

Arny Krueger

July 31st 03, 04:35 AM

"All Ears" > wrote in message
news:4owVa.6648$Oz4.2072@rwcrnsc54

> Not talking about the OTLs here, but SS amps equipped with the
> Anagram power loop module....

Which raises the issue of what Anagram's technology is.

The answer should lie at http://www.anagramtech.com .

Curiously the description of their company's technology at
http://www.anagramtech.com/base/haut.html
does not seem to include any discussion of the power loop module, despite a
conspicuous picture of said module.

Here's quotes of a a few sentences from near the top of the page at
http://www.anagramtech.com/base/haut.html

"The RE24 process raises 20 bit data streams to 24 bit resolution and 16 bit
data streams to 20 bit resolution."
This would be the audio equivalent of perpetual motion. Nothing but!

" RE24 shifts the truncation noise out of the audible band."

This is feasible and routinely done with established technology that is in
the public domain.

"However, unlike usual noise-shaping techniques, the RE24 process adds an
algorithmically generated noise in the upper part of the spectrum."

Adding an algorithmically-generated noise in the upper part of the spectrum
is *exactly* what conventional noise-shaping does.

"As the process is not correlated with the incoming signal, it is free of
intermodulation distortion."

Adding an algorithmically-generated noise in the upper part of the spectrum
that is not correlated with the incoming signal is *exactly* what
conventional noise-shaping does.

Conventional noise-shaping is free of intermodulation distortion, as well.

So there you have it. AFAIK Anagram Technologies proposes to deliver both
the audio equivalent of perpetual motion and exactly the same things that
the established technology they propose to upgrade already provides.

The rest of the web page is equally enlightening.

Why is the phrase "snake oil" running through my mind?

All Ears

July 31st 03, 04:09 PM

CD players like the Audio Aero Capitole and others using the Anagram
S.T.A.R.S. module, seems to be doing quite well. I have no experiences with
the rest of their modules yet.
You are right, their web page contains little relevant information. It could
be that they are holding the deck close to the body towards the competition.

KE

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
t...
> "All Ears" > wrote in message
> news:4owVa.6648$Oz4.2072@rwcrnsc54
>
> > Not talking about the OTLs here, but SS amps equipped with the
> > Anagram power loop module....
>
> Which raises the issue of what Anagram's technology is.
>
> The answer should lie at http://www.anagramtech.com .
>
> Curiously the description of their company's technology at
> http://www.anagramtech.com/base/haut.html
> does not seem to include any discussion of the power loop module, despite
a
> conspicuous picture of said module.
>
> Here's quotes of a a few sentences from near the top of the page at
> http://www.anagramtech.com/base/haut.html
>
> "The RE24 process raises 20 bit data streams to 24 bit resolution and 16
bit
> data streams to 20 bit resolution."
> This would be the audio equivalent of perpetual motion. Nothing but!
>
> " RE24 shifts the truncation noise out of the audible band."
>
> This is feasible and routinely done with established technology that is
in
> the public domain.
>
> "However, unlike usual noise-shaping techniques, the RE24 process adds an
> algorithmically generated noise in the upper part of the spectrum."
>
> Adding an algorithmically-generated noise in the upper part of the
spectrum
> is *exactly* what conventional noise-shaping does.
>
> "As the process is not correlated with the incoming signal, it is free of
> intermodulation distortion."
>
> Adding an algorithmically-generated noise in the upper part of the
spectrum
> that is not correlated with the incoming signal is *exactly* what
> conventional noise-shaping does.
>
> Conventional noise-shaping is free of intermodulation distortion, as well.
>
> So there you have it. AFAIK Anagram Technologies proposes to deliver both
> the audio equivalent of perpetual motion and exactly the same things that
> the established technology they propose to upgrade already provides.
>
> The rest of the web page is equally enlightening.
>
> Why is the phrase "snake oil" running through my mind?
>

Bob Marcus

July 31st 03, 04:10 PM

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message news:<PU%Va.23636$uu5.2909@sccrnsc04>...
> Well, if I read the preceding posts correctly I must suppose that
> everything that ever is to be known about human auditory perception is
> known. And maybe the same for audio component measurement.

Well, perhaps you must suppose that in order to maintain your
unsubstantiated beliefs. But saying we know how amplifiers work is not
the same as saying we know everything that will ever be known about
electrical engineering.

One thing we do know is that we can already measure much better than
we can hear. So just what new knowledge are you hoping for?

> I have a question - Where can I find a list of those components that
> have been shown to be good enough that the human ear cannot detect
> improvement? Or if not a list, a chart of the specifications?
>
You can't. As I think you and I know others have noted, no one has any
financial incentive to test available consumer gear. And, as has also
been made clear here recently, "specifications" often don't mean
squat. You'll just have to rely on general principles, I'm afraid.
That, or do your own DBTs. You've done some, I trust. What have you
found?

bob

All Ears

July 31st 03, 04:10 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
news:M4KVa.17391$YN5.18292@sccrnsc01...
> "All Ears" > wrote in message
> news:%jwVa.6624$Oz4.1748@rwcrnsc54
> > "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >> Your first statement is correct. Almost all commercially available
> >> 'hi-fi' speakers have a very non-flat impedance curve. Such speakers
> >> are however designed to have a flat amplitude response with constant
> >> *voltage* input. This does indeed lead to some pretty wild variations
> >> in current, but these are indications of varying efficiency, not
> >> varying amplitude.
> >
> > Yes, this is of course one of the challanges in serious speaker
> > design.
>
> It really isn't that much of a challenge. Modern power amplifiers
generally
> don't have serious problems with most loudspeaker loads. Loudspeaker
design
> procedures have progressed to the point where there is little or no
> justification for making a loudspeaker that is excessively difficult to
> drive.

As a note to this, I will say that I had some interesting experiences with a
set of B&W DM 604 S3. These speakers were supposed to be relatively
efficient, however I tried to "max them out" and their performance just kept
increasing with the amplifier power. I ended up with some 800W in 8 ohm
monoblocks. Of course it was a bit of a crazy experiment to have equipment
10 times the value of these speakers behind them, but it did show how hungry
for power these speakers really are. Anyway, I will still say that the value
for money in these speakers are quite good.

KE

>

All Ears

July 31st 03, 04:15 PM

"Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
news:xWGVa.15186$Ho3.2577@sccrnsc03...
> In article <RhwVa.6614$Oz4.1603@rwcrnsc54>,
> All Ears > wrote:
> >>
> >> Frankly, feedback operation, as it applies to audio amplifiers,
> >> is MUCH simpler and, indeed, much more powerful than your
> >> description implies. And, it should be noted, feedback is one of
> >> the most poorly understood concepts by the high-end community
> >> almost as an intrinsic property of the industry. More out-and-
> >> out hooey and bunkum has been promulgated about feedback by
> >> high-end manufacturers, magazine writers and other
> >> self-appointed but clueless experts than almost any other topic.
> >
> >The SS amplifiers I am talking about are equipped with the Anagram Power
> >Loop module, and does exactely what I described.....
>
> Well, according to Anagram Technology's website, it's IMPOSSIBLE
> to say what it does and how it does it. There is no coherent
> description, there is no theory of operation, it simply makes
> some cryptic and irrelevant claims, such as "tension gain" and
> such that are pretty meaningless.
>
> Until a real technical description of what the thing does
> technically, I think any such statement is pure speculation.

The description is given to me from a source close to Anagram, so I have no
reason to doubt the function.

However I agree, that the technical description is quite sparse. Anyway,
I'll get the chance to evaluate the end result soon. As usual, I will try to
be as objective as possible :)

>
> --
> | Dick Pierce |
> | Professional Audio Development |
> | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
> | |
>

All Ears

July 31st 03, 04:15 PM

"Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
t...
> In article <4owVa.6648$Oz4.2072@rwcrnsc54>,
> All Ears > wrote:
> >> Quite so. What you are hearing *may* be a serendipitous combination of
> >> a fundamentally inferior amp design and a normally non-flat speaker,
> >> but it's much more likely that you just *like* that sound.
> >
> >I defenitely like the sound, even if we should go as far as to describe
the
> >amplifier design as inferior. However, Julius Futterman will probably be
> >spinning in his grave :)
>
> And the Futterman is one example of an OTL tube amplifier I have
> evaluated and, indeed, the output impedance is quite high.

The Futtermam designs suffered from some obvious design compromises, the far
best speaker match was the Quad electrostates.

>
> >> No one is arguing with your personal preference, but that's not the
> >> point at issue here, and you know it.
> >
> >I am exactely talking about my personal preferences...
>
> Fine, and no one is arguing with your personal preference, and
> is also why my personal preference is irrelevant as well. We are
> speaking to the topic of the performance of systems and why one
> combination TECHNICALLY works one way and why another works
> differently.
>
> >> So why are you so reluctant to use *only* your ears, without
> >> *knowledge* of which amp is playing?
> >
> >I don't mind that, but who would consider the results trust worthy
anyway?
>
> Because if it's all about SOUND, then the ONLY way to find
> things out is to use your EARS ONLY. Otherwise, it's not about
> sound.
>
> --
> | Dick Pierce |
> | Professional Audio Development |
> | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
> | |
>

All Ears

July 31st 03, 04:15 PM

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
news:O7KVa.16563$Ho3.3573@sccrnsc03...
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:28:00 GMT, "All Ears" >
> wrote:
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stewart Pinkerton" >
> >Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
> >Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 1:20 AM
> >Subject: Re: Ears vs. Instruments
> >
> >> On 28 Jul 2003 19:17:34 GMT, "All Ears" > wrote:
>
> >> >These amplifiers monitors the impedance at the speaker terminals, and
> >> >adjusts the feed back loop accordingly, so the term current source
applies
> >> >very well.
> >>
> >> No, it doesn't, in fact you are (badly) describing an overall feedback
> >> system which is trying to do an even better job of producing a
> >> constant voltage source. It's not a new technique. Please avoid
> >> getting into excessively deep technical water.
> >
> >Not talking about the OTLs here, but SS amps equipped with the Anagram
power
> >loop module....
>
> Being unfamiliar with this device, I'll simply say that it *cannot*
> change a conventional SS amp into a current source - nor should it.
>
> >> >> >> And why is simply eliminating the direct knowledge of what
> >> >> >> equipment is playing a hindernace to relaxation? If you HAVE to
> >> >> >> know that you are listening to your OTL amplifier in order to
> >> >> >> relax, guess, what: YOUR ENJOYMENT ISN'T ABOUT SOUND, IT'S ABOUT
> >> >> >> BRAND NAMES!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Absolutely nonsence,
> >> >>
> >> >> Hardly, if you read your statement.
> >> >>
> >> >> But your failed to answer the question:
> >> >
> >> >Even if I close my eyes, the OTLs sound great :)
> >>
> >> No one is arguing with your personal preference, but that's not the
> >> point at issue here, and you know it.
> >
> >I am exactely talking about my personal preferences...
>
> The point at issue is whether you can still hear the 'benefits' of the
> OTL amp when you don't *know* that it's connected.

Yes, no doubt about this, there is a significant change in the sound image
with the OTLs compared to any SS design. More bloom in the midrange, and the
bass works extremely well in the bottom octaves.

>
> >> >As a music lover, I am merely reporting observations, not writing
sceintific
> >> >reports. I can only encurage people to use their own ears, and judge
for
> >> >themselves.
> >>
> >> So why are you so reluctant to use *only* your ears, without
> >> *knowledge* of which amp is playing?
> >
> >I don't mind that, but who would consider the results trust worthy
anyway?
>
> Hopefully, you would. Does anyone else's opinion matter to you?

I always listen to others opinions, but do not necessarily agree. I do my
best to keep an open mind.

> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
>

All Ears

July 31st 03, 04:43 PM

"Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> All Ears > wrote:
> >> Beyond that, I am not saying that the result is "bad and
> >> unnatural," That's a judgement I will not make because it is a
> >> preferential thing.
> >>
> >> I am refuting your claim that such an amplifier could ever
> >> possibly measure even remotely the same. My argument is not
> >> whether the result saound good or bad, that's your decision to
> >> make. My argument is to directly challenge your claim that this
> >> amplifier could measure like any other IN SITU: they can't, it's
> >> as simple as that.
> >>
> >> Thus, your premise, or your question, as the case may be, "how
> >> can two amplifier that have similar specs sound so different" is
> >> is meaningless in the face of the fact that two such amps SIMPLY
> >> CAN'T HAVE SIMILAR SPECS.
> >>
> >> Do you understand the point?
> >
> >Yes I think we agree about this point,
>
> It is clear to me we do not, because I feel you are still
> laboring under a set of fundamental misunderstandings qbout how
> things work.
>
> >but I am still wondering how an OTL
> >can obtain such a good tonal balance and speaker control with such a high
> >output impedance,
>
> I did NOT say "good" or "bad." I said, in direct refutation of
> your point, that they cannot measure the same. Thus your premise
> that "they measure the same but sound different" is entirely
> refuted on its face.
>
> >I am even using 4 ohm speakers, which presents no problem
> >at all.
>
> BY this statement alone, it is clear to me you do not understand
> the technical imlications of the issue of OTL output impedance,
> because it is more significant with 4 ohm speaker than with 8
> ohm speakers.

The OTLs are designed to work with speakers down to 3 ohm...

>
> >I would guess that you have listend to a few OTLs yourself, and
> >could have had the same thoughts.
>
> Why would you assume so?
>
> >> >Actually, the speakers I use are all designed by tube lovers,
>
> A comment on this: there are really VERY few really competent
> speaker designers. Just being a lover of tubes does not qualify
> one to design speakers for them.

Of course, but the one does not rule out the other. Would you name a few
speaker designers, that you consider competent?

>
> >> Sir, I believe yo do NOT understand the difference between the
> >> terms "current source" and "voltage source" and, further, you
> >> have a misunderstanding of the operation of loudspeakers, as I
> >> pointed out and hopefully set you on a more correct path in a
> >> different post.
> >
> >These amplifiers monitors the impedance at the speaker terminals, and
> >adjusts the feed back loop accordingly, so the term current source
applies
> >very well.
>
> No, it os no ABUNDANTLY clear that your do not understand the
> meaning of the term "current source" or "voltage source." It has
> NOTHING to do with what you are desribing, which, by the way,
> you are not describing correctly anyway.
>
> The DEFINITION of a current source is very simple: a current
> source is one whose effective Thevenin source impedance is
> substantially larger than the load impedance. A voltage source
> os one whose effective Thevenin source impedance is
> substantially smaller than the load impedance. Period. All the
> other hooey and hoopla and handwaving is nonsense.
>
> And the result is real simple: driving a frequency dependent
> load impedance from a current source will ALWAYS result in the
> imposition of frequency response variations on the output of
> that source and thus on the system as a whole in a way that is a
> function of the load impedance.
>
> Period. This is not some narrow-minded high-end agenda-driven
> pseudo-definition, this is a precise technical description of
> the physical behavior of the system.
>
> >It should be possible to find a few serious manufactures in the industry,
> >anyway, a standard would give a goal to persue for the serious ones. It
> >could be implemented like the ISO or similar standard.
>
> You missed the point, the standard ALREADY exist: it is the
> high-end audio industry that is most guilty of egregious
> violations of these standards. The high-end industry seems also
> to be the least technically competent to follow such standards.
>
> >> >There are almost no specifications available for the OTL's, since they
> >would
> >> >not give an objective idea of the end result.
> >>
> >> Oh, precisely the opposite, a complete set of performance data
> >> would give a VERY GOOD iobjective dea of the end result. The
> >> manufacturer might not like the picture painted, but it would be
> >> pretty precise.
> >
> >I haven't really seen anybody disliking the sound of the few serious OTSs
on
> >the market, but you may be an exception
>
> Excuse me, sir, that is NOT what I said, and that is NOT the
> questyion you posed. You stated:
>
> "There are almost no specifications available for the OTL's,
> since they would not give an objective idea of the end
> result."
>
> And my refutation is that such specification, properly done,
> would precisely lead to and exact idea of their objective
> performance. You may like listening to the result. You may not.
>
> But when, sir did I say, at ANY point, whether I did or did not
> LIKE the result? (Hint: I never did and I object to you claiming
> otherwise.)
>
> >> >Absolutely nonsence,
> >>
> >> Hardly, if you read your statement.
> >>
> >> But your failed to answer the question:
> >
> >Even if I close my eyes, the OTLs sound great :)
>
> You failed to answer the question yet again. Methinks you cannot
> answer the question.
>
> >> Why is eliminatiung the direct knowledge of what equipment
> >> is playing a hinderance to relaxation?
> >>
> >> Please answer that question, as it is at the very root of your
> >> complaints about DB testing.
> >As a music lover, I am merely reporting observations, not writing
sceintific
> >reports. I can only encurage people to use their own ears, and judge for
> >themselves.
>
> But, if you KNOW the brand, if you KNOW what wires and what
> amplifiers, guess what YOU AREN'T JUST USING YOUR EARS!
>
> You are contradicting yourself: you say for people to trust
> their ears and then you tell them not to.
>
> --
> | Dick Pierce |
> | Professional Audio Development |
> | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
> | |

Stewart Pinkerton

August 1st 03, 05:16 AM

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:14:43 GMT, "All Ears" >
wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
>news:Y7KVa.16733$o%2.10872@sccrnsc02...
>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:22:39 GMT, "All Ears" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Again, would you say, from a personal non sceintific point of view, that
>> >OTLs sounds bad and unnatural?
>>
>> I would say that it sounds inaccurate. Good or bad are matters of
>> preference.
>
>Are you speaking from personal experiences, or theoretical judgement?

