Steven Sullivan wrote in message news:e5FTa.130211$ye4.91902@sccrnsc01...
Daniel wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message news:zjzTa.126977$N7.18539@sccrnsc03...
Daniel wrote:
The *only* thing I said about wire is that I don't believe one sounds
any better than any other. I'm *beyond* skeptical. I tried different
speaker wires, and found no difference, even while using a pair of
very revealing B&Ws.

I didn't say word one about amps.

All I asked -- and which you have edited out -- was for the OP, Steven
Sullivan, to tell us in which ads companies made "dubious claims." I
wanted more facts, and instead of providing any beyond the link to
taralabs.com, he assumed all sorts of things about me and what I do
and don't believe.

Sorry, it looked to me like you weren't really that interested in reading the
ad copy. If I'm goign to do the work of skimming through the ad copy
of back issues, I want to know that you really care. IN the meantime,
you could just visit the websites of high-end cable manufacterers,
one example of which I gave. Another would be www.cardas.com
How many examples will you require?

I thought it was interesting, and wanted to go through some of my
magazines and see what was "dubious." I had hoped SS would provide
some examples. He hasn't as of yet, or at least I haven't seen them. I
would still like to know.

Very well, then, I'll get you some. What will be my reward for
my educational efforts, I wonder?

I guess my hope was that you'd have other types of equipment -- amps,
speakers, CD players -- to tell about. I'm already on your side when
it comes to cable and wire. I'm somewhat down on high-end audio as a
hobby and, even more, as a way to spend money, and wanted to know
about dubious claims in these other areas.

OK, I'll specifically look for amp and digital player ads. I haven't
seen any crazy speaker ads lately, aside from which, it's possible
for speakers to sound very different from each other.

If you don't mind, I might also throw in some typically unsupported
claims from reviews and editorials.

Hey, that'd be great. I mean, don't go to a *huge* amount of trouble,
but it would be interesting to see examples of what you were talking
about. Thanks.

Here is an interesting link
http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatur...rphysics2.html

KE

"Daniel" wrote in message
news4XTa.121293$GL4.32412@rwcrnsc53...
Steven Sullivan wrote in message
news:e5FTa.130211$ye4.91902@sccrnsc01...
Daniel wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message
news:zjzTa.126977$N7.18539@sccrnsc03...
Daniel wrote:
The *only* thing I said about wire is that I don't believe one
sounds
any better than any other. I'm *beyond* skeptical. I tried
different
speaker wires, and found no difference, even while using a pair of
very revealing B&Ws.

I didn't say word one about amps.

All I asked -- and which you have edited out -- was for the OP,
Steven
Sullivan, to tell us in which ads companies made "dubious claims."
I
wanted more facts, and instead of providing any beyond the link to
taralabs.com, he assumed all sorts of things about me and what I do
and don't believe.

Sorry, it looked to me like you weren't really that interested in
reading the
ad copy. If I'm goign to do the work of skimming through the ad copy
of back issues, I want to know that you really care. IN the
meantime,
you could just visit the websites of high-end cable manufacterers,
one example of which I gave. Another would be www.cardas.com
How many examples will you require?

I thought it was interesting, and wanted to go through some of my
magazines and see what was "dubious." I had hoped SS would provide
some examples. He hasn't as of yet, or at least I haven't seen
them. I
would still like to know.

Very well, then, I'll get you some. What will be my reward for
my educational efforts, I wonder?

I guess my hope was that you'd have other types of equipment -- amps,
speakers, CD players -- to tell about. I'm already on your side when
it comes to cable and wire. I'm somewhat down on high-end audio as a
hobby and, even more, as a way to spend money, and wanted to know
about dubious claims in these other areas.

OK, I'll specifically look for amp and digital player ads. I haven't
seen any crazy speaker ads lately, aside from which, it's possible
for speakers to sound very different from each other.

If you don't mind, I might also throw in some typically unsupported
claims from reviews and editorials.

Hey, that'd be great. I mean, don't go to a *huge* amount of trouble,
but it would be interesting to see examples of what you were talking
about. Thanks.

Pinkerton said


The trick is to ignore the specs (and the price tag) and actually
*listen* under controlled conditions, whereupon you discover that most
halfway decent amps actually *do* sound the same.

I said

Most but not all? depending on your definition of a "halfway decent amp"
that
may be a different claim than what Nousaine claims. I am curious, do you
think
the differences you have heard in your controled listening tests were
actual
differences or do you think that Nousaine's position that such amps are all
identicial in sound is not entirely accurate?


Steven said

That's not Nousaine's position, AFAICT. He specifies nominal competency
(which means it would measure well),
operation within the amp's limits, a normally reverberant listening
environment (which perhaps rules out headphones), as conditions under

which amps sound the same.

Was it not obvious that when I said "depending on your definition of 'halfway
decent amp'" that this was what I meant?

Steven said

He may also be referring
to musical/complext material, rather than test tones; I don't recall.

My recollection is that he is reffering to what he deems as competently
designed and built amps playing speakers in a nominally reverberant room
whatever such a room may be. The room bit was added to the list of conditions
fairly recently so it seems.

On 24 Jul 2003 14:45:43 GMT, "All Ears" wrote:
There seems to be a problem in the way that we measure or
rate the measurements, today.

What do you mean "we?" Whuch "we" are YOU talkign about.

If you mean the way the popular press "measures", maybe. If you
mean the way manufacturers "maesure, then you simply don't
understand why the measure the way theu do: it's to sell
equipment.

Otherwise, why would equipment with similar specifications sound different?

"Specifications" ARE NOT MEASUREMENTS! When will people in this
business grasp that concept?

I can find two units with IDENTICAL specification that measure
VASTLY differently. That pretty much throws a monkey wrench in
your basic premise, doesn't it?

Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily
find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
will claim they sound identical. What does THAT do to your
"theory?"

The point being is you are erroneously equating "specifications"
and "measurements," and you are further implicitly assuming that
the data often presented in specifications is, indeed, a
complete or even sufficient set of data for a unit. That notion
is prepostreously wrong, and it is from that wrong premise that
the rest of your arguments proceed.

Beyond that, you make your statement:

"equipment with similar specifications sound different"

as if it is axiomatic. It assuredly is not. It is an assertion
an, as such, is subject to challenge, testing and verification.
Where is such that supports the assertion?

With regard to cables, I am not speaking of poor connections, even if the
connections are good, but the cables are oxidized, it will give a noticeable
harsh sound.

Agin, you make the assertion as if simply making it is proof of
its correctness. Support that assertion, if you please, with
some facts. Why would oxidization on the surface of a cable
cause such an effect? [hint: if you're inclined to use
arguuments like 'microdiodes' or "strand-jumping'" or such,
don't" they're nonses]

Anyway, a good quality speaker cable will sound a lot better
than a lamp cord, even in a blind test. Those who cannot hear this, are
probably not comparing the right speaker cable to the lamp cord.

Again, nothing more than an opinion, and, as yet, one completely
unsupported by any facts.
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily
find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
will claim they sound identical. What does THAT do to your
"theory?"

I know of a few retailers that say otherwise. One time I was told that if you
hear a particular amp from one particular manufacturer that you like that you
should buy that unit. the rest will sound different. One should be careful not
to build arguments on shakey premises.

I questioned Nousaine's dubious claim that he'd been contacted for
advice by an attorney regarding a possible class action suit against
cable manufacturers.

Steven Sullivan answers:

LOL..you live in the UK, yes? Perhaps you aren't aware of just how
litigious things can get over here in the colonies.

I live in the U.S. Nousaine's claim lacked any names or proof. Neither
can anyone name a victim, nor answer the question of why an attorney
would call Nousaine for an opinion as to whether cable advertising is -
to use Nousaine's word -
"actionable".

Absent some proof, it sounds like pure fiction.

S888Wheel wrote:
Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily
find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
will claim they sound identical. What does THAT do to your
"theory?"

I know of a few retailers that say otherwise. One time I was told that if you
hear a particular amp from one particular manufacturer that you like that you
should buy that unit. the rest will sound different.

How does that contradict what Dick was saying? Of course there are
manufacturers who cannot produce amps with consistency (like SET's that
employ no global feedback so that the performance is a strict function
of the tubes and the bias adjustments, etc.). And BTW, would you trust
the opinion of "a few retailers", or someone like Dick Pierce who has
been an engineer and a designer for decades?

One should be careful not
to build arguments on shakey premises.

This seems to describe your position.

On 25 Jul 2003 16:30:19 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily
find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
will claim they sound identical. What does THAT do to your
"theory?"

I know of a few retailers that say otherwise. One time I was told that if you
hear a particular amp from one particular manufacturer that you like that you
should buy that unit. the rest will sound different.

That is commonly known as shoddy quality control...............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

C. Leeds wrote:
I questioned Nousaine's dubious claim that he'd been contacted for
advice by an attorney regarding a possible class action suit against
cable manufacturers.

Steven Sullivan answers:

LOL..you live in the UK, yes? Perhaps you aren't aware of just how
litigious things can get over here in the colonies.

I live in the U.S.

Ah, my mistake, sorry. So, you haven't heard of
class action suits for trivial reasons?

Nousaine's claim lacked any names or proof. Neither
can anyone name a victim, nor answer the question of why an attorney
would call Nousaine for an opinion as to whether cable advertising is -
to use Nousaine's word -
"actionable".

Absent some proof, it sounds like pure fiction.

Absent proof, Tom's story sounds *possible* to me.

And more likely true than , say, the average claim of
'amazing difference' between the way cables sound.

--
-S.

Dick said


S888Wheel wrote:
Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily
find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
will claim they sound identical. What does THAT do to your
"theory?"

I said


I know of a few retailers that say otherwise. One time I was told that if
you
hear a particular amp from one particular manufacturer that you like that
you
should buy that unit. the rest will sound different.

Mr. Chung said


How does that contradict what Dick was saying?

Isn't it obvious? He said "expert" listeners will claim that amps of the same
model will claim they sound identical. That is not always the case.

Mr. Chung said

Of course there are
manufacturers who cannot produce amps with consistency (like SET's that
employ no global feedback so that the performance is a strict function
of the tubes and the bias adjustments, etc.).

Fine but not what I was talking about. The amps in question were solid state
from a highly reputable manufacturer.

