| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
"Rusty Boudreaux" said:
Of course distortion is not in the definition. Amplification is pure gain. Any deviation from pure gain is more than just amplification. I suppose you're still using a QUAD 303? ;-) I agree all amps do deviate from ideal amplification. However, amps can be designed such that deviations are well below the threshold of hearing and even below the limits of available test gear. For the purpose of amplifying audio signals they can be considered ideal amplifiers ala "straight wire with gain". So the best amplifier is the one with the lowest distortion figure and the most watts in an IHF-based load of 8 ohms/2 uF? Always and in every case? Wouldn't you consider the idea that there are other factors playing than just high power and low distortion, of whatever kind? See below. To me, an amplifier is just a piece in an entire system, and it might NEED to deviate from the "ideal" amplifier to thrive in that particular system. Perhaps that's why Pinkerton is using a Krell in his system? :-) I also agree a designer can intentionally add distortion and like the result. Guitar amps would be a good example. In that case it would not be a poor design but it's also not just an amplifier. "Guitar amps [......] are not just amps". That's a very narrow definition of "amplifier" you're using here. I belive the job of an audio power amplifier (preamp input, speaker output) is to amplify the incoming signal without adding any audible effects other than pure gain. To do anything else changes the intent of the artist. If a power amplifier is designed and marketed as a pure amplifier but adds audible effects then it is poorly designed. I thinks this depends on the definition. The "intent of the artist" is just as severly changed by the recording engineer, the mastering engineer, and even you who might use a tone control and different speakers from the mastering studio in your home. According to your definition, an integrated amplifier with tone controls isn't an amplifier either........ However, I suppose it could be designed to deviate from ideal amplification and marketed as "adding warmth to the treble" or some other claim. In that scenario it would be hard to call the product poorly designed since deviation was intentional and disclosed but it wouldn't be appropriate to call it just an amplifier. I agree some audiophiles might enjoy the colorations even though they deviate from the artists' intent. I maintain the thought that according to your narrow definition, even using the tone controls "deviates from the artist's intent". I also think you (and Pinkerton, Krueger and others) are using a too narrow definition of the term amplifier, or even high fidelity, or perhaps even music reproduction. It further depends on how you will define high fidelity : - Is it true reproduction of what we hear in the concert hall? If so, which concert hall, which seat, which row, which orchestra, which conductor? After or before having a good meal, sex, pot, or discussion, or none at all? - Is it true reproduction of what's on the medium (be it CD, LP, HDD, tape, whatever)? If so, which medium? How do we know the recording engineer did a right job? And the mastering engineer? And the quality of the pressing, the tape, the A/D and D/A converters? The format in which the data was stored? The kind of mixing console? Which compressors, eqs, microphones, cables etc.? - Is it true reproduction of what *someone* thinks it should sound? If so, should it be how von Karajan thinks it should sound? On his conduction position or in the 15th row in the hall? How Jon BonJovi thinks it should sound? On stage, through his monitor or on his friend's system at 2.00 AM after some cocaine? How Rudy van Gelder thought it should sound? Or Miles Davis? Doctor Amar? Bill Johnson? The late Steve Zipser? How you or I or Joe Sixpack thinks it should sound? What's the function of a musical reproduction chain? TO ME, it's a device that should give me pleasure. As such, I design audio gear that suits MY NEEDS. If that means a THD of 3 %, so be it. If that means a certain spectrum of harmonics, so be it. If that means having to use equalizers, so be it. If that means putting my speakers in such positions that I can hardly live in the room, so be it. If that means having to use obsolete triodes or obsolete MOSFETS, so be it. If that means class A , transformers of 1000VA to obtain 20 watts per channel, so be it. If that means using biwiring, while I *know* it doesn't matter technically, but it makes me feel better, so be it. LP, CD, DVD, MP3, 1/2 inch master tape? Does it matter? Snake oil? So be it. My-Fi instead of Hi-Fi? So be it. I know people who are moved to tears by a song from their youth playing on a 10 yr. old fluttering and noisy cassette walkman. THAT's the function of music. Entertainment and emotion. Music (and hence audio) cannot be that dogmatic. By its very nature it can't. Just my 2 eurocents, FWIW etc. -- Sander deWaal Vacuum Audio Consultancy |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message ... "Rusty Boudreaux" said: I know people who are moved to tears by a song from their youth playing on a 10 yr. old fluttering and noisy cassette walkman. THAT's the function of music. Entertainment and emotion. You have got it for the most part That is what music is about It is not however, what audio is about. It is a part, but not the only one. |
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler
George M. Middius a écrit :
S888Wheel said to La Salope: You should do like George Middius, focus on what you excel : *troll* and *troll only*. Slut, you still don't understand what's wrong with Usenet. You, and your clone, nothing else ! ;-) Lionella is surely as brainless as most, but RAO has had its share of individuals who troll tirelessly. toony lobro/torrie****s, the Feckless Ferstlerian, and McInturd are just a few. And let's not forget that when Krooger isn't crying his eyes out over Normal people's "attitudes", he also boasts about being a "master baiter". La Salope does best with the merde jokes. ;-) This is the ritual Middius' blow job to Scott Wheeler, aren't they lovely ? |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ignore what you hear
I would be surprised if you or anyone else could tell what type of
tweeter--metal or fabric--a speaker is equipped with. I'd be amazed if you could identify the type of output stage--bipolar or MOSFET-- an amplifier uses. Norm Strong |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ignore what you hear
