Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
How do you know that "most people" will do this? What percentage of car
audio installs in this country have you seen? Do you have facts and stats to back this claim up? Read marks post about how easy it is to clip an amp. Oh yeah, as for my own system, I never clip my sub amp. It's "oversized" for my needs at a conservative 550 watts. However, when I'm really listening loud, I suspect there is a little clipping by my a/d/s/ P840. It's hard to tell though because my midbass drivers aren't installed very well right now anyway. PS - I'll have pics up if any of you want a good laugh. The installers who did my midbass drivers did such a f'd up job, you'll get a good chuckle. |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
What amp is it and what is the output in rms? Did you buy it new, used or
stolen for $300? Memphis Belle MC1300D 75 watts RMS x 4 at 4 ohms. Class AB 600 watts RMS x 1 at 2 ohms. Class D Lightly used, in good condition. All it takes is a bit of research and some searching. BTW the Class D amp is powering a single Image Dynamics IDQ10. There is plenty of headroom for a good price. Les |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
Oh yeah and why is that ?
You sure are full of questions and yet you refuse to answer any of the ones that I have asked. Could it be that you have dug yourself into a whole and answering my questions honestly will further point out how wrong you are? Les |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
How do you know that "most people" will do this? What percentage of car
audio installs in this country have you seen? Do you have facts and stats to back this claim up? Read marks post about how easy it is to clip an amp. I never said it was not easy to do, but that it is avoidable for the most part. Well in a properly designed and layed out system, but you have never been able to accomplish that so I can see where the point goes over your head. In my experience the people that easily and constantly clip an amp could really care less about SQ, they just want loud. But the "audiophiles" who do not want to clip thier amps often get hung up on SQ and forget about power, and the other actually important things, and end up buying an amp because it "sounds good". But they could get an amp with more power, and likely other key features, for the same money. Les |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
The customer that walks in without
knowing will just go in and get which one "sounds better" but what they will fail to realize is that they could probably have gotten more amp for less money!!!! Yeah if they bought of that was stolen. Have you been hanging out with your buddy Ghee too much? Try putting down the crack pipe for 5 minutes and try again. If it's not avoidable 100% of the time, then by all means it's not avoidable. You can't have it both ways. No it is still avoidable, just keep the volume below the clipping threshold. If you cannot do that then buy a bigger amp. If you cannot afford that then your screwed. And this very much applies to the average customer. It dispells the audio myths surrounding amplifiers so the customer can make informed, educated desicions instead of buying an amp because it "sounds better". Do you not see that point? Are you that dumb? What are you a saleman for SparkOmatic? LOL What are you, head fry maker at McDonalds? I left you some questions that you avoided, again. Do you see the point that I quoted above? If not, what part do you disagree with? Les |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
I'd be interested in hearing what your objection is to this article. The
measured differences bteween the two amplifiers were certainly large enough that they should have sounded different. John, I will keep it short and just hit the major points. 1) Your magazine is biased. Please do not try and deny it, you have to be and I understand that. You have a vested interest in the amps performing differently, you cater to a crowd of, well, stereophiles who expect there to be a difference. If your tests would show that amps do indeed sound the same the you would likely lose readers, which means you would lose money. 2) The article referenced a tube amp vs. a solid state amp. The discussion here has been about SS the entire time, tubes were never included. Nor do they belong in this discussion. 3) The tube amplifier had known frequency dips of up too 1.5dB, noticeable to the human ear. 4) You one of the amps through a pot. Whether or not the pot was audiophile grade or not is irrelevant. What was wrong with the gain adjustments on the amps themselves? 5) Nothing based on science and physics was offered. 6) It is a tube amp vs. solid state, and a tube amp with known freq. dips. Yes I know I already pointed that out, but it is important. Compare apples to apples. I will be happy to clarify anything for you John, just ask. Les |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
If I had four Memphis Belle MC1300D's, I'd still clip them without damaging my
subs. In article , othanks (Soundfreak03) wrote: What amp is it and what is the output in rms? Did you buy it new, used or stolen for $300? Memphis Belle MC1300D 75 watts RMS x 4 at 4 ohms. Class AB 600 watts RMS x 1 at 2 ohms. Class D Lightly used, in good condition. All it takes is a bit of research and some searching. BTW the Class D amp is powering a single Image Dynamics IDQ10. There is plenty of headroom for a good price. Les |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
I'd like him to explain himself.