Mr. Chung said

And BTW, would you trust
the opinion of "a few retailers", or someone like Dick Pierce who has
been an engineer and a designer for decades?


I trust their honesty but I do not rely on their opinions. That isn't the issue
however. the issue for me was an argument was being built on a flawed premise.
Whether or not I trust the opinions of those particular retailer does not in
any way affect the fact that they have them and that contradicts Dick's
premise. I have no doubt that many audiophiles think amps of the same model
sound the same but clearly some believe there are sonic variations within the
same models of certain amps as well. I think Dick has made a hasty
generaization. that is all.

I said


One should be careful not
to build arguments on shakey premises.


Mr. Chung said


This seems to describe your position.

I think you are wrong for reasons stated above. Maybe you can cite the shakey
premise I have used in my argument.

In article ,
All Ears wrote:
I admit that it was meant partly as a provocation. However the subject is
interesting to me. There seems to be a problem in the way that we measure or
rate the measurements, today.

No, the problem is the high-end realm, the hi-fi popular press,
and, to be honesty, sales types who insist on a simple set of
single-value "figures of merit" numbers that people ASSUME
constitute complete "measurements." These are numbers like
damping factor, THD, S/N, "frequency response" and all the
common sets of numbers. I have no argument that this paltry set
of numbers is absolutely useless as indicators of audibility,
but they hardly constitute the full range of available technical
measurements that are available.

Face it, the high-end audio industry is DECADES behind behind
the state of the art in many areas, and this is just one
example. I'm not going to give a tutorial on the current range
of available measurements, because it is a vast topic, but the
information is their for anyone interested in getting off their
duff and looking for it.

Otherwise, why would equipment with similar specifications
sound different?

I answered this elsewhere, but, again, you make several bold but
unsupported assumptions:

1. That the "specifications" canstitute a large enough subset of
available measurements to be meaningful,

2. That "similar" means the same as "indentical" in the sense
that you discount ANY differences that would make something
similar as unimportant,

3. That they do, indeed, sound different.

The first two are not only unsupported, they are unsupportable.
The third remains unsupported until you or whoever is claiming
that there is a difference can show that such a difference is
due to the sound produced by the units under question. YOu
haven't done that at all.

I will also question the value of double blind tests, in connection to audio
equipment. This is because that any kind of pressure or stress to the test
persons, will affect the perception of the sound presented.

That's your assertion, where's the support of it. Your argument,
as above, suffers from several flaws:

1. You claim that such tests induce undue stress. Where's
the support for this claim?

2. You claim that the stress influences the perception. Where's
the support for your claim?

And if someone makes a claim about the ability to hear a
difference, THEY HAVE ALREADY INTRODUCED THE BASIS OF THE STRESS
IN MAKING THE CLAIM, it could be argued. They have put their
opinion on the line. If a "test" exacerbates the stress, it may
well be because the subject now has doubts as to whether the
original claim is uspportable.

I also doubt that you understand what is meant by "double blind
testing." Certainly the arguments you see in this forum where
people cite problems with "listening to quick snipets" or "the
test is not under the user's control" or "the subject can't
listen to material he is familiar with" and more are all
indication thatv those making the arguments really haven't got
the faintest clue as to what they are talking about.

The definition of "double blind" is very simple, neither the
listener nor the administrator of the test has any indication
OTHER THAN THE CSOUND OF THE UNIT what unit they are listening
to. That's it. Very simple. It DOES NOT include any of the myths
and untruths members of the high-end community commonly raise..

I would think that it would be much more interesting to collect statistical
material, like letting a fairly large amount of people (one by one, or in
small groups) listen to different equipment, in a relaxed atmosphere.

And, how is such excluded by double blind testing? (hint: IT
ISN'T)

To get
a good reference point, I would suggest using a live concert piano, in a
separate room with a microphone, feeding the signal to the equipment in the
other rooms.

That's been done. And the results, I suspect, are not to your
liking because they may well not fit your preconceived notion of
what the results SHOULD be.

That's the entire point behind careful protocol design: it
removes the influence of everything BUT the sound form the
experiment. It removes the influence of preconceived notions and
the like.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

S888Wheel wrote:
Dick said


S888Wheel wrote:
Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily
find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
will claim they sound identical. What does THAT do to your
"theory?"

I said


I know of a few retailers that say otherwise. One time I was told that if
you
hear a particular amp from one particular manufacturer that you like that
you
should buy that unit. the rest will sound different.

Mr. Chung said


How does that contradict what Dick was saying?

Isn't it obvious? He said "expert" listeners will claim that amps of the same
model will claim they sound identical. That is not always the case.


Please read carefully, that's not what Dick was saying. Dick was saying
that there are some measureable differences that "expert listeners"
cannot detect. He did not say anything about amps of the same model, or
that expert listeners would always say two amps of the same model sound
the same. Those are your erroneous extrapolations.

What Dick was saying is that some differences in equipment are
measureable, but not perceivable via listening for most people. What
your "few retailers" are saying is that there are companies who make
products that have the same specs, being the same model, but have
perceivable differences in performance. That is not unusual since those
products may actually measure very differently, if the quality control
is poor. There is no contradiction between what Dick said and what your
retailers said.

What Dick was also stressing was the fact that specs of an audio product
do not necessarily predict actual performance. It is easy to find
products that have same specs with different measurement results,
although those differences may not be audible.

For instance, an amp may spec a -3dB frequency of 20KHz. I may find two
amps of that model, one with a 36KHz -3dB point, and one with a 18KHz
-3dB point. The mesasurements are clearly different, right? But an
expert listener may still not be able to tell these two apart in a
listening test.

Mr. Chung said

Of course there are
manufacturers who cannot produce amps with consistency (like SET's that
employ no global feedback so that the performance is a strict function
of the tubes and the bias adjustments, etc.).

Fine but not what I was talking about. The amps in question were solid state
from a highly reputable manufacturer.


First, you did not specify highly reputable manufacturers before. BTW,
"highly reputable" by whose standards? Your retailers'? Second, how do
you know that those "highly reputable" manufacturers have excellent
quality control? In fact, if they are indeed highly reputable, why would
different units of the same model sound different? By definition, if the
manufacturer cannot make a product consistently, it should not be
"highly reputable".

Mr. Chung said

And BTW, would you trust
the opinion of "a few retailers", or someone like Dick Pierce who has
been an engineer and a designer for decades?


I trust their honesty but I do not rely on their opinions. That isn't the issue
however. the issue for me was an argument was being built on a flawed premise.
Whether or not I trust the opinions of those particular retailer does not in
any way affect the fact that they have them and that contradicts Dick's
premise. I have no doubt that many audiophiles think amps of the same model
sound the same but clearly some believe there are sonic variations within the
same models of certain amps as well. I think Dick has made a hasty
generaization. that is all.

You don't understand Dick's "generalization" now, do you? Dick was
saying that differences can be measureable by instruments and yet be not
perceivable by some, if not all, people. Why is this a hasty
generalization? Don't we all know that instruments can be much more
sensitive than human hearing? Seems to me you are the only who is
drawing a hasty conclusion.


I said


One should be careful not
to build arguments on shakey premises.


Mr. Chung said


This seems to describe your position.

I think you are wrong for reasons stated above. Maybe you can cite the shakey
premise I have used in my argument.

The shaky premise you used is not understanding what Dick was saying.
What exactly do you think was Dick's premise, BTW?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard D Pierce"
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 9:53 AM
Subject: Ears vs. Instruments

In article ,
All Ears wrote:
I admit that it was meant partly as a provocation. However the subject is
interesting to me. There seems to be a problem in the way that we measure
or
rate the measurements, today.

No, the problem is the high-end realm, the hi-fi popular press,
and, to be honesty, sales types who insist on a simple set of
single-value "figures of merit" numbers that people ASSUME
constitute complete "measurements." These are numbers like
damping factor, THD, S/N, "frequency response" and all the
common sets of numbers. I have no argument that this paltry set
of numbers is absolutely useless as indicators of audibility,
but they hardly constitute the full range of available technical
measurements that are available.

That is what I meant by what is "commenly" rated as being important
measurements. From these parameters it is impossible for me to explain why a
modern OTL tube amplifier is able to perform the way it does, I haven't
heard anything that even comes close in sonic performance, with the right
speakers. We are not talking lush tube sound here, but fast like a bat out
of hell, deep well articulated bass and a reproduction of voices and
acoustic instruments like nothing I have heard before.


Face it, the high-end audio industry is DECADES behind behind
the state of the art in many areas, and this is just one
example. I'm not going to give a tutorial on the current range
of available measurements, because it is a vast topic, but the
information is their for anyone interested in getting off their
duff and looking for it.

I would be very interested in your findings of really relevant measurements.
Another thing I do feel is needed, is some sort of industry standard in
audio reproduction, that goes all the way from the recording studio to the
manufactures of audio equipment. I think this would make it a lot easier to
set the appropriate design goals.


Otherwise, why would equipment with similar specifications
sound different?

I answered this elsewhere, but, again, you make several bold but
unsupported assumptions:

1. That the "specifications" canstitute a large enough subset of
available measurements to be meaningful,

2. That "similar" means the same as "indentical" in the sense
that you discount ANY differences that would make something
similar as unimportant,

3. That they do, indeed, sound different.

The first two are not only unsupported, they are unsupportable.
The third remains unsupported until you or whoever is claiming
that there is a difference can show that such a difference is
due to the sound produced by the units under question. YOu
haven't done that at all.

Sorry for mixing up specifications and measurements, as you say yourself,
there are more relevant measurements, than what are used as marketing
arguments today (right?)


I will also question the value of double blind tests, in connection to
audio
equipment. This is because that any kind of pressure or stress to the
test
persons, will affect the perception of the sound presented.

That's your assertion, where's the support of it. Your argument,
as above, suffers from several flaws:

1. You claim that such tests induce undue stress. Where's
the support for this claim?

2. You claim that the stress influences the perception. Where's
the support for your claim?

Personally, I find it difficult to enjoy listening to music, unless there is
the necessery atmosphere to relax.


