| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Linkwitz' Orion design
A review - as opposed to a taste test - of S. Linkwitz' Orion design
has just appeared in "The Audio Critic" and is reprinted on his site at: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/TAC-review.htm Very informative, and well worth reading, even if you have no interest in building one. -=Bill Eckle=- Vanity Web Page at: http://www.wmeckle.com |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Eckle wrote:
A review - as opposed to a taste test - of S. Linkwitz' Orion design has just appeared in "The Audio Critic" and is reprinted on his site at: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/TAC-review.htm Very informative, and well worth reading, even if you have no interest in building one. In the journalism biz, that's what's known as "burying the lede." The "lede" is: http://www.theaudiocritic.com/cwo/Web_Zine/ Any bets on how many months (or years) between updates? bob p.s.: Why haven't I received my password yet? |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
"William Eckle" wrote in message
... A review - as opposed to a taste test - of S. Linkwitz' Orion design has just appeared in "The Audio Critic" and is reprinted on his site at: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/TAC-review.htm Very informative, and well worth reading, even if you have no interest in building one. It sounds like a very proficient and interesting speaker. However, with all due respect, Aczel's review strikes me as "Gee whiz, Ma, I've discovered that dipoles sound different than boxes". Duh! Of course radiation patterns differ...the whole trick with dipoles is to get the back-reflections to work right and together to create that deep and holographic effect. Has he never heard Maggies? I'm glad to know of the speakers, and I expect that they sound very, very fine. But for Aczel, I'm glad that I gave up my subscription years ago. It wasn't difficult after his praise for the Holman preamp, and then listening to what an un-musical piece of sandpaper *that* was. I see he is still latching onto favorite designers and becoming a booster. How else do you justify (I paraphrase) "If better drivers existed, Linkowitz would have found them". Would make Sam Tellig blush. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... "William Eckle" wrote in message ... A review - as opposed to a taste test - of S. Linkwitz' Orion design has just appeared in "The Audio Critic" and is reprinted on his site at: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/TAC-review.htm Very informative, and well worth reading, even if you have no interest in building one. It sounds like a very proficient and interesting speaker. However, with all due respect, Aczel's review strikes me as "Gee whiz, Ma, I've discovered that dipoles sound different than boxes". Duh! Of course radiation patterns differ...the whole trick with dipoles is to get the back-reflections to work right and together to create that deep and holographic effect. Has he never heard Maggies? I'm glad to know of the speakers, and I expect that they sound very, very fine. But for Aczel, I'm glad that I gave up my subscription years ago. It wasn't difficult after his praise for the Holman preamp, and then listening to what an un-musical piece of sandpaper *that* was. Based on what type of evaluation? I see he is still latching onto favorite designers and becoming a booster. Thus making him different from other reviewers how? How else do you justify (I paraphrase) "If better drivers existed, Linkowitz would have found them". Would make Sam Tellig blush. There are more than a few people who think he had multiple reasons. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
It sounds like a very proficient and interesting speaker. However, with all due respect, Aczel's review strikes me as "Gee whiz, Ma, I've discovered that dipoles sound different than boxes". Duh! Of course radiation patterns differ...the whole trick with dipoles is to get the back-reflections to work right and together to create that deep and holographic effect. Has he never heard Maggies? I'm glad to know of the speakers, and I expect that they sound very, very fine. But for Aczel, I'm glad that I gave up my subscription years ago. It wasn't difficult after his praise for the Holman preamp, and then listening to what an un-musical piece of sandpaper *that* was. I see he is still latching onto favorite designers and becoming a booster. How else do you justify (I paraphrase) "If better drivers existed, Linkowitz would have found them". Would make Sam Tellig blush. While I respect most of what Peter Aczel has tried to do, I too am turned off by his tendency to over-promote the products of folks he considers the White Hats. Perhaps he's trying to compensate for all the adulation poured onto pure garbage by the other mags. Or perhaps he just can't help being a PR guy. Overall, I think a subjective review by an objectivist is no more useful than a subjective review by a subjectivist. bob |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... "William Eckle" wrote in message ... A review - as opposed to a taste test - of S. Linkwitz' Orion design has just appeared in "The Audio Critic" and is reprinted on his site at: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/TAC-review.htm Very informative, and well worth reading, even if you have no interest in building one. It sounds like a very proficient and interesting speaker. However, with all due respect, Aczel's review strikes me as "Gee whiz, Ma, I've discovered that dipoles sound different than boxes". Duh! Of course radiation patterns differ...the whole trick with dipoles is to get the back-reflections to work right and together to create that deep and holographic effect. Has he never heard Maggies? I'm glad to know of the speakers, and I expect that they sound very, very fine. But for Aczel, I'm glad that I gave up my subscription years ago. It wasn't difficult after his praise for the Holman preamp, and then listening to what an un-musical piece of sandpaper *that* was. Based on what type of evaluation? Listening at a dealer friends who carried both it (which he was high on) and the ARC line. We compared a system with a Linn TT (this was back in the early '80's) feeding through the preamps into an ARC D90B feeding Snell Type A's. We also listened to Threshold preamp and a few others. The Holman was so "closed in" and had a cardboardy and gritty quality that I couldn't stand to listen to it for more than a few minutes...no matter what the volume level. Most of the other preamps did not. It wasn't a matter of level, as it didn't just "sound worse". Their were specific audible audio problems. The dealer eventually came to the same conclusion after a few weeks, and dropped the line. This is an interesting example of our hobby. I follow discussions on AudioAsylum's Vintage Forum, since I own and enjoy some vintage equipment. When the Holman preamp comes up, it is often praised for it's engineering by those who put a premium on such things and often (although not universally) "panned" by those who heard some of the same things I heard. I associate some of the characteristics I heard with inexpensive passive parts from this era - for example the otherwise exxemplary HK 900 series of separates from that same era shared the "cardboardy" quality. These are considerations that many audio manufacturers would pay attention to via "voicing". But Holman prided himself on being a "true" engineer who didn't believe passive parts mattered. And the HK staff was filled by NASA electrical engineers of the same persuasion during that same period of time (which is why they had to hire Matti Otali to set them straight on certain audio design issues). I see he is still latching onto favorite designers and becoming a booster. Thus making him different from other reviewers how? The better ones don't do this. Columnists (not reviewers) like Sam Tellig tend to, to their discredit. "Green" audio reviewers often fall into the trap. But Aczel has been around long enough to have no excuse, other than that he is not a very good or obejctive reviewer in spite of his "persona" as a supreme objectivist. How else do you justify (I paraphrase) "If better drivers existed, Linkowitz would have found them". Would make Sam Tellig blush. There are more than a few people who think he had multiple reasons. I think this requires more explanation than you have provided here. Care to elucidate? |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Russ Button wrote:
wrote: While I respect most of what Peter Aczel has tried to do, I too am turned off by his tendency to over-promote the products of folks he considers the White Hats. Perhaps he's trying to compensate for all the adulation poured onto pure garbage by the other mags. Or perhaps he just can't help being a PR guy. I think the merit of any review is simply encouraging the readers to go listen for themselves. Since 'listening for themselves' usually means, totally uncontrolled sighted comparison, with all the sources of bias and error that entails, the merit of that approach is limited at best; it can provide a pseudo-confidence about what one heard, which tends to be sufficient for anyone outside a design or psychoacoustics lab. UNfortunately that pseudo-confidence often leads to listeners making poorly-founded and poorly-qualified assertions about what A or B sounded like. I suspect Mr. Aczel might agree. He at least is pretty good about appropriately qualifying his reviews, reminding his readers that he could be wrong. There's certainly been a lot of talk about the Linkwitz Orion (not the least of which is from me). The Peter Aczel article is not the last word on it though. No reviewer can be the last word. The "last word" has to be your own experience. But one's interpretation of an experience -- of *why* and *what* they heard -- isn't necessarily *correct*, despite being subjectively 'true'. This is the mistake I see made over and over again in audiophile-land. "I heard it; therefore I know why I heard it." When I see enough reviews of something, it sticks in my mind until the time comes that I have a chance to go listen. Then I make up my own mind. If you're at all curious about the Orion, go listen to it for yourself. If you're not curious, then why bother commenting on a review that has no interest for you? Aczel's speakers and CD reviews on that site actually go into issues beyond simply what he heard. -- -S If you're a nut and knock on enough doors, eventually someone will open one, look at you and say, Messiah, we have waited for your arrival. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Russ Button wrote: I think the merit of any review is simply encouraging the readers to go listen for themselves. Since 'listening for themselves' usually means, totally uncontrolled sighted comparison, with all the sources of bias and error that entails, the merit of that approach is limited at best; it can provide a pseudo-confidence about what one heard, which tends to be sufficient for anyone outside a design or psychoacoustics lab. UNfortunately that pseudo-confidence often leads to listeners making poorly-founded and poorly-qualified assertions about what A or B sounded like. So if I'm making a buying decision, and I can't trust my own judgement due to the factors cited above, what am I supposed to do? - Make a choice based upon some magazine reviewer's opinion? - Make a choice based upon opinions found here in rec.audio.hi-end? - Make a choice based upon the audio dealer's opinion? - Expect the audio dealer to set up a carefully controlled double-blind test and to endure many hours of listening and experimentation? Or perhaps I should expect the dealer to allow me to take home a selection of products for the appropriate extended listening sessions? Criticism such as above is only of value when you provide a suitable alternative. If you don't like the idea of someone going to listen for themselves, saying it is full of bias and error, then you have to state, with clarity, what it is we should be doing. Otherwise your criticism is useless and without merit. There's certainly been a lot of talk about the Linkwitz Orion (not the least of which is from me). The Peter Aczel article is not the last word on it though. No reviewer can be the last word. The "last word" has to be your own experience. But one's interpretation of an experience -- of *why* and *what* they heard -- isn't necessarily *correct*, despite being subjectively 'true'. This is the mistake I see made over and over again in audiophile-land. "I heard it; therefore I know why I heard it." Again, you criticize without educating us. If I could and should do something better, then tell me what to do. Otherwise your comments are so much white noise. I am of the opinion that ultimately we each make our choices based upon listening. If you have a better method, then please enlighten us. Russ Button |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 18 Feb 2005 00:36:24 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
