| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Amplifiers and imaging
Is there a known connection?
Is there some reason to believe that amplifiers have an effect on the stereo image or is that just wishful thinking on the part of some audiophiles? If there is a connection, what would it be, is it measurable? |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
... wrote: Is there a known connection? Is there some reason to believe that amplifiers have an effect on the stereo image or is that just wishful thinking on the part of some audiophiles? If there is a connection, what would it be, is it measurable? Stereo imaging is caused by the perception of the total image model of the speakers and their reflected images in the walls around them. With more directional speakers, the total image (soundstage) will collapse closer to the speakers themselves (and a line between them). With more omnidirectional speakers, it will expand deeper and wider, due to the reflected images. The confusion factor is when the radiation pattern varies with frequency. The high freqs, for example, may be very directional but not the mids and lower. In this case, imaging will change with frequency, which is not natural. Noise and distortion tends to ride in the higher frequencies, which is the only avenue for the amplifier to have any effect on imaging. So, in most cases, amplifiers will have no effect. One area where they can have a big effect is in transparency...the more "invisible" the amp, the more natural the soundstage everything else being equal. Chung, of course, aregues that there are no differences in transparancy, but my senses tell me differently. The only amp I have heard below many thousands of dollars that seems totally transparent is the DK integrated, and even that is $3000. And if you go back into the '70's virtually all amps fell short in "see-through depth". |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
michael wrote:
In any case, the resulting difference signal is measurable. Some say that the measurement routine in these instances has not been identified. But distortion is distortion. It should manifest in FR or other known variation in one way or another. I would guess that "imaging" artifacts in power amplifiers would manifest themselves as interchannel crosstalk rather than FR aberrations. But your point is spot on: it's still distortion however you look at it. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
One area where they can have a big effect is in transparency...the more "invisible" the amp, the more natural the soundstage everything else being equal. Chung, of course, aregues that there are no differences in transparancy, but my senses tell me differently. The only amp I have heard below many thousands of dollars that seems totally transparent is the DK integrated, and even that is $3000. And if you go back into the '70's virtually all amps fell short in "see-through depth". If you go back into the 70s, most speakers fell short in see-through depth - so how can you separate the two? Too many variables to tell. Gary Eickmeier |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers and imaging
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: One area where they can have a big effect is in transparency...the more "invisible" the amp, the more natural the soundstage everything else being equal. Chung, of course, aregues that there are no differences in transparancy, but my senses tell me differently. The only amp I have heard below many thousands of dollars that seems totally transparent is the DK integrated, and even that is $3000. And if you go back into the '70's virtually all amps fell short in "see-through depth". If you go back into the 70s, most speakers fell short in see-through depth - so how can you separate the two? Too many variables to tell. Gary Eickmeier All I have to do is run them through my Thiel 2 2's. And have done so...a Dynaco Stereo 70, an ARC D-90B, a Dynaco 500, an Amber, and several different Audionics. Big difference in transparency versus a VTL ST85 or my Outlaw Monoblocks. And neither of them is near total transparency. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers and imaging
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... wrote: Is there a known connection? Is there some reason to believe that amplifiers have an effect on the stereo image or is that just wishful thinking on the part of some audiophiles? If there is a connection, what would it be, is it measurable? Stereo imaging is caused by the perception of the total image model of the speakers and their reflected images in the walls around them. With more directional speakers, the total image (soundstage) will collapse closer to the speakers themselves (and a line between them). With more omnidirectional speakers, it will expand deeper and wider, due to the reflected images. The confusion factor is when the radiation pattern varies with frequency. The high freqs, for example, may be very directional but not the mids and lower. In this case, imaging will change with frequency, which is not natural. Noise and distortion tends to ride in the higher frequencies, which is the only avenue for the amplifier to have any effect on imaging. So, in most cases, amplifiers will have no effect. One area where they can have a big effect is in transparency...the more "invisible" the amp, the more natural the soundstage everything else being equal. Chung, of course, aregues that there are no differences in transparancy, but my senses tell me differently. Please provide references to the above. You seem to pull things out of thin air, as witnessed by your recent musings on Einstein. If you want to bring others into the discussion by quoting them freely, at least give them the courtesy of understanding what they were saying first. To make it clear, here is what we said: competent amplifers sound very alike when they are not stressed to the point of noticeable distortion. There *are* amplifiers that are not competent that sound different. The Wavac is a good example. I never want to argue with you on whether amps sound transparent, because there is no quantitative definition of "transparency". Transparency to you may be frequency response errors to others. And of course your senses tell you differently. Try using your ears only. The only amp I have heard below many thousands of dollars that seems totally transparent is the DK integrated, and even that is $3000. And if you go back into the '70's virtually all amps fell short in "see-through depth". I have heard amps that sound identical, and measure superbly. Of course, since they are not over $3K in price, they would never be considered transparent by Harry. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers and imaging