And if someone makes a claim about the ability to hear a
difference, THEY HAVE ALREADY INTRODUCED THE BASIS OF THE STRESS
IN MAKING THE CLAIM, it could be argued. They have put their
opinion on the line. If a "test" exacerbates the stress, it may
well be because the subject now has doubts as to whether the
original claim is uspportable.

I try to keep an open mind, and are not stoubernly defending any specific
ideals, brands etc. I listen to a lot of different equipment and music, and
makes my personal experiences from this. This is not a universal truth, and
other ears or measuring instruments may have another opinion. We must also
bare in mind that there are different "generic" listening types, who all
focus on their specific areas of the sound image.

I also doubt that you understand what is meant by "double blind
testing." Certainly the arguments you see in this forum where
people cite problems with "listening to quick snipets" or "the
test is not under the user's control" or "the subject can't
listen to material he is familiar with" and more are all
indication thatv those making the arguments really haven't got
the faintest clue as to what they are talking about.

The definition of "double blind" is very simple, neither the
listener nor the administrator of the test has any indication
OTHER THAN THE CSOUND OF THE UNIT what unit they are listening
to. That's it. Very simple. It DOES NOT include any of the myths
and untruths members of the high-end community commonly raise..

I would think that it would be much more interesting to collect
statistical
material, like letting a fairly large amount of people (one by one, or in
small groups) listen to different equipment, in a relaxed atmosphere.

And, how is such excluded by double blind testing? (hint: IT
ISN'T)

To get
a good reference point, I would suggest using a live concert piano, in a
separate room with a microphone, feeding the signal to the equipment in
the
other rooms.

That's been done. And the results, I suspect, are not to your
liking because they may well not fit your preconceived notion of
what the results SHOULD be.

That's the entire point behind careful protocol design: it
removes the influence of everything BUT the sound form the
experiment. It removes the influence of preconceived notions and
the like.

As stated before, I try not to have any preconceived opinions, but to keep
an open mind to what I hear, and I do not go with my first opinion, I often
swap equipment back and forth, to verify my findings. The goal for me, is to
find pleasure in listening to music, if I find that a mass loading puck, ERS
material or a specific cable to increase my listening pleasure, I'll use it.
Not saying that I am not interested in finding out why this particular
component apears to be working for me, but I don't see why I should retain
myself from using it, if I find it useful.

KE


--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

In article ,
All Ears wrote:
No, the problem is the high-end realm, the hi-fi popular press,
and, to be honesty, sales types who insist on a simple set of
single-value "figures of merit" numbers that people ASSUME
constitute complete "measurements." These are numbers like
damping factor, THD, S/N, "frequency response" and all the
common sets of numbers. I have no argument that this paltry set
of numbers is absolutely useless as indicators of audibility,
but they hardly constitute the full range of available technical
measurements that are available.

That is what I meant by what is "commenly" rated as being important
measurements. From these parameters it is impossible for me to explain why a
modern OTL tube amplifier is able to perform the way it does, I haven't
heard anything that even comes close in sonic performance, with the right
speakers. We are not talking lush tube sound here, but fast like a bat out
of hell, deep well articulated bass and a reproduction of voices and
acoustic instruments like nothing I have heard before.

If, by "OTL tube amplifier" your mean a transformerless output,
then, my goodness, the measurable differences between this type
of amplifier and, say, any given solid state amplifier when
driving the same loudspeaker are ENORMOUS, simply because of the
substantially higher output impedance of the OTL amplifier. That
difference, again when measured with specific speaker loads,
leads to a HUGE difference in the frequency response of the
system. I'm not talking a quarter dB here or there, I'm talking
about MANY dB of difference. Just that difference alone is
hugely audible and I would not be the least suprised to find
that, in fact, the "specs" of such an amplifier, when measured
in situ, are unlike any other amplifier around.

So, one point of your basic premise is immediately falsified: an
tube OTL amplifier CANNOT have the same simple measurements like
frequency response: they simply cannot. Thus, claiming that two
amplifiers, one OTL, one solid state have similar specs but
sound different falls apart simply because they don't behave
even remotely similarily.

Let's look at the details: it is not uncommon for these sorts of
amplifiers to have output impedances measuring several ohms.
That's a substantial part of the impedance of the load and,
worse, that load varies over a wide range in a frequency
dependent fashion. It is not in the least uncommon to see a
speaker impedance vary from a low of 6 ohms (in the upper
midbass) to a high of 15 ohms (around the crossover point) to a
high of 40 ohms (at the low frequency system resonance. With an
output impedance of, say, 5 ohms, the raw frequency response of
the amplifier/speaker SYSTEM is now going to be altered due to
this variable attenuation ratio. At the high point of 40 ohms,
the attenuation will be 40/(40+5) or about 1 dB, at the midrange
impedance peak of 15 ohms, it will be 15/(15+5) or 2.5 dB, while
at it's low point of 6 ohms, the attenuation will be 6/(6+5) or
5.3 dB.

Now, what we end up with is an amplifier which, when used with a
given speaker, will introduce frequency response variations over
a 4.3 dB range, just like adding a graphic equalizer and kicking
the bass up a bit, pulling the 200 Hz region down about 4 dB,
and giving a midrange a boost, and so on, comapred to hooking
the same speaker up to a sommon solid state or even transformer
coupled tube amplifier. The specs ARE NOT the same, and not un
any subtle way, but rather in a very GROSS, trivially measurable
way.

And this may well not be the only difference: such an output
impedance is MORE than enough to substantially reduce the
damping of the entire amplifier/speaker system, possibly
DOUBLING its Qt at resonance, which could intriduce ANOTHER 3 dB
of frequency respose error all by itself. You have a system
which has frequency response differences approaching +-4 dB
compared to a driving it with a solid state or even transroemr
coupled tube a,mplifier with appropriate feedback.

With this information in hand, that the OTL amplifier introduces
frequency response variations ranging over +-4 dB compared to a
sommon solid state amplifier, how can you say they meaure the
same? They clearly cannot and DO not.

I would be very interested in your findings of really relevant measurements.

Well, here's a perfect example: the performance of an amplifier
in situ: when driving a speaker, this amplifier performs WILDLY
different in non-subtle ways then the manufacturer specs it, or
at least as you understand the manufacturer specs it. And such
an amplifier is going to perform RADICALLY different with each
different speaker that's attached to it.

Now, the high-end pundits, the magazine wonks and all the rest
will claim this is some magical property of "treansparency."
"Look," they intone, "this amplifier reveals the differences
between speakers more than any other: it must, therefore, be
MOST transparent." In fact, such a notion is at best naively
wrong: by designing an amplifier with such a radically high
output impedance, the designer has violated the basic operating
assumptions of how speaker are supposed to work: driven from
voltage sources, NOT current sources. In other words, plain and
simple, such amplifiers are introducing FREQUENCY RESPONSE AND
DAMPING ERRORS. You may prefer the results of those errors, but
they are response errors thatw er NOT intended by the speaker
manufacturer, any more than the speaker manufacturer intended
you to start re-equalizing them on your own. An OTL amplifier
used under these conditions is behaving just like a high-power
equalizer, except it doesn't come with a "cancel" switch.

You may not like to entertain the notion that you prefer having
an equalizer in your system, but that is, in it's technical
essence, EXACTLY what you have.

Another thing I do feel is needed, is some sort of industry standard in
audio reproduction, that goes all the way from the recording studio to the
manufactures of audio equipment. I think this would make it a lot easier to
set the appropriate design goals.

There are such standards, though there is not an all-
encompassing standard for the entire chain (the AES has 40 some
standards, the ISO has the entire realm of 60268, for example),
but, to be frank with you, THE most egregious violators of these
standard is, in fact, the high-end audion industry, ESPECIALLY
when it comes to realistic comparable performance
specifications.

Sorry for mixing up specifications and measurements, as you say yourself,
there are more relevant measurements, than what are used as marketing
arguments today (right?)

Indeed, especially in the high-end audio industry. Your OTL
amplifier is one such glaring example.

1. You claim that such tests induce undue stress. Where's
the support for this claim?

2. You claim that the stress influences the perception. Where's
the support for your claim?

Personally, I find it difficult to enjoy listening to music, unless there is
the necessery atmosphere to relax.

And why is simply eliminating the direct knowledge of what
equipment is playing a hindernace to relaxation? If you HAVE to
know that you are listening to your OTL amplifier in order to
relax, guess, what: YOUR ENJOYMENT ISN'T ABOUT SOUND, IT'S ABOUT
BRAND NAMES!

And if someone makes a claim about the ability to hear a
difference, THEY HAVE ALREADY INTRODUCED THE BASIS OF THE STRESS
IN MAKING THE CLAIM, it could be argued. They have put their
opinion on the line. If a "test" exacerbates the stress, it may
well be because the subject now has doubts as to whether the
original claim is uspportable.

I try to keep an open mind, and are not stoubernly defending any specific
ideals, brands etc.

But if you HAVE to know what the brand is to relax, which is one
implication of your staement above, then you are NOT keeping an
open mind.

an open mind to what I hear, and I do not go with my first opinion, I often
swap equipment back and forth, to verify my findings. The goal for me, is to
find pleasure in listening to music, if I find that a mass loading puck, ERS
material or a specific cable to increase my listening pleasure, I'll use it.

All that double blind is asking is that you detect the
difference BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE. That's all. Thus, if you
think that a mass loading puck is going to make a difference and
YOU are interested in seeing if this is the case, all that blind
testing is asking is that you see if you can HEAR the difference
BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE.

Why is that stressful?

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Dick said


Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily
find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
will claim they sound identical. What does THAT do to your
"theory?"



I said


I know of a few retailers that say otherwise. One time I was told that if
you
hear a particular amp from one particular manufacturer that you like that
you
should buy that unit. the rest will sound different.



Mr. Chung said


How does that contradict what Dick was saying?


I said


Isn't it obvious? He said "expert" listeners will claim that amps of the same
model will claim they sound identical. That is not always the case.


Mr. Chung said



Please read carefully, that's not what Dick was saying. Dick was saying

Here is the quote..."Further, I can find two samples of the same model and
easily find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners will
claim they sound identical " I think it is pretty clear that it is exactly what
he is saying.

Mr. Chung said

Dick was saying
that there are some measureable differences that "expert listeners"
cannot detect.

I suggest you take your own advice and read the quote above carefully.

