Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#281
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message ... To show the design idea, and the design idea is shared with A/B amps. In terms of crossover distortion (the point that YOU brought up), no, they don't share design ideas. In fact, class A/B was devised specifically to set the two classes apart. No, A/B reduces crossover distortion. |
#282
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message ... Oh my. Another one. Keep playing with our oscilloscope, you're learning a lot. Which part of my post do you disagree with? Why would you assume I disagreed with anything you said? Because you responded to it with a snide comment. Yeah, but there could have been any number of reasons for that. I completely agree that you don't know anything about tube amps in cars. I suspect this is yet another one of your posts where you reply just to take the focus off of your ignorance. Now you're getting warm! The point of the post was to point out your ignorance on the issue of tube amps in cars. You're a hoot! I'm also ignorant of purple unicorns. Like tube amps in cars, they don't exist. Moron. |
#283
|
|||
|
|||
To show the design idea, and the design idea is shared with A/B amps.
In terms of crossover distortion (the point that YOU brought up), no, they don't share design ideas. In fact, class A/B was devised specifically to set the two classes apart. No, A/B reduces crossover distortion. That's what I said. Learn to read. The entire point of class A/B is to eliminate crossover distortion. Since it's impossible to bias perfectly, some crossover distortion results. It's insignificant, as many reports have shown. So, no, they don't share design ideas in regards to crossover distortion. One design is willing to accept it; the other is designed specifically to eliminate it. |
#284
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message news To show the design idea, and the design idea is shared with A/B amps. In terms of crossover distortion (the point that YOU brought up), no, they don't share design ideas. In fact, class A/B was devised specifically to set the two classes apart. No, A/B reduces crossover distortion. That's what I said. Learn to read. The entire point of class A/B is to eliminate crossover distortion. Since it's impossible to bias perfectly, some crossover distortion results. It's insignificant, as many reports have shown. So, no, they don't share design ideas in regards to crossover distortion. One design is willing to accept it; the other is designed specifically to eliminate it. What a total load of crap, and backpedaling. A/B was not designed to eliminate crossover distortion. What a load of horse****. Class A amplifiers already did that. The output devices conduct all the time. Class B was designed to be more efficient. Class A/B was designed to compromise, not to eliminate crossover distortion. The design that eliminates crossover distortion already existed! So yes, by their very design (not conducting all the time), class A/B amplifiers share the same problem with class B amplifiers, just to a lesser extent. |
#285
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message news Don't mess in Les's playground or he'll get mad! If he says you can't talk about tube amps, you can't! Of course, you could use a tube car amp, but don't confuse him with facts like that. This is rec.AUDIO.car. Tube car amp? Is that anything like your class B car amp? By the way, you nicely dodged the issue of class D amps that was mentioned. I supposed you'll deny the existence of those too, and claim they sound literally perfect, just like all the other amps in the world. |
#286
|
|||
|
|||
jeffc wrote: you 2 cyborgs make fools out of yourselves. |
#287
|
|||
|
|||
jeffc wrote: Moron. |
#288
|
|||
|
|||
jeffc wrote: "What a total load of crap |
#289
|
|||
|
|||
I have a pair of nice dynamotors if anyone needs high voltage for their
output stage! "MZ" wrote in message news Tube car amp? Is that anything like your class B car amp? No. What's your point other than getting excited about your post show up on Usenet? My point is that such an animal doesn't exist. You felt the need to introduce crossover distortion into the conversation, even though class B designs aren't available in the car. Now it appears you'll be going the same route with the tube amp argument, since you hassled Les about excluding them from the conversation. |
#290
|
|||
|
|||
Scott, well I assume this is Scott and not Barb.
