Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Nirvana, or close to it?
Scott wrote:
On Aug 15, 9:05 am, ScottW2 wrote: On Aug 14, 6:16 pm, Scott wrote: On Aug 14, 1:00 pm, ScottW2 wrote: On Aug 14, 6:00 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "codifus" wrote in message And that there are also devices that measure poorly but sound great? That can easily happen because of the rediculously high standards some people have for measured performance. Or the ridiculously low standard for "sounds great". Reference SET lovers. Have you never heard a SET based system sound great? I have with significant constraints on it's use, the major one being SPL. Increase the volume only slightly to well below anything approaching live levels and audible increases in distortion resulted in completely different sound results. IMO, such a system has a very low standard for "sounds great". I can see how that can be an issue with most speakers. I have heard a few SET based systems that used very efficient speakers that sounded pretty darned good. even great in some cases. SPLs were not an issue in those systems. I fail to see the "lower standard." If something sounds great it sounds great. No? What is the 'lower standard?" Is it just your particular experiences and the issue of SPLs? Note to the moderator. I assure you I will remain civil with Scott W. I am confindent he will do the same with me. Personally, I've never heard speakers with efficiencies great enough to get realistic SPL's from SET's unless they were horn loaded, and for my tastes, I've not heard any "great" sounding horns (haven't heard them all, no). That aside, I think the point with SET's is the significant constraint they put on speaker choice. That was the gist I got from ScottW's 'low standard' description. With the constraint of such low power, you do not have the freedom to choose whichever transducers (admitted by virtually everyone to be the most colored of all system components) sound best to you, while maintaining the ability to achieve realistic SPL's, unless you "just happen" to think horns are the best sounding speakers. Keith Hughes Keith Hughes |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Nirvana, or close to it?
On Aug 15, 7:18*pm, bob wrote:
On Aug 15, 1:21*pm, "Fred." wrote: I'm sure that a large number of differences in sound people claim they can hear are based on ego and/or bias as you suggest. *But, I'm eaually sure the human ear is remarkable in its capabilites, and in the differences in capabilities between people. *We have only the roughest idea what the typical human ear is sensitive to, let alone the range of the atypical. Human hearing has been a subject of scientific study for a good century and a half. We have quite a good idea of what the human ear is sensitive to. Some audiophiles may not have a good idea of what the human ear is sensitive to, but that's a reflection on them, not on the state of scientific knowledge. While tend to reserve judgement, I'm truly reluctant to reject any one claim on nothing more than what I personally hear, or on an electrical measurement, which itself is based on certain expectations concerning *normal* human hearing. Claims are easy to reject when they fall well out of the range of even "exceptional" hearing. There's a gray area, of course, where only careful listening tests can tell you whether something is or is not audible to a particular person. None of the claims in this thread come anywhere near that gray area. bob Bob, While I don't claim a great ear, I do know that when I was younger I used to experience discomfort in stores which left their ultrasonic motion detectors on during the day. Since this was obviously impossible, you can imagine that I didn't talk about it much. However, I did mention it once to my wife, who is a speech pathologist, snd has some knowledge of hearing science. She, like you would, discounted it as a minor insanity. Later our daughter complained of the same problem. Since I never talked about it with our daughter, I guess it's hereditary insanity :-). Later, we encountered a vision specialist who had found that a number of pupils who had been thought to be dislexic, really weren't having processing problems, but had very high contrast sensitiviy. He had ordered some lenses with 97% tint for one pupil. He had to try several manufacturers because most of them "knew" nobody could see through such lenses. During his presentation he passed a pair of the lenses around the audience. As expected, most of us, including me, with contrast sensitivity mesuring in the 99th percentile, couldn't see much, but one woman, looking a printed page though them, exclaimed, "Wow, that's great", and proceeded to read off the page with obvious pleasure. I also recall, working in R&D, discovering a serious defect in an outsourced power supply, where the symptom which made us look at it was a flicker in the lights which only one person could perceive, and they weren't even quite sure they were seeing it. Science produces theorectical models which are useful for prediction. You can apply those models to "easily" discount claims, and have a very high probability of being right. Yet, that leaves a finite probablity of being wrong. And, any competant physicist will tell you that science confines itself to measuring things that are relatively easy to measure. Our use of language to describe our perceptions, combined with social accomodation, like my not talking about my sensitivity to ultrasonics, tends to blind us to the very large differences in what people perceive. And, dealing with things on a statistical basis, tends to blind us to the existence of extremes. Many claims should be met with doubt, and "show me". I'm just suggesting that if you're too sure about what you "know", and take the easy path of outright regjection, you may miss something important, and incidentally commit an injustice. Fred. |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Nirvana, or close to it?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 18:47:37 -0700, Fred. wrote
