Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #83   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 00:36:18 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 7/13/04 12:10 PM, in article mQTIc.69109$%_6.23803@attbi_s01, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:06:32 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 7/12/04 1:04 PM, in article _wzIc.62960$%_6.26489@attbi_s01, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:


What I have found that dollar for dollar you can get acceptable sound
performance from a CD at a much lower price point than vinyl. Vinyl,
though, if you are willing to put up with it and spend a lot more money
gives a much more satisfying result than even a comparably well executed CD
player - but it is rather fussy and not nearly as convenient as CD's.


That's simply your personal opinion - mine is quite the reverse.


SO you think that vinyl is less expensive than CD's, less fussy than CD and
ultimately unsatisfying?


No, no, and yes, to give serious answers to your sarcasm.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #84   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

On 14 Jul 2004 01:26:08 GMT, "Greg Weaver"
wrote:

Stewart,

I just don't know what to say that could be taken constructively and not
appear to be some type of flaming, as that IS NOT how I want to come across.
However, in the past 22 years, since the CD format was readily available in
homes, not one time, NOT ONCE, has a musician (or any other music lover for
that matter) EVER picked CD over vinyl in a head-to-head, same recording
comparison. We are talking about hundreds of demonstrations over that time.
Hundreds! I just can't believe that anyone, especially on this forum, could
so adamantly argue that side of the coin.


That's absolute rubbish! I personally know at least five regular
concert-goers, and three semi-professional musicians, who prefer CD to
vinyl. Hence, your statement is both untrue *and* an obviously biased
flame.

Even Bob Harley, arguably one of (if not the) strongest proponents for
digital playback, has gone on record with this statement from his book "The
Complete Guide to High-End Audio," Second Edition, p-325. "This quandary --
LP vs. CD -- emerges from the fact that even today's state-of-the-art
digital audio doesn't approach the sound quality offered by a good LP
playback system. The very highest level of music reproduction, there's not
even a debate: LP is musically superior to CD."


Remember the late, great Gabe Weiner, the legendary sound engineer
behind PGM Records? He *always* preferred CD, and would have dismissed
Harley's rant as sheer 'audiophile' drivel.

Indeed, one of Gabe's favourite tests was to play someone an LP, and
then a digital recording of that LP. No visitor to his studio could
*ever* tell the difference, thereby proving the sonic transparency of
CD pretty effectively.

With that thought, I close my thread. I shall neither comment further nor
expect any response. Again, this is not a "flame!" It is rather the honest
incredulity of someone who has spent virtually every day of his adult life
in and around this industry, the last 15 years of which have been as a
consultant and reviewer. Thanks.


Shame then, that you only appear to have listened to those who agree
with your own prejudice. If you wanted to, you could find plenty of
quotes from top musicians and industry professionals, to the effect
that vinyl is a parody of the original performance, and CD is *vastly*
superior. Indeed, the first real breakthrough of CD in the mass market
was in the classical field, where the clarity and sheer musicality was
appreciated by that band of generally critical listeners. I also
remember comments from the CD release of Sgt Pepper, where reviewers
raved about all the background subtleties that they had never heard on
the LP version! Of course, that was before it became *fashionable* to
prefer the well-known artifacts of vinyl................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #85   Report Post  
Dennis Moore
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

"B&D" wrote in message
news:wv1Jc.72540$%_6.36619@attbi_s01...

It escapes me why people are offended at a review (somewhat favorable) of

a
really, really expensive amp that is basically a SET or very SET like?

We aren't ever likely to buy one new or used - and with a $350k budget,

one
should be able to get a house, car and a decent music and video system.

But
why should that high price, crappy specs, yet a pleasant sound be
scandalous? Sound coloration is one minor school of thought in sound
reproduction (like the horn and SET crowd)...



Well, I guess, because for $350 you might get similar sound. I don't have a
real
problem with the 'sound coloration' crowd. But if there are tremendously
cheaper
ways to do the same thing, why not do it?

Dennis



  #86   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

From: "Dennis Moore"
Date: 7/13/2004 6:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
...

I have been following this thread and I don't think those who talk
about the Wavac amplifier "clipping" at 2W can have read the
review (it's now available in the
www.stereophile.com archives). If
you look at the graphs of output power vs THD+N percentage, you will
see that it does indeed put out 2W at 1% THD+N, which is our usual
definition of "clipping." However, it is important to note that the
Wavac is _not_ clipping at this level of distortion.

What happens is that as the output power increases, the waveform
becomes increasingly asymmetrical, meaning that the signal
increasingly suffers from second-harmoic distortion. While this
is indeed audible once the Wavac is putting out a watt or so, it
doesn't sound like clipping distortion, particularly as it is not
accompanied by catastrophic amounts of intermodulation distortion.

As I wrote in the review, true waveform clipping occurs at a few
tens of watts, depending on the output tap and load. So for anyone
to cast aspersions at Michael Fremer's hearing ability because he
didn't hear "clipping" is inappropriate, given the particular
nature of the Wavac's non-linear transfer function.

When I listened to the Wavac, the bass boost was immediately
apparent, but it didn't sound aggressively distorted. Partly
this is because the amount of power typically demanded from an
amplifier tends to be below 2W much of the time with music rather
than test tones; partly this is because second harmonic distortion
tends to fatten the sound in rather a pleasing manner, at least
until the intermodulation products reach threshold.

Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance.
I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its
sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Yes, Mr. Atkinson, you are correct, it doesn't clip at 2w. I was guilty of
a little hyperbole. Not out of place in this discussion of the $350K Wavac
I think.


I quite disagree. you had at least one other person convinced that the
manufaturers were lying outright about their product. Mr. Chung ask me what
else could the claim of 150 watts be other than a lie if it clips at 2 watts.


I did read the review. And did note that it doesn't clip until a good deal
higher
wattage is output. And that the high levels of distortion are second
harmonic.
High levels of that will sound surprisingly benign to those who look at the
distortion curves, but haven't heard such a thing.

Hence my suggestion that for a small amount, roughly 1/1000th the Wavac
price,
one could get an ASL MG Head amp. Use it as a pre-amp feeding a low
distortion
amp, and get some experience of a similar sound. Slowly growing, low order
distortion of eventually fairly high amounts. Derived from the use of SET
connected
6BQ5's. No it won't be a replicant of the Wavac. But will bear some fair
similarity
I do believe.

