Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
B&D wrote:
On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out. You missed the point. The data sheet actually says 150W. The "condemnation" is based on measurements. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 00:36:18 GMT, B&D wrote:
On 7/13/04 12:10 PM, in article mQTIc.69109$%_6.23803@attbi_s01, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:06:32 GMT, B&D wrote: On 7/12/04 1:04 PM, in article _wzIc.62960$%_6.26489@attbi_s01, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: What I have found that dollar for dollar you can get acceptable sound performance from a CD at a much lower price point than vinyl. Vinyl, though, if you are willing to put up with it and spend a lot more money gives a much more satisfying result than even a comparably well executed CD player - but it is rather fussy and not nearly as convenient as CD's. That's simply your personal opinion - mine is quite the reverse. SO you think that vinyl is less expensive than CD's, less fussy than CD and ultimately unsatisfying? No, no, and yes, to give serious answers to your sarcasm. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 14 Jul 2004 01:26:08 GMT, "Greg Weaver"
wrote: Stewart, I just don't know what to say that could be taken constructively and not appear to be some type of flaming, as that IS NOT how I want to come across. However, in the past 22 years, since the CD format was readily available in homes, not one time, NOT ONCE, has a musician (or any other music lover for that matter) EVER picked CD over vinyl in a head-to-head, same recording comparison. We are talking about hundreds of demonstrations over that time. Hundreds! I just can't believe that anyone, especially on this forum, could so adamantly argue that side of the coin. That's absolute rubbish! I personally know at least five regular concert-goers, and three semi-professional musicians, who prefer CD to vinyl. Hence, your statement is both untrue *and* an obviously biased flame. Even Bob Harley, arguably one of (if not the) strongest proponents for digital playback, has gone on record with this statement from his book "The Complete Guide to High-End Audio," Second Edition, p-325. "This quandary -- LP vs. CD -- emerges from the fact that even today's state-of-the-art digital audio doesn't approach the sound quality offered by a good LP playback system. The very highest level of music reproduction, there's not even a debate: LP is musically superior to CD." Remember the late, great Gabe Weiner, the legendary sound engineer behind PGM Records? He *always* preferred CD, and would have dismissed Harley's rant as sheer 'audiophile' drivel. Indeed, one of Gabe's favourite tests was to play someone an LP, and then a digital recording of that LP. No visitor to his studio could *ever* tell the difference, thereby proving the sonic transparency of CD pretty effectively. With that thought, I close my thread. I shall neither comment further nor expect any response. Again, this is not a "flame!" It is rather the honest incredulity of someone who has spent virtually every day of his adult life in and around this industry, the last 15 years of which have been as a consultant and reviewer. Thanks. Shame then, that you only appear to have listened to those who agree with your own prejudice. If you wanted to, you could find plenty of quotes from top musicians and industry professionals, to the effect that vinyl is a parody of the original performance, and CD is *vastly* superior. Indeed, the first real breakthrough of CD in the mass market was in the classical field, where the clarity and sheer musicality was appreciated by that band of generally critical listeners. I also remember comments from the CD release of Sgt Pepper, where reviewers raved about all the background subtleties that they had never heard on the LP version! Of course, that was before it became *fashionable* to prefer the well-known artifacts of vinyl................ -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"B&D" wrote in message
news:wv1Jc.72540$%_6.36619@attbi_s01... It escapes me why people are offended at a review (somewhat favorable) of a really, really expensive amp that is basically a SET or very SET like? We aren't ever likely to buy one new or used - and with a $350k budget, one should be able to get a house, car and a decent music and video system. But why should that high price, crappy specs, yet a pleasant sound be scandalous? Sound coloration is one minor school of thought in sound reproduction (like the horn and SET crowd)... Well, I guess, because for $350 you might get similar sound. I don't have a real problem with the 'sound coloration' crowd. But if there are tremendously cheaper ways to do the same thing, why not do it? Dennis |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
B&D wrote:
On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out. Some of us have heard highly distorting systems with massive bass humps before. We don't need to listen to another one to know we won't like it. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Get fast, reliable Internet access with MSN 9 Dial-up – now 2 months FREE! http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm...ave/direct/01/ |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
From: "Bob Marcus"
Date: 7/14/2004 8:30 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 1kcJc.76426$MB3.32199@attbi_s04 B&D wrote: On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out. Some of us have heard highly distorting systems with massive bass humps before. We don't need to listen to another one to know we won't like it. bob Let me get this straight, you can look at the the measurements of the WAVAC and from those measurements you can determine with a reasonable level of certainty that you have heard a *system* that sounded so similar to the *system* MF reported on in his review that you wouldn't require an audition to form an opinion on it's sonic merits? |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Greg Weaver wrote:
Stewart, I just don't know what to say that could be taken constructively and not appear to be some type of flaming, as that IS NOT how I want to come across. However, in the past 22 years, since the CD format was readily available in homes, not one time, NOT ONCE, has a musician (or any other music lover for that matter) EVER picked CD over vinyl in a head-to-head, same recording comparison. We are talking about hundreds of demonstrations over that time. Hundreds! I just can't believe that anyone, especially on this forum, could so adamantly argue that side of the coin. I'll let Stewart reply to that. Even Bob Harley, arguably one of (if not the) strongest proponents for digital playback, has gone on record with this statement from his book "The Complete Guide to High-End Audio," Second Edition, p-325. what, the same Bob Harley who says this as well ... http://www.monstercable.com/RobertHarley/ch11_p04.asp Excerpt: "One pitfall, however, is that cables and interconnects need time to break in before they sound their best. Before break-in, a cable often sounds bright, hard, fatiguing, congested, and lacking in soundstage depth. These characteristics often disappear after several hours' use, with days or weeks of use required for full break-in. You can't be sure, however, if the cable is inherently bright- and hard-sounding, or if it just needs breaking-in. Note that break-in wears off over time. Even if a cable has had significant use, after a long period of not being used it may not sound its best until you've put music through it for a few days." Hmmmm ... could it be that it is the listener who gets broken in, and not the cable itself ... "This quandary -- LP vs. CD -- emerges from the fact that even today's state-of-the-art digital audio doesn't approach the sound quality offered by a good LP playback system. The very highest level of music reproduction, there's not even a debate: LP is musically superior to CD." Define "musically superior". Sure, nothing wrong with *prefering* vinyl to CD, but musically superior? In terms of musical reproduction, CD has a ruler flat frequency response, so by definition, has better music reproduction ... |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