Mr. Chung said


cannot detect. He did not say anything about amps of the same model, or
that expert listeners would always say two amps of the same model sound
the same.

I suggest you read the quote and take your own advice . "Further, I can find
two samples of the same model and easily find measurable differences between
them, yet "expert" listeners will claim they sound identical " I think it is
pretty clear that it is exactly what he is saying.

Mr. Chung said

Those are your erroneous extrapolations.

They are quotes.

S888Wheel wrote:


Here is the quote..."Further, I can find two samples of the same model and
easily find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners will
claim they sound identical " I think it is pretty clear that it is exactly what
he is saying.



What exactly do you think Dick was saying?

Dick was *not* saying that all expert listeners will find that all
models of a given amplifier will sound the same.

Dick was saying that there are some measureable differences between
audio equipment of the same model that cannot be detected by "expert"
listeners. (I even provided you an example of such differences in the
last post.)

Dick was saying that he can find two units of the same model that have
measureable differences that cannot be differentiated by expert
listeners. He was *not* saying that *all* units that measure differently
will sound the same to expert listeners. It should be obvious that some
measureable differences are hard to detect, and of course, some are very
easy to detect via listening. Dick was *not* saying that *all*
measureable differences are hard to detect.

Dick also made the point that specs are not measurements, and that
similar specs do not necessarily lead to similar measurements, since
specs are a small subset of possible measurements. Different units of
the same model of equipment may have identical specs and yet measure
differently, and *some* (NOT necessarily ALL) of those differences are
not detectible by expert listeners.

What your retailers were saying was that there are amps of the same
model that sound different. Ignoring the veracity of that statement for
the purpose of this discussion, why do you think it contradicts what
Dick was saying?

Dick never said that all amps of the same model will sound the same. He
only said that there are some differences in some models that are
measureable and yet not detectible via listening.

Got it?

On 26 Jul 2003 15:06:32 GMT, "All Ears" wrote:

That is what I meant by what is "commenly" rated as being important
measurements. From these parameters it is impossible for me to explain why a
modern OTL tube amplifier is able to perform the way it does, I haven't
heard anything that even comes close in sonic performance, with the right
speakers. We are not talking lush tube sound here, but fast like a bat out
of hell, deep well articulated bass and a reproduction of voices and
acoustic instruments like nothing I have heard before.

Actually, that's exactly the same result that you'll get from any
halfway decent solid-state amp, at around a fifth of the price, and no
need to replace the active devices every couple of years...........

Of course, if you choose the tubed OTL amp, you also need to ensure
that the speakers have a flat impedance curve, because otherwise the
sonic differences will be far from subtle.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Richard D Pierce" wrote in message
...
In article ,
All Ears wrote:
No, the problem is the high-end realm, the hi-fi popular press,
and, to be honesty, sales types who insist on a simple set of
single-value "figures of merit" numbers that people ASSUME
constitute complete "measurements." These are numbers like
damping factor, THD, S/N, "frequency response" and all the
common sets of numbers. I have no argument that this paltry set
of numbers is absolutely useless as indicators of audibility,
but they hardly constitute the full range of available technical
measurements that are available.

That is what I meant by what is "commenly" rated as being important
measurements. From these parameters it is impossible for me to explain
why a
modern OTL tube amplifier is able to perform the way it does, I haven't
heard anything that even comes close in sonic performance, with the right
speakers. We are not talking lush tube sound here, but fast like a bat
out
of hell, deep well articulated bass and a reproduction of voices and
acoustic instruments like nothing I have heard before.

If, by "OTL tube amplifier" your mean a transformerless output,
then, my goodness, the measurable differences between this type
of amplifier and, say, any given solid state amplifier when
driving the same loudspeaker are ENORMOUS, simply because of the
substantially higher output impedance of the OTL amplifier. That
difference, again when measured with specific speaker loads,
leads to a HUGE difference in the frequency response of the
system. I'm not talking a quarter dB here or there, I'm talking
about MANY dB of difference. Just that difference alone is
hugely audible and I would not be the least suprised to find
that, in fact, the "specs" of such an amplifier, when measured
in situ, are unlike any other amplifier around.

So, one point of your basic premise is immediately falsified: an
tube OTL amplifier CANNOT have the same simple measurements like
frequency response: they simply cannot. Thus, claiming that two
amplifiers, one OTL, one solid state have similar specs but
sound different falls apart simply because they don't behave
even remotely similarily.

Let's look at the details: it is not uncommon for these sorts of
amplifiers to have output impedances measuring several ohms.
That's a substantial part of the impedance of the load and,
worse, that load varies over a wide range in a frequency
dependent fashion. It is not in the least uncommon to see a
speaker impedance vary from a low of 6 ohms (in the upper
midbass) to a high of 15 ohms (around the crossover point) to a
high of 40 ohms (at the low frequency system resonance. With an
output impedance of, say, 5 ohms, the raw frequency response of
the amplifier/speaker SYSTEM is now going to be altered due to
this variable attenuation ratio. At the high point of 40 ohms,
the attenuation will be 40/(40+5) or about 1 dB, at the midrange
impedance peak of 15 ohms, it will be 15/(15+5) or 2.5 dB, while
at it's low point of 6 ohms, the attenuation will be 6/(6+5) or
5.3 dB.

Now, what we end up with is an amplifier which, when used with a
given speaker, will introduce frequency response variations over
a 4.3 dB range, just like adding a graphic equalizer and kicking
the bass up a bit, pulling the 200 Hz region down about 4 dB,
and giving a midrange a boost, and so on, comapred to hooking
the same speaker up to a sommon solid state or even transformer
coupled tube amplifier. The specs ARE NOT the same, and not un
any subtle way, but rather in a very GROSS, trivially measurable
way.

And this may well not be the only difference: such an output
impedance is MORE than enough to substantially reduce the
damping of the entire amplifier/speaker system, possibly
DOUBLING its Qt at resonance, which could intriduce ANOTHER 3 dB
of frequency respose error all by itself. You have a system
which has frequency response differences approaching +-4 dB
compared to a driving it with a solid state or even transroemr
coupled tube a,mplifier with appropriate feedback.

With this information in hand, that the OTL amplifier introduces
frequency response variations ranging over +-4 dB compared to a
sommon solid state amplifier, how can you say they meaure the
same? They clearly cannot and DO not.

I do not disagree with what you are saying, but if this was the real audible
truth, these amplifiers should sound really bad and unnatural, the point is,
they are not, even compared to very good solid state amplifiers. As I said,
acoustic instruments (also bass) and voices are the most realistic
reproduced I have heard so far!


I would be very interested in your findings of really relevant
measurements.

Well, here's a perfect example: the performance of an amplifier
in situ: when driving a speaker, this amplifier performs WILDLY
different in non-subtle ways then the manufacturer specs it, or
at least as you understand the manufacturer specs it. And such
an amplifier is going to perform RADICALLY different with each
different speaker that's attached to it.

Now, the high-end pundits, the magazine wonks and all the rest
will claim this is some magical property of "treansparency."
"Look," they intone, "this amplifier reveals the differences
between speakers more than any other: it must, therefore, be
MOST transparent." In fact, such a notion is at best naively
wrong: by designing an amplifier with such a radically high
output impedance, the designer has violated the basic operating
assumptions of how speaker are supposed to work: driven from
voltage sources, NOT current sources. In other words, plain and
simple, such amplifiers are introducing FREQUENCY RESPONSE AND
DAMPING ERRORS. You may prefer the results of those errors, but
they are response errors thatw er NOT intended by the speaker
manufacturer, any more than the speaker manufacturer intended
you to start re-equalizing them on your own. An OTL amplifier
used under these conditions is behaving just like a high-power
equalizer, except it doesn't come with a "cancel" switch.

You may not like to entertain the notion that you prefer having
an equalizer in your system, but that is, in it's technical
essence, EXACTLY what you have.

Actually, the speakers I use are all designed by tube lovers, furthermore,
the only speaker design that will act in a close to linear way to a voltage
source, are one way speakers or headphones. All the rest are compromises. A
speaker reacts in a quite linear way to the current you put into it, not the
voltage. There are ways of compensating, I know, but again, it is a
compromise.

I'll get some solid state current amplifiers next week, this will be
interesting......


Another thing I do feel is needed, is some sort of industry standard in
audio reproduction, that goes all the way from the recording studio to
the
manufactures of audio equipment. I think this would make it a lot easier
to
set the appropriate design goals.

There are such standards, though there is not an all-
encompassing standard for the entire chain (the AES has 40 some
standards, the ISO has the entire realm of 60268, for example),
but, to be frank with you, THE most egregious violators of these
standard is, in fact, the high-end audion industry, ESPECIALLY
when it comes to realistic comparable performance
specifications.

It would be an interesting goal to persue, to get one useful standard for
the entire chain.


Sorry for mixing up specifications and measurements, as you say yourself,
there are more relevant measurements, than what are used as marketing
arguments today (right?)

Indeed, especially in the high-end audio industry. Your OTL
amplifier is one such glaring example.

There are almost no specifications available for the OTL's, since they would
not give an objective idea of the end result.


1. You claim that such tests induce undue stress. Where's
the support for this claim?

2. You claim that the stress influences the perception. Where's
the support for your claim?

Personally, I find it difficult to enjoy listening to music, unless there
is
the necessery atmosphere to relax.

And why is simply eliminating the direct knowledge of what
equipment is playing a hindernace to relaxation? If you HAVE to
know that you are listening to your OTL amplifier in order to
relax, guess, what: YOUR ENJOYMENT ISN'T ABOUT SOUND, IT'S ABOUT
BRAND NAMES!

Absolutely nonsence, I have plenty of other good equipment worthy of serious
listening. I had no idea that the OTL's were this good, before I actually
listened to them. Actually, I would REALLY wish that I could get the same
listening pleasure from a solid state amplifier. This would save me the
trouble to bios and also save quite a lot of energy.


And if someone makes a claim about the ability to hear a
difference, THEY HAVE ALREADY INTRODUCED THE BASIS OF THE STRESS
IN MAKING THE CLAIM, it could be argued. They have put their
opinion on the line. If a "test" exacerbates the stress, it may
well be because the subject now has doubts as to whether the
original claim is uspportable.

I try to keep an open mind, and are not stoubernly defending any specific
ideals, brands etc.