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote: One area where they can have a big effect is in transparency...the more "invisible" the amp, the more natural the soundstage everything else being equal. Chung, of course, aregues that there are no differences in transparancy, but my senses tell me differently. The only amp I have heard below many thousands of dollars that seems totally transparent is the DK integrated, and even that is $3000. And if you go back into the '70's virtually all amps fell short in "see-through depth". If you go back into the 70s, most speakers fell short in see-through depth - so how can you separate the two? Too many variables to tell. Gary Eickmeier Not to mention that the reason for them to fall short in "see-through depth" is that weak link: the LP and the LP playback gear  . |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers and imaging
wrote:
Is there some reason to believe that amplifiers have an effect on the stereo image or is that just wishful thinking on the part of some audiophiles? If there is a connection, what would it be, is it measurable? Ask yourself, "what could be responsible for this"? The imaging should be encoded in the source signal. If a subsequent device "adds" what you would think to be "imaging" then what is added must be something not contained in the original signal. If the purpose of an amplifier is to magnify the original signal as it is then the answer is clear. An amplifier that "adds" something to the signal is adding a distortion component. The only other answer would be that an amplifier is "subtracting" something from the original source. How could that be? The answer is that it is defective, somehow. In any case, the resulting difference signal is measurable. Some say that the measurement routine in these instances has not been identified. But distortion is distortion. It should manifest in FR or other known variation in one way or another. This is nothing esoteric. I suspect that in most instances of such subjective valuations what is being reported is merely a psychological artifact; i.e., wishful thinking. It is easy to fool oneself when things are not controlled. I had never believed that amps ahd any effect on image, but given my lack of knowledge compared to some of the audio professionals here, I thought I'd tap in a bit, so to speak. Also I was hoping to settle an arguement with a subjectivist who is quite adamant in his belief that amps do play a role in imaging. The most important feature in imaging is the "center" image. It is the phantom picture, that should be as stable as possible through all the frequencies, neither jumping to the right or left nor back and forth. It is IMHO not influenced by any competent amplifier, but the speakers and especially the room positioning. The listening area should be chosen as symmetrical as possible. The second important feature is the ratio between direct/reflected energy. The more this ratio is balanced through the frequency range, the more natural the soundstage is perceived. The reflections should be diffuse, not having preferred directions. This can be accomplished by using only the absolutly necessary damping material on certain mirror points, otherwise as many diffusors as possible. Any settling noises of the speaker chassis and distortion will be located at the place where they are created: the speaker position. They prevent the soundfield being perceived on other than right/left/middle positions. Very high quality loudspeakers will have less of these artefacts. I have been researching this phenomenon for some time and came up with a pair of speakers with superb optimized imaging. http://www.pupazzo.page.ms/ -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers and imaging
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... wrote: Is there a known connection? Is there some reason to believe that amplifiers have an effect on the stereo image or is that just wishful thinking on the part of some audiophiles? If there is a connection, what would it be, is it measurable? Stereo imaging is caused by the perception of the total image model of the speakers and their reflected images in the walls around them. With more directional speakers, the total image (soundstage) will collapse closer to the speakers themselves (and a line between them). With more omnidirectional speakers, it will expand deeper and wider, due to the reflected images. The confusion factor is when the radiation pattern varies with frequency. The high freqs, for example, may be very directional but not the mids and lower. In this case, imaging will change with frequency, which is not natural. Noise and distortion tends to ride in the higher frequencies, which is the only avenue for the amplifier to have any effect on imaging. So, in most cases, amplifiers will have no effect. One area where they can have a big effect is in transparency...the more "invisible" the amp, the more natural the soundstage everything else being equal. Chung, of course, aregues that there are no differences in transparancy, but my senses tell me differently. Then you should have learned by now that your senses can be fooled. The only amp I have heard below many thousands of dollars that seems totally transparent is the DK integrated, and even that is $3000. This is most likely the fault of how you do your comparisons. And if you go back into the '70's virtually all amps fell short in "see-through depth". And today it is a simple matter to achieve an amp that produces an exact duplicate of what is sent to it. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers and imaging
|
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers and imaging
"Chung" wrote in message
... Gary Eickmeier wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: One area where they can have a big effect is in transparency...the more "invisible" the amp, the more natural the soundstage everything else being equal. Chung, of course, aregues that there are no differences in transparancy, but my senses tell me differently. The only amp I have heard below many thousands of dollars that seems totally transparent is the DK integrated, and even that is $3000. And if you go back into the '70's virtually all amps fell short in "see-through depth". If you go back into the 70s, most speakers fell short in see-through depth - so how can you separate the two? Too many variables to tell. Gary Eickmeier Not to mention that the reason for them to fall short in "see-through depth" is that weak link: the LP and the LP playback gear .I'm talking about both LP and CD in the here- and now-. All the amps I mentioned have been tistened to in the last 5-10 years though modern speakers, and using both very fine vinyl and very fine CD systems. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers and imaging
"Chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... wrote: Is there a known connection? Is there some reason to believe that amplifiers have an effect on the stereo image or is that just wishful thinking on the part of some audiophiles? If there is a connection, what would it be, is it measurable? Stereo imaging is caused by the perception of the total image model of the speakers and their reflected images in the walls around them. With more directional speakers, the total image (soundstage) will collapse closer to the speakers themselves (and a line between them). With more omnidirectional speakers, it will expand deeper and wider, due to the reflected images. The confusion factor is when the radiation pattern varies with frequency. The high freqs, for example, may be very directional but not the mids and lower. In this case, imaging will change with frequency, which is not natural. Noise and distortion tends to ride in the higher frequencies, which is the only avenue for the amplifier to have any effect on imaging. So, in most cases, amplifiers will have no effect. One area where they can have a big effect is in transparency...the more "invisible" the amp, the more natural the soundstage everything else being equal. Chung, of course, aregues that there are no differences in transparancy, but my senses tell me differently. Please provide references to the above. We had a whole, long thread on this. I doubt too many here have forgotten it. I doubt you have as well. You seem to pull things out of thin air, as witnessed by your recent musings on Einstein. If you want to bring others into the discussion by quoting them freely, at least give them the courtesy of understanding what they were saying first. Okay, here is the starting quote: "HL: May be so, but the considerable increase in transparency between equipment of the early 80's seems mostly attributable to the passive components. " "CHUNG You are simply speculating. Care to provide any evidence to back that up? I would say that the apparent increase of transparency in equipment is due to the prevalent use of CD's as source material." SOURCE: Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end From: chung Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:11:12 GMT Subject: weakest Link in the Chain To make it clear, here is what we said: competent amplifiers sound very alike when they are not stressed to the point of noticeable distortion. There *are* amplifiers that are not competent that sound different. The Wavac is a good example. Totally different point...I was not arguing distortion or frequency response. In the cases I am talking about those were not factors as all amps were working properly and all specs as to frequency response and distortion were nominal for their type. I never want to argue with you on whether amps sound transparent, because there is no quantitative definition of "transparency". Transparency to you may be frequency response errors to others. Nope. That's apparent transparency that results from boosted treble or overshoot in transient response. And of course your senses tell you differently. Try using your ears only. The only amp I have heard below many thousands of dollars that seems totally transparent is the DK integrated, and even that is $3000. And if you go back into the '70's virtually all amps fell short in "see-through depth". I do use my ears. But I also monitor my more subtle emotional responses to the music I am hearing and how the equipment affects that. I have heard amps that sound identical, and measure superbly. Of course, since they are not over $3K in price, they would never be considered transparent by Harry. A total non-sequitor. I didn't say they didn't exist. I said I've not heard one lower than this price. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers and imaging
|
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers and imaging
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... wrote: Is there a known connection? Is there some reason to believe that amplifiers have an effect on the stereo image or is that just wishful thinking on the part of some audiophiles? If there is a connection, what would it be, is it measurable? Stereo imaging is caused by the perception of the total image model of the speakers and their reflected images in the walls around them. With more directional speakers, the total image (soundstage) will collapse closer to the speakers themselves (and a line between them). With more omnidirectional speakers, it will expand deeper and wider, due to the reflected images. The confusion factor is when the radiation pattern varies with frequency. The high freqs, for example, may be very directional but not the mids and lower. In this case, imaging will change with frequency, which is not natural. Noise and distortion tends to ride in the higher frequencies, which is the only avenue for the amplifier to have any effect on imaging. So, in most cases, amplifiers will have no effect. One area where they can have a big effect is in transparency...the more "invisible" the amp, the more natural the soundstage everything else being equal. Chung, of course, aregues that there are no differences in transparancy, but my senses tell me differently. Please provide references to the above. We had a whole, long thread on this. I doubt too many here have forgotten it. I doubt you have as well. You may not have forgotten the thread, but it is clear that you have forgotten what I said. Or you simply have not understood what was said. You seem to pull things out of thin air, as witnessed by your recent musings on Einstein. If you want to bring others into the discussion by quoting them freely, at least give them the courtesy of understanding what they were saying first. Okay, here is the starting quote: "HL: May be so, but the considerable increase in transparency between equipment of the early 80's seems mostly attributable to the passive components. " "CHUNG You are simply speculating. Care to provide any evidence to back that up? I would say that the apparent increase of transparency in