Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #42   Report Post  
normanstrong
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

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

150W?

Yes, but if it clips at 2W - then it should be rated at 2W, yes?


Does the Wavac actually clip at 2W? Generally speaking, if an
amplifier just begins to clip when the output is 2W, it will not put
out more than 4W--even when massively overdriven to a square wave.
I'm wondering how the designer came up with the figure 150W. Surely
he didn't pick it out of thin air. Could it be that this particular
sample became defective between the time it was reviewed by Fremer and
when it was tested by J.A? It wouldn't surprise me. With measured
performance like this I think that J.A. should have sent it back to
Fremer for a reappraisal. Somehow this yawning chasm should be
rationalized.

Norm Strong

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

From: chung
Date: 7/10/2004 10:38 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 9n4Ic.66712$Oq2.50867@attbi_s52

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung

Date: 7/9/2004 9:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: PRzHc.50521$IQ4.19828@attbi_s02

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung

Date: 7/7/2004 7:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 8m2Hc.40996$a24.23645@attbi_s03

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Dennis Moore"

Date: 7/6/2004 8:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Got to say amen goFab,

Stereophile would have had one notable review if I had been
writing one on the most expensive amp. If it were an inexpensive
product, I would simply say it broken. If it had been this one
for $350K and it was apparent they meant it to be this way,
the review would have redefined the term scathing.

That is your POV. I find it interesting that you would take such a POV
without
actually listening to the product.

I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.

Maybe not. But you are making presumptions without actually listening.

How am I making presumptions?


You said you don't think the amp in question is worth listening to without
listening to it. I find that a bit presumptuous.


I find that you are the one who is extremely presumptious. I *know* that
I do not want to listen to a 2W amp. How could you possible assume that
I would find such an amp worth listening to?


If the measurements show that the amp
clips at a low output voltage, then the amp will distort at low output
voltages. Are you saying that I may like the clipped sound?\


Obviously someone did in this particular case.


But not me.

Maybe you would too if you
didn't know ahead of time what you were listening to.


There, you are being presumptious.

Maybe you wouldn't. A lot
of maybes. I found an actual audition of a WAVAC amp to far more

informative
than speculation and presumption.


Go ahead and listen for yourself, but please don't argue with me that I
may like a 2W amp.







I believe I recall some part of the review mentioned, "a listening
experience like no other, a way of hearing the music different
than any other".

It went on to say that it was like no other in that it sounded so much
more
like live unamplified music. Some people like that.

Yeah, but the fact that someone may like it does not mean that it is not
necessarily bad.

It does for that person and anyone else who has a similar response.

There's no accounting for taste.

I thought taste was considered subjective by objectivists.

And your point being?


Read the next line I wrote.


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


Oh, c'mon. You took a shot at MF's taste. You were asking about eaxamples of
people getting banged around on RAHE? here is a fine one. I suppose you
wouldn't feel insulted if I infered that you had poor taste because your
subjective impressions didn't fall in line with my presumptions?




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


"Simply"?


Yes, I said simply.

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


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


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


I have asked for some clarification on this issue. No one has been forthcoming.
Let's take a practical example. My speakers are very inefficient, about 84db.
If this amp is clipping at 2 watts then I shouldn't be able to get much more
than 87db of sound from them with a test signal should I?






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

Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me,

broken
means
it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all.

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

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

You mean as in lying?


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

make
that acusation.


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


A question worth persuing I think. If it is a lie it is serious. For kicks lets
say I was purchasing this amp. Even with my inefficient speakers I would be
expecting to get over a 100 db pl;ayback levels if called for in the material I
am playing. If this amp is clipping at 87 db could it possibly even approach my
expected sound preasure levels at all much less do so an still sound anything
like music?




All amps clip at a
certain point.

You buy an amp that is rated at 150W. You find out that it clips at less
than 1/10 of that. It sounds (pun inteneded) broken to me.


We seem to have very different understanding of the word broken.This is my
understanding...1 : violently separated into parts : SHATTERED
2 : damaged or altered by breaking: as a : having undergone or been

subjected
to fracture : disrupted by change


It's really simple. An amp spec'ed at 150W that clips at 2W is broken
IMO. You can argue semantics all you want.



Doesn't mean they are broken. Even if their power output is
grossly misrepresented by the marketing.I'm not really clear about this
clipping issue though. The amp is clipping at 2 watts? The sort of

clipping
that can damage speakers? I thought clipping was what happened when the
signal
exceeds the amps output cpacity and the wave is cut off before it gets to
it's
apex? Is that not what clipping is? Is this really happening at 2 watts?


I am glad that now you are realizing the enormity of the problem....

You didn't answer the question.


The point is that now you are starting to realize the enormity of the
problem by trying to find out what clipping at 2W means. Now it's your
turn to do some research.

Lets put it another way. An amp that is rated
at 150 watts can produce about 111 db from a speaker that is rated at about

90
db in efficiency right?


111.8 dB SPL at 1 meter.

an amp that clips at 2 watts can do what?


93 dB SPL at 1 meter, or was that a rhetorical question?


No. it wasn't.


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


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

Here's a problem I am having with this though. When I auditioned a WAVAC amp
that WAVAC rated at 50 watts it was able to play louder than my Creek
integrated amp that is rated at 20 watts. Now if WAVAC is in the habbit of such
gross misrepresentations of power output one has to wonder what the true output
of 50 watt WAVAC is. Even if it is only doing as well as it's big. very big
brother it should not be able to play louder than the 20 watt Creek. But it did
without sounding *grossly* distorted. So what is going on here. Do you think
that the big WAVACs really won't produce much more than 87 db on my current
speakers that are about 84 db in efficiency?

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

From: (Nousaine)
Date: 7/10/2004 10:37 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: mm4Ic.66433$XM6.20336@attbi_s53

(S888Wheel) wrote:

From: chung


...snip to content.... That is your POV. I find it interesting that you
would take such a POV
without
actually listening to the product.

I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.

Maybe not. But you are making presumptions without actually listening.

How am I making presumptions?


You said you don't think the amp in question is worth listening to without
listening to it. I find that a bit presumptuous.


This attitude is typical of another high-end platitude "You are unqualified
to
comment on a product that you've never listened to."


Well, I suppose some people are comfortable forming opinions about sound they
haven't heard. I'm not one of those people.

This is simply another
merchandising technique to forestall critical comment.


No. I am not involved in merchandising. I simply don't like to make
presumptions that you seem to be comfortable making. I am surprised that some
one who has spent so much time decrying audiophiles who let their biases affect
there purchasing decisions would so easily fall victim to his own biases.

It assumes that there
are special evaluative qualities which only high-end promoters (including
buyers) possess. And only insiders can have access.


No it doesn't. It presumes that the listening experience is the final
arbitrator of quality. For many of us that is the purpose of the hobby. To
listen. There is nothing wrong with being more interested in measurements than
listening pleasure if that is what intersts you. To each his own.


I have a friend, who was at one time as high-end as you could get (custom
West
electrostatic loudspeakers and electronics plus a turntable system with a
custom $6k lead isolation stand) but was crushed when a $300 cd player "blew
away" his tt in sound quality.

However, in those days ALL of his equipment was custom or modified in some
way
to "protect himself from audiophiles." His explanation: If he was touting the
sound of a given piece of equipment there would always be an audiophile who
would say "I've heard that piece and it sounds like crap." To which my friend
could reply "You haven't heard this one .... it's been modified."

To the uninitiated in high-end audio where "everything"can make a difference
modification can be as simple as putting a paperweight on an amplifier or
scratching your initials on the back plate.


I have several friends who have brought over their favorite CDs along with
there own CD players only to be blown away by how much better my turntable
sounded with my LP copies of the same titles. Every one of them had an obvious
bias in favor of CDs. Not one has ever prefered the CDs *after listening*. I
always give them full control of the volume settings. What does your story or
my story have to do with this thread?

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

From: "normanstrong"
Date: 7/11/2004 7:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Here is a question for you. You listen to a product like the

WAVACs. You
know
you don't like the measurements but you really did think what you

heard
sounded
more like live music. What do you report in your review?

I would report that I personally liked them but I would also

prominently add,
"Warning Warning Will Robinson: these amps did not test well at

all."

And this is unlike what Stereophile did in what way?

And I
would certainly temper the statements made in my review.


You would? You mean you would let your biases regarding the

measurements affect
your honest impression of the sound you experienced? I would not

like that at
all. I would want the most honest review of the sonic impressions.
Interestingly MF was not aware of how the amp measured before

writing his
review. maybe it was for the best. Maybe the measurements would have

tempered
his review which would have been less true to his impressions. IMO

Stereophile
may have out done what you would have done yourself.


"Let" your biases affect your honest impressions? You can't prevent
it.


Really? Bias controls don't work?

That's why they're called biases. You have no control over them.

Sure you do. Both ways. First would be to hide the information that causes the
bias. The second is to acknowledge the bias and go from there.

If I were the reviewer, just seeing the amplifiers, knowing what they
cost and that they are SETs, would make any review I might write
worthless.


Really? wow! I guess it is a good choice for you not to review equipment. You
do realize that in the real world, people see the equipment they own or at
least know what is there as they listen in the dark.

Clearly, Mr. Fremer's review WAS worthless.

Clearly to those with certain biases.

  #47   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

(S888Wheel) wrote:

From:
(Nousaine)
Date: 7/10/2004 2:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: VBOHc.26874$WX.13205@attbi_s51

"normanstrong"
wrote:

"chung" wrote in message
news:8m2Hc.40996$a24.23645@attbi_s03...
S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Dennis Moore"

Date: 7/6/2004 8:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Got to say amen goFab,

Stereophile would have had one notable review if I had been
writing one on the most expensive amp. If it were an inexpensive
product, I would simply say it broken. If it had been this one
for $350K and it was apparent they meant it to be this way,
the review would have redefined the term scathing.

That is your POV. I find it interesting that you would take such a
POV without
actually listening to the product.

I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.

I guess the ultimate question is, what can you say about an amplifier
from just listening to it? You have to have a signal at the input
and a transducer (speaker) at the output. But if you're familiar with
the sound of your system with its existing amplifier, and you simply
replace that amplifier with the new $350K amp, you certainly should be
able to say something about it without knowing that it cost $350K. I
would expect a reviewer to be able to say that it's an improvement or
not. You rarely see that happen, however. Once the reviewer knows
that he's listening to the world's most expensive amplifier, that fact
dominates all subsequent remarks. Indeed, he can probably write the
entire review without ever turning the amplifier on.

In this particular case of the Wavac did the reviewer note that the
amplifier could only output modest power before distorting the signal
beyond recognition? Not that I noticed.

Norm Strong


This review and editor response looks mostly to me like an invented tempest
to
sustain interest and an effort to keep the amp-myth going and convince
readers
that the magazine is needed to keep readers abreast of things that ordinary,
mortal citizenry has no access.