Dennis







  #89   Report Post  
Tat Chan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

Greg Weaver wrote:

Stewart,

I just don't know what to say that could be taken constructively and not
appear to be some type of flaming, as that IS NOT how I want to come across.
However, in the past 22 years, since the CD format was readily available in
homes, not one time, NOT ONCE, has a musician (or any other music lover for
that matter) EVER picked CD over vinyl in a head-to-head, same recording
comparison. We are talking about hundreds of demonstrations over that time.
Hundreds! I just can't believe that anyone, especially on this forum, could
so adamantly argue that side of the coin.


I'll let Stewart reply to that.




Even Bob Harley, arguably one of (if not the) strongest proponents for
digital playback, has gone on record with this statement from his book "The
Complete Guide to High-End Audio," Second Edition, p-325.


what, the same Bob Harley who says this as well ...

http://www.monstercable.com/RobertHarley/ch11_p04.asp

Excerpt:
"One pitfall, however, is that cables and interconnects need time to
break in before they sound their best. Before break-in, a cable often
sounds bright, hard, fatiguing, congested, and lacking in soundstage
depth. These characteristics often disappear after several hours' use,
with days or weeks of use required for full break-in. You can't be sure,
however, if the cable is inherently bright- and hard-sounding, or if it
just needs breaking-in. Note that break-in wears off over time. Even if
a cable has had significant use, after a long period of not being used
it may not sound its best until you've put music through it for a few days."

Hmmmm ... could it be that it is the listener who gets broken in, and
not the cable itself ...


"This quandary --
LP vs. CD -- emerges from the fact that even today's state-of-the-art
digital audio doesn't approach the sound quality offered by a good LP
playback system. The very highest level of music reproduction, there's not
even a debate: LP is musically superior to CD."


Define "musically superior". Sure, nothing wrong with *prefering* vinyl
to CD, but musically superior?

In terms of musical reproduction, CD has a ruler flat frequency
response, so by definition, has better music reproduction ...
  #90   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

John Atkinson wrote:

I have been following this thread and I don't think those who talk
about the Wavac amplifier "clipping" at 2W can have read the
review (it's now available in the www.stereophile.com archives). If
you look at the graphs of output power vs THD+N percentage, you will
see that it does indeed put out 2W at 1% THD+N, which is our usual
definition of "clipping." However, it is important to note that the
Wavac is _not_ clipping at this level of distortion.


I looked at the graphs. I think you need to redefine your definition
of clipping. Clipping is when the distortion products (when viewed on a
scope with a nulled out fundamental) show the beginnings of an apparent
spike, which happens as an output device reaches saturation (or cutoff)
on signal peaks.


What happens is that as the output power increases, the waveform
becomes increasingly asymmetrical, meaning that the signal
increasingly suffers from second-harmoic distortion. While this
is indeed audible once the Wavac is putting out a watt or so, it
doesn't sound like clipping distortion, particularly as it is not
accompanied by catastrophic amounts of intermodulation distortion.


But it results in lots of effectively audible IM with music signals
as opposed to test tones. Some people like this, but I don't.


As I wrote in the review, true waveform clipping occurs at a few
tens of watts, depending on the output tap and load. So for anyone
to cast aspersions at Michael Fremer's hearing ability because he
didn't hear "clipping" is inappropriate, given the particular
nature of the Wavac's non-linear transfer function.


I have no doubt of his ability to hear what he likes. What is
questionable is his ability (probably from lack of training and/or
interest) to identify defects that legitimately bother many/most
others. I can't speak for anybody else, but I just don't like these
kinds of amplifiers.


When I listened to the Wavac, the bass boost was immediately
apparent, but it didn't sound aggressively distorted. Partly
this is because the amount of power typically demanded from an
amplifier tends to be below 2W much of the time with music rather
than test tones; partly this is because second harmonic distortion
tends to fatten the sound in rather a pleasing manner, at least
until the intermodulation products reach threshold.


It can also introduce dynamic effects that aren't in the original
signal. Some folks like this, others don't. Why do a lot of pop
musicians prefer to use compressors and expanders in their recordings?
I can't stand them because I prefer acoustic music. If someone likes
it, that's fine with them, no?


Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance.
I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its
sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark.


Not really.

It's performance is actually fairly typical of single ended tube amplifiers,
(you likely know this, since you've tested some of them) but it has more
power than most because of the use of a large transmitting tube for the
finals. There's no mystery about this. It's simply a matter of a person
just liking (or not) this kind of amplifier. Most probably don't.

The 'rating' of 150W is vulgar, grossly deceptive and a joke by any
modestly reasonable standard.


  #91   Report Post  
Michael McKelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

"Greg Weaver" wrote in message
news:jnmIc.58223$MB3.51122@attbi_s04...
"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:mm4Ic.66433$XM6.20336@attbi_s53...
(S888Wheel) wrote:

From: chung


I have a friend, ... but was crushed when a $300 cd player "blew
away" his tt in sound quality.


Do you know how preposterous that sounds? I have been in and around this
game since the late sixties, and I've yet to hear ANY well set-up
table/arm/cart - like the Music Hall MMF-2.1 for instance - "blown away"

by
any similarly priced digital front end.

Then it seems you have a preference for that type of sound. LP compared to
CD is objectively inferior in terms of distortion, compression, signal to
noise, and all other technical specs related to fidelity.

How you choose to define sound quality MIGHT be the issue. While we may
agree to disagree on what we like in terms of our own listening biases,

when
it comes to dimensionality, warmth, and harmonic texture, what you've
described just doesn't happen.


You do realize that you are describing the results of the increased
compression and EQ applied to LP's that CD don't require.

With a poorly maintained record, scratched
and dirty, popping and clicking from opening to close, the masking that
would occur would not allow you to truly hear the recording, and you may
have some ground to stand on. Otherwise, this is just insanity.

If you don't get good dimensionality, warmth, and harmonic texture from a
CD, then there is something wrong with the way you have things set up IMO.
I have compared several CD's to their LP counterparts and the LP has always
been found wanting. There have been some bad CD transfers of things first
released on LP but the overwhelming majority of music recorded these days
and issued on CD is many orders of magnitude better sounding than any LP IMO
and I've heard some very high quality Vinly rigs.