But if you HAVE to know what the brand is to relax, which is one
implication of your staement above, then you are NOT keeping an
open mind.

Again, I could not care less about the brand, I only care about enjoying
music the best I can.

an open mind to what I hear, and I do not go with my first opinion, I
often
swap equipment back and forth, to verify my findings. The goal for me, is
to
find pleasure in listening to music, if I find that a mass loading puck,
ERS
material or a specific cable to increase my listening pleasure, I'll use
it.

All that double blind is asking is that you detect the
difference BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE. That's all. Thus, if you
think that a mass loading puck is going to make a difference and
YOU are interested in seeing if this is the case, all that blind
testing is asking is that you see if you can HEAR the difference
BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE.

If you "know" there is no difference in the sound, would it be likely that
you would actually hear it?

Even, if my imagination only, can change a sound image from being harsh, to
being pleasing, why not use this tweak?


Why is that stressful?

A test situation is stressful to many people, not all, but many. The real
challenge is to find a way to do this, to a large number of people, in way
that would not be "test like" but more in an amusing or relaxing way.

KE


--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

I said

Here is the quote..."Further, I can find two samples of the same model and
easily find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
will
claim they sound identical " I think it is pretty clear that it is exactly
what
he is saying.

Mr. Chung said



What exactly do you think Dick was saying?


I think he was saying.."Further, I can find two samples of the same model and
easily find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners wil
claim they sound identical "

Mr. Chung said


Dick was *not* saying that all expert listeners will find that all
models of a given amplifier will sound the same.

I didn't say he said that.

Mr. Chung said


Dick was saying that there are some measureable differences between
audio equipment of the same model that cannot be detected by "expert"

No, he definitely did not say that in this quote. He talked about claims not
about what can or cannot be heard. I am confident that Dick does not believe
that claims of what can and cannot be heard are not always the same as what can
and cannot actually be heard.

Mr. Chung said


Dick was saying that he can find two units of the same model that have
measureable differences that cannot be differentiated by expert
listeners.

Again that is not what he was saying.

Mr. Chung said

He was *not* saying that *all* units that measure differently
will sound the same to expert listeners.

Nor did I say he was saying that.

Mr. Chung said

It should be obvious that some
measureable differences are hard to detect, and of course, some are very
easy to detect via listening.

While I suspect this is quite true it is also quite irrelevent to the issue.

Mr. Chung said

Dick was *not* saying that *all*
measureable differences are hard to detect.

There were a lot of things he didn't say. I don't think you got the point of
what he did say. He was attacking the "claims" of the "experts" based on a
false premise that these "experts" claim to hear differences between amps of
different models but "claim" to not hear differences of different units of the
same model even though they measure differently. I simply pointed out that the
group of listeners he was trying to discredit did not always follow the premise
he laid down for his argument. He was building his attack on a manufactured
stereotype. It seems you didn't get that.

Mr. Chung said

Dick also made the point that specs are not measurements, and that
similar specs do not necessarily lead to similar measurements, since
specs are a small subset of possible measurements. Different units of
the same model of equipment may have identical specs and yet measure

differently, and *some* (NOT necessarily ALL) of those differences are
not detectible by expert listeners.


All of whch is irrelevent to my original post.

Mr. Chung said


What your retailers were saying was that there are amps of the same
model that sound different.

Yes, which is in conflict with Dick's statement.."Further, I can find two
samples of the same model and easily find measurable differences between them,
yet "expert" listeners will claim they sound identical " Maybe some will maybe
some won't. He is making a prediction based on an ill opinion of a large group
of diverse audiophiles that has not always been the case in the real world. It
is a flawed premise.

Mr. Chung said

Ignoring the veracity of that statement for
the purpose of this discussion, why do you think it contradicts what
Dick was saying?

See above.

Mr. Chung said


Dick never said that all amps of the same model will sound the same.

Did I say he did?

Mr Chung said

He
only said that there are some differences in some models that are
measureable and yet not detectible via listening.

That is not what he was saying in the quote I cited and it was not the point he
was making.

Mr. Chung said


Got it?

I got it a long time ago. Let me know when you get it.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 26 Jul 2003 15:06:32 GMT, "All Ears" wrote:

That is what I meant by what is "commenly" rated as being important
measurements. From these parameters it is impossible for me to explain
why a
modern OTL tube amplifier is able to perform the way it does, I haven't
heard anything that even comes close in sonic performance, with the right
speakers. We are not talking lush tube sound here, but fast like a bat
out
of hell, deep well articulated bass and a reproduction of voices and
acoustic instruments like nothing I have heard before.

Actually, that's exactly the same result that you'll get from any
halfway decent solid-state amp, at around a fifth of the price, and no
need to replace the active devices every couple of years...........

Not according my experiences.....This is very special. Anyway, in theory,
almost any solid state amplifier should be superior in sonic performance,
compared to someting of this construction, and by a big margin.....This is
defenitely not the case.


Of course, if you choose the tubed OTL amp, you also need to ensure
that the speakers have a flat impedance curve, because otherwise the
sonic differences will be far from subtle.

They do indeed have a flat impedance curve.....

KE

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Daniel wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message news:e5FTa.130211$ye4.91902@sccrnsc01...
it comes to cable and wire. I'm somewhat down on high-end audio as a
hobby and, even more, as a way to spend money, and wanted to know
about dubious claims in these other areas.

OK, I'll specifically look for amp and digital player ads. I haven't
seen any crazy speaker ads lately, aside from which, it's possible
for speakers to sound very different from each other.

If you don't mind, I might also throw in some typically unsupported
claims from reviews and editorials.

Hey, that'd be great. I mean, don't go to a *huge* amount of trouble,
but it would be interesting to see examples of what you were talking
about. Thanks.

I'm about to embark on this lit review, but I thought I'd throw
in first an exchange that I found on the
http://www.stevehoffman.tv forum today. In the interests of full
disclosure , I should mention that I got banned again from
posting to that forum yesterday, after I'd advised a fellow who
started a thread called "Buying premium speaker cables when you
don't believe in them. Need help!!! " He wondered why he couldn't
hear differences between some cables, and I suggested that maybe
there were no audible differences between the cables. That seems
to have violated the forum's rule against 'objective versus
subjective debate'.

The quotes below comes from a different thread, called "New
Interconects that I love!!!!!", itself apparently an
answer/offshoot of another called "Steve has finally found some
interconnects he loves! ". I'd avoided these threads heretofore
because I pretty much knew they'd be clusterf*cks of 'believers'
whose minds are inimical to scientific standards of proof
(whereas at least the 'Need help!" thread offered the possibility
of reason.) The beloved interconnects in question are from
Cardas (www.cardas.com) and Grover (available through the Hoffman
site), respectively. What's interesting here, as it relates to
mfr and advertising hype, is that we have a relatively rare
example of the maker of a cable actually engaging fans of another
cable. As is typical of advertising/mfr/reviewer hype, IME, the
cable maker offers a mix of essentially unarguable assertions
(e.g., that cables should be neutral) , with utterly dubious ones
(e.g. "copper haze', and the 'severe problem' of nonlinearity in
'most' cables), along with a promise of tremendous audible
improvement. The combination of the reasonable assertions and
the use of scientific jargon like 'linearity' gives the rest of
the claims a glaze of pseudo-authority. (It's also amusing that
Grover and his supporters are touting his $75 interconnects as
low-cost, 'better sounding' alternatives to Cardas' $800 ones,
wihtout having demonstrated that the $75 ones are any better
*sounding* than $5-$15 ones you can buy at Radio Shack.)

from
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...threadid=18892)

"Cardas Cables are to die for!!!
Cardas Neatral Reference Excellent!!!
Cardas Quadlink 5C Excellent!!!
Entry Level 300B Microtwin an incredible value!!!
I tried many cables (not all).....
Cardas Rules!!!!! Nebin"

"Recently, I've purchased a pair of Kimber Hero interconnects
with WBT connectors based on a recommendation from Absolute Sound
magazine. After burning in the cables for about a week and a half
I set about some active listening. I was definitely impressed
with the degree of detail and wide sound-staging that these
cables provided. The Cardas cables are a bit softer at the
frequency extremes but the Kimber seems to offer a bit more
detail as compared to the Microtwins. ultron9"

"Its interesting to see your bold assertions and pride regarding
cardas $800+ interconnects. I assure you that your system will
dramatically improve replacing the cardas with my $75
interconnect. Give them a try. Grover"

"You Cardas guys are hilarious. The Highs a bit Soft!! Next to
the Kimbers? Good Grief the Kimbers have been history for a
while. Why afraid to try the Grovers and see how you have wasted
you money. Ha Ha!! Oh by the way just saw the Cardas $60 Din
connector looks like its made in China like their cables! Grover"

"Gentlemen, You have it wrong. You do not pick cables to aid
deficiencies in your system, you find the clearest neutral cables
so you can hear where you must upgrade your system. Most cables
are hazy especially copper ones and nonlinearity is always a
severe problem. Cables should never be looked upon as a method to
blend components. They must be clear as glass. Only as a last
resort should they be used to modify a weakness. Grover"

-- -S.

I find some of these opinions/testimonials amazingly similar in tone to
those endless spam ads promoting pills that enlarge a certain part of
one's anatomy...

Steven Sullivan wrote:


from
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...threadid=18892)

"Cardas Cables are to die for!!!
Cardas Neatral Reference Excellent!!!
Cardas Quadlink 5C Excellent!!!
Entry Level 300B Microtwin an incredible value!!!
I tried many cables (not all).....
Cardas Rules!!!!! Nebin"

"Recently, I've purchased a pair of Kimber Hero interconnects
with WBT connectors based on a recommendation from Absolute Sound
magazine. After burning in the cables for about a week and a half
I set about some active listening. I was definitely impressed
with the degree of detail and wide sound-staging that these
cables provided. The Cardas cables are a bit softer at the
frequency extremes but the Kimber seems to offer a bit more
detail as compared to the Microtwins. ultron9"

"Its interesting to see your bold assertions and pride regarding
cardas $800+ interconnects. I assure you that your system will
dramatically improve replacing the cardas with my $75
interconnect. Give them a try. Grover"

"You Cardas guys are hilarious. The Highs a bit Soft!! Next to
the Kimbers? Good Grief the Kimbers have been history for a
while. Why afraid to try the Grovers and see how you have wasted
you money. Ha Ha!! Oh by the way just saw the Cardas $60 Din
connector looks like its made in China like their cables! Grover"

"Gentlemen, You have it wrong. You do not pick cables to aid
deficiencies in your system, you find the clearest neutral cables
so you can hear where you must upgrade your system. Most cables
are hazy especially copper ones and nonlinearity is always a
severe problem. Cables should never be looked upon as a method to
blend components. They must be clear as glass. Only as a last
resort should they be used to modify a weakness. Grover"

-- -S.