Uncle Troll said: I would be surprised if you or anyone else could tell what Talking to the mirror again, Normy? |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message ... Currently that's true. However, once the following takes place I bet the vast majority of consumers will choose multichannel over stereo. 1. End of format war. 2. Mass availability 3. Backward compatible (old car players for example) Since you're talking about the "vast majority of consumers" there really is no format war. SACD and DVD-A are not even on the radar of the majority of consumers--nor would they be if one format was gone. The format war is ended and the winner is Dolby Digital. An ordinary CD will hold over 3 hours of DD surround sound. If it could be played on an ordinary DVD player, the consumer would love it. So why isn't DD sweeping the field? My guess is that the industry hasn't yet figured out a good way to limit the amount of time available in that format. SACD and DVD-A solve the time problem, but have not been embraced by the public. If you stop to think about it there is no technical reason why DD surround sound audio couldn't be distributed via an ordinary DVD. With no video to contend with a DVD could carry as much as 20 hours of music. It would be available to anyone with a DVD player, and entirely satisfactory to 99% of them. Therein is the problem: too much time. The race to fill it would be on, and the RIAA would be the loser. Cheers, and Happy New Year, Norm Strong |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
"John Atkinson" wrote in message om... Here are the relevant figures from Stereophile's "Publisher's Statements," published in the December 2002 and 2003 issues: 82,932 paid circulation in 2002, 81,668 paid circulation in 2003. (Both figures are 12-month averages.) Yes, I would have liked to see a rise, but hardly a major drop, IMO. So roughly 1 out of every 3600 people in the US are subscribers. What about total circulation instead of just paid and the drop from the peak (early 90's I think)? Your opinion, Mr. Boudreaux, not mine. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of music sold in stores and played back in the home is still 2-channel. Stereophile does cover multichannel music reproduction, BTW, but it is still very much a minority interest for resadres in general. Currently that's true. However, once the following takes place I bet the vast majority of consumers will choose multichannel over stereo. 1. End of format war. 2. Mass availability 3. Backward compatible (old car players for example) Video is definitely a plus. It makes it a different experience, "cold" rather than "hot," in Marshall Not if you don't watch the video portion. I prefer to choose the experience I wish to have. McLuhan's terminology, which very much changes the relationship between medium and consumer. That relationship needs to change. Pure audio is dying due to among other things the growing availability of other media. If changes aren't made to increase interest in audio it will become purely a commuter or background music market. For many people it already has. Last year's Rolling Stones holiday offering was a number of DVD-A remasters. This year's Rolling Stone Holiday offering appears to be a plain old DVD-V release. Perhaps someone is learning about what the market wants... Once bitten, twice shy? |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message Thanks for admitting that your audio system is not a high fidelity audio system, sockpuppet wheel. You are an idiot. What a congenial, tactful response to a purely technical comment. No wonder you don't want to take an IQ test. This logic applied to such a test would land you wll below 100. I bet that there's a lot of people with IQ's below 100 who can properly spell the word "well". Arny said It includes components that were clearly designed to add audible amounts of distortion well in excess of even mi-fi systems. This is just a lie. Oh, there's some hidden solid state amp or digital player in there someplace? Thanks for misrepresenting the designers of my equipment. You've been hiding your REAL audio system? More sour grapes from Arny. For what, having an audio system that meets the dictionary meaning of "High Fidelity"? Your class envy is really ugly. Why would I envy the untermenschen? You could have gotten off your ass years ago and try to earn enough money to afford the equipment instead of sitting on your ass over the years infront of the computer crapping on the equipment because you cant afford it. Which equipment would this be, sockpuppet? Remember, you're still trying to save up the cash to buy your first truly High Fidelity audio system. |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler
Arny said
Thanks for admitting that your audio system is not a high fidelity audio system, sockpuppet wheel. I said You are an idiot. Arny said What a congenial, tactful response to a purely technical comment. There was nothing technical about your comment. Your screwed up logic was based on your religeous beliefs in audio and your class envy. I was being very nice in my response all things considered. I said No wonder you don't want to take an IQ test. This logic applied to such a test would land you wll below 100. I bet that there's a lot of people with IQ's below 100 who can properly spell the word "well". I bet there aren't many with IQs above 100 that can't recognize an obvious typo. But you have alreadt demonstrated your gross lack of comprehension when it comes to typos. You call your technically incomptetent opinions typos. Arny said It includes components that were clearly designed to add audible amounts of distortion well in excess of even mi-fi systems. I said This is just a lie. Arny said Oh, there's some hidden solid state amp or digital player in there someplace? Total lack of comprehension noted. get back to me when you figure out why you are full of ****. I said Thanks for misrepresenting the designers of my equipment. Arny said You've been hiding your REAL audio system? Are you so stupid you can't understand one simple and clear point about the intent of the designers of the equipment I own and your dishonest misrepresentation of their intent as designers? You are amazingly stupid as well as devoid of any integrity. I said More sour grapes from Arny. Arny said For what, For having a vastly supperior system that is beyond your ways and means and understanding. Arny said having an audio system that meets the dictionary meaning of "High Fidelity"? You forget, I have heard your speakers with the sort of equipment you consider "high fidelity." Maybe you are suffering from such severe hearing loss that you think your system is "high fidelity" when live music is the reference. But of course you never wanted to take a hearing test and tell us the results. figures. I said Your class envy is really ugly. Arny said Why would I envy the untermenschen? More sour grapes. I said You could have gotten off your ass years ago and try to earn enough money to afford the equipment instead of sitting on your ass over the years infront of the computer crapping on the equipment because you cant afford it. Arny said Which equipment would this be, sockpuppet? Any equipment that is vastly better than what you have Arny. Arny said Remember, you're still trying to save up the cash to buy your first truly High Fidelity audio system. Why would I remember something that exists only in your twisted mind? |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 05:18:38 -0500, "Robert Morein" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:20:18 -0500, "Robert Morein" wrote: IMHO, topologies do make a difference: 1. cold running, precision biased bipoloar 2. high-bias bipolar 3. MOSFET, traditional 4. MOSFET, transnova topology If properly implemented, each of these will produce an amplifier which is sonically transparent. Naturally, it follows that all these amplifiers will 'sound' the same. This has been the case for more than a decade now...................... We're both arguing from personal experience, but I submit that I have the "white crow", ie., that my personal opinion contains the exception that breaks your rule. I submit that you are talking nonsense. I could listen to any number of amplifiers, yet my argument couldn't be completely nullified -- at "worst", I would have to concede that the groupings are sloppy. Your argument is somewhat more vulnerable to an "aha" experience. No, my argument is invulnerable, since any amplifier which *does* sound different from its input signal can readily be shown to have at least one glaring technical defect. Then a lot of them do. Agreed, and most of those use tubes............ -- Technically, I agree, at least with the remark about tubes. However, I think that the "all properly operating amplifiers", etc., etc., is a gigantic loophole. I don't believe that the usual suite of bench measurements characterizes an amplifier, except to exclude "rejects." It is apparent to me that an amplifier can measure decently, and sound different from another decent amplifier, and this has nothing to do with "magic", or "musicality", or any other nonmathematical property. But audio amplification is such a backwater that enough money hasn't been spent to figure out how to measure amplifiers. If it had been a different kind of problem, like space shuttle failure points, it would have been solved a long time ago. |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
... I don't believe that the usual suite of bench measurements characterizes an amplifier, except to exclude "rejects." It is apparent to me that an amplifier can measure decently, and sound different from another decent Can you explain why this is apparent? There's been no published evidence (or theories) of amplifiers with audibile differences where the differences couldn't be identified via measurement. amplifier, and this has nothing to do with "magic", or "musicality", or any other nonmathematical property. But audio amplification is such a backwater that enough money hasn't been spent to figure out how to measure amplifiers. No one needs to spend money. Amplification is a basic function spanning hundreds of fields since the triode amplifier was invented in 1906. We know how to measure amplifiers. I'll admit there are many strange audio amplifiers around...but measuring isn't a problem. The reason high-end audio amplification is so backwater is the consumer base. Can you imagine these advertisements, "IBM's read head amplifiers in our hard drives add a warmth to the GMR field" or "NASA has upgraded the servo positioning amplifier of the Hubble Space Telescope to give that low end boost missing from other tracking systems". With their educated customer base they'd be laughed out of existence. |
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
Technically, I agree, at least with the remark about tubes. However, I think that the "all properly operating amplifiers", etc., etc., is a gigantic loophole. I don't believe that the usual suite of bench measurements characterizes an amplifier, except to exclude "rejects." Since the rejection point can be set well below the threshold of audibility, this isn't a problem. It is apparent to me that an amplifier can measure decently, and sound different from another decent amplifier, and this has nothing to do with "magic", or "musicality", or any other nonmathematical property. It's apparent to me that you've never done a reliable listening test, of if you did the experience didn't *take*. But audio amplification is such a backwater that enough money hasn't been spent to figure out how to measure amplifiers. Wrong, if your initial criteria of finding rejects is to believed. If it had been a different kind of problem, like space shuttle failure points, it would have been solved a long time ago. Read the space shuttle article in the current Atlantic? |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 01:09:25 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote: Technically, I agree, at least with the remark about tubes. However, I think that the "all properly operating amplifiers", etc., etc., is a gigantic loophole. I don't believe that the usual suite of bench measurements characterizes an amplifier, except to exclude "rejects." Horsepucky. I have *never* heard an amplifier which could be sonically distuinguished, which did not have an *easily* measured defect. It is apparent to me that an amplifier can measure decently, and sound different from another decent amplifier, and this has nothing to do with "magic", or "musicality", or any other nonmathematical property. The only thing it has to do with, is sheer incompetence in making the measurements! But audio amplification is such a backwater that enough money hasn't been spent to figure out how to measure amplifiers. Of course it has. If it had been a different kind of problem, like space shuttle failure points, it would have been solved a long time ago. They haven't been solved, or hadn't you noticed? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 01:09:25 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote: Technically, I agree, at least with the remark about tubes. However, I think that the "all properly operating amplifiers", etc., etc., is a gigantic loophole. I don't believe that the usual suite of bench measurements characterizes an amplifier, except to exclude "rejects." Horsepucky. I have *never* heard an amplifier which could be sonically distuinguished, which did not have an *easily* measured defect. It is apparent to me that an amplifier can measure decently, and sound different from another decent amplifier, and this has nothing to do with "magic", or "musicality", or any other nonmathematical property. The only thing it has to do with, is sheer incompetence in making the measurements! But audio amplification is such a backwater that enough money hasn't been spent to figure out how to measure amplifiers. Of course it has. The only 'backwater' is in so-called 'high end' amplification, which is jampacked with idiots and conmen. They do of course have the perfect customer base....................... If it had been a different kind of problem, like space shuttle failure points, it would have been solved a long time ago. They haven't been solved, or hadn't you noticed? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:58:29 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote: "Rusty Boudreaux" said: Of course distortion is not in the definition. Amplification is pure gain. Any deviation from pure gain is more than just amplification. I suppose you're still using a QUAD 303? ;-) I agree all amps do deviate from ideal amplification. However, amps can be designed such that deviations are well below the threshold of hearing and even below the limits of available test gear. For the purpose of amplifying audio signals they can be considered ideal amplifiers ala "straight wire with gain". So the best amplifier is the one with the lowest distortion figure and the most watts in an IHF-based load of 8 ohms/2 uF? Always and in every case? Yes - so long as you include HF IM distortion. Wouldn't you consider the idea that there are other factors playing than just high power and low distortion, of whatever kind? No. See below. To me, an amplifier is just a piece in an entire system, and it might NEED to deviate from the "ideal" amplifier to thrive in that particular system. Perhaps that's why Pinkerton is using a Krell in his system? :-) No, that's because I have insensitive 3-ohm speakers. The Krell is about as close as I've seen to an 'ideal' amplifier, although of course its current reserve is overkill for most speakers and rooms. I also agree a designer can intentionally add distortion and like the result. Guitar amps would be a good example. In that case it would not be a poor design but it's also not just an amplifier. "Guitar amps [......] are not just amps". That's a very narrow definition of "amplifier" you're using here. He means that the guitar amp is not a reproducer, it's *part* of the instrument. I belive the job of an audio power amplifier (preamp input, speaker output) is to amplify the incoming signal without adding any audible effects other than pure gain. To do anything else changes the intent of the artist. If a power amplifier is designed and marketed as a pure amplifier but adds audible effects then it is poorly designed. I thinks this depends on the definition. The "intent of the artist" is just as severly changed by the recording engineer, the mastering engineer, But there's nothing we can do about this random deviation from neutrality, so unless you have *very* narrow musical tastes, a neutral replay system is indicated as a best approach to all recordings. and even you who might use a tone control and different speakers from the mastering studio in your home. According to your definition, an integrated amplifier with tone controls isn't an amplifier either........ Indeed not, although it may balance a poor loudspeaker or room to some extent. Dedicated room/speaker EQ is whole other can of worms! I maintain the thought that according to your narrow definition, even using the tone controls "deviates from the artist's intent". Depends why you use them, as noted above. I also think you (and Pinkerton, Krueger and others) are using a too narrow definition of the term amplifier, or even high fidelity, or perhaps even music reproduction. I don't see anyone coming up with a loogical alternative. It further depends on how you will define high fidelity : - Is it true reproduction of what we hear in the concert hall? If so, which concert hall, which seat, which row, which orchestra, which conductor? After or before having a good meal, sex, pot, or discussion, or none at all? All of the above. - Is it true reproduction of what's on the medium (be it CD, LP, HDD, tape, whatever)? If so, which medium? All of them. That's why LP replay systems based on Linn Sondeks have no chance of producing optimum results from other sources. How do we know the recording engineer did a right job? And the mastering engineer? And the quality of the pressing, the tape, the A/D and D/A converters? The format in which the data was stored? The kind of mixing console? Which compressors, eqs, microphones, cables etc.? We have to take all these on trust, otherwise we'd be attempting to undo a different set of defects in every recording. - Is it true reproduction of what *someone* thinks it should sound? If so, should it be how von Karajan thinks it should sound? On his conduction position or in the 15th row in the hall? How Jon BonJovi thinks it should sound? On stage, through his monitor or on his friend's system at 2.00 AM after some cocaine? How Rudy van Gelder thought it should sound? Or Miles Davis? Doctor Amar? Bill Johnson? The late Steve Zipser? How you or I or Joe Sixpack thinks it should sound? I try to make the system entirely transparent to the preferences of the recording and mastering engineers. You may do as you will. What's the function of a musical reproduction chain? TO ME, it's a device that should give me pleasure. There are other electrical devices which can achieve that aim. If you want a bad recording to give you pleasure, then you are in a downward spiral towards 'easy listening' tubes and vinyl............... As such, I design audio gear that suits MY NEEDS. If that means a THD of 3 %, so be it. If that means a certain spectrum of harmonics, so be it. If that means having to use equalizers, so be it. If that means putting my speakers in such positions that I can hardly live in the room, so be it. If that means having to use obsolete triodes or obsolete MOSFETS, so be it. If that means class A , transformers of 1000VA to obtain 20 watts per channel, so be it. If that means using biwiring, while I *know* it doesn't matter technically, but it makes me feel better, so be it. LP, CD, DVD, MP3, 1/2 inch master tape? Does it matter? Snake oil? So be it. My-Fi instead of Hi-Fi? So be it. No one is arguing against your personal preference. I know people who are moved to tears by a song from their youth playing on a 10 yr. old fluttering and noisy cassette walkman. THAT's the function of music. Entertainment and emotion. Sure, but that has nothing to do with *high fidelity* music reproduction. Music (and hence audio) cannot be that dogmatic. By its very nature it can't. Rubbish. Music is art - audio is engineering. The two *are* separate. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
... So the best amplifier is the one with the lowest distortion figure and the most watts in an IHF-based load of 8 ohms/2 uF? Always and every case? For pure amplification of audio the technical goal is to reduce all audible effects other than gain to below the level of audibility. Wouldn't you consider the idea that there are other factors playing than just high power and low distortion, of whatever kind? See Sure, but the factors are not germane to high fidelity (cost, looks, etc). To me, an amplifier is just a piece in an entire system, and it might NEED to deviate from the "ideal" amplifier to thrive in that particular system. For you that may be fine. However, I submit it's not the most user friendly arrangement. Searching for a deviant amplifier that is deviant in 'just the right way' to cancel out other system deviations seems counterproductive. Once done you have to get a new amp when you get new speakers or new wire or new this or that. For some of us that's no big deal but it doesn't have to be that way. The goal of an ideal amplifier (or an ideal CD player, etc) is to not add audible effects of it's own. Just because I choose a speaker that has high end rolloff doesn't mean I should go searching for a specific amplifier to compensate...that's why EQ are sold. "Guitar amps [......] are not just amps". That's a very narrow definition of "amplifier" you're using here. It's the technical definition used in published technical literature. Since we are discussing technical attributes it is appropriate. A guitar amp is a musical instrument not an end stage amplifier. I belive the job of an audio power amplifier (preamp input, speaker output) is to amplify the incoming signal without adding any audible effects other than pure gain. To do anything else changes the intent of the artist. If a power amplifier is designed and marketed as a pure amplifier but adds audible effects then it is poorly designed. I thinks this depends on the definition. The "intent of the artist" is just as severly changed by the recording engineer, the mastering engineer, Semantics. I submit that the final released form is the intent of the artist or artists. Unless the liner notes specifically suggest "reproduce with 6dB boost at 12kHz" or "add 3% second harmonic distortion below 5kHz" then I assume the intent was to reproduce the audio with the highest fidelity possible. and even you who might use a tone control and different speakers from the mastering studio in your home. According to your definition, an integrated amplifier with tone controls isn't an amplifier either........ It is an amplifier (hopefully ideal gain) with tone controls (adjustable frequency response). However, I suppose it could be designed to deviate from ideal amplification and marketed as "adding warmth to the treble" or some other claim. In that scenario it would be hard to call the product poorly designed since deviation was intentional and disclosed but it wouldn't be appropriate to call it just an amplifier. I agree some audiophiles might enjoy the colorations even though they deviate from the artists' intent. I maintain the thought that according to your narrow definition, The definition is the accepted definition for technical publications. even using the tone controls "deviates from the artist's intent". Unless tone controls correct for a deviation elsewhere in the system I believe they do alter the artist's intent. However, you are free to alter the artist's intent in any way you choose for whatever reason. I also think you (and Pinkerton, Krueger and others) are using a too narrow definition of the term amplifier, or even high fidelity, or These are technical terms with specific meanings within the professional community. I adhere to those definitions when posting to a supposed technical forum such as rec.audio.tech. It further depends on how you will define high fidelity : - Is it true reproduction of what we hear in the concert hall? If so, which concert hall, which seat, which row, which orchestra, which conductor? After or before having a good meal, sex, pot, or discussion, or none at all? The generally accepted definition of high fidelity audio system is "a playback system for reproducing, as close as possible to the original recording, without alterations other than gain". It's a sliding scale meant for improvements in technology hence "as close as possible". In the limit, it reduces to a system that perfectly reproduces without alterations other than gain. - Is it true reproduction of what's on the medium (be it CD, LP, HDD, tape, whatever)? If so, which medium? Whatever the limits of the medium used. How do we know the recording engineer did a right job? And the mastering engineer? And the quality of the pressing, the tape, the A/D and D/A converters? The format in which the data was stored? The kind of mixing console? Which compressors, eqs, microphones, cables etc.? We don't know. The recording could be absolute perfection or could have any number of deficiencies. All we know is a given medium has standards. High fidelity means faithfully reproducing the standard accurately as possible. Let's take your example to the extreme. My favorite recording was horribly mastered. However, if I use an ACME model 7 amplifier with loopy frequency response then my favorite recording comes out perfect. Great...but what if I want to listen to other recordings that were mastered properly or even differently? They won't sound right. - Is it true reproduction of what *someone* thinks it should sound? If so, should it be how von Karajan thinks it should sound? On his conduction position or in the 15th row in the hall? How Jon BonJovi thinks it should sound? On stage, through his monitor or on his friend's system at 2.00 AM after some cocaine? How Rudy van Gelder thought it should sound? Or Miles Davis? Doctor Amar? Bill Johnson? The late Steve Zipser? How you or I or Joe Sixpack thinks it should sound? See the definition of high fidelity above. If Joe Sixamp wants to tweak his EQ that's certainly his choice...but it wouldn't technically qualify as a high fidelity audio system. What's the function of a musical reproduction chain? TO ME, it's a device that should give me pleasure. Sure, I hope it does. However, pleasure is not a measure of an amplifier's technical capability. As such, I design audio gear that suits MY NEEDS. If that means a THD of 3 %, so be it. If that means a certain spectrum of harmonics, so be it. If that means having to use equalizers, so be it. If that means putting my speakers in such positions that I can hardly live in the room, so be it. If that means having to use obsolete triodes or obsolete MOSFETS, so be it. If that means class A , transformers of 1000VA to obtain 20 watts per channel, so be it. If that means using biwiring, while I *know* it doesn't matter technically, but it makes me feel better, so be it. LP, CD, DVD, MP3, 1/2 inch master tape? Does it matter? Snake oil? So be it. My-Fi instead of Hi-Fi? So be it. I have no issue with this other than it doesn't meet the technical definition of high fidelity. It's your system to do what you want. I know people who are moved to tears by a song from their youth playing on a 10 yr. old fluttering and noisy cassette walkman. THAT's the function of music. Entertainment and emotion. Absolutely. But that walkman isn't being lofted as the pinnacle of high fidelity. Music (and hence audio) cannot be that dogmatic. By its very nature it can't. Obviously music can't because it's subjective. However, the reproduction or amplification of recorded audio signal is a technical exercise and there are standards, definitions, and goals in doing so. |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler
The reason high-end audio amplification is so backwater is the consumer base. Can you imagine these advertisements, "IBM's read head amplifiers in our hard drives add a warmth to the GMR field" or "NASA has upgraded the servo positioning amplifier of the Hubble Space Telescope to give that low end boost missing from other tracking systems". With their educated customer base they'd be laughed out of existence. Sorry but this is a ridiculous analogy. |
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler
Horsepucky. I have *never* heard an amplifier which could be sonically distuinguished, which did not have an *easily* measured defect. Maybe it would help if you set your speakers up right. Then you might hear the fact that they are under-powered. Here is a hint for set up. Right speaker goes on right side, left speaker goes on left side. Maybe you can take it from there. You could always check out pictures of how Mr. Bloom, the designer, usde to set up the same speakers. |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
The reason high-end audio amplification is so backwater is the consumer base. Can you imagine these advertisements, "IBM's read head amplifiers in our hard drives add a warmth to the GMR field" or "NASA has upgraded the servo positioning amplifier of the Hubble Space Telescope to give that low end boost missing from other tracking systems". With their educated customer base they'd be laughed out of existence. Sorry but this is a ridiculous analogy. Exactly. It reduces radical subjectivism, tubism, and vinylism to the absurdities that they are. |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