I've heard the Futterman, and I wasn't impressed. Also, they are
theoretically disastrous, which is a bad place to start, IME!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton

August 1st 03, 05:17 AM

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:15:24 GMT, "All Ears" >
wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
>news:O7KVa.16563$Ho3.3573@sccrnsc03...

>> The point at issue is whether you can still hear the 'benefits' of the
>> OTL amp when you don't *know* that it's connected.
>
>Yes, no doubt about this, there is a significant change in the sound image
>with the OTLs compared to any SS design. More bloom in the midrange, and the
>bass works extremely well in the bottom octaves.

Excuse me, that does not answer the question. Have you compared this
amp with something else in a level-matched *blind* test?

>I always listen to others opinions, but do not necessarily agree. I do my
>best to keep an open mind.

The trick is to do this while avoiding your brain falling out! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

All Ears

August 1st 03, 05:13 PM

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
news:PQlWa.36487$uu5.4559@sccrnsc04...
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:14:43 GMT, "All Ears" >
> wrote:
>
> >"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
> >news:Y7KVa.16733$o%2.10872@sccrnsc02...
> >> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:22:39 GMT, "All Ears" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Again, would you say, from a personal non sceintific point of view,
that
> >> >OTLs sounds bad and unnatural?
> >>
> >> I would say that it sounds inaccurate. Good or bad are matters of
> >> preference.
> >
> >Are you speaking from personal experiences, or theoretical judgement?
>
> I've heard the Futterman, and I wasn't impressed. Also, they are
> theoretically disastrous, which is a bad place to start, IME!

Modern OTLs has fortunately solved some issue present in the Futterman
design. I think you would change your mind if you listened to some Tenor,
Atma-Sphere or Joule Electra OTLs, with the right speakers.

I have had quite a few ears to listen to the OTLs lately and they are all
extremely impressed by how truely natural they sound......

KE

> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
>

Stewart Pinkerton

August 1st 03, 10:30 PM

On 1 Aug 2003 16:13:29 GMT, "All Ears" > wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
>news:PQlWa.36487$uu5.4559@sccrnsc04...
>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:14:43 GMT, "All Ears" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
>> >news:Y7KVa.16733$o%2.10872@sccrnsc02...
>> >> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:22:39 GMT, "All Ears" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Again, would you say, from a personal non sceintific point of view,
>that
>> >> >OTLs sounds bad and unnatural?
>> >>
>> >> I would say that it sounds inaccurate. Good or bad are matters of
>> >> preference.
>> >
>> >Are you speaking from personal experiences, or theoretical judgement?
>>
>> I've heard the Futterman, and I wasn't impressed. Also, they are
>> theoretically disastrous, which is a bad place to start, IME!
>
>Modern OTLs has fortunately solved some issue present in the Futterman
>design. I think you would change your mind if you listened to some Tenor,
>Atma-Sphere or Joule Electra OTLs, with the right speakers.

I've also heard the Atma-Sphere, and there really were no 'issues'
with the Futterman design which are not still present in modern OTLs.
They suffer the same *fundamental* problems of high source impedance,
added to all the standard valve problems. The *only* thing they avoid
is the deep bass and high treble problems of O/P transformers, but the
source impedance problem is to my ears much more serious.

I simply can *not* understand why anyone thinks that there's anything
special about an OTL valve amplifier, aside from the sheer difficulty
of getting such a beast to work at all!

As with dancing bears, the amazing thing is not that it dances well,
but that it dances at all..................

>I have had quite a few ears to listen to the OTLs lately and they are all
>extremely impressed by how truely natural they sound......

Yes, we have established that you *like* that sound, but to my ears it
is not at all 'natural', just *inaccurate*. The reasons *why* that
extra bit of 'air' is common to valve designs are well-known, but it
wasn't on the master tape.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton

August 2nd 03, 04:58 PM

On 2 Aug 2003 00:39:30 GMT, "All Ears" > wrote:

>-Snip-
>> >> >> >Again, would you say, from a personal non sceintific point of view,
>> >that
>> >> >> >OTLs sounds bad and unnatural?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I would say that it sounds inaccurate. Good or bad are matters of
>> >> >> preference.
>> >> >
>> >> >Are you speaking from personal experiences, or theoretical judgement?
>> >>
>> >> I've heard the Futterman, and I wasn't impressed. Also, they are
>> >> theoretically disastrous, which is a bad place to start, IME!
>> >
>> >Modern OTLs has fortunately solved some issue present in the Futterman
>> >design. I think you would change your mind if you listened to some Tenor,
>> >Atma-Sphere or Joule Electra OTLs, with the right speakers.
>>
>> I've also heard the Atma-Sphere, and there really were no 'issues'
>> with the Futterman design which are not still present in modern OTLs.
>> They suffer the same *fundamental* problems of high source impedance,
>> added to all the standard valve problems. The *only* thing they avoid
>> is the deep bass and high treble problems of O/P transformers, but the
>> source impedance problem is to my ears much more serious.
>
>Speaker matching is one of the critical issues with these amplifiers. Part
>of my success with these OTLs is that I was fortunate enough to have some
>rather efficient self damping speakers, that works, as if they were build
>for these amps. It would be easy to find several speakers that would work
>pretty lousy in combination with OTL. They really don't like speakers that
>dips into low impedances.

Quite so, and almost all the truly high quality speakers on the market
have aggressively low dips in their impedance curves. Now, since all
well-designed amps are sonically indistinguishable below clipping, why
would one use an amp which cannot drive the best speakers?

>> I simply can *not* understand why anyone thinks that there's anything
>> special about an OTL valve amplifier, aside from the sheer difficulty
>> of getting such a beast to work at all!
>>
>> As with dancing bears, the amazing thing is not that it dances well,
>> but that it dances at all..................
>>
>> >I have had quite a few ears to listen to the OTLs lately and they are all
>> >extremely impressed by how truely natural they sound......
>>
>> Yes, we have established that you *like* that sound, but to my ears it
>> is not at all 'natural', just *inaccurate*. The reasons *why* that
>> extra bit of 'air' is common to valve designs are well-known, but it
>> wasn't on the master tape.
>
>Well, there are many approaches to musical pleasure and audio reproduktion.
>Why do you think we have all these Tubes versus SS threads? Because we have
>people burning for their ideals and passions! My ear/brain combo apparantly
>works different from yours, or you have not experienced what I have, or the
>other way around. That is it.

A more likely take is that we have different goals. Mine is to obtain
'the closest approach to the original sound', to borrow a phrase.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Wylie Williams

August 3rd 03, 05:51 AM

Randy, when you say:

>. If you believe the objective argument, speakers and room treatment are
most
> important, followed by the recording itself and if you get
> "competently designed" cd players, amps you are in like flint. Wires,
> interconnects and other tweaks are generally a waste of money as you
> go higher up the food chain, and power conditioners are generally not
> needed.

can you be more specific about what you mean "as you go higher up the food
chain"?

For example I have many interconnect cables left over from my stereo store.
I have everythng from the ones that come free with a $99 Sony CD player to
cables from Tara Labs and IXOS in the $400 to $500 dollar range. I have no
idea where you would place these cables "on the food chain". When I talk to
ordinary people a $50 cable is at the top. When I read The Absolute Sound a
$400 cable is entry level at best.

And I have no idea which of my components would be considered "competently
designed", so I don't know whether I have overspent or aimed too low.

Wylie Williams

All Ears

August 4th 03, 06:20 AM

-snip-
> >
> >Speaker matching is one of the critical issues with these amplifiers.
Part
> >of my success with these OTLs is that I was fortunate enough to have some
> >rather efficient self damping speakers, that works, as if they were build
> >for these amps. It would be easy to find several speakers that would work
> >pretty lousy in combination with OTL. They really don't like speakers
that
> >dips into low impedances.
>
> Quite so, and almost all the truly high quality speakers on the market
> have aggressively low dips in their impedance curves. Now, since all
> well-designed amps are sonically indistinguishable below clipping, why
> would one use an amp which cannot drive the best speakers?

Well 100W P/C of OTL power will move some membrane, so we are not talking
horn speakers here. I like to hear the textures and layers of the music, and
to feel the presence and harmonic structure of a piano or an acoustic bass.
This is what these amplifiers do to me....

>
> >> I simply can *not* understand why anyone thinks that there's anything
> >> special about an OTL valve amplifier, aside from the sheer difficulty
> >> of getting such a beast to work at all!
> >>
> >> As with dancing bears, the amazing thing is not that it dances well,
> >> but that it dances at all..................
> >>
> >> >I have had quite a few ears to listen to the OTLs lately and they are
all
> >> >extremely impressed by how truely natural they sound......
> >>
> >> Yes, we have established that you *like* that sound, but to my ears it
> >> is not at all 'natural', just *inaccurate*. The reasons *why* that
> >> extra bit of 'air' is common to valve designs are well-known, but it
> >> wasn't on the master tape.
> >
> >Well, there are many approaches to musical pleasure and audio
reproduktion.
> >Why do you think we have all these Tubes versus SS threads? Because we
have
> >people burning for their ideals and passions! My ear/brain combo
apparantly
> >works different from yours, or you have not experienced what I have, or
the
> >other way around. That is it.
>
> A more likely take is that we have different goals. Mine is to obtain
> 'the closest approach to the original sound', to borrow a phrase.

How would you prefer to look at a painting? With the maximum light
available, or would you like to try to recreate the actual light, in which
it was painted?

KE

> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Richard D Pierce

August 5th 03, 05:50 AM

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:15:04 GMT, "All Ears" >
wrote:
>"Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
>news:xWGVa.15186$Ho3.2577@sccrnsc03...
>> In article <RhwVa.6614$Oz4.1603@rwcrnsc54>,
>> All Ears > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Frankly, feedback operation, as it applies to audio amplifiers,
>> >> is MUCH simpler and, indeed, much more powerful than your
>> >> description implies. And, it should be noted, feedback is one of
>> >> the most poorly understood concepts by the high-end community
>> >> almost as an intrinsic property of the industry. More out-and-
>> >> out hooey and bunkum has been promulgated about feedback by
>> >> high-end manufacturers, magazine writers and other
>> >> self-appointed but clueless experts than almost any other topic.
>> >
>> >The SS amplifiers I am talking about are equipped with the Anagram Power
>> >Loop module, and does exactely what I described.....
>>
>> Well, according to Anagram Technology's website, it's IMPOSSIBLE
>> to say what it does and how it does it. There is no coherent
>> description, there is no theory of operation, it simply makes
>> some cryptic and irrelevant claims, such as "tension gain" and
>> such that are pretty meaningless.
>>
>> Until a real technical description of what the thing does
>> technically, I think any such statement is pure speculation.
>
>The description is given to me from a source close to Anagram, so I have no
>reason to doubt the function.

Well, whatever description you related here is technically
nonsensical, much of Anagrams website is technically vague,
nonsensical or out and out incorrect.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Richard D Pierce

August 5th 03, 05:50 AM

In article <03mWa.36667$uu5.4640@sccrnsc04>,
Wylie Williams > wrote:
>Where Mr. Pierce says
>>And, we can say, that the lowest the impedance could be is the
>> electrical resistance of the voice coil. Can't get any lower
>> than that.
>it jogs a memory of something I read in Harmon Kardon literature in the
>early 80's to the effect that the imprdance of a speaker would drop below
>the DC resistance during bass transients. The something , may back EMF ( I
>don't recall) would cause aa nominal 8 ohm speaker ( DCR probably 5 to 6
>ohms) to drop as low as 1 ohm at times. This was supposed to be a finding
>from Mr. Otala's' research, and was part of the justification for high
>current amplification.

You recall quite incorrectly. Indeed. Mr. Otala findings
confirmed what I stated. I have the article in front of me:
Otala, M., "Peak Current Requirements of Commercial Loudspeaker
Systems," J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol 35, no 6, Oct 1986. It makes
no claims of the sort that you recall. His only claim is that
the peak current encountered under come conditions were several
times greater than that found in an 8-ohm resistor. What is
often forgotten is that the impedane of the loads he was testing
dipped well below 8 ohms across significant bands of frequency,
so it is NOT at all surprising to find current in excess of
those into 8 ohms. There is absolutely no big surprise here
whatsoever.

> I believed this was true results from legitimate research. Do I
>misremember HK's claims, or do I remember right and the literature was
>presenting incorrect information?

Sorry, but your memory on this is quite incorrect.

There is SO much utter nonsense and outright hooey that is
attributed to what seems to be this magical, mysterious
"back-EMF." WHat is VERY clear is that those in the high-end
audio realm that invoke "back-EMF" for these sorts of behaviors
have utterly NO idea what they are talkign about or how it
works.

The back EMF due to the mechanical resonance of a loudspeaker
with a voice coil attached and moving in a magnetic field is NO
different AT all then the recirculating currents in an
electrical resonant circuit.

In order for speakers to behave as your recollection demands,
the speaker would have to have real negative impedances in it. I
would invite your to describe how a passive device, even a
combination of a passive electrical, mechanical and acoustical
device, could possibly have real negative impedance. (Hint: it
is not possible AND not a single shred of evidence exists to
suggest otherwise and, oh by the way, by "real" we mean,
specifically, impedances which are on the left-hand side of the
complex S plane).

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Richard D Pierce

August 5th 03, 05:50 AM

In article <PU%Va.23636$uu5.2909@sccrnsc04>,
Wylie Williams > wrote:
> Well, if I read the preceding posts correctly I must suppose that
>everything that ever is to be known about human auditory perception is
>known.

Ah, yes, the desparate final defense when the paltry merits of
tone's position have been exhausted: snidely misrepresent the
opther side's position.

No, in fact, no one EVER said that we know everything there is
to know, and, indeed, you are undoubtedly well aware of thatm,
so why bring it up?

What was said is that the state of knowledge in high-end audio
is often DECADES behind what is known in real engineering and
perceptual physics fields, and that, quite often, what is claim
to be "known" in high-end audio is just plain wrong.

Or, the other possibility is, you did NOT read the preceding
posts correctly.

> I have a question - Where can I find a list of those components that
>have been shown to be good enough that the human ear cannot detect
>improvement? Or if not a list, a chart of the specifications?

Better yet, why don't YOU show us real evidence that the basic
thresholds of human hearing can regularily be surpassed by
high-end audio listeners?

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Wylie Williams

August 5th 03, 05:51 AM

"randyb" wrote ( in connection of comparing interconnects)
> Have someone switch them out and see if you can tell the
> difference without knowing which cable is in the system. Not double
> blind but might be interesting.
>
Randy, I haven't done that. I do the usual thing: substitute and listen,
knowing what is in the system. I'll try to get my one audiophile friend to
come over and play a substitution game.

I have, however, done a different test that I consider to be more valid than
my personal evaluations I make a change and ask my wife what she thinks of
the sound. She is a close to an unbiased listener as I can get. Usually I
tell her which component has been changed, and I suspect that she suspects
that new component under test is more expensive. If she has a bias it is
probably in fovor of that familiar product that we already own. I can assure
you that she could,care less about technological innovation or brand names
or the other factors that would influence me. Her jufgments are quick. And
so far as my tin ears can confirm, accurate.
Wylie Williams

Dick Pierce

August 5th 03, 05:52 AM

"All Ears" > wrote in message >...
> How would you prefer to look at a painting? With the maximum light
> available, or would you like to try to recreate the actual light, in which
> it was painted?

Well, as my wife IS a painter of some note, and as I have worked
with a number of painters, I would most DEFINITELY say that the
light under which the painting was created is NOT the light under
which I would want to view it, and, indeed, soliciting the opinion
of a number of these painters reveals that unanimously, these
painters feel that the ideal light to view their work is NOT the
light they used while painting them.

Steven Sullivan

August 5th 03, 04:11 PM

Wylie Williams > wrote:
> "randyb" wrote ( in connection of comparing interconnects)
> > Have someone switch them out and see if you can tell the
> > difference without knowing which cable is in the system. Not double
> > blind but might be interesting.
> >
> Randy, I haven't done that. I do the usual thing: substitute and listen,
> knowing what is in the system. I'll try to get my one audiophile friend to
> come over and play a substitution game.

> I have, however, done a different test that I consider to be more valid than
> my personal evaluations I make a change and ask my wife what she thinks of
> the sound. She is a close to an unbiased listener as I can get. Usually I
> tell her which component has been changed, and I suspect that she suspects
> that new component under test is more expensive. If she has a bias it is
> probably in fovor of that familiar product that we already own. I can assure
> you that she could,care less about technological innovation or brand names
> or the other factors that would influence me. Her jufgments are quick. And
> so far as my tin ears can confirm, accurate.
> Wylie Williams

Wylie, I'm afraid that according to the best extant psychological research,
your wife is likely no less susceptible to perceptual bias than you are.
The 'bias' often mentioned here is simply one that tends to make people
perceive *difference* whether it exists or not. It's not necessarily a
bias to hear something as 'better' or 'worse'. Certainly if you *tell* her
something has been
changed, or ask her what she thinks of the sound, she is even more
likely to take those 'cues' as meaning that she 'should' hear a difference.

--
-S.

All Ears

August 5th 03, 04:41 PM

-Snip-
> >> And the Futterman is one example of an OTL tube amplifier I have
> >> evaluated and, indeed, the output impedance is quite high.
> >
> >The Futtermam designs suffered from some obvious design compromises, the
far
> >best speaker match was the Quad electrostates.
>
> I cannot think of a worse match. Given the wide impedance
> variation of the Quad "electrostatics," the resulting frequency
> response would be greatly altered over what Peter Walker
> intended when he designed them.
>
> Again, you may well LIKE the results, but you need to understand
> WHY you do.