This looks like a view that is highly slanted through the eyes of a reviewer
for a competing magazine. Are you suggesting the WAVAC also sounds like every
other amp when you refer to the "amp-myth?"


Wrong myth. This unit doesn't look at all like an amplifier; it's an
uncontrolled equalizer and distortion generator.

Otherwise why waste print on this deplorable pile of junk?


Where is the scientific objectivity in name calling?

To show that the
magazines measurements are incredibly wasteful?


Not sure what your point is here. Are you suggesting that the unit should not
have been measured for the review?


No; I'm suggestimng the review was a waste of print space.


That the reviewer cannot hear
frequency response errors or distortion?


The reviewer listened to music through the amps and described what he heard.
He
did consider the possibility that his response to this amp was possibly due
to
it's inaccuracies.

Or even worse infer that distorting
the input signal makes the sound more "live" at the speaker?


And what if it does? If that is MF's honest impression would you suggest he
not
report it? Would you suggest he or JA shelve the review becuase the
subjective impressions are IYO at odds with the measurements?


Oh no; it just confirms that I cannot rely on subjective impressions in those
reviews because apparently bad sound is not recognizable. In this case only the
measurements have value. Who cares if that magazine likes expensive,
hard-to-use poor performing amplifiers .... but this review means that readers
should suspect impressions of loudspeakers as well.



It would seem like that's unlikely;


How on earth do you know? You never listened to this unit with the same
equipment as did MF. Where is the objectivity in that?


Why would I bother? If I want a high performance vehicle why should I test
drive a Lincoln Continental just because someone else admires one?


so what other reason that would be useful
to readers would there be?


Well, gee, if we accept your assertion that MF is not reporting what he
really
experienced then the review is indeed not of any use to the readers. When you
prove that MF is not accurately reporting his impressions then you get to ask
this question.


I'm not doubting his impressions; I just doubt their validity regarding sound
quality.

I think a thoughtful person would describe it as a
"mine is bigger than yours" (we test the most expensive products) exercise.


I think a thoughtful person might not make the same assumptions about the
review being not so true to what the reviewer actually experienced.

Along with inference that measurements do not correlate with sound quality

so
you cannot get the best sound without "our" advice.


If you drop your assumption about the "accuracy" of MF's reporting on his
subjective impressions you will see that Stereophile did a fine job of
reporting the apparent conflict between the measured performance and
subjective
performance of the unit in question.


I think its a great marketing tool. But does it shine any light on improved
sound quality? Only in a perverse way...


But you do write for a competing magazine.

.if a reviewer can't hear a
broke-as-designed product when he hears one perhaps he should be ready for
people to discount his advice (if not his poetry.)


Perhaps one should consider discounting the complaints of someone who works
for
the competition. Of course we must remember you have not listened to the unit
in question and yet you are willing to attack a competing reviewer's
credibility. Personally I think the reviewer who draws conclusions without
the
audition is the reviewer whose crediibility needs to be looked at.


Examine all you want.


If this is an instance where readers are supposed to be made "aware" of
product
flaws through measurements along with the glowing description of apparently
excerable "sound" it seems charade-like to me. And certainly adds no
credibility to the editorial content.


This from the person who has not actually listened to the unit in question.


It is as though the publication is laughing at its readers or engaged in a
huge
self-delusion. The latter is quite unlikely. I think its brilliant

marketing;
look at the length of this thread,.... but other than entertaining reading

it
adds nothing to the quest of getting good sound.


And let's not forget your position as someone who works for the competition.


It's kind of like reading an article in Automobile and finding a tester who
loved the incredible acceleration and cornering ability of a car that had
0-60
in 10 seconds and could pull 0.75g on the skidpad.


No it is not. But perhaps the analogy does tell us something about your
proccess of evaluating equipment.


The review and "As We See It" seems to suggest that the magazine policy for
product selection is sometime left to reviewers, at least in this case. I
don't
recall this being made public prior, although it may have.

For what its worth, (you do want to know this don't you? ) the only
publication
that has ever allowed me to select products I review has been The $ensible
Sound (although this has been rare...and has been limited to products that I
have already acquired). The latter is noted in copy.


So? How do you think you know how it happened with the WAVAC? Hint, it was
reported in Stereophile in the actual reivew.


In every other case the editors have selected products (on rare
occasion...and
I mean rare, they have included products I suggeted were of interest) which
were then delivered to me on assignment for testing.

I am sometimes asked by people if I would do a review on a given product and
I
always tactfully suggest they contact the editorial staff.

It looks, from reading the aforementioned magazine, that reviewers speak

with
manufacturers and either are solicited or solicit products for review on
their
own. (p5,73 July Issue.)

There's not necessarily anything wrong with this. But, I cannot recall ever
seeing this policy disclosed in print and I cannot help but see the

potential
conflict of interest.


I don't see the conflict in interest. OTOH reviewing and consulting.....


And do you have a valid complaint that you'd like to report?
  #48   Report Post  
B&D
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

On 7/11/04 10:06 PM, in article FmmIc.58359$a24.57433@attbi_s03, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 17:39:11 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 7/11/04 1:37 AM, in article mm4Ic.66433$XM6.20336@attbi_s53, "Nousaine"
wrote:

I have a friend, who was at one time as high-end as you could get (custom
West
electrostatic loudspeakers and electronics plus a turntable system with a
custom $6k lead isolation stand) but was crushed when a $300 cd player "blew
away" his tt in sound quality.


Amazingly, the table, tonearm and cartridge make more difference than a
fancy isolation stand.


That's not at all amazing - more like stating the bleedin' obvious...


Sure I was. But Tom hadn't stated anything but the tweak. How are we to
take that? He could have used a beat up worn out turntable with a cartridge
with 2000 too many hours on it and a damaged tonearm for all that is written
in the post, actually.

If he had a bad turntable, or a mediocre one, with a
average tonearm and so-so cartridge, CD and Vinyl won't make much
difference.


Why would you immediately assume that the owner of the above system
would possess a 'mediocre' vinyl replay system? That seems a
particularly unreasonable assumption. And you know what they say about
assumptions..............................


*IS* it a bad assumption? Seems to me that you can read it several ways -
if you are a person that is pro-vinyl you would leap to my assumption - if
you are anti-vinyl you would draw the opposite conclusion.

No information was given about the system. Given my experience with vinyl,
my assumption is a reasonable assumption. Can you shed light upon the type
of system the guy was using - were you privy to Tom's experience? The
assumption seems reasonable enough to me - the bloke may have spend the
entire budget on an isolation platform for all I know!

It is only with the really high end turntable with the very best records
that make a difference - and then, only with time will the differences be
felt in a greater desire to listen to music.


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


Vinyl would be *what* then? I am not sure what you are getting at? That it
is somehow bad? It *is* a pain in the butt to use - but a well adjusted
turntable system works rather well.

  #50   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

(S888Wheel) wrote:

From:
(Nousaine)
Date: 7/10/2004 10:37 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: mm4Ic.66433$XM6.20336@attbi_s53

(S888Wheel) wrote:

From: chung


...snip to content.... That is your POV. I find it interesting that you
would take such a POV
without
actually listening to the product.

I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.

Maybe not. But you are making presumptions without actually listening.

How am I making presumptions?

You said you don't think the amp in question is worth listening to without
listening to it. I find that a bit presumptuous.


This attitude is typical of another high-end platitude "You are unqualified
to
comment on a product that you've never listened to."


Well, I suppose some people are comfortable forming opinions about sound they
haven't heard. I'm not one of those people.

This is simply another
merchandising technique to forestall critical comment.


No. I am not involved in merchandising. I simply don't like to make
presumptions that you seem to be comfortable making. I am surprised that some
one who has spent so much time decrying audiophiles who let their biases
affect
there purchasing decisions would so easily fall victim to his own biases.

It assumes that there
are special evaluative qualities which only high-end promoters (including
buyers) possess. And only insiders can have access.


No it doesn't. It presumes that the listening experience is the final
arbitrator of quality. For many of us that is the purpose of the hobby. To
listen. There is nothing wrong with being more interested in measurements
than
listening pleasure if that is what intersts you. To each his own.


"The listening Experience" is the arbitratory of quality; I couldn't agree
more. But most people don't allow themselves the "listening only" experience.
I'm not "more" interested in measurements as you suggest: I just realize that
reasonable measurements are a prerequisite (perhaps not a qualification) for
good sound.

Unlike others, perhaps like you, who will be intersted in products that aren't
even qualified to be competent for a given application I just shrugg my
shoulders. I've heard waist high AM radios that sounded good to me too. So
what?

I have a friend, who was at one time as high-end as you could get (custom
West
electrostatic loudspeakers and electronics plus a turntable system with a
custom $6k lead isolation stand) but was crushed when a $300 cd player "blew
away" his tt in sound quality.

However, in those days ALL of his equipment was custom or modified in some
way
to "protect himself from audiophiles." His explanation: If he was touting

the
sound of a given piece of equipment there would always be an audiophile who
would say "I've heard that piece and it sounds like crap." To which my

friend
could reply "You haven't heard this one .... it's been modified."

To the uninitiated in high-end audio where "everything"can make a difference
modification can be as simple as putting a paperweight on an amplifier or
scratching your initials on the back plate.


I have several friends who have brought over their favorite CDs along with
there own CD players only to be blown away by how much better my turntable
sounded with my LP copies of the same titles. Every one of them had an
obvious
bias in favor of CDs. Not one has ever prefered the CDs *after listening*. I
always give them full control of the volume settings. What does your story
or
my story have to do with this thread?


They are equally represented; don't you think? That's the basic problem with
high-end; we get into the arguing over anecdotes even when the competence of
the Wavac amplifier has been shown to be ridiculous in print.

That's OK with me. I'll let rational people make up their own minds.



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

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 02:07:11 GMT, "Greg Weaver"
wrote:

"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:mm4Ic.66433$XM6.20336@attbi_s53...
(S888Wheel) wrote:

From: chung


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


Do you know how preposterous that sounds?


Indeed - why on earth would he have been 'crushed' by something so
inevitable?

I have been in and around this
game since the late sixties, and I've yet to hear ANY well set-up
table/arm/cart - like the Music Hall MMF-2.1 for instance - "blown away" by
any similarly priced digital front end.


I have the same longevity as an audiophile, and I have yet to hear any
vinyl rig which could even approach the sound quality of an average CD
player. That includes the legendary Rockport Sirius III with
Clearaudio Insider cartridge - set up by Andy Payor himself. Of
course, it was still playing vinyl, and inescapably suffered the
result.

How you choose to define sound quality MIGHT be the issue. While we may
agree to disagree on what we like in terms of our own listening biases, when
it comes to dimensionality, warmth, and harmonic texture, what you've
described just doesn't happen. With a poorly maintained record, scratched
and dirty, popping and clicking from opening to close, the masking that
would occur would not allow you to truly hear the recording, and you may
have some ground to stand on. Otherwise, this is just insanity.


Actually, insanity would be the notion that vinyl could even approach
the sound quality capability of CD, regardless of the cost of the
vinyl replay rig.