When the Holman preamp comes up, it is often praised for it's engineering by those who put a premium on such things and often (although not universally) "panned" by those who heard some of the same things I heard. I associate some of the characteristics I heard with inexpensive passive parts from this era - for example the otherwise exxemplary HK 900 series of separates from that same era shared the "cardboardy" quality. These are considerations that many audio manufacturers would pay attention to via "voicing". But Holman prided himself on being a "true" engineer who didn't believe passive parts mattered. And the HK staff was filled by NASA electrical engineers of the same persuasion during that same period of time (which is why they had to hire Matti Otali to set them straight on certain audio design issues). Actually, Otala's work has been entirely discredited. He was hired by the *marketing* department, not the engineering department. AFAIK, the Holman preamp has never been the subject of a blind comparison, so we simply don't know what it sounded like. Doug Self has however shown that passive parts don't matter, by directly comparing an amp built with 'el cheapo' parts to one built with all-audiophile components. They sounded identical. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 18 Feb 2005 00:36:24 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: When the Holman preamp comes up, it is often praised for it's engineering by those who put a premium on such things and often (although not universally) "panned" by those who heard some of the same things I heard. I associate some of the characteristics I heard with inexpensive passive parts from this era - for example the otherwise exxemplary HK 900 series of separates from that same era shared the "cardboardy" quality. These are considerations that many audio manufacturers would pay attention to via "voicing". But Holman prided himself on being a "true" engineer who didn't believe passive parts mattered. And the HK staff was filled by NASA electrical engineers of the same persuasion during that same period of time (which is why they had to hire Matti Otali to set them straight on certain audio design issues). Actually, Otala's work has been entirely discredited. He was hired by the *marketing* department, not the engineering department. AFAIK, the Holman preamp has never been the subject of a blind comparison, so we simply don't know what it sounded like. Doug Self has however shown that passive parts don't matter, by directly comparing an amp built with 'el cheapo' parts to one built with all-audiophile components. They sounded identical. When I designed audio circuits that had to have the resolution to test high-end audio products, I used standard components: metal film resistors and capacitors of all types (from aluminum electrolytics to the newer plastic film capacitors). There are some components if used improperly that will cause noticeable distortion or frequency response, to be sure, but those imperfections are very easy to understand and to measure. On the other hand, no one that I know of has shown any test (or controlled listening) results that prove the audibility of expensive passive components. It is simply a myth that feeds on the insecurity of the high-end audiophiles: everything makes a difference, higher price means better, and that they possess the golden ears. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Russ Button wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: Russ Button wrote: I think the merit of any review is simply encouraging the readers to go listen for themselves. Since 'listening for themselves' usually means, totally uncontrolled sighted comparison, with all the sources of bias and error that entails, the merit of that approach is limited at best; it can provide a pseudo-confidence about what one heard, which tends to be sufficient for anyone outside a design or psychoacoustics lab. UNfortunately that pseudo-confidence often leads to listeners making poorly-founded and poorly-qualified assertions about what A or B sounded like. So if I'm making a buying decision, and I can't trust my own judgement due to the factors cited above, what am I supposed to do? Just accept the uncertainty inherent in the situation...or, if it bugs you beyond the point of bearing, do the work required to set up a more definitive comparison. Criticism such as above is only of value when you provide a suitable alternative. No, it isn't. If I note the simple fact that weather prediction has a built-in degree of uncertainty, I'm not required to provide a novel means of weather prediction, am I? If you don't like the idea of someone going to listen for themselves, saying it is full of bias and error, then you have to state, with clarity, what it is we should be doing. Otherwise your criticism is useless and without merit. shrug People unaware of the flaws of sighted comparison might now be free to focus on otehr stuff that they *can* easily control -- lilke how much to spend, what the thing looks like, what features it offers. There's certainly been a lot of talk about the Linkwitz Orion (not the least of which is from me). The Peter Aczel article is not the last word on it though. No reviewer can be the last word. The "last word" has to be your own experience. But one's interpretation of an experience -- of *why* and *what* they heard -- isn't necessarily *correct*, despite being subjectively 'true'. This is the mistake I see made over and over again in audiophile-land. "I heard it; therefore I know why I heard it." Again, you criticize without educating us. If I could and should do something better, then tell me what to do. Otherwise your comments are so much white noise. See above. I am of the opinion that ultimately we each make our choices based upon listening. If you have a better method, then please enlighten us. See above. -- -S It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chung" wrote in message
... Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 18 Feb 2005 00:36:24 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: When the Holman preamp comes up, it is often praised for it's engineering by those who put a premium on such things and often (although not universally) "panned" by those who heard some of the same things I heard. I associate some of the characteristics I heard with inexpensive passive parts from this era - for example the otherwise exxemplary HK 900 series of separates from that same era shared the "cardboardy" quality. These are considerations that many audio manufacturers would pay attention to via "voicing". But Holman prided himself on being a "true" engineer who didn't believe passive parts mattered. And the HK staff was filled by NASA electrical engineers of the same persuasion during that same period of time (which is why they had to hire Matti Otali to set them straight on certain audio design issues). Actually, Otala's work has been entirely discredited. He was hired by the *marketing* department, not the engineering department. AFAIK, the Holman preamp has never been the subject of a blind comparison, so we simply don't know what it sounded like. Doug Self has however shown that passive parts don't matter, by directly comparing an amp built with 'el cheapo' parts to one built with all-audiophile components. They sounded identical. When I designed audio circuits that had to have the resolution to test high-end audio products, I used standard components: metal film resistors and capacitors of all types (from aluminum electrolytics to the newer plastic film capacitors). There are some components if used improperly that will cause noticeable distortion or frequency response, to be sure, but those imperfections are very easy to understand and to measure. On the other hand, no one that I know of has shown any test (or controlled listening) results that prove the audibility of expensive passive components. It is simply a myth that feeds on the insecurity of the high-end audiophiles: everything makes a difference, higher price means better, and that they possess the golden ears. It is a fact that one of the things that separates *audio* engineers from other electrical engineers is that they use an iterative process of designing, then listening, then modifying, then listening. They do not automatically assume that generally accepted principles are necessarily the last word, or good enough, when attempting to design the very best sounding gear(whether absolute or at a price point). And virtually all of these engineers, once the final circuit design is complete, spend countless hours on component selection and specification...usually listening to many variations at critical points in the circuit before "locking in". I once worked for HK and I've seen this process from the inside, as well as knowing it from other sources. Let's face it ... these folks who tend to be audio perfectionists as well as engineers would not spend all this time and effort if they truly did not believe it mattered. I'll grant you that the differences today are probably not as great as they were 25 years ago, but there are still differences. I can agree with much that is said here on RAHE, but I decidedly do not agree that the quality of passive parts does not count in helping distinguish the very best from the rest. In fact I'll create outrage by saying that the biggest overall improvement in the design of consumer audio components in the last 25 years has been the emergence of better quality (e.g. more neutral, more transparent) passive component parts at all price points. Some of the very best designs are truly stunning in their transparency, and even popular priced gear often has a transparency that was not achieved by any component 25 years ago. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 18 Feb 2005 19:45:22 GMT, Russ Button wrote:
So if I'm making a buying decision, and I can't trust my own judgement due to the factors cited above, what am I supposed to do? - Make a choice based upon some magazine reviewer's opinion? Not generally reliable, especially for the more exotic gear. - Make a choice based upon opinions found here in rec.audio.hi-end? You could do worse. Real non-commercial opinions from real enthusiasts! - Make a choice based upon the audio dealer's opinion? Not generally relaiable, too dependent on what's backed up in the stock room, or has the best return for the dealer. - Expect the audio dealer to set up a carefully controlled double-blind test and to endure many hours of listening and experimentation? Or perhaps I should expect the dealer to allow me to take home a selection of products for the appropriate extended listening sessions? I practice the latter, when I'm going to make a significant purchase, and after I've created a short list of two or three choices. Good dealers will allow this. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
First I say that in the end, it comes down to each of us listening for ourselves. You then criticize this saying it is "totally uncontrolled sighted comparison, with all the sources of bias and error that entails, the merit of that approach is limited at best" So I respond by asking what we should do instead, and then you respond with: Just accept the uncertainty inherent in the situation... First you complain about us listening and making our own judgements, and then you turn around say it's just too bad we can't do better. All those electrons and you still have said nothing of value! No, it isn't. If I note the simple fact that weather prediction has a built-in degree of uncertainty, I'm not required to provide a novel means of weather prediction, am I? This isn't talking about the weather. It's talking about how we evaluate audio equipment performance. If you wish to have any amount of credibility, then you have to do better than: "What you do sucks, and by the way, you can't do any better than that, so put up with it." Russ Button |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 18 Feb 2005 19:45:22 GMT, Russ Button wrote: snip - Expect the audio dealer to set up a carefully controlled double-blind test and to endure many hours of listening and experimentation? Or perhaps I should expect the dealer to allow me to take home a selection of products for the appropriate extended listening sessions? I practice the latter, when I'm going to make a significant purchase, and after I've created a short list of two or three choices. Good dealers will allow this. Perhaps in England, where home audio is still more important and mainstream and the shops more customer friendly. But in the United States often the only way you can get a dealer to let you try out even *one* piece of gear is to actually pay for it, with the promise of a return guarantee for a short period of time, sometimes with a restocking fee. For many of us, this is simply not practical particularly in the ability to compare alternative components. You are theoretically correct, Stewart, but in the good ole USA today, totally a non-starter. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Russ Button" wrote in message