John Atkinson wrote:
I have been following this thread and I don't think those who talk about the Wavac amplifier "clipping" at 2W can have read the review (it's now available in the www.stereophile.com archives). If you look at the graphs of output power vs THD+N percentage, you will see that it does indeed put out 2W at 1% THD+N, which is our usual definition of "clipping." However, it is important to note that the Wavac is _not_ clipping at this level of distortion. I looked at the graphs. I think you need to redefine your definition of clipping. Clipping is when the distortion products (when viewed on a scope with a nulled out fundamental) show the beginnings of an apparent spike, which happens as an output device reaches saturation (or cutoff) on signal peaks. What happens is that as the output power increases, the waveform becomes increasingly asymmetrical, meaning that the signal increasingly suffers from second-harmoic distortion. While this is indeed audible once the Wavac is putting out a watt or so, it doesn't sound like clipping distortion, particularly as it is not accompanied by catastrophic amounts of intermodulation distortion. But it results in lots of effectively audible IM with music signals as opposed to test tones. Some people like this, but I don't. As I wrote in the review, true waveform clipping occurs at a few tens of watts, depending on the output tap and load. So for anyone to cast aspersions at Michael Fremer's hearing ability because he didn't hear "clipping" is inappropriate, given the particular nature of the Wavac's non-linear transfer function. I have no doubt of his ability to hear what he likes. What is questionable is his ability (probably from lack of training and/or interest) to identify defects that legitimately bother many/most others. I can't speak for anybody else, but I just don't like these kinds of amplifiers. When I listened to the Wavac, the bass boost was immediately apparent, but it didn't sound aggressively distorted. Partly this is because the amount of power typically demanded from an amplifier tends to be below 2W much of the time with music rather than test tones; partly this is because second harmonic distortion tends to fatten the sound in rather a pleasing manner, at least until the intermodulation products reach threshold. It can also introduce dynamic effects that aren't in the original signal. Some folks like this, others don't. Why do a lot of pop musicians prefer to use compressors and expanders in their recordings? I can't stand them because I prefer acoustic music. If someone likes it, that's fine with them, no? Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. Not really. It's performance is actually fairly typical of single ended tube amplifiers, (you likely know this, since you've tested some of them) but it has more power than most because of the use of a large transmitting tube for the finals. There's no mystery about this. It's simply a matter of a person just liking (or not) this kind of amplifier. Most probably don't. The 'rating' of 150W is vulgar, grossly deceptive and a joke by any modestly reasonable standard. |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Greg Weaver" wrote in message
news:jnmIc.58223$MB3.51122@attbi_s04... "Nousaine" wrote in message news:mm4Ic.66433$XM6.20336@attbi_s53... (S888Wheel) wrote: From: chung I have a friend, ... but was crushed when a $300 cd player "blew away" his tt in sound quality. Do you know how preposterous that sounds? I have been in and around this game since the late sixties, and I've yet to hear ANY well set-up table/arm/cart - like the Music Hall MMF-2.1 for instance - "blown away" by any similarly priced digital front end. Then it seems you have a preference for that type of sound. LP compared to CD is objectively inferior in terms of distortion, compression, signal to noise, and all other technical specs related to fidelity. How you choose to define sound quality MIGHT be the issue. While we may agree to disagree on what we like in terms of our own listening biases, when it comes to dimensionality, warmth, and harmonic texture, what you've described just doesn't happen. You do realize that you are describing the results of the increased compression and EQ applied to LP's that CD don't require. With a poorly maintained record, scratched and dirty, popping and clicking from opening to close, the masking that would occur would not allow you to truly hear the recording, and you may have some ground to stand on. Otherwise, this is just insanity. If you don't get good dimensionality, warmth, and harmonic texture from a CD, then there is something wrong with the way you have things set up IMO. I have compared several CD's to their LP counterparts and the LP has always been found wanting. There have been some bad CD transfers of things first released on LP but the overwhelming majority of music recorded these days and issued on CD is many orders of magnitude better sounding than any LP IMO and I've heard some very high quality Vinly rigs. You implied this person had dropped major bucks on his analog system. Either it was badly set up or someone is hallucinating. C'mon. Let's get real hear (pun intended). The reality is that by objective technical standards, CD is a vastly superior format to LP. Greg Weaver On Sound and Music http://www.onsoundandmusic.com A Journal of Pro and High-End Audio, Music, and other things that Matter |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"B&D" wrote in message
news:Y85Jc.86876$XM6.19824@attbi_s53... On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out. I became curious when I read that a Pillsbury bakeoff recipe contest had generated over 200,000 recipes. How--I wondered--could the jury possibly sample 200,000 samples of baked goods? Well, it appears that culinary experts can evaluate a recipe simply by reading it. Is this not analogous to evaluating the sound of an amp by looking at the test results? A note about 2nd harmonic distortion: For centuries, pipe organ designers have known that one can't make the organ louder by blowing harder on the pipes. Nor can they simply add another identical pipe. This latter makes the organ twice as loud, but it sure doesn't sound like it. Rather, the builder adds a stop that speaks an octave higher than the fundamental--the 2nd harmonic. This stop makes the sound recognizably louder and richer. So what an amplifier with lots of 2nd harmonic distortion sounds like is an organ with the 4' Octave added to the 8' Principal--whether you want it or not! Norm Strong |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Greg Weaver" wrote in message