You implied this person had dropped major bucks on his analog system. Either
it was badly set up or someone is hallucinating. C'mon. Let's get real hear
(pun intended).


Ineed, and let's not kid ourselves that vinyl has any place in a *high
fidelity* music replay system, apart from accessing performances
simply not available on CD.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 03:09:48 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 7/11/04 10:06 PM, in article FmmIc.58359$a24.57433@attbi_s03, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:


It is only with the really high end turntable with the very best records
that make a difference - and then, only with time will the differences be
felt in a greater desire to listen to music.


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


Vinyl would be *what* then? I am not sure what you are getting at? That it
is somehow bad? It *is* a pain in the butt to use - but a well adjusted
turntable system works rather well.


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

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #53   Report Post  
Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stereophile reviews (Was: Steely Dan The Absolute Sound)

John Atkinson wrote:
Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro wrote in message
...
Wavac Audio Lab SH-833 monoblock power amplifier (Michael Fremer)
As We See It ( Triggered by Mikey Fremer's review of the $350k/pair
Wavac amplifier in this issue, John Atkinson ponders problems of
fidelity and value for money.)


I suppose in a couple of months these articles will be available
on the website.


Both will be accessible in the free on-line archives at
www.stereophile.com on Monday July 12.


http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...iews/704wavac/
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/704awsi/

There are some other eye opening measuremens as well, reminding
one of Mr. Atkinson's comment in another recent review (I believe
about an amplifier Dudley was raving about) that amplifiers that
test like this are usually described as "broken."


That one I couldn't find. Can you give some more detail ?


It was the Antique Sound Lab Explorer review, also available in
Stereophile's on-line archives.


http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...ws/304antique/

The quote by Mr. Atkinson is:

"I recommend that this amp be used from its 4 ohm output transformer
tap with sensitive speakers, but even then, "broken" is the word
most engineers would use to describe an amplifier that measures as
poorly as did the Antique Sound Lab Explorer 805 DT."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


BTW, I wanted to compare Mr. Atkinson's measurements of these amplifiers
with some more normal models, so I tried to find reviews of amplifiers
by brands such as Denon, Marantz, Pioneer, Sony, Technics, Yamaha
and I only found one (links to others welcome):

Stereophile: Yamaha @PET RP-U100 personal receiver
http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/191/

I just found this list:
http://www.stereophile.com/images/ma...x/intamps.html

that confirms such brands are rarely (or never) reviewed.

I got the impression from this editorial:

Stereophile: "Where's the Real Magazine?"
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/313/

that the readers won't accept such reviews (because high-end Japanese
amplifiers/receivers are multi-channel ? * **), so Stereophile doesn't
review them. They are reviewed in Home Theater Magazine (sister magazine ?)
but not with the same detail:
http://www.hometheatermag.com/

* although they can be used with only 2 speakers connected.

** and there are some high-end stereo-only models. For instance,
the Yamaha MX-D1 (digital (PWM) amplifier).

Well, I suppose the
NAD C370 integrated amplifier
http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...633/index.html
is normal enough.

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

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

From: (Nousaine)
Date: 7/11/2004 9:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: x5oIc.60967$IQ4.34768@attbi_s02

(S888Wheel) wrote:

...snip.....

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


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

Here's a problem I am having with this though. When I auditioned a WAVAC amp
that WAVAC rated at 50 watts it was able to play louder than my Creek
integrated amp that is rated at 20 watts. Now if WAVAC is in the habbit of
such
gross misrepresentations of power output one has to wonder what the true
output
of 50 watt WAVAC is. Even if it is only doing as well as it's big. very big
brother it should not be able to play louder than the 20 watt Creek. But it
did
without sounding *grossly* distorted. So what is going on here. Do you think
that the big WAVACs really won't produce much more than 87 db on my current
speakers that are about 84 db in efficiency?


No I think that you are liking distorted sound.


Why would you make this misrepresentation of my view? Did I say I liked the
WAVAC?


And anyway how did you
establish SPL capability.



By ear. It was pretty obvious at what point each amp ran out of gas and how
loud they were playing when it happened. Of course if the WAVAC was only
putting out two watts, a genreous assumption given the measurements of their so
called 150 watt amp, then there shouldn't be much chance of it putting out
anything near what the 20 watt Creek could put out comfortably, no? We'd expect
9 db difference wouldn't we? That's pretty easy to distinguish don't you think?
  #55   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

From: (Nousaine)
Date: 7/11/2004 7:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(S888Wheel) wrote:

From:
(Nousaine)
Date: 7/10/2004 2:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: VBOHc.26874$WX.13205@attbi_s51

"normanstrong"
wrote:

"chung" wrote in message
news:8m2Hc.40996$a24.23645@attbi_s03...
S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Dennis Moore"

Date: 7/6/2004 8:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Got to say amen goFab,

Stereophile would have had one notable review if I had been
writing one on the most expensive amp. If it were an inexpensive
product, I would simply say it broken. If it had been this one
for $350K and it was apparent they meant it to be this way,
the review would have redefined the term scathing.

That is your POV. I find it interesting that you would take such a
POV without
actually listening to the product.

I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.

I guess the ultimate question is, what can you say about an amplifier
from just listening to it? You have to have a signal at the input
and a transducer (speaker) at the output. But if you're familiar with
the sound of your system with its existing amplifier, and you simply
replace that amplifier with the new $350K amp, you certainly should be
able to say something about it without knowing that it cost $350K. I
would expect a reviewer to be able to say that it's an improvement or
not. You rarely see that happen, however. Once the reviewer knows
that he's listening to the world's most expensive amplifier, that fact
dominates all subsequent remarks. Indeed, he can probably write the
entire review without ever turning the amplifier on.

In this particular case of the Wavac did the reviewer note that the
amplifier could only output modest power before distorting the signal
beyond recognition? Not that I noticed.

Norm Strong

This review and editor response looks mostly to me like an invented tempest
to
sustain interest and an effort to keep the amp-myth going and convince
readers
that the magazine is needed to keep readers abreast of things that

ordinary,
mortal citizenry has no access.


This looks like a view that is highly slanted through the eyes of a reviewer
for a competing magazine. Are you suggesting the WAVAC also sounds like

every
other amp when you refer to the "amp-myth?"


Wrong myth. This unit doesn't look at all like an amplifier; it's an
uncontrolled equalizer and distortion generator.


I guess I will have to consider your inability to distinguish a colored power
amplifier from an equilizer should I read any of your reivews. Or should I just
consider this another attempt at name calling towards the unit in question?


Otherwise why waste print on this deplorable pile of junk?


Where is the scientific objectivity in name calling?

To show that the
magazines measurements are incredibly wasteful?


Not sure what your point is here. Are you suggesting that the unit should

not
have been measured for the review?


No; I'm suggestimng the review was a waste of print space.


Fine. But not every review is going to be of interest to every reader.



That the reviewer cannot hear
frequency response errors or distortion?


The reviewer listened to music through the amps and described what he heard.
He
did consider the possibility that his response to this amp was possibly due
to
it's inaccuracies.

Or even worse infer that distorting
the input signal makes the sound more "live" at the speaker?


And what if it does? If that is MF's honest impression would you suggest he
not
report it? Would you suggest he or JA shelve the review becuase the
subjective impressions are IYO at odds with the measurements?


Oh no; it just confirms that I cannot rely on subjective impressions in those
reviews because apparently bad sound is not recognizable.


"Apperently"??? And yet you still haven't heard the unit in question in the
system MF used. But you are willing to call the sound bad. Would I be any less
out of line if I were to say I think your system sounds bad based on what you
have and what I imagine it would sound like?

In this case only
the
measurements have value. Who cares if that magazine likes expensive,
hard-to-use poor performing amplifiers .... but this review means that
readers
should suspect impressions of loudspeakers as well.


Really? Hmm maybe I should draw the same conclusions about your speakers given
you think almost every amp sounds the same with them. Maybe I should conclude
they are substandard and fail to reveal important information. Heck if we are
going to draw conclusions about speakers based on one person's impression of
amplification with those speakers premised on our beliefs about amps...




It would seem like that's unlikely;


How on earth do you know? You never listened to this unit with the same
equipment as did MF. Where is the objectivity in that?


Why would I bother?


To form an opinion based on experience rather than prejudice.

If I want a high performance vehicle why should I test
drive a Lincoln Continental just because someone else admires one?


Why make a bad analogy.



so what other reason that would be useful
to readers would there be?


Well, gee, if we accept your assertion that MF is not reporting what he
really
experienced then the review is indeed not of any use to the readers. When

you
prove that MF is not accurately reporting his impressions then you get to

ask
this question.


I'm not doubting his impressions; I just doubt their validity regarding sound
quality.


OK fair enough. You are saying he is honestly incompetetant as a listener.
Funny how rwviewers from competing magazines have such views.


I think a thoughtful person would describe it as a
"mine is bigger than yours" (we test the most expensive products) exercise.


I think a thoughtful person might not make the same assumptions about the
review being not so true to what the reviewer actually experienced.

Along with inference that measurements do not correlate with sound quality

so
you cannot get the best sound without "our" advice.


If you drop your assumption about the "accuracy" of MF's reporting on his
subjective impressions you will see that Stereophile did a fine job of
reporting the apparent conflict between the measured performance and
subjective
performance of the unit in question.


I think its a great marketing tool. But does it shine any light on improved
sound quality? Only in a perverse way...


But you do write for a competing magazine.

.if a reviewer can't hear a
broke-as-designed product when he hears one perhaps he should be ready for
people to discount his advice (if not his poetry.)


Perhaps one should consider discounting the complaints of someone who works
for
the competition. Of course we must remember you have not listened to the

unit
in question and yet you are willing to attack a competing reviewer's
credibility. Personally I think the reviewer who draws conclusions without
the
audition is the reviewer whose crediibility needs to be looked at.


Examine all you want.


I have, and I have drawn my conclusions. They remain consistant with this
attack on Stereophile and all the others you have posted and I have read.



If this is an instance where readers are supposed to be made "aware" of
product
flaws through measurements along with the glowing description of apparently
excerable "sound" it seems charade-like to me. And certainly adds no
credibility to the editorial content.


This from the person who has not actually listened to the unit in question.


It is as though the publication is laughing at its readers or engaged in a
huge
self-delusion. The latter is quite unlikely. I think its brilliant

marketing;
look at the length of this thread,.... but other than entertaining reading

it
adds nothing to the quest of getting good sound.


And let's not forget your position as someone who works for the competition.


It's kind of like reading an article in Automobile and finding a tester who
loved the incredible acceleration and cornering ability of a car that had
0-60
in 10 seconds and could pull 0.75g on the skidpad.


No it is not. But perhaps the analogy does tell us something about your
proccess of evaluating equipment.


The review and "As We See It" seems to suggest that the magazine policy for
product selection is sometime left to reviewers, at least in this case. I
don't
recall this being made public prior, although it may have.