On 27 Jul 2003 02:29:18 GMT, "All Ears" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 26 Jul 2003 15:06:32 GMT, "All Ears" wrote:

That is what I meant by what is "commenly" rated as being important
measurements. From these parameters it is impossible for me to explain why a
modern OTL tube amplifier is able to perform the way it does, I haven't
heard anything that even comes close in sonic performance, with the right
speakers. We are not talking lush tube sound here, but fast like a bat out
of hell, deep well articulated bass and a reproduction of voices and
acoustic instruments like nothing I have heard before.

Actually, that's exactly the same result that you'll get from any
halfway decent solid-state amp, at around a fifth of the price, and no
need to replace the active devices every couple of years...........

Not according my experiences.....This is very special.

Certainly, the price of a tubed OTL amp is special...........

Anyway, in theory,
almost any solid state amplifier should be superior in sonic performance,
compared to someting of this construction, and by a big margin.....This is
defenitely not the case.

If in fact there really *is* a sonic difference (and that's a big
'if'), then it's a fundamental fact of life that the tubed amp must be
*adding* something that wasn't in the input signal. You may very well
*like* that sound, but it ain't high fidelity!

I'd hazard a guess that *if* there is any real difference, you're
hearing a little extra 'ambience' generated by reverberation within
the tubes.

Of course, if you choose the tubed OTL amp, you also need to ensure
that the speakers have a flat impedance curve, because otherwise the
sonic differences will be far from subtle.

They do indeed have a flat impedance curve.....

That should make a blind level-matched comparison with a good SS amp
much easier. Try it, you may be surprised....
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 27 Jul 2003 02:29:18 GMT, "All Ears" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 26 Jul 2003 15:06:32 GMT, "All Ears" wrote:

That is what I meant by what is "commenly" rated as being important
measurements. From these parameters it is impossible for me to explain
why a
modern OTL tube amplifier is able to perform the way it does, I
haven't
heard anything that even comes close in sonic performance, with the
right
speakers. We are not talking lush tube sound here, but fast like a bat
out
of hell, deep well articulated bass and a reproduction of voices and
acoustic instruments like nothing I have heard before.

Actually, that's exactly the same result that you'll get from any
halfway decent solid-state amp, at around a fifth of the price, and no
need to replace the active devices every couple of years...........

Not according my experiences.....This is very special.

Certainly, the price of a tubed OTL amp is special...........

Right, but this is not the point here.....


Anyway, in theory,
almost any solid state amplifier should be superior in sonic performance,
compared to someting of this construction, and by a big margin.....This
is
defenitely not the case.

If in fact there really *is* a sonic difference (and that's a big
'if'), then it's a fundamental fact of life that the tubed amp must be
*adding* something that wasn't in the input signal. You may very well
*like* that sound, but it ain't high fidelity!

I'd hazard a guess that *if* there is any real difference, you're
hearing a little extra 'ambience' generated by reverberation within
the tubes.

Of course, if you choose the tubed OTL amp, you also need to ensure
that the speakers have a flat impedance curve, because otherwise the
sonic differences will be far from subtle.

They do indeed have a flat impedance curve.....

That should make a blind level-matched comparison with a good SS amp
much easier. Try it, you may be surprised....

A good SS amp does indeed sound great with these speakers, especially with
the right pre amp. The end result is however a bit more sterile and not
quite as realistic a reproduction. I was a bit surprised to experience this
as well, but that is how it is.

KE

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

I keep seeing the following quote:

Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily
find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
will claim they sound identical.

I don't know what differences are being referred to. There are all sorts of
possible differences, like small but measurable variations in color, weight,
etc., that I think almost everyone would agree are irrelevant to hearing.
Could it be that some of the other small differences that are being measured
are irrelevant to hearing as well?

"Richard D Pierce" wrote:


Face it, the high-end audio industry is DECADES behind behind
the state of the art in many areas, and this is just one
example. I'm not going to give a tutorial on the current range
of available measurements

Measurements haven't led to the construction of great sounding concert
halls, pianos or violins and it appears useful to refer to that which was
done CENTURIES ago.

Dick said


If, by "OTL tube amplifier" your mean a transformerless output,
then, my goodness, the measurable differences between this type
of amplifier and, say, any given solid state amplifier when
driving the same loudspeaker are ENORMOUS, simply because of the
substantially higher output impedance of the OTL amplifier. That


difference, again when measured with specific speaker loads,
leads to a HUGE difference in the frequency response of the
system. I'm not talking a quarter dB here or there, I'm talking
about MANY dB of difference. Just that difference alone is
hugely audible and I would not be the least suprised to find


that, in fact, the "specs" of such an amplifier, when measured
in situ, are unlike any other amplifier around.

So, one point of your basic premise is immediately falsified: an
tube OTL amplifier CANNOT have the same simple measurements like
frequency response: they simply cannot. Thus, claiming that two
amplifiers, one OTL, one solid state have similar specs but
sound different falls apart simply because they don't behave
even remotely similarily.

Would you say this is true of all OTLs or some OTLs?

Dick said

Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily
find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners
will claim they sound identical. What does THAT do to your
"theory?"

I said


I know of a few retailers that say otherwise. One time I was told that if
you
hear a particular amp from one particular manufacturer that you like that
you
should buy that unit. the rest will sound different.


Mr. Chung said


How does that contradict what Dick was saying?


I said



Isn't it obvious? He said "expert" listeners will claim that amps of the
same
model will claim they sound identical. That is not always the case.


Steven said


Isn't it obvious that he didn't say it was always the case?


No. His claim was not explicitly qualified nor do I see any implied
qualifications. He was building an argument on a flawed premise. He was
painting a large group of diverse listeners with a stereotype to ridicule them.
Further, when he replied to my comment he did not choose to make any such
qualifications of his statement as you are doing for him. Instead he chose to
attack my comment by lumping me into the same stereotype that he built on a
false premise. I find it particularly bad judgement on dick's part given his
tendency to object so intensely when others argue with him on what he believes
to be false premises about him.

On 27 Jul 2003 17:39:35 GMT, "All Ears" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

Speakers are designed to respond
linearly to a constant voltage input, and most modern speakers assume
drive by a constant voltage source, i.e. an amp with very low output
impedance and high reserves of current. This is a fair description of
a good SS amp, but not at all of a tubed OTL amp, which can have
several *ohms* output impedance.

So Ohms law does not apply to speakers, interesting....

Ohm's Law certainly does apply. I suggest that you read up on it.

In reality, those specifications would give you a *very* good idea of
how the sound will be affected. Putting a 3-ohm resistor in series
with the output of a SS amp will give a result which is probably
sonically indistinguishable from a well-designed tubed OTL amp (if
that's not an oxymoron).

The OTLs has adjustable feed back, and thereby also output impedance, lowest
setting is not the one that sounds best. Guess you could say that the sound
becomes more like a solid state amp at max. feed back. A 3 ohm resistor in
series with the output from a SS amp, would give a sloppy poor controlled
bass. This is not the case with the OTL

Yeah, riiiiight..............

Time for a reality check? Why not actually try comparing the two under
level-matched blind conditions? I predict that your prejudices will
not be confirmed.

A test situation is stressful to many people, not all, but many. The real
challenge is to find a way to do this, to a large number of people, in way
that would not be "test like" but more in an amusing or relaxing way.

Actually no, the real challenge is to have the courage and honesty to
do it yourself, and let the results fall where they may.

Well, that is what I think I am doing, I'm not trying to bull**** anybody,
not even myself.

So try a blind test, and discover what *really* sounds
better/different.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:14:10 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

Dick said

So, one point of your basic premise is immediately falsified: an
tube OTL amplifier CANNOT have the same simple measurements like
frequency response: they simply cannot. Thus, claiming that two
amplifiers, one OTL, one solid state have similar specs but
sound different falls apart simply because they don't behave
even remotely similarily.

Would you say this is true of all OTLs or some OTLs?

I would say it's true of all commercially available tubed OTL amps.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 27 Jul 2003 17:39:35 GMT, "All Ears" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

Speakers are designed to respond
linearly to a constant voltage input, and most modern speakers assume
drive by a constant voltage source, i.e. an amp with very low output
impedance and high reserves of current. This is a fair description of
a good SS amp, but not at all of a tubed OTL amp, which can have
several *ohms* output impedance.

So Ohms law does not apply to speakers, interesting....

Ohm's Law certainly does apply. I suggest that you read up on it.

The actual force, that the motor of the driver produces, depends on the
current induced into the coil, right? Does normal speakers have a totally
flat impedance curve? Assuming that the voltage is kept constant, and the
inpedance changes, will this not give an unlinear current, which results in
amplitude variations over the band? (Rehercing Ohms law


In reality, those specifications would give you a *very* good idea of
how the sound will be affected. Putting a 3-ohm resistor in series
with the output of a SS amp will give a result which is probably
sonically indistinguishable from a well-designed tubed OTL amp (if
that's not an oxymoron).

The OTLs has adjustable feed back, and thereby also output impedance,
lowest
setting is not the one that sounds best. Guess you could say that the
sound
becomes more like a solid state amp at max. feed back. A 3 ohm resistor
in
series with the output from a SS amp, would give a sloppy poor controlled
bass. This is not the case with the OTL

Yeah, riiiiight..............

They are realistically reproducing drum kicks, bass etc. That is what I
expect from a high end system. They do not "slam" to the same extend as an
SS amp, but I can live with that.


Time for a reality check? Why not actually try comparing the two under
level-matched blind conditions? I predict that your prejudices will
not be confirmed.