I admit that I never personally heard this combination, but I know that a
lot of people liked it.

KE

>
> --
> | Dick Pierce |
> | Professional Audio Development |
> | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
> | |
>

All Ears

August 5th 03, 04:42 PM

"Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
...
> "All Ears" > wrote in message
>...
> > How would you prefer to look at a painting? With the maximum light
> > available, or would you like to try to recreate the actual light, in
which
> > it was painted?
>
> Well, as my wife IS a painter of some note, and as I have worked
> with a number of painters, I would most DEFINITELY say that the
> light under which the painting was created is NOT the light under
> which I would want to view it, and, indeed, soliciting the opinion
> of a number of these painters reveals that unanimously, these
> painters feel that the ideal light to view their work is NOT the
> light they used while painting them.

Actually, I used to paint a lot as well, back when I had the time. It is
quite obvious that using different light, changes the color balance in the
painting......

All Ears

August 5th 03, 04:43 PM

"Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
et...
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:15:04 GMT, "All Ears" >
> wrote:
> >"Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
> >news:xWGVa.15186$Ho3.2577@sccrnsc03...
> >> In article <RhwVa.6614$Oz4.1603@rwcrnsc54>,
> >> All Ears > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Frankly, feedback operation, as it applies to audio amplifiers,
> >> >> is MUCH simpler and, indeed, much more powerful than your
> >> >> description implies. And, it should be noted, feedback is one of
> >> >> the most poorly understood concepts by the high-end community
> >> >> almost as an intrinsic property of the industry. More out-and-
> >> >> out hooey and bunkum has been promulgated about feedback by
> >> >> high-end manufacturers, magazine writers and other
> >> >> self-appointed but clueless experts than almost any other topic.
> >> >
> >> >The SS amplifiers I am talking about are equipped with the Anagram
Power
> >> >Loop module, and does exactely what I described.....
> >>
> >> Well, according to Anagram Technology's website, it's IMPOSSIBLE
> >> to say what it does and how it does it. There is no coherent
> >> description, there is no theory of operation, it simply makes
> >> some cryptic and irrelevant claims, such as "tension gain" and
> >> such that are pretty meaningless.
> >>
> >> Until a real technical description of what the thing does
> >> technically, I think any such statement is pure speculation.
> >
> >The description is given to me from a source close to Anagram, so I have
no
> >reason to doubt the function.
>
> Well, whatever description you related here is technically
> nonsensical, much of Anagrams website is technically vague,
> nonsensical or out and out incorrect.

From my latest thoughts about this issue, I have a theory that what they
really could be doing is some sort of "current feed forward" making it
easier for the amplifier to deliver the current peaks. I'll look into the
matter...

>
> --
> | Dick Pierce |
> | Professional Audio Development |
> | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
> | |
>

Arny Krueger

August 5th 03, 04:44 PM

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message
news:03mWa.36667$uu5.4640@sccrnsc04
> Where Mr. Pierce says
>> And, we can say, that the lowest the impedance could be is the
>> electrical resistance of the voice coil. Can't get any lower
>> than that.

> it jogs a memory of something I read in Harmon Kardon literature in
> the early 80's to the effect that the impedance of a speaker would
> drop below the DC resistance during bass transients. The something ,
> may back EMF ( I don't recall) would cause aa nominal 8 ohm speaker (
> DCR probably 5 to 6 ohms) to drop as low as 1 ohm at times.

The only speakers I am aware of that present load impedances as low as one
ohm do so at high frequencies, not low frequencies. Relevant brand names
include Acoustat, Infinity, and Martin-Logan.

Infinity produced a small number of models whose impedance went down into
the 2 ohm range at bass frequencies. These speakers used woofers with
multiple voice coils and AFAIK oddly-connected (presumably reasonable in the
context of the actual design) reactive networks in a way that was both
patented and also quite rare.

Other than a short list of exceptions, nominal 4-8 ohm speakers rarely dip
below 2.66 ohms in the bass range, with 3 ohms being a more common low water
mark.

Transient drive is irrelevant to this discussion as these speakers are easy
to test to find these characteristics. Traditional tests will uncover these
low impedances, using continuous sine-wave drive.

There's a practical problem with speakers like these . If people take
speakers home and they sound like crap with their existing amplifier,
they're more probably likely to return the speakers than buy a new
amplifier. Even if a majority did buy a new amplifier, there is a tremendous
number of lost sales. A lot of new equipment makes the ugly transition to
used equipment with no revenues being generated.

Therefore, it behooves the speaker manufacturer to deliver speakers that are
relatively easy to drive.

>This was
> supposed to be a finding from Mr. Ocala's research, and was part of
> the justification for high current amplification.

It is merely good traditional electrical engineering practice to have a
power source that can deliver reliable power to its load. Nobody needs or
needed Otala to point this out to them.

> I believed this was true results from legitimate research. Do I
> misremember HK's claims, or do I remember right and the
> literature was presenting incorrect information? Or does that concept
> not apply in the context of this discussion?

I've studied the impedance properties of 100's of high end speakers and
assembled the characteristics of what I find to be a reasonable worst case
load. I've portrayed its technical properties and a passive circuit that
implements it (a "dummy load" for testing amplifiers) at my PCABX and
PCAVTech web sites.

Wylie Williams

August 5th 03, 05:17 PM

"Richard D Pierce" said
> What was said is that the state of knowledge in high-end audio
> is often DECADES behind what is known in real engineering and
> perceptual physics fields,

That is a troubling statement in two ways:
1. It implies that the top level of audio industry knowledge of several
decades ago was inadequate for the purpose of high end audio today. Are
there no componenst form decades ago that are still comparable to today's
best?
2. It implies that today's practicioners who are up to the state of the art
are ignoring audio design. Many of the pioners of audio were not trained in
audio but brought their knowledge to audio from other fields. Has this
stopped happening?

By the way, Mr. Pierce, your business name is Professional Audio
Development. Are you associated with design of high end audio?

> > I have a question - Where can I find a list of those components that
> >have been shown to be good enough that the human ear cannot detect
> >improvement? Or if not a list, a chart of the specifications?

> Better yet, why don't YOU show us real evidence that the basic
> thresholds of human hearing can regularily be surpassed by
> high-end audio listeners?
>
Well, it's clever to turn the tables and ask me to be the expert. Eevn if I
were capable (not so), having sampled the DBT on RAHE posts I would not
consider wading into that bar fight.
I have more practical goals, one of which is to discover if there are
objective specifics that can be used to choose components. In my stereo
store customers were always looking for what I called "the magic number" -
some specification that would assure them that a component with that number
would be as good as they needed to get. I told them manufacturers specs and
magazines reviews did not tell the whole story. That they had to listen. I
never believed that was possible to use a magic number till I started
reading RAHE, where there seems to be a strong contingent of highly
knowledgeable members who believe that science has discovered, if not a
single magic number, maybe a set of numbers that are capable of measurement
so we won't have to listen to choose electronic components. I have asked in
a different post and some members have given me some helpful information
about amps. Interestingly the nmos specific responses are not posted to the
group but to me as an individual. What could account for this reluctance to
post specifics about high end audio on RAHE?

Wylie Williams

Arny Krueger

August 6th 03, 04:45 AM

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message

> "randyb" wrote ( in connection of comparing interconnects)
>> Have someone switch them out and see if you can tell the
>> difference without knowing which cable is in the system. Not double
>> blind but might be interesting.
>>
> Randy, I haven't done that. I do the usual thing: substitute and
> listen, knowing what is in the system. I'll try to get my one
> audiophile friend to come over and play a substitution game.

It's true that this is "the usual thing" but its equally true that it scores
zero on the bias control scale.

> I have, however, done a different test that I consider to be more
> valid than my personal evaluations I make a change and ask my wife
> what she thinks of the sound. She is a close to an unbiased listener
> as I can get.

If you can figure out how to do a self-administered blind test, you can be
your own unbiased listener. My PCABX web site makes that dream a reality for
people who have computers with sound cards in them. which is just about
everybody these days.

>Usually I tell her which component has been changed,
> and I suspect that she suspects that new component under test is more
> expensive. If she has a bias it is probably in favor of that familiar
> product that we already own. I can assure you that she could,care
> less about technological innovation or brand names or the other
> factors that would influence me. Her judgments are quick. And so far
> as my tin ears can confirm, accurate.

The failings of non-blind and single blind subjective tests have been
well-known for at least 100 years. Double blind tests have been the gold
standard in subjective testing for at least 50 years.

Richard D Pierce

August 6th 03, 06:12 AM

In article >,
All Ears > wrote:
>> Well, whatever description you related here is technically
>> nonsensical, much of Anagrams website is technically vague,
>> nonsensical or out and out incorrect.
>
>From my latest thoughts about this issue, I have a theory that what they
>really could be doing is some sort of "current feed forward" making it
>easier for the amplifier to deliver the current peaks. I'll look into the
>matter...

If you understood amplifier and feedback principles, you'd
understand why this "current feed forward" description is
nonsensical and quite impossible.
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Mark Alan Miller

August 6th 03, 06:13 AM

"All Ears" > wrote in message
...
> "Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "All Ears" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > How would you prefer to look at a painting? With the maximum light
> > > available, or would you like to try to recreate the actual light, in
> which
> > > it was painted?
> >
> > Well, as my wife IS a painter of some note, and as I have worked
> > with a number of painters, I would most DEFINITELY say that the
> > light under which the painting was created is NOT the light under
> > which I would want to view it, and, indeed, soliciting the opinion
> > of a number of these painters reveals that unanimously, these
> > painters feel that the ideal light to view their work is NOT the
> > light they used while painting them.
>
> Actually, I used to paint a lot as well, back when I had the time. It is
> quite obvious that using different light, changes the color balance in the
> painting......

Mmm, well I'm a painter, and of course different lighting changes color
balances, but any experienced painter knows that and to some degree
compensates for it. My preferred lighting for painting is the brighter the
better, but that is so I can see the details. I certainly wouldn't advise
anyone to replicate that same lighting for normal viewing, as it is harsh
and makes some things stand out too much. I do, as I'm working, regularly
view the work under more typical lighting conditions to make sure I'm on the
right track. This is very analogous to what should happen in a recording
studio, where they should be sweating the details, even if those details are
largely inaudible under normal listening conditions for most listeners.

Mark Alan Miller

Wylie Williams

August 6th 03, 06:22 AM

> > Regarding Mr. Pierce's statement
> >> And, we can say, that the lowest the impedance could be is the
> >> electrical resistance of the voice coil. Can't get any lower
> >> than that.
..
Arny Kreuger stated
> Other than a short list of exceptions, nominal 4-8 ohm speakers rarely dip
> below 2.66 ohms in the bass range, with 3 ohms being a more common low

My question is - did those speakers with nominal 4-8 ohm impedance have a
DC resistance of 2.66 to 3 ohms?
Just trying to clarify.

Wylie Williams

Richard D Pierce

August 6th 03, 06:22 AM

In article >,
Wylie Williams > wrote:
>"Richard D Pierce" said
>> What was said is that the state of knowledge in high-end audio
>> is often DECADES behind what is known in real engineering and
>> perceptual physics fields,
>
> That is a troubling statement in two ways:
>1. It implies that the top level of audio industry knowledge of several
>decades ago was inadequate for the purpose of high end audio today.

It implies abosultely no such thing and to say so is a
desparate attempt to make a silk purse out of a pile of pig
droppings. It states quite explicitly the opposite: that the
high end industry is, in fact, IGNORANT of quite a large number
of things that were worked on decades ago. A case in point: look
at the huge amount of handwringing that goes on over the subject
of jitter: a topic thoroughly studied and understood in the
1960's, and the high-end industry hasn't even begun to
understand the picture.

>Are
>there no componenst form decades ago that are still comparable to today's
>best?

If you mean are there not components "out there" that compare
with today's best high-end components, well, no: "out there"
long since has moved on to far better. And that's precisely
high-end's problems.

>2. It implies that today's practicioners who are up to the state of the art
>are ignoring audio design.

Yup, basically. The level of ignorance and witchcraft and snake
oil in the high-end is almost embarrasing. Other engineering
field pay FAR better and are FAR less frustrating and FAR more
rewarding to be in. A competent engineering with solid
background can make an order of magnitude MORE money elsewhere.
Beyond that, working with some of the utter hooey like magic
stones, wooden pucks, water filled wire, green CD pens (which,
by the way, started as an April Fool's joke), impedance matching
CD fluids (another April Fool's joke), blue LED dithering CD
players, funny looking wooden thingies in the room, electron-
aligning clock radios, magic wire, funky feedback bricks, and
all the rest is at first discouraging, then amusing to a
competent engineer.

>Many of the pioners of audio were not trained in
>audio but brought their knowledge to audio from other fields. Has this
>stopped happening?

What has happend is that the field is now becoming more and more
populated by people who have less and less training in ANYTHING.

>By the way, Mr. Pierce, your business name is Professional Audio
>Development. Are you associated with design of high end audio?

I am actively involved in the development of products, systems
and software used in professional audio applications, such as
multi-track workstations, audio and video editing applications,
loudspeaker measurement, design and evaluation and so on.

>> > I have a question - Where can I find a list of those components that
>> >have been shown to be good enough that the human ear cannot detect
>> >improvement? Or if not a list, a chart of the specifications?
>
>> Better yet, why don't YOU show us real evidence that the basic
>> thresholds of human hearing can regularily be surpassed by
>> high-end audio listeners?
>>
>Well, it's clever to turn the tables and ask me to be the expert. Eevn if I
>were capable (not so), having sampled the DBT on RAHE posts I would not
>consider wading into that bar fight.

It was no attempt to turn the table on you, rather to turn the
tables back to where they belong. The human auditory system has
been the subject of intense study for well over 150 years now,
and many self appointed high-end luminaries have either not
availed themselves of this work, or are deliberately ignoring
it. The claims made about the ear being such a fantastically
sensitive instrument are simply contrary to the vast amount of
known data and constitute extraordinary claims.

It's not that "we" claim to know everything, it's that there are
people in the high-end realm who, in fact, know VERY little.

>I have more practical goals, one of which is to discover if there are
>objective specifics that can be used to choose components. In my stereo
>store customers were always looking for what I called "the magic number" -
>some specification that would assure them that a component with that number
>would be as good as they needed to get. I told them manufacturers specs and
>magazines reviews did not tell the whole story. That they had to listen. I
>never believed that was possible to use a magic number till I started
>reading RAHE, where there seems to be a strong contingent of highly
>knowledgeable members who believe that science has discovered, if not a
>single magic number, maybe a set of numbers that are capable of measurement
>so we won't have to listen to choose electronic components.

I will tell you this in no uncertain terms: the search for
simple single-value "figures of merit" is an exercise in
futility. This is PRECISELY my complaint with "specs:" they are
manufacturers and reviewers attempts to come up with a single
number that they can badge equipment with that will convince us
that one thing is better, and something else is better still.

What you don't seem to understand, it seems, is that the
business of high-end audio shares one thing in common with other
businesses: it's a BUSINESS. It won't survive unless YOU buy
stuff (and, one reason it's not surviving is that people AREN'T
buying stuff). And the easier it is to get YOU to buy STUFF, the
better.

Any attempts, even well-intentioned ones, to some up with
simples figure-of-merit measurements is foolish. The suite of
measurements to determine things is FAR more complex than a
0.01% here or a .25 dB there. If that's what you're looking for,
you ain't ever going to find it.

The more we DO learn about these things, the farther we get from
what you want: a single number that says "10" is better that
"9".

For example, how would YOU go about interpreting an error
spectrum? If I can't put it into a single number, what good is
it going to do you.

Unfortunately, the high-end "luminaries" take this and turn it
into something entirely different: "measurements are uselss"
they say. No, it's the "luminaries" that are useless, and they
simply are scrambling to avoid their inevitable irrelevancy.

>I have asked in
>a different post and some members have given me some helpful information
>about amps. Interestingly the nmos specific responses are not posted to the
>group but to me as an individual. What could account for this reluctance to
>post specifics about high end audio on RAHE?

It would be like trying to hold a rational discussion of quantum
physics during a revival meeting.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Nousaine

August 6th 03, 07:29 AM

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

....snip.....

>Soundstage and imaging are the results of the interrelationships between the
>sounds in the various channels that are reproduced. We can argue that by the
>argument of composition, as long as the channels themselves have high
>fidelity, the relationships between them are preserved.

In general this is true.

>
>Ironically, IME it takes a relatively gross lack of fidelity to adversely
>affect soundstaging and imaging. I can remember a few cases where I detected
>a audible flaw because it changed imaging, but it was a rare occasion. I
>almost always detect audible difference by listening for changes in timbre
>or purity.

I think timbral accuracy is a key ingredient in spatial presentation too. I
seldom find bad sounding speakers that image well. Basic horizontal placement
may be OK but image size, ambience reproduction, depth and other spatial
characteristics always seem to be compromised too.

However, because spatial rendition is also a function of speaker deployment it
is quite possible to use good sounding speakers in a way that compromises
staging, imaging, envelopment and ambient field reproduction.