For what its worth, (you do want to know this don't you? ) the only
publication
that has ever allowed me to select products I review has been The $ensible
Sound (although this has been rare...and has been limited to products that

I
have already acquired). The latter is noted in copy.


So? How do you think you know how it happened with the WAVAC? Hint, it was
reported in Stereophile in the actual reivew.


In every other case the editors have selected products (on rare
occasion...and
I mean rare, they have included products I suggeted were of interest)

which
were then delivered to me on assignment for testing.

I am sometimes asked by people if I would do a review on a given product

and
I
always tactfully suggest they contact the editorial staff.

It looks, from reading the aforementioned magazine, that reviewers speak

with
manufacturers and either are solicited or solicit products for review on
their
own. (p5,73 July Issue.)

There's not necessarily anything wrong with this. But, I cannot recall ever
seeing this policy disclosed in print and I cannot help but see the

potential
conflict of interest.


I don't see the conflict in interest. OTOH reviewing and consulting.....


And do you have a valid complaint that you'd like to report?






Nothing new.



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

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

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


Vinyl would be *what* then? I am not sure what you are getting at? That it
is somehow bad? It *is* a pain in the butt to use - but a well adjusted
turntable system works rather well.


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


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

Listening to my old Magnavox (c. 1985) CD player, the new NAD CD player, a
Bel Canto Box and my computer - I can see how it is possible to extract more
information from the CD and put it out in a well executed way. While people
may complain about CD players, it seems to me that it has been a question of
design execution rather than inherent limitations in the CD.

Still, with a well put together system, I would lean towards vinyl if money,
software availability and fussiness weren't considerations (as they always
are!). Overall, a good CD player will do it for me!

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

S888Wheel wrote:

From: chung
Date: 7/10/2004 10:38 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 9n4Ic.66712$Oq2.50867@attbi_s52

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung

Date: 7/9/2004 9:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: PRzHc.50521$IQ4.19828@attbi_s02

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung

Date: 7/7/2004 7:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 8m2Hc.40996$a24.23645@attbi_s03

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Dennis Moore"

Date: 7/6/2004 8:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Got to say amen goFab,

Stereophile would have had one notable review if I had been
writing one on the most expensive amp. If it were an inexpensive
product, I would simply say it broken. If it had been this one
for $350K and it was apparent they meant it to be this way,
the review would have redefined the term scathing.

That is your POV. I find it interesting that you would take such a POV
without
actually listening to the product.

I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.

Maybe not. But you are making presumptions without actually listening.

How am I making presumptions?

You said you don't think the amp in question is worth listening to without
listening to it. I find that a bit presumptuous.


I find that you are the one who is extremely presumptious. I *know* that
I do not want to listen to a 2W amp. How could you possible assume that
I would find such an amp worth listening to?


If the measurements show that the amp
clips at a low output voltage, then the amp will distort at low output
voltages. Are you saying that I may like the clipped sound?\

Obviously someone did in this particular case.


But not me.

Maybe you would too if you
didn't know ahead of time what you were listening to.


There, you are being presumptious.

Maybe you wouldn't. A lot
of maybes. I found an actual audition of a WAVAC amp to far more

informative
than speculation and presumption.


Go ahead and listen for yourself, but please don't argue with me that I
may like a 2W amp.







I believe I recall some part of the review mentioned, "a listening
experience like no other, a way of hearing the music different
than any other".

It went on to say that it was like no other in that it sounded so much
more
like live unamplified music. Some people like that.

Yeah, but the fact that someone may like it does not mean that it is not
necessarily bad.

It does for that person and anyone else who has a similar response.

There's no accounting for taste.

I thought taste was considered subjective by objectivists.

And your point being?

Read the next line I wrote.


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


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


Oh yeah? All I said is that there is no accounting for taste, which is
really a trusim, and which explains why some people like low wattage
amps, and you conclude that I was taking a shot at MF's taste? Wow!

On the other hand, you seem to be trying hard to get someone to take a
shot at MF's taste...

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


Actually MF does not post here, so that fails to apply as an example.
But if you think that being challenged for raving about a 2W amp that is
spec'd at 150W, and by the way, costs $350K, qualifies as being banged
around, well, he would not get any sympathy from me .

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


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





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


"Simply"?

Yes, I said simply.

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

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


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


I have asked for some clarification on this issue. No one has been forthcoming.
Let's take a practical example. My speakers are very inefficient, about 84db.
If this amp is clipping at 2 watts then I shouldn't be able to get much more
than 87db of sound from them with a test signal should I?


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







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

Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me,

broken
means
it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all.

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

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

You mean as in lying?

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

make
that acusation.


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


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


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

For kicks lets
say I was purchasing this amp. Even with my inefficient speakers I would be
expecting to get over a 100 db pl;ayback levels if called for in the material I
am playing. If this amp is clipping at 87 db could it possibly even approach my
expected sound preasure levels at all much less do so an still sound anything
like music?


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





All amps clip at a
certain point.

You buy an amp that is rated at 150W. You find out that it clips at less
than 1/10 of that. It sounds (pun inteneded) broken to me.

We seem to have very different understanding of the word broken.This is my
understanding...1 : violently separated into parts : SHATTERED
2 : damaged or altered by breaking: as a : having undergone or been

subjected
to fracture : disrupted by change


It's really simple. An amp spec'ed at 150W that clips at 2W is broken
IMO. You can argue semantics all you want.



Doesn't mean they are broken. Even if their power output is
grossly misrepresented by the marketing.I'm not really clear about this
clipping issue though. The amp is clipping at 2 watts? The sort of

clipping
that can damage speakers? I thought clipping was what happened when the
signal
exceeds the amps output cpacity and the wave is cut off before it gets to
it's
apex? Is that not what clipping is? Is this really happening at 2 watts?


I am glad that now you are realizing the enormity of the problem....

You didn't answer the question.


The point is that now you are starting to realize the enormity of the
problem by trying to find out what clipping at 2W means. Now it's your
turn to do some research.

Lets put it another way. An amp that is rated
at 150 watts can produce about 111 db from a speaker that is rated at about

90
db in efficiency right?


111.8 dB SPL at 1 meter.

an amp that clips at 2 watts can do what?


93 dB SPL at 1 meter, or was that a rhetorical question?


No. it wasn't.


Funny that you got close to the right answer with 150W but couldn't
figure out 2W.



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


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


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


Here's a problem I am having with this though. When I auditioned a WAVAC amp
that WAVAC rated at 50 watts it was able to play louder than my Creek
integrated amp that is rated at 20 watts. Now if WAVAC is in the habbit of such
gross misrepresentations of power output one has to wonder what the true output
of 50 watt WAVAC is. Even if it is only doing as well as it's big. very big
brother it should not be able to play louder than the 20 watt Creek.


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

But it did
without sounding *grossly* distorted. So what is going on here. Do you think
that the big WAVACs really won't produce much more than 87 db on my current
speakers that are about 84 db in efficiency?


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

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

From: (Nousaine)
Date: 7/11/2004 9:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: hsoIc.61068$IQ4.60224@attbi_s02

(S888Wheel) wrote:

From:
(Nousaine)
Date: 7/10/2004 10:37 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: mm4Ic.66433$XM6.20336@attbi_s53

(S888Wheel) wrote:

From: chung


...snip to content.... That is your POV. I find it interesting that

you
would take such a POV
without
actually listening to the product.

I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.

Maybe not. But you are making presumptions without actually listening.

How am I making presumptions?

You said you don't think the amp in question is worth listening to without
listening to it. I find that a bit presumptuous.

This attitude is typical of another high-end platitude "You are unqualified
to
comment on a product that you've never listened to."


Well, I suppose some people are comfortable forming opinions about sound

they
haven't heard. I'm not one of those people.

This is simply another
merchandising technique to forestall critical comment.


No. I am not involved in merchandising. I simply don't like to make
presumptions that you seem to be comfortable making. I am surprised that

some
one who has spent so much time decrying audiophiles who let their biases
affect
there purchasing decisions would so easily fall victim to his own biases.

It assumes that there
are special evaluative qualities which only high-end promoters (including
buyers) possess. And only insiders can have access.


No it doesn't. It presumes that the listening experience is the final
arbitrator of quality. For many of us that is the purpose of the hobby. To
listen. There is nothing wrong with being more interested in measurements
than
listening pleasure if that is what intersts you. To each his own.


"The listening Experience" is the arbitratory of quality; I couldn't agree
more. But most people don't allow themselves the "listening only" experience.


OK when you have had such an experience with the WAVAC *then* get back to us
with your sonic impressions of the unit. So far your expressed sonic
impressions are based soley on your beliefs. Something you seem to be against
when you make statments such as this one about people only using your ears.

I'm not "more" interested in measurements as you suggest: I just realize that
reasonable measurements are a prerequisite (perhaps not a qualification) for
good sound.


They can also serve as another bias. I would think this would be an obvious
issue for someone who claims to be interested in controlling biases.


Unlike others, perhaps like you, who will be intersted in products that
aren't
even qualified to be competent for a given application I just shrugg my
shoulders. I've heard waist high AM radios that sounded good to me too. So
what?


I am interested in systems that make my music collection sound the most like
the real thing. My choice of path to this goal is not affected by prejudices
that you seem to hold about certain kinds of equipment. Like I said, the fianl
arbitrator is the listening experience.


I have a friend, who was at one time as high-end as you could get (custom
West
electrostatic loudspeakers and electronics plus a turntable system with a
custom $6k lead isolation stand) but was crushed when a $300 cd player

"blew
away" his tt in sound quality.

However, in those days ALL of his equipment was custom or modified in some
way
to "protect himself from audiophiles." His explanation: If he was touting

the
sound of a given piece of equipment there would always be an audiophile

who
would say "I've heard that piece and it sounds like crap." To which my

friend
could reply "You haven't heard this one .... it's been modified."

To the uninitiated in high-end audio where "everything"can make a

difference
modification can be as simple as putting a paperweight on an amplifier or
scratching your initials on the back plate.


I have several friends who have brought over their favorite CDs along with
there own CD players only to be blown away by how much better my turntable
sounded with my LP copies of the same titles. Every one of them had an
obvious
bias in favor of CDs. Not one has ever prefered the CDs *after listening*. I
always give them full control of the volume settings. What does your story
or
my story have to do with this thread?


They are equally represented; don't you think?


Hard to say.

That's the basic problem with
high-end; we get into the arguing over anecdotes even when the competence of
the Wavac amplifier has been shown to be ridiculous in print.


You introduced the anecdote. I simply responded with another to point out the
futility of anecdotes. Unfortunately your impression of the WAVAC doesn't even
rise to the level of anecdote.


That's OK with me. I'll let rational people make up their own minds.


This rational person did make up his own mind on one WAVAC amp based on an
audition.