A test situation is stressful to many people, not all, but many. The
real
challenge is to find a way to do this, to a large number of people, in
way
that would not be "test like" but more in an amusing or relaxing way.

Actually no, the real challenge is to have the courage and honesty to
do it yourself, and let the results fall where they may.

Well, that is what I think I am doing, I'm not trying to bull****
anybody,
not even myself.

So try a blind test, and discover what *really* sounds
better/different.

I will compare the OTLs to a set of SS current amplifiers next week, this
will be interesting.

KE

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 27 Jul 2003 22:40:31 GMT, "All Ears" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 27 Jul 2003 17:39:35 GMT, "All Ears" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

Speakers are designed to respond
linearly to a constant voltage input, and most modern speakers assume
drive by a constant voltage source, i.e. an amp with very low output
impedance and high reserves of current. This is a fair description of
a good SS amp, but not at all of a tubed OTL amp, which can have
several *ohms* output impedance.

So Ohms law does not apply to speakers, interesting....

Ohm's Law certainly does apply. I suggest that you read up on it.

The actual force, that the motor of the driver produces, depends on the
current induced into the coil, right? Does normal speakers have a totally
flat impedance curve? Assuming that the voltage is kept constant, and the
inpedance changes, will this not give an unlinear current, which results in
amplitude variations over the band? (Rehercing Ohms law

Your first statement is correct. Almost all commercially available
'hi-fi' speakers have a very non-flat impedance curve. Such speakers
are however designed to have a flat amplitude response with constant
*voltage* input. This does indeed lead to some pretty wild variations
in current, but these are indications of varying efficiency, not
varying amplitude.

I will compare the OTLs to a set of SS current amplifiers next week, this
will be interesting.

Good. Be sure to match levels at the speaker terminals, and to do the
test under double-blind protocols, for best results.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article 5EUUa.141533$OZ2.27789@rwcrnsc54,
S888Wheel wrote:
Dick said

Mr. Wheel, Dick said one thing, Your paraphrasing of what Dick
said is something else entirely. I should know. I am Dick.

Please do NOT use YOUR paraphrasing of what I have said as a
substitute for what I actually said. You have demonstrated in
this thread you are not very good at it.

Thank you.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

In article ,
All Ears wrote:
And this may well not be the only difference: such an output
impedance is MORE than enough to substantially reduce the
damping of the entire amplifier/speaker system, possibly
DOUBLING its Qt at resonance, which could intriduce ANOTHER 3 dB
of frequency respose error all by itself. You have a system
which has frequency response differences approaching +-4 dB
compared to a driving it with a solid state or even transroemr
coupled tube a,mplifier with appropriate feedback.

With this information in hand, that the OTL amplifier introduces
frequency response variations ranging over +-4 dB compared to a
sommon solid state amplifier, how can you say they meaure the
same? They clearly cannot and DO not.

I do not disagree with what you are saying, but if this was the real audible
truth, these amplifiers should sound really bad and unnatural, the point is,
they are not, even compared to very good solid state amplifiers. As I said,
acoustic instruments (also bass) and voices are the most realistic
reproduced I have heard so far!

"Truth" is what you believe, and may be at odds with the facts.

Beyond that, I am not saying that the result is "bad and
unnatural," That's a judgement I will not make because it is a
preferential thing.

I am refuting your claim that such an amplifier could ever
possibly measure even remotely the same. My argument is not
whether the result saound good or bad, that's your decision to
make. My argument is to directly challenge your claim that this
amplifier could measure like any other IN SITU: they can't, it's
as simple as that.

Thus, your premise, or your question, as the case may be, "how
can two amplifier that have similar specs sound so different" is
is meaningless in the face of the fact that two such amps SIMPLY
CAN'T HAVE SIMILAR SPECS.

Do you understand the point?

Actually, the speakers I use are all designed by tube lovers, furthermore,
the only speaker design that will act in a close to linear way to a voltage
source, are one way speakers or headphones. All the rest are compromises. A
speaker reacts in a quite linear way to the current you put into it, not the
voltage. There are ways of compensating, I know, but again, it is a
compromise.

I'll get some solid state current amplifiers next week, this will be
interesting......

Sir, I believe yo do NOT understand the difference between the
terms "current source" and "voltage source" and, further, you
have a misunderstanding of the operation of loudspeakers, as I
pointed out and hopefully set you on a more correct path in a
different post.

There are such standards, though there is not an all-
encompassing standard for the entire chain (the AES has 40 some
standards, the ISO has the entire realm of 60268, for example),
but, to be frank with you, THE most egregious violators of these
standard is, in fact, the high-end audion industry, ESPECIALLY
when it comes to realistic comparable performance
specifications.

It would be an interesting goal to persue, to get one useful standard for
the entire chain.

But, with the appalling lack of technical expertise in the
high-end industry, they are the least able to follow such a
path.

Sorry for mixing up specifications and measurements, as you say yourself,
there are more relevant measurements, than what are used as marketing
arguments today (right?)

Indeed, especially in the high-end audio industry. Your OTL
amplifier is one such glaring example.

There are almost no specifications available for the OTL's, since they would
not give an objective idea of the end result.

Oh, precisely the opposite, a complete set of performance data
would give a VERY GOOD iobjective dea of the end result. The
manufacturer might not like the picture painted, but it would be
pretty precise.

And why is simply eliminating the direct knowledge of what
equipment is playing a hindernace to relaxation? If you HAVE to
know that you are listening to your OTL amplifier in order to
relax, guess, what: YOUR ENJOYMENT ISN'T ABOUT SOUND, IT'S ABOUT
BRAND NAMES!

Absolutely nonsence,

Hardly, if you read your statement.

But your failed to answer the question:

Why is eliminatiung the direct knowledge of what equipment
is playing a hinderance to relaxation?

Please answer that question, as it is at the very root of your
complaints about DB testing.

And if someone makes a claim about the ability to hear a
difference, THEY HAVE ALREADY INTRODUCED THE BASIS OF THE STRESS
IN MAKING THE CLAIM, it could be argued. They have put their
opinion on the line. If a "test" exacerbates the stress, it may
well be because the subject now has doubts as to whether the
original claim is uspportable.

I try to keep an open mind, and are not stoubernly defending any specific
ideals, brands etc.

But if you HAVE to know what the brand is to relax, which is one
implication of your staement above, then you are NOT keeping an
open mind.

Again, I could not care less about the brand, I only care about enjoying
music the best I can.

Fine, then you why would you have any objections to listening
without having prior knowledge of what you were listening to
equipment-wise?

All that double blind is asking is that you detect the
difference BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE. That's all. Thus, if you
think that a mass loading puck is going to make a difference and
YOU are interested in seeing if this is the case, all that blind
testing is asking is that you see if you can HEAR the difference
BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE.

If you "know" there is no difference in the sound, would it be likely that
you would actually hear it?

But you DON'T know there is no difference. Why claim otherwise.
The idea is to see IF you CAN detect a difference by sound
alone. If you can, guess what, there are audibly detectable
differences!

Even, if my imagination only, can change a sound image from being harsh, to
being pleasing, why not use this tweak?

Then, very simply, it's not about sound. It might be about
perception, but it is about perception in the absebce of the
sonic stimuli to produce the perception. You are perfectly
welcome to use any tweaks for any reason you want, I certainly
don't care.

But the issue comes when someone makes the claim, "it makes a
difference in the SOUND." You just admitted that a tweak may
work on imagination only, so you just stated that, in such a
case IT ISN'T ABOUT THE SOUND.

Why is that stressful?

A test situation is stressful to many people, not all, but many.

You keep asserting this without any data or hypothesis to back
it up.
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

In article ,
S888Wheel wrote:
Dick said

So, one point of your basic premise is immediately falsified: an
tube OTL amplifier CANNOT have the same simple measurements like
frequency response: they simply cannot. Thus, claiming that two
amplifiers, one OTL, one solid state have similar specs but
sound different falls apart simply because they don't behave
even remotely similarily.

Would you say this is true of all OTLs or some OTLs?

Can you point out a specific OTL tube amplifier that has a
broadband output impedance of less than 0.05 times the nominal
impecance of the loudspeaker connected to it?

It's as simple as that. Show us the data, and your question is
answered.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

In article ,
All Ears wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 27 Jul 2003 17:39:35 GMT, "All Ears" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

Speakers are designed to respond
linearly to a constant voltage input, and most modern speakers assume
drive by a constant voltage source, i.e. an amp with very low output
impedance and high reserves of current. This is a fair description of
a good SS amp, but not at all of a tubed OTL amp, which can have
several *ohms* output impedance.

So Ohms law does not apply to speakers, interesting....

Ohm's Law certainly does apply. I suggest that you read up on it.

The actual force, that the motor of the driver produces, depends on the
current induced into the coil, right? Does normal speakers have a totally
flat impedance curve? Assuming that the voltage is kept constant, and the
inpedance changes, will this not give an unlinear current, which results in
amplitude variations over the band? (Rehercing Ohms law

First, what you desribed is NOT Ohm's law.

Second your analysis falls WOEFULLY short of anything even
barely adequate to describe how speakers work.

You analysis, for example, predicts that under a constant
current, the speaker MUST, below resonance, have a response
which is independent of frequency, i.e., the speaker does not
roll off. Since it does, your analysis in that region is
incorrect.

Secondly, your analysis predicts that even considering the naive
and simple model of current only, the efficiency at resonance
MUST go down, since the impedance rises at resonance, yet it can
be trivially arranged by non-electrical means that even as the
current goes down, the efficiency and the output of the driver
go UP.

Basically, your basic premise is completely flwed because it
simply ignores the fact that speakers are mechncially resonant
devices, that the simple static model you are relying on fails
immediately once you get out of the region of DC exitation
(which, if you sit down and think it through, is the hidden
assumption in your premise).

Be that as it may, speakers which have flat impedance curve get
there by having complex conjugate circuits tto concel the
impedance variations in the drivers. That means that while they
may have a constant current vs frequency profile AS A SYSTEM,
the drivers themselves do not: they STILL have a current that is
frequency dependent on their individual impedance vs frequency
properties. I would suggest that you get your head out of the
"Ohm's Law" hole and start studying Thevenin, Kirchoff and, once
that's under your belt, start studying Thiele and Small.