I take it you have tube amps in your car? How reliable have they been, and what kind of roads/driving conditions do they see? How effecient are they? From your first post I assume to you the tube amps sound better, but is the quality difference noticeable going down the road? BTW, I am not trying to argue with you I have just never talked with anyone that has had all tube amps in their car. Les "scott and barb" . wrote in message link.net... Sounds like you need one of them there single-endeds..Seriously, though find an old 6bq5 amp push-pull approx 12 watts per channel with decent output transformers on those Klipschorns.....Typically great midrange..... "Trader" wrote in message t... Well I agree with everything you wrote. However, there are many here who believe that amps all sound the same. This doesn't make sense because how could an amp with a superior circuit design and premium parts sound the same as a RadioShack special. I've personally have auditioned many amps on my Klipschorns and can testify that all amps don't sound the same. I don't buy into the theory that distortion is what I'm hearing because even at moderate levels I can hear a substantial difference. I'm sure that some speakers are not revealing enough to hear much of a difference but with Klipschorns you hear everything that is present. My Father in-law is an engineer and he has a cheap Bose system and it sounds like ****. He laughed when I bought a tube amp for my Klipschorns and thought that it couldn't possibly sound good. Well it sounded amazing although I still prefer my SS amp. But yeah believe what you want and buy the low-end gear if it makes you happy. "jeffc" wrote in message ... "jeffc" wrote in message ... Like I said to begin with, believe it or not, weight is a pretty decent indicator of quality (including power output and headroom.) Of course, we're not talking about tube amps here. Having said that, check out this. Again, search on "weight" http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/875/ Heh heh. |
#291
|
|||
|
|||
"Les" wrote in message ... ? BTW, I am not trying to argue with you... That'll start after you tell him it "sounds good". |
#292
|
|||
|
|||
What a total load of crap, and backpedaling. A/B was not designed to eliminate
crossover distortion. What a load of horse****. Class A amplifiers already did that. The output devices conduct all the time. Class B was designed to be more efficient. Class A/B was designed to compromise, not to eliminate crossover distortion. There's no compromise necessary, when class A/B eliminates crossover distortion while being much more efficient in the process. According to Merriam-Webster, compromise means "a settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions." As much as your stereo review magazines would like to claim, there is no mutual concession. Class A does not offer anything that class A/B does not. As I said already, yet you felt the need to argue with anyway, class A/B offers all the benefits of class B, but eliminates crossover distortion in the process. |
#293
|
|||
|
|||
By the way, you nicely dodged the issue of class D amps that was mentioned. I
supposed you'll deny the existence of those too, and claim they sound literally perfect, just like all the other amps in the world. That's because they do. Find me one class D amp that exhibits an audible level of distortion prior to the onset of clipping (like that terminology better? I put it that way to avoid a 15-post discussion on the merits of using the term popular in the field) and within the frequency band recommended by the manufacturer. |
#294
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message news What a total load of crap, and backpedaling. A/B was not designed to eliminate crossover distortion. What a load of horse****. Class A amplifiers already did that. The output devices conduct all the time. Class B was designed to be more efficient. Class A/B was designed to compromise, not to eliminate crossover distortion. There's no compromise necessary, when class A/B eliminates crossover distortion while being much more efficient in the process. No, it doesn't. Class A does not offer anything that class A/B does not. Yes, it does. As I said already, yet you felt the need to argue with anyway, class A/B offers all the benefits of class B, but eliminates crossover distortion in the process. No, it doesn't. Read the Conclusions section. http://www.aikenamps.com/CrossoverDistortion.htm |
#295
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message news By the way, you nicely dodged the issue of class D amps that was mentioned. I supposed you'll deny the existence of those too, and claim they sound literally perfect, just like all the other amps in the world. That's because they do. Find me one class D amp that exhibits an audible level of distortion prior to the onset of clipping (like that terminology better? They use class D amps almost exclusively as subwoofer amplifiers precisely for the reason that they sound crappy at any higher frequency. |
#296
|
|||
|
|||
There's no compromise necessary, when class A/B eliminates crossover