  #59   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

S888Wheel wrote:
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 7/11/2004 7:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(S888Wheel) wrote:

From:
(Nousaine)
Date: 7/10/2004 2:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: VBOHc.26874$WX.13205@attbi_s51

"normanstrong"
wrote:

"chung" wrote in message
news:8m2Hc.40996$a24.23645@attbi_s03...
S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Dennis Moore"

Date: 7/6/2004 8:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Got to say amen goFab,

Stereophile would have had one notable review if I had been
writing one on the most expensive amp. If it were an inexpensive
product, I would simply say it broken. If it had been this one
for $350K and it was apparent they meant it to be this way,
the review would have redefined the term scathing.

That is your POV. I find it interesting that you would take such a
POV without
actually listening to the product.

I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.

I guess the ultimate question is, what can you say about an amplifier
from just listening to it? You have to have a signal at the input
and a transducer (speaker) at the output. But if you're familiar with
the sound of your system with its existing amplifier, and you simply
replace that amplifier with the new $350K amp, you certainly should be
able to say something about it without knowing that it cost $350K. I
would expect a reviewer to be able to say that it's an improvement or
not. You rarely see that happen, however. Once the reviewer knows
that he's listening to the world's most expensive amplifier, that fact
dominates all subsequent remarks. Indeed, he can probably write the
entire review without ever turning the amplifier on.

In this particular case of the Wavac did the reviewer note that the
amplifier could only output modest power before distorting the signal
beyond recognition? Not that I noticed.

Norm Strong

This review and editor response looks mostly to me like an invented tempest
to
sustain interest and an effort to keep the amp-myth going and convince
readers
that the magazine is needed to keep readers abreast of things that

ordinary,
mortal citizenry has no access.

This looks like a view that is highly slanted through the eyes of a reviewer
for a competing magazine. Are you suggesting the WAVAC also sounds like

every
other amp when you refer to the "amp-myth?"


Wrong myth. This unit doesn't look at all like an amplifier; it's an
uncontrolled equalizer and distortion generator.


I guess I will have to consider your inability to distinguish a colored power
amplifier from an equilizer should I read any of your reivews. Or should I just
consider this another attempt at name calling towards the unit in question?


No more so that John Atkinson suggesting that some engineers might call
it 'broken'.

Oh no; it just confirms that I cannot rely on subjective impressions in those
reviews because apparently bad sound is not recognizable.


"Apperently"??? And yet you still haven't heard the unit in question in the
system MF used. But you are willing to call the sound bad. Would I be any less
out of line if I were to say I think your system sounds bad based on what you
have and what I imagine it would sound like?


I wonder if Michael Fremer would have opined that it sounded good, if he
knew the nasty facts about the device beforehand...other than its price,
I mean.

equipment as did MF. Where is the objectivity in that?


Why would I bother?


To form an opinion based on experience rather than prejudice.


What sort of experience? A sighted experience of an amp costing
tens of thousands? What's that experience worth to someone who's
aware of the flaws of sighted evaluation?

I'm not doubting his impressions; I just doubt their validity regarding sound
quality.


OK fair enough. You are saying he is honestly incompetetant as a listener.
Funny how rwviewers from competing magazines have such views.


The funny thing is how reviewers who pooh-pooh the relevance of well-known
psychological biases (and Fremer, being a psychologist or psychiatrist, I forget which,
should certainly know better) can wind up with egg on their faces when they give a positive
review to a device that from an engineering standpoint is arguably 'broken'.
The funnier thing is how this episode changes nothing about audiophile culture, no
matter how many times it's repeated. Fertile grounds for psychological
study *there*, I'd say.

--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth

  #60   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stereophile reviews (Was: Steely Dan The Absolute Sound)

Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro wrote:

I just found this list:
http://www.stereophile.com/images/ma...x/intamps.html

that confirms such brands are rarely (or never) reviewed.

I got the impression from this editorial:

Stereophile: "Where's the Real Magazine?"
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/313/

that the readers won't accept such reviews (because high-end Japanese
amplifiers/receivers are multi-channel ? * **), so Stereophile doesn't
review them. They are reviewed in Home Theater Magazine (sister magazine ?)
but not with the same detail:
http://www.hometheatermag.com/

* although they can be used with only 2 speakers connected.

** and there are some high-end stereo-only models. For instance,
the Yamaha MX-D1 (digital (PWM) amplifier).

Well, I suppose the
NAD C370 integrated amplifier
http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...633/index.html
is normal enough.


A comparison with the NAD integrated amp shows how spectacularly bad
that WAVAC amp really is. Now there is one thing that I thought the
reviewer should have been able to catch: the line spurs (hum) of the
WAVAC. Looking at the measurements, the 180 Hz component is only 60dB
down, and the 420 Hz at -62dB. I would have expected these components to
be quite audible. Also note the strong 3rd and 5th harmonics, at a low
1W output. So much for the sweet even tube harmonics. Contrast those
numbers to the NAD's. You have to wonder if those heavy, expensive power
supplies weren't designed only for their looks and weights. No doubt we
have seen high school science-projects audio amps with better hum
performance. And lower distortion, too. And how about that 10dB peak at
70 Hz? Or the tremendous peaking at 100KHz and 150KHz? Is that what it
takes to sound like live music?


  #61   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

(S888Wheel) wrote:

From:
(Nousaine)
Date: 7/11/2004 9:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: x5oIc.60967$IQ4.34768@attbi_s02

(S888Wheel) wrote:

...snip.....

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

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

sound?

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

amp
that WAVAC rated at 50 watts it was able to play louder than my Creek
integrated amp that is rated at 20 watts. Now if WAVAC is in the habbit of
such
gross misrepresentations of power output one has to wonder what the true
output
of 50 watt WAVAC is. Even if it is only doing as well as it's big. very big
brother it should not be able to play louder than the 20 watt Creek. But it
did
without sounding *grossly* distorted. So what is going on here. Do you

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


No I think that you are liking distorted sound.


Why would you make this misrepresentation of my view? Did I say I liked the
WAVAC?


And anyway how did you
establish SPL capability.



By ear. It was pretty obvious at what point each amp ran out of gas and how
loud they were playing when it happened. Of course if the WAVAC was only
putting out two watts, a genreous assumption given the measurements of their
so
called 150 watt amp, then there shouldn't be much chance of it putting out
anything near what the 20 watt Creek could put out comfortably, no? We'd
expect
9 db difference wouldn't we? That's pretty easy to distinguish don't you
think?


Wow we have a person who can distinguish to 1 dB accuracy SPL by ear in an open
listening session. You should get a job at OSHA.

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

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

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


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


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

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 7/12/2004 6:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: XYGIc.77308$Oq2.43472@attbi_s52

S888Wheel wrote:
From:
(Nousaine)
Date: 7/11/2004 7:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(S888Wheel) wrote:

From:
(Nousaine)
Date: 7/10/2004 2:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: VBOHc.26874$WX.13205@attbi_s51

"normanstrong"
wrote:

"chung" wrote in message
news:8m2Hc.40996$a24.23645@attbi_s03...
S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Dennis Moore"

Date: 7/6/2004 8:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Got to say amen goFab,

Stereophile would have had one notable review if I had been
writing one on the most expensive amp. If it were an inexpensive
product, I would simply say it broken. If it had been this one
for $350K and it was apparent they meant it to be this way,
the review would have redefined the term scathing.

That is your POV. I find it interesting that you would take such a
POV without
actually listening to the product.

I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.

I guess the ultimate question is, what can you say about an amplifier
from just listening to it? You have to have a signal at the input
and a transducer (speaker) at the output. But if you're familiar with
the sound of your system with its existing amplifier, and you simply
replace that amplifier with the new $350K amp, you certainly should be
able to say something about it without knowing that it cost $350K. I
would expect a reviewer to be able to say that it's an improvement or
not. You rarely see that happen, however. Once the reviewer knows
that he's listening to the world's most expensive amplifier, that fact
dominates all subsequent remarks. Indeed, he can probably write the
entire review without ever turning the amplifier on.

In this particular case of the Wavac did the reviewer note that the
amplifier could only output modest power before distorting the signal
beyond recognition? Not that I noticed.

Norm Strong

This review and editor response looks mostly to me like an invented

tempest
to
sustain interest and an effort to keep the amp-myth going and convince
readers
that the magazine is needed to keep readers abreast of things that
ordinary,
mortal citizenry has no access.

This looks like a view that is highly slanted through the eyes of a

reviewer
for a competing magazine. Are you suggesting the WAVAC also sounds like
every
other amp when you refer to the "amp-myth?"

Wrong myth. This unit doesn't look at all like an amplifier; it's an
uncontrolled equalizer and distortion generator.


I guess I will have to consider your inability to distinguish a colored

power
amplifier from an equilizer should I read any of your reivews. Or should I

just
consider this another attempt at name calling towards the unit in question?


No more so that John Atkinson suggesting that some engineers might call
it 'broken'.


Seems by the posts on RAHE thasn JA simply made a very accurate prediction.


Oh no; it just confirms that I cannot rely on subjective impressions in

those
reviews because apparently bad sound is not recognizable.


"Apperently"??? And yet you still haven't heard the unit in question in the
system MF used. But you are willing to call the sound bad. Would I be any

less
out of line if I were to say I think your system sounds bad based on what

you
have and what I imagine it would sound like?


I wonder if Michael Fremer would have opined that it sounded good, if he
knew the nasty facts about the device beforehand...other than its price,
I mean.


An interesting question. Would he have fallen prey to whatever biases the
measurements might have put in his mind?


equipment as did MF. Where is the objectivity in that?

Why would I bother?


To form an opinion based on experience rather than prejudice.


What sort of experience?


Listening.

A sighted experience of an amp costing
tens of thousands?


Well, yes, his audition was sighted.

What's that experience worth to someone who's
aware of the flaws of sighted evaluation?


It's worth whatever value you place on one person's opinion.


I'm not doubting his impressions; I just doubt their validity regarding

sound
quality.


OK fair enough. You are saying he is honestly incompetetant as a listener.
Funny how rwviewers from competing magazines have such views.


The funny thing is how reviewers who pooh-pooh the relevance of well-known
psychological biases (and Fremer, being a psychologist or psychiatrist, I
forget which,
should certainly know better) can wind up with egg on their faces when they
give a positive
review to a device that from an engineering standpoint is arguably 'broken'.


I'm not sure he has any egg on his face. What makes you so sure that the price
tag led him to like what he heard rather than the actual sound? How do you know
you wouldn't have liked it under blind conditions?

The funnier thing is how this episode changes nothing about audiophile
culture, no
matter how many times it's repeated.


Why should this change anything? Why should one person's personal preference
make such a big difference?

Fertile grounds for psychological
study *there*, I'd say.


I don't see it.

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

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

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

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

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

adjusted
turntable system works rather well.


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


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

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


I find this the best balanced description of vinyl vs. cd that I have yet
read here or elsewhere. Even then, the high price of vinyl can be
ameliorated considerably by buying quality used equipment and having the
expertise (or getting it from friend or dealer) to set it up carefully and
critically. It must also have a line contact stylus, a great low output MC
cartridge, and a good preamp/headamp if it is to reach exalted status. (I
would judge from many comments here and elsewhere that many of the phono
systems being criticized do not meet this requirement).