(in article ): On Aug 15, 7:18*pm, bob wrote: On Aug 15, 1:21*pm, "Fred." wrote: I'm sure that a large number of differences in sound people claim they can hear are based on ego and/or bias as you suggest. *But, I'm eaually sure the human ear is remarkable in its capabilites, and in the differences in capabilities between people. *We have only the roughest idea what the typical human ear is sensitive to, let alone the range of the atypical. Human hearing has been a subject of scientific study for a good century and a half. We have quite a good idea of what the human ear is sensitive to. Some audiophiles may not have a good idea of what the human ear is sensitive to, but that's a reflection on them, not on the state of scientific knowledge. While tend to reserve judgement, I'm truly reluctant to reject any one claim on nothing more than what I personally hear, or on an electrical measurement, which itself is based on certain expectations concerning *normal* human hearing. Claims are easy to reject when they fall well out of the range of even "exceptional" hearing. There's a gray area, of course, where only careful listening tests can tell you whether something is or is not audible to a particular person. None of the claims in this thread come anywhere near that gray area. bob Bob, While I don't claim a great ear, I do know that when I was younger I used to experience discomfort in stores which left their ultrasonic motion detectors on during the day. Since this was obviously impossible, you can imagine that I didn't talk about it much. However, I did mention it once to my wife, who is a speech pathologist, snd has some knowledge of hearing science. She, like you would, discounted it as a minor insanity. Later our daughter complained of the same problem. Since I never talked about it with our daughter, I guess it's hereditary insanity :-). Later, we encountered a vision specialist who had found that a number of pupils who had been thought to be dislexic, really weren't having processing problems, but had very high contrast sensitiviy. He had ordered some lenses with 97% tint for one pupil. He had to try several manufacturers because most of them "knew" nobody could see through such lenses. During his presentation he passed a pair of the lenses around the audience. As expected, most of us, including me, with contrast sensitivity mesuring in the 99th percentile, couldn't see much, but one woman, looking a printed page though them, exclaimed, "Wow, that's great", and proceeded to read off the page with obvious pleasure. I also recall, working in R&D, discovering a serious defect in an outsourced power supply, where the symptom which made us look at it was a flicker in the lights which only one person could perceive, and they weren't even quite sure they were seeing it. Science produces theorectical models which are useful for prediction. You can apply those models to "easily" discount claims, and have a very high probability of being right. Yet, that leaves a finite probablity of being wrong. And, any competant physicist will tell you that science confines itself to measuring things that are relatively easy to measure. Our use of language to describe our perceptions, combined with social accomodation, like my not talking about my sensitivity to ultrasonics, tends to blind us to the very large differences in what people perceive. And, dealing with things on a statistical basis, tends to blind us to the existence of extremes. Many claims should be met with doubt, and "show me". I'm just suggesting that if you're too sure about what you "know", and take the easy path of outright regjection, you may miss something important, and incidentally commit an injustice. Fred. Very interesting. Also there is another mechanism at work. The old "I look but I do not see and I listen but I do not hear" phenomenon. Many people can see the same object and glean different amounts of detail from it. Some people are more observant than others. I had a friend, recently, for instance, try to describe to me over the phone an unusual car that he saw and he said something like "It looks a lot like a '55 Buick, but it's smaller". Finally, I get enough information from him to figure out that the car the was talking about was a European Ford 'Capri' from the early 1970's. Well, I don't have to tell you that a 55 Buick and a 70's Capri have, in common, only that they both have 4 wheels an engine, and seats for the occupants. They share no styling features in common, none. But this person's lack of automobile experience coupled with his poor observational skills (something that I have noted about the guy many times) cause both cars to make a similar impression on him (and god alone knows why that is. The guy himself can't even tell me). I think about this difference in perception often when people try to tell me that all CD players, for instance, sound the same, or that all op-amps sound alike. Just because some listeners don't notice any differences, doesn't mean that the differences don't exist. What it might mean is that some people aren't as "observant" of audible differences as are others. But there is the other side of the coin as well. there are people who claim to hear differences that simply cannot exist, such as the differences between the sound of audio interconnects or speaker cables or the difference in sound made by "cable elevators" for speaker cables . Double-blind tests show conclusively that there are no such differences and of course, the laws of electricity back those findings up. What the laws of electricity say about the differences between the sound of modern, well designed amplifiers (preamps, op-amps, power amps, amps of all types and applications) is that they should sound very much alike and that any differences would be miniscule and subtle. And again, double-blind tests bear this out. But differences here do exist, and the fact is that some people might notice them (and therefore care about them) more than do others because they are more "aurally observant". |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Nirvana, or close to it?