.. Stewart, I just don't know what to say that could be taken constructively and not appear to be some type of flaming, as that IS NOT how I want to come across. However, in the past 22 years, since the CD format was readily available in homes, not one time, NOT ONCE, has a musician (or any other music lover for that matter) EVER picked CD over vinyl in a head-to-head, same recording comparison. We are talking about hundreds of demonstrations over that time. Hundreds! I just can't believe that anyone, especially on this forum, could so adamantly argue that side of the coin. I'm not Stewart, but I challenge the accuracy of your statement, if only because I'm both a musician and a music lover, and I've always picked the CD in those cases when the comparison was possible. If you can back up your statistics, I'd certainly be impressed. Norm Strong |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
S888Wheel wrote:
There's no accounting for taste. I thought taste was considered subjective by objectivists. And your point being? Read the next line I wrote. Which was totally irrelevant to my statement that there is no accounting for taste. Meaning you can't argue about someone else's taste. Meaning there are many people with taste that you would consider poor. Oh, c'mon. You took a shot at MF's taste. Oh yeah? Yeah! No sense wasting bandwidth arguing about what I said vs. what you think I said. In any event that was totally irrelevant to why I said the amp was not listening to. (snip) You were asking about eaxamples of people getting banged around on RAHE? here is a fine one. Actually MF does not post here, so that fails to apply as an example. Did I qualify my claim that people get knocked around on RAHE by limmiting it to people who post here? No I did not. But I was asking for examples of when posters posted their opinions here and got banged around. You did not provide any such examples, as of yet. If you want to make a general claim that people got banged around on this newsgroup, that example still does not qualify. Unless you believe that criticizing someone's review is banging people around. It applies as an example. What's the point in citing examples if you cannot recognize an example when one is cited? Irrelevant question since you are not citing examples that I was asking for. But if you think that being challenged for raving about a 2W amp that is spec'd at 150W, and by the way, costs $350K, qualifies as being banged around, well, he would not get any sympathy from me . No I think comments like "there is no acounting for taste" which is a common insult is being banged around. I will remember that you have the ability to take a general truism as an insult to a specific yet-unnamed person. I suppose you wouldn't feel insulted if I infered that you had poor taste because your subjective impressions didn't fall in line with my presumptions? Actually, I would have expected that you don't think much about my taste in hi-fi equipment, but that is neither here nor there. IOW, totally irrelevant to the discussion of whether the amp is broken or not. That wasn't the point. The point was your comment was insulting to MF. Only the way you want to interpret it. But we are wasting bandwidth here. (snip) Maybe you really didn't realize it but it was quite insulting. At least I would have been insulted by it. No big deal, it happens often on RAHE but an insult is what it is. Are you now saying that MF may simply have inferior taste? "Simply"? Yes, I said simply. It is obvious that someone who can rave about the wonderful sound of an amp that clips at 2W has, uh, unconventional, taste. How do you know? You have never heard the amp in question. Do you understand the meaning of "unconventional"? How many people you know will rave about the sound of a 2W amp that is spec'ed at 150W? I have asked for some clarification on this issue. No one has been forthcoming. Let's take a practical example. My speakers are very inefficient, about 84db. If this amp is clipping at 2 watts then I shouldn't be able to get much more than 87db of sound from them with a test signal should I? Since you have the habit of not forming any opinion until you listen to it first, I would recomend that you listen to it instead of worrying about how much power you are getting out of it. So much for those who are more technical helping with technical information. By the way, there is nothing subjective about my question. The answer does not depend on me listening to anything. I'd have thought a technically inclined fellow such as yourself would have seen that at first glance. But you still want to listen to it first in any case, right? And why would you assume that just because you asked the question someone has to help you answer it? You have to do some research yourself at some time. You know, like actually reading the measurements. I should think so, considering the broken manner it was operating most of the time. Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me, broken means it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all. If as goFab says, the rated power is 150W/ch and it clips at 2W, it's broken. It certainly is not working as it's supposed to. Or they are not giving straight info on the power rating. You mean as in lying? No I didn't mean that. It may very well be a lie. I am in no position to make that acusation. Well, if it's not lying, then it's gross incompetence. Or gross negligence. Or cheating. Which is it? A typo? A question worth persuing I think. If it is a lie it is serious. If it's not a lie, then what is it? I'm trying to figure out just what it is. It would help if my questions were answered. They are not rhetorical questions. Don't you have access to the measurements? Or do you simply not trust them? For kicks lets say I was purchasing this amp. Even with my inefficient speakers I would be expecting to get over a 100 db pl;ayback levels if called for in the material I am playing. If this amp is clipping at 87 db could it possibly even approach my expected sound preasure levels at all much less do so an still sound anything like music? I have no idea what you consider "sounding anything like music". But for me, an amp that can only produces 93dB SPL at 1 m (and a pretty efficient speaker at that) is simply not acceptable. Still not answering the questions, oh well. You could have ignored the issue of what I consider 'sounding anything like musi' and gone with the first part. I'd be expecting SPLs of over 100 db, could this amp produce any sound within a few db of that if it clips at 2 watts? Again, read the measurements! (snip) You think an amp that clips at 93 dB SPL at 1m is good enough to handle the dynamics of the kind of music you listen to? Well, it certainly saves you a lot of money...unless you want this amp by WAVAC. Is it clear that the amp ain't gonna put out much more than 93 db of sound? Do you like clipping distortion? If you do, then maybe you can squeeze out another couple of dB. Here's a problem I am having with this though. When I auditioned a WAVAC amp that WAVAC rated at 50 watts it was able to play louder than my Creek integrated amp that is rated at 20 watts. Now if WAVAC is in the habbit of such gross misrepresentations of power output one has to wonder what the true output of 50 watt WAVAC is. Even if it is only doing as well as it's big. very big brother it should not be able to play louder than the 20 watt Creek. Now, do you understand why we said the amp is broken? But it did without sounding *grossly* distorted. So what is going on here. Do you think that the big WAVACs really won't produce much more than 87 db on my current speakers that are about 84 db in efficiency? I'm afraid you have to do the research yourself. But if the measurements indicate the amp clips at 2W, well, you got your answer right there. Unless the amp clips at a different point with different load impedances. But even then the differences are small, a few dB at the most. I don't have much of any answer. I'll make the question really simple. Can a 2 watt amp possibly produce higher maximum SPL than a "competen" SS 20 watt amp on the same speakers? Just read the measurements! |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/14/04 11:04 AM, in article fYbJc.76135$a24.356@attbi_s03, "Dennis