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

In general, the vinyl and SACD have the best timbrel balance and either the
SACD or the vinyl the best "depth" of image. Of course, the silver disks
win on convenience and playing time and now demand most of the listening
time. Yet finding, cleaning, and listening to new old records that somehow
I missed buying in their day (usually for less than $2.00 each) is a fun
hobby and I happen to live in an area with several good stores for vinyl and
a good store for SACD / DVD-A (Media Play in Enfield, CT) as well as two
good public radio stations, so I am blessed with a perfect situation: the
medium doesn't matter musch anymore. Except that multi-channel trumps them
all.


Listening to my old Magnavox (c. 1985) CD player, the new NAD CD player, a
Bel Canto Box and my computer - I can see how it is possible to extract

more
information from the CD and put it out in a well executed way. While

people
may complain about CD players, it seems to me that it has been a question

of
design execution rather than inherent limitations in the CD.


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

Still, with a well put together system, I would lean towards vinyl if

money,
software availability and fussiness weren't considerations (as they always
are!). Overall, a good CD player will do it for me!


And a good SACD or Universal player will do it even better for the future.
If you do want to get into vinyl cheap, try this:

* Dual 701 or 601 turntable in good shape ($200)
* Accuphase AC-2 cartridge with stylus in good condition (rare but $150)
and properly set up.
* Marcof PPA-2 headamp($100) and if you need a phono preamp, put it through
the phono section of an Audionics BT-2 (improved) preamp ($100).

For four-five hundred dollars you can have a vinyl system equal/better than
upper-middle-class CD and SACD has to offer.

  #65   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

(S888Wheel) wrote:

From:
(Nousaine)

Wrong myth. This unit doesn't look at all like an amplifier; it's an
uncontrolled equalizer and distortion generator.


I guess I will have to consider your inability to distinguish a colored power
amplifier from an equilizer should I read any of your reivews. Or should I
just
consider this another attempt at name calling towards the unit in question?


Consider it in any vein you think it fits. Just don't call me when you want an
opinion on sound quality.


Otherwise why waste print on this deplorable pile of junk?

Where is the scientific objectivity in name calling?


I thought we were in high-end audio where science and objectivity don't count?
Why should the rules be changed for me?



To show that the
magazines measurements are incredibly wasteful?

Not sure what your point is here. Are you suggesting that the unit should

not
have been measured for the review?


No; I'm suggestimng the review was a waste of print space.


Fine. But not every review is going to be of interest to every reader.


Sure; but I'm wondering why this would be of interest to any interest to audio
enthusiast readers ..... and not just to people like the reviewer, the staff
and the manufacturer? Save, perhaps you....but then you automatically advance
your interest above mine who paid exactly the same money for my subscription as
you did. Are your dollars greener than mine?


That the reviewer cannot hear
frequency response errors or distortion?

The reviewer listened to music through the amps and described what he

heard.
He
did consider the possibility that his response to this amp was possibly due
to
it's inaccuracies.

Or even worse infer that distorting
the input signal makes the sound more "live" at the speaker?

And what if it does? If that is MF's honest impression would you suggest he
not
report it? Would you suggest he or JA shelve the review becuase the
subjective impressions are IYO at odds with the measurements?


Oh no; it just confirms that I cannot rely on subjective impressions in

those
reviews because apparently bad sound is not recognizable.


"Apperently"??? And yet you still haven't heard the unit in question in the
system MF used. But you are willing to call the sound bad. Would I be any
less
out of line if I were to say I think your system sounds bad based on what you
have and what I imagine it would sound like?


But that's the standard line. My car (system) is (better sounding) faster
than yours and you'll just have to accept my word for it because YOU haven't
driven (listened to) it.

In this case we need even something more advanced; a bias controlled listening
test that shows that this device (flawed in measurement as though it is)
actually sounds better than a competent amplifier.

Was this published in Stereophile? Did you conduct a similar test in your
audition?

In this case only
the
measurements have value. Who cares if that magazine likes expensive,
hard-to-use poor performing amplifiers .... but this review means that
readers
should suspect impressions of loudspeakers as well.


Really? Hmm maybe I should draw the same conclusions about your speakers
given
you think almost every amp sounds the same with them.


I don't "think" this. I have conducted bias controlled listening tests that
verify this.

Maybe I should conclude
they are substandard and fail to reveal important information. Heck if we are
going to draw conclusions about speakers based on one person's impression of
amplification with those speakers premised on our beliefs about amps...



As stated above I don't have "beliefs" about amplifier sound. I have 25-years
of bias-controlled listening tests upon which to draw conclusions.


It would seem like that's unlikely;

How on earth do you know? You never listened to this unit with the same
equipment as did MF. Where is the objectivity in that?


Why would I bother?


To form an opinion based on experience rather than prejudice.


You can call it prejudice if you like; but nowhere in the record is there
evidence that an ampliifer such as the measured results show would sound "more
like" live music than a nominally competent amplifier.


If I want a high performance vehicle why should I test
drive a Lincoln Continental just because someone else admires one?


Why make a bad analogy.



I'd rather make a good one. But you are right in one important aspect ..... a
Contential is "more" like a real car than this dreck is like a real amplifier.

so what other reason that would be useful
to readers would there be?

Well, gee, if we accept your assertion that MF is not reporting what he
really
experienced then the review is indeed not of any use to the readers. When

you
prove that MF is not accurately reporting his impressions then you get to

ask
this question.


I'm not doubting his impressions; I just doubt their validity regarding

sound
quality.


OK fair enough. You are saying he is honestly incompetetant as a listener.
Funny how rwviewers from competing magazines have such views.


This is a fair point and one that any post reader will have accomodated.

I think a thoughtful person would describe it as a
"mine is bigger than yours" (we test the most expensive products)

exercise.

I think a thoughtful person might not make the same assumptions about the
review being not so true to what the reviewer actually experienced.


No one would have questioed his "experience." No one ever did. What was
questioned is the validity if the experience relative to the sound quality of
the devices in question.


Along with inference that measurements do not correlate with sound quality
so
you cannot get the best sound without "our" advice.

If you drop your assumption about the "accuracy" of MF's reporting on his
subjective impressions you will see that Stereophile did a fine job of
reporting the apparent conflict between the measured performance and
subjective
performance of the unit in question.


For pete's sake: it was made into a "Tempest in a Teapot" so that a certain
segment of readers could "decide for themselves" that their
amps/cables/bits/tweaks all sound "different" even if all rationally captured
evidence shows this isn't the case.

This is religion at its basic.

I think its a great marketing tool. But does it shine any light on

improved
sound quality? Only in a perverse way...

But you do write for a competing magazine.



Sure. And that's never been a secret. And I started being an interested party
and conducting bias controlled listening tests on my own 10 years before I
acquired any, however modest, professional income from my hobby.

A decade later I retired from my day-job. And now I make a moderate "living" as
a stringer for Hachette (Sound & Vision and Mobile Entertainment), The $ensible
Sound, The Audio Critic magazines, as a Trained Listener for DLC Design (where
I perform listening and measurement evaluation of autosound systems) and as an
operator of an un-advertised and un-promoted speaker measurement lab who will
measure any speaker sent in for an agreed-upon fee in advance.

Everybody who doesn't know my industry connections should take note.

You may also note that in my capacity at DLC Design I've listened to and
measured 500 OEM autosound systems including prototypes,
manufacturing-variations and production systems over the past 5 years.

In my capacity at Sound & Vision I've measured several hundred speaker systems
starting in the mid-90s (some of which were also "reviewed") and with Mobile
Entertainment (aka Car Stereo Review) I've both measured and "reviewed" all the
speaker systems since 1989.

There were other magazines that have passed through the hopper as well: I did
all the speaker coverage for Video and Sound & Image as long as those titles
lasted in the family.

But I've never been an Employee of any publication. Nor am I an employee of any
company that I now work with.

Nor have I ever "consulted" with a company beyond conducting measurements that
I would have conducted if that company were to be reviewed in Sound & Vision or
any other publication to which I submit copy.

You might legitimately ask why would anybody want you to do this? The nasower
to that question is ..... start-ups and smaller companies might not have the
capability of conducting parallel measurements (big companies all know how to
do this stuff; I wonder why so many of then don't bother) and I regularly
suggest that they don't need me to do this work.

Of course, the words above might suggest this happens more than sporadically.
It does not.

The 2nd such request I had was from a company that was looking for investors
and the investment folks wanted them to verify the claims of performance
improvements from a 3rd party (specifically me.)

I took the job; finished the report and ..... never got paid.

The moral to that story is payment before starting the job. But... so what?

Magazine work as a stringer is not well paid. My writers contract gives
Hachette an exclusive for competing consumer audio publications but nothing
else. So I'm free to work anywhere in any capacity otherwise.

So what does the writer's (or any other agreement) for Stereophile cover?

.if a reviewer can't hear a
broke-as-designed product when he hears one perhaps he should be ready for
people to discount his advice (if not his poetry.)

Perhaps one should consider discounting the complaints of someone who works
for
the competition. Of course we must remember you have not listened to the

unit
in question and yet you are willing to attack a competing reviewer's
credibility. Personally I think the reviewer who draws conclusions without
the
audition is the reviewer whose crediibility needs to be looked at.


Examine all you want.


I have, and I have drawn my conclusions. They remain consistant with this
attack on Stereophile and all the others you have posted and I have read.


Sure and you have an opinion drawn on uncontrolled listening evaluations. So?

If this is an instance where readers are supposed to be made "aware" of
product
flaws through measurements along with the glowing description of

apparently
excerable "sound" it seems charade-like to me. And certainly adds no
credibility to the editorial content.

This from the person who has not actually listened to the unit in question.


It is as though the publication is laughing at its readers or engaged in a
huge
self-delusion. The latter is quite unlikely. I think its brilliant
marketing;
look at the length of this thread,.... but other than entertaining reading
it
adds nothing to the quest of getting good sound.

And let's not forget your position as someone who works for the

competition.


That's pretty obvious; so? Everyone is free to debate my comments according to
my position. I'd hope that everyone does the same for you; Mr Atkinson and
everybody who "will" identify their source.

It's kind of like reading an article in Automobile and finding a tester

who
loved the incredible acceleration and cornering ability of a car that had
0-60
in 10 seconds and could pull 0.75g on the skidpad.

No it is not. But perhaps the analogy does tell us something about your
proccess of evaluating equipment.


Actually in this case I think the analogy is perfectly relevant.

The review and "As We See It" seems to suggest that the magazine policy

for
product selection is sometime left to reviewers, at least in this case. I
don't
recall this being made public prior, although it may have.



Note; the avoidance of the answer to that question.

For what its worth, (you do want to know this don't you? ) the only
publication
that has ever allowed me to select products I review has been The $ensible
Sound (although this has been rare...and has been limited to products that

I
have already acquired). The latter is noted in copy.