distortion while being much more efficient in the process. No, it doesn't. As you've agreed (and as I can prove in at least two papers I can think of that were published in Wireless World), crossover distortion is decreased to negligible levels in a typical class A/B design. Well below the 1% minimum value that's cited in the literature as a working threshold of audibility for crossover distortion (want the reference? how about the pdf?). Class A does not offer anything that class A/B does not. Yes, it does. Ok, I'll bite. What does it offer that A/B does not? As I said already, yet you felt the need to argue with anyway, class A/B offers all the benefits of class B, but eliminates crossover distortion in the process. No, it doesn't. Read the Conclusions section. http://www.aikenamps.com/CrossoverDistortion.htm Sorry, even your link agrees with me (why is it you always post websites as links, while my references are original studies published in peer-reviewed journals?). It says "As can be seen from the pictures, a class AB amplifier can produce a varying amount of crossover distortion, depending upon where the bias point is set." This is what I've said all along. I said that the only way you can get a significant (read: audible) level of crossover distortion out of a class A/B amp is if your bias is out of whack. Please show me a car amplifier that comes off the line with the bias out of whack. It manifests itself in the form of THD under most measurements, so in order for this to be audible, the THD of the amplifier would have to be greater than 1% and crossover distortion must be demonstrated to be the culprit. |
#297
|
|||
|
|||
That's because they do. Find me one class D amp that exhibits an audible
level of distortion prior to the onset of clipping (like that terminology better? They use class D amps almost exclusively as subwoofer amplifiers precisely for the reason that they sound crappy at any higher frequency. The distortion content is proportional to the frequency in class D amplifiers because of the way they work. They're designed for low frequencies because the effective pwm freq is low enough to impinge upon high frequency signals. But it's moot, because there's typically a LPF at the output of these amps anyway. |
#298
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message news No, it doesn't. Read the Conclusions section. http://www.aikenamps.com/CrossoverDistortion.htm Sorry, even your link agrees with me (why is it you always post websites as links, while my references are original studies published in peer-reviewed journals?). It says "As can be seen from the pictures, a class AB amplifier can produce a varying amount of crossover distortion, depending upon where the bias point is set." This is what I've said all along. You just said "class A/B eliminates crossover distortion". Jesus, what a moron. |
#299
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message news That's because they do. Find me one class D amp that exhibits an audible level of distortion prior to the onset of clipping (like that terminology better? They use class D amps almost exclusively as subwoofer amplifiers precisely for the reason that they sound crappy at any higher frequency. The distortion content is proportional to the frequency in class D amplifiers because of the way they work. Duh! |
#300
|
|||
|
|||
You just said "class A/B eliminates crossover distortion". Jesus, what a
moron. Man, you're slow. I said "Since it's impossible to bias perfectly, some crossover distortion results. It's insignificant, as many reports have shown." |
#301
|
|||
|
|||
|
#302
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message news You just said "class A/B eliminates crossover distortion". Jesus, what a moron. Man, you're slow. I said "Since it's impossible to bias perfectly, some crossover distortion results. It's insignificant, as many reports have shown." You said "class A/B eliminates crossover distortion". You're wrong, again, and backpedaling as fast as possible. |
#303
|
|||
|
|||
Man, you're slow. I said "Since it's impossible to bias perfectly,
some crossover distortion results. It's insignificant, as many reports have shown." You said "class A/B eliminates crossover distortion". You're wrong, again, and backpedaling as fast as possible. Again, you selectively choose quotes and try to remove context from the equation. In the process, you try to suggest that I meant that there was ZERO distortion (rather than negligible distortion) DESPITE THE FACT THAT I ALREADY STATED THERE WAS DISTORTION, as the quote I provided *proves*. So this is about the 10th time you've been proven wrong in this thread, and you've resorted to setting up a strawman yet again. You may be the most illogical person I've ever encountered in USENET newsgroups. Congratulations. |
#304
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message news Man, you're slow. I said "Since it's impossible to bias perfectly, some crossover distortion results. It's insignificant, as many reports have shown." You said "class A/B eliminates crossover distortion". You're wrong, again, and backpedaling as fast as possible. Again, you selectively choose quotes and try to remove context from the equation. In the process, you try to suggest that I meant that there was ZERO distortion (rather than negligible distortion) DESPITE THE FACT THAT I ALREADY STATED THERE WAS DISTORTION, as the quote I provided *proves*. So this is about the 10th time you've been proven wrong in this thread, Are you joking? You're the one who said class A/B design eliminated crossover distortion. If you meant it eliminated it to "negligible levels", then that means class B amps exhibit audible distortion. But according to you, no such amps exist. Now go back to watching your Cracker Jack oscilloscope, while the rest of us talk about how music actually sounds. |
#305
|
|||
|
|||
Are you joking? You're the one who said class A/B design eliminated