equipment is due to the prevalent use of CD's as source material." SOURCE: Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end From: chung Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:11:12 GMT Subject: weakest Link in the Chain So Harry, how do you come up with "Chung, of course, aregues (sic) that there are no differences in transparancy"? Notice that I even referred to the "apparent increase of transparancy" in that quote! Once more, Harry has proven that he has an uncanny ability to interpret things, and quote them, as he sees fit... To make it clear, here is what we said: competent amplifiers sound very alike when they are not stressed to the point of noticeable distortion. There *are* amplifiers that are not competent that sound different. The Wavac is a good example. Totally different point...I was not arguing distortion or frequency response. In the cases I am talking about those were not factors as all amps were working properly and all specs as to frequency response and distortion were nominal for their type. But you were the one saying that I said there are no differences in transparency in amps. I wrote the above paragraph to make sure that you understand what I (and others who are non-subjectivists) said. We did not say that all amps sound alike (or are all transparent) without qualifications. Those qualifications, somehow, always get dropped by you and your subjectivist friends. I never want to argue with you on whether amps sound transparent, because there is no quantitative definition of "transparency". Transparency to you may be frequency response errors to others. Nope. That's apparent transparency that results from boosted treble or overshoot in transient response. So can you define transparency in a quantifiable, measureable, way such that others will agree with you on whether an amp is transparent? If you can't, then how can other people know what you meant by "transparent"? An amp that you deem transparent may very well sound overly bright to others. While you're at it, define "apparent transparency" in a measureable, non-ambiguous way please. And of course your senses tell you differently. Try using your ears only. The only amp I have heard below many thousands of dollars that seems totally transparent is the DK integrated, and even that is $3000. And if you go back into the '70's virtually all amps fell short in "see-through depth". I do use my ears. But I also monitor my more subtle emotional responses to the music I am hearing and how the equipment affects that. Now try to listen blind, without knowing the identity (and hence the price-tag) of the amp. I have heard amps that sound identical, and measure superbly. Of course, since they are not over $3K in price, they would never be considered transparent by Harry. A total non-sequitor. I didn't say they didn't exist. I said I've not heard one lower than this price. A total non-sequitor. I did not say that you said they did not exist, and you may even believe that they exist. I just said that you would not judge an amp to be transparent if you *know* that it is less than $3K... |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers and imaging
Harry Lavo wrote:
"BEAR" wrote in message ... wrote: Is there a known connection? Is there some reason to believe that amplifiers have an effect on the stereo image or is that just wishful thinking on the part of some audiophiles? If there is a connection, what would it be, is it measurable? The answer in general terms in a technical sense is relatively easy: - noise floor - channel separation - spectra of distortion - spectra of distortion with respect to power level - spectra of distortion with respect to power level for the given load (speaker) - degree of dip or modulation of PS (relates to the former item) I think these are the main technical points. I may have overlooked something... I disagree about the point made in this thread about "directional speakers" having imaging that "collapses" between the speakers. I have seen nor heard no such correlation whatsoever. There are issues with odd polar response patterns w/respect to freq that can make some imaging problems. And also problems with freq response, especially non-linear types of distortion that will wreck havoc with imaging as well. My comments earlier in this thread transparency relate mostly to noise floor, I believe. Which makes your previous statement (that you have not heard a transparent amp that costs less than $3K) totally strange. The noise floor of an amp is easily measurable, and it is also trivially easy to find amps in the $1K and less price range that have as low or lower noise floors than a lot of amps costing much more. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers and imaging
"chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "Chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... wrote: Is there a known connection? Is there some reason to believe that amplifiers have an effect on the stereo image or is that just wishful thinking on the part of some audiophiles? If there is a connection, what would it be, is it measurable? Stereo imaging is caused by the perception of the total image model of the speakers and their reflected images in the walls around them. With more directional speakers, the total image (soundstage) will collapse closer to the speakers themselves (and a line between them). With more omnidirectional speakers, it will expand deeper and wider, due to the reflected images. The confusion factor is when the radiation pattern varies with frequency. The high freqs, for example, may be very directional but not the mids and lower. In this case, imaging will change with frequency, which is not natural. Noise and distortion tends to ride in the higher frequencies, which is the only avenue for the amplifier to have any effect on imaging. So, in most cases, amplifiers will have no effect. One area where they can have a big effect is in transparency...the more "invisible" the amp, the more natural the soundstage everything else being equal. Chung, of course, aregues that there are no differences in transparancy, but my senses tell me differently. Please provide references to the above. We had a whole, long thread on this. I doubt too many here have forgotten it. I doubt you have as well. You may not have forgotten the thread, but it is clear that you have forgotten what I said. Or you simply have not understood what was said. Nice dodge. You have been called. You seem to pull things out of thin air, as witnessed by your recent musings on Einstein. If you