So? How do you think you know how it happened with the WAVAC? Hint, it was
reported in Stereophile in the actual reivew.


Sure; but it was not "reported" but anecotalized (if you will) in 2 separate
pieces. If this qualifies as 'reporting' I think that Mr Atkinson should
retract his criticism that any other magazine hasn't openly "reported" its
editorial policy since Larry Klein did so at a Conference in 1990.

In every other case the editors have selected products (on rare
occasion...and
I mean rare, they have included products I suggeted were of interest)

which
were then delivered to me on assignment for testing.

I am sometimes asked by people if I would do a review on a given product

and
I
always tactfully suggest they contact the editorial staff.

It looks, from reading the aforementioned magazine, that reviewers speak
with
manufacturers and either are solicited or solicit products for review on
their
own. (p5,73 July Issue.)

There's not necessarily anything wrong with this. But, I cannot recall

ever
seeing this policy disclosed in print and I cannot help but see the
potential
conflict of interest.


I don't see the conflict in interest. OTOH reviewing and consulting.....


And do you have a valid complaint that you'd like to report?


Nothing new.


As I suggested; you have no legitimate complaints to report? No?


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

From: chung
Date: 7/12/2004 5:27 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: V%FIc.42453$WX.34911@attbi_s51

S888Wheel wrote:

From: chung

Date: 7/10/2004 10:38 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 9n4Ic.66712$Oq2.50867@attbi_s52

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung

Date: 7/9/2004 9:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: PRzHc.50521$IQ4.19828@attbi_s02

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung

Date: 7/7/2004 7:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 8m2Hc.40996$a24.23645@attbi_s03

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Dennis Moore"

Date: 7/6/2004 8:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Got to say amen goFab,

Stereophile would have had one notable review if I had been
writing one on the most expensive amp. If it were an inexpensive
product, I would simply say it broken. If it had been this one
for $350K and it was apparent they meant it to be this way,
the review would have redefined the term scathing.

That is your POV. I find it interesting that you would take such a

POV
without
actually listening to the product.

I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.

Maybe not. But you are making presumptions without actually listening.

How am I making presumptions?

You said you don't think the amp in question is worth listening to

without
listening to it. I find that a bit presumptuous.

I find that you are the one who is extremely presumptious. I *know* that
I do not want to listen to a 2W amp. How could you possible assume that
I would find such an amp worth listening to?


If the measurements show that the amp
clips at a low output voltage, then the amp will distort at low output
voltages. Are you saying that I may like the clipped sound?\

Obviously someone did in this particular case.

But not me.

Maybe you would too if you
didn't know ahead of time what you were listening to.

There, you are being presumptious.

Maybe you wouldn't. A lot
of maybes. I found an actual audition of a WAVAC amp to far more
informative
than speculation and presumption.

Go ahead and listen for yourself, but please don't argue with me that I
may like a 2W amp.







I believe I recall some part of the review mentioned, "a listening
experience like no other, a way of hearing the music different
than any other".

It went on to say that it was like no other in that it sounded so

much
more
like live unamplified music. Some people like that.

Yeah, but the fact that someone may like it does not mean that it is

not
necessarily bad.

It does for that person and anyone else who has a similar response.

There's no accounting for taste.

I thought taste was considered subjective by objectivists.

And your point being?

Read the next line I wrote.

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


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


Oh yeah?


Yeah!

All I said is that there is no accounting for taste, which is
really a trusim,


It's also a common way of taking a shot at someone's taste. You didn't know
that?

and which explains why some people like low wattage
amps, and you conclude that I was taking a shot at MF's taste? Wow!


Yes I did. It is a common conclusion when one says there is no accounting for
taste in regards to an individual's taste. I am quite surprised you are unaware
of this conventional, common insult.


On the other hand, you seem to be trying hard to get someone to take a
shot at MF's taste...


Not at all. How on earth did you come to that conclusion? I am trying to point
out that no one who is taking shot's at his taste really know what they are
talking about since no one taking shots at his taste knows what he heard.


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


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


Did I qualify my claim that people get knocked around on RAHE by limmiting it
to people who post here? No I did not. It applies as an example. What's the
point in citing examples if you cannot recognize an example when one is cited?

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


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


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


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


That wasn't the point. The point was your comment was insulting to MF. Maybe
you really didn't realize it but it was quite insulting. At least I would have
been insulted by it. No big deal, it happens often on RAHE but an insult is
what it is.






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


"Simply"?

Yes, I said simply.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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








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

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

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

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

You mean as in lying?

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

anything
like music?


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


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






All amps clip at a
certain point.

You buy an amp that is rated at 150W. You find out that it clips at less
than 1/10 of that. It sounds (pun inteneded) broken to me.

We seem to have very different understanding of the word broken.This is

my
understanding...1 : violently separated into parts : SHATTERED
2 : damaged or altered by breaking: as a : having undergone or been
subjected
to fracture : disrupted by change

It's really simple. An amp spec'ed at 150W that clips at 2W is broken
IMO. You can argue semantics all you want.



Doesn't mean they are broken. Even if their power output is
grossly misrepresented by the marketing.I'm not really clear about this
clipping issue though. The amp is clipping at 2 watts? The sort of
clipping
that can damage speakers? I thought clipping was what happened when the
signal
exceeds the amps output cpacity and the wave is cut off before it gets

to
it's
apex? Is that not what clipping is? Is this really happening at 2

watts?


I am glad that now you are realizing the enormity of the problem....

You didn't answer the question.

The point is that now you are starting to realize the enormity of the
problem by trying to find out what clipping at 2W means. Now it's your
turn to do some research.

Lets put it another way. An amp that is rated
at 150 watts can produce about 111 db from a speaker that is rated at

about
90
db in efficiency right?

111.8 dB SPL at 1 meter.

an amp that clips at 2 watts can do what?


93 dB SPL at 1 meter, or was that a rhetorical question?


No. it wasn't.


Funny that you got close to the right answer with 150W but couldn't
figure out 2W.



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


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

sound?

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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







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

  #67   Report Post  
goFab.com
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 16:38:58 GMT, in article CSzHc.48440$MB3.20668@attbi_s04,
S888Wheel stated:

From: "goFab.com"
Date: 7/8/2004 8:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: VaoHc.50782$Oq2.19921@attbi_s52

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:47:35 GMT, in article HUeHc.12796$WX.4645@attbi_s51,
S888Wheel stated:

When the substance of a review is so
deeply at odds with the measured results, one must question what useful
purpose
these qualitative reviews are serving (beyond informing us of the mere
existence
of a particular product).

No one is suggesting that you agree with MF. But one has to wonder if you

are
letting your biases get the best of your opinion given you have never

listened
to the amps in question.


And what biases would those be?


The one you have already expressed about the measurments of this amp.


I urge you to read my posts again. The fact that this amp measured very poorly
in JA's test is not a bias, it is an objective fact. The fact that MF's review
was pretty much an unqualified rave is also not a bias, but an objective fact.
I've only sought to comment on the coexistence of those two things.


You think I'm a shill for a competing $350K
audio amplifier? :-)


This might be another one. The price.


I fail to see what the price has to do with an amplifier being reviewed as well
as can be imagined, on the one hand, and measuring so very poorly, on the other.
Perhaps the high price makes the situation a bit more interesting than would
otherwise be the case, but that's about it. I'm well aware of the law of
diminishing returns as it applies to very limited production luxury items like
the Wavac; the fit and finish and reliability of a $400K Ferrari is unlikely to
be as good as that of a $100K Benz. On the other hand, it is not likely that
when the Ferrari people advertise a top speed of 200 mph they deliver only 4
mph, to use a tenuous but not entirely inappropriate analogy.

FYI, I'm not in the business (audio or audio press)
and I
don't have any particular axe to grind.


You may not be in the audio press( I never said or implied you were) But I am
skeptical about the axe.


That's fine for you to say, but I would just point out that you have no
discernible factual basis for your skepticism on this score.
  #68   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

chung wrote in message
news:PRzHc.50521$IQ4.19828@attbi_s02...
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Dennis Moore"

Stereophile would have had one notable review if I had been
writing one on the most expensive amp. If it were an
inexpensive product, I would simply say it broken. If it had
been this one for $350K and it was apparent they meant it to be
this way, the review would have redefined the term scathing.

That is your POV. I find it interesting that you would take such
a POV without actually listening to the product.

I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.


Maybe not. But you are making presumptions without actually
listening.


How am I making presumptions? If the measurements show that the amp
clips at a low output voltage, then the amp will distort at low
output voltages. Are you saying that I may like the clipped sound?


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

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

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

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

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

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #69   Report Post  
Dennis Moore
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

For S888wheel,

Below is a reply from JA to one of my comments early in the thread. You
will
unambiguously find that he uses the term, "this ridiculous amplifier".

Dennis




"Dennis Moore" wrote in message
...
I just wonder if JA still owned the magazine rather than working
for a large publishing owner, would he have said differently?


No. I said what I had to say just the way I intended to say it, both
in the review and in my "As We See It." With respect, I believe you all
need to remember just how it was you learned this ridiculous amplifier
had such poor measured performance.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

















"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:Q1UIc.80011$XM6.17480@attbi_s53...
From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 7/12/2004 6:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: XYGIc.77308$Oq2.43472@attbi_s52

S888Wheel wrote:
From:
(Nousaine)
Date: 7/11/2004 7:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(S888Wheel) wrote:

From:
(Nousaine)
Date: 7/10/2004 2:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: VBOHc.26874$WX.13205@attbi_s51

"normanstrong"
wrote:

"chung" wrote in message
news:8m2Hc.40996$a24.23645@attbi_s03...
S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Dennis Moore"

Date: 7/6/2004 8:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Got to say amen goFab,

Stereophile would have had one notable review if I had been
writing one on the most expensive amp. If it were an

inexpensive
product, I would simply say it broken. If it had been this one
for $350K and it was apparent they meant it to be this way,
the review would have redefined the term scathing.

That is your POV. I find it interesting that you would take

such a
POV without
actually listening to the product.

I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.

I guess the ultimate question is, what can you say about an

amplifier
from just listening to it? You have to have a signal at the input
and a transducer (speaker) at the output. But if you're familiar

with
the sound of your system with its existing amplifier, and you

simply
replace that amplifier with the new $350K amp, you certainly should

be
able to say something about it without knowing that it cost $350K.

I
would expect a reviewer to be able to say that it's an improvement

or
not. You rarely see that happen, however. Once the reviewer

knows
that he's listening to the world's most expensive amplifier, that

fact
dominates all subsequent remarks. Indeed, he can probably write

the
entire review without ever turning the amplifier on.

In this particular case of the Wavac did the reviewer note that the
amplifier could only output modest power before distorting the

signal
beyond recognition? Not that I noticed.

Norm Strong

This review and editor response looks mostly to me like an invented

tempest
to
sustain interest and an effort to keep the amp-myth going and

convince
readers
that the magazine is needed to keep readers abreast of things that
ordinary,
mortal citizenry has no access.