In article , othanks (Soundfreak03) wrote: Oh yeah and why is that ? You sure are full of questions and yet you refuse to answer any of the ones that I have asked. Could it be that you have dug yourself into a whole and answering my questions honestly will further point out how wrong you are? Les |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
2 JBL BP1200.1s. 2500 watts or so at 2 or 1 ohm on each amp and less than
$500. Paul Vina I've got two pairs of Blaupunkt ODW1200 dual voice-coil they handle 600 watts rms, what cost effective amp do you have in mind? |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
If I had four Memphis Belle MC1300D's, I'd still clip them without
damaging my subs. No way, man! Clipping blows speakers! |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
Then I guess that you would agree that many people can hear a difference
between amps under these conditions. I for one am finding it very hard to find an amp that is sufficient to power my system, never mind cost effective. In article , "Mark Zarella" wrote: since most people do and will clip their amplifiers How do you know that "most people" will do this? What percentage of car audio installs in this country have you seen? Do you have facts and stats to back this claim up? Read marks post about how easy it is to clip an amp. I do agree that many people drive their amplifiers into clipping. It's not difficult. This is easily avoidable, however. The problem is that people either buy amps that are too small for their needs or base their listening habits on the limitations of their equipment (especially bassheads - there's no such thing as "enough" for them). |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
If I had four Memphis Belle MC1300D's, I'd still clip them without damaging
my subs. So? 600 watts RMS into an IDQ10 is plenty loud. As is the 75w RMS to my compenents. Do you have a point to your post? Oh and why have you still not answered any of my questions? I guess your afraid. Les |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
I have twice as much power in my system (pair of mtx 801d's) and I clip those amps without effort. But I'm working on that issue. In article , "Mark Zarella" wrote: How do you know that "most people" will do this? What percentage of car audio installs in this country have you seen? Do you have facts and stats to back this claim up? Read marks post about how easy it is to clip an amp. Oh yeah, as for my own system, I never clip my sub amp. It's "oversized" for my needs at a conservative 550 watts. However, when I'm really listening loud, I suspect there is a little clipping by my a/d/s/ P840. It's hard to tell though because my midbass drivers aren't installed very well right now anyway. PS - I'll have pics up if any of you want a good laugh. The installers who did my midbass drivers did such a f'd up job, you'll get a good chuckle. |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
I'd like him to explain himself.
I would like you to explain yourself. I have asked repeatedly for you to answer simple questions but you still refuse. You must be afraid that you will make yourself look stupid. But don't worry, you do that in every post you make. Les |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
Then I guess that you would agree that many people can hear a difference
between amps under these conditions. It still does not change the fact that one should understand the subject of SQ of an amp. It also does not change they fact that there are more important things to focus on when choosing an amp. Does that concept confuse you? I for one am finding it very hard to find an amp that is sufficient to power my system, never mind cost effective. It would likely be more cost effective than choosing an amp on it's "SQ" which is what the argument is about. Cost effective is relative in this discussion. Les |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
I never said it was not easy to do, but that it is avoidable for the most part. So all amps sound the same for the MOST part. Well in a properly designed and layed out system, but you have never been able to accomplish that so I can see where the point goes over your head. I guess that would be hard to accomplish with a single 250 watt 10 inch sub. We don't play ball in the same ballpark. In my experience the people that easily and constantly clip an amp could really care less about SQ, they just want loud. But the "audiophiles" who do not want to clip thier amps often get hung up on SQ and forget about power, and the other actually important things, and end up buying an amp because it "sounds good". But they could get an amp with more power, and likely other key features, for the same money. If the amp doesn't have the sq that they are looking for they still end up making the wrong choice even if they get an amp with more power, and likely other key features, after all they are buying the amp to satisfy their own liking and not yours. Les |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
|
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
No it is still avoidable, just keep the volume below the clipping threshold. If you cannot do that then buy a bigger amp. If you cannot afford that then your screwed. To fully avoid clipping you'd waste a ****load of power. And this very much applies to the average customer. It dispells the audio myths surrounding amplifiers so the customer can make informed, educated desicions instead of buying an amp because it "sounds better". Do you not see that point? Are you that dumb? What are you a saleman for SparkOmatic? LOL What are you, head fry maker at McDonalds? I left you some questions that you avoided, again. Do you see the point that I quoted above? If not, what part do you disagree with? I'm a crack dealer, just ask your mom. Les |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
2) The article referenced a tube amp vs. a solid state amp. The discussion here has been about SS the entire time, tubes were never included. Nor do they belong in this discussion. As I recall you said that ALL amp sound the same unless clipped. Nothing was ever said about soild state only, and it not like tube amps are not available for car audio. |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
I guess that would be hard to accomplish with a single 250 watt 10 inch sub.