Horsepucky. I have *never* heard an amplifier which could be sonically distuinguished, which did not have an *easily* measured defect. Maybe it would help if you set your speakers up right. Since you've never done a level-matched time-synched, bias-controlled listening test sockpuppet, and hope to never do so, why do you think that your comments are relevant? Then you might hear the fact that they are under-powered. Maybe Pinkerton is not as deaf as you are, sockpuppet. After all, vinyl sounds good enough to you to be your preferred media. You don't even have a digital player in your main system. You're backward and probably more than a little deaf, particularly at high frequencies. If it wasn't for placebo effects, poor level-matching, and no time synch, and seeing what you are listening to, you wouldn't be able to hear any differences at all. |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler
I said
Sorry but this is a ridiculous analogy. Arny said Exactly. It reduces radical subjectivism, tubism, and vinylism to the absurdities that they are. Arny doesn't seem to know the difference between an analogy and subjectivism. Of course he already showed us that when he insisted on calling his own anolgies metaphors. He also seems to like to make up words like tubism and vinylism. I just can't get past his own stupidism. |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler
I said
Maybe it would help if you set your speakers up right. Arny said Since you've never done a level-matched time-synched, bias-controlled listening test sockpuppet, and hope to never do so, why do you think that your comments are relevant? Since you like to tell lies like this one, why do you think that your comments are any better? I said Then you might hear the fact that they are under-powered. Arny said Maybe Pinkerton is not as deaf as you are, sockpuppet. This coming from a guy who is affraid to have his hearing tested. Arny said After all, vinyl sounds good enough to you to be your preferred media. Of course. It does help to have the disposable income needed to afford highend vinyl playback equipment. Arny can't stop crying sour grapes. Arny said You don't even have a digital player in your main system. You can't stop telling lies to support your audio religion. A sure sign of a failed belief system. Arny said You're backward and probably more than a little deaf, particularly at high frequencies. Funny, I ofered to take a hearing test if you did the same so we could compare results. As usual you were chicken ****. Arny said If it wasn't for placebo effects, poor level-matching, and no time synch, and seeing what you are listening to, you wouldn't be able to hear any differences at all. You continue to be full of ****. |
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
Challenge to Krooger
S888Wheel said to ****-for-Brains: You're backward and probably more than a little deaf, particularly at high frequencies. Funny, I ofered to take a hearing test if you did the same so we could compare results. As usual you were chicken ****. Maybe this could be accomplished if you (or somebody else) paid for Turdy's hearing test in advance and promised to send him $25 to compensate him for lost "wages" ;-). What say, Arnii -- just identify the clinic you prefer and post their phone number. I'm sure somebody with a working credit card will call them up double-quick. |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
|
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
Many of the points below I've adressed to my reply to Stewart
Pinkerton, so allow me to snip here and the "Rusty Boudreaux" said: So the best amplifier is the one with the lowest distortion figure and the most watts in an IHF-based load of 8 ohms/2 uF? Always and every case? For pure amplification of audio the technical goal is to reduce all audible effects other than gain to below the level of audibility. I tried to tell that to many recording and mastering engineers, and they laughed me out of the studio :-) To me, an amplifier is just a piece in an entire system, and it might NEED to deviate from the "ideal" amplifier to thrive in that particular system. For you that may be fine. However, I submit it's not the most user friendly arrangement. Searching for a deviant amplifier that is deviant in 'just the right way' to cancel out other system deviations seems counterproductive. Once done you have to get a new amp when you get new speakers or new wire or new this or that. For some of us that's no big deal but it doesn't have to be that way. You're right about this, since I build most of my stuff myself, it's easier for me to say and do. The goal of an ideal amplifier (or an ideal CD player, etc) is to not add audible effects of it's own. Just because I choose a speaker that has high end rolloff doesn't mean I should go searching for a specific amplifier to compensate...that's why EQ are sold. Hence my argument: "even using a tone control deviates from the artist's intent". See how those dogma's don't work? The "intent of the artist" is just as severly changed by the recording engineer, the mastering engineer, Semantics. I submit that the final released form is the intent of the artist or artists. Too bad Bach or Miles Davis are no longer around to ask :-) I've done some recording and mastering myself, and compared raw tracks to the final mix. Many times the performing artists didn't recognize their own particular sound which they heard on stage. Plenty were the reactions like: "Oooh, this sounds way better/worse than I remembered!" Not one time they've asked me to preserve a particular sound because they intended it that way. So much for "artist's intent". YMMV, of course. Unless the liner notes specifically suggest "reproduce with 6dB boost at 12kHz" or "add 3% second harmonic distortion below 5kHz" then I assume the intent was to reproduce the audio with the highest fidelity possible. Yup, and there we go: what is the highest fidelity? I take it you have a Crown Dc300 and JBLs in your listening room, which happens to be an exact reproduction of the mastering room? It is an amplifier (hopefully ideal gain) with tone controls (adjustable frequency response). Nope, it isn't: RB: For pure amplification of audio the technical goal is to reduce RB: all audible effects other than gain to below the level of RB: audibility. The definition is the accepted definition for technical publications. OK. Must it therefor be correct? See my answer to Pinkerton: it is all about personal preference. High Fidelity doesn't exist, there is only My Fidelity. Everyone using anything different from the mastering room is using his personal preference. Unless tone controls correct for a deviation elsewhere in the system I believe they do alter the artist's intent. However, you are free to alter the artist's intent in any way you choose for whatever reason. There goes the idea of hiFi out of the window again. Do you still maintain the position that doing so, is "poorly designing" ? The generally accepted definition of high fidelity audio system is "a playback system for reproducing, as close as possible to the original recording, without alterations other than gain". It's a sliding scale