You implied this person had dropped major bucks on his analog system.

Either
it was badly set up or someone is hallucinating. C'mon. Let's get real

hear
(pun intended).

The reality is that by objective technical standards, CD is a vastly
superior format to LP.

Greg Weaver

On Sound and Music
http://www.onsoundandmusic.com
A Journal of Pro and High-End Audio,
Music, and other things that Matter

  #93   Report Post  
normanstrong
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

"Greg Weaver" wrote in message
..

Stewart,

I just don't know what to say that could be taken constructively and

not
appear to be some type of flaming, as that IS NOT how I want to come

across.
However, in the past 22 years, since the CD format was readily

available in
homes, not one time, NOT ONCE, has a musician (or any other music

lover for
that matter) EVER picked CD over vinyl in a head-to-head, same

recording
comparison. We are talking about hundreds of demonstrations over

that time.
Hundreds! I just can't believe that anyone, especially on this

forum, could
so adamantly argue that side of the coin.


I'm not Stewart, but I challenge the accuracy of your statement, if
only because I'm both a musician and a music lover, and I've always
picked the CD in those cases when the comparison was possible. If you
can back up your statistics, I'd certainly be impressed.

Norm Strong
  #94   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

S888Wheel wrote:

There's no accounting for taste.

I thought taste was considered subjective by objectivists.

And your point being?

Read the next line I wrote.

Which was totally irrelevant to my statement that there is no accounting
for taste. Meaning you can't argue about someone else's taste. Meaning
there are many people with taste that you would consider poor.

Oh, c'mon. You took a shot at MF's taste.


Oh yeah?


Yeah!


No sense wasting bandwidth arguing about what I said vs. what you think
I said. In any event that was totally irrelevant to why I said the amp
was not listening to.

(snip)


You were asking about eaxamples of
people getting banged around on RAHE? here is a fine one.


Actually MF does not post here, so that fails to apply as an example.


Did I qualify my claim that people get knocked around on RAHE by limmiting it
to people who post here? No I did not.


But I was asking for examples of when posters posted their opinions here
and got banged around. You did not provide any such examples, as of yet.

If you want to make a general claim that people got banged around on
this newsgroup, that example still does not qualify. Unless you believe
that criticizing someone's review is banging people around.

It applies as an example. What's the
point in citing examples if you cannot recognize an example when one is cited?


Irrelevant question since you are not citing examples that I was asking for.


But if you think that being challenged for raving about a 2W amp that is
spec'd at 150W, and by the way, costs $350K, qualifies as being banged
around, well, he would not get any sympathy from me .


No I think comments like "there is no acounting for taste" which is a common
insult is being banged around.


I will remember that you have the ability to take a general truism as an
insult to a specific yet-unnamed person.



I suppose you
wouldn't feel insulted if I infered that you had poor taste because your
subjective impressions didn't fall in line with my presumptions?


Actually, I would have expected that you don't think much about my taste
in hi-fi equipment, but that is neither here nor there. IOW, totally
irrelevant to the discussion of whether the amp is broken or not.


That wasn't the point. The point was your comment was insulting to MF.


Only the way you want to interpret it. But we are wasting bandwidth here.

(snip)

Maybe
you really didn't realize it but it was quite insulting. At least I would have
been insulted by it. No big deal, it happens often on RAHE but an insult is
what it is.






Are you now saying
that MF may simply have inferior taste?


"Simply"?

Yes, I said simply.

It is obvious that someone who can rave about the wonderful
sound of an amp that clips at 2W has, uh, unconventional, taste.

How do you know? You have never heard the amp in question.

Do you understand the meaning of "unconventional"? How many people you
know will rave about the sound of a 2W amp that is spec'ed at 150W?

I have asked for some clarification on this issue. No one has been

forthcoming.
Let's take a practical example. My speakers are very inefficient, about

84db.
If this amp is clipping at 2 watts then I shouldn't be able to get much

more
than 87db of sound from them with a test signal should I?


Since you have the habit of not forming any opinion until you listen to
it first, I would recomend that you listen to it instead of worrying
about how much power you are getting out of it.


So much for those who are more technical helping with technical information. By
the way, there is nothing subjective about my question. The answer does not
depend on me listening to anything. I'd have thought a technically inclined
fellow such as yourself would have seen that at first glance.


But you still want to listen to it first in any case, right? And why
would you assume that just because you asked the question someone has to
help you answer it? You have to do some research yourself at some time.
You know, like actually reading the measurements.









I should think so, considering the broken
manner it was operating most of the time.

Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me,
broken
means
it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all.

If as goFab says, the rated power is 150W/ch and it clips at 2W, it's
broken. It certainly is not working as it's supposed to.

Or they are not giving straight info on the power rating.

You mean as in lying?

No I didn't mean that. It may very well be a lie. I am in no position to
make
that acusation.

Well, if it's not lying, then it's gross incompetence. Or gross
negligence. Or cheating. Which is it? A typo?

A question worth persuing I think. If it is a lie it is serious.


If it's not a lie, then what is it?


I'm trying to figure out just what it is. It would help if my questions were
answered. They are not rhetorical questions.


Don't you have access to the measurements? Or do you simply not trust them?


For kicks lets
say I was purchasing this amp. Even with my inefficient speakers I would be
expecting to get over a 100 db pl;ayback levels if called for in the

material I
am playing. If this amp is clipping at 87 db could it possibly even

approach my
expected sound preasure levels at all much less do so an still sound

anything
like music?


I have no idea what you consider "sounding anything like music". But for
me, an amp that can only produces 93dB SPL at 1 m (and a pretty
efficient speaker at that) is simply not acceptable.


Still not answering the questions, oh well. You could have ignored the issue of
what I consider 'sounding anything like musi' and gone with the first part. I'd
be expecting SPLs of over 100 db, could this amp produce any sound within a few
db of that if it clips at 2 watts?


Again, read the measurements!

(snip)



You think an amp that clips at 93 dB SPL at 1m is good enough to handle
the dynamics of the kind of music you listen to? Well, it certainly
saves you a lot of money...unless you want this amp by WAVAC.

Is it clear that the amp ain't gonna put out much more than 93 db of

sound?

Do you like clipping distortion? If you do, then maybe you can squeeze
out another couple of dB.