Moore" wrote: "B&D" wrote in message news:wv1Jc.72540$%_6.36619@attbi_s01... It escapes me why people are offended at a review (somewhat favorable) of a really, really expensive amp that is basically a SET or very SET like? We aren't ever likely to buy one new or used - and with a $350k budget, one should be able to get a house, car and a decent music and video system. But why should that high price, crappy specs, yet a pleasant sound be scandalous? Sound coloration is one minor school of thought in sound reproduction (like the horn and SET crowd)... Well, I guess, because for $350 you might get similar sound. I don't have a real problem with the 'sound coloration' crowd. But if there are tremendously cheaper ways to do the same thing, why not do it? Sure - but I doubt Stereophile parted with hard earned cash for it. I doubt many will be sold either simply because even if it were the best amplifier in the universe, most of us *still* could not afford it.... |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/14/04 11:30 AM, in article 1kcJc.76426$MB3.32199@attbi_s04, "Bob
Marcus" wrote: B&D wrote: On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out. Some of us have heard highly distorting systems with massive bass humps before. We don't need to listen to another one to know we won't like it. Right - but to condemn without a proper evaluation isn't good. TO say, soberly, that based upon the measurements, you aren't likely to like it. But as they say, there is not such thing as bad publicity - and we are all being inadvertant promoters of Stereophile and TAS! |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/14/04 10:59 AM, in article uTbJc.54239$WX.46715@attbi_s51, "chung"
wrote: B&D wrote: On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out. You missed the point. The data sheet actually says 150W. The "condemnation" is based on measurements. Right - not listening to it, and a large dollop of resentment because no one here could afford to expend money on luxuries (working, good or bad) like that. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 14 Jul 2004 01:26:08 GMT, "Greg Weaver" wrote: Stewart, I just don't know what to say that could be taken constructively and not appear to be some type of flaming, as that IS NOT how I want to come across. However, in the past 22 years, since the CD format was readily available in homes, not one time, NOT ONCE, has a musician (or any other music lover for that matter) EVER picked CD over vinyl in a head-to-head, same recording comparison. We are talking about hundreds of demonstrations over that time. Hundreds! I just can't believe that anyone, especially on this forum, could so adamantly argue that side of the coin. That's absolute rubbish! I personally know at least five regular concert-goers, and three semi-professional musicians, who prefer CD to vinyl. Hence, your statement is both untrue *and* an obviously biased flame. Even Bob Harley, arguably one of (if not the) strongest proponents for digital playback, has gone on record with this statement from his book "The Complete Guide to High-End Audio," Second Edition, p-325. "This quandary -- LP vs. CD -- emerges from the fact that even today's state-of-the-art digital audio doesn't approach the sound quality offered by a good LP playback system. The very highest level of music reproduction, there's not even a debate: LP is musically superior to CD." Remember the late, great Gabe Weiner, the legendary sound engineer behind PGM Records? He *always* preferred CD, and would have dismissed Harley's rant as sheer 'audiophile' drivel. Indeed, one of Gabe's favourite tests was to play someone an LP, and then a digital recording of that LP. No visitor to his studio could *ever* tell the difference, thereby proving the sonic transparency of CD pretty effectively. With that thought, I close my thread. I shall neither comment further nor expect any response. Again, this is not a "flame!" It is rather the honest incredulity of someone who has spent virtually every day of his adult life in and around this industry, the last 15 years of which have been as a consultant and reviewer. Thanks. Shame then, that you only appear to have listened to those who agree with your own prejudice. If you wanted to, you could find plenty of quotes from top musicians and industry professionals, to the effect that vinyl is a parody of the original performance, and CD is *vastly* superior. Indeed, the first real breakthrough of CD in the mass market was in the classical field, where the clarity and sheer musicality was appreciated by that band of generally critical listeners. I also remember comments from the CD release of Sgt Pepper, where reviewers raved about all the background subtleties that they had never heard on the LP version! Of course, that was before it became *fashionable* to prefer the well-known artifacts of vinyl................ -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering To be fair the OP was talking specifically about direct comparisons between CD and LP versions of the same recording. However, I have made a few such comparisons: Dave Brubeck's 'Time Out', Joe Sample's 'Carmel', Weather Report's 'Heavy Weather', 'Monk Straight No Chaser', Rubenstein's versions of several Chopin and Rachmaninov recordings, Van Cliburn's Rachmaninov 2nd concerto, Richter's Tchaikovsky 1st, Heifitz' Beethoven violin concerto, and Karajan's 1963 Beethoven 9th are a few that come off the top of my head. The only instance in which I preferred the LP version was the Brubeck where the tom-tom and brushes sounded much better to me than in the CD version. Admittedly these comparisons were not made under controlled conditions and I was only satisfying my curiousity as I replaced LP's with CD's over the period of a decade or so. But, if I qualify as a music lover, I guess I disprove the OP's thesis. Then again , the OP may say that my vinyl rig wasn't high-end enough (it was a DUAL tt with Schure V15 II). But none of my CD players have been high-end, by any means either, so that comparison should be a wash :-). George Deliz |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Dennis Moore" Date: 7/13/2004 6:18 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "John Atkinson" wrote in message ... I have been following this thread and I don't think those who talk about the Wavac amplifier "clipping" at 2W can have read the review (it's now available in the www.stereophile.com archives). If you look at the graphs of output power vs THD+N percentage, you will see that it does indeed put out 2W at 1% THD+N, which is our usual definition of "clipping." However, it is important to note that the Wavac is _not_ clipping at this level of distortion. What happens is that as the output power increases, the waveform becomes increasingly asymmetrical, meaning that the signal increasingly suffers from second-harmoic distortion. While this is indeed audible once the Wavac is putting out a watt or so, it doesn't sound like clipping distortion, particularly as it is not accompanied by catastrophic amounts of intermodulation distortion. As I wrote in the review, true waveform clipping occurs at a few tens of watts, depending on the output tap and load. So for anyone to cast aspersions at Michael Fremer's hearing ability because he didn't hear "clipping" is inappropriate, given the particular nature of the Wavac's non-linear transfer function. When I listened to the Wavac, the bass boost was immediately apparent, but it didn't sound aggressively distorted. Partly this is because the amount of power typically demanded from an amplifier tends to be below 2W much of the time with music rather than test tones; partly this is because second harmonic distortion tends to fatten the sound in rather a pleasing manner, at least until the intermodulation products reach threshold. Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Yes, Mr. Atkinson, you are correct, it doesn't clip at 2w. I was guilty of a little hyperbole. Not out of place in this discussion of the $350K Wavac I think. I quite disagree. you had at least one other person convinced that the manufaturers were lying outright about their product. Mr. Chung ask me what else could the claim of 150 watts be other than a lie if it clips at 2 watts. Let me modify the question to you then: If the rated power is 150 W and the unit shows 2% distortion at 2 W, 5% distortion at 10 W, is the spec a lie? If it is not a lie, what is it? |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Bob Marcus" Date: 7/14/2004 8:30 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 1kcJc.76426$MB3.32199@attbi_s04 B&D wrote: On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out. Some of us have heard highly distorting systems with massive bass humps before. We don't need to listen to another one to know we won't like it. bob Let me get this straight, you can look at the the measurements of the WAVAC and from those measurements you can determine with a reasonable level of certainty that you have heard a *system* that sounded so similar to the *system* MF reported on in his review that you wouldn't require an audition to form an opinion on it's sonic merits? That's not at all what I said. What I do know is that if I put an amplifier which produces a huge bass hump and massive levels of distortion into *my* system (or any system I like), I will not enjoy the result. I have no idea whether it will sound anything like Fremer's system. Perhaps Fremer's reference system has a massive bass suckout that this miserable unit just happens to compensate for. That would explain why Fremer's never heard anything so real before. There is solid empirical evidence that most listeners with healthy hearing prefer systems with low distortion, so it would be reasonable to predict that most people would not like the Wavac. Measurements cannot tell us everything about how a system will sound, but they can tell us some things. bob "Every good amp sounds the same. Every bad amp sounds bad in its own way." __________________________________________________ _______________ MSN Life Events gives you the tips and tools to handle the turning points in your life. http://lifeevents.msn.com |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:48:26 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote: "B&D" wrote in message news:cIFIc.65610$IQ4.2692@attbi_s02... On 7/12/04 1:04 PM, in article _wzIc.62960$%_6.26489@attbi_s01, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: Excuse me? Even with a Rockport Sirius III, vinyl will still be vinyl. That's the *real* difference. Vinyl would be *what* then? I am not sure what you are getting at? That it is somehow bad? It *is* a pain in the butt to use - but a well adjusted turntable system works rather well. It can never work so well as even an average CD player, because the problem with vinyl is that the *medium* is intrinsically flawed, to a vastly greater degree than CD. What I have found that dollar for dollar you can get acceptable sound performance from a CD at a much lower price point than vinyl. Vinyl, though, if you are willing to put up with it and spend a lot more money gives a much more satisfying result than even a comparably well executed CD player - but it is rather fussy and not nearly as convenient as CD's. I find this the best balanced description of vinyl vs. cd that I have yet read here or elsewhere. How odd - it reads to me as totally biased............... Until recently I had a Linn Valhalla / Syrinx PU-2 / Accuphase AC-2 / Modified Marcof PPA-2 setup that bested my Sony/DTI Pro/Proceed PDP player and Sony C222ES SACD player on identically recorded music (Beethoven 5th Symphony; Ormandy "Verdi Requiem; Szell's Rossini Overatures, Joplin's Cheap Thrills, Dylan's Blonde on Blonde comparison disks). Well, it would sure as heck sound *different*! That it 'bested' your CD player is of course only your personal opinion. Yet finding, cleaning, and listening to new old records that somehow I missed buying in their day (usually for less than $2.00 each) is a fun hobby That is perhaps much closer to the truth of the matter. When you put in that much time and effort, then *of course* vinyl must sound better - or you'd have to admit that you'd been wasting your time........ You've missed the "party line" here on RAHE, which is that there is absolutely no sonic difference between your 1985 Magnavox, your new NAD, or the Bel Canto. You are just imagining it. The technology has been perfect since Magnavox/Phillips went to 4x oversampling in the mid-eighties Philips/Magnavox *started* with 4x oversampling in 1983, at the launch of CD. It's interesting that until the supply of Philips DAC chips dried up a few years ago, Naim still insisted on using that decades-old technology. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 07:20:24 GMT, B&D wrote:
On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out. Not the point. If *any* amp is rated at 150 watts and only puts out a couple of tens of watts before clipping, and only 2 watts at 1% distortion, then it can be dismissed out of hand as a hi-fi amplifier, as it is basically broken. That some people might *prefer* that horribly distorted sound is an entirely different matter, having nothing to do with *high fidelity* sound (see any reference to SET amps). There are literally dozens of sonically transparent amps on the market, and none of them approach the ludicrous price level of that fundamentally incompetent Wavac. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/14/04 9:15 PM, in article YUkJc.75824$JR4.50497@attbi_s54, "Bob Marcus"
wrote: There is solid empirical evidence that most listeners with healthy hearing prefer systems with low distortion, so it would be reasonable to predict that most people would not like the Wavac. Measurements cannot tell us everything about how a system will sound, but they can tell us some things. Sure - but at $350,000 a throw who cares. Might as well be gold and platinum plated and packed full of diamonds and cost $20M, no way would I ever be able to afford it to even find out. Basically - who CARES how it sounds or measures - if it is unaffordable arguing about this would be like arguing on whether it is better to buy a seat on a Space Shuttle Ride, or a Baseball Stadium! |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/14/04 9:23 PM, in article w0lJc.80361$MB3.79518@attbi_s04, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote: On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 07:20:24 GMT, B&D wrote: On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out. Not the point. If *any* amp is rated at 150 watts and only puts out a couple of tens of watts before clipping, and only 2 watts at 1% distortion, then it can be dismissed out of hand as a hi-fi amplifier, as it is basically broken. That some people might *prefer* that horribly distorted sound is an entirely different matter, having nothing to do with *high fidelity* sound (see any reference to SET amps). There are literally dozens of sonically transparent amps on the market, and none of them approach the ludicrous price level of that fundamentally incompetent Wavac. Does it clip? Meaning the saturated output power of the amp stops at less than 150W meaning there is no level of drive to move the power to 150W? If so, then the datasheet is wrong. While I couldn't afford it - even if I wanted to - it is an abstract notion of "goodness" vs. "badness" to me. About as useful as how many angles can dance on the head of a pin. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/14/04 9:14 PM, in article zTkJc.92323$XM6.7336@attbi_s53, "chung"