want to bring others into the discussion by quoting them freely, at least give them the courtesy of understanding what they were saying first. Okay, here is the starting quote: "HL: May be so, but the considerable increase in transparency between equipment of the early 80's seems mostly attributable to the passive components. " "CHUNG You are simply speculating. Care to provide any evidence to back that up? I would say that the apparent increase of transparency in equipment is due to the prevalent use of CD's as source material." SOURCE: Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end From: chung Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:11:12 GMT Subject: weakest Link in the Chain So Harry, how do you come up with "Chung, of course, aregues (sic) that there are no differences in transparancy"? Very simple. The thread was about my assertion that amplifiers were more transparent than they were 25 years ago. I attributed this to passive components. You spent considerable time asserting and reasserting that passive components had not changed nor were amplifiers themselves any more transparent than in the past. In the "quote" above you tried to indicate that any perceived increase in transparency arose from substitution of CD technology for LP technology...just one of many gambits. You have been called. Notice that I even referred to the "apparent increase of transparancy" in that quote! While continuing to deny that there had been any "real" increase in transparency. You have been called. Once more, Harry has proven that he has an uncanny ability to interpret things, and quote them, as he sees fit... Or to remember them in a context you'd rather not deal with. You have been called. To make it clear, here is what we said: competent amplifiers sound very alike when they are not stressed to the point of noticeable distortion. There *are* amplifiers that are not competent that sound different. The Wavac is a good example. Totally different point...I was not arguing distortion or frequency response. In the cases I am talking about those were not factors as all amps were working properly and all specs as to frequency response and distortion were nominal for their type. But you were the one saying that I said there are no differences in transparency in amps. I wrote the above paragraph to make sure that you understand what I (and others who are non-subjectivists) said. We did not say that all amps sound alike (or are all transparent) without qualifications. Those qualifications, somehow, always get dropped by you and your subjectivist friends. I never said you said all amps sound alike. However, you never mentioned a word about amps being different in transparency in that prior discussion. You claimed the *only* audible differences in amplifier performance resulted from substandard active circuitry design or specification, or poor opamps. And you classified this as distortion, not a higher noise floor or lesser transparency. I never want to argue with you on whether amps sound transparent, because there is no quantitative definition of "transparency". Transparency to you may be frequency response errors to others. Nope. That's apparent transparency that results from boosted treble or overshoot in transient response. So can you define transparency in a quantifiable, measureable, way such that others will agree with you on whether an amp is transparent? If you can't, then how can other people know what you meant by "transparent"? An amp that you deem transparent may very well sound overly bright to others. While you're at it, define "apparent transparency" in a measureable, non-ambiguous way please. I mean by transparency "transparency". The ability of the electronics to "dissappear". To have no "sound" at all. Difficult, no? And of course your senses tell you differently. Try using your ears only. The only amp I have heard below many thousands of dollars that seems totally transparent is the DK integrated, and even that is $3000. And if you go back into the '70's virtually all amps fell short in "see-through depth". I do use my ears. But I also monitor my more subtle emotional responses to the music I am hearing and how the equipment affects that. Now try to listen blind, without knowing the identity (and hence the price-tag) of the amp. In the first place, I don't own high-price-tag amps at the moment, although I have at times in the past. And the ones I do own and use currently as my main amps are good, but are not the ultimate in transparency. But I have heard others that are. And I don't have to hide behind a dbt in order to make the observation. You don't want to believe my observation, fine. You can go "prove" I am wrong. It is, after all my stated opinion based on observation, not a test. I'll leave it to others to decide based on their own observations whether they agree with me or not. I have heard amps that sound identical, and measure superbly. Of course, since they are not over $3K in price, they would never be considered transparent by Harry. A total non-sequitor. I didn't say they didn't exist. I said I've not heard one lower than this price. Actually now that I read the above, you didn't even say they were transparent, those amps of yours under $3K in price. You just said they "sound identical". Do you know what "transparent" is? Transparent means they don't "sound" at all. A total non-sequitor. I did not say that you said they did not exist, and you may even believe that they exist. I just said that you would not judge an amp to be transparent if you *know* that it is less than $3K.. Now you have said it. And on what do you base that? You *know* what I would think? You *presume" that because I haven't heard one yet that I wouldn't recognize one if it did exist and I head it? Until I heard the DK, I hadn't heard one under $5000 that was completely transparent. That didn't keep me from recognizing it in the DK when I head it. You can be mighty presumptuous at times, Chung. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers and imaging