Arny Krueger

August 6th 03, 04:03 PM

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message
news:mg0Ya.76363$YN5.58159@sccrnsc01
>>> Regarding Mr. Pierce's statement
>>>> And, we can say, that the lowest the impedance could be is the
>>>> electrical resistance of the voice coil. Can't get any lower
>>>> than that.

chung

August 7th 03, 03:26 PM

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> chung > wrote:
>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
>> > (I have little idea a *what* they;re talking about when they discuss big
>> > differences in the 'imaging' and 'soundstage'-throwing capabilities of *amplifiers*).
>> >
>
>> Only thing I can think of is that the L and R channels of the amp (or
>> the monoblocks) are mismatched in gain or in frequency response. This is
>> much less likely in solid-state amps.
>
> From their reviews I'd ahve to resume that the majority of the amps they
> listen to are grossly defective, then, since there is such a notable
> variation in 'soundstage' and 'imaging'..
>

What is even more strange to me is how different interconnects or
speaker cables can produce huge differences in imaging or soundstage,
according to some observers.

Of course, this is where DBT's can be really illuminating....

Bob-Stanton

August 7th 03, 04:15 PM

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message news:<pX_Xa.74794$uu5.8061@sccrnsc04>...
> The posts below end with the quote "Science can't measure things like
> soundstage and imaging"
>
> Before I started reading RAHE this would have made me doubt science. Now I
> see that the truth is that if it hasn't been proved by science, as defined
> on RAHE, it doesn't exist except as a figment, hallucination, or delusion.
> And anyone who says different is looking for a fight on RAHE.
>

Many people, in this group, think that there are still some mysterious
and as yet undiscovered, electrical characteristics of amplifiers, CD
players, and speaker cables.

As one very good engineer said, years ago, if you find them he would
nominate you for the Nobel Prize. So far, no one in this group has
been nominated for the Nobel Prize. :-) Don't hold your breath
waiting for it to happen.

Bob Stanton

Arny Krueger

August 7th 03, 04:15 PM

"Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
news:7a9Ya.80704$o%2.36381@sccrnsc02

> In article pN8Ya.53931$Oz4.14680@rwcrnsc54,
> Arny Krueger > wrote:

>> It's pretty much a rule that a typical speaker's impedance curve will
bottom
>> out really close to its DC resistance an octave or so above its
fundamental
>> resonance.

>> About the only general way I know of to beat this rule is to have a
>> speaker with really high efficiency - 25 to 50%. A lower efficiency
>> speaker tends to act more like a resistor. Most speakers are like 1%
>> efficient, more or less.

> Well, no. If you think about it, this is contradictory on its face.

Not in the context of comparing the impedance curves of speakers to their DC
resistance.

> A high-efficiency speaker MUST behave, electrically, more
> like a resistor, simply because a high-efficiency speaker is
> converting more of its electrical input power to sound, which
> effectively means a high real part to its radiation impedance
> (read "resistive"), and a high radiation resistance will appear
> directly as an equivalent high electrical resistance.

Right, but a high-efficiency speaker tends to generate stronger back-emf. In
the real world speaker drivers have a hard time avoiding seeing a mismatched
acoustic load at some frequency, extreme though it might be. Their acoustic
efficiency typically relatively low at these points, which agrees with your
thesis.

> No power
> can be dissipated in reactances, be they electrical, mechanical
> or acoustical, and when no power is dissipated, no work is done.

> One can take ANY speaker and apply a conjugate for the
> impedance, and end up with a speaker whose net impedance is
> purely resistive, regardless of the efficiency.

I see no problems with this, but it seems to be somewhat afield of
comparisons of speaker driver impedance to speaker driver DC resistance.

Wylie Williams

August 7th 03, 11:44 PM

Richard Pierce wrote
>
> I will tell you this in no uncertain terms: the search for
> simple single-value "figures of merit" is an exercise in
> futility. This is PRECISELY my complaint with "specs:" they are
> manufacturers and reviewers attempts to come up with a single
> number that they can badge equipment with that will convince us
> that one thing is better, and something else is better still.
>
> Any attempts, even well-intentioned ones, to some up with
> simples figure-of-merit measurements is foolish. The suite of
> measurements to determine things is FAR more complex than a
> 0.01% here or a .25 dB there. If that's what you're looking for,
> you ain't ever going to find it.
>
> The more we DO learn about these things, the farther we get from
> what you want: a single number that says "10" is better that
> "9".
>
No not a single number. My post said something a little differeent. I
wrote
"... RAHE, where there seems to be a strong contingent of highly
knowledgeable members who believe that science has discovered, if not a
single magic number, maybe a set of numbers that are capable of measurement
so we won't have to listen to choose electronic components. ..."

I asked for a set of numbers and did not specify a limit.

It is interesting to seek opinions on component selection on RAHE. If
you ask for listening impressions you will be informed that they are useless
unless DBT was used, which will be followed by a deluge of arguments
between RAHE members about DBT in which all are declared to be wrong by the
others. Accompanied by a few "if you like it, that's all that matters".
If you ask for specs some will supply them but then others will call
that an exercise in futility. What can you do with a component besides
listen or measure?

Mr. Pierce, how would you choose an amplifier?

Wylie Williams

Richard D Pierce

August 8th 03, 04:29 AM

In article <m2uYa.89091$YN5.64386@sccrnsc01>,
Arny Krueger > wrote:
>"Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
>news:7a9Ya.80704$o%2.36381@sccrnsc02
>
>> In article pN8Ya.53931$Oz4.14680@rwcrnsc54,
>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>>> It's pretty much a rule that a typical speaker's impedance curve will
>bottom
>>> out really close to its DC resistance an octave or so above its
>fundamental
>>> resonance.
>
>>> About the only general way I know of to beat this rule is to have a
>>> speaker with really high efficiency - 25 to 50%. A lower efficiency
>>> speaker tends to act more like a resistor. Most speakers are like 1%
>>> efficient, more or less.
>
>> Well, no. If you think about it, this is contradictory on its face.
>
>Not in the context of comparing the impedance curves of speakers to their DC
>resistance.
>
>> A high-efficiency speaker MUST behave, electrically, more
>> like a resistor, simply because a high-efficiency speaker is
>> converting more of its electrical input power to sound, which
>> effectively means a high real part to its radiation impedance
>> (read "resistive"), and a high radiation resistance will appear
>> directly as an equivalent high electrical resistance.
>
>Right, but a high-efficiency speaker tends to generate stronger back-emf.

Arny, sorry, but this is basically contrary to simple physics.
First, "back-emf" is generally ONLY "generated" at resonance.
Beyond that, simply by conservation of energy, your claim CAN
NOT hold.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Wylie Williams

August 8th 03, 03:45 PM

Wylie Williams asked
> > Mr. Pierce, how would you choose an amplifier?
>

Mr. Pierce replied
> For what purpose?
>
> If it's for someone's personal use, I'd say that any method and
> criteria the person making the choice uses that satisfies that
> person's criteria is exactly what is needed.

A masterful answer.

> How would I choose and amplifier? I'd first have to determine
> what the amplifier is being used for.

Let me try two purposes:
1. If you were establishing a high end home stereo system
2. If you were specifying components for a professional high accuracy full
range stereo music monitoring system in a room similar in size to a home
environment.

If you dance away from this one I will stop asking.

Wylie Williams

Arny Krueger

August 8th 03, 04:07 PM

"Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message

> In article <m2uYa.89091$YN5.64386@sccrnsc01>,
> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>> "Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
>> news:7a9Ya.80704$o%2.36381@sccrnsc02
>>
>>> In article pN8Ya.53931$Oz4.14680@rwcrnsc54,
>>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>
>>>> It's pretty much a rule that a typical speaker's impedance curve
>>>> will bottom out really close to its DC resistance an octave or so
>>>> above its fundamental resonance.
>>
>>>> About the only general way I know of to beat this rule is to have a
>>>> speaker with really high efficiency - 25 to 50%. A lower efficiency
>>>> speaker tends to act more like a resistor. Most speakers are like
>>>> 1% efficient, more or less.
>>
>>> Well, no. If you think about it, this is contradictory on its face.

>> Not in the context of comparing the impedance curves of speakers to
>> their DC resistance.

>>> A high-efficiency speaker MUST behave, electrically, more
>>> like a resistor, simply because a high-efficiency speaker is
>>> converting more of its electrical input power to sound, which
>>> effectively means a high real part to its radiation impedance
>>> (read "resistive"), and a high radiation resistance will appear
>>> directly as an equivalent high electrical resistance.

>> Right, but a high-efficiency speaker tends to generate stronger
>> back-emf.

> Arny, sorry, but this is basically contrary to simple physics.
> First, "back-emf" is generally ONLY "generated" at resonance.

> Beyond that, simply by conservation of energy, your claim CAN
> NOT hold.

Ironically, conservation of energy is why my claim MUST hold.

A speaker driver follows similar rules to a motor.

A high efficiency motor has a relatively low DC resistance, and when
spinning unloaded most of the applied voltage is resisted not by the motor's
DC resistance, but by back-emf. The motor spins very fast in order to
generate the required back-emf. As you load the motor, the back-emf
decreases and more current flows into the motor. When the motor stalls due
to high torque mechanical load, the entire applied voltage is dropped across
its internal resistance.

Hig efficiency drivers, such as the JBL 2446 spec sheet at
http://www.pispeakers.com/JBL_2446.pdf have relatively low DC resistance
given their nominal impedance. Furthermore while a low efficiency driver
will have a minimum impedance that is essentially the same as its DC
resistance, a high efficiency driver will have a minimum impedance that is
significantly greater than its DC resistance (in this case 50% greater!), as
this spec sheet and many others show.

But we are far afield of the origional topic, which is popular press musings
about "back-emf". In a system that conserves energy, back emf is just a way
to explain why the impedance of a loudspeaker driver can be greater than its
DC resistance. It's not the unmanagable physical effect that destroys or
dramatically decreases the performance of power amplifiers, like some
popular writers and advertising copywriters would have us believe.

Midlant

August 8th 03, 04:08 PM

"Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
news:MdFYa.92573$Ho3.12519@sccrnsc03...
> In article >,
> Wylie Williams > wrote:

> >Richard Pierce wrote
> > Mr. Pierce, how would you choose an amplifier?
>
> For what purpose?
>
> If it's for someone's personal use, I'd say that any method and
> criteria the person making the choice uses that satisfies that
> person's criteria is exactly what is needed.
>
> How would I choose and amplifier? I'd first have to determine
> what the amplifier is being used for.

Recorded music.
Is there a difference in selection criteria between amplifiers for live
music and those for recorded music? Perhaps amplifier selection criteria
for live music would be emphasize power and less on clarity or
distortion to save money.

For recorded music (critical listening) the amp would have to be matched
with the speakers and vice-verse just as the pre-amp would be with the
amp. Other than that....?

I had an amp that would not play with the speakers I had. Sounded like a
bad am radio not properly tuned in to the station. (Until then I never
would have believed an amp had to be matched to speakers. Since then,
with all the changes, I had one other experience with this. The
replacement amp for the above situation changed from musical to sterile
with the next change in speakers. For the above amp, I changed preamps
in between speaker changes and the difference was amazing. The sound
opened up and the amp took on a rejuvenated life. It sounded faster and
livelier. That pre-amp with the 3rd change in amps is slightly muddy
sounding as though it is holding the new amp back from really singing.
I would love a new pre-amp but money is tight at the moment.

I know posts here are tightly controlled and censored. Is it
permissible to post my equipment and ask for experienced guidance and
direction with pre-amp selection? Perhaps someone on the group has or
is running the same amp and can guide me through their selection process
and how they came up with their pre.

John

Lou Anschuetz

August 8th 03, 04:09 PM

Wylie Williams ) wrote:
: "randyb" wrote ( in connection of comparing interconnects)
: > Have someone switch them out and see if you can tell the
: > difference without knowing which cable is in the system. Not double
: > blind but might be interesting.
: >
: Randy, I haven't done that. I do the usual thing: substitute and listen,
: knowing what is in the system. I'll try to get my one audiophile friend to
: come over and play a substitution game.

: I have, however, done a different test that I consider to be more valid than
: my personal evaluations I make a change and ask my wife what she thinks of
: the sound. She is a close to an unbiased listener as I can get. Usually I
: tell her which component has been changed, and I suspect that she suspects
: that new component under test is more expensive. If she has a bias it is
: probably in fovor of that familiar product that we already own. I can assure
: you that she could,care less about technological innovation or brand names
: or the other factors that would influence me. Her jufgments are quick. And
: so far as my tin ears can confirm, accurate.
: Wylie Williams

Amen and amen. My wife is a musician (acoustic instruments only please)
and a CPA and she could care less about technology. She typically doesn't
know when I've switched something and yet can tell you that I have if it
makes a difference (some things don't). This has
been true for over 20 years. She will also usually verbalize what I
believe to be the change.

Amazingly to the amps is amps/cables is cables crowd, she has spotted
both amp and cable changes in sound without any prompting. With cables
the variability is low, but some make amazing changes. I've not yet,
however, found any interconnect changes that are observable - but
speaker cables do seem to spark big sound changes. With amps the
variability seems to be higher (some DO sound the same, many don't).

--
Lou Anschuetz,
Network Manager, ECE, Carnegie Mellon University

Bob-Stanton

August 8th 03, 04:09 PM

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message

> > The more we DO learn about these things, the farther we get from
> > what you want: a single number that says "10" is better that
> > "9".
> >
> No not a single number. My post said something a little differeent. I
> wrote
> "... RAHE, where there seems to be a strong contingent of highly
> knowledgeable members who believe that science has discovered, if not a
> single magic number, maybe a set of numbers that are capable of measurement
> so we won't have to listen to choose electronic components. ..."
>
> I asked for a set of numbers and did not specify a limit.
>

It is true that a single number will not give enough information to
allow one to evaluate the performance of an amplifier or CD player.
Yet, the measurements given must be both comprehensive and easly
understandable. One picture is worth a thousand words. A simple
*graph* of each the measurements (20 Hz to 20 KHz) would have enough
information to show an amplifier's or a CD player's performance.

Instead of have a single signal/noise number, have a graph showing the
S/N at all audio frequenies.

For frequency response, have a graph. Also on the graph include a plot
of group delay, (to show the accuracy of the phase response). I know
that most people won't know what group delay is, :-) but they will
learn that an amplifier with a *flat* group delay is somehow better
than an amplifier with *peaked* group delay.

For time domain response, show the output of a 200 Hz squarewave. If
the amplifier or CD player has any transient response problems, the
squrewave will show it up, (with overshoot and ringing).

Distortion is a little more complicated. "THD" plots will not show up
all distortion problems. What is needed is a newer method of measuring
distortion. We could plot the distortion products created by two
tones, that are close together in frequency. The tones would be
*swept* from 100 Hz to 20 KHz, and the level of the 2nd order and 3rd
order beats ploted.

CD players have some problems that amplifiers don't, so we need an
additional test for them. There should be spectrum plot of test
tones.

I have used Cooledit to burn pure tones onto a CD. I played them back
through CD players and sound cards. Some of the CD players and sound
cards really mangled the tones, creating a forest of undersirable
distortion products near the noise floor. A standardized test showing
a spectrum plot would enable consumers to easily pickout the "bad
apple" CD players.

Bob Stanton

All Ears

August 8th 03, 05:01 PM

> I know posts here are tightly controlled and censored. Is it
> permissible to post my equipment and ask for experienced guidance and
> direction with pre-amp selection? Perhaps someone on the group has or
> is running the same amp and can guide me through their selection process
> and how they came up with their pre.
>
> John

Of course you can post your configuration here, no problem. Everyone are
welcome to seek advise, as long as this is not turned into a commercial
circus.

KE

Richard D Pierce

August 8th 03, 10:38 PM

In article <92PYa.97666$o%2.43610@sccrnsc02>,
Midlant > wrote:
>"Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
>news:MdFYa.92573$Ho3.12519@sccrnsc03...
>> In article >,
>> Wylie Williams > wrote:
>
>> >Richard Pierce wrote
>> > Mr. Pierce, how would you choose an amplifier?
>>
>> For what purpose?
>>
>> If it's for someone's personal use, I'd say that any method and
>> criteria the person making the choice uses that satisfies that
>> person's criteria is exactly what is needed.
>>
>> How would I choose and amplifier? I'd first have to determine
>> what the amplifier is being used for.
>
>Recorded music.

What KIND of recorded music? Middle 19th century string
quartets? Ear-splitting heavy metal rock? Each puts vastly
different requirements on the system performance.

>Is there a difference in selection criteria between amplifiers for live
>music and those for recorded music? Perhaps amplifier selection criteria
>for live music would be emphasize power and less on clarity or
>distortion to save money.

The requirements are VASTLY different. And the notion that
amplifiers used for professional sound reinforcement have less
clarity or distortion is simply NOT supported by the p[hysical
facts. Indeed, many professional amplfier have performance
markedly superior in MANY aspects to boutique high-end
amplifiers.

>For recorded music (critical listening) the amp would have to be matched
>with the speakers and vice-verse just as the pre-amp would be with the
>amp. Other than that....?

Well, "other than that," and the requirements of room size and
music type and such, gee, there ain't much left, is there?

>I had an amp that would not play with the speakers I had. Sounded like a
>bad am radio not properly tuned in to the station. (Until then I never
>would have believed an amp had to be matched to speakers. Since then,
>with all the changes, I had one other experience with this. The
>replacement amp for the above situation changed from musical to sterile
>with the next change in speakers.

Unforttunately, the differences in performance between many
different high-end boutique amplfiers is staggering on a simple
objective basis, simply because, in many case there performance
is simply large difference between bad. As amplifiers get better
and better, the differences between them must get smaller and
smaller.

Whether you're willing to accept this fact or not, many high-end
boutique amplifiers are VERY poorly designed and VERY sensitive,
almost to the point of being unstable, on different otherwise
mundane speaker loads presented.