We don't play ball in the same ballpark. I have done the big subs and huge installs plenty of times before. My last vehicle had 4 18" subs and about 4500 watts RMS. This system I wanted stealth in my daily driver and since it is an F-150 the setup I have is perfect and can get uncomfortably loud if I would like. If the amp doesn't have the sq that they are looking for they still end up making the wrong choice even if they get an amp with more power, and likely other key features, after all they are buying the amp to satisfy their own liking and not yours. But SQ is not a factor. Come on dumbass, if you really think it is then be a man and actually tell us why. Quit being a scared little girl and answer the questions I have asked you. If they get an amp with enough power and features then they will be satisfied. If they complain about the sound quality then they are fooling themselves or they have a defective amp. Les |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
That's nothing but your own personal opinion.
But what is not a personal opinion is that when you operate an amp within there linear range they sound the same. Your opinions on the matter are irrelevent as they have been proven false on many occasions. Les |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
To fully avoid clipping you'd waste a ****load of power.
No you wouldn't. I don't think you even fully grasp the concept of clipping and power consumption. You do know what those are correct? Why don't you share. Do you see the point that I quoted above? If not, what part do you disagree with? Remember these questions? You still didn't answer them. You know with how you avoid questions I am starting to think that you and Pugsly are the same person. Both idiots who know very little about car audio, and who are little crybabies who refuse to answer questions because they know that if they answer them honestly then they would prove themselves wrong! Les |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
As I recall you said that ALL amp sound the same unless clipped. Nothing was
ever said about soild state only, and it not like tube amps are not available for car audio. I guess you missed most of the thread. The thread the entire time has been about SS amps, if I said all then it was in relation to the thread topic. Which in this case reflected on SS amps. But I can see how you would get lost in that, you are an idiot. Les |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
I've got two pairs of Blaupunkt ODW1200 dual voice-coil they handle
600 watts rms, what cost effective amp do you have in mind? I don't the model number and price of every amp avaliable off the top of my head. Do your own research and go to the store, I'm sure you'll find something. |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
I for one am finding it very hard to find
an amp that is sufficient to power my system, never mind cost effective. If cost isn't a big issue then how about an Eclipse DA7122? It can make 1000 (RMS) x2 at 2 OHMS. More than enough to drive those Blaupunkts You have numerous other options as well. |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
Oh yeah and why is that ?
Why? There's such a great number of products on the market that it's virtually impossible not to be able to find an amp that will fit your needs without spending a fortune. OTOH, if you by subs designed to take 2000 watts a piece, logic dictates that it's going to cost more to find amps big enough to power those. |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
"Feeling" has nothing to do with SQ dumbass. Do you not understand that?