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... wrote: Is there a known connection? Is there some reason to believe that amplifiers have an effect on the stereo image or is that just wishful thinking on the part of some audiophiles? If there is a connection, what would it be, is it measurable? Stereo imaging is caused by the perception of the total image model of the speakers and their reflected images in the walls around them. With more directional speakers, the total image (soundstage) will collapse closer to the speakers themselves (and a line between them). With more omnidirectional speakers, it will expand deeper and wider, due to the reflected images. The confusion factor is when the radiation pattern varies with frequency. The high freqs, for example, may be very directional but not the mids and lower. In this case, imaging will change with frequency, which is not natural. Noise and distortion tends to ride in the higher frequencies, which is the only avenue for the amplifier to have any effect on imaging. So, in most cases, amplifiers will have no effect. One area where they can have a big effect is in transparency...the more "invisible" the amp, the more natural the soundstage everything else being equal. Chung, of course, aregues that there are no differences in transparancy, but my senses tell me differently. Please provide references to the above. We had a whole, long thread on this. I doubt too many here have forgotten it. I doubt you have as well. You may not have forgotten the thread, but it is clear that you have forgotten what I said. Or you simply have not understood what was said. Nice dodge. You have been called. Harry, you are the one who is doing the dodging when called. Please show us where I said "there are no differences in transparency" between all amps? You seem to pull things out of thin air, as witnessed by your recent musings on Einstein. If you want to bring others into the discussion by quoting them freely, at least give them the courtesy of understanding what they were saying first. Okay, here is the starting quote: "HL: May be so, but the considerable increase in transparency between equipment of the early 80's seems mostly attributable to the passive components. " "CHUNG You are simply speculating. Care to provide any evidence to back that up? I would say that the apparent increase of transparency in equipment is due to the prevalent use of CD's as source material." SOURCE: Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end From: chung Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:11:12 GMT Subject: weakest Link in the Chain So Harry, how do you come up with "Chung, of course, aregues (sic) that there are no differences in transparancy"? Very simple. The thread was about my assertion that amplifiers were more transparent than they were 25 years ago. I attributed this to passive components. You spent considerable time asserting and reasserting that passive components had not changed nor were amplifiers themselves any more transparent than in the past. In the "quote" above you tried to indicate that any perceived increase in transparency arose from substitution of CD technology for LP technology...just one of many gambits. Did I ever say that *all* amps have the same transparency, Harry? Did you remember my saying that *active* components have a lot more to do with improved performance in amplifiers? You have been called. Notice that I even referred to the "apparent increase of transparancy" in that quote! While continuing to deny that there had been any "real" increase in transparency. I do not think that any improvement in transparency in amplifers was caused by largely "passsive components" as you seem to believe. I do remember spending quite a bit of time explaining and refuting every point you made. And every time when you were caught saying technically nonsensical things, you would bring out that fact that you were not technical trained as an excuse. Do you understand the simple fact that when I said "I do not believe transparency improvement is largely due to passive components", I was *NOT* saying that all amps have the same transparency? You have been called. Simple repetition does not make it so, Harry. Once more, Harry has proven that he has an uncanny ability to interpret things, and quote them, as he sees fit... Or to remember them in a context you'd rather not deal with. Or, to be exact, remember them in a context that only Harry is aware of... You have been called. To make it clear, here is what we said: competent amplifiers sound very alike when they are not stressed to the point of noticeable distortion. There *are* amplifiers that are not competent that sound different. The Wavac is a good example. Totally different point...I was not arguing distortion or frequency response. In the cases I am talking about those were not factors as all amps were working properly and all specs as to frequency response and distortion were nominal for their type. But you were the one saying that I said there are no differences in transparency in amps. I wrote the above paragraph to make sure that you understand what I (and others who are non-subjectivists) said. We did not say that all amps sound alike (or are all transparent) without qualifications. Those qualifications, somehow, always get dropped by you and your subjectivist friends. I never said you said all amps sound alike. However, you never mentioned a word about amps being different in transparency in that prior discussion. Did I mention that all amps are the same in transparency, Harry? It seems like using your logic, if I do not explicitly say all amps are different in transparency, then they must all be the same in transparency. You see the fallacy in your logic? You claimed the *only* audible differences in amplifier performance resulted from substandard active circuitry design or specification, or poor opamps. And you classified this as distortion, not a higher noise floor or lesser transparency. One more time, Harry, you show that you do not understand what was said. And you are also trying to go off on a tangent. Audible differences result from real measureable performance differences. Such differences can be due to substandard, or intentionally inaccurate circuit design. They can be due to (but not exclusively) the wrong usage of components, both active and passive. Such differences can be found in (a) frequency responses, (b) levels of distortion, (c) signal-to-noise ratios or (d) extraneous spurious signals such as line spurs. I never said that the only audible difference is in distortion, or can be classified only as distortion. I did not say that only active components can be responsible for poor performance. What I did not and do not agree with is your belief that the improvement in amplifiers in the last 25 years is largely due to the quality of the passive components used. I made that point that better *active* parts like transistors, op-amps, or digital processing circuitry play a much bigger role in performance improvements than simply the quality of the passive parts. Anyone