The absurdity is that the "luminary" priests of the high end
point to these wildly variant difference in marginal misbehavior
as "evidence" of the transparency of these products. Clearly, it
is, uhm, "reasoned," if these products show such vast
differences, they MUST be very "revealing and transparent,"
when, in fact, they are anything but.

>I know posts here are tightly controlled and censored.

No, they are not. There are a set of guidelines that the
moderators do, in fact, a reasonable job of enforcing. Your
claim, I fear, is made from possibly innocent ignorance.

>Is it
>permissible to post my equipment and ask for experienced guidance and
>direction with pre-amp selection?

I see absolutely no reason why not. Have you been prevented from
doing so? WHy not try it?

>Perhaps someone on the group has or
>is running the same amp and can guide me through their selection process
>and how they came up with their pre.

Perhaps, indeed.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Wylie Williams

August 9th 03, 05:33 AM

"Richard D Pierce" wrote
..> Indeed, many professional amplfier have performance
> markedly superior in MANY aspects to boutique high-end
> amplifiers.

You obviously know exactly which professional amps and which boutique
amps you are talking about. I think that this sort of information would be
of great interest to RAHE members.
Of course, since you are in the trade, if there is some sort of
professional confidentiality or courtesy that prevents you from actually
being specific I, for one, will understand your need to keep this
information to yourself. It is, however, frustrating to keep hearing about
the many unidentified inferior overpriced products that you know about, and
all the unidentified vastly better not-overpriced products that you know
about, and yet never get beyond the general statement that both types exist.

Wylie Williams

Arny Krueger

August 9th 03, 07:48 AM

"Lou Anschuetz" > wrote in message
news:u2PYa.97353$uu5.14034@sccrnsc04

> Amen and amen. My wife is a musician (acoustic instruments only
> please) and a CPA and she could care less about technology. She
> typically doesn't know when I've switched something and yet can tell
> you that I have if it makes a difference (some things don't). This has
> been true for over 20 years. She will also usually verbalize what I
> believe to be the change.

"She will also usually verbalize what I believe to be the change."

There are a number of possible interpretations/explanations of that
statement. I'm hoping that just mentioning that fact will prompt some deeper
thought.

> Amazingly to the amps is amps/cables is cables crowd, she has spotted
> both amp and cable changes in sound without any prompting.

This statement indicates a state of mind for which there appears to be
nothing but counter-evidence.

To clarify, amps is amps/cables is cables crowd finds nothing surprising
about a household member spotting, as it was said, changes in (perceived)
sound quality without (verbal) prompting.

>With cables
> the variability is low, but some make amazing changes. I've not yet,
> however, found any interconnect changes that are observable - but
> speaker cables do seem to spark big sound changes. With amps the
> variability seems to be higher (some DO sound the same, many don't).

> --
> Lou Anschuetz,
> Network Manager, ECE, Carnegie Mellon University

The following course appears on the Carnegie Mellon University Fall 2003
class schedule:

"36309 Experimental Design for Behavioral and Social Sciences".

Perhaps some auditing might be possible?

Richard D Pierce

August 9th 03, 03:54 PM

In article >,
Wylie Williams > wrote:
>"Richard D Pierce" wrote
>.> Indeed, many professional amplfier have performance
>> markedly superior in MANY aspects to boutique high-end
>> amplifiers.
>
> You obviously know exactly which professional amps and which boutique
>amps you are talking about.

I am talking about the general class of components used for
professional applications vs those found in so-called "boutique"
high-end audio.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

All Ears

August 9th 03, 07:15 PM

-snip-
>
> Here goes:
> Present set up:
> Rega Planet 2000 cd
> Acurus RL-11 pre-amp
> McCormack DNA-125 amp
> Klipsch LaScalas and Revel M-20's (M-20's no in system at present)
>
> Also sitting here in a back room:
> Adcom GPT-450 pre/tuner
> Adcom GFA-555 II amp
> Klipsch KG 5.2 speakers
>
> I had Monitor Audios but after 6 months I couldn't stand the sound of
> them. They became very fatguing to lsiten to. The 450 pre/tuner lent a
> boxy/airy sound that wasn't so noticable on the speakers I had prior to
> the MA's. Bought the Acurus RL-11 which was a fantastic match and the
> sound was faster (for lack of a better word). Sold the MA's and bought
> Revel M-20's. The Adcom amp with the Revels was too sterile sounding. No
> musicality to it. Sounded like expensive lab equipment. On a trip home
> came across a guy selling the Klipsch KG5.2's. Wanting to see how horns
> sounded even though these are the cheaper version compared to the other
> legacy series, the price was right to stick my toe in the water. Sound
> was great but the speakers would benefit from more bracing. Short while
> later came across a gent selling LaScalas and decided to hear what the
> deal is with the big horns. I like them! Lots! So does the wife who is
> an Audiologist. She listens to the sound of voices for accuracy and
> clarity. We like the LS's better than the Revels. The system as it sits
> is very musical and involving. I have switched back to the Revels and
> when I did we both liked the Revels better. What dire straights we are
> in. Both are great sounding speakers and work with the present set-up.
> If there is a weak link, it would be the pre-amp. I think it slows or
> muddies the McCormack a tiny bit.
>
> I have read so much on tubes and horns that I would love to hear tube
> gear with the LS's. As you can tell, I have had very little gear as I
> prefer to buy what I can afford that sounds the best and live with it
> for a long time. I'm not into swapping gear out every two weeks, no
> money for that. I wish I could play with everything so I cold hear for
> myself.
>
> John
>

John,

I do not have personal experiences with the equipment you have, however it
seems to me that you are running in the usual upgrade maze, which is
frustrating and makes a lot of music lovers loose faith in equipment.

I would recommend you to find a good high-end dealer in your area, where you
can evaluate the components as a system. Bring your own equipment or make an
arrangement to borrow components with you home for evaluation.

I am surprised to see how many people buying and selling components with
great loss, never really finding what they want. To me it is better to see
purchase of audio equipment as one of the big investments in life, once the
right equipment is there, it will give so much pleasure for so many years.
You will at least need an upgrade path that has some sort of plan to it, if
you cannot afford everything at once.

If you did not do it already, make a dedicated mains line all the way from
the breaker box. It is a relatively small investment, and it can change a
lot. If the mains line you are using now is choked or polluded with noise,
you may never get what you want.

If you like, I can mail you some recommendations for equipment to evaluate.

KE

PS I have heard from a guy who's ears I trust, that the McCormack amplifier
is detailed, but not musical, could be part of your problem.

Arny Krueger

August 9th 03, 07:15 PM

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message

> "Richard D Pierce" wrote

> .> Indeed, many professional amplifier have performance
>> markedly superior in MANY aspects to boutique high-end
>> amplifiers.

> You obviously know exactly which professional amps and which
> boutique amps you are talking about. I think that this sort of
> information would be of great interest to RAHE members.

In the realm of professional-grade amplifiers, some leading reliable brands
are Crown, QSC, and Hafler. I know of fine-sounding home systems that use
amps from one or more of these companies.

S888Wheel

August 10th 03, 07:07 PM

<< Subject: Re: Ears vs. Instruments
From: (Richard D Pierce)
Date: Sat, Aug 9, 2003 6:54 AM
Message-id: >

In article >,
Wylie Williams > wrote:
>"Richard D Pierce" wrote
>.> Indeed, many professional amplfier have performance
>> markedly superior in MANY aspects to boutique high-end
>> amplifiers.
>
> You obviously know exactly which professional amps and which boutique
>amps you are talking about.

I am talking about the general class of components used for
professional applications vs those found in so-called "boutique"
high-end audio.
>>

This kind of reminds me of a guy who says "American movies stink" on another
message board. Your brush is simply too broad. You bunch "botique" "high-end"
amplifiers into one class of inferior products. You make no qualifications to
your claim other than the products you paint with this broad brush are " found
in so called 'botique' high-end audio." That would include amps and preamps
from the likes of Halcro, Krell and Spectral. Are pro amps really "markedly
superior in MANY aspects" to the products from Halcro, Krell and Spectral? I
think the request for specific brands and models is a fair request.

Midlant

August 11th 03, 06:56 AM

"All Ears" > > John,
> I would recommend you to find a good high-end dealer in your area,
where you
> can evaluate the components as a system. Bring your own equipment or
make an
> arrangement to borrow components with you home for evaluation.

I have one around the corner from me and another 20 minutes away. The
one arond the corner carries a very limtied selection and sells strictly
for MSRP. Their inventory is small. Probably why they've stayed in
business so long, everything they have they own. They don't do the high
interest loans from the mfg's. The one 20 minutes away is mid-fi
catering to HT.

> I am surprised to see how many people buying and selling components
with
> great loss, never really finding what they want. To me it is better to
see
> purchase of audio equipment as one of the big investments in life,
once the
> right equipment is there, it will give so much pleasure for so many
years.
> You will at least need an upgrade path that has some sort of plan to
it, if
> you cannot afford everything at once.

I agree. I do not buy equipment so I can buy more. The Adcom stuff I
bought back in 94-95 and only changed those out to match the new
speakers. The previous ones were stolen during a burglery.

> If you did not do it already, make a dedicated mains line all the way
from
> the breaker box. It is a relatively small investment, and it can
change a
> lot. If the mains line you are using now is choked or polluded with
noise,
> you may never get what you want.

I have considred this. It is difficult due to house construction. My
wiring runs through the attic which is floored. Flooring would have to
be ripped up.

> If you like, I can mail you some recommendations for equipment to
evaluate.

That would be wonderful!

> KE
>
> PS I have heard from a guy who's ears I trust, that the McCormack
amplifier
> is detailed, but not musical, could be part of your problem.

Actually the opposite..no not opposite as it's detailed and yet
musical. Most musical amp I've had so far. Sounds wonderful with all the
speakers listed in previous post. I've got the Adcom gear hooked to
the Revels here in the back room. Music is crystal clear and sharp but
not emotional or musical.
Co-worker has the Revel M-20s as well. He's running them with a newer
receiver of some sort. I lent him the Adcom gear so he could hear what a
difference makes when you have dedicated power supplies vice one power
supply in a rcvr which is powering everything. He loved the power the
Adcom gave him but his words were, " it's not musical! It was lifeless!
Dead. Everything was there but the music". Matched my thoughts on
Revel/Adcom.
I would love to have more power to drive the M20's as the McC amp is
only 125w/ch. I've not heard its bigger sibling but have read reviews
that stated it wasn't as musical as its little brother.

I keep reading that tubes are liquid and mate with my horns perfectly
for a magical joining. I would be willing to keep the big horns on if
that did happen. They're excellent with McC amp now. I just hate having
the $$M20's sitting here in this tiny back room where I need the space
going to waste. Toss up quandary. Keep the big horns or the little
M20's? Both excellent just different. The 20's have a quieter
background. Guess that is due to the LaSacalas having 104db sensitivity.
When they're playing they're wonderful; when idle there's a slight hiss
coming through. If I remember correctly that wasn't the case with the
Adcom. Ah....! On another note, the Adcom sits well with the horns as
well but after a while I find myself wishing the McC was back in the
system. As soon as the McC is plugged in, my ears let me know I'm happy
and give a big sigh. It takes about two weeks to notice that I don't
like the Adcom with the horns. I would like to try their newer stuff
since they switched to MOSFET's. I have not heard the 5802 but sure
would like to.
As you can tell I do not have a budget for $20k amps. I do however have
an excellent $18,600 stereo system. Sound is ok but the scenery and feel
while listening to it is awesome. Its called a 2003 Harley Davidson
Electra Glide Classic w/cd player (aka geezer glide). Man! It is great
to listen to music while enjoying the communion with our Lord. Knees in
the breeze.
John

Nousaine

August 13th 03, 05:01 AM

"Wylie Williams" wrote:

>> >"Richard D Pierce" said

>> >> What was said is that the state of knowledge in high-end audio
>> >> is often DECADES behind what is known in real engineering and
>> >> perceptual physics fields,
>> >
>> > That is a troubling statement in two ways:
>> >1. It implies that the top level of audio industry knowledge of several
>> >decades ago was inadequate for the purpose of high end audio today.

Please distinguish between the "top level" and the "high-end." The latter is
still often inadequate for any-fi audio.

>> It implies abosultely no such thing and to say so is a
>> desparate attempt to make a silk purse out of a pile of pig
>> droppings. It states quite explicitly the opposite: that the
>> high end industry is, in fact, IGNORANT of quite a large number
>> of things that were worked on decades ago. A case in point: look
>> at the huge amount of handwringing that goes on over the subject
>> of jitter: a topic thoroughly studied and understood in the
>> 1960's, and the high-end industry hasn't even begun to
>> understand the picture.

Yes, Illinois Bell began installing digital carrier systems in the Bell System
netwrk in the early 60s. At that time 'jitter' was an issue but mostly because
a cross-country long distance call may have involved 10,000 metal-to-metal
connections and any kind of 'disruption' may have been catastrophic on a given
call. Jitter had been figured out and dealt with by then in telecom.

>> I have to agree that even my casual reading of older audio information
>contains mention of knowledge that is being rediscovered daily. I read a
>story of THX and was amazed at howmuch that should have been common
>knowledge was treated as breakthrough discoveries. It was more a mater of
>finding someone who would pay to build a system that applied existing
>knowledge than come up with the ideas.

THX was a commercial application of sound acoustical theory. That the
principles seem "obvious" afterward is a oft-heard response to many solid ideas
when delivered to the commerical level.

...snips...

>OK, I agree that there are lots of quacks and charalatans and incompetents
>in the business. Maybe they are the majority, but I must believe that some
>of the manufacturers are more than snake oil peddlers. Your brush is tarring
>the entire industry.

IF the "majority" are quacks then the industry isn't being "tarred" but simply
shown for what it is.

It seems to me that the "high-end" companies must have a "I won't tell 'em that
your bull**** is bull**** if YOU won't tell that MY bull**** is bull****."
non-disclosure pact.

>
>> >Many of the pioners of audio were not trained in
>> >audio but brought their knowledge to audio from other fields. Has this
>> >stopped happening?
>>
>> What has happend is that the field is now becoming more and more
>> populated by people who have less and less training in ANYTHING.
>
>More and more - I'll take your word. But that's not 100%.

Sure but you don't want to accept the real engineers who have training either
.....Floyd Toole, Sean Olive, Paul Barton, Peter Shuck, Marc Bonneville. Deon
Bearden, David Clark, Earl Geddes, Henry Blind, Dick Greiner, Dan Shanefield,
David Rich, James Gibeau, Tom Breithaupt, et al who say you're wrong.

>> >By the way, Mr. Pierce, your business name is Professional Audio
>> >Development. Are you associated with design of high end audio?
>>
>> I am actively involved in the development of products, systems
>> and software used in professional audio applications, such as
>> multi-track workstations, audio and video editing applications,
>> loudspeaker measurement, design and evaluation and so on.
>
>Lots of the work being done in your filed which is directly applicable to
>high end audio. So why don't the discoveries from your field filter into
>high end?

Because there's too much BS and not enough engineering and controlled listening
testing going on there.

My impression is that little in hi fi has been originally
>developed for hi fi, but was derived and benefited from knowledge from the
>more advanced fields filtering down, as it were, into audio. Is this info so
>proprietary that is unavailable?

Holy cow; the most important intellectual technologies (other than physical
things like moving coil speakers, vacumn tubes, transistors and integrated
circuits) like negative feedback, stereo and digital were not only invented by
the telecommunications industry they were made publicly available to everyone.

> Don't audiophiles in fields like yours develop DIY projects for themselves
>and make them avalable, like the Orion speakers from Linkwitz? He makes his
>living outside hi-fi, and as in days of yore puts some spare time to
>personal audio projects. Is he alone?

Joe D'Appolito does this very thing with Madisound. But EVERYONE ....Theile &
Small included PUBLISHED their stuff so that even the high-end BS artists could
know what's what.

High-enders contributing ground breaking new developments in audio????? NEVER.
NOT ONCE. Give me a reference if you don't agree.

>> >> > I have a question - Where can I find a list of those components
>that
>> >> >have been shown to be good enough that the human ear cannot detect
>> >> >improvement? Or if not a list, a chart of the specifications?
>> >
>> >> Better yet, why don't YOU show us real evidence that the basic
>> >> thresholds of human hearing can regularily be surpassed by
>> >> high-end audio listeners?
>> >>
>> >Well, it's clever to turn the tables and ask me to be the expert. Eevn
>if I
>> >were capable (not so), having sampled the DBT on RAHE posts I would not
>> >consider wading into that bar fight.

Why not?

>>
>> It was no attempt to turn the table on you, rather to turn the
>> tables back to where they belong. The human auditory system has
>> been the subject of intense study for well over 150 years now,
>> and many self appointed high-end luminaries have either not
>> availed themselves of this work, or are deliberately ignoring
>> it. The claims made about the ear being such a fantastically
>> sensitive instrument are simply contrary to the vast amount of
>> known data and constitute extraordinary claims.
>>
>> It's not that "we" claim to know everything, it's that there are
>> people in the high-end realm who, in fact, know VERY little.
>>
>> >I have more practical goals, one of which is to discover if there are
>> >objective specifics that can be used to choose components. In my stereo
>> >store customers were always looking for what I called "the magic
>number" -
>> >some specification that would assure them that a component with that
>number
>> >would be as good as they needed to get. I told them manufacturers specs
>and
>> >magazines reviews did not tell the whole story. That they had to listen.

Sure; they had to "Listen" under un-controlled conditions. It's EASY to get
people to 'hear' differences between 2 sonically identical presentations in
that circumstance.