"Fred." wrote in message
While I don't claim a great ear, I do know that when I was younger I used to experience discomfort in stores which left their ultrasonic motion detectors on during the day. Since this was obviously impossible, you can imagine that I didn't talk about it much. However, I did mention it once to my wife, who is a speech pathologist, snd has some knowledge of hearing science. She, like you would, discounted it as a minor insanity. Later our daughter complained of the same problem. Since I never talked about it with our daughter, I guess it's hereditary insanity :-). No, it shows a lack of knowlege by the people making the judgement. Some ultrasonic motion detectors generate SPLs that would be hazardous to your hearing, if they operated in the audible range. SPLs in the 112-120 dB are not unusual. Sensing sound thay is not that far outside the region of the ear's maximum sensitivity is usually just a matter of getting it loud enough. Whether you sense sound by means of transmission of the sound into your ear canal and activation of the basilar membrane, or by other means, may be a good question. This needs to be put into perspective with the ultrasonics generated by musical instruments. As a rule musical instruments generate their maximum SPLs in the audible range, generally below 10 KHz. This includes most traditional western-style percussion and brass instruments. Above their frequency of peak output, response falls off at approximately 12 dB/octave. Thus their SPLs in the ultrasonic frequency range are far, far less. |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Nirvana, or close to it?
On Aug 12, 8:58*am, Sonnova wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:10:08 -0700, codifus wrote (in article ): I've tried the LME49720s, the dual opamp versions, that is equivalent to the LM4562NAs. From my basic understanding, the LME49720s are basically a metal can version of the LM4562NAs. Sonically, though, they are very different. Keep in mind that my observations are with my TC-7520 with the MLC5/6 caps removed, as shown in the 2nd diagram from mod page here; http://www.beresford.me/others/7520mods.html For me, the LM4562NAs really really shine. They are almost perfect, but their bass is just a bit light. The LME49720s, which are basically a metal can version of the LM4562NAs, are quite a different story. They have deep bass, but they don't have the musicality of the LM4562NAs. Not even close. It's funny how the plastic "inferior" quality chip out shines the "better" metal can version. I think it all comes down to the synergy of all the components. The TC-7520 may be better suited to plastic opamps. I plan to try the Burr brown OPA2134s next. I hope they take well to the MLC5/6 removal. Putting those caps back is not really an option for me. HMM. The OPA2134 is essentially the same as the OPA134 in specs: 20V/microsecond slew rate, 8 MHz gain bandwidth, 8 nanovolts/root Hertz noise. These are old op-amps (10 years old) and have much more noise (8 nanovolts/root Hertz vs 2.5) than do the LME49710 family. I also believe that the Burr-Brown op-amps do not have symmetrical slew (I deduced this from the large signal step response oscilloscope photo in the data sheet. The falling edge of the square wave exhibits an offset of almost 4 microseconds at the '0' crossing point. An offset that is not there on the rising edge. This is indicative that the falling edge (negative going) portion of the signal takes a longer path through the IC than does the positive going rising edge) and the Burr-Brown OPAs have orders of magnitude more THD than do the newer National chips. I replaced OPA134s in my DAC with the Natty chips and noticed a big improvement. It costs little to experiment this way, but in my humble opinion, replacing members of the LME49710 family with members of the OPA134 family is taking a big step backwards. Your milage may vary 8^) My mileage does indeed vary. I've had the OPA2134 in my 7520 for a day now. I absolutely love them! The LM4562NAs are cleaner, but have weak bass. I just couldn't enjoy them because someone took the bottom out, so to speak. The OPA2134 is a musical joy. Even when I don't intend to, I find myself sitting down just to take them in They have this "laid back" sort of sound, like the upper frequencies are ever so slightly slower than the lower frequencies. It is by no means slow, but different. The bass is stupendous. I can leave my EQ off and deliver the audio signal without any digital and minimal analog alteration to the DAC/AMP/ speakers now. I have happily taken 2 steps back into sweetness. 0.08% distortion and 10 year technology be damned! If Burr-Brown (is it now TI??) come out with a new chip to rival the LM4562NA, I'll be sure to look out for it. This OPA2134 is definitely a keeper. CD |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Nirvana, or close to it?