... I am of the opinion that ultimately we each make our choices based upon listening. If you have a better method, then please enlighten us. As it turns out, none of my audio components were auditioned before purchase. I used to listen first, but I found out that my opinion of the sound I heard in the store bore no relationship to my eventual satisfaction with the purchase. This even holds true for loudspeakers, the component with the greatest variability of all. Even professional audio reviewers have surprisingly little to say about the sound of a loudspeaker they can't see and identify ahead of time. This holds true even when asked their opinion of the sound of a speaker they've already reviewed in print. Several years ago, Corey Greenburg--I'm sure you've heard of him--wrote a short article for Sound & Vision entitled, "Blind Man's Bluff." In it he described a blind speaker evaluation in which he and many other well known professional reviewers were asked to judge a wide variety of speakers by sound alone. According to Greenburg, the audience, "to a man," soon found all the speakers sounding the same! Of the many possible conclusions that might be drawn from this anecdote, Greenburg decided that it constituted an indictment of blind testing, and he felt no need to justify this conclusion. You won't be surprised to hear that I find several other explanations much more plausible. ;-) Norm Strong |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Russ Button wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: First I say that in the end, it comes down to each of us listening for ourselves. In practice, yes. But depending on what one expects that 'listening' to accompllish, it may or may not be sufficient to do the usual . sighted evaluation. You then criticize this saying it is "totally uncontrolled sighted comparison, with all the sources of bias and error that entails, the merit of that approach is limited at best" to a So I respond by asking what we should do instead, and then you respond with: If you want to minimize the errors I referred to? I've already said what you have to do. If you are content with the sound *and* the possibility that a difference you believe you hear, could be imaginary, then you're done. I usually am, btw. Just accept the uncertainty inherent in the situation... First you complain about us listening and making our own judgements, and then you turn around say it's just too bad we can't do better. All those electrons and you still have said nothing of value! Perhaps you simply aren;t understanding what I've written. None of it is controversial in the least, from a scientific POV. No, it isn't. If I note the simple fact that weather prediction has a built-in degree of uncertainty, I'm not required to provide a novel means of weather prediction, am I? This isn't talking about the weather. It's talking about how we evaluate audio equipment performance. If you wish to have any amount of credibility, then you have to do better than: "What you do sucks, and by the way, you can't do any better than that, so put up with it." Except, I did do better than that. Not that I had to, since I don't particularly accept you as the arbiter of what is credible. -- -S It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... "William Eckle" wrote in message ... A review - as opposed to a taste test - of S. Linkwitz' Orion design has just appeared in "The Audio Critic" and is reprinted on his site at: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/TAC-review.htm Very informative, and well worth reading, even if you have no interest in building one. It sounds like a very proficient and interesting speaker. However, with all due respect, Aczel's review strikes me as "Gee whiz, Ma, I've discovered that dipoles sound different than boxes". Duh! Of course radiation patterns differ...the whole trick with dipoles is to get the back-reflections to work right and together to create that deep and holographic effect. Has he never heard Maggies? I'm glad to know of the speakers, and I expect that they sound very, very fine. But for Aczel, I'm glad that I gave up my subscription years ago. It wasn't difficult after his praise for the Holman preamp, and then listening to what an un-musical piece of sandpaper *that* was. Based on what type of evaluation? Listening at a dealer friends who carried both it (which he was high on) and the ARC line. We compared a system with a Linn TT (this was back in the early '80's) feeding through the preamps into an ARC D90B feeding Snell Type A's. We also listened to Threshold preamp and a few others. The Holman was so "closed in" and had a cardboardy and gritty quality that I couldn't stand to listen to it for more than a few minutes...no matter what the volume level. Sounds very much like a cartridge to phono preamp mismatch. The rest of the circuitry was not tested then? Most of the other preamps did not. Probably better phono preamp sections It wasn't a matter of level, as it didn't just "sound worse". Their were specific audible audio problems. The dealer eventually came to the same conclusion after a few weeks, and dropped the line. I wonder how it would do with a CD as a source. This is an interesting example of our hobby. I follow discussions on AudioAsylum's Vintage Forum, since I own and enjoy some vintage equipment. When the Holman preamp comes up, it is often praised for it's engineering by those who put a premium on such things and often (although not universally) "panned" by those who heard some of the same things I heard. I associate some of the characteristics I heard with inexpensive passive parts from this era - for example the otherwise exxemplary HK 900 series of separates from that same era shared the "cardboardy" quality. IOW it was pooh-poohed by the high end? The people who don't understsand that the parts only need to do the job they are supposed to do and don't ahve any "sound" of their own. This BTW is old news. These are considerations that many audio manufacturers would pay attention to via "voicing". Voicing? Either it passes a signal with no audible problems or not. But Holman prided himself on being a "true" engineer who didn't believe passive parts mattered. And research shows this to be the case. And the HK staff was filled by NASA electrical engineers of the same persuasion during that same period of time (which is why they had to hire Matti Otali to set them straight on certain audio design issues). I see he is still latching onto favorite designers and becoming a booster. Thus making him different from other reviewers how? The better ones don't do this. IME there aren't very many better ones then. How else do you justify (I paraphrase) "If better drivers existed, Linkowitz would have found them". Would make Sam Tellig blush. There aren't many drivers available that could possibly be better than the ones Linkwitz chose, unless he had the resources to build his own. The very short list of very good drivers is SEAS, Dynaudio, Scan-Speak, and Focal. There are a few others but the price makes them impractical and they don't really do anything better. There are more than a few people who think he had multiple reasons. I think this requires more explanation than you have provided here. Care to elucidate? I was actually thinking of Harry Pearson and Robert Harley, guys that get things on the tech side wrong so often they are skewered quite regularly by guys like Aczel. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 18 Feb 2005 19:45:22 GMT, Russ Button wrote: snip - Expect the audio dealer to set up a carefully controlled double-blind test and to endure many hours of listening and experimentation? Or perhaps I should expect the dealer to allow me to take home a selection of products for the appropriate extended listening sessions? I practice the latter, when I'm going to make a significant purchase, and after I've created a short list of two or three choices. Good dealers will allow this. Perhaps in England, where home audio is still more important and mainstream and the shops more customer friendly. But in the United States often the only way you can get a dealer to let you try out even *one* piece of gear is to actually pay for it, with the promise of a return guarantee for a short period of time, sometimes with a restocking fee. For many of us, this is simply not practical particularly in the ability to compare alternative components. You are theoretically correct, Stewart, but in the good ole USA today, totally a non-starter. Then the customers are letting themselves be walked on. If they insist on something then the dealer will concede if it becomes something he needs for financial survival. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message ... Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Actually, Otala's work has been entirely discredited. He was hired by the *marketing* department, not the engineering department. AFAIK, the Holman preamp has never been the subject of a blind comparison, so we simply don't know what it sounded like. Doug Self has however shown that passive parts don't matter, by directly comparing an amp built with 'el cheapo' parts to one built with all-audiophile components. They sounded identical. When I designed audio circuits that had to have the resolution to test high-end audio products, I used standard components: metal film resistors and capacitors of all types (from aluminum electrolytics to the newer plastic film capacitors). There are some components if used improperly that will cause noticeable distortion or frequency response, to be sure, but those imperfections are very easy to understand and to measure. On the other hand, no one that I know of has shown any test (or controlled listening) results that prove the audibility of expensive passive components. It is simply a myth that feeds on the insecurity of the high-end audiophiles: everything makes a difference, higher price means better, and that they possess the golden ears. It is a fact that one of the things that separates *audio* engineers from other electrical engineers is that they use an iterative process of designing, then listening, then modifying, then listening. Can you show how that is a "fact" and not simply what you want to believe? I am an EE, and probably not what you called an "audio engineer". I always verify my design via measurements, and when it is an audio project, also listen to the final thing, and modify if necessary. In fact, I know of no electrical engineer who does not verify their designs in a similar way: via measurements or actual usage. They do not automatically assume that generally accepted principles are necessarily the last word, or good enough, when attempting to design the very best sounding gear(whether absolute or at a price point). If generally accepted principles are proven wrong, then they are no longer generally accepted principles, no? Where is the proof that, say, metal film resistors that cost 0.1 cent or less are not good enough? And virtually all of these engineers, once the final circuit design is complete, spend countless hours on component selection and specification...usually listening to many variations at critical points in the circuit before "locking in". You are repeating what the high-end marketing guys tell you.... I am sure we can find statements like yours in many high-end audio websites, or "whitepapers". You have to wonder how competent these designers are if they have to this over and over again  . Wouldn't you expect them tolearn from their experience? I once worked for HK and I've seen this process from the inside, as well as knowing it from other sources. Did the HK guys say that the expensive passive components sound better than the standard ones? Let's face it ... these folks who tend to be audio perfectionists as well as engineers would not spend all this time and effort if they truly did not believe it mattered. I can tell you there are a lot of excellent engineers who would not worry about using standard passive components in audio design... and have the measurements to prove that they are right. I'll grant you that the differences today are probably not as great as they were 25 years ago, but there are still differences. Differences in what? Certainly there are differences in price, appearances, features, etc... I can agree with much that is said here on RAHE, but I decidedly do not agree that the quality of passive parts does not count in helping distinguish the very best from the rest. In fact I'll create outrage by saying that the biggest overall improvement in the design of consumer audio components in the last 25 years has been the emergence of better quality (e.g. more neutral, more transparent) passive component parts at all price points. The biggest difference between today's equipment and those made 25 years ago is in the *active* components, not passive! 25 years ago there were no DAC's, digital filters, DSP, etc. in audio. Today's op amps are better than those 25 years ago. Today's resistors and capacitors are *not* better sonically than those 25 years ago. Perhaps outrage would be an overstatement. Many of us would just think that you are simply wrong, given the obvious advances in digital audio, and in semiconductor technology... Some of the very best designs are truly stunning in their transparency, and even popular priced gear often has a transparency that was not achieved by any component 25 years ago. Sure, today's $200 CD players beat just about any playback gear 25 years ago in transparency. Not to mention DVD-Audio or SACD. Transparency as measured in signal to noise measurements, frequency response and distortion. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
"chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "Chung" wrote in message ... Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Actually, Otala's work has been entirely discredited. He was hired by the *marketing* department, not the engineering department. AFAIK, the Holman preamp has never been the subject of a blind comparison, so we simply don't know what it sounded like. Doug Self has however shown that passive parts don't matter, by directly comparing an amp built with 'el cheapo' parts to one built with all-audiophile components. They sounded identical. When I designed audio circuits that had to have the resolution to test high-end audio products, I used standard components: metal film resistors and capacitors of all types (from aluminum electrolytics to the newer plastic film capacitors). There are some components if used improperly that will cause noticeable distortion or frequency response, to be sure, but those imperfections are very easy to understand and to measure. That's the conventional engineering wisdom and is right as far as it goes. On the other hand, no one that I know of has shown any test (or controlled listening) results that prove the audibility of expensive passive components. It is simply a myth that feeds on the insecurity of the high-end audiophiles: everything makes a difference, higher price means better, and that they possess the golden ears. And that is a belief system. It doesn't sound like you did such testing yourself? Why not? It is a fact that one of the things that separates *audio* engineers from other electrical engineers is that they use an iterative process of designing, then listening, then modifying, then listening. Perhaps "fact" is an overstatement. But I've described my experience with engineer/designers. And I've had the equipment and interest to follow this hobby in depth over the years. I've also collected at one time or another withing the last few years an HK Citation 12, and Amber, a Dyna 400, an Ampzilla, and an ARC 100 - all solid-state amplifiers from the mid-seventies to around 1982. I have been able to listen to them against the framework of todays better amps - krells, c-j's and even mid-priced units - Onkyo's, Adcoms with which I am familiar. None use opamps...all are designed via passive parts. And their is a signature difference in the amount of transparency...the ability to "listen into" the sound that doesn't seem to be based on specific design, but rather on currency of design. Nor do the older units sound different from what I remember them sounding like at the time. Can you show how that is a "fact" and not simply what you want to believe? I am an EE, and probably not what you called an "audio engineer". I always verify my design via measurements, and when it is an audio project, also listen to the final thing, and modify if necessary. In fact, I know of no electrical engineer who does not verify their designs in a similar way: via measurements or actual usage. Again, a call for "proof" via dbt. No, I am a hobbyist, not an engineer or scientist. But if I may point out, you say above that after "verifying" your design you listen to the final thing. I am saying an audio design professional doesn't consider final "final" until they have iteratively substituted and lsitened to various types and quality levels of passive components at critical parts of the circuit. This has nothing to do with measurement and circuit design; it has to do with finding the right brand/construction/ype component to optimize the sound of the design. They obviously believe it matters and can hear the difference. They do not automatically assume that generally accepted principles are necessarily the last word, or good enough, when attempting to design the very best sounding gear(whether absolute or at a price point). If generally accepted principles are proven wrong, then they are no longer generally accepted principles, no? Where is the proof that, say, metal film resistors that cost 0.1 cent or less are not good enough? Perhaps they do not need proof; perhaps they have enough experience and belief in their own hearing acuity to make a confident choice without "proof" in a scientific sense. Or perhaps they simply realize that if they had to dbt every choice they made they would never get the design out the door. And virtually all of these engineers, once the final circuit design is complete, spend countless hours on component selection and specification...usually listening to many variations at critical points in the circuit before "locking in". You are repeating what the high-end marketing guys tell you.... I am sure we can find statements like yours in many high-end audio websites, or "whitepapers". You have to wonder how competent these designers are if they have to this over and over again . Wouldn't you expect them tolearn from their experience? First I am not repeating anything except what I have observed and been told by designers themselves. I am telling you what was the case at HK was among the fellows who designed the Citation line of solid state gear, and by way of converstations I have had with them and since with other designer/engineers. It seems to be a common practice among engineers in the home audio industry when the final value is "sound quality". Second, they do learn from experience and that is why in general high-end designers use types of components that are more expensive than the cheaper, stock-grade stuff out there. But they still end up often evaluating among this very good stuff. I once worked for HK and I've seen this process from the inside, as well as knowing it from other sources. Did the HK guys say that the expensive passive components sound better than the standard ones? They said components differ in their sound despite similar specs, and that they had to listen to make final choices. The were dealing with the basics: resistors and capacitors. Let's face it ... these folks who tend to be audio perfectionists as well as engineers would not spend all this time and effort if they truly did not believe it mattered. I can tell you there are a lot of excellent engineers who would not worry about using standard passive components in audio design... and have the measurements to prove that they are right. Which is why there is an active modification business right now converting conventional and otherwise well-engineered Sony and Pioneer SACD players into really fine sounding pieces of gear largely through the use of better-sounding and/or performing components. The difference ends up being the difference between quite good stuff and truly excellent-sounding stuff. I'll grant you that the differences today are probably not as great as they were 25 years ago, but there are still differences. Differences in what? Certainly there are differences in price, appearances, features, etc... I'm talking about passive electronic components: resistors, capacitors. I can agree with much that is said here on RAHE, but I decidedly do not agree that the quality of passive parts does not count in helping distinguish the very best from the rest. In fact I'll create outrage by saying that the biggest overall improvement in the design of consumer audio components in the last 25 years has been the emergence of better quality (e.g. more neutral, more transparent) passive component parts at all price points. The biggest difference between today's equipment and those made 25 years ago is in the *active* components, not passive! 25 years ago there were no DAC's, digital filters, DSP, etc. in audio. Today's op amps are better than those 25 years ago. Today's resistors and capacitors are *not* better sonically than those 25 years ago. I'm not talking about active components, but about passive ones. And I hear your claim...I am simply skeptical of the level of proof that has been generated. Seems to me that if it were incontrovertible, the practice would stop; it hasn't. Perhaps outrage would be an overstatement. Many of us would just think that you are simply wrong, given the obvious advances in digital audio, and in semiconductor technology... Some of the very best designs are truly stunning in their transparency, and even popular priced gear often has a transparency that was not achieved by any component 25 years ago. Sure, today's $200 CD players beat just about any playback gear 25 years ago in transparency. Not to mention DVD-Audio or SACD. Transparency as measured in signal to noise measurements, frequency response and distortion. I'm talking amps, preamps, tuners -- I thought I made that clear but perhaps not. But I don't argue with your arguments for what lies behind transparency, just your argument that their hasn't been improvement in passive components with regard to noise and distortion, for specific purposes via specific construction of those passive components. I am talking about what choices have been made for audio gear ... twenty five to thirty years ago versus today. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Chung" wrote in message ... Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Actually, Otala's work has been entirely discredited. He was hired by the *marketing* department, not the engineering department. AFAIK, the Holman preamp has never been the subject of a blind comparison, so we simply don't know what it sounded like. Doug Self has however shown that passive parts don't matter, by directly comparing an amp built with 'el cheapo' parts to one built with all-audiophile components. They sounded identical. When I designed audio circuits that had to have the resolution to test high-end audio products, I used standard components: metal film resistors and capacitors of all types (from aluminum electrolytics to the newer plastic film capacitors). There are some components if used improperly that will cause noticeable distortion or frequency response, to be sure, but those imperfections are very easy to understand and to measure. That's the conventional engineering wisdom and is right as far as it goes. That sounds like a perfect non-statement .On the other hand, no one that I know of has shown any test (or controlled listening) results that prove the audibility of expensive passive components. It is simply a myth that feeds on the insecurity of the high-end audiophiles: everything makes a difference, higher price means better, and that they possess the golden ears. And that is a belief system. Yes, audiophiles need a belief system to support their claims. It doesn't sound like you did such testing yourself? Why not? What testing you are talking about? When I can design using standard passive components and measure almost ideal performance, how can more expensive components help? And didn't I tell you that I rely on measurements and listening on audio projects? For instance, the noise contribution from a resistor is well-known. There is no way an expensive resistor can reduce the noise contribution from theoretical; the noise is set by laws of physics. Standard metal film resistors come very close to theoretical as far as noise is concerned. And in a preamp or power amp, the main noise contribution comes from active devices. So there is absolutely no reason to pick expensive resistors believing that the overall noise can be reduced. How come no one has shown any measurements showing the benefits if expensive passive components like resistors and capacitors? It is a fact that one of the things that separates *audio* engineers from other electrical engineers is that they use an iterative process of designing, then listening, then modifying, then listening. Perhaps "fact" is an overstatement. But I've described my experience with engineer/designers. And I've had the equipment and interest to follow this hobby in depth over the years. Well, your experience is based on faulty premises, like everything makes a sonic difference, and that there have been *tremendous advances* in passive components. Once you believe those, then it is easy to come up with an *experience* to support those claims. You know, like if you believe something should sound different, then they probably will sound different. My experience, on the other hand, is based on measurements that are orders of magnitude more sensitive, and more objective and repeatable. I've also collected at one time or another withing the last few years an HK Citation 12, and Amber, a Dyna 400, an Ampzilla, and an ARC 100 - all solid-state amplifiers from the mid-seventies to around 1982. I have been able to listen to them against the framework of todays better amps - krells, c-j's and even mid-priced units - Onkyo's, Adcoms with which I am familiar. None use opamps...all are designed via passive parts. And their is a signature difference in the amount of transparency...the ability to "listen into" the sound that doesn't seem to be based on specific design, but rather on currency of design. Nor do the older units sound different from what I remember them sounding like at the time. And you believe it's