crossover distortion. If you meant it eliminated it to "negligible levels", then that means class B amps exhibit audible distortion. Huh? Negligible is not the same as audible. In fact, negligible, or the term that I've been consistently using in this thread "insignificant", implies inaudible. And, when the terms are defined in this thread to mean that exactly, as I've already done, then there's no other conclusion that you can reach - unless your goal is to be disingenuous, which by now is clearly the case. Can't you go peddle your bull**** elsewhere? For days, you haven't even been discussing the issue. You've been trying to play the semantics game, trying to suggest that I've meant things that I CLEARLY don't mean (by "clearly", I mean that each time you've suggested I meant something that I didn't, I've provided QUOTES that PROVE otherwise). Any facts that have been offered to you have gone completely ignored, thinking that you know more than the experts whose names you'd only recognize because they happen to have ended up as the brand names of the equipment you buy. I've offered original research papers to you in pdf form on several occasions, yet you have absolutely no interest in learning something new from experts who are published in respected peer-reviewed audio journals. Keep playing your word games if you'd like. I'll have no more of it. |
#306
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message news Are you joking? You're the one who said class A/B design eliminated crossover distortion. If you meant it eliminated it to "negligible levels", then that means class B amps exhibit audible distortion. Huh? Negligible is not the same as audible. In fact, negligible, or the term that I've been consistently using in this thread "insignificant", implies inaudible. And, when the terms are defined in this thread to mean that exactly, as I've already done, then there's no other conclusion that you can reach - unless your goal is to be disingenuous, which by now is clearly the case. Can't you go peddle your bull**** elsewhere? For days, you haven't even been discussing the issue. You've been trying to play the semantics game, trying to suggest that I've meant things that I CLEARLY don't mean (by "clearly", I mean that each time you've suggested I meant something that I didn't, I've provided QUOTES that PROVE otherwise). Any facts that have been offered to you have gone completely ignored, thinking that you know more than the experts whose names you'd only recognize because they happen to have ended up as the brand names of the equipment you buy. I've offered original research papers to you in pdf form on several occasions, yet you have absolutely no interest in learning something new from experts who are published in respected peer-reviewed audio journals. Keep playing your word games if you'd like. I'll have no more of it. That is all he knows how to do. He refuses to answer questions and the only thing he can do is play the semantics game. Yet, when I call him on his own BS he doesn't want to play anymore. I also like how he does not address Tom's most recent post saying that of the hundreds of tests, properly done, and thousands of people that people cannot hear the difference. Funny how he refuses to respond to the facts. Les |
#307
|
|||
|
|||
"Les" wrote in message ... I also like how he does not address Tom's most recent post saying that of the hundreds of tests, properly done, and thousands of people that people cannot hear the difference. Funny how he refuses to respond to the facts. Why respond? His post made sense. He reported some results, I reported some results. He's right and I'm right. But he never tried to tell me what happened didn't happen, unlike you 2 clowns. Now go watch your music, since you obviously don't listen to it. |
#308
|
|||
|
|||
"jeffc" wrote in message m... "Les" wrote in message ... I also like how he does not address Tom's most recent post saying that of the hundreds of tests, properly done, and thousands of people that people cannot hear the difference. Funny how he refuses to respond to the facts. Why respond? His post made sense. He reported some results, I reported some results. He's right and I'm right. But he never tried to tell me what happened didn't happen, unlike you 2 clowns. Now go watch your music, since you obviously don't listen to it. Bad day at McDonalds? If you had any reading comprehension skills it would be plain to see that Tom is refuting your claims with valid, published data. You both cannot be right on the issue. There either is a difference or there is not a difference. I never doubted that you heard differences, or thought you did, but you did not implement the proper controls to your "tests" for them to have been valid comparisons. What he said was that "for most practical purposes 'amps is amps'". That goes in direct contrast to what you are saying. But since you couldn't play semantics nor provide data to back your claim up you just choose not to respond. Oh, and have you had any luck getting speaker wires to pick up ground loops yet? Once you do let us know so we can rewrite physics. Les |
#309
|
|||
|
|||