On Aug 16, 9:47*pm, "Fred." wrote:
Later, we encountered a vision specialist who had found that a number of pupils who had been thought to be dislexic, really weren't having processing problems, but had very high contrast sensitiviy. *He had ordered some lenses with 97% tint for one pupil. *He had to try several manufacturers because most of them "knew" nobody could see through such lenses. *During his presentation he passed a pair of the lenses around the audience. *As expected, most of us, including me, with contrast sensitivity mesuring in the 99th percentile, couldn't see much, but one woman, looking a printed page though them, exclaimed, "Wow, that's great", and proceeded to read off the page with obvious pleasure. So? You have proof that some people can see through such lenses. Was there any published science claiming otherwise? I doubt it. So how is this evidence of scientific generalities getting something wrong? What we have in audio is a group of people who claim to be able to read through a 97% tint, but who refuse to take an eye exam. If the woman in your anecdote had said, "Yes, I can read through this," but then refused to actually read anything aloud, would you have believed her? bob |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Nirvana, or close to it?
On Aug 17, 12:49*pm, bob wrote:
On Aug 16, 9:47*pm, "Fred." wrote: Later, we encountered a vision specialist who had found that a number of pupils who had been thought to be dislexic, really weren't having processing problems, but had very high contrast sensitiviy. *He had ordered some lenses with 97% tint for one pupil. *He had to try several manufacturers because most of them "knew" nobody could see through such lenses. *During his presentation he passed a pair of the lenses around the audience. *As expected, most of us, including me, with contrast sensitivity mesuring in the 99th percentile, couldn't see much, but one woman, looking a printed page though them, exclaimed, "Wow, that's great", and proceeded to read off the page with obvious pleasure. So? You have proof that some people can see through such lenses. Was there any published science claiming otherwise? I doubt it. So how is this evidence of scientific generalities getting something wrong? What we have in audio is a group of people who claim to be able to read through a 97% tint, but who refuse to take an eye exam. If the woman in your anecdote had said, "Yes, I can read through this," but then refused to actually read anything aloud, would you have believed her? bob I'm just suggesting that an open mind can be profitiable. Accepted, published science is often correct, but also has a long history of being just plain wrong about what is possible and what is not. Once in a great while the obvious crackpot is correct. Fred. |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Nirvana, or close to it?
On Aug 13, 12:15*am, Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:22:12 -0700, John Stone wrote (in article ): ......... You put too many zeros in the 0.08 number. ............ Is he putting too many zeroes? I just found this spec sheet here; http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/opa134.pdf 0.00008 looks accurate. From what I've heard, the LM4562NA sounds cleaner, but the cleaner signal may be from being less cluttered with bass CD |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Nirvana, or close to it?
On Aug 17, 2:40*pm, "Fred." wrote:
I'm just suggesting that an open mind can be profitiable. *Accepted, published science is often correct, but also has a long history of being just plain wrong about what is possible and what is not. *Once in a great while the obvious crackpot is correct. But in order to prove themselves correct they need to provide the same thing as the non crackpots, namely sufficient evidence. Until they or someone else provides such evidence, crackpots they remain. A skeptic by definition, by the way, has to have an open mind, since to be a skeptic requires that one can tell when evidence does or does not support a claim. When the evidence does support a claim then if the skeptic does not accept it he or she isn't really a skeptic at all. And of course if you are going to use the old saw about the necessity for an open mind, you can be expected to be countered by the equally ancient observation that one's mind should not be so open that one's brain falls out. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Audio Nirvana Fullrange Speakers--From $98/pr | Marketplace | |||
Audio Nirvana Fullrange Speakers--from $98/pr | Marketplace | |||
Audio Nirvana Fullrange Speakers--from $98/pr | Marketplace | |||
Audio Nirvana Fullrange Hi-Eff Spkrs--From $98/pr | Vacuum Tubes | |||
NIRVANA "HDCD" CD COLLECTION $75.00 | Marketplace |