wrote: Yes, Mr. Atkinson, you are correct, it doesn't clip at 2w. I was guilty of a little hyperbole. Not out of place in this discussion of the $350K Wavac I think. I quite disagree. you had at least one other person convinced that the manufaturers were lying outright about their product. Mr. Chung ask me what else could the claim of 150 watts be other than a lie if it clips at 2 watts. Let me modify the question to you then: If the rated power is 150 W and the unit shows 2% distortion at 2 W, 5% distortion at 10 W, is the spec a lie? If it is not a lie, what is it? If the amplifier can produce 150W it is not a lie. Might be at a huge distortion level, but if it can reach the power level, the spec sheet doesn't lie. Does anyone know if it can? |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/14/04 9:23 PM, in article _%kJc.82948$IQ4.70366@attbi_s02, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote: Until recently I had a Linn Valhalla / Syrinx PU-2 / Accuphase AC-2 / Modified Marcof PPA-2 setup that bested my Sony/DTI Pro/Proceed PDP player and Sony C222ES SACD player on identically recorded music (Beethoven 5th Symphony; Ormandy "Verdi Requiem; Szell's Rossini Overatures, Joplin's Cheap Thrills, Dylan's Blonde on Blonde comparison disks). Well, it would sure as heck sound *different*! That it 'bested' your CD player is of course only your personal opinion. I dunno - if he listened to it - I figure it passed the only test required - and it is his opinion - as you would say that it didn't best it based upon no data or listening. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
From: chung
Date: 7/14/2004 6:14 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: zTkJc.92323$XM6.7336@attbi_s53 S888Wheel wrote: From: "Dennis Moore" Date: 7/13/2004 6:18 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "John Atkinson" wrote in message ... I have been following this thread and I don't think those who talk about the Wavac amplifier "clipping" at 2W can have read the review (it's now available in the www.stereophile.com archives). If you look at the graphs of output power vs THD+N percentage, you will see that it does indeed put out 2W at 1% THD+N, which is our usual definition of "clipping." However, it is important to note that the Wavac is _not_ clipping at this level of distortion. What happens is that as the output power increases, the waveform becomes increasingly asymmetrical, meaning that the signal increasingly suffers from second-harmoic distortion. While this is indeed audible once the Wavac is putting out a watt or so, it doesn't sound like clipping distortion, particularly as it is not accompanied by catastrophic amounts of intermodulation distortion. As I wrote in the review, true waveform clipping occurs at a few tens of watts, depending on the output tap and load. So for anyone to cast aspersions at Michael Fremer's hearing ability because he didn't hear "clipping" is inappropriate, given the particular nature of the Wavac's non-linear transfer function. When I listened to the Wavac, the bass boost was immediately apparent, but it didn't sound aggressively distorted. Partly this is because the amount of power typically demanded from an amplifier tends to be below 2W much of the time with music rather than test tones; partly this is because second harmonic distortion tends to fatten the sound in rather a pleasing manner, at least until the intermodulation products reach threshold. Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Yes, Mr. Atkinson, you are correct, it doesn't clip at 2w. I was guilty of a little hyperbole. Not out of place in this discussion of the $350K Wavac I think. I quite disagree. you had at least one other person convinced that the manufaturers were lying outright about their product. Mr. Chung ask me what else could the claim of 150 watts be other than a lie if it clips at 2 watts. Let me modify the question to you then: If the rated power is 150 W and the unit shows 2% distortion at 2 W, 5% distortion at 10 W, is the spec a lie? If it is not a lie, what is it? Why modify the question? You have now seen the measurements have you not? At what point does the amp actually *clip*? Clearly it is *not* 2 watts as claimed by another poster and taken as fact by you and others. It claims in the review the manufacturer specifies it's "effective power" is 150 watts. That claim is not qualified in any way that I can see. So I guess the answer to the question lies in whether or not this amp can push 150 watts of energy into any speaker load. Can you answer that question by looking at the measurements in Stereophile? As to whether or not it is a lie I suppose depends on what the person who claimed the power rating knew and what he or she believes about what constitutes "effective power." I'd rather know more before I call anyone a liar. after finding out the amp doesn't really clip at 2 watts wouldn't you rather have all the material facts infront of you before you called anyone a liar? |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
B&D wrote:
On 7/14/04 10:59 AM, in article uTbJc.54239$WX.46715@attbi_s51, "chung" wrote: B&D wrote: On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out. You missed the point. The data sheet actually says 150W. The "condemnation" is based on measurements. Right - not listening to it, and a large dollop of resentment because no one here could afford to expend money on luxuries (working, good or bad) like that. Perhaps you are speaking for yourself when you said "resentment because no one can afford it". I didn't notice anyone else having any resentment. I find the review extremely amusing. So did my friends when I showed it to them. Why would anyone want to own such an inferior amp, at any price? |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:11:12 GMT, B&D wrote:
On 7/14/04 6:33 PM, in article , "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Do you know how preposterous that sounds? I have been in and around this game since the late sixties, and I've yet to hear ANY well set-up table/arm/cart - like the Music Hall MMF-2.1 for instance - "blown away" by any similarly priced digital front end. Then it seems you have a preference for that type of sound. LP compared to CD is objectively inferior in terms of distortion, compression, signal to noise, and all other technical specs related to fidelity. All other specs? Really? *ALL* of them? Yes - all of them. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:_%kJc.82948$IQ4.70366@attbi_s02... On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:48:26 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "B&D" wrote in message news:cIFIc.65610$IQ4.2692@attbi_s02... On 7/12/04 1:04 PM, in article _wzIc.62960$%_6.26489@attbi_s01, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: Excuse me? Even with a Rockport Sirius III, vinyl will still be vinyl. That's the *real* difference. Vinyl would be *what* then? I am not sure what you are getting at? That it is somehow bad? It *is* a pain in the butt to use - but a well adjusted turntable system works rather well. It can never work so well as even an average CD player, because the problem with vinyl is that the *medium* is intrinsically flawed, to a vastly greater degree than CD. What I have found that dollar for dollar you can get acceptable sound performance from a CD at a much lower price point than vinyl. Vinyl, though, if you are willing to put up with it and spend a lot more money gives a much more satisfying result than even a comparably well executed CD player - but it is rather fussy and not nearly as convenient as CD's. I find this the best balanced description of vinyl vs. cd that I have yet read here or elsewhere. How odd - it reads to me as totally biased............... That's because your views are out at the extreme end of the spectrum... Until recently I had a Linn Valhalla / Syrinx PU-2 / Accuphase AC-2 / Modified Marcof PPA-2 setup that bested my Sony/DTI Pro/Proceed PDP player and Sony C222ES SACD player on identically recorded music (Beethoven 5th Symphony; Ormandy "Verdi Requiem; Szell's Rossini Overatures, Joplin's Cheap Thrills, Dylan's Blonde on Blonde comparison disks). Well, it would sure as heck sound *different*! That it 'bested' your CD player is of course only your personal opinion. That's the point...my setup doesn't sound "different", just better. The "better" lies in the sense of depth and dimensionality of the soundstage and in the microdynamics of the performance coming through (a feat that SACD and DVD-A seems to match). In every aspect of frequency response and timbre, on the records I compared, the sound is identical. Now granted, I have a record system that I carefully assembled over the years to be "neutral", so all systems do not sound like mine. But I have a "case of one" that a record player can meet and best the CD standard as far as sound quality is concerned. Yet finding, cleaning, and listening to new old records that somehow I missed buying in their day (usually for less than $2.00 each) is a fun hobby That is perhaps much closer to the truth of the matter. When you put in that much time and effort, then *of course* vinyl must sound better - or you'd have to admit that you'd been wasting your time........ Not at all. I do much less of this than I do attending concerts and listening to music at home (probably three hours a day of intensive listening). And a lot of that is to CD's and SACD's for the convenience. But I don't let that bias get in the way of recognizing equal or superior sound when I hear it. You've missed the "party line" here on RAHE, which is that there is absolutely no sonic difference between your 1985 Magnavox, your new NAD, or the Bel Canto. You are just imagining it. The technology has been perfect since Magnavox/Phillips went to 4x oversampling in the mid-eighties Philips/Magnavox *started* with 4x oversampling in 1983, at the launch of CD. It's interesting that until the supply of Philips DAC chips dried up a few years ago, Naim still insisted on using that decades-old technology. Sure, and I have a wonderfully musical $1200 Phillips 880 using that technology, from about 1987. But side by side and volume-balanced, it is not as "transparent" as my Sony/DTI-Pro/Proceed PDP with its noise-shaped 18 bit equivalent sound. And I have heard even more transparency from later units, such as the Arcams. Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 15 Jul 2004 03:03:34 GMT, B&D wrote:
On 7/14/04 9:23 PM, in article _%kJc.82948$IQ4.70366@attbi_s02, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: Until recently I had a Linn Valhalla / Syrinx PU-2 / Accuphase AC-2 / Modified Marcof PPA-2 setup that bested my Sony/DTI Pro/Proceed PDP player and Sony C222ES SACD player on identically recorded music (Beethoven 5th Symphony; Ormandy "Verdi Requiem; Szell's Rossini Overatures, Joplin's Cheap Thrills, Dylan's Blonde on Blonde comparison disks). Well, it would sure as heck sound *different*! That it 'bested' your CD player is of course only your personal opinion. I dunno - if he listened to it - I figure it passed the only test required - and it is his opinion - as you would say that it didn't best it based upon no data or listening. OTOH, I *have* heard a Linn with a Syrinx arm, and in my opinion it wasn't even a good vinyl player, let alone any competition for a decent CD player. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:55:14 GMT, B&D wrote:
On 7/14/04 9:15 PM, in article YUkJc.75824$JR4.50497@attbi_s54, "Bob Marcus" wrote: There is solid empirical evidence that most listeners with healthy hearing prefer systems with low distortion, so it would be reasonable to predict that most people would not like the Wavac. Measurements cannot tell us everything about how a system will sound, but they can tell us some things. Sure - but at $350,000 a throw who cares. Might as well be gold and platinum plated and packed full of diamonds and cost $20M, no way would I ever be able to afford it to even find out. Basically - who CARES how it sounds or measures - if it is unaffordable arguing about this would be like arguing on whether it is better to buy a seat on a Space Shuttle Ride, or a Baseball Stadium! But it's *not* unaffordable to those who can afford it (duh)! I know of someone who has a pair of Gaku-Ons (at about half the cost of the Wavac) on his *yacht*. I leave it to you, to imagine what he has in one of his houses.................... BTW, someone already has paid for a ride on the Space Shuttle, and several people have bought a baseball stadium. There really is another world out there, Cynthia! $350,000 won't buy you a decent racehorse, and they sell *hundreds* of those every year............... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:55:23 GMT, B&D wrote:
On 7/14/04 9:23 PM, in article w0lJc.80361$MB3.79518@attbi_s04, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 07:20:24 GMT, B&D wrote: On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out. Not the point. If *any* amp is rated at 150 watts and only puts out a couple of tens of watts before clipping, and only 2 watts at 1% distortion, then it can be dismissed out of hand as a hi-fi amplifier, as it is basically broken. That some people might *prefer* that horribly distorted sound is an entirely different matter, having nothing to do with *high fidelity* sound (see any reference to SET amps). There are literally dozens of sonically transparent amps on the market, and none of them approach the ludicrous price level of that fundamentally incompetent Wavac. Does it clip? Meaning the saturated output power of the amp stops at less than 150W meaning there is no level of drive to move the power to 150W? If so, then the datasheet is wrong. The datasheet is wrong. Also, consider the excellent Bryston 4B-SST, which at less than one *hundredth* of the cost of the Wavac, totally destroys it as a high fidelity amplifier. While I couldn't afford it - even if I wanted to - it is an abstract notion of "goodness" vs. "badness" to me. About as useful as how many angles can dance on the head of a pin. That would be about 360......... :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
From: "normanstrong"