all because of resistors and capacitors? You have shown your lack of technical understanding, when you said "none use opamps... all are designed via passive parts". The components that have the most impact are the transistors, and they are *active* parts! Show me a power amp that only uses passive parts, and you have my vote for a Nobel prize! Lack of technical understanding is really nothing to be worried or ashamed about (it's just a hobby!). But if you state your claims based on a lack of understanding, and elevate those claims to facts, then you have a serious credibility problem. Can you show how that is a "fact" and not simply what you want to believe? I am an EE, and probably not what you called an "audio engineer". I always verify my design via measurements, and when it is an audio project, also listen to the final thing, and modify if necessary. In fact, I know of no electrical engineer who does not verify their designs in a similar way: via measurements or actual usage. Again, a call for "proof" via dbt. No, I am just telling you that good engineers do not depend on subjective evaluation. They absolutly depend on measurements, and in the case of audio, actual usage. If you do not have the resources to do measurements, then dbt's are best for detecting subtle differences, but you should know that already .No, I am a hobbyist, not an engineer or scientist. Therein lies the problem. The scientific and engineering principles in audio reproduction can be mysterious to you, and your source of technical information is largely second-hand and often wrong. Like more expensive resistors are necessarily better. But if I may point out, you say above that after "verifying" your design you listen to the final thing. I am saying an audio design professional doesn't consider final "final" until they have iteratively substituted and lsitened to various types and quality levels of passive components at critical parts of the circuit. That is your belief, and perhaps that's how you choose to *define* an "audio design professional". I am saying that a lot of the passive component selection can be done based on what we know about these components, and you do not need to pick the right ones by trial and error. Of course, you should always verfiy the design via measurements first, then check results with actual usage. This has nothing to do with measurement and circuit design; it has to do with finding the right brand/construction/ype component to optimize the sound of the design. They obviously believe it matters and can hear the difference. And why is it that you believe everything they tell you? Don't you think that if there are optimizations to be made, then mesaurements are the best way to verify such optimizations? They do not automatically assume that generally accepted principles are necessarily the last word, or good enough, when attempting to design the very best sounding gear(whether absolute or at a price point). If generally accepted principles are proven wrong, then they are no longer generally accepted principles, no? Where is the proof that, say, metal film resistors that cost 0.1 cent or less are not good enough? Perhaps they do not need proof; perhaps they have enough experience and belief in their own hearing acuity to make a confident choice without "proof" in a scientific sense. Or perhaps they simply realize that if they had to dbt every choice they made they would never get the design out the door. Think measurements! And virtually all of these engineers, once the final circuit design is complete, spend countless hours on component selection and specification...usually listening to many variations at critical points in the circuit before "locking in". You are repeating what the high-end marketing guys tell you.... I am sure we can find statements like yours in many high-end audio websites, or "whitepapers". You have to wonder how competent these designers are if they have to this over and over again . Wouldn't you expect them tolearn from their experience? First I am not repeating anything except what I have observed and been told by designers themselves. I am sure they want to keep that belief system going... I am telling you what was the case at HK was among the fellows who designed the Citation line of solid state gear, and by way of converstations I have had with them and since with other designer/engineers. It seems to be a common practice among engineers in the home audio industry when the final value is "sound quality". Second, they do learn from experience and that is why in general high-end designers use types of components that are more expensive than the cheaper, stock-grade stuff out there. But they still end up often evaluating among this very good stuff. And yet no proofs via measurements or controlled tests? If they found that a certain resistor improves sound for instance, couldn't they show us exactly which parameter is affected, via measurements? I once worked for HK and I've seen this process from the inside, as well as knowing it from other sources. Did the HK guys say that the expensive passive components sound better than the standard ones? They said components differ in their sound despite similar specs, and that they had to listen to make final choices. The were dealing with the basics: resistors and capacitors. But you said these professionals have to do it over and over again...Shouldn't they learn the tricks after a few designs? Let's face it ... these folks who tend to be audio perfectionists as well as engineers would not spend all this time and effort if they truly did not believe it mattered. How do you know this? And could it be that they are not as competent as you think? I can tell you there are a lot of excellent engineers who would not worry about using standard passive components in audio design... and have the measurements to prove that they are right. Which is why there is an active modification business right now converting conventional and otherwise well-engineered Sony and Pioneer SACD players into really fine sounding pieces of gear largely through the use of better-sounding and/or performing components. The difference ends up being the difference between quite good stuff and truly excellent-sounding stuff. That belief supports the tweaks and mods industry. That does not mean that it is based on real improvements. 10,000 people believing Elvis is alive does not make it so. I'll grant you that the differences today are probably not as great as they were 25 years ago, but there are still differences. Differences in what? Certainly there are differences in price, appearances, features, etc... I'm talking about passive electronic components: resistors, capacitors. Then you are simply misguided in your belief. I can agree with much that is said here on RAHE, but I decidedly do not agree that the quality of passive parts does not count in helping distinguish the very best from the rest. In fact I'll create outrage by saying that the biggest overall improvement in the design of consumer audio components in the last 25 years has been the emergence of better quality (e.g. more neutral, more transparent) passive component parts at all price points. The biggest difference between today's equipment and those made 25 years ago is in the *active* components, not passive! 25 years ago there were no DAC's, digital filters, DSP, etc. in audio. Today's op amps are better than those 25 years ago. Today's resistors and capacitors are *not* better sonically than those 25 years ago. I'm not talking about active components, but about passive ones. And I hear your claim...I am simply skeptical of the level of proof that has been generated. Shouldn't you be even more skeptical about the lack of proof from those who you believe in? Seems to me that if it were incontrovertible, the practice would stop; it hasn't. Hey, there are bad designs today, and there are bad designs 25 years ago. But to say that today's designs are better because of improvements in resistors and capacitors is simply ludicrous. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 20 Feb 2005 16:20:11 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
They [HK engineers] said components differ in their sound despite similar specs, and that they had to listen to make final choices. The were dealing with the basics: resistors and capacitors. If that is really the case, how on earth do they do quality assyurance in manufacturing of their units? This means that you *cannot* know the auido quality of the finished product without listening to *every single* unit! This seems very odd to me. I thought that they specified all sub-contracted components with error tolerance, based on the design, and know what the outcome would be. What did I miss? Per. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Per Stromgren" wrote in message
... On 20 Feb 2005 16:20:11 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: They [HK engineers] said components differ in their sound despite similar specs, and that they had to listen to make final choices. The were dealing with the basics: resistors and capacitors. If that is really the case, how on earth do they do quality assyurance in manufacturing of their units? This means that you *cannot* know the auido quality of the finished product without listening to *every single* unit! This seems very odd to me. I thought that they specified all sub-contracted components with error tolerance, based on the design, and know what the outcome would be. What did I miss? You missed that fact that I am talking about the choices to include in the specification...types of construction and sometimes by brand. And you are right...QC can be a problem. That's why a good QC program does include listening to as well as measuring new parts batches (at least on the critical parts) as well as to samples of the production run. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
I'm talking amps, preamps, tuners -- I thought I made that clear but perhaps not. But I don't argue with your arguments for what lies behind transparency, just your argument that their hasn't been improvement in passive components with regard to noise and distortion, for specific purposes via specific construction of those passive components. I am talking about what choices have been made for audio gear ... twenty five to thirty years ago versus today. I think many people will argue that tuners designed 25 years or more ago actually perform better than the newer ones. And you know what, part of the explanation lies in the choice of passive components. In an FM tuner, passive component selection has a very big impact on performance. RF transformers, inductors and capacitors used in IF filters and FM discriminators, etc. are crucial to the sensitivity, distortion, separation and frequency response of the FM receiver. However, those things were more carefully designed 25 years ago, probably because of declining interest in FM in the last 25 years. So we may even say that the passive components used today are *not* as good as those used 25 years ago. Similarly in a phono stage, older designs may actually use superior parts: more tightly spec'ed and more expensive resistors and capacitors. So again, to think that advances in passive components have led to better (phono) preamps in the last 25 years is simply wishful thinking. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Per Stromgren wrote:
On 20 Feb 2005 16:20:11 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: They [HK engineers] said components differ in their sound despite similar specs, and that they had to listen to make final choices. The were dealing with the basics: resistors and capacitors. If that is really the case, how on earth do they do quality assyurance in manufacturing of their units? This means that you *cannot* know the auido quality of the finished product without listening to *every single* unit! Exactly. A basic tenet of the high end is that boutique producers can do a better job than mass producers precisely because they can devote the time to do this sort of quality assurance. Replacing 10 cents worth of passive components with $10 worth allows you to charge hundreds or even thousands of dollars more (because there is a market willing to pay), which compensates for a lot of listening and tweaking time--productive or not. But how much time is really necessary? It's not enough to replace a part and give it a quick listen. To do it right, you've got to give the new component time (maybe hundreds of hours) to break in fully. Then, you yourself have to do long-term listening--maybe over the course of weeks--to become fully aware of what that component really sounds like. What's not clear to me is how you reconcile break-in time with long-term listening. If, after you've listened for weeks, you hear detail you hadn't heard before, does that mean that the long-term lsitening was fruitful, or does it mean that you haven't given the component enough time to break in, and its character is still changing? How would you know? It's not like you can turn to a textbook or technical reference and find standard break-in times for passive components, or experimental data on how long it takes to become accustomed to the sound of a new system. All this for only one component choice. But, since it's "all one circuit," every combination of passive components must be tested separately, an astronomical number of permutations, each requiring weeks of break-in and listening. It's a wonder these genius designers ever manage to finish anything. Who could possibly find this even remotely plausible? bob |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 20 Feb 2005 22:32:28 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Per Stromgren" wrote in message ... On 20 Feb 2005 16:20:11 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: They [HK engineers] said components differ in their sound despite similar specs, and that they had to listen to make final choices. The were dealing with the basics: resistors and capacitors. If that is really the case, how on earth do they do quality assyurance in manufacturing of their units? This means that you *cannot* know the auido quality of the finished product without listening to *every single* unit! This seems very odd to me. I thought that they specified all sub-contracted components with error tolerance, based on the design, and know what the outcome would be. What did I miss? You missed that fact that I am talking about the choices to include in the specification...types of construction and sometimes by brand. OK. But how do they know what parameters are changing the sound? How do they know that one brand will always make it and not vary between batches or even between individual samples if they do not know parameters to check? You cannot repeat something that you don't understand the mechanism behind in that industry! Not in any other industry, for that matter. Perhaps they should always ask for the vendor to deliver components manufactured when the moon is full? :-) but only half... And you are right...QC can be a problem. That's why a good QC program does include listening to as well as measuring new parts batches (at least on the critical parts) as well as to samples of the production run. Per. |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Per Stromgren" wrote in message ... On 20 Feb 2005 16:20:11 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: They [HK engineers] said components differ in their sound despite similar specs, and that they had to listen to make final choices. The were dealing with the basics: resistors and capacitors. If that is really the case, how on earth do they do quality assyurance in manufacturing of their units? This means that you *cannot* know the auido quality of the finished product without listening to *every single* unit! This seems very odd to me. I thought that they specified all sub-contracted components with error tolerance, based on the design, and know what the outcome would be. What did I miss? You missed that fact that I am talking about the choices to include in the specification...types of construction and sometimes by brand. And you are right...QC can be a problem. That's why a good QC program does include listening to as well as measuring new parts batches (at least on the critical parts) as well as to samples of the production run. Mr. Per Stromgren's point is that if sonic performance of passive parts (resistors and capacitors) cannot be determined by specs alone, as you appeared to suggest, how could they possibly do QC? The only thing incoming inspection can perform is making sure that the parts meet specs. They can't possibly listen to every component (in some test rig, I assume) before deciding whether the parts are good enough. His point is a very valid point. So the conclusion has to be that there are specs that determine the sonic quality of those components. Now, if as you said, passive components make a huge difference in sound and that the advance in sonic quality in the last 25 years is due to better passive components, then there have to be some measureable specs of these new resistors and capacitors that make them superior to the standard ones used in the less "high-end" products. What exactly are those specs? What makes an expensive, audiophile grade resistor sound better than the standard metal-film ones used by the truly high-tech manufacturers like HP/Agilent for the last several decades? And here is the thing that the modders have failed to answer: where is the test data that confirms the validity of these passive component tweaks? |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: I'm talking amps, preamps, tuners -- I thought I made that clear but perhaps not. But I don't argue with your arguments for what lies behind transparency, just your argument that their hasn't been improvement in passive components with regard to noise and distortion, for specific purposes via specific construction of those passive components. I am talking about what choices have been made for audio gear ... twenty five to thirty years ago versus today. I think many people will argue that tuners designed 25 years or more ago actually perform better than the newer ones. And you know what, part of the explanation lies in the choice of passive components. In an FM tuner, passive component selection has a very big impact on performance. RF transformers, inductors and capacitors used in IF filters and FM discriminators, etc. are crucial to the sensitivity, distortion, separation and frequency response of the FM receiver. However, those things were more carefully designed 25 years ago, probably because of declining interest in FM in the last 25 years. So we may even say that the passive components used today are *not* as good as those used 25 years ago. Similarly in a phono stage, older designs may actually use superior parts: more tightly spec'ed and more expensive resistors and capacitors. So again, to think that advances in passive components have led to better (phono) preamps in the last 25 years is simply wishful thinking. You continue to confuse engineering functionality with sheer sonic transparency, part for part, use for use in the audio stages, which is what I am talking about. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ...
Per Stromgren wrote: On 20 Feb 2005 16:20:11 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: They [HK engineers] said components differ in their sound despite similar specs, and that they had to listen to make final choices. The were dealing with the basics: resistors and capacitors. If that is really the case, how on earth do they do quality assyurance in manufacturing of their units? This means that you *cannot* know the auido quality of the finished product without listening to *every single* unit! Exactly. A basic tenet of the high end is that boutique producers can do a better job than mass producers precisely because they can devote the time to do this sort of quality assurance. Replacing 10 cents worth of passive components with $10 worth allows you to charge hundreds or even thousands of dollars more (because there is a market willing to pay), which compensates for a lot of listening and tweaking time--productive or not. But how much time is really necessary? It's not enough to replace a part and give it a quick listen. To do it right, you've got to give the new component time (maybe hundreds of hours) to break in fully. Then, you yourself have to do long-term listening--maybe over the course of weeks--to become fully aware of what that component really sounds like. What's not clear to me is how you reconcile break-in time with long-term listening. If, after you've listened for weeks, you hear detail you hadn't heard before, does that mean that the long-term lsitening was fruitful, or does it mean that you haven't given the component enough time to break in, and its character is still changing? How would you know? It's not like you can turn to a textbook or technical reference and find standard break-in times for passive components, or experimental data on how long it takes to become accustomed to the sound of a new system. All this for only one component choice. But, since it's "all one circuit," every combination of passive components must be tested separately, an astronomical number of permutations, each requiring weeks of break-in and listening. It's a wonder these genius designers ever manage to finish anything. Who could possibly find this even remotely plausible? bob All this is setting up strawmen. The designers were professionals...they knew based on the circuit they had designed what passive parts were most likely to cause sonic degradation or enhancement, and they focused on those. And they tested before they locked the design. After the design was completed, they only had to sample batches of these parts, which changed only infrequently. And as a matter of routine, Citation components were burned in once finshed -- kept in an allways-on state for 24-48 hours and sometimes longer, and samples pulled at random for checking, both electrically, and sonically, against the production prototypes. You really did get a fine product that was a big cut above standard run of the mill electronic production of the era, both in design and in attention to quality. Of course, the Japanese learned to do it even better and cheaper, but that was in the future. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Per Stromgren" wrote in message
... On 20 Feb 2005 22:32:28 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Per Stromgren" wrote in message ... On 20 Feb 2005 16:20:11 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: snip What did I miss? You missed that fact that I am talking about the choices to include in the specification...types of construction and sometimes by brand. OK. But how do they know what parameters are changing the sound? How do they know that one brand will always make it and not vary between batches or even between individual samples if they do not know parameters to check? You cannot repeat something that you don't understand the mechanism behind in that industry! Not in any other industry, for that matter. Perhaps they should always ask for the vendor to deliver components manufactured when the moon is full? :-) but only half... Some of it they did understand. But not all manufacturers could deliver the same quality or type of product, or deliver it consistently . and they did QC batches of components as they came in if they were subject to variance. snip |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "Per Stromgren" wrote in message ... On 20 Feb 2005 16:20:11 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: They [HK engineers] said components differ in their sound despite similar specs, and that they had to listen to make final choices. The were dealing with the basics: resistors and capacitors. If that is really the case, how on earth do they do quality assyurance in manufacturing of their units? This means that you *cannot* know the auido quality of the finished product without listening to *every single* unit! This seems very odd to me. I thought that they specified all sub-contracted components with error tolerance, based on the design, and know what the outcome would be. What did I miss? You missed that fact that I am talking about the choices to include in the specification...types of construction and sometimes by brand. And you are right...QC can be a problem. That's why a good QC program does include listening to as well as measuring new parts batches (at least on the critical parts) as well as to samples of the production run. Mr. Per Stromgren's point is that if sonic performance of passive parts (resistors and capacitors) cannot be determined by specs alone, as you appeared to suggest, how could they possibly do QC? The only thing incoming inspection can perform is making sure that the parts meet specs. They can't possibly listen to every component (in some test rig, I assume) before deciding whether the parts are good enough. His point is a very valid point. So the conclusion has to be that there are specs that determine the sonic quality of those components. Who has said they can't be determined by spec alone, or largely by spec. If an teflon dialectric capacitor using a certain construction sounds better than another type, it can be spec'd. And if a low-noise resister sounds better than a conventional resistor in a certain part of the circuit hitherto unsuspected, then the low-noise resister would be spec'd. And if one manufacturers component of a certain type sounded better (remember they listened, extensively and carefully), then being engineers they would try to determine why. But even if they couldn't, they would specify the part because it sounded better. What is so hard to understand about that. Now, if as you said, passive components make a huge difference in sound and that the advance in sonic quality in the last 25 years is due to better passive components, then there have to be some measureable specs of these new resistors and capacitors that make them superior to the standard ones used in the less "high-end" products. What exactly are those specs? What makes an expensive, audiophile grade resistor sound better than the standard metal-film ones used by the truly high-tech manufacturers like HP/Agilent for the last several decades? Partly it is an upgrade of the parts