"Les" wrote in message ... \ If you had any reading comprehension skills it would be plain to see that Tom is refuting your claims with valid, published data. No, he didn't. You both cannot be right on the issue. What exactly did he write that contradicts what I wrote? There either is a difference or there is not a difference. I never doubted that you heard differences, or thought you did, but you did not implement the proper controls to your "tests" for them to have been valid comparisons. Yes, I did. What he said was that "for most practical purposes 'amps is amps'". That goes in direct contrast to what you are saying. No, it didn't. I heard a difference between 2 amps. Just because you 2 guys have never experienced the same thing, and many others have never experienced the same, amounts to exactly this: nothing. I've also heard the difference between 2 CD players, which is actually more relevant since 1 of them could actually have been used in a car. There are also plenty of pieces of audio gear that I couldn't distinguish. And I also happen to know there are plenty of people who couldn't hear a difference where I did. Don't blame me for your crappy hearing. Now go back to playing with your oscilloscope and let those of us who know what we're doing do the actual music listening. Oh, and have you had any luck getting speaker wires to pick up ground loops yet? I thought you didn't like playing semantics. Or should I say, just plain lying. Nice try, again. |
#310
|
|||
|
|||
What he said was that "for most practical
purposes 'amps is amps'". That goes in direct contrast to what you are saying. No, it didn't. I heard a difference between 2 amps. Just because you 2 guys have never experienced the same thing, and many others have never experienced the same, amounts to exactly this: nothing. As I said before, this is groundbreaking information. You should try to publish this data as a service to the audio community. |
#311
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message news What he said was that "for most practical purposes 'amps is amps'". That goes in direct contrast to what you are saying. No, it didn't. I heard a difference between 2 amps. Just because you 2 guys have never experienced the same thing, and many others have never experienced the same, amounts to exactly this: nothing. As I said before, this is groundbreaking information. No, it's not. You should try to publish this data as a service to the audio community. I already posted it here for the RAC community. |
#312
|
|||
|
|||
As I said before, this is groundbreaking information.
No, it's not. Since the general concensus in the audio community, at least in terms of what has been published in peer-reviewed journals, is contrary to your findings, then yes it is groundbreaking. It directly challenges the data that some very well established players in the industry have collected. You should try to publish this data as a service to the audio community. I already posted it here for the RAC community. There is, of course, a difference. I'm sure I don't have to point out what it is. |
#313
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message news I already posted it here for the RAC community. There is, of course, a difference. I'm sure I don't have to point out what it is. That you're a complete tool? |
#314
|
|||
|
|||
Durn intellectuals!I was posting regarding the Klipschorns and how they
sounded better with a tube amp...This thread took on a new life, no I dont have any tube amps in my car!!My point way way back was to demonstrate how amps can sound different within certain systems.You guys are reiterating the same "All amps sound the same" argument that was discussed 25 years ago within the pages of Stereophile and The Absolute Sound.Anyone remember Bob Carvers challenge to Stereophile in the early 80's? "Les" wrote in message ... Scott, well I assume this is Scott and not Barb. I take it you have tube amps in your car? How reliable have they been, and what kind of roads/driving conditions do they see? How effecient are they? From your first post I assume to you the tube amps sound better, but is the quality difference noticeable going down the road? BTW, I am not trying to argue with you I have just never talked with anyone that has had all tube amps in their car. Les "scott and barb" . wrote in message link.net... Sounds like you need one of them there single-endeds..Seriously, though find an old 6bq5 amp push-pull approx 12 watts per channel with decent output transformers on those Klipschorns.....Typically great midrange..... "Trader" wrote in message t... Well I agree with everything you wrote. However, there are many here who believe that amps all sound the same. This doesn't make sense because how could an amp with a superior circuit design and premium parts sound the same as a RadioShack special. I've personally have auditioned many amps on my Klipschorns and can testify that all amps don't sound the same. I don't buy into the theory that distortion is what I'm hearing because even at moderate levels I can hear a substantial difference. I'm sure that some speakers are not revealing enough to hear much of a difference but with Klipschorns you hear everything that is present. My Father in-law is an engineer and he has a cheap Bose system and it sounds like ****. He laughed when I bought a tube amp for my Klipschorns and thought that it couldn't possibly sound good. Well it sounded amazing although I still prefer my SS amp. But yeah believe what you want and buy the low-end gear if it makes you happy. "jeffc" wrote in message ... "jeffc" wrote in message ... Like I said to begin with, believe it or not, weight is a pretty decent indicator of quality (including power output and headroom.) Of course, we're not talking about tube amps here. Having said that, check out this. Again, search on "weight" http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/875/ Heh heh. |
#315
|
|||
|
|||
Some people like tubes, that's fine.