interested in following that discussion can look up the thread titled "How is QA done in the high-end business?", dated February 2005. I never want to argue with you on whether amps sound transparent, because there is no quantitative definition of "transparency". Transparency to you may be frequency response errors to others. Nope. That's apparent transparency that results from boosted treble or overshoot in transient response. So can you define transparency in a quantifiable, measureable, way such that others will agree with you on whether an amp is transparent? If you can't, then how can other people know what you meant by "transparent"? An amp that you deem transparent may very well sound overly bright to others. While you're at it, define "apparent transparency" in a measureable, non-ambiguous way please. I mean by transparency "transparency". The ability of the electronics to "dissappear". To have no "sound" at all. Difficult, no? So you cannot define it in a measureable, non-ambiguous way: just what I thought. How do you know if the electronics have "disappeared"? So "apparent transparency" means electronics have apparently disappeared? And of course your senses tell you differently. Try using your ears only. The only amp I have heard below many thousands of dollars that seems totally transparent is the DK integrated, and even that is $3000. And if you go back into the '70's virtually all amps fell short in "see-through depth". I do use my ears. But I also monitor my more subtle emotional responses to the music I am hearing and how the equipment affects that. Now try to listen blind, without knowing the identity (and hence the price-tag) of the amp. In the first place, I don't own high-price-tag amps at the moment, although I have at times in the past. And the ones I do own and use currently as my main amps are good, but are not the ultimate in transparency. But I have heard others that are. And I don't have to hide behind a dbt in order to make the observation. You don't want to believe my observation, fine. You can go "prove" I am wrong. It is, after all my stated opinion based on observation, not a test. I'll leave it to others to decide based on their own observations whether they agree with me or not. I have heard amps that sound identical, and measure superbly. Of course, since they are not over $3K in price, they would never be considered transparent by Harry. A total non-sequitor. I didn't say they didn't exist. I said I've not heard one lower than this price. Actually now that I read the above, you didn't even say they were transparent, those amps of yours under $3K in price. You just said they "sound identical". Do you know what "transparent" is? Transparent means they don't "sound" at all. See, that's the thing, you use the word "transparency" in these discussions as if everyone agrees with you on what it means. And how do you measure transparency? There is no way for me to know when you *think* "electronics disappear", or electronics "don't sound at all". That depends on your mood a lot, I would think. I know of amps with noticeable FR errors that some people rate as transparent. In those cases, clearly the electronics do not disappear: they add linear and non-linear distortions. A total non-sequitor. I did not say that you said they did not exist, and you may even believe that they exist. I just said that you would not judge an amp to be transparent if you *know* that it is less than $3K.. Now you have said it. And on what do you base that? You *know* what I would think? You *presume" that because I haven't heard one yet that I wouldn't recognize one if it did exist and I head it? Until I heard the DK, I hadn't heard one under $5000 that was completely transparent. That didn't keep me from recognizing it in the DK when I head it. You can be mighty presumptuous at times, Chung. It is easy to do so when you already said that you have found no amp costing less than $3K that sounds transparent to you. And I presume that you have listen to a fair number of amplifiers... |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers and imaging
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... I'm talking about both LP and CD in the here- and now-. All the amps I mentioned have been tistened to in the last 5-10 years though modern speakers, and using both very fine vinyl and very fine CD systems. In the last 10 years our hearing has become less "transparent", more than anything else. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers and imaging
"Chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: snip I have heard amps that sound identical, and measure superbly. Of course, since they are not over $3K in price, they would never be considered transparent by Harry. A total non-sequitor. I didn't say they didn't exist. I said I've not heard one lower than this price. Actually now that I read the above, you didn't even say they were transparent, those amps of yours under $3K in price. You just said they "sound identical". Do you know what "transparent" is? Transparent means they don't "sound" at all. See, that's the thing, you use the word "transparency" in these discussions as if everyone agrees with you on what it means. And how do you measure transparency? There is no way for me to know when you *think* "electronics disappear", or electronics "don't sound at all". That depends on your mood a lot, I would think. I know of amps with noticeable FR errors that some people rate as transparent. In those cases, clearly the electronics do not disappear: they add linear and non-linear distortions. The reason I snipped all the above is because it all boils down to the paragraphs above. If I talk about transparency and in any way try to attribute it to something, you start weaving technical explainations as to why I am "wrong". And if I simply define transparency accurately, as I have above, then you say it is "undefined". I'd suggest if you want to be a top notch audio engineer you take the trouble to first experience and understand transparency, in the audiophile sense, and then translate it into engineering terms for yourself as an engineer and designer. Apparently several engineers / sets of engineers in the industry have managed to do this, and their equipment exhibits this characteristic. A total non-sequitor. I did not say that you said they did not exist, and you may even believe that they exist. I just said that you would not judge an amp to be transparent if you *know* that it is less than $3K.. Now you have said it. And on what do you base that? You *know* what I would think? You *presume" that because I haven't heard one yet that I wouldn't recognize one if it did exist and I head it? Until I heard the DK, I hadn't heard one under $5000 that was completely transparent. That didn't keep me from recognizing it in the DK when I head it. You can be mighty presumptuous at times, Chung. It is easy to do so when you already said that you have found no amp costing less than $3K that sounds transparent to you. And I presume that you have listen to a fair number of amplifiers... If you haven't, I'd suggest you do the same. Including some pricier ones with outstanding reputations. Perhaps then you'll understand what I am talking about. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers and imaging