So you can understand...from zero watts to max power, that Ultimate never made me feel the lows like the Tantrum did at a moderate level So? The other amp did not have the same amount of power as the tantrum. Does that not make sense to you? The power stamped on the amp or box is meaningless. Soundfreak why can't you just explain to him in a nice way that: 1. Regardless of what the "specs" on the box say the amps aren't close to being identical. 2. It's true he heard the diff. Reason is you said: the PG has more power! 3. When he means SQ he is trying to tell you he doesn't know why or what but that for whatever reason the PG sounds better. 4. HE DOESN'T understand the power rating isn't even close, he is READING what the specs are off the box. Therefore he assumes one amp is "better sq" than the other because, well, sh1t, it sounds better. Drums are more defined - hmmm I'm no expert but sounds like LACK OF POWER not SQ. 5. HE doesn't understand "zero watts to max power". Will, You are not "turning up watts" on the amp as you increase the volume on the HU. You are simply increasing the voltage of the input so it gets louder. The amp has no volume knob, it's how much you feed it! So when you feed an elephant and a dog the same food the same amount of sh1t comes out but one is a bit wider and thinner and the other longer and skinnier. Jeez what am I talking about? Will, If you put a more powerful amp at "such low volume it barely moves the speakers" it will sound better than a less powerful one. But that doesn't mean one amp has better SQ than the other but rather more power. The PG has more power than the othe amp. Stuff written on the box lies. Soundfreak, Look I'm not saying you're wrong man because you ain't but sometimes you just got to explain it to folk in way he understand cuz he don't. Z |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
2) The article referenced a tube amp vs. a solid state amp. The
discussion here has been about SS the entire time, tubes were never included. Nor do they belong in this discussion. As I recall you said that ALL amp sound the same unless clipped. Nothing was ever said about soild state only, and it not like tube amps are not available for car audio. I don't know about Les, but I've always explicitly referred to solid-state amps. I assumed he did too. Doesn't matter much though. Those butler amps are barely tube amps. If I'm not mistaken, they still have solid-state preamps and are too clean to be distinguished from their SS counterparts. But don't quote me on that. |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
Our listening habits are quite different. Sometimes the bass is too much
for me. I have twice as much power in my system (pair of mtx 801d's) and I clip those amps without effort. But I'm working on that issue. In article , "Mark Zarella" wrote: How do you know that "most people" will do this? What percentage of car audio installs in this country have you seen? Do you have facts and stats to back this claim up? Read marks post about how easy it is to clip an amp. Oh yeah, as for my own system, I never clip my sub amp. It's "oversized" for my needs at a conservative 550 watts. However, when I'm really listening loud, I suspect there is a little clipping by my a/d/s/ P840. It's hard to tell though because my midbass drivers aren't installed very well right now anyway. PS - I'll have pics up if any of you want a good laugh. The installers who did my midbass drivers did such a f'd up job, you'll get a good chuckle. |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
I don't know about Les, but I've always explicitly referred to solid-state
amps. I assumed he did too. That was my assumption and understanding that the discussion was about SS amps. The OP talked about SS amps, and all the amps refered to within have been SS amps. Not to mention that tube amps are not common in any way shape or fashion. But howdy gets confused easily so there you go. Les |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
Soundfreak why can't you just explain to him in a nice way that:
I tried. Read the first couple of days of posting. But after finding a few different ways of explaining it, it became quite obvious that Will was not going to understand unless he actually read what I wrote. 2. It's true he heard the diff. Reason is you said: the PG has more power! Most likely, or crossover differences. I told him that I believed he heard a difference but what he attributed to was wrong. Soundfreak, Look I'm not saying you're wrong man because you ain't but sometimes you just got to explain it to folk in way he understand cuz he don't. I did explain it in many different ways to him. He chose not to listen.I was even nice for a couple of days, a rarity for me. I have a fairly low tolerence for noobs who do not listen and insist on arguing without any proof. It became clear early on that Will was not going to get it. Les |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