>I
>> >never believed that was possible to use a magic number till I started
>> >reading RAHE, where there seems to be a strong contingent of highly
>> >knowledgeable members who believe that science has discovered, if not a
>> >single magic number, maybe a set of numbers that are capable of
>measurement
>> >so we won't have to listen to choose electronic components.
>>
>> I will tell you this in no uncertain terms: the search for
>> simple single-value "figures of merit" is an exercise in
>> futility. This is PRECISELY my complaint with "specs:" they are
>> manufacturers and reviewers attempts to come up with a single
>> number that they can badge equipment with that will convince us
>> that one thing is better, and something else is better still.
>>
>> What you don't seem to understand, it seems, is that the
>> business of high-end audio shares one thing in common with other
>> businesses: it's a BUSINESS. It won't survive unless YOU buy
>> stuff (and, one reason it's not surviving is that people AREN'T
>> buying stuff). And the easier it is to get YOU to buy STUFF, the
>> better.
>>
>> Any attempts, even well-intentioned ones, to some up with
>> simples figure-of-merit measurements is foolish. The suite of
>> measurements to determine things is FAR more complex than a
>> 0.01% here or a .25 dB there. If that's what you're looking for,
>> you ain't ever going to find it.
>>
>> The more we DO learn about these things, the farther we get from
>> what you want: a single number that says "10" is better that
>> "9".
>>
>I didn't go so afr as that. At least I asked for a set of magic numbers.
>But they don't exist?

Actually they DDDOOOO exist. Flat response over the audible range, clipping
less than 1% of the time, level matched and no operating fault.

The problem is that none of these things EVER get controlled in casual
listening tests.

And people will 'take' an uncontrolled test as personal 'evidence.'

Lou Anschuetz

August 13th 03, 03:33 PM

All Ears ) wrote:
: -snip-
: >

: KE

: PS I have heard from a guy who's ears I trust, that the McCormack amplifier
: is detailed, but not musical, could be part of your problem.
I also hate to see folks on the upgrade path and try to avoid
it all possible costs. But, there is a comment of some relevance
here....

I to have a McCormack DNA 1.0 DeLux. It is a bit "dark" IMHO -
sounding more like *some* tube amps. But I have it paired with
Apogee's which IMHO can be a bit bright. Very serendipidous,
especially with the right cabling. Thus it is also IMHO very
musical.

But for those without this useful pairing, the McCormack upgrade
path (which I simply haven't had the finances to do), should
reduce some of the perceived dark/slow effects that are there with
some speaker/cable combinations.

It seems to me that they are reducing the complexity of the
circuits a bit to produce this effect, but that is for sure in
the area of "guessing" and not factual.

--
Lou Anschuetz,
Network Manager, ECE, Carnegie Mellon University

Dick Pierce

August 13th 03, 04:45 PM

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message news:<xEkYa.56108$cF.20378@rwcrnsc53>...
> "Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
> news:Bg0Ya.75734$o%2.36476@sccrnsc02...
> > Yup, basically. The level of ignorance and witchcraft and snake
> > oil in the high-end is almost embarrasing. Other engineering
> > field pay FAR better and are FAR less frustrating and FAR more
> > rewarding to be in. A competent engineering with solid
> > background can make an order of magnitude MORE money elsewhere.
> > Beyond that, working with some of the utter hooey like magic
> > stones, wooden pucks, water filled wire, green CD pens (which,
> > by the way, started as an April Fool's joke), impedance matching
> > CD fluids (another April Fool's joke), blue LED dithering CD
> > players, funny looking wooden thingies in the room, electron-
> > aligning clock radios, magic wire, funky feedback bricks, and
> > all the rest is at first discouraging, then amusing to a
> > competent engineer.
> >
> OK, I agree that there are lots of quacks and charalatans and
> incompetents in the business. Maybe they are the majority, but
> I must believe that some of the manufacturers are more than snake
> oil peddlers. Your brush is tarring the entire industry.

Really? Mr. Williams, please read carefully what you just wrote:

"I agree that there are lots of quacks and charalatans and
incompetents in the business. Maybe they are the majority"

If you, indeed, agree that there are lots of quacks and charlatains
and incompetents, and maybe they are the majority, precisely WHO
is "tarring the entire industry?" Not I. It would seem that the
industry, such as it is, does a fine job of tarring itself.

It's like the old saying:

"Y'know, 99% of lawyers that give the rest a bad name."

Lou Anschuetz

August 13th 03, 07:04 PM

PYa.97353$uu5.14034@sccrnsc04> <9P0Za.103177$YN5.71752@sccrnsc01>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

Arny Krueger ) wrote:
: "Lou Anschuetz" > wrote in message
: news:u2PYa.97353$uu5.14034@sccrnsc04

: > Amen and amen. My wife is a musician (acoustic instruments only
: > please) and a CPA and she could care less about technology. She
: > typically doesn't know when I've switched something and yet can tell
: > you that I have if it makes a difference (some things don't). This has
: > been true for over 20 years. She will also usually verbalize what I
: > believe to be the change.

: "She will also usually verbalize what I believe to be the change."

: There are a number of possible interpretations/explanations of that
: statement. I'm hoping that just mentioning that fact will prompt some deeper
: thought.

See below.

: > Amazingly to the amps is amps/cables is cables crowd, she has spotted
: > both amp and cable changes in sound without any prompting.

: This statement indicates a state of mind for which there appears to be
: nothing but counter-evidence.

Which would be?

: To clarify, amps is amps/cables is cables crowd finds nothing surprising
: about a household member spotting, as it was said, changes in (perceived)
: sound quality without (verbal) prompting.

: The following course appears on the Carnegie Mellon University Fall 2003
: class schedule:

: "36309 Experimental Design for Behavioral and Social Sciences".

: Perhaps some auditing might be possible?
Actually, I already hold advanced degrees in Psychology (with
emphasis on experimental), as well as computing.

I am (painfully) aware of pschological bias. My comments were made
as there have been occassions when observations are made without
any predisposing evidence (e.g. no recent packages of equipment,
no obvious time spent tweaking, and so on).

I'm also (painfully!) aware that many of my colleagues from both
the analog and digital side of the world have disagreed in
principle with assertions that these things (especially cables)
would sound different. But for those who have listened (often
with negative bias), the evidence is observed.

The problems typically come down to one of an Occam's Razor issues.
In theory all things should be the same that measure the same,
but there are areas where this becomes fuzzy. Field effects,
semi-electrically permeable insulators, etc. These explanations
soon grow to the point where they collapse of their own weight
(often rightly so).

Is this stuff hard to quantify/identify/repeatedly observe? You
bet. Are there differences - IMHO yes. But much of this argument
is simply mental masturbation. I like sorbet, some folks don't.
Are they wrong? Well sure >;->
--
Lou Anschuetz,
Network Manager, ECE, Carnegie Mellon University

Wylie Williams

August 13th 03, 07:04 PM

Noussaine wrote, concerning the nonexistence of "magic numbers"

> Flat response over the audible range, clipping
> less than 1% of the time, level matched and no operating fault.
> may be reading this too literally, so let me rephrase it for
confirmation:

Any amplifier that has flat response over the audible range, that in use is
clipping less than 1% of the time, is level matched ( to what? right and
left matched to each othere?), and has no operating fault will meet the
criteria of being a "competent design" will be sonically indistinguishable
from any other amplifier that meets the same criteria.

> The problem is that none of these things EVER get controlled in casual
> listening tests.

About the only factor that seems to be in doubt is the clipping.

>
> And people will 'take' an uncontrolled test as personal 'evidence.'

Yes, I have done so many times in the past, and have been told on RAHE that
I was wrongheaded to do so. Maybe I have been wrong to trust my personal
uncontrolled observations. I am trying to keep an open mind and listen to
the contrary view put forth by several contributors on RAHE. I am
unconvinced, but still participating.

Wylie Williams

chung

August 13th 03, 08:45 PM

Lou Anschuetz wrote:

> Is this stuff hard to quantify/identify/repeatedly observe? You
> bet. Are there differences - IMHO yes.

Can you explain then why not one cable manufacturer has shown that their
cables are distinguishable from others under controlled conditions, if
the cables under test are comparable in the sense that they can be
matched in amplitude response to about 0.1 dB in the audio band?

What does Occam's Razor say about that?

There is a fairly large standing award for anyone who can tell cables
apart via DBT. Why hasn't anyone (or you yourself) claimed that award?

And you said your wife can always tell that there are differences, no?
If she can do it every time, why is this stuff hard to repeatedly
observe? Maybe she should claim that award and put this issue to bed?

> But much of this argument
> is simply mental masturbation. I like sorbet, some folks don't.
> Are they wrong? Well sure >;->

Totally wrong analogy. No one says that it's wrong to like a certain
cable because of the way it looks or for other reasons. It's a very weak
technical position, however, to insist that there is an audible
difference between that and others based on sighted tests, while
ignoring the existing body of knowledge on human auditory perception
limits, and on human psychology. I am actually very surprised that such
a position is stated by someone with advanced training in pyschology and
in problem-solving.

Plus, I hope that you can pass a DBT on sorbet vs other cold desserts :).

> --
> Lou Anschuetz,
> Network Manager, ECE, Carnegie Mellon University
>

Arny Krueger

August 13th 03, 09:48 PM

"Lou Anschuetz" > wrote in message
news:s4v_a.137142$Ho3.16682@sccrnsc03
> PYa.97353$uu5.14034@sccrnsc04> <9P0Za.103177$YN5.71752@sccrnsc01>
> X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
>
> Arny Krueger ) wrote:
>> "Lou Anschuetz" > wrote in message
>> news:u2PYa.97353$uu5.14034@sccrnsc04
>
>>> Amen and amen. My wife is a musician (acoustic instruments only
>>> please) and a CPA and she could care less about technology. She
>>> typically doesn't know when I've switched something and yet can tell
>>> you that I have if it makes a difference (some things don't). This
>>> has been true for over 20 years. She will also usually verbalize
>>> what I believe to be the change.
>
>> "She will also usually verbalize what I believe to be the change."
>
>> There are a number of possible interpretations/explanations of that
>> statement. I'm hoping that just mentioning that fact will prompt
>> some deeper thought.
>
> See below.
>
>>> Amazingly to the amps is amps/cables is cables crowd, she has
>>> spotted both amp and cable changes in sound without any prompting.
>
>> This statement indicates a state of mind for which there appears to
>> be nothing but counter-evidence.
>
> Which would be?
>
>> To clarify, amps is amps/cables is cables crowd finds nothing
>> surprising about a household member spotting, as it was said,
>> changes in (perceived) sound quality without (verbal) prompting.
>
>> The following course appears on the Carnegie Mellon University Fall
>> 2003 class schedule:
>
>> "36309 Experimental Design for Behavioral and Social Sciences".
>
>> Perhaps some auditing might be possible?

> Actually, I already hold advanced degrees in Psychology (with
> emphasis on experimental), as well as computing.

> I am (painfully) aware of psychological bias. My comments were made
> as there have been occasions when observations are made without
> any predisposing evidence (e.g. no recent packages of equipment,
> no obvious time spent tweaking, and so on).

It would appear that only the grossest of evidence of predisposition is
being considerered.

It is well known and has been illustrated many times that simply knowing
that two pieces of equipment are involved in a test, predisposes that test
to a positive outcome. You can conceal whether or not the test involves two
different pieces of equipment from the listeners, make no equipment changes
during the tests, and the listeners will generally still claim that they
hear audible differences.

> I'm also (painfully!) aware that many of my colleagues from both
> the analog and digital side of the world have disagreed in
> principle with assertions that these things (especially cables)
> would sound different. But for those who have listened (often
> with negative bias), the evidence is observed.

There's three requirements for a valid listening test involving subtle or
controversial differences:

(1) level matching
(2) time synchronization
(3) bias control(s) (i.e., double blind).

How were these requirements met in the tests being described above?

> The problems typically come down to one of an Occam's Razor issues.
> In theory all things should be the same that measure the same,
> but there are areas where this becomes fuzzy. Field effects,
> semi-electrically permeable insulators, etc. These explanations
> soon grow to the point where they collapse of their own weight
> (often rightly so).

They uniformly collapse when items 1-3 above are properly attended to.

> Is this stuff hard to quantify/identify/repeatedly observe? You
> bet.

Not really. The literature of subjective testing covers test subject bias
and addressing it, quite well.

>Are there differences - IMHO yes. But much of this argument
> is simply mental masturbation. I like sorbet, some folks don't.

Discussions of different flavors of sound become moot when there are serious
lapses in listening test protocols.

> Are they wrong? Well sure

For sure!

Richard D Pierce

August 13th 03, 11:26 PM

In article >,
Wylie Williams > wrote:
>> Richard Pierce wrote
>> >
>> > Any attempts, even well-intentioned ones, to some up with
>> > simples figure-of-merit measurements is foolish. The suite of
>> > measurements to determine things is FAR more complex than a
>> > 0.01% here or a .25 dB there. If that's what you're looking for,
>> > you ain't ever going to find it.
>
>Unfortunately if we summarize the expert information on RAHE we are being
>told that

Unfortunately your summary is largely wrong:

>a. Manufacturers are all incompetent liars, charlatans, and more, so we
>can't trust them Ditto dealers.

No one said that, did they. YOU are the one who suggested that
possibly the majority are cranks, charlatains and incomeptents,
remeber?

>b. Unscientific listening comparisons are folly.

No one said that, not of any credibility. Indeed, if you would
please recall, I have made the statement on numerous occasions
that ANY means that any given individual uses for selection of
equipment that suits THEIR needs is completely valid.

>c. ABX DBT and the rest are the way to go but they are seldom performed, so
>forget them.

Again, who said that. It has been stated that if one is
interested in determining whether, in fact, detectable
differences exist based SOLELY on the intrinsic differences in
sound, then controlled means are needed to ensure that other
factors do no influence the detection.

>d,. When performed "correctly" they show that all competently designed
>components sound as good as each other.

And you have reasonable data to suggest to the contrary? Where
is it?

>e. But there is no agreement as to what constitutes competence in design

Certainly not in the high-end world, and maybe not even in the
world as a whole, but for different reasons. All engineering
choices are compromises for one set of reasons or another, thus
there is noperfect realizable solution. That's the nature of
engineering. IN high-end audio, it's sometimes a choice amongst
the worst of evils.

>f. There is a correct "suite of measurements", but Mr. Pierce cannot share
>it or name names/models that qualify because of prefessional constraints.

Nonsense. The "suite of measurements" exists and has been
discussed at length in the the appropriate press (see JAES,
JASA, and so on), the high-end world simply continues to wallow
in its self-congratulatory swamp.

That's an entirely different issue than my long-stated policy of
not making brand endorsements.

>Hmmmm?

Hmmm, indeed.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Nousaine

August 14th 03, 02:15 AM

"Wylie Williams" wrote:

>Noussaine wrote, concerning the nonexistence of "magic numbers"
>
>> Flat response over the audible range, clipping
>> less than 1% of the time, level matched and no operating fault.
>> may be reading this too literally, so let me rephrase it for
>confirmation:
>
>Any amplifier that has flat response over the audible range, that in use is
>clipping less than 1% of the time, is level matched ( to what? right and
>left matched to each othere?),

To each other.

and has no operating fault will meet the
>criteria of being a "competent design" will be sonically indistinguishable
>from any other amplifier that meets the same criteria.

I didn't make this up; but it's what 30 years of bias controlled listening
tests (and Dick Greiner's research on clipping) have shown to be true.

>> The problem is that none of these things EVER get controlled in casual
>> listening tests.
>
>About the only factor that seems to be in doubt is the clipping.

Clipping isn't the demon that some would make it out to be. When a device is
driven 10 or 20 dB into clipping it's quite detectable. But Floyd Toole told me
that when he was still at the NRC they put an amp/speaker in a separate
isolated room and drove the amplifier into clipping at controlled levels,
tapped the signal at the speaker terminals and fed it into another system in a
separate room so they could listen to the sound of amp "clipping" at rational
listening levels. This was still in the 70s.

His comment was that by and large moderate clipping was pretty benign
sonically. This confirms Greiner's later work.

>>
>> And people will 'take' an uncontrolled test as personal 'evidence.'
>
>Yes, I have done so many times in the past, and have been told on RAHE that
>I was wrongheaded to do so. Maybe I have been wrong to trust my personal
>uncontrolled observations.

The idea is to verify them. There are so many ways for bias (conscious or
otherwise) to creep in and there are so many interfering variables that one
needs to validate himself now and again.

One common bias mechanism is the Urban Legend phenomenon. I might make an
observation that confirms what others also seem to believe, so even if wrong it
validates the Legend. And how do I kbow that I wasn't influenced beforehand by
the Legend if I don't validate myself with a bias controlled test OR with
research that has already validated it under controlled conditions.

For example I have purchased perhaps two dozen amplifiers over the past couple
decades. I still own 10 of them. All but the first 1 were bought based on the
findings of controlled listening tests that had already been conducted. Power
ratings very from 50 to 5000 watts.

Subsequently I have verified with my own personal ABX tests that they all sound
EXACTLY alike driving any any number of the several hundred speakers I've owned
and tested over the past 25 years unless driven into ultra hard clipping or
into protection.

I am trying to keep an open mind and listen to
>the contrary view put forth by several contributors on RAHE. I am
>unconvinced, but still participating.
>
>Wylie Williams

Testing yourself is easy. Find an amplifier or some other device that modern
science says should be transparent and test yourself with someone else
operating the switch. Check out pcabx.

All you need is a rational amount of bias control. Also recall all those times
when you 'fooled' yourself when the switch wasn't in the position you had
thought it was.