Here's a problem I am having with this though. When I auditioned a WAVAC

amp
that WAVAC rated at 50 watts it was able to play louder than my Creek
integrated amp that is rated at 20 watts. Now if WAVAC is in the habbit of

such
gross misrepresentations of power output one has to wonder what the true

output
of 50 watt WAVAC is. Even if it is only doing as well as it's big. very big
brother it should not be able to play louder than the 20 watt Creek.


Now, do you understand why we said the amp is broken?

But it did
without sounding *grossly* distorted. So what is going on here. Do you

think
that the big WAVACs really won't produce much more than 87 db on my current
speakers that are about 84 db in efficiency?


I'm afraid you have to do the research yourself. But if the measurements
indicate the amp clips at 2W, well, you got your answer right there.
Unless the amp clips at a different point with different load
impedances. But even then the differences are small, a few dB at the most.







I don't have much of any answer. I'll make the question really simple. Can a 2
watt amp possibly produce higher maximum SPL than a "competen" SS 20 watt amp
on the same speakers?


Just read the measurements!
  #95   Report Post  
B&D
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

On 7/14/04 11:04 AM, in article fYbJc.76135$a24.356@attbi_s03, "Dennis
Moore" wrote:

"B&D" wrote in message
news:wv1Jc.72540$%_6.36619@attbi_s01...

It escapes me why people are offended at a review (somewhat favorable) of

a
really, really expensive amp that is basically a SET or very SET like?

We aren't ever likely to buy one new or used - and with a $350k budget,

one
should be able to get a house, car and a decent music and video system.

But
why should that high price, crappy specs, yet a pleasant sound be
scandalous? Sound coloration is one minor school of thought in sound
reproduction (like the horn and SET crowd)...



Well, I guess, because for $350 you might get similar sound. I don't have a
real
problem with the 'sound coloration' crowd. But if there are tremendously
cheaper
ways to do the same thing, why not do it?


Sure - but I doubt Stereophile parted with hard earned cash for it. I doubt
many will be sold either simply because even if it were the best amplifier
in the universe, most of us *still* could not afford it....


  #99   Report Post  
George Deliz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 14 Jul 2004 01:26:08 GMT, "Greg Weaver"
wrote:

Stewart,

I just don't know what to say that could be taken constructively and not
appear to be some type of flaming, as that IS NOT how I want to come across.
However, in the past 22 years, since the CD format was readily available in
homes, not one time, NOT ONCE, has a musician (or any other music lover for
that matter) EVER picked CD over vinyl in a head-to-head, same recording
comparison. We are talking about hundreds of demonstrations over that time.
Hundreds! I just can't believe that anyone, especially on this forum, could
so adamantly argue that side of the coin.


That's absolute rubbish! I personally know at least five regular
concert-goers, and three semi-professional musicians, who prefer CD to
vinyl. Hence, your statement is both untrue *and* an obviously biased
flame.

Even Bob Harley, arguably one of (if not the) strongest proponents for
digital playback, has gone on record with this statement from his book "The
Complete Guide to High-End Audio," Second Edition, p-325. "This quandary --
LP vs. CD -- emerges from the fact that even today's state-of-the-art
digital audio doesn't approach the sound quality offered by a good LP
playback system. The very highest level of music reproduction, there's not
even a debate: LP is musically superior to CD."


Remember the late, great Gabe Weiner, the legendary sound engineer
behind PGM Records? He *always* preferred CD, and would have dismissed
Harley's rant as sheer 'audiophile' drivel.

Indeed, one of Gabe's favourite tests was to play someone an LP, and
then a digital recording of that LP. No visitor to his studio could
*ever* tell the difference, thereby proving the sonic transparency of
CD pretty effectively.

With that thought, I close my thread. I shall neither comment further nor
expect any response. Again, this is not a "flame!" It is rather the honest
incredulity of someone who has spent virtually every day of his adult life
in and around this industry, the last 15 years of which have been as a
consultant and reviewer. Thanks.


Shame then, that you only appear to have listened to those who agree
with your own prejudice. If you wanted to, you could find plenty of
quotes from top musicians and industry professionals, to the effect
that vinyl is a parody of the original performance, and CD is *vastly*
superior. Indeed, the first real breakthrough of CD in the mass market
was in the classical field, where the clarity and sheer musicality was
appreciated by that band of generally critical listeners. I also
remember comments from the CD release of Sgt Pepper, where reviewers
raved about all the background subtleties that they had never heard on
the LP version! Of course, that was before it became *fashionable* to
prefer the well-known artifacts of vinyl................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


To be fair the OP was talking specifically about direct comparisons between CD
and LP versions of the same recording. However, I have made a few such
comparisons: Dave Brubeck's 'Time Out', Joe Sample's 'Carmel', Weather Report's
'Heavy Weather', 'Monk Straight No Chaser', Rubenstein's versions of several
Chopin and Rachmaninov recordings, Van Cliburn's Rachmaninov 2nd concerto,
Richter's Tchaikovsky 1st, Heifitz' Beethoven violin concerto, and Karajan's 1963
Beethoven 9th are a few that come off the top of my head.
The only instance in which I preferred the LP version was the Brubeck where the
tom-tom and brushes sounded much better to me than in the CD version. Admittedly
these comparisons were not made under controlled conditions and I was only
satisfying my curiousity as I replaced LP's with CD's over the period of a decade
or so. But, if I qualify as a music lover, I guess I disprove the OP's thesis.
Then again , the OP may say that my vinyl rig wasn't high-end enough (it was a
DUAL tt with Schure V15 II). But none of my CD players have been high-end, by any
means either, so that comparison should be a wash :-).

George Deliz

  #100   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Dennis Moore"
Date: 7/13/2004 6:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
...

I have been following this thread and I don't think those who talk
about the Wavac amplifier "clipping" at 2W can have read the
review (it's now available in the
www.stereophile.com archives). If
you look at the graphs of output power vs THD+N percentage, you will
see that it does indeed put out 2W at 1% THD+N, which is our usual
definition of "clipping." However, it is important to note that the
Wavac is _not_ clipping at this level of distortion.

What happens is that as the output power increases, the waveform
becomes increasingly asymmetrical, meaning that the signal
increasingly suffers from second-harmoic distortion. While this
is indeed audible once the Wavac is putting out a watt or so, it
doesn't sound like clipping distortion, particularly as it is not
accompanied by catastrophic amounts of intermodulation distortion.