Aw, I made poor little SoundFag angry, lol So, SQ has nothing to do with "feeling"? Wow. So 20 to 30hz note aren't supposed to feel like anything huh, lol. SoundFag: Boohoo, after all my precious time of researching Car Audi some guy still doesn't agree with me. Boohoo. Everything I say is fact although I can't prove it, and he still won't agree with me Boohoo. Dammit, that's it, anyone who doesn't agree with ME "The Al Mighty SoundFag" is a noob or an idiot. Your a joke,lol! How many times must I say "don't respond to my posts", or "Give it up" Now, simply put, a person who can't understand those 2 sentences, o atleast one of them,lol, is the REAL IDIOT. LOL!! Hmmm...SoundFag : Well since your to much of a big-headed bit(h to understand "don' respond to my posts", or "Give it up", let me explain it a littl different for people who rode the short bus to school like you If your still confused :confused Here is a very simple 3-step procedure for getting off my di(k. It goe as follows 1) Re-open your mout 2) Remove my ballz from your jaw 3) And slowly step away from my sac Understand now? SoundFag you are a joke, you FAG [laughing - Will_Skill ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted via RealCarAudio.com - The checkmate of the caraudio community http://www.RealCarAudio.co Will_Skillz's Profile: http://www.realcaraudio.com/forums/m...nfo&userid=118 View this thread: http://www.realcaraudio.com/forums/s...?threadid=4551 |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
othanks (Soundfreak03) wrote in message
... John Atkinson wrote in message : (Soundfreak03) wrote in message ... http://www.stereophile.com/features/113/ You have got to be kidding me right? You are not actually going to try and use this for a reference. I'd be interested in hearing what your objection is to this article. The measured differences bteween the two amplifiers were certainly large enough that they should have sounded different. 1) Your magazine is biased. Please do not try and deny it... But you are biased, too, Les. As is everybody. It is dirty pool for you to try to make your point by attacking those you are arguing with instead of addressing their arguments. In the case of this 1989 test I took the appropriate steps to ensure that any beliefs I might have did not influence the test results. While I designed the test, I used an independent operator who was hidden both from me and from the audience, and I had the test results analyzed by a third party. I also offered the complete test results in the article for others to examine and draw their own conclusions. 2) The article referenced a tube amp vs. a solid state amp. The discussion here has been about SS the entire time, tubes were never included. Nor do they belong in this discussion. Amplifiers are amplifiers. I don't believe that tubes can add any "magic." If you wish to exclude amplifiers that sound different from this discussion, then you have every right to do so, except that your position then devolves to "amplifiers sound the same unless they sound different," which is not very helpful. 3) The tube amplifier had known frequency dips of up too 1.5dB [when hooked up the speakers in the test], noticeable to the human ear. Yes. I pointed that out in the article. Amplifiers differ considerably in the source impedances, which is why I measure this for every amplifier that is reviewed in Stereophile and show the change in frequency response you get with the amplifier driving a simulated loudspeaker load. 4) You one of the amps through a pot. Whether or not the pot was audiophile grade or not is irrelevant. What was wrong with the gain adjustments on the amps themselves? First, any comparison between amplifiers that does not match levels is invalid. And as neither amplifier had any gain adjustment controls, one had to have its sensitivity reduced with an external pot. There was no measured reason why this pot disadvantaged the amplifier. 5) Nothing based on science and physics was offered. With all due respect, this is simply argument by assertion, just as you did above when you dissed the test on the grounds that I am "biased." What, specifically, in this 1989 test and article was not "based on science and physics"? Regarding the questions raised by others in this thread about this amplifier comparison, the amplifiers were not clipped and their noise floors were not factors in the auditioning. Those interested in tests like this should also read http://www.stereophile.com/features/587. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
"John Atkinson" wrote in message 1) Your magazine is biased. Please do not try and deny it... But you are biased, too, Les. As is everybody. It is dirty pool for you to try to make your point by attacking those you are arguing with instead of addressing their arguments. John, Calm down, that was not an attack, rather a statement of the truth. And sure I am biased, I have always freely admitted that!! But my bias' really only affect me. The magazine industry has to have bias' and because of those you have to give your target audience, audiophiles in this case, what they want. And I could not address your arguments because you did not give any. You merely asked what I did not like and I told you. In the case of this 1989 test I took the appropriate steps to ensure that any beliefs I might have did not influence the test results. While I designed the test, I used an independent operator who was hidden both from me and from the audience, and I had the test results analyzed by a third party. I also offered the complete test results in the article for others to examine and draw their own conclusions. I never questioned your test results. And yes you did offer the evidence, but you know damn good and well that the layout, order, and wording will affect the way most people interpret the results. Not to mention that the article is fairly one-sided. But that is ok, I did not even bring it up the first time but you did this time so I'll discuss it. 2) The article referenced a tube amp vs. a solid state amp. The discussion here has been about SS the entire time, tubes were never included. Nor do they belong in this discussion. Amplifiers are amplifiers. I don't believe that tubes can add any "magic." If you wish to exclude amplifiers that sound different from this discussion, then you have every right to do so, except that your position then devolves to "amplifiers