themselves at given points in the circuit, where conventional wisdom said there wouldn't be any important difference and they found by using a different type/construction/manufacturer they could hear a difference. Sometimes they could figure out why; sometimes not. Their job was to get a design completed, not to do pure research. But because of people like them, it is common today even in mainstream gear to use poly capacitors and low-noise resistors...you didn't find that thirty years ago. And the reason they are affordable today is that word spread about the superior sonic qualities and more and more companies started using them. With quantity, price dropped, usuage spread, prices dropped, etc. But it was a relatively few high end designer/engineers who did the work. And still do today when it comes to sonic quality. And here is the thing that the modders have failed to answer: where is the test data that confirms the validity of these passive component tweaks? They have the best test of all ... people buy their work, rave about it, have friends listen, the friends order, etc. Your implicit premise is that people only *think* they hear a difference. You do not know that. And the people laying out their hard-earned cash are convinced enough to do so without feeling the need or demanding "proof". Unlike some here. |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Per Stromgren" wrote in message ... On 20 Feb 2005 16:20:11 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: They [HK engineers] said components differ in their sound despite similar specs, and that they had to listen to make final choices. The were dealing with the basics: resistors and capacitors. If that is really the case, how on earth do they do quality assyurance in manufacturing of their units? This means that you *cannot* know the auido quality of the finished product without listening to *every single* unit! This seems very odd to me. I thought that they specified all sub-contracted components with error tolerance, based on the design, and know what the outcome would be. What did I miss? You missed that fact that I am talking about the choices to include in the specification...types of construction and sometimes by brand. And you are right...QC can be a problem. That's why a good QC program does include listening to as well as measuring new parts batches (at least on the critical parts) as well as to samples of the production run. Mr. Per Stromgren's point is that if sonic performance of passive parts (resistors and capacitors) cannot be determined by specs alone, as you appeared to suggest, how could they possibly do QC? The only thing incoming inspection can perform is making sure that the parts meet specs. They can't possibly listen to every component (in some test rig, I assume) before deciding whether the parts are good enough. His point is a very valid point. So the conclusion has to be that there are specs that determine the sonic quality of those components. Who has said they can't be determined by spec alone, or largely by spec. Well, here's what you said: "They said components differ in their sound despite similar specs, and that they had to listen to make final choices. The were dealing with the basics: resistors and capacitors." You were clearly implying that there are differences in sound that cannot be determined by spec's alone. If an teflon dialectric capacitor using a certain construction sounds better than another type, it can be spec'd. And if a low-noise resister sounds better than a conventional resistor in a certain part of the circuit hitherto unsuspected, then the low-noise resister would be spec'd. And if one manufacturers component of a certain type sounded better (remember they listened, extensively and carefully), then being engineers they would try to determine why. But even if they couldn't, they would specify the part because it sounded better. What is so hard to understand about that. If they can be spec'ed, then why do they spend countless hours listening to different resistors and capacitors? Isn't it clear that they should pick the components with the best specs? Can't they tell which parts would work well, and which wouldn't after a few trials? By the way, the metal-film resistor costing 0.1 cent is a low-noise resistor, with almost no additional noise above thermal. You buy a $10 resistor, and you are not going to get better noise. Not that the noise of an amplifier should be determined by resistors if it is well-designed. Now, if as you said, passive components make a huge difference in sound and that the advance in sonic quality in the last 25 years is due to better passive components, then there have to be some measureable specs of these new resistors and capacitors that make them superior to the standard ones used in the less "high-end" products. What exactly are those specs? What makes an expensive, audiophile grade resistor sound better than the standard metal-film ones used by the truly high-tech manufacturers like HP/Agilent for the last several decades? Partly it is an upgrade of the parts themselves at given points in the circuit, where conventional wisdom said there wouldn't be any important difference and they found by using a different type/construction/manufacturer they could hear a difference. Can you give any example of such conventional wisdom? You keep saying that such conventional wisdom is wrong, but if so, how could it still be conventional wisdom if even you (not being a scientist or an engineer) know that it is wrong? Or is it simply conventional wisdom from a layman's point of view, and not from an engineer's? Sometimes they could figure out why; sometimes not. So can they be spec'd or not? Do they know which spec makes the difference? Is the use of resistors and capacitors in audio still something not fully understood, after so many decades? Are these guys competent? Their job was to get a design completed, not to do pure research. But because of people like them, it is common today even in mainstream gear to use poly capacitors and low-noise resistors...you didn't find that thirty years ago. And the reason they are affordable today is that word spread about the superior sonic qualities and more and more companies started using them. With quantity, price dropped, usuage spread, prices dropped, etc. But it was a relatively few high end designer/engineers who did the work. And still do today when it comes to sonic quality. You have it totally wrong. The high-end audio industry could never have the volume to change the price of components like resistors and capacitors. Plastic-film capacitors are popular *not* because they sound better. They are used because they have very little memory effect, a characteristic that is important in data-acquistion applications. They also have superior stability, are non-polar so they do not cause distortion in some circuits, and have low effective resistance. These capacitors were well understood and commonly used more than 25 years ago. We have understood the noise performance of various types of resistors for almost a century. High-end audio does not teach us which resistors have lower noise. For a given application, one can easily tell whether they would be the right choice. You have over-estimated the contribution of "high-end audio" designers by several orders of magnitude. One does not have to listen for hours to know if they would work well! And here is the thing that the modders have failed to answer: where is the test data that confirms the validity of these passive component tweaks? They have the best test of all ... people buy their work, rave about it, have friends listen, the friends order, etc. Hmmm, yet they cannot show you any measurement? People rave about the sound of certain cables. People are absolutely sure that cables need to be broken in. Do you agree with them? How about the huge number of consumers who do *not* believe in modding? Your implicit premise is that people only *think* they hear a difference. You do not know that. And the people laying out their hard-earned cash are convinced enough to do so without feeling the need or demanding "proof". Unlike some here. I'm pretty sure you understand "sighted bias", so there is no need to explain that . |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: I'm talking amps, preamps, tuners -- I thought I made that clear but perhaps not. But I don't argue with your arguments for what lies behind transparency, just your argument that their hasn't been improvement in passive components with regard to noise and distortion, for specific purposes via specific construction of those passive components. I am talking about what choices have been made for audio gear ... twenty five to thirty years ago versus today. I think many people will argue that tuners designed 25 years or more ago actually perform better than the newer ones. And you know what, part of the explanation lies in the choice of passive components. In an FM tuner, passive component selection has a very big impact on performance. RF transformers, inductors and capacitors used in IF filters and FM discriminators, etc. are crucial to the sensitivity, distortion, separation and frequency response of the FM receiver. However, those things were more carefully designed 25 years ago, probably because of declining interest in FM in the last 25 years. So we may even say that the passive components used today are *not* as good as those used 25 years ago. Similarly in a phono stage, older designs may actually use superior parts: more tightly spec'ed and more expensive resistors and capacitors. So again, to think that advances in passive components have led to better (phono) preamps in the last 25 years is simply wishful thinking. You continue to confuse engineering functionality with sheer sonic transparency, part for part, use for use in the audio stages, which is what I am talking about. So what exactly are you talking about when you said that the tuners and preamps of today are more transparent than those from 25 years ago due to advances in passive components? Seems like perhaps you are confusing facts with beliefs? |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 22 Feb 2005 04:09:09 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
Your implicit premise is that people only *think* they hear a difference. You do not know that. Your implicit premise is that people really do hear a difference. There is absolutely *no* reliable and repeatable evidence for this. OTOH, there is lots of good evidence around (Doug Self et al), that passive components (above basic engineering competence) don't make any audible difference whatever. And the people laying out their hard-earned cash are convinced enough to do so without feeling the need or demanding "proof". P.T. Barnum would have been proud. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
"chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "Chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: I'm talking amps, preamps, tuners -- I thought I made that clear but perhaps not. But I don't argue with your arguments for what lies behind transparency, just your argument that their hasn't been improvement in passive components with regard to noise and distortion, for specific purposes via specific construction of those passive components. I am talking about what choices have been made for audio gear ... twenty five to thirty years ago versus today. I think many people will argue that tuners designed 25 years or more ago actually perform better than the newer ones. And you know what, part of the explanation lies in the choice of passive components. In an FM tuner, passive component selection has a very big impact on performance. RF transformers, inductors and capacitors used in IF filters and FM discriminators, etc. are crucial to the sensitivity, distortion, separation and frequency response of the FM receiver. However, those things were more carefully designed 25 years ago, probably because of declining interest in FM in the last 25 years. So we may even say that the passive components used today are *not* as good as those used 25 years ago. Similarly in a phono stage, older designs may actually use superior parts: more tightly spec'ed and more expensive resistors and capacitors. So again, to think that advances in passive components have led to better (phono) preamps in the last 25 years is simply wishful thinking. You continue to confuse engineering functionality with sheer sonic transparency, part for part, use for use in the audio stages, which is what I am talking about. So what exactly are you talking about when you said that the tuners and preamps of today are more transparent than those from 25 years ago due to advances in passive components? Seems like perhaps you are confusing facts with beliefs? I mean they are more transparent, just what I said. Given the same input (in the case of FM a good strong clean signal) you will hear deeper into the soundstage, with more sense of dimensionality. In other words, you hear more and what you hear sounds more real, natural, uncolored. You do not hear a gray scrim (resistor noise). You do not hear opaqueness (capacitors), so that apparent depth disappears after only a few feet. What is it about transparency that has you so buffaloed? |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
"chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "Chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Per Stromgren" wrote in message ... On 20 Feb 2005 16:20:11 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: snip, to keep it manageable Mr. Per Stromgren's point is that if sonic performance of passive parts (resistors and capacitors) cannot be determined by specs alone, as you appeared to suggest, how could they possibly do QC? The only thing incoming inspection can perform is making sure that the parts meet specs. They can't possibly listen to every component (in some test rig, I assume) before deciding whether the parts are good enough. His point is a very valid point. So the conclusion has to be that there are specs that determine the sonic quality of those components. Who has said they can't be determined by spec alone, or largely by spec. Well, here's what you said: "They said components differ in their sound despite similar specs, and that they had to listen to make final choices. The were dealing with the basics: resistors and capacitors." You were clearly implying that there are differences in sound that cannot be determined by spec's alone. And there are. But often the difference in specs is there, but just not considered important and not very large. If an teflon dialectric capacitor using a certain construction sounds better than another type, it can be spec'd. And if a low-noise resister sounds better than a conventional resistor in a certain part of the circuit hitherto unsuspected, then the low-noise resister would be spec'd. And if one manufacturers component of a certain type sounded better (remember they listened, extensively and carefully), then being engineers they would try to determine why. But even if they couldn't, they would specify the part because it sounded better. What is so hard to understand about that. If they can be spec'ed, then why do they spend countless hours listening to different resistors and capacitors? Isn't it clear that they should pick the components with the best specs? Can't they tell which parts would work well, and which wouldn't after a few trials? By the way, the metal-film resistor costing 0.1 cent is a low-noise resistor, with almost no additional noise above thermal. You buy a $10 resistor, and you are not going to get better noise. Not that the noise of an amplifier should be determined by resistors if it is well-designed. Perhaps 25-30 years ago, things weren't so clear-cut, perhaps? Or perhaps, your assumptions occassionally don't hold up in reality. For example "pick the component with the best specs". What if the component with the "best specs" in a conventional engineering sense is not the best sounding one in circuilt. What if some other aspect of its design not normally considered important turns out to be. Frankly, 40 years ago a conventional audio engineer would have laughed at the idea of using low-noise resistors extensively. After all the noise level contributed by the resistors was considered insignificant and in any case noise was plenty low enough, it was thought. Everybody knew "resistors don't have a sound". . Now, if as you said, passive components make a huge difference in sound and that the advance in sonic quality in the last 25 years is due to better passive components, then there have to be some measureable specs of these new resistors and capacitors that make them superior to the standard ones used in the less "high-end" products. What exactly are those specs? What makes an expensive, audiophile grade resistor sound better than the standard metal-film ones used by the truly high-tech manufacturers like HP/Agilent for the last several decades? Partly it is an upgrade of the parts themselves at given points in the circuit, where conventional wisdom said there wouldn't be any important difference and they found by using a different type/construction/manufacturer they could hear a difference. Can you give any example of such conventional wisdom? You keep saying that such conventional wisdom is wrong, but if so, how could it still be conventional wisdom if even you (not being a scientist or an engineer) know that it is wrong? Or is it simply conventional wisdom from a layman's point of view, and not from an engineer's? Nope, can't help much here. I'm simply trying to as accurately as I can, recall the viewpoint of the folks I observed and talked with back in the mid-seventies and early eighties. Not being an engineer, the technical fine points even if related would have been mumbo-jumbo to me. These were engineers, doing an engineers job. Perhaps instead of hocking me about it, you should do some research of what the conventional wisdom was 25-35 years ago in audio design with regard to material choices. I don't sense that you are old enough to have been there yourself. Sometimes they could figure out why; sometimes not. So can they be spec'd or not? Do they know which spec makes the difference? Is the use of resistors and capacitors in audio still something not fully understood, after so many decades? Are these guys competent? They were competent...in fact producing some highly regarded equipment as viewed by both engineers and audiophiles. Their job was to get a design completed, not to do pure research. But because of people like them, it is common today even in mainstream gear to use poly capacitors and low-noise resistors...you didn't find that thirty years ago. And the reason they are affordable today is that word spread about the superior sonic qualities and more and more companies started using them. With quantity, price dropped, usuage spread, prices dropped, etc. But it was a relatively few high end designer/engineers who did the work. And still do today when it comes to sonic quality. You have it totally wrong. The high-end audio industry could never have the volume to change the price of components like resistors and capacitors. Not by itself, I agree. But it certainly contributed to volume for certain types and values of componetn. Plastic-film capacitors are popular *not* because they sound better. They are used because they have very little memory effect, a characteristic that is important in data-acquistion applications. They also have superior stability, are non-polar so they do not cause distortion in some circuits, and have low effective resistance. These capacitors were well understood and commonly used more than 25 years ago. We have understood the noise performance of various types of resistors for almost a century. High-end audio does not teach us which resistors have lower noise. For a given application, one can easily tell whether they would be the right choice. You have over-estimated the contribution of "high-end audio" designers by several orders of magnitude. One does not have to listen for hours to know if they would work well! What I am telling you is that back in the sixties and seventies, what you claim (which may be true) was not the conventional wisdom quiding choices in the audio industry, until some high-end engineers associated with some of the best sounding equipment designs started exploring the sonic effect of the choices of passive components on sound. Remember, i am not talking aerospace. My claim is that improvement in passive parts has been the largest factor in improved sound over the last twenty five years. That reflects the *choice* of components to use in audio equipment, even though the components may have existed and been used in other applications. Are you aware that there is now some demand for "oil in paper" capacitors from restorers carefully trying to fully recreate "that sixties sound". As for me, I was happy to have my Fisher KX200 rebuilt with modern capacitors and resistors....it was much more transparent. And here is the thing that the modders have failed to answer: where is the test data that confirms the validity of these passive component tweaks? They have the best test of all ... people buy their work, rave about it, have friends listen, the friends order, etc. Hmmm, yet they cannot show you any measurement? Ask them. I certainly don't care if they can or can't. People rave about the sound of certain cables. People are absolutely sure that cables need to be broken in. Do you agree with them? How about the huge number of consumers who do *not* believe in modding? This isn't about me. And as for others, people can believe anything they want. When a host of audiophiles agree that something represents an improvement, that suggests to me that it is more likely than not that there is an improvement. Since I don't buy mods (the Fisher had already been modded when I bought it) it is a moot point for me personally. But when the modders with teriffic reputations say, for instance, that substituing Black Gates into the output stages and the power supply of a Sony SACD machine of a certain model provides the best sound of a dozen or more capacitors tried, I am willing to suspect that they do. Especially if that modder also has the honesty to say that Brand X in such-and-such a model is so close to that sound that Black Gates represent little improvement in that particular case. Your implicit premise is that people only *think* they hear a difference. You do not know that. And the people laying out their hard-earned cash are convinced enough to do so without feeling the need or demanding "proof". Unlike some here. I'm pretty sure you understand "sighted bias", so there is no need to explain that .I certainly understand it. I also understand it adds uncertainty; it doesn't prove falsehoods. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: I'm talking amps, preamps, tuners -- I thought I made that clear but perhaps not. But I don't argue with your arguments for what lies behind transparency, just your argument that their hasn't been improvement in passive components with regard to noise and distortion, for specific purposes via specific construction of those passive components. I am talking about what choices have been made for audio gear ... twenty five to thirty years ago versus today. I think many people will argue that tuners designed 25 years or more ago actually perform better than the newer ones. And you know what, part of the explanation lies in the choice of passive components. In an FM tuner, passive component selection has a very big impact on performance. RF transformers, inductors and capacitors used in IF filters and FM discriminators, etc. are crucial to the sensitivity, distortion, separation and frequency response of the FM receiver. However, those things were more carefully designed 25 years ago, probably because of declining interest in FM in the last 25 years. So we may even say that the passive components used today are *not* as good as those used 25 years ago. Similarly in a phono stage, older designs may actually use superior parts: more tightly spec'ed and more expensive resistors and capacitors. So again, to think that advances in passive components have led to better (phono) preamps in the last 25 years is simply wishful thinking. You continue to confuse engineering functionality with sheer sonic transparency, part for part, use for use in the audio stages, which is what I am talking about. So what exactly are you talking about when you said that the tuners and preamps of today are more transparent than those from 25 years ago due to advances in passive components? Seems like perhaps you are confusing facts with beliefs? I mean they are more transparent, just what I said. Given the same input (in the case of FM a good strong clean signal) you will hear deeper into the soundstage, with more sense of dimensionality. In other words, you hear more and what you hear sounds more real, natural, uncolored. You do not hear a gray scrim (resistor noise). You do not hear opaqueness (capacitors), so that apparent depth disappears after only a few feet. What is it about transparency that has you so buffaloed? I said that due to better choice of passive components, it is very possible that some older tuners have better selectivity, frequency response, separation, linearity and signal-to-noise ratio. For some strange reason, you think that those characteristics have nothing to do with transparency? Would a tuner that measures worse in those parameters have higher "transparency"? What is your proof that (1) the new tuners have more "transparency", and (2) the advances in passive components cause said "transparency"? Sorry for repeating the p word, but otherwise you can pretty much say anything you want... So "gray scrim" is caused by resistors and "opaqueness" is caused by capacitors? Wow, for not being an engineer or scientist, you really can pinpoint causes and effects! |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Amp Design project - PCBs | Pro Audio | |||
| Amp Design project - PCBs | Pro Audio | |||
| Doppler Distortion - Fact or Fiction | Pro Audio | |||
| Preamp Design Fundamentals | Pro Audio | |||
| FS: Clarion ADCS-1 System, Denon DCT-1000R/DCH470, PG ZPA amps and processors, Dynaudio 3 way biamp speakers, Orion EQ/xover, Audio Control 3050 RTA | Car Audio | |||
Linear Mode