Besically, your assertion is wrong, is what it comes down to.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

"Richard D Pierce" wrote in message
...
In article ,
All Ears wrote:
And this may well not be the only difference: such an output
impedance is MORE than enough to substantially reduce the
damping of the entire amplifier/speaker system, possibly
DOUBLING its Qt at resonance, which could intriduce ANOTHER 3 dB
of frequency respose error all by itself. You have a system
which has frequency response differences approaching +-4 dB
compared to a driving it with a solid state or even transroemr
coupled tube a,mplifier with appropriate feedback.

With this information in hand, that the OTL amplifier introduces
frequency response variations ranging over +-4 dB compared to a
sommon solid state amplifier, how can you say they meaure the
same? They clearly cannot and DO not.

I do not disagree with what you are saying, but if this was the real
audible
truth, these amplifiers should sound really bad and unnatural, the point
is,
they are not, even compared to very good solid state amplifiers. As I
said,
acoustic instruments (also bass) and voices are the most realistic
reproduced I have heard so far!

"Truth" is what you believe, and may be at odds with the facts.

Beyond that, I am not saying that the result is "bad and
unnatural," That's a judgement I will not make because it is a
preferential thing.

I am refuting your claim that such an amplifier could ever
possibly measure even remotely the same. My argument is not
whether the result saound good or bad, that's your decision to
make. My argument is to directly challenge your claim that this
amplifier could measure like any other IN SITU: they can't, it's
as simple as that.

Thus, your premise, or your question, as the case may be, "how
can two amplifier that have similar specs sound so different" is
is meaningless in the face of the fact that two such amps SIMPLY
CAN'T HAVE SIMILAR SPECS.

Do you understand the point?

Yes I think we agree about this point, but I am still wondering how an OTL
can obtain such a good tonal balance and speaker control with such a high
output impedance, I am even using 4 ohm speakers, which presents no problem
at all. I would guess that you have listend to a few OTLs yourself, and
could have had the same thoughts.

Actually, the speakers I use are all designed by tube lovers,
furthermore,
the only speaker design that will act in a close to linear way to a
voltage
source, are one way speakers or headphones. All the rest are compromises.
A
speaker reacts in a quite linear way to the current you put into it, not
the
voltage. There are ways of compensating, I know, but again, it is a
compromise.

I'll get some solid state current amplifiers next week, this will be
interesting......

Sir, I believe yo do NOT understand the difference between the
terms "current source" and "voltage source" and, further, you
have a misunderstanding of the operation of loudspeakers, as I
pointed out and hopefully set you on a more correct path in a
different post.

These amplifiers monitors the impedance at the speaker terminals, and
adjusts the feed back loop accordingly, so the term current source applies
very well.


There are such standards, though there is not an all-
encompassing standard for the entire chain (the AES has 40 some
standards, the ISO has the entire realm of 60268, for example),
but, to be frank with you, THE most egregious violators of these
standard is, in fact, the high-end audion industry, ESPECIALLY
when it comes to realistic comparable performance
specifications.

It would be an interesting goal to persue, to get one useful standard for
the entire chain.

But, with the appalling lack of technical expertise in the
high-end industry, they are the least able to follow such a
path.

It should be possible to find a few serious manufactures in the industry,
anyway, a standard would give a goal to persue for the serious ones. It
could be implemented like the ISO or similar standard.


Sorry for mixing up specifications and measurements, as you say
yourself,
there are more relevant measurements, than what are used as marketing
arguments today (right?)

Indeed, especially in the high-end audio industry. Your OTL
amplifier is one such glaring example.

There are almost no specifications available for the OTL's, since they
would
not give an objective idea of the end result.

Oh, precisely the opposite, a complete set of performance data
would give a VERY GOOD iobjective dea of the end result. The
manufacturer might not like the picture painted, but it would be
pretty precise.

I haven't really seen anybody disliking the sound of the few serious OTSs on
the market, but you may be an exception


And why is simply eliminating the direct knowledge of what
equipment is playing a hindernace to relaxation? If you HAVE to
know that you are listening to your OTL amplifier in order to
relax, guess, what: YOUR ENJOYMENT ISN'T ABOUT SOUND, IT'S ABOUT
BRAND NAMES!

Absolutely nonsence,

Hardly, if you read your statement.

But your failed to answer the question:

Even if I close my eyes, the OTLs sound great


Why is eliminatiung the direct knowledge of what equipment
is playing a hinderance to relaxation?

Please answer that question, as it is at the very root of your
complaints about DB testing.

And if someone makes a claim about the ability to hear a
difference, THEY HAVE ALREADY INTRODUCED THE BASIS OF THE STRESS
IN MAKING THE CLAIM, it could be argued. They have put their
opinion on the line. If a "test" exacerbates the stress, it may
well be because the subject now has doubts as to whether the
original claim is uspportable.

I try to keep an open mind, and are not stoubernly defending any
specific
ideals, brands etc.

But if you HAVE to know what the brand is to relax, which is one
implication of your staement above, then you are NOT keeping an
open mind.

Again, I could not care less about the brand, I only care about enjoying
music the best I can.

Fine, then you why would you have any objections to listening
without having prior knowledge of what you were listening to
equipment-wise?

All that double blind is asking is that you detect the
difference BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE. That's all. Thus, if you
think that a mass loading puck is going to make a difference and
YOU are interested in seeing if this is the case, all that blind
testing is asking is that you see if you can HEAR the difference
BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE.

If you "know" there is no difference in the sound, would it be likely
that
you would actually hear it?

But you DON'T know there is no difference. Why claim otherwise.
The idea is to see IF you CAN detect a difference by sound
alone. If you can, guess what, there are audibly detectable
differences!

Even, if my imagination only, can change a sound image from being harsh,
to
being pleasing, why not use this tweak?

Then, very simply, it's not about sound. It might be about
perception, but it is about perception in the absebce of the
sonic stimuli to produce the perception. You are perfectly
welcome to use any tweaks for any reason you want, I certainly
don't care.

But the issue comes when someone makes the claim, "it makes a
difference in the SOUND." You just admitted that a tweak may
work on imagination only, so you just stated that, in such a
case IT ISN'T ABOUT THE SOUND.

As a music lover, I am merely reporting observations, not writing sceintific
reports. I can only encurage people to use their own ears, and judge for
themselves.


Why is that stressful?

A test situation is stressful to many people, not all, but many.

You keep asserting this without any data or hypothesis to back
it up.
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

"Richard D Pierce" wrote in message
. net...
In article ,
All Ears wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 27 Jul 2003 17:39:35 GMT, "All Ears" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

Speakers are designed to respond
linearly to a constant voltage input, and most modern speakers
assume
drive by a constant voltage source, i.e. an amp with very low output
impedance and high reserves of current. This is a fair description
of
a good SS amp, but not at all of a tubed OTL amp, which can have
several *ohms* output impedance.

So Ohms law does not apply to speakers, interesting....

Ohm's Law certainly does apply. I suggest that you read up on it.

The actual force, that the motor of the driver produces, depends on the
current induced into the coil, right? Does normal speakers have a totally
flat impedance curve? Assuming that the voltage is kept constant, and the
inpedance changes, will this not give an unlinear current, which results
in
amplitude variations over the band? (Rehercing Ohms law

First, what you desribed is NOT Ohm's law.

I replaced resistance with inductance, but the end result will be almost the
same.


Second your analysis falls WOEFULLY short of anything even
barely adequate to describe how speakers work.

Compromises are made to correct for this issue, but they are compromises.


You analysis, for example, predicts that under a constant
current, the speaker MUST, below resonance, have a response
which is independent of frequency, i.e., the speaker does not
roll off. Since it does, your analysis in that region is
incorrect.

Of course it rolls off at some point, I used a simplified model.


Secondly, your analysis predicts that even considering the naive
and simple model of current only, the efficiency at resonance
MUST go down, since the impedance rises at resonance, yet it can
be trivially arranged by non-electrical means that even as the
current goes down, the efficiency and the output of the driver
go UP.

To my knowledge, a typical ported speaker goes down in impedance around the
port resonance point, and raises in impedance around the cross over points.
Guess it is a typing error from your side, since the rest of the statement
seems correct.

Basically, your basic premise is completely flwed because it
simply ignores the fact that speakers are mechncially resonant
devices, that the simple static model you are relying on fails
immediately once you get out of the region of DC exitation
(which, if you sit down and think it through, is the hidden
assumption in your premise).

Be that as it may, speakers which have flat impedance curve get
there by having complex conjugate circuits tto concel the
impedance variations in the drivers. That means that while they
may have a constant current vs frequency profile AS A SYSTEM,
the drivers themselves do not: they STILL have a current that is
frequency dependent on their individual impedance vs frequency
properties. I would suggest that you get your head out of the
"Ohm's Law" hole and start studying Thevenin, Kirchoff and, once
that's under your belt, start studying Thiele and Small.

Variations of transmission line speakers, can obtain a quit flat impedance
curve, with out complex circuits.

Besically, your assertion is wrong, is what it comes down to.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

In article 5EUUa.141533$OZ2.27789@rwcrnsc54,
S888Wheel wrote:
No. His claim was not explicitly qualified nor do I see any implied
qualifications. He was building an argument on a flawed premise. He was
painting a large group of diverse listeners with a stereotype to ridicule them.

Mr. Wheel, this preposterous misinterpretation borders on out
and out dishonesty if you ask me.

My claim is very simple: there have been specific examples where
people making the claim of being expert listeners have presented
me with two pieces of equipment that sounded different, and they
claim that no measurable differences exist: I have quickly and
easily found large measurable differences. They have alson
presented me with equipment that they claim sounded identical,
and I have also found measurable differences, though not as
large.

The rest of your sorry monologue is simply more agenda-laden
nonsense that has nothing to do with what I said.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

All Ears wrote:


Even if I close my eyes, the OTLs sound great


My youngest son always thinks that music sounds better when the bass and
treble controls are boosted. To him, the music is much more alive and
dynamic that way.

The point is that having a not-flat frequency response can be euphonic.
A small boost in the mid-range can make human voices more pleasant, and
certain harmonic distortions can make some instruments sound fuller.

The other thing to keep in mind is that if one amp sounds different than
all others, while all the others sound very similar among themselves,
there is high probability that the one that sounds different is not
accurate.