sound the same unless they sound different," which is not very helpful. And there is the typical magazine writers spin on what was said. The discussion has always been about SS amps, it will continue to be so. Tubes are unpredictable, they age, some well and others not so. As time goes on tubes can start to lose some of thier freq. response. Again, not all but some do, it really depends on the tube in question. Not that those automatically apply to your amp in the test but does apply to tube amps in general, which could include your test subject. Tube amps are also way more impedence senstive than SS amps. Comparing tube amps to SS is not the same. Tube amps are allowed to slide in thier tolerences moreso than SS amps. But all of that aside, what Mark, myself, and others have been refering to in this thread is SS. Next time I will make sure I explicity point that out for everyone a hundred times over. 3) The tube amplifier had known frequency dips of up too 1.5dB [when hooked up the speakers in the test], noticeable to the human ear. Yes. I pointed that out in the article. Amplifiers differ considerably in the source impedances, which is why I measure this for every amplifier that is reviewed in Stereophile and show the change in frequency response you get with the amplifier driving a simulated loudspeaker load. You showed important data at the end. How long have you been writing for magazines? Obviously several years, and you know that by the time people get to page 6 of the article thier minds have been virtually made up. What I would like to have seen, and this is me, is all of the data up front. Give the explanation of how the tests were conducted, then give the amplifiers measured specs, then show the data with little commentary. Then you and the other guy can go in and give your interpretations of the results, after the reader has had time to absorb what all is seen and process it. Maybe that format is not good for a magazine, I don't read that many, and you would know better about that. But at the very least you should have presented "the other side" as it were and allowed someone from the amps sound the same camp to chime in. That is one of the problems with mags and those news specials like Dateline, rarely do you get to see the other side!! Watch one of those court specials on dateline just once, halfway through you are usually thinking "Well he is innocent, just look at the evidence". Well, you think that until you hear the other side and then he looks pretty guilty. Similar situation to your article. 4) You one of the amps through a pot. Whether or not the pot was audiophile grade or not is irrelevant. What was wrong with the gain adjustments on the amps themselves? First, any comparison between amplifiers that does not match levels is invalid. And as neither amplifier had any gain adjustment controls, one had to have its sensitivity reduced with an external pot. There was no measured reason why this pot disadvantaged the amplifier. Good, but you still introduced something into the signal. To be safe I would have installed a pot on the other amps. BTW those things can pick up slight noise that comes and goes, even "audiophile grade" whatever that means. RF can especially be bad. Not saying that happened but you did set yourselves up for the chance. But I do not believe this was signifigant to this particular test, I just do not feel it is a good idea. 5) Nothing based on science and physics was offered. With all due respect, this is simply argument by assertion, just as you did above when you dissed the test on the grounds that I am "biased." What, specifically, in this 1989 test and article was not "based on science and physics"? None of the interpretations were based on those things. Perhaps the electrical and mechanical aspects were. But you do not actually provide scientific reasoning for your interps. Noone answers the questions I ask below. Your magazine HAS TO cater to it's target audience, that is how business works. By that you have a vested interest in seeing that 2 amps sound different (Yes, I know I have interests in the opposite, but my interests do not hurt magazine sales ) . So you choose amps that are in 2 different worlds, tubes vs. solid state. Not only that you have a tube amp with noticeable freq. dips!! Of course there will be large number that can pick that difference up. But what happens when you take 2 SS amps and match them up in the test? I have measured and seen measured a considerable number of SS amps. You get to answer the million dollar question. (Typical level matching etc. applies, same as in your test) How can amps whose specs (freq. response, slew rate, things that contribute to "SQ") are close enough, to the point where humans cannot detect the difference, sound different? How can you hear a sizzle or presence in comparing amps when they have the same freq. response? How can the notes blur together when the factors that would contribute to that are way above what we could ever detect? I am just waiting for someone to give me some answers to those. John, as a note, I at times come across and a little, well, brash. And alot of times that is intentional. Keep a couple of things in mind. I think you are a highly intelligent individual and know alot about audio. I do admire that you put up a good argument to "the other side" and that I can tolerate and handle. It is when you get the noobs like Will and Howdy that play the argument of " I heard it" and refuse to answer questions that you get tired of it, but a good discussion is a welcome change. Les At work. |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
1) Your magazine is biased. Please do not try and deny it...