Date: 7/14/2004 3:54 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "B&D" wrote in message news:Y85Jc.86876$XM6.19824@attbi_s53... On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out. I became curious when I read that a Pillsbury bakeoff recipe contest had generated over 200,000 recipes. How--I wondered--could the jury possibly sample 200,000 samples of baked goods? Well, it appears that culinary experts can evaluate a recipe simply by reading it. I don't think they can and I for one, am not interested in letting the Pillsbury bakeoff contest set the standard for me in my hobby. Is this not analogous to evaluating the sound of an amp by looking at the test results? I suppose if you want to look to the Pillsburry bakeoff contest for guidence in how to evaluate audio equipment. A note about 2nd harmonic distortion: For centuries, pipe organ designers have known that one can't make the organ louder by blowing harder on the pipes. Nor can they simply add another identical pipe. This latter makes the organ twice as loud, but it sure doesn't sound like it. Rather, the builder adds a stop that speaks an octave higher than the fundamental--the 2nd harmonic. This stop makes the sound recognizably louder and richer. So what an amplifier with lots of 2nd harmonic distortion sounds like is an organ with the 4' Octave added to the 8' Principal--whether you want it or not! Norm Strong |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Greg Weaver" writes
I just don't know what to say that could be taken constructively and not appear to be some type of flaming, as that IS NOT how I want to come across. However, in the past 22 years, since the CD format was readily available in homes, not one time, NOT ONCE, has a musician (or any other music lover for that matter) EVER picked CD over vinyl in a head-to-head, same recording comparison. We are talking about hundreds of demonstrations over that time. Hundreds! I just can't believe that anyone, especially on this forum, could so adamantly argue that side of the coin. I have a cassette tape (RCDJ 61909-4) from which can be heard an interview with John Pfieffer, "Executive Producer, RCA Victor Living Stereo", who picks CD over LP, not only once, but every time. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung Date: 7/14/2004 6:14 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: zTkJc.92323$XM6.7336@attbi_s53 S888Wheel wrote: From: "Dennis Moore" Date: 7/13/2004 6:18 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "John Atkinson" wrote in message ... I have been following this thread and I don't think those who talk about the Wavac amplifier "clipping" at 2W can have read the review (it's now available in the www.stereophile.com archives). If you look at the graphs of output power vs THD+N percentage, you will see that it does indeed put out 2W at 1% THD+N, which is our usual definition of "clipping." However, it is important to note that the Wavac is _not_ clipping at this level of distortion. What happens is that as the output power increases, the waveform becomes increasingly asymmetrical, meaning that the signal increasingly suffers from second-harmoic distortion. While this is indeed audible once the Wavac is putting out a watt or so, it doesn't sound like clipping distortion, particularly as it is not accompanied by catastrophic amounts of intermodulation distortion. As I wrote in the review, true waveform clipping occurs at a few tens of watts, depending on the output tap and load. So for anyone to cast aspersions at Michael Fremer's hearing ability because he didn't hear "clipping" is inappropriate, given the particular nature of the Wavac's non-linear transfer function. When I listened to the Wavac, the bass boost was immediately apparent, but it didn't sound aggressively distorted. Partly this is because the amount of power typically demanded from an amplifier tends to be below 2W much of the time with music rather than test tones; partly this is because second harmonic distortion tends to fatten the sound in rather a pleasing manner, at least until the intermodulation products reach threshold. Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Yes, Mr. Atkinson, you are correct, it doesn't clip at 2w. I was guilty of a little hyperbole. Not out of place in this discussion of the $350K Wavac I think. I quite disagree. you had at least one other person convinced that the manufaturers were lying outright about their product. Mr. Chung ask me what else could the claim of 150 watts be other than a lie if it clips at 2 watts. Let me modify the question to you then: If the rated power is 150 W and the unit shows 2% distortion at 2 W, 5% distortion at 10 W, is the spec a lie? If it is not a lie, what is it? Why modify the question? Why not, since the measurements show that the amp does not clip at 2W, but just shows high level of distortion at that level? You have now seen the measurements have you not? I have. Have you? At what point does the amp actually *clip*? Clearly it is *not* 2 watts as claimed by another poster and taken as fact by you and others. It claims in the review the manufacturer specifies it's "effective power" is 150 watts. That claim is not qualified in any way that I can see. You mean it has no relation to how power amp outputs are usually stated, i.e., at a certain level of distortion? So I guess the answer to the question lies in whether or not this amp can push 150 watts of energy into any speaker load. Can you answer that question by looking at the measurements in Stereophile? Is 5% THD too low a number for you for rated power? If not, the level is about 10-15W. Is there any power amp in the market that has a rated power spec'd at higher than 5% distortion? Effective power should mean useful power. Is the power amp still useful if the THD is higher than 5%? Does anyone consider a power amp useful if it is outputting basically square waves? As to whether or not it is a lie I suppose depends on what the person who claimed the power rating knew and what he or she believes about what constitutes "effective power." So what does effective power mean to you, the audiophile consumer? 5% distortion, or 30% distortion? I'd rather know more before I call anyone a liar. So an amp has an effective power of 150W, but can only output 15W at 5% THD. If you don't think that stating effective power this way is not a lie, then what is it? Don't you think a buyer may expect to actually use the amp at 150W? after finding out the amp doesn't really clip at 2 watts wouldn't you rather have all the material facts infront of you before you called anyone a liar? I am actually interested in whether you think it is a lie? And if not, what is it. I clearly believe that it is a gross misrepresentation, or gross incompetence, or a lie. Probably not a typo, nor an honest mistake. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:10:37 GMT, B&D wrote:
On 7/14/04 10:59 AM, in article uTbJc.54239$WX.46715@attbi_s51, "chung" wrote: B&D wrote: On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out. You missed the point. The data sheet actually says 150W. The "condemnation" is based on measurements. Right - not listening to it, and a large dollop of resentment because no one here could afford to expend money on luxuries (working, good or bad) like that. You are making a large assumption there. There are at least three multi-millionaires who post regularly to this forum, one of them is certainly able to afford such a toy........................ -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
B&D wrote:
On 7/14/04 6:29 PM, in article , "Tat Chan" wrote: Hmmmm ... could it be that it is the listener who gets broken in, and not the cable itself ... That may be - but could there be any other explanations? I don't know of any, but I have heard that sentence a lot to make me think it is not an original thought... (i.e. A lot of people feel that way) oh, definitely not something I came up with myself. Listener breakin has been mentioned on this NG and other places. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Imaging, soundstage, 3D | High End Audio | |||
the emperor's clothes | High End Audio | |||
Sound, Music, Balance | High End Audio | |||
DVI - The Destroyer Of Sound | High End Audio | |||
Surround Sound for Stereo Lovers | High End Audio |