Steven Sullivan

August 14th 03, 02:15 AM

Wylie Williams > wrote:
> > Richard Pierce wrote
> > >
> > > Any attempts, even well-intentioned ones, to some up with
> > > simples figure-of-merit measurements is foolish. The suite of
> > > measurements to determine things is FAR more complex than a
> > > 0.01% here or a .25 dB there. If that's what you're looking for,
> > > you ain't ever going to find it.

> Unfortunately if we summarize the expert information on RAHE we are being
> told that
> a. Manufacturers are all incompetent liars, charlatans, and more, so we
> can't trust them Ditto dealers.

No one said that.

> b. Unscientific listening comparisons are folly.

...for verifying the existence of audible
differences between certain classes of components.

> c. ABX DBT and the rest are the way to go but they are seldom performed, so
> forget them.

No one said that.

> d,. When performed "correctly" they show that all competently designed
> components sound as good as each other.

No one said that.

> e. But there is no agreement as to what constitutes competence in design

No one said that.

> f. There is a correct "suite of measurements", but Mr. Pierce cannot share
> it or name names/models that qualify because of prefessional constraints.

That's not what he said.

> Hmmmm?

Hmm indeed. In summary, you did a lousy job of summarizing.

--
-S.

Nousaine

August 14th 03, 03:31 PM

(Lou Anschuetz) wrote:

>Ya.97353$uu5.14034@sccrnsc04> <9P0Za.103177$YN5.71752@sccrnsc01>
>X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
>
>Arny Krueger ) wrote:
>: "Lou Anschuetz" > wrote in message
>: news:u2PYa.97353$uu5.14034@sccrnsc04
>
>: > Amen and amen. My wife is a musician (acoustic instruments only
>: > please) and a CPA and she could care less about technology. She
>: > typically doesn't know when I've switched something and yet can tell
>: > you that I have if it makes a difference (some things don't). This has
>: > been true for over 20 years. She will also usually verbalize what I
>: > believe to be the change.
>
>: "She will also usually verbalize what I believe to be the change."
>
>: There are a number of possible interpretations/explanations of that
>: statement. I'm hoping that just mentioning that fact will prompt some
>deeper
>: thought.
>
>See below.
>
>: > Amazingly to the amps is amps/cables is cables crowd, she has spotted
>: > both amp and cable changes in sound without any prompting.
>
>: This statement indicates a state of mind for which there appears to be
>: nothing but counter-evidence.
>
>Which would be?
>
>: To clarify, amps is amps/cables is cables crowd finds nothing surprising
>: about a household member spotting, as it was said, changes in (perceived)
>: sound quality without (verbal) prompting.

What is intersting is that the claim about "no prompting" ignores what is known
about social interaction. "My wife" heard it without prompting is a common
assertion.

Let me give you another. A few years ago I was the proctor in a challenge blind
test on amplifier sound. During the first trial I was in an adjacent room with
the wife of the subject. She made statements to me during the trial "The
difference is obvious to me even from here."

Later after the test was completed she asked about the first trial and said
"well amp X was in the system for that first trial right?" But she was wrong.

So the next day we repeated the experiment with her as the sole subject. And
she was was not able to reliably identify the PASS amp from the Yamaha
integrated amplifier test device.

So, in general, "untainted" onservations from family members have been shown to
be unreliable from the extant evidence.

>
>: The following course appears on the Carnegie Mellon University Fall 2003
>: class schedule:
>
>: "36309 Experimental Design for Behavioral and Social Sciences".
>
>: Perhaps some auditing might be possible?
>Actually, I already hold advanced degrees in Psychology (with
>emphasis on experimental), as well as computing.
>
>I am (painfully) aware of pschological bias. My comments were made
>as there have been occassions when observations are made without
>any predisposing evidence (e.g. no recent packages of equipment,
>no obvious time spent tweaking, and so on).
>
>I'm also (painfully!) aware that many of my colleagues from both
>the analog and digital side of the world have disagreed in
>principle with assertions that these things (especially cables)
>would sound different. But for those who have listened (often
>with negative bias), the evidence is observed.

What evidence? Please post same one way or the other with details.

>
>The problems typically come down to one of an Occam's Razor issues.
>In theory all things should be the same that measure the same,

No one has ever made that claim. It's trivially easy to find measureable
differences between any two samples of the same device. The question with audio
products is whether those "differences" exceed the threshold of audibility in
an acoustical sense.

>but there are areas where this becomes fuzzy. Field effects,
>semi-electrically permeable insulators, etc. These explanations
>soon grow to the point where they collapse of their own weight
>(often rightly so).
>
>Is this stuff hard to quantify/identify/repeatedly observe? You
>bet. Are there differences - IMHO yes. But much of this argument
>is simply mental masturbation. I like sorbet, some folks don't.
>Are they wrong? Well sure >;->
>--
>Lou Anschuetz,
>Network Manager, ECE, Carnegie Mellon University

You have a "course?" Want a guest lecture?

Wylie Williams

August 14th 03, 06:08 PM

"Nousaine" > wrote>>
> Testing yourself is easy. Find an amplifier or some other device that
modern
> science says should be transparent and test yourself with someone else
> operating the switch. Check out pcabx.
>
> All you need is a rational amount of bias control. Also recall all those
times
> when you 'fooled' yourself when the switch wasn't in the position you had
> thought it was.
>
That first step alone is a tricky one. "Find an amplifier or some other
device that modern science says should be transparent ".

You would think this was a settled subject. I have asked on RAHE what the
criteria for judging "competent design" components and before it morphed
into a "bash the home speaker builder" fest there were several helpful posts
that led me to believe that amps, for example could be screened by reference
to available measurements. Of course there was a post from a designer with
extremely professional credentials and experience that seemed to say that
the measurements avialable to the public were incomplete. Apparently the
criteria of modern science in this regard are in flux.

So if I hear a difference it's because I didn't select the product carefully
enough? How to select?

Wylie Williams

Lou Anschuetz

August 14th 03, 06:34 PM

Nousaine ) wrote:

: What is intersting is that the claim about "no prompting" ignores what is known
: about social interaction. "My wife" heard it without prompting is a common
: assertion.

Ok, let me go into painful detail :)

I'm sitting in a chair facing away from the door when I'm startled
to find someone behind me (the entrance is behind me and hence
invisible in the darkened room) who enters silently (making me jump out of
the chair) and speaks words like - "wow, that bass sounds a lot
better," or "I couldn't hear those cymbals before."

These are not "clever Hans" kinds of episodes. If they were,
then obviously the value would be gone. But instead, they are
someone hearing a difference and seeking out someone to tell.

Do every amp/cable change make differences? Absolutely not. Do
some, absolutely. And as per other comments, cost/appearance/smell
whatever aren't going to be players in this situation. Can I put
*any* kind of parameters on which ones will produce the effect?
Nope. The trend with speaker cables has tipped towards better with
more cost, but it is not unilateral. With (better )amps it is much more
pronounced.

: Let me give you another. A few years ago I was the proctor in a challenge blind
: test on amplifier sound. During the first trial I was in an adjacent room with
: the wife of the subject. She made statements to me during the trial "The
: difference is obvious to me even from here."

: Later after the test was completed she asked about the first trial and said
: "well amp X was in the system for that first trial right?" But she was wrong.

: So the next day we repeated the experiment with her as the sole subject. And
: she was was not able to reliably identify the PASS amp from the Yamaha
: integrated amplifier test device.

: So, in general, "untainted" onservations from family members have been shown to
: be unreliable from the extant evidence.

Obviously writing is not where I make my living :)
My point in bringing any of this up is that I can readily rule out
any of the common ways of this information being communicated since
I know what they are and yet it still sometimes happens. It is
fortunate that it is rare actually or I'd be having to take blood
pressure medication for those times when I was absolute made to
jump out of my chair by the statement coming from behind me. ;)

: >
: >: The following course appears on the Carnegie Mellon University Fall 2003
: >: class schedule:
: >
: >: "36309 Experimental Design for Behavioral and Social Sciences".
: >
: >: Perhaps some auditing might be possible?
: >Actually, I already hold advanced degrees in Psychology (with
: >emphasis on experimental), as well as computing.
: >
: >I am (painfully) aware of pschological bias. My comments were made
: >as there have been occassions when observations are made without
: >any predisposing evidence (e.g. no recent packages of equipment,
: >no obvious time spent tweaking, and so on).
: >
: >I'm also (painfully!) aware that many of my colleagues from both
: >the analog and digital side of the world have disagreed in
: >principle with assertions that these things (especially cables)
: >would sound different. But for those who have listened (often
: >with negative bias), the evidence is observed.

: What evidence? Please post same one way or the other with details.

I covered this elsewhere, but the usual response is "wow, that
sounds different" followed by "but that's impossible."
This is *not* scientific evidence, but rather strictly oberservational.
I'm not convinced it could be replicated via DBT.

The ironic part of this to me is that 10 years ago I spent a lot
of time making fun of my one-and-only audiophile friend over his
painful selections of cables/amps/etc. I even went to his house
to prove to him that he was absolutely completely wrong. I came
away needing to go visit audio retailers and finding things that
I liked/disliked. My wife was truly irritated about this since she
thought it was a completely frivolous use of money. But, every
time she'd end up stating something like "crap, I like this one
better."

Since having a child I've spent next to nothing on upgrades/changes
since I have another outlet for that income. There are a few things
I would change at present, but not many since I made pretty good
choices. As such, I have no vested interest in finding components
that sound better since I'm not going to buy them.
: >
: >The problems typically come down to one of an Occam's Razor issues.
: >In theory all things should be the same that measure the same,

: No one has ever made that claim. It's trivially easy to find measureable
: differences between any two samples of the same device. The question with audio
: products is whether those "differences" exceed the threshold of audibility in
: an acoustical sense.

You are correct and I did incorrectly state the problem. It is
more that there can be many explanations (hence my Occam reference)
and if that makes any difference.

: >but there are areas where this becomes fuzzy. Field effects,
: >semi-electrically permeable insulators, etc. These explanations
: >soon grow to the point where they collapse of their own weight
: >(often rightly so).
: >
: >Is this stuff hard to quantify/identify/repeatedly observe? You
: >bet. Are there differences - IMHO yes. But much of this argument
: >is simply mental masturbation. I like sorbet, some folks don't.
: >Are they wrong? Well sure >;->
: >--
: >Lou Anschuetz,
: >Network Manager, ECE, Carnegie Mellon University

: You have a "course?" Want a guest lecture?
I haven't taught for several years, which is both good and bad (I
always learned more from the students than they could from me on
the whole, and that is a loss). These days it would have to be
a course on "listening" and "hearing." which are clearly not the
same thing. Having a child approaching adolescence makes that
abundently clear ;-)

--
Lou Anschuetz,
Network Manager, ECE, Carnegie Mellon University

Steven Sullivan

August 14th 03, 07:13 PM

Lou Anschuetz > wrote:
> hsv_a.136546$o%2.58712@sccrnsc02>
> X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

> Steven Sullivan ) wrote:
> : Lou Anschuetz > wrote:
> : > Actually, I already hold advanced degrees in Psychology (with
> : > emphasis on experimental), as well as computing.

> : > I am (painfully) aware of pschological bias. My comments were made
> : > as there have been occassions when observations are made without
> : > any predisposing evidence (e.g. no recent packages of equipment,
> : > no obvious time spent tweaking, and so on).

> : > I'm also (painfully!) aware that many of my colleagues from both
> : > the analog and digital side of the world have disagreed in
> : > principle with assertions that these things (especially cables)
> : > would sound different. But for those who have listened (often
> : > with negative bias), the evidence is observed.

> : And surely your education is psychology should suggest why
> : that might be so, and yet have *nothing* to do with an actual
> : audible difference. Surely experimental design and the need
> : for controls was covered in your graduate coursework.

> As covered above, these situations were plain when there was no
> competing explanation. That's my point. This has not occurred
> when there hasn't been a system change. Yes, these are not
> competently designed, double-blind, tests, but the fact that
> the result occurs spontaneously is interesting, especially since
> there are no false positives (nor false negatives just to cover
> all the bases).

Again, this 'protocol' is far too vague to rule *out* any sort
of non-audible 'cues' that might have lead to a report of audible
difference. Surely your studies menioned how insidious such
cues can be.

> I bring up the evidence of engineers as their response
> is more likely to be "that's impossible," "it can't happen," etc.
> etc.

Or , 'Seems unlikely. Have you tested it with controls in place?"

> Sometimes it is even the retort of "there must be some
> other explanation." Amusing IMHO, though surely not "scientific."

And who, pray tell, is saying there *must* be another explanation?

> I think you are, however, trying to merge two problems. Can someone
> reliably say which is which? I think not. Can someone repeatedly
> notice a change? Yes. Some changes are more desireable to normal
> human beings.

If someone is noticing a change, then logically someone should
be able to say which is which.

> If this were not so then everyone would be buying the same,
> cheapest amps/cables. Clearly folks going to listening rooms and
> actually listening find some components "better (whatever that is)."

It's astonishing htat you consider this evidence of *anything* as
regards audible difference, if you're actually familiar with the
idea of perceptual bias.

I posit that if all auditions were done blinded, then msot people
*would* end up buying cheap amps/cables.

> What it seems to me you are looking for is an objective standard
> for "better" so that folks can repeatedly say so in ABX.

Wrong. I'm not looking for a standard for 'better'. I'm pointing
out an existing standard for establishing 'different'.
Once 'different' is reliably established, then 'better'
is a subjective call. This assumes that 'better' is only
referring to sound, btw. People can and do
choose components based on other factors.

> This, IMHO,
> is the difficult part of getting ABX to work. I am aware of
> the extremely quick nature of auditory fatigue (side note - we are
> on day 2 of 3 days of fire alarm testing so I'm really aware of
> such fatigue this week :)

And such fatigue can be expected to operate in sighted
as well as blinded comparisons.

> I'm also aware of how easily ears are fooled. One of my research
> papers called into question the established practice of using
> verbal echoing. It turned out that folks thought the other voice
> was their own - even when it clearly wasn't (sometimes even a
> different gender :) This is not a published work since some
> instructors were made a bit nervous by this preliminary finding.

> But do I think it rules out all possibilities of there being
> actual differences - not at this point via observation only.

I suspect you meant *does not rule out* here. But again you
overstate the case. Surely your
education included the idea of likelihood. One never actually rules out 'all
possibility', one can only reduce the likelihood of such
possibilities to a negligable level. It is certainly true that a
set of DBT results for one person does not rule out the possibility
that other listeners might perform differently. SUbjectivists
often point this out, but tey fail to acknowledge at the same time
that it doesn't make *their* sighted perceptions *more likely* to
be accurate either.

> : > The problems typically come down to one of an Occam's Razor issues.
> : > In theory all things should be the same that measure the same,
> : > but there are areas where this becomes fuzzy. Field effects,
> : > semi-electrically permeable insulators, etc. These explanations
> : > soon grow to the point where they collapse of their own weight
> : > (often rightly so).

> : INdeed, as opposed to speculative audibility of 'field effects,
> : semi-electrically permeable insulators' and the like, we have a
> : large body of solid data about the fallibility of human perception.
> : So, what would Occam's Razor suggest is the more likely
> : explanation that *must* be discounted before one makes claims
> : for such effects?

> If those explanations really covered the issue, then they would
> be repeatable (which you know they are not) and it would be possible
> just to do better engineering to make things have more/less of
> one or more these qualities and then have them always sound "better."

Indeed. Hasn't been done, AFAIK. Therefore the alternate explanation
for many sighted reports of unlikely audible difference
-- perceptual bias -- still holds sway.

> But my experience is that the more such explanations are piled on,
> the more unlikely the explanation to have merit. There has not, to
> my knowledge, been any conclusive evidence that this or that fact uniformly
> benefits sound beyond certain basic engineering minimum standards.

Indeed. It's what people like Tom Nousaine has been saying for years:
competently designed amps and cables operating within their parameters
are unlikely to sound different. Therefore the alternative explanation
for many sighted reports of unlikely audible difference -- perceptual bias --
still holds sway.

> There are, however, certain "trends" which do seem to help. The
> obvious "bigger is usually better" and "tighter tolerances are
> usually better". But I don't see any engineer so far saying that
> if the field strength is kept at this number in a cable it is always better
> (in a macro sense only here - obviously inside tubes this is
> critical).

Tighter tolerances are only *audibly* 'better' if the resultant
difference falls within the range of human hearing. (Though
such tolerances might contribute to build quality, and thus longer
functional life.)

As for engineers and what they say about cables, youv'e already gotten
input from a few here. Their take seems to me to be: cables
manfactured according to well-understood electrical constraints
will perform in sonically identical fashion. I presume this means
that there *are* some boundary numbers for resistance etc.
by which design parameters are constrained.

> So what do I believe makes things sound better? Unfortunately
> it appears to be a combination of effects in some "correct"
> distribution. Science is not good at things that have multiple
> competing factors influencing outcome. Economics and human
> behavior prediction are two examples of science trying (without
> much success) to do this accurately. Electron location prediction
> is another tough one some friends of mine have worked years on.
> I also hold out hope that a proper analysis of all the variables
> will one day be possible.

> Will this be found in ABX? Haven't a clue since I don't know the
> magnitude of changes possible once all the factors are simultaneously
> interactively addressable.

I think you're needlessly complicating things here, by conflating
'better' and 'different'. Engineers certainly do have *some*
parameters which lead to general perception of 'better' or 'worse'
sound -- reduction of known forms of audible distortion. But
my first concern is determinign whether claims of 'difference' are
even jsutified , since they are so extreemely common in audiophilia.