But you are biased, too, Les. As is everybody. It is dirty pool for you to try to make your point by attacking those you are arguing with instead of addressing their arguments. In the case of this 1989 test I took the appropriate steps to ensure that any beliefs I might have did not influence the test results. While I designed the test, I used an independent operator who was hidden both from me and from the audience, and I had the test results analyzed by a third party. I also offered the complete test results in the article for others to examine and draw their own conclusions. I agree with you, John. You went to all the steps necessary to remove bias sufficiently. Perhaps Les meant something to the effect of "your magazine is biased, so if the opposite conclusion was reached it never would have been published." 2) The article referenced a tube amp vs. a solid state amp. The discussion here has been about SS the entire time, tubes were never included. Nor do they belong in this discussion. Amplifiers are amplifiers. I don't believe that tubes can add any "magic." If you wish to exclude amplifiers that sound different from this discussion, then you have every right to do so, except that your position then devolves to "amplifiers sound the same unless they sound different," which is not very helpful. Tube amps are notorious for having higher harmonic distortion levels at high output levels with a more concentrated spectral content than their solid state counterparts. How significant was this distortion in this test? I don't know. I've never benched the amp in question. It's also not uncommon for there to be funny frequency response characteristics. I didn't see any freq response graphs for this amp either. Saying there was a 1.5dB dip without telling me the bandwidth of the dip and the location of the dip doesn't tell me anything. 4) You one of the amps through a pot. Whether or not the pot was audiophile grade or not is irrelevant. What was wrong with the gain adjustments on the amps themselves? First, any comparison between amplifiers that does not match levels is invalid. And as neither amplifier had any gain adjustment controls, one had to have its sensitivity reduced with an external pot. There was no measured reason why this pot disadvantaged the amplifier. You didn't provide us with any measurements of the pot. That's why I said you should have used pots for both amplifiers and measured both of them. 5) Nothing based on science and physics was offered. With all due respect, this is simply argument by assertion, just as you did above when you dissed the test on the grounds that I am "biased." What, specifically, in this 1989 test and article was not "based on science and physics"? Looks like it's based on science to me. I think Les may have been referring to your lack of an explanation for the differences. But that's not really necessary for you to do. It would just be conjecture anyway, because you didn't provide a measurement correlation. Regarding the questions raised by others in this thread about this amplifier comparison, the amplifiers were not clipped and their noise floors were not factors in the auditioning. Those interested in tests like this should also read http://www.stereophile.com/features/587. How do you know that the noise floors were not issues? Did you measure? In addition, I'm still concerned with your test for significance. It appears you just used chi-square, but I'm not necessarily sure that's a valid test as it assumes independence. I'd have to think that one over. |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
|
#158
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
|
#159
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
I have an Orion 2100HCCA that I want to install to run each pair. Right now I'm looking for a matching Orion 2100HCCA for a fair price, another problem is that this amp as been remodeled 3 or 4 times over the years which makes it even harder to find a match. I'm half way there. In article , (Steve Grauman) wrote: I for one am finding it very hard to find an amp that is sufficient to power my system, never mind cost effective. If cost isn't a big issue then how about an Eclipse DA7122? It can make 1000 (RMS) x2 at 2 OHMS. More than enough to drive those Blaupunkts You have numerous other options as well. |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
Amps, more argument!
If you like a totally balanced system with a lot of sq then my system would make you sick, it's anything but that. But if you like system that will rattle your head and turn heads as you're driving by, it a dream come true. In article , "Mark Zarella" wrote: Our listening habits are quite different. Sometimes the bass is too much for me. I have twice as much power in my system (pair of mtx 801d's) and I clip those amps without effort. But I'm working on that issue. In article , "Mark Zarella" wrote: How do you know that "most people" will do this? What percentage of car audio installs in this country have you seen? Do you have facts and stats to back this claim up? Read marks post about how easy it is to clip an amp. Oh yeah, as for my own system, I never clip my sub amp. It's "oversized" for my needs at a conservative 550 watts. However, when I'm really listening loud, I suspect there is a little clipping by my a/d/s/ P840. It's hard to tell though because my midbass drivers aren't installed very well right now anyway. PS - I'll have pics up if any of you want a good laugh. The installers who did my midbass drivers did such a f'd up job, you'll get a good chuckle. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
amps, amps, amps | Car Audio | |||
Tons of stuff to sell - amps, head unit, processors, etc. | Car Audio | |||
Garage sale still going - added new stuff. | Car Audio | |||
Geo's garage sale - Good stuff for cheap! | Car Audio | |||
Physically small amps? | Car Audio |