As I wrote in the review, true waveform clipping occurs at a few
tens of watts, depending on the output tap and load. So for anyone
to cast aspersions at Michael Fremer's hearing ability because he
didn't hear "clipping" is inappropriate, given the particular
nature of the Wavac's non-linear transfer function.

When I listened to the Wavac, the bass boost was immediately
apparent, but it didn't sound aggressively distorted. Partly
this is because the amount of power typically demanded from an
amplifier tends to be below 2W much of the time with music rather
than test tones; partly this is because second harmonic distortion
tends to fatten the sound in rather a pleasing manner, at least
until the intermodulation products reach threshold.

Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance.
I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its
sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Yes, Mr. Atkinson, you are correct, it doesn't clip at 2w. I was guilty of
a little hyperbole. Not out of place in this discussion of the $350K Wavac
I think.


I quite disagree. you had at least one other person convinced that the
manufaturers were lying outright about their product. Mr. Chung ask me what
else could the claim of 150 watts be other than a lie if it clips at 2 watts.


Let me modify the question to you then: If the rated power is 150 W and
the unit shows 2% distortion at 2 W, 5% distortion at 10 W, is the spec
a lie? If it is not a lie, what is it?



  #101   Report Post  
Bob Marcus
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

S888Wheel wrote:

From: "Bob Marcus"
Date: 7/14/2004 8:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 1kcJc.76426$MB3.32199@attbi_s04

B&D wrote:

On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article
, "John
Atkinson" wrote:

Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance.
I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its
sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark.

And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn
based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out.


Some of us have heard highly distorting systems with massive bass humps
before. We don't need to listen to another one to know we won't like it.

bob


Let me get this straight, you can look at the the measurements of the WAVAC

and
from those measurements you can determine with a reasonable level of
certainty
that you have heard a *system* that sounded so similar to the *system* MF
reported on in his review that you wouldn't require an audition to form an
opinion on it's sonic merits?


That's not at all what I said. What I do know is that if I put an amplifier
which produces a huge bass hump and massive levels of distortion into *my*
system (or any system I like), I will not enjoy the result.

I have no idea whether it will sound anything like Fremer's system. Perhaps
Fremer's reference system has a massive bass suckout that this miserable
unit just happens to compensate for. That would explain why Fremer's never
heard anything so real before.

There is solid empirical evidence that most listeners with healthy hearing
prefer systems with low distortion, so it would be reasonable to predict
that most people would not like the Wavac. Measurements cannot tell us
everything about how a system will sound, but they can tell us some things.

bob

"Every good amp sounds the same. Every bad amp sounds bad in its own way."

__________________________________________________ _______________
MSN Life Events gives you the tips and tools to handle the turning points in
your life.
http://lifeevents.msn.com

  #102   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:48:26 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"B&D" wrote in message
news:cIFIc.65610$IQ4.2692@attbi_s02...
On 7/12/04 1:04 PM, in article _wzIc.62960$%_6.26489@attbi_s01, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

Excuse me? Even with a Rockport Sirius III, vinyl will still be vinyl.
That's the *real* difference.

Vinyl would be *what* then? I am not sure what you are getting at?

That it
is somehow bad? It *is* a pain in the butt to use - but a well

adjusted
turntable system works rather well.

It can never work so well as even an average CD player, because the
problem with vinyl is that the *medium* is intrinsically flawed, to a
vastly greater degree than CD.


What I have found that dollar for dollar you can get acceptable sound
performance from a CD at a much lower price point than vinyl. Vinyl,
though, if you are willing to put up with it and spend a lot more money
gives a much more satisfying result than even a comparably well executed CD
player - but it is rather fussy and not nearly as convenient as CD's.


I find this the best balanced description of vinyl vs. cd that I have yet
read here or elsewhere.


How odd - it reads to me as totally biased...............

Until recently I had a Linn Valhalla / Syrinx PU-2 / Accuphase AC-2 /
Modified Marcof PPA-2 setup that bested my Sony/DTI Pro/Proceed PDP player
and Sony C222ES SACD player on identically recorded music (Beethoven 5th
Symphony; Ormandy "Verdi Requiem; Szell's Rossini Overatures, Joplin's Cheap
Thrills, Dylan's Blonde on Blonde comparison disks).


Well, it would sure as heck sound *different*! That it 'bested' your
CD player is of course only your personal opinion.

Yet finding, cleaning, and listening to new old records that somehow
I missed buying in their day (usually for less than $2.00 each) is a fun
hobby


That is perhaps much closer to the truth of the matter. When you put
in that much time and effort, then *of course* vinyl must sound better
- or you'd have to admit that you'd been wasting your time........

You've missed the "party line" here on RAHE, which is that there is
absolutely no sonic difference between your 1985 Magnavox, your new NAD, or
the Bel Canto. You are just imagining it. The technology has been perfect
since Magnavox/Phillips went to 4x oversampling in the mid-eighties


Philips/Magnavox *started* with 4x oversampling in 1983, at the launch
of CD. It's interesting that until the supply of Philips DAC chips
dried up a few years ago, Naim still insisted on using that
decades-old technology.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #104   Report Post  
B&D
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

On 7/14/04 9:15 PM, in article YUkJc.75824$JR4.50497@attbi_s54, "Bob Marcus"
wrote:

There is solid empirical evidence that most listeners with healthy hearing
prefer systems with low distortion, so it would be reasonable to predict
that most people would not like the Wavac. Measurements cannot tell us
everything about how a system will sound, but they can tell us some things.


Sure - but at $350,000 a throw who cares. Might as well be gold and
platinum plated and packed full of diamonds and cost $20M, no way would I
ever be able to afford it to even find out.

Basically - who CARES how it sounds or measures - if it is unaffordable
arguing about this would be like arguing on whether it is better to buy a
seat on a Space Shuttle Ride, or a Baseball Stadium!

  #105   Report Post  
B&D
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

On 7/14/04 9:23 PM, in article w0lJc.80361$MB3.79518@attbi_s04, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 07:20:24 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John
Atkinson" wrote:

Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance.
I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its
sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark.


And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn
based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out.