This looks like a view that is highly slanted through the eyes of a

reviewer
for a competing magazine. Are you suggesting the WAVAC also sounds

like
every
other amp when you refer to the "amp-myth?"

Wrong myth. This unit doesn't look at all like an amplifier; it's an
uncontrolled equalizer and distortion generator.


I guess I will have to consider your inability to distinguish a colored

power
amplifier from an equilizer should I read any of your reivews. Or

should I
just
consider this another attempt at name calling towards the unit in

question?

No more so that John Atkinson suggesting that some engineers might call
it 'broken'.


Seems by the posts on RAHE thasn JA simply made a very accurate

prediction.


Oh no; it just confirms that I cannot rely on subjective impressions

in
those
reviews because apparently bad sound is not recognizable.


"Apperently"??? And yet you still haven't heard the unit in question in

the
system MF used. But you are willing to call the sound bad. Would I be

any
less
out of line if I were to say I think your system sounds bad based on

what
you
have and what I imagine it would sound like?


I wonder if Michael Fremer would have opined that it sounded good, if he
knew the nasty facts about the device beforehand...other than its price,
I mean.


An interesting question. Would he have fallen prey to whatever biases the
measurements might have put in his mind?


equipment as did MF. Where is the objectivity in that?

Why would I bother?


To form an opinion based on experience rather than prejudice.


What sort of experience?


Listening.

A sighted experience of an amp costing
tens of thousands?


Well, yes, his audition was sighted.

What's that experience worth to someone who's
aware of the flaws of sighted evaluation?


It's worth whatever value you place on one person's opinion.


I'm not doubting his impressions; I just doubt their validity

regarding
sound
quality.


OK fair enough. You are saying he is honestly incompetetant as a

listener.
Funny how rwviewers from competing magazines have such views.


The funny thing is how reviewers who pooh-pooh the relevance of

well-known
psychological biases (and Fremer, being a psychologist or psychiatrist, I
forget which,
should certainly know better) can wind up with egg on their faces when

they
give a positive
review to a device that from an engineering standpoint is arguably

'broken'.

I'm not sure he has any egg on his face. What makes you so sure that the

price
tag led him to like what he heard rather than the actual sound? How do you

know
you wouldn't have liked it under blind conditions?

The funnier thing is how this episode changes nothing about audiophile
culture, no
matter how many times it's repeated.


Why should this change anything? Why should one person's personal

preference
make such a big difference?

Fertile grounds for psychological
study *there*, I'd say.


I don't see it.


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

From: "goFab.com"
Date: 7/13/2004 3:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 16:38:58 GMT, in article
CSzHc.48440$MB3.20668@attbi_s04,
S888Wheel stated:

From: "goFab.com"

Date: 7/8/2004 8:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: VaoHc.50782$Oq2.19921@attbi_s52

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:47:35 GMT, in article

HUeHc.12796$WX.4645@attbi_s51,
S888Wheel stated:

When the substance of a review is so
deeply at odds with the measured results, one must question what useful
purpose
these qualitative reviews are serving (beyond informing us of the mere
existence
of a particular product).

No one is suggesting that you agree with MF. But one has to wonder if you
are
letting your biases get the best of your opinion given you have never
listened
to the amps in question.

And what biases would those be?


The one you have already expressed about the measurments of this amp.


I urge you to read my posts again. The fact that this amp measured very
poorly
in JA's test is not a bias, it is an objective fact.


I didn't say the measurements were a bias I said that you may be biased by the
measurements. Are you saying this is not true?

The fact that MF's
review
was pretty much an unqualified rave is also not a bias, but an objective
fact.


Did I say his review was a bias? No.

I've only sought to comment on the coexistence of those two things.


You think I'm a shill for a competing $350K
audio amplifier? :-)


This might be another one. The price.


I fail to see what the price has to do with an amplifier being reviewed as
well
as can be imagined, on the one hand, and measuring so very poorly, on the
other.
Perhaps the high price makes the situation a bit more interesting than would
otherwise be the case, but that's about it.


It has been infered that the high price could have created a bias in favor of
the unit in MF's case. It seems just as valid to suggest the price may manifest
a negative bias in you.

I'm well aware of the law of
diminishing returns as it applies to very limited production luxury items
like
the Wavac; the fit and finish and reliability of a $400K Ferrari is unlikely
to
be as good as that of a $100K Benz. On the other hand, it is not likely that
when the Ferrari people advertise a top speed of 200 mph they deliver only 4
mph, to use a tenuous but not entirely inappropriate analogy.


The analogy is fair. I think the claim that the amp actually clips at 2 watts
is suspect.


FYI, I'm not in the business (audio or audio press)
and I
don't have any particular axe to grind.


You may not be in the audio press( I never said or implied you were) But I

am
skeptical about the axe.


That's fine for you to say, but I would just point out that you have no
discernible factual basis for your skepticism on this score.


Just your post.









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

John Atkinson wrote:
chung wrote in message
news:PRzHc.50521$IQ4.19828@attbi_s02...
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Dennis Moore"

Stereophile would have had one notable review if I had been
writing one on the most expensive amp. If it were an
inexpensive product, I would simply say it broken. If it had
been this one for $350K and it was apparent they meant it to be
this way, the review would have redefined the term scathing.

That is your POV. I find it interesting that you would take such
a POV without actually listening to the product.

I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.

Maybe not. But you are making presumptions without actually
listening.


How am I making presumptions? If the measurements show that the amp
clips at a low output voltage, then the amp will distort at low
output voltages. Are you saying that I may like the clipped sound?


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

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

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

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

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

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


I did not read the measurements until they were posted on the website. I
agree that saying that this amp clips at 2W is not correct, since it is
possible to extract 10W at 5% distortion (8-ohm tap, 8-ohm load). But it
is clear that if one is interested in low-distortion power (and I am),
this amp provides very little more than 2W (at about 2.2% distortion).

Whether one can condemn its sound based on these and other measurements
without listening to it depends on what one wants in an amplifier. If
one is interested in high-fidelity, accurate, amps, then clearly one can
condemn its sound. Unless those measurements are wrong. On the other
hand, if one does not care about distortion or various frequency
response errors, then perhaps one would not necessarily eliminate this
amp as bad sounding. And clearly there is at least one person who loves
its sound.

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

On 7/13/04 12:25 PM, in article Q1UIc.80011$XM6.17480@attbi_s53, "S888Wheel"
wrote:

The funnier thing is how this episode changes nothing about audiophile
culture, no
matter how many times it's repeated.


Why should this change anything? Why should one person's personal preference
make such a big difference?


It certainly will cause the polarization effect!

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

On 7/12/04 9:32 PM, in article XYGIc.77308$Oq2.43472@attbi_s52, "Steven
Sullivan" wrote:

I'm not doubting his impressions; I just doubt their validity regarding
sound
quality.


OK fair enough. You are saying he is honestly incompetetant as a listener.
Funny how rwviewers from competing magazines have such views.


The funny thing is how reviewers who pooh-pooh the relevance of well-known
psychological biases (and Fremer, being a psychologist or psychiatrist, I
forget which,
should certainly know better) can wind up with egg on their faces when they
give a positive
review to a device that from an engineering standpoint is arguably 'broken'.
The funnier thing is how this episode changes nothing about audiophile
culture, no
matter how many times it's repeated. Fertile grounds for psychological
study *there*, I'd say.


Except as a group is it we who speculate. We did not listen to it - all we
can do is look at the graphs and speculate as to its poor performance and
become polarized as audiophiles do! :-)

  #75   Report Post  
Georg Grosz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stereophile reviews (Was: Steely Dan The Absolute Sound)

chung wrote in message ...
Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro wrote:

I just found this list:
http://www.stereophile.com/images/ma...x/intamps.html

that confirms such brands are rarely (or never) reviewed.

I got the impression from this editorial:

Stereophile: "Where's the Real Magazine?"
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/313/

that the readers won't accept such reviews (because high-end Japanese
amplifiers/receivers are multi-channel ? * **), so Stereophile doesn't
review them. They are reviewed in Home Theater Magazine (sister magazine ?)
but not with the same detail:
http://www.hometheatermag.com/

* although they can be used with only 2 speakers connected.

** and there are some high-end stereo-only models. For instance,
the Yamaha MX-D1 (digital (PWM) amplifier).

Well, I suppose the
NAD C370 integrated amplifier
http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...633/index.html
is normal enough.


A comparison with the NAD integrated amp shows how spectacularly bad
that WAVAC amp really is. Now there is one thing that I thought the
reviewer should have been able to catch: the line spurs (hum) of the
WAVAC. Looking at the measurements, the 180 Hz component is only 60dB
down, and the 420 Hz at -62dB. I would have expected these components to
be quite audible. Also note the strong 3rd and 5th harmonics, at a low
1W output. So much for the sweet even tube harmonics. Contrast those
numbers to the NAD's. You have to wonder if those heavy, expensive power
supplies weren't designed only for their looks and weights. No doubt we
have seen high school science-projects audio amps with better hum
performance. And lower distortion, too. And how about that 10dB peak at
70 Hz? Or the tremendous peaking at 100KHz and 150KHz? Is that what it
takes to sound like live music?


I read the article online, and the picture under the chassis caught my
eye. For $350k, the thing isn't even neatly wired. The electrical
service box for my house looks better inside, and it was probably
wired in less than an hour by a journeyman electrician.



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

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

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

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

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


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

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

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

Dennis
  #79   Report Post  
Greg Weaver
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

Stewart,



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



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



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



--



Greg Weaver - http://home.comcast.net/~theaudioanalyst/


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

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:zwzIc.62959$%_6.5381@attbi_s01...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 02:07:11 GMT, "Greg Weaver"
wrote:

"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:mm4Ic.66433$XM6.20336@attbi_s53...
(S888Wheel) wrote:

From: chung


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


Do you know how preposterous that sounds?


Indeed - why on earth would he have been 'crushed' by something so
inevitable?

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

by
any similarly priced digital front end.


I have the same longevity as an audiophile, and I have yet to hear any
vinyl rig which could even approach the sound quality of an average CD
player. That includes the legendary Rockport Sirius III with
Clearaudio Insider cartridge - set up by Andy Payor himself. Of
course, it was still playing vinyl, and inescapably suffered the
result.

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

when
it comes to dimensionality, warmth, and harmonic texture, what you've
described just doesn't happen. With a poorly maintained record, scratched
and dirty, popping and clicking from opening to close, the masking that
would occur would not allow you to truly hear the recording, and you may
have some ground to stand on. Otherwise, this is just insanity.


Actually, insanity would be the notion that vinyl could even approach
the sound quality capability of CD, regardless of the cost of the
vinyl replay rig.

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

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

hear
(pun intended).


Ineed, and let's not kid ourselves that vinyl has any place in a *high
fidelity* music replay system, apart from accessing performances
simply not available on CD.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:29 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"