There are measureable and hearable differences in tube amps vs solid state so whichever you prefer. This is also debatable. It depends entirely on the particular amp and how it's being used. In any case, I think any possible differences between the two are greatly exaggerated. Sterophile and The Absolute Sound are not 2 sources that I would rely on for technical, unbiased information. But nonetheless in all my years of this debate I have never had someone present a technical reason as to why they can "hear" a difference when any differences that are there are well below the human threshold of hearing. When someone can at least provide a working theory for that then I'll start to listen. I think there are plenty of counterpoints that are worth listening to. But arguments such as "test equipment isn't as accurate as the human auditory system" or "implementing proper controls isn't important" don't fly. |
#316
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message news Some people like tubes, that's fine. There are measureable and hearable differences in tube amps vs solid state so whichever you prefer. This is also debatable. It depends entirely on the particular amp and how it's being used. In any case, I think any possible differences between the two are greatly exaggerated. Agreed. But with tube amps there is at least a leg to stand on. I know people that think that 10% (more in some cases) distortion is acceptable. Sterophile and The Absolute Sound are not 2 sources that I would rely on for technical, unbiased information. But nonetheless in all my years of this debate I have never had someone present a technical reason as to why they can "hear" a difference when any differences that are there are well below the human threshold of hearing. When someone can at least provide a working theory for that then I'll start to listen. I think there are plenty of counterpoints that are worth listening to. But arguments such as "test equipment isn't as accurate as the human auditory system" or "implementing proper controls isn't important" don't fly. I wish that we could find someone here that could give some of these counterpoints so that we could have a reasonable discussion. But everything I have seen here has always been what you listed in the latter part of your post. Les |
#317
|
|||
|
|||
I think there are plenty of counterpoints that are worth listening to.
But arguments such as "test equipment isn't as accurate as the human auditory system" or "implementing proper controls isn't important" don't fly. I wish that we could find someone here that could give some of these counterpoints so that we could have a reasonable discussion. But everything I have seen here has always been what you listed in the latter part of your post. There HAS been a reasonable discussion in this thread, if you ignore the subjectivists. On the bright side, it's prompted me to scan a few original research papers to host as pdfs for folks interested in learning more rather than folks who prefer to close the doors of their minds to information that's new to them. And hopefully others will decide to do the same. |
#318
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message news I think there are plenty of counterpoints that are worth listening to. But arguments such as "test equipment isn't as accurate as the human auditory system" or "implementing proper controls isn't important" don't fly. I wish that we could find someone here that could give some of these counterpoints so that we could have a reasonable discussion. But everything I have seen here has always been what you listed in the latter part of your post. There HAS been a reasonable discussion in this thread, if you ignore the subjectivists. On the bright side, it's prompted me to scan a few original research papers to host as pdfs for folks interested in learning more rather than folks who prefer to close the doors of their minds to information that's new to them. And hopefully others will decide to do the same. I must have missed it All I saw were the subjectiveists. If you have any of those scanned shoot them to me in an email or post them here. I'm always looking for more information. You can mail them to . Les |
#319
|
|||
|
|||
"Les" wrote in message ... But nonetheless the focus of the discussion is on SS amps and tubes have no place in this particular discussion. Says who? You the new net nazi? Sterophile and The Absolute Sound are not 2 sources that I would rely on for technical, unbiased information. That's because you watch music, you don't listen to it. When someone can at least provide a working theory for that then I'll start to listen. Right. |
#320
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message news This is also debatable. It depends entirely on the particular amp and how it's being used. In any case, I think any possible differences between the two are greatly exaggerated. But you can't hear them, so how would you know? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Digital Radio Sound Quality in Comparison | High End Audio | |||
here are some preamp comparison results | Pro Audio | |||
DSD vs PCM Explanation & Comparison | Pro Audio | |||
USB Mic Pre Comparison | Pro Audio | |||
EQ Comparison: A&H vs Crest | Pro Audio |