Not the point. If *any* amp is rated at 150 watts and only puts out a
couple of tens of watts before clipping, and only 2 watts at 1%
distortion, then it can be dismissed out of hand as a hi-fi amplifier,
as it is basically broken. That some people might *prefer* that
horribly distorted sound is an entirely different matter, having
nothing to do with *high fidelity* sound (see any reference to SET
amps). There are literally dozens of sonically transparent amps on the
market, and none of them approach the ludicrous price level of that
fundamentally incompetent Wavac.


Does it clip? Meaning the saturated output power of the amp stops at less
than 150W meaning there is no level of drive to move the power to 150W? If
so, then the datasheet is wrong.

While I couldn't afford it - even if I wanted to - it is an abstract notion
of "goodness" vs. "badness" to me. About as useful as how many angles can
dance on the head of a pin.



  #107   Report Post  
B&D
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

On 7/14/04 9:14 PM, in article zTkJc.92323$XM6.7336@attbi_s53, "chung"
wrote:

Yes, Mr. Atkinson, you are correct, it doesn't clip at 2w. I was guilty of
a little hyperbole. Not out of place in this discussion of the $350K Wavac
I think.


I quite disagree. you had at least one other person convinced that the
manufaturers were lying outright about their product. Mr. Chung ask me what
else could the claim of 150 watts be other than a lie if it clips at 2 watts.


Let me modify the question to you then: If the rated power is 150 W and
the unit shows 2% distortion at 2 W, 5% distortion at 10 W, is the spec
a lie? If it is not a lie, what is it?


If the amplifier can produce 150W it is not a lie. Might be at a huge
distortion level, but if it can reach the power level, the spec sheet
doesn't lie. Does anyone know if it can?
  #108   Report Post  
B&D
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

On 7/14/04 9:23 PM, in article _%kJc.82948$IQ4.70366@attbi_s02, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

Until recently I had a Linn Valhalla / Syrinx PU-2 / Accuphase AC-2 /
Modified Marcof PPA-2 setup that bested my Sony/DTI Pro/Proceed PDP player
and Sony C222ES SACD player on identically recorded music (Beethoven 5th
Symphony; Ormandy "Verdi Requiem; Szell's Rossini Overatures, Joplin's Cheap
Thrills, Dylan's Blonde on Blonde comparison disks).


Well, it would sure as heck sound *different*! That it 'bested' your
CD player is of course only your personal opinion.


I dunno - if he listened to it - I figure it passed the only test required -
and it is his opinion - as you would say that it didn't best it based upon
no data or listening.
  #109   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

From: chung
Date: 7/14/2004 6:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: zTkJc.92323$XM6.7336@attbi_s53

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Dennis Moore"

Date: 7/13/2004 6:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
...

I have been following this thread and I don't think those who talk
about the Wavac amplifier "clipping" at 2W can have read the
review (it's now available in the
www.stereophile.com archives). If
you look at the graphs of output power vs THD+N percentage, you will
see that it does indeed put out 2W at 1% THD+N, which is our usual
definition of "clipping." However, it is important to note that the
Wavac is _not_ clipping at this level of distortion.

What happens is that as the output power increases, the waveform
becomes increasingly asymmetrical, meaning that the signal
increasingly suffers from second-harmoic distortion. While this
is indeed audible once the Wavac is putting out a watt or so, it
doesn't sound like clipping distortion, particularly as it is not
accompanied by catastrophic amounts of intermodulation distortion.

As I wrote in the review, true waveform clipping occurs at a few
tens of watts, depending on the output tap and load. So for anyone
to cast aspersions at Michael Fremer's hearing ability because he
didn't hear "clipping" is inappropriate, given the particular
nature of the Wavac's non-linear transfer function.

When I listened to the Wavac, the bass boost was immediately
apparent, but it didn't sound aggressively distorted. Partly
this is because the amount of power typically demanded from an
amplifier tends to be below 2W much of the time with music rather
than test tones; partly this is because second harmonic distortion
tends to fatten the sound in rather a pleasing manner, at least
until the intermodulation products reach threshold.

Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance.
I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its
sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Yes, Mr. Atkinson, you are correct, it doesn't clip at 2w. I was guilty of
a little hyperbole. Not out of place in this discussion of the $350K Wavac
I think.


I quite disagree. you had at least one other person convinced that the
manufaturers were lying outright about their product. Mr. Chung ask me what
else could the claim of 150 watts be other than a lie if it clips at 2

watts.


Let me modify the question to you then: If the rated power is 150 W and
the unit shows 2% distortion at 2 W, 5% distortion at 10 W, is the spec
a lie? If it is not a lie, what is it?


Why modify the question? You have now seen the measurements have you not? At
what point does the amp actually *clip*? Clearly it is *not* 2 watts as claimed
by another poster and taken as fact by you and others. It claims in the review
the manufacturer specifies it's "effective power" is 150 watts. That claim is
not qualified in any way that I can see. So I guess the answer to the question
lies in whether or not this amp can push 150 watts of energy into any speaker
load. Can you answer that question by looking at the measurements in
Stereophile? As to whether or not it is a lie I suppose depends on what the
person who claimed the power rating knew and what he or she believes about what
constitutes "effective power." I'd rather know more before I call anyone a
liar. after finding out the amp doesn't really clip at 2 watts wouldn't you
rather have all the material facts infront of you before you called anyone a
liar?

  #112   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:_%kJc.82948$IQ4.70366@attbi_s02...
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:48:26 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"B&D" wrote in message
news:cIFIc.65610$IQ4.2692@attbi_s02...
On 7/12/04 1:04 PM, in article _wzIc.62960$%_6.26489@attbi_s01,

"Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

Excuse me? Even with a Rockport Sirius III, vinyl will still be

vinyl.
That's the *real* difference.

Vinyl would be *what* then? I am not sure what you are getting at?

That it
is somehow bad? It *is* a pain in the butt to use - but a well

adjusted
turntable system works rather well.

It can never work so well as even an average CD player, because the
problem with vinyl is that the *medium* is intrinsically flawed, to a
vastly greater degree than CD.

What I have found that dollar for dollar you can get acceptable sound
performance from a CD at a much lower price point than vinyl. Vinyl,
though, if you are willing to put up with it and spend a lot more money
gives a much more satisfying result than even a comparably well

executed CD
player - but it is rather fussy and not nearly as convenient as CD's.