meant for improvements in technology hence "as close as possible". In the limit, it reduces to a system that perfectly reproduces without alterations other than gain. Reproduces WHAT? The original recording? What if I tell you there are zillions of ideas out there about what consists an "original recording"? It just isn't possible to make everything sound like the original, never, ever. Does that mean we should not try? Of course not! But everyone tries it in his own way. One uses tubes, the other BJTs, X uses LPs, Y uses 38 cm/s tape. Or all of the above. My point: it *doesn't matter* what one uses. It's all about *personal preference*. All we know is a given medium has standards. High fidelity means faithfully reproducing the standard accurately as possible. Which means a different set of adjustments for every recording and every medium. Just one single "ideal"amplifier isn't gonna do that. High Fidelity? What's that? Let's take your example to the extreme. My favorite recording was horribly mastered. However, if I use an ACME model 7 amplifier with loopy frequency response then my favorite recording comes out perfect. Great...but what if I want to listen to other recordings that were mastered properly or even differently? They won't sound right. To you? To me? To the artist who is supposed to have an "intention" (other than making money:-) ? If I have an amp that colors just a bit so that most recordings are listenable, is that a good or a bad thing? In the past, I've had an amplifier that was flat from DC to 1 MHz, had THD and IMD I couldn't even measure, and S/N of about -100 dB. I got tired of the sound I got with it (on QUAD ESL57s and several other quality speakers). Rolling my own (tube and solid state) amps, and being able to tweak them to my tastes, made me a happier person. Isn't that what a system is supposed to do? If Joe Sixamp wants to tweak his EQ that's certainly his choice...but it wouldn't technically qualify as a high fidelity audio system. Technically perhaps not. Maybe this is an indication that we're on a road to nowhere with our neverending quest to get things better. Sure, I hope it does. However, pleasure is not a measure of an amplifier's technical capability. Maybe not of the amp by itzelf, but most certainly of the entire system. If a system doesn't give me pleasure, it doesn't meet my needs and as such, has little to no value to me. However, the reproduction or amplification of recorded audio signal is a technical exercise and there are standards, definitions, and goals in doing so. And I'm still not convinced that it's the only right way to do it. I'm not out here to make fun out of engineers, musicians or end-users (heck, I'm all 3 of them!), but I'm trying to make clear that maybe we should look at things from a broader perspective than just strictly technical. It might prove to be fruitful! -- Sander deWaal Vacuum Audio Consultancy |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 22:18:48 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote: Unless the liner notes specifically suggest "reproduce with 6dB boost at 12kHz" or "add 3% second harmonic distortion below 5kHz" then I assume the intent was to reproduce the audio with the highest fidelity possible. Yup, and there we go: what is the highest fidelity? I take it you have a Crown Dc300 and JBLs in your listening room, which happens to be an exact reproduction of the mastering room? This is a really interesting comment. To me, this is exactly Hi-Fi: to listen to the recording as the producer and the engieneer heard it! If that is a Crown and JBL:s, so be it. However, most of my recordings are probably monitored using QUADs or B&W 800s or something similar, and I am rather confident in that my ESL 63s in fact plays back the CD:s roughly as the the producer heard it, with the caveat that the rooms acoustics probably are rather different. I like to hear the music as intended. Period. And to do that, a well made amplifier will do the job nicely. Per. |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
I said Maybe it would help if you set your speakers up right. Arny said Since you've never done a level-matched time-synched, bias-controlled listening test sockpuppet, and hope to never do so, why do you think that your comments are relevant? Since you like to tell lies like this one, why do you think that your comments are any better? Prove me wrong. |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
... The reason high-end audio amplification is so backwater is the consumer base. Can you imagine these advertisements, "IBM's read head amplifiers in our hard drives add a warmth to the GMR field" or "NASA has upgraded the servo positioning amplifier of the Hubble Space Telescope to give that low end boost missing from other tracking systems". With their educated customer base they'd be laughed out of existence. Sorry but this is a ridiculous analogy. Of course it's ridiculous. Unfortunately it's correct. |
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler
I said
Sorry but this is a ridiculous analogy. Rusty said Of course it's ridiculous. Unfortunately it's correct. Maybe you don't know what words mean. When describing an analogy, ridiculous and correct conflict with each other. The analogy is ridiculous it is not correct, unless you are not concerned with the aesthetic values of listening to the rich history of recorded music. |
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler
Arny said Since you've never done a level-matched time-synched, bias-controlled listening test sockpuppet, and hope to never do so, why do you think that your comments are relevant? I said Since you like to tell lies like this one, why do you think that your comments are any better? Arny said Prove me wrong. You should know the facts before making claims about anyone's intentions. You are wrong. You should know that. You are a lyar or you are suffering from memory loss. Given the fact that when asked to prove things you refuse to do so, I see no reason to subject myself to your double standard. Find it yourself asshole. I know the truth and I don't care what you believe. |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler
S888Wheel a écrit :
I said Sorry but this is a ridiculous analogy. Rusty said Of course it's ridiculous. Unfortunately it's correct. Maybe you don't know what words mean. When describing an analogy, ridiculous and correct conflict with each other. The analogy is ridiculous it is not correct, unless you are not concerned with the aesthetic values of listening to the rich history of recorded music. But sometime it works : Scott Wheeler is ridiculous is a correct statement. ;-) As soon as someone is not agree with Scott Wheeler he is : - ridiculous - stupid - idiot - asshole .......... If he wasn't a coward Scott Wheeler would be a dangerous guy. |
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