> One more nut to throw on the pile btw :) Despite being much closer
> to retirement than college, I'm interning on running live sound
> mixing (compressors - ohmygod!). Do I like things to sound different
> in live vs. recorded venues? Sad to say, yes. Would I like my recorded
> music to sound more like live? Sometimes, but usually not. Do cables/amps
> make differences there? You bet.

I bet you haven't done a proper test to determine whether it's *only* the
cables or *only* the amps that make the difference there.

> People who listen to transistor radios
> will show up in the sound booth and tell you so and they have no way
> to know what you did (sort of an ultimate test in some ways since the
> venue and artists are the same every week :) Do they agree on what's
> different about the sound? Nope. Sometimes even the sound engineers
> (not me - I'm just a grunt) disagree on the nature of the perceived changes.

As expected from psychological data.

> But, the sound engineers do agree on what sounds "better."

Sometimes.

--
-S.

Stewart Pinkerton

August 14th 03, 08:42 PM

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 17:08:17 GMT, (Lou
Anschuetz) wrote:

>The summary, though, is that IMHO there is a combination of measureable,
>but poorly understood, real effects that are producing something that
>makes the cables/amps (again, not interconnects where I've not been
>able to observe this) "sound" different.

The true summary is that first you need to *demonstrate* that there
really is a difference. This has *never* been done.

Once you have proved the *existence* of an effect, then we can search
for the cause. No demonstrable effect, no need for wild hand-waving
about theoretically possible causes. One might have hoped that a
person who claims to have been highly trained in experimental
observation, would have thoroughly understood this most basic of
scientific principles. Especially since you have admitted to an
awareness of the 'Clever Hans' effect. :-(
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

chung

August 14th 03, 08:51 PM

Lou Anschuetz wrote:
>
> The summary, though, is that IMHO there is a combination of measureable,
> but poorly understood, real effects that are producing something that
> makes the cables/amps (again, not interconnects where I've not been
> able to observe this) "sound" different.

How did you come up with such an opinion? Cables and amplifiers have
been designed and used for almost a century now, and you think that
there is something still *poorly understood* that made them sound different?

Why is it that we have used cables to measure pico-amps of currents,
nano-volts of voltages, up to Gigahertz's of bandwidth successfully, and
yet when it comes to audio, we still have a "poor" understanding of how
they work?

Don't you think that whatever effects that make cables behave in a
mysterious, poorly understood, manner at audio frequencies with large
signals will manifest themselves in a very significant way (if not
totally wreak havoc) in applications where pico-amps and nano-volts are
measured, up to Gigahertz's in frequency?

>
> (snip)
> I would agree in principle, but not practice. Both in my home
> audio setup, and in my work with audio professionals (I'm not one)
> this is observable. Over the last couple dozen years I've seen the
> startled look of someone going "what'd you change?" way to often
> to discount the effect. Could they pass a DBT? I'm sure not (for lots
> of really good technical reaons others have addressed better than I
> could).

Now if the changes caused a "startled look", they have to be repeatably
observable changes, no? Why then do you assume a priori that the
observers will not pass a DBT, which is an even more sensitive *audio* test?

What does your training in psychology and logical problem solving (as
required in computer science) tell you about what you just said?

>
> : Plus, I hope that you can pass a DBT on sorbet vs other cold desserts :).
> Not sure I could tell one good sorbet from another though - which is why
> the analogy has some merit. Human perceptions are odd things that
> are in my experience poorly understood.
> --

It still is a bad analogy. Choice of a certain sorbet depends on taste,
appearance, presentation, price, and other factors. There is no wrong
choice, but only a personal choice. On the other hand, you were
specifically talking about *audible differences* between cables, which
need to be established via controlled testing since these differences
are subtle, if present at all.

> Lou Anschuetz,
> Network Manager, ECE, Carnegie Mellon University
>

Nousaine

August 15th 03, 04:00 AM

(Lou Anschuetz) wrote:

>Nousaine ) wrote:
>
>: What is intersting is that the claim about "no prompting" ignores what is
>known
>: about social interaction. "My wife" heard it without prompting is a common
>: assertion.
>
>Ok, let me go into painful detail :)
>
>I'm sitting in a chair facing away from the door when I'm startled
>to find someone behind me (the entrance is behind me and hence
>invisible in the darkened room) who enters silently (making me jump out of
>the chair) and speaks words like - "wow, that bass sounds a lot
>better," or "I couldn't hear those cymbals before."
>
>These are not "clever Hans" kinds of episodes.

Why not? Your wife knows you; does she not?

If they were,
>then obviously the value would be gone. But instead, they are
>someone hearing a difference and seeking out someone to tell.

This is just another anecdote that hasn't been verified.

>Do every amp/cable change make differences? Absolutely not. Do
>some, absolutely.

So how do you come to this conclusion based on your pretty weak anecdotal
story?

And as per other comments, cost/appearance/smell
>whatever aren't going to be players in this situation. Can I put
>*any* kind of parameters on which ones will produce the effect?
>Nope. The trend with speaker cables has tipped towards better with
>more cost, but it is not unilateral. With (better )amps it is much more
>pronounced.

Please this is just a OSAF comment. There is NO evidence that nominally
competent wires of ANY kind make an audible difference.

>
>: Let me give you another. A few years ago I was the proctor in a challenge
>blind
>: test on amplifier sound. During the first trial I was in an adjacent room
>with
>: the wife of the subject. She made statements to me during the trial "The
>: difference is obvious to me even from here."
>
>: Later after the test was completed she asked about the first trial and said
>: "well amp X was in the system for that first trial right?" But she was
>wrong.
>
>: So the next day we repeated the experiment with her as the sole subject.
>And
>: she was was not able to reliably identify the PASS amp from the Yamaha
>: integrated amplifier test device.
>
>: So, in general, "untainted" onservations from family members have been
>shown to
>: be unreliable from the extant evidence.
>
>Obviously writing is not where I make my living :)
>My point in bringing any of this up is that I can readily rule out
>any of the common ways of this information being communicated since
>I know what they are and yet it still sometimes happens.

It happens in EVERY non-biased controlled listening session I've ever seen.

It is
>fortunate that it is rare actually or I'd be having to take blood
>pressure medication for those times when I was absolute made to
>jump out of my chair by the statement coming from behind me. ;)

Nousaine

August 15th 03, 04:36 AM

"Wylie Williams"

>"Nousaine" > wrote>>
>> Testing yourself is easy. Find an amplifier or some other device that
>modern
>> science says should be transparent and test yourself with someone else
>> operating the switch. Check out pcabx.
>>
>> All you need is a rational amount of bias control. Also recall all those
>times
>> when you 'fooled' yourself when the switch wasn't in the position you had
>> thought it was.
>>
>That first step alone is a tricky one. "Find an amplifier or some other
>device that modern science says should be transparent ".

hat's easy. Pick any ampliifer YOU are selling.

>
>You would think this was a settled subject. I have asked on RAHE what the
>criteria for judging "competent design" components and before it morphed
>into a "bash the home speaker builder" fest there were several helpful posts
>that led me to believe that amps, for example could be screened by reference
>to available measurements.

Easy enough; just pick one that sounds "best" to you and then do a DBT with
another that sounds 'bad.'

Of course there was a post from a designer with
>extremely professional credentials and experience that seemed to say that
>the measurements avialable to the public were incomplete. Apparently the
>criteria of modern science in this regard are in flux.
>
>So if I hear a difference it's because I didn't select the product carefully
>enough? How to select?

What's the Rule of Thumb "Trust Your Ears." Pick any two; verify they're level
matched and don't have significant response variations into the load (0.2 dB
over the audible range) and then complete the experiment.

Want help? Call me; I'm more than happy to help and/or conduct the experiment.

Lou Anschuetz

August 15th 03, 03:38 PM

>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

Steven Sullivan ) wrote:
: > As covered above, these situations were plain when there was no
: > competing explanation. That's my point. This has not occurred
: > when there hasn't been a system change. Yes, these are not
: > competently designed, double-blind, tests, but the fact that
: > the result occurs spontaneously is interesting, especially since
: > there are no false positives (nor false negatives just to cover
: > all the bases).

: Again, this 'protocol' is far too vague to rule *out* any sort
: of non-audible 'cues' that might have lead to a report of audible
: difference. Surely your studies menioned how insidious such
: cues can be.
Correct - I'm not stating this is *scientific* in any way. But it
is, IMHO both interesting and enlightening. And, yes, I'm aware of
the subtleties involved (Clever Han's trainer didn't know himself
that he was doing it). What I've tried to do, though, is to suggest
that two people independently, with no bias (other than perhaps my
negative one) can observe the same phenomenon with *some* speaker
cables and/or amps.

My own research suggests that people's ability to understand what
they hear is frought with errors. It seems to be much worse than
sight, taste or smell (which many would argue is the best of our
senses based on the size of the brain tissue devoted to it).

At the same time I have seen independent folks come to the same
conclusion. As I started out, and will now end :) since I have real
work to do today, I find this fascinating even if not DBT'able.
I've also worked with two people with perfect pitch (as stated by
their mentors) and both were wrong :)

Hearing is not believing IMHO. I take other people with me when I
shop (usually for them - I'm not buying these days). If we both hear
the same thing (irrespective of price - I tend to avoid stupidly priced
cabling in particular) then something is happening. I/they have turned
down cables/amps that we believed would sound better based on reviews/
store recommendations based on our preferences. The fact that those
preferences usually match suggests some factor is being tickled.
Based on my own statements perhaps it is smell ;-> It remains the
case, however, that this happens. Can I explain it? No. Can I
pass on a test on it? No. Have I ever gone back to review before
purchase and reversed a decision based on hearing it a second time?
No (ok, you can argue a psychological factor there :)
: > I bring up the evidence of engineers as their response
: > is more likely to be "that's impossible," "it can't happen," etc.
: > etc.

: Or , 'Seems unlikely. Have you tested it with controls in place?"
Ok, so far none of my technologically competent friends have
suggested that :)

: > I think you are, however, trying to merge two problems. Can someone
: > reliably say which is which? I think not. Can someone repeatedly
: > notice a change? Yes. Some changes are more desireable to normal
: > human beings.

: If someone is noticing a change, then logically someone should
: be able to say which is which.
I'm not convinced of this, even though it appears logical. I don't
go audition back and forth multiple times since I simply get to
where I don't care after a short period of time. I find ABAB sufficient
since these are not decisions of life-changing consequence. If at
the second AB they sound the same then they probably are close
enough that I will buy the more economical. And I will also grant
you that *many* sound the same amongst cables. But so far amongst
speaker cables I've been able to find ones that make a difference
(again - I don't find this with interconnects where I simply buy
reasonably well made and cheap ones).

: > If this were not so then everyone would be buying the same,
: > cheapest amps/cables. Clearly folks going to listening rooms and
: > actually listening find some components "better (whatever that is)."

: It's astonishing htat you consider this evidence of *anything* as
: regards audible difference, if you're actually familiar with the
: idea of perceptual bias.

: I posit that if all auditions were done blinded, then msot people
: *would* end up buying cheap amps/cables.
Sounds like a great study idea - can someone set this up?
I'm also willing to bet that for cables you are absolutely right
since the changes are often pretty subtle. For amps I'm less
convinced. OTOH, I've had people listen to music on my higher
resolution system and comment about things they've never heard
before and then go purchase some incompetently designed piece of
junk and say how great it sounds. Not proof of anything but that
much of this performance stuff is unimportant to a large percentage
of the population.

: > This, IMHO,
: > is the difficult part of getting ABX to work. I am aware of
: > the extremely quick nature of auditory fatigue (side note - we are
: > on day 2 of 3 days of fire alarm testing so I'm really aware of
: > such fatigue this week :)

: And such fatigue can be expected to operate in sighted
: as well as blinded comparisons.
We are absolutely agreed (as I suggested above).

: > I'm also aware of how easily ears are fooled. One of my research
: > papers called into question the established practice of using
: > verbal echoing. It turned out that folks thought the other voice
: > was their own - even when it clearly wasn't (sometimes even a
: > different gender :) This is not a published work since some
: > instructors were made a bit nervous by this preliminary finding.

: > But do I think it rules out all possibilities of there being
: > actual differences - not at this point via observation only.

: I suspect you meant *does not rule out* here. But again you
: overstate the case. Surely your
: education included the idea of likelihood. One never actually rules out 'all
: possibility', one can only reduce the likelihood of such
: possibilities to a negligable level. It is certainly true that a
: set of DBT results for one person does not rule out the possibility
: that other listeners might perform differently. SUbjectivists
: often point this out, but tey fail to acknowledge at the same time
: that it doesn't make *their* sighted perceptions *more likely* to
: be accurate either.

We are in agreement here :)

: > : > The problems typically come down to one of an Occam's Razor issues.
: > : > In theory all things should be the same that measure the same,
: > : > but there are areas where this becomes fuzzy. Field effects,
: > : > semi-electrically permeable insulators, etc. These explanations
: > : > soon grow to the point where they collapse of their own weight
: > : > (often rightly so).

: > : INdeed, as opposed to speculative audibility of 'field effects,
: > : semi-electrically permeable insulators' and the like, we have a
: > : large body of solid data about the fallibility of human perception.
: > : So, what would Occam's Razor suggest is the more likely
: > : explanation that *must* be discounted before one makes claims
: > : for such effects?

: > If those explanations really covered the issue, then they would
: > be repeatable (which you know they are not) and it would be possible
: > just to do better engineering to make things have more/less of
: > one or more these qualities and then have them always sound "better."

: Indeed. Hasn't been done, AFAIK. Therefore the alternate explanation
: for many sighted reports of unlikely audible difference
: -- perceptual bias -- still holds sway.

Well, maybe. Because this is a human sense that is known to be pretty
unreliable, there is an issue with falsifiability here that concerns
me. It is easy to argue that since the majority of people don't see/hear
it, it isn't there and they are making choices based on "pretty colors"
or "someone else said so". But it is more difficult to prove that it
is not so (the falsifiability issue). This is why I limit my testing
knowing that I will increasingly see a convergence. But it is also
why I take a "witness" to make sure we both heard the same thing. If
we don't, then it is likely to in fact be bias. If we do? Difficult to
say then eh?

: Tighter tolerances are only *audibly* 'better' if the resultant
: difference falls within the range of human hearing. (Though
: such tolerances might contribute to build quality, and thus longer
: functional life.)

: As for engineers and what they say about cables, youv'e already gotten
: input from a few here. Their take seems to me to be: cables
: manfactured according to well-understood electrical constraints
: will perform in sonically identical fashion. I presume this means
: that there *are* some boundary numbers for resistance etc.
: by which design parameters are constrained.
Seems to me we have a problem at this point. I'm convinced that
there may be enough variables that we aren't often put in the position
of seeing constrained values. I suspect that the claim for "house
sound" in cables/amps may simply be the case that a lot of those
variables are constrained in the same direction. But the changes
between manufacturers run large. At miniscule voltages (interconnects)
I don't think many of them make much difference. At larger voltages
more of them come into play IMHO. "Insulators" alone act very
differently depending on the voltage/current applied. There are
billions of possible formulas/type of materials/layout. Some of
those will make (at times measureable) differences.

If the argument becomes one of identical materials in identical
layouts with identical insulation, then sure they are absolutely
going to sound the same. I know, I know, I'm trivializing your
argument :)

With that said, remember that in networking we've only in the last
few years come up with enough tests to show why some apparently
identical twisted pair cables work better/worse than others. The
changes between them are subtle, but they are sufficient to
explain differences in performance. There is still work going on how
best to terminate/polish fiber optic cables which are all engineered
pretty much the exact same way. Fortunately we have measurements
for those kinds of cabling, something we don't have as well refined
for "hearing."

: > Will this be found in ABX? Haven't a clue since I don't know the
: > magnitude of changes possible once all the factors are simultaneously
: > interactively addressable.

: I think you're needlessly complicating things here, by conflating
: 'better' and 'different'. Engineers certainly do have *some*
: parameters which lead to general perception of 'better' or 'worse'
: sound -- reduction of known forms of audible distortion. But
: my first concern is determinign whether claims of 'difference' are
: even jsutified , since they are so extreemely common in audiophilia.
This seems a baby/bath-water issue to me. Yes, there is *way* too
much hype (you should see cat5 connecter companies slugging it out :).
That doesn't mean it is all false. Difficult to measure/verify -
absolutely! Much of it utter nonsense - absolutely!

: > One more nut to throw on the pile btw :) Despite being much closer
: > to retirement than college, I'm interning on running live sound
: > mixing (compressors - ohmygod!). Do I like things to sound different
: > in live vs. recorded venues? Sad to say, yes. Would I like my recorded
: > music to sound more like live? Sometimes, but usually not. Do cables/amps
: > make differences there? You bet.

: I bet you haven't done a proper test to determine whether it's *only* the
: cables or *only* the amps that make the difference there.
Proper tests we have not. But we rarly change amps (like once every 2
years) and change cables about every 3-5 months. I've not been there
when both were changed at the same time.

: > People who listen to transistor radios
: > will show up in the sound booth and tell you so and they have no way
: > to know what you did (sort of an ultimate test in some ways since the
: > venue and artists are the same every week :) Do they agree on what's
: > different about the sound? Nope. Sometimes even the sound engineers
: > (not me - I'm just a grunt) disagree on the nature of the perceived changes.

: As expected from psychological data.

: > But, the sound engineers do agree on what sounds "better."
: Sometimes.
Amongst the ones I know :)
--
Lou Anschuetz,
Network Manager, ECE, Carnegie Mellon University