I find this the best balanced description of vinyl vs. cd that I have yet
read here or elsewhere.


How odd - it reads to me as totally biased...............


That's because your views are out at the extreme end of the spectrum...

Until recently I had a Linn Valhalla / Syrinx PU-2 / Accuphase AC-2 /
Modified Marcof PPA-2 setup that bested my Sony/DTI Pro/Proceed PDP

player
and Sony C222ES SACD player on identically recorded music (Beethoven 5th
Symphony; Ormandy "Verdi Requiem; Szell's Rossini Overatures, Joplin's

Cheap
Thrills, Dylan's Blonde on Blonde comparison disks).


Well, it would sure as heck sound *different*! That it 'bested' your
CD player is of course only your personal opinion.


That's the point...my setup doesn't sound "different", just better. The
"better" lies in the sense of depth and dimensionality of the soundstage and
in the microdynamics of the performance coming through (a feat that SACD and
DVD-A seems to match). In every aspect of frequency response and timbre, on
the records I compared, the sound is identical. Now granted, I have a
record system that I carefully assembled over the years to be "neutral", so
all systems do not sound like mine. But I have a "case of one" that a
record player can meet and best the CD standard as far as sound quality is
concerned.

Yet finding, cleaning, and listening to new old records that somehow
I missed buying in their day (usually for less than $2.00 each) is a fun
hobby


That is perhaps much closer to the truth of the matter. When you put
in that much time and effort, then *of course* vinyl must sound better
- or you'd have to admit that you'd been wasting your time........


Not at all. I do much less of this than I do attending concerts and
listening to music at home (probably three hours a day of intensive
listening). And a lot of that is to CD's and SACD's for the convenience.
But I don't let that bias get in the way of recognizing equal or superior
sound when I hear it.

You've missed the "party line" here on RAHE, which is that there is
absolutely no sonic difference between your 1985 Magnavox, your new NAD,

or
the Bel Canto. You are just imagining it. The technology has been

perfect
since Magnavox/Phillips went to 4x oversampling in the mid-eighties


Philips/Magnavox *started* with 4x oversampling in 1983, at the launch
of CD. It's interesting that until the supply of Philips DAC chips
dried up a few years ago, Naim still insisted on using that
decades-old technology.


Sure, and I have a wonderfully musical $1200 Phillips 880 using that
technology, from about 1987. But side by side and volume-balanced, it is
not as "transparent" as my Sony/DTI-Pro/Proceed PDP with its noise-shaped 18
bit equivalent sound. And I have heard even more transparency from later
units, such as the Arcams.


Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


  #113   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

On 15 Jul 2004 03:03:34 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 7/14/04 9:23 PM, in article _%kJc.82948$IQ4.70366@attbi_s02, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

Until recently I had a Linn Valhalla / Syrinx PU-2 / Accuphase AC-2 /
Modified Marcof PPA-2 setup that bested my Sony/DTI Pro/Proceed PDP player
and Sony C222ES SACD player on identically recorded music (Beethoven 5th
Symphony; Ormandy "Verdi Requiem; Szell's Rossini Overatures, Joplin's Cheap
Thrills, Dylan's Blonde on Blonde comparison disks).


Well, it would sure as heck sound *different*! That it 'bested' your
CD player is of course only your personal opinion.


I dunno - if he listened to it - I figure it passed the only test required -
and it is his opinion - as you would say that it didn't best it based upon
no data or listening.


OTOH, I *have* heard a Linn with a Syrinx arm, and in my opinion it
wasn't even a good vinyl player, let alone any competition for a
decent CD player.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #114   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:55:14 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 7/14/04 9:15 PM, in article YUkJc.75824$JR4.50497@attbi_s54, "Bob Marcus"
wrote:

There is solid empirical evidence that most listeners with healthy hearing
prefer systems with low distortion, so it would be reasonable to predict
that most people would not like the Wavac. Measurements cannot tell us
everything about how a system will sound, but they can tell us some things.


Sure - but at $350,000 a throw who cares. Might as well be gold and
platinum plated and packed full of diamonds and cost $20M, no way would I
ever be able to afford it to even find out.

Basically - who CARES how it sounds or measures - if it is unaffordable
arguing about this would be like arguing on whether it is better to buy a
seat on a Space Shuttle Ride, or a Baseball Stadium!


But it's *not* unaffordable to those who can afford it (duh)! I know
of someone who has a pair of Gaku-Ons (at about half the cost of the
Wavac) on his *yacht*. I leave it to you, to imagine what he has in
one of his houses....................

BTW, someone already has paid for a ride on the Space Shuttle, and
several people have bought a baseball stadium. There really is another
world out there, Cynthia! $350,000 won't buy you a decent racehorse,
and they sell *hundreds* of those every year...............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #115   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:55:23 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 7/14/04 9:23 PM, in article w0lJc.80361$MB3.79518@attbi_s04, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 07:20:24 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John
Atkinson" wrote:

Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance.
I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its
sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark.

And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn
based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out.


Not the point. If *any* amp is rated at 150 watts and only puts out a
couple of tens of watts before clipping, and only 2 watts at 1%
distortion, then it can be dismissed out of hand as a hi-fi amplifier,
as it is basically broken. That some people might *prefer* that
horribly distorted sound is an entirely different matter, having
nothing to do with *high fidelity* sound (see any reference to SET
amps). There are literally dozens of sonically transparent amps on the
market, and none of them approach the ludicrous price level of that
fundamentally incompetent Wavac.


Does it clip? Meaning the saturated output power of the amp stops at less
than 150W meaning there is no level of drive to move the power to 150W? If
so, then the datasheet is wrong.


The datasheet is wrong. Also, consider the excellent Bryston 4B-SST,
which at less than one *hundredth* of the cost of the Wavac, totally
destroys it as a high fidelity amplifier.

While I couldn't afford it - even if I wanted to - it is an abstract notion
of "goodness" vs. "badness" to me. About as useful as how many angles can
dance on the head of a pin.


That would be about 360......... :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering



  #116   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

From: "normanstrong"
Date: 7/14/2004 3:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"B&D" wrote in message
news:Y85Jc.86876$XM6.19824@attbi_s53...
On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article
, "John
Atkinson" wrote:

Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance.
I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its
sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark.