I said Sorry but this is a ridiculous analogy. Rusty said Of course it's ridiculous. Unfortunately it's correct. Maybe you don't know what words mean. When describing an analogy, ridiculous and correct conflict with each other. ....and according to Freud, the humor is in the conflict. The analogy is ridiculous it is not correct, There's no rule cast in stone that says that an analogy can't also touch on that which is ridiculous. This typical of your compulsive rigidity sockpuppet, a mental problem often seen in worshippers of vinylism and tubism. unless you are not concerned with the aesthetic values of listening to the rich history of recorded music. Of course he's concerned with aesthetic values, which is why he made a humorous comment about people who get way off track by obsessing over anti-science approaches to obtaining high fidelity reproduction. If you had any personal insight sockpuppet, you'd hear yourself being described in what we are saying. I think you do, but your anger is the anger of grief and denial. |
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
Arny said Since you've never done a level-matched time-synched, bias-controlled listening test sockpuppet, and hope to never do so, why do you think that your comments are relevant? I said Since you like to tell lies like this one, why do you think that your comments are any better? Arny said Prove me wrong. You should know the facts before making claims about anyone's intentions. Then present some facts, sockpuppet. You are wrong. About what? If you want to do a level-matched time-synched, bias-controlled listening test, you know where to go. Free, anonymous. You should know that. I know no such thing. You should know the facts before making claims about anyone's intentions. You are a lyar or you are suffering from memory loss. "lyar". Is that a musical instrument? Given the fact that when asked to prove things you refuse to do so, I don't do command performances, especially for arrogant ingrates. I see no reason to subject myself to your double standard. Which double standard might that be? Find it yourself asshole. I know the truth and I don't care what you believe. Prove it. This all looks like yet another one of the attempts to avoid telling the truth, sockpuppet. |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
... I think we are almost saying the same thing. However, we should probably stop wasting our time debating and just agree to disagree. To summarize my position: The AES and IEEE define high fidelity as "a playback system for reproducing, as close as possible to the original recording, without alterations other than gain". In the case of an audio amplifier with preamp type inputs and speaker level outputs this means amplifying the audio signal without adding any audible effects other than gain. A designer can choose to implement an amplifier that modifies the incoming signal and a consumer can prefer that arrangement. However, in the strict technical sense that device does not meet the requirements for a high fidelity amplifier. To make an obscence example, a designer could design an amplifier with a frequency response of only 500Hz to 5kHz with a big sharp null at 2kHz. He doesn't like bass because it bothers his neighbors. High frequencies are eliminated because he thinks they sound harsh and maybe he has an extreme sensitivity to 2kHz sounds due to hearing damage. Even with the weird frequency response this might be a very popular product. However, it does not meet the technical requirements of a high fidelity audio amplifier. -Rusty B. |
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler
Arny Krueger a écrit :
There's no rule cast in stone that says that an analogy can't also touch on that which is ridiculous. This typical of your compulsive rigidity sockpuppet, Rigidity ? It's an euphemism, Scott Wheeler has a broomstick embedded in the ass. :-) |
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler
"Lionel" wrote in message
Arny Krueger a écrit : There's no rule cast in stone that says that an analogy can't also touch on that which is ridiculous. This typical of your compulsive rigidity sockpuppet, Rigidity ? It's an euphemism, Scott Wheeler has a broomstick embedded in the ass. :-) To hear him talk, it's probably made of platinum, silver or gold. Plutonium comes to mind... ;-) |
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
To summarize my position: The AES and IEEE define high fidelity as "a playback system for reproducing, as close as possible to the original recording, without alterations other than gain". In the case of an audio amplifier with preamp type inputs and speaker level outputs this means amplifying the audio signal without adding any audible effects other than gain. Ditto for every dictionary I've looked the phrase "high fidelity" up in, that had an entry for it. A designer can choose to implement an amplifier that modifies the incoming signal and a consumer can prefer that arrangement. Think of a classic guitar amplifier in the style of Fender. However, in the strict technical sense that device does not meet the requirements for a high fidelity amplifier. That's why guitar amps aren't usually sold as hifi amps. However, it's possible that some Carys might make good, albeit low-powered guitar amps. Think of an original Pignose made for trust fund babies. To make an obscene example, a designer could design an amplifier with a frequency response of only 500Hz to 5kHz with a big sharp null at 2kHz. He doesn't like bass because it bothers his neighbors. High frequencies are eliminated because he thinks they sound harsh and maybe he has an extreme sensitivity to 2kHz sounds due to hearing damage. Even with the weird frequency response this might be a very popular product. However, it does not meet the technical requirements of a high fidelity audio amplifier. Today's skill-testing question - which speaker(s) would cause a typical SET deliver that kind of frequency response to it's terminals? ;-) |
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler
Arny Krueger a écrit :
"Lionel" wrote in message Arny Krueger a écrit : There's no rule cast in stone that says that an analogy can't also touch on that which is ridiculous. This typical of your compulsive rigidity sockpuppet, Rigidity ? It's an euphemism, Scott Wheeler has a broomstick embedded in the ass. :-) To hear him talk, it's probably made of platinum, silver or gold. Plutonium comes to mind... ;-) Is plutonium really expensive ? |
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler
"Lionel" wrote in message
Arny Krueger a écrit : "Lionel" wrote in message Arny Krueger a écrit : There's no rule cast in stone that says that an analogy can't also touch on that which is ridiculous. This typical of your compulsive rigidity sockpuppet, Rigidity ? It's an euphemism, Scott Wheeler has a broomstick embedded in the ass. :-) To hear him talk, it's probably made of platinum, silver or gold. Plutonium comes to mind... ;-) Is plutonium really expensive ? The only online catalog I could find is at http://www.irmm.jrc.be . They seem to want something like 250 Euros for 1 mg of Plutonium Nitrate. Liquid forms seem to be just as pricey. Keeping one's flux capacitor charged is not for any but the well-heeled. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Book Review: Home Theater For Everyone: A Practical Guide ; Harley, Holman | General | |||
| When did home theater take over? | Audio Opinions | |||
| Home Theater "Junkyard Wars" | Audio Opinions | |||
| Home theater recommandation please | General | |||
| Home Theater Recommendation | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