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: snip I have heard amps that sound identical, and measure superbly. Of course, since they are not over $3K in price, they would never be considered transparent by Harry. A total non-sequitor. I didn't say they didn't exist. I said I've not heard one lower than this price. Actually now that I read the above, you didn't even say they were transparent, those amps of yours under $3K in price. You just said they "sound identical". Do you know what "transparent" is? Transparent means they don't "sound" at all. See, that's the thing, you use the word "transparency" in these discussions as if everyone agrees with you on what it means. And how do you measure transparency? There is no way for me to know when you *think* "electronics disappear", or electronics "don't sound at all". That depends on your mood a lot, I would think. I know of amps with noticeable FR errors that some people rate as transparent. In those cases, clearly the electronics do not disappear: they add linear and non-linear distortions. The reason I snipped all the above is because it all boils down to the paragraphs above. The reason you snipped "all the above" is because you could not back up your erroneous statement that "Chung argues that there is no difference in transparency" between amplifiers. If I talk about transparency and in any way try to attribute it to something, you start weaving technical explainations as to why I am "wrong". You're not "wrong" in using the word transparency. It's just that it's an ambiguous word. I would prefer the word "accuracy", but that's just me. Whether it is accuracy, transparency, low noise, flat frequency response, you were referring to some highly desirable property of an amplifier. And I never said that such a property is the same for all amplifiers. By the way, if you are wrong, then it's unavoidable that we may have to provide technical explanations as to why you are wrong. Otherwise, how could we show that you are objectively wrong? And if I simply define transparency accurately, as I have above, then you say it is "undefined". I asked you to define it in a quantitative, measureable and unambiguous way. You failed to do that. In fact, you even contradicted yourself because you said transparency means "electronics disappear" in this thread, yet in another post, you said that by transparency you meant largely the (low) noise floor. That's a contradiction because clearly one can design an amp with a very low noise but with large frequency errors and distortion so that the amp cannot be remotely called "transparent" by anyone, or the "electronics" considered to have "disappeared" by anyone. See, I don't think you even know how to deine it in a consistent, repeatable way. And you may call an amp transparent, while others may call it too bright, too clinical, too dry, or whatever adjectives audiophiles love to use. I'd suggest if you want to be a top notch audio engineer you take the trouble to first experience and understand transparency, in the audiophile sense, and then translate it into engineering terms for yourself as an engineer and designer. I would much prefer the word accurate, and try to design amplifiers that are objectively, measureably, accurate, rather than to worry about whether Harry Lavo might find it transparent. After all, what Harry finds transparent, others may not like at all, and vice versa. Apparently several engineers / sets of engineers in the industry have managed to do this, and their equipment exhibits this characteristic. Right, now try blind comparisons. Remember Yamaha vs Pass? A total non-sequitor. I did not say that you said they did not exist, and you may even believe that they exist. I just said that you would not judge an amp to be transparent if you *know* that it is less than $3K.. Now you have said it. And on what do you base that? You *know* what I would think? You *presume" that because I haven't heard one yet that I wouldn't recognize one if it did exist and I head it? Until I heard the DK, I hadn't heard one under $5000 that was completely transparent. That didn't keep me from recognizing it in the DK when I head it. You can be mighty presumptuous at times, Chung. It is easy to do so when you already said that you have found no amp costing less than $3K that sounds transparent to you. And I presume that you have listen to a fair number of amplifiers... If you haven't, I'd suggest you do the same. Including some pricier ones with outstanding reputations. You mean like Pass vs Yamaha? Perhaps then you'll understand what I am talking about. Oh, I understand what you are talking about. That's why I said if you know the amp costs less than $3K, you would not find it transparent. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers and imaging
Not that I'm aware of. Stereo image is a function of separation between
channels. Any competent stereo amplifier has more than 50-60dB separation at all audio frequencies, so won't affect the stereo image. Remember that pick-up cartridges manage good stereo imaging, and few have more and 20-25dB separation at mid frequencies, much less at the frequency extremes. Serge " wrote in message ... Is there a known connection? Is there some reason to believe that amplifiers have an effect on the stereo image or is that just wishful thinking on the part of some audiophiles? If there is a connection, what would it be, is it measurable? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Some Recording Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
| Does anyone know of this challenge? | High End Audio | |||
| rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 4/5) | Car Audio | |||
| rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 2/5) | Car Audio | |||
| Yet another DBT post | High End Audio | |||
Linear Mode