And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to

condemn
based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out.


I became curious when I read that a Pillsbury bakeoff recipe contest
had generated over 200,000 recipes. How--I wondered--could the jury
possibly sample 200,000 samples of baked goods? Well, it appears
that culinary experts can evaluate a recipe simply by reading it.


I don't think they can and I for one, am not interested in letting the
Pillsbury bakeoff contest set the standard for me in my hobby.

Is
this not analogous to evaluating the sound of an amp by looking at the
test results?


I suppose if you want to look to the Pillsburry bakeoff contest for guidence in
how to evaluate audio equipment.


A note about 2nd harmonic distortion:

For centuries, pipe organ designers have known that one can't make the
organ louder by blowing harder on the pipes. Nor can they simply add
another identical pipe. This latter makes the organ twice as loud,
but it sure doesn't sound like it. Rather, the builder adds a stop
that speaks an octave higher than the fundamental--the 2nd harmonic.
This stop makes the sound recognizably louder and richer. So what an
amplifier with lots of 2nd harmonic distortion sounds like is an organ
with the 4' Octave added to the 8' Principal--whether you want it or
not!

Norm Strong










  #117   Report Post  
Norman Schwartz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

"Greg Weaver" writes


I just don't know what to say that could be taken constructively and not
appear to be some type of flaming, as that IS NOT how I want to come

across.
However, in the past 22 years, since the CD format was readily available

in
homes, not one time, NOT ONCE, has a musician (or any other music lover

for
that matter) EVER picked CD over vinyl in a head-to-head, same recording
comparison. We are talking about hundreds of demonstrations over that

time.
Hundreds! I just can't believe that anyone, especially on this forum,

could
so adamantly argue that side of the coin.

I have a cassette tape (RCDJ 61909-4) from which can be heard an interview
with John Pfieffer, "Executive Producer, RCA Victor Living Stereo", who
picks CD over LP, not only once, but every time.

  #118   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

S888Wheel wrote:

From: chung
Date: 7/14/2004 6:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: zTkJc.92323$XM6.7336@attbi_s53

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Dennis Moore"

Date: 7/13/2004 6:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
...

I have been following this thread and I don't think those who talk
about the Wavac amplifier "clipping" at 2W can have read the
review (it's now available in the
www.stereophile.com archives). If
you look at the graphs of output power vs THD+N percentage, you will
see that it does indeed put out 2W at 1% THD+N, which is our usual
definition of "clipping." However, it is important to note that the
Wavac is _not_ clipping at this level of distortion.

What happens is that as the output power increases, the waveform
becomes increasingly asymmetrical, meaning that the signal
increasingly suffers from second-harmoic distortion. While this
is indeed audible once the Wavac is putting out a watt or so, it
doesn't sound like clipping distortion, particularly as it is not
accompanied by catastrophic amounts of intermodulation distortion.

As I wrote in the review, true waveform clipping occurs at a few
tens of watts, depending on the output tap and load. So for anyone
to cast aspersions at Michael Fremer's hearing ability because he
didn't hear "clipping" is inappropriate, given the particular
nature of the Wavac's non-linear transfer function.

When I listened to the Wavac, the bass boost was immediately
apparent, but it didn't sound aggressively distorted. Partly
this is because the amount of power typically demanded from an
amplifier tends to be below 2W much of the time with music rather
than test tones; partly this is because second harmonic distortion
tends to fatten the sound in rather a pleasing manner, at least
until the intermodulation products reach threshold.

Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance.
I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its
sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Yes, Mr. Atkinson, you are correct, it doesn't clip at 2w. I was guilty of
a little hyperbole. Not out of place in this discussion of the $350K Wavac
I think.

I quite disagree. you had at least one other person convinced that the
manufaturers were lying outright about their product. Mr. Chung ask me what
else could the claim of 150 watts be other than a lie if it clips at 2

watts.


Let me modify the question to you then: If the rated power is 150 W and
the unit shows 2% distortion at 2 W, 5% distortion at 10 W, is the spec
a lie? If it is not a lie, what is it?


Why modify the question?


Why not, since the measurements show that the amp does not clip at 2W,
but just shows high level of distortion at that level?

You have now seen the measurements have you not?


I have. Have you?

At
what point does the amp actually *clip*? Clearly it is *not* 2 watts as claimed
by another poster and taken as fact by you and others. It claims in the review
the manufacturer specifies it's "effective power" is 150 watts. That claim is
not qualified in any way that I can see.


You mean it has no relation to how power amp outputs are usually stated,
i.e., at a certain level of distortion?

So I guess the answer to the question
lies in whether or not this amp can push 150 watts of energy into any speaker
load. Can you answer that question by looking at the measurements in
Stereophile?


Is 5% THD too low a number for you for rated power? If not, the level is
about 10-15W. Is there any power amp in the market that has a rated
power spec'd at higher than 5% distortion?

Effective power should mean useful power. Is the power amp still useful
if the THD is higher than 5%? Does anyone consider a power amp useful if
it is outputting basically square waves?

As to whether or not it is a lie I suppose depends on what the
person who claimed the power rating knew and what he or she believes about what
constitutes "effective power."


So what does effective power mean to you, the audiophile consumer? 5%
distortion, or 30% distortion?

I'd rather know more before I call anyone a
liar.


So an amp has an effective power of 150W, but can only output 15W at 5%
THD. If you don't think that stating effective power this way is not a
lie, then what is it? Don't you think a buyer may expect to actually use
the amp at 150W?

after finding out the amp doesn't really clip at 2 watts wouldn't you
rather have all the material facts infront of you before you called anyone a
liar?


I am actually interested in whether you think it is a lie? And if not,
what is it.

I clearly believe that it is a gross misrepresentation, or gross
incompetence, or a lie. Probably not a typo, nor an honest mistake.

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Imaging, soundstage, 3D Ban High End Audio 4 February 17th 04 07:18 AM
the emperor's clothes Ben Hoadley High End Audio 33 January 16th 04 06:48 PM
Sound, Music, Balance Robert Trosper High End Audio 1 November 21st 03 05:09 AM
DVI - The Destroyer Of Sound Uptown Audio High End Audio 0 September 10th 03 04:36 PM
Surround Sound for Stereo Lovers Robert Lang High End Audio 5 July 4th 03 08:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:29 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"