Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"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. 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. 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). -- Greg Weaver On Sound and Music http://www.onsoundandmusic.com A Journal of Pro and High-End Audio, Music, and other things that Matter |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
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 $300 cd player "blew away" his tt in sound quality. However, in those days ALL of his equipment was custom or modified in some way to "protect himself from audiophiles." His explanation: If he was touting the sound of a given piece of equipment there would always be an audiophile who would say "I've heard that piece and it sounds like crap." To which my friend could reply "You haven't heard this one .... it's been modified." To the uninitiated in high-end audio where "everything"can make a difference modification can be as simple as putting a paperweight on an amplifier or scratching your initials on the back plate. I have several friends who have brought over their favorite CDs along with there own CD players only to be blown away by how much better my turntable sounded with my LP copies of the same titles. Every one of them had an obvious bias in favor of CDs. Not one has ever prefered the CDs *after listening*. I always give them full control of the volume settings. What does your story or my story have to do with this thread? |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
(S888Wheel) wrote:
From: (Nousaine) Date: 7/10/2004 2:25 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: VBOHc.26874$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 $ensible Sound (although this has been rare...and has been limited to products that I have already acquired). The latter is noted in copy. So? How do you think you know how it happened with the WAVAC? Hint, it was reported in Stereophile in the actual reivew. In every other case the editors have selected products (on rare occasion...and I mean rare, they have included products I suggeted were of interest) which were then delivered to me on assignment for testing. I am sometimes asked by people if I would do a review on a given product and I always tactfully suggest they contact the editorial staff. It looks, from reading the aforementioned magazine, that reviewers speak with manufacturers and either are solicited or solicit products for review on their own. (p5,73 July Issue.) There's not necessarily anything wrong with this. But, I cannot recall ever seeing this policy disclosed in print and I cannot help but see the potential conflict of interest. I don't see the conflict in interest. OTOH reviewing and consulting..... And do you have a valid complaint that you'd like to report? |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/11/04 10:06 PM, in article FmmIc.58359$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. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
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 $300 cd player "blew away" his tt in sound quality. However, in those days ALL of his equipment was custom or modified in some way to "protect himself from audiophiles." His explanation: If he was touting the sound of a given piece of equipment there would always be an audiophile who would say "I've heard that piece and it sounds like crap." To which my friend could reply "You haven't heard this one .... it's been modified." To the uninitiated in high-end audio where "everything"can make a difference modification can be as simple as putting a paperweight on an amplifier or scratching your initials on the back plate. I have several friends who have brought over their favorite CDs along with there own CD players only to be blown away by how much better my turntable sounded with my LP copies of the same titles. Every one of them had an obvious bias in favor of CDs. Not one has ever prefered the CDs *after listening*. I always give them full control of the volume settings. What does your story or my story have to do with this thread? They are equally represented; don't you think? That's the basic problem with high-end; we get into the arguing over anecdotes even when the competence of the Wavac amplifier has been shown to be ridiculous in print. That's OK with me. I'll let rational people make up their own minds. |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 02:07:11 GMT, "Greg Weaver"
wrote: "Nousaine" wrote in message news:mm4Ic.66433$XM6.20336@attbi_s53... (S888Wheel) wrote: From: chung I have a friend, ... but was crushed when a $300 cd player "blew away" his tt in sound quality. Do you know how preposterous that sounds? Indeed - why on earth would he have been 'crushed' by something so inevitable? I have been in and around this game since the late sixties, and I've yet to hear ANY well set-up table/arm/cart - like the Music Hall MMF-2.1 for instance - "blown away" by any similarly priced digital front end. I have the same longevity as an audiophile, and I have yet to hear any vinyl rig which could even approach the sound quality of an average CD player. That includes the legendary Rockport Sirius III with Clearaudio Insider cartridge - set up by Andy Payor himself. Of course, it was still playing vinyl, and inescapably suffered the result. How you choose to define sound quality MIGHT be the issue. While we may agree to disagree on what we like in terms of our own listening biases, when it comes to dimensionality, warmth, and harmonic texture, what you've described just doesn't happen. With a poorly maintained record, scratched and dirty, popping and clicking from opening to close, the masking that would occur would not allow you to truly hear the recording, and you may have some ground to stand on. Otherwise, this is just insanity. Actually, insanity would be the notion that vinyl could even approach the sound quality capability of CD, regardless of the cost of the vinyl replay rig. You implied this person had dropped major bucks on his analog system. Either it was badly set up or someone is hallucinating. C'mon. Let's get real hear (pun intended). Ineed, and let's not kid ourselves that vinyl has any place in a *high fidelity* music replay system, apart from accessing performances simply not available on CD. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 03:09:48 GMT, B&D wrote:
On 7/11/04 10:06 PM, in article FmmIc.58359$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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
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 $ensible Sound (although this has been rare...and has been limited to products that I have already acquired). The latter is noted in copy. So? How do you think you know how it happened with the WAVAC? Hint, it was reported in Stereophile in the actual reivew. In every other case the editors have selected products (on rare occasion...and I mean rare, they have included products I suggeted were of interest) which were then delivered to me on assignment for testing. I am sometimes asked by people if I would do a review on a given product and I always tactfully suggest they contact the editorial staff. It looks, from reading the aforementioned magazine, that reviewers speak with manufacturers and either are solicited or solicit products for review on their own. (p5,73 July Issue.) There's not necessarily anything wrong with this. But, I cannot recall ever seeing this policy disclosed in print and I cannot help but see the potential conflict of interest. I don't see the conflict in interest. OTOH reviewing and consulting..... And do you have a valid complaint that you'd like to report? Nothing new. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/12/04 1:04 PM, in article _wzIc.62960$%_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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 $300 cd player "blew away" his tt in sound quality. However, in those days ALL of his equipment was custom or modified in some way to "protect himself from audiophiles." His explanation: If he was touting the sound of a given piece of equipment there would always be an audiophile who would say "I've heard that piece and it sounds like crap." To which my friend could reply "You haven't heard this one .... it's been modified." To the uninitiated in high-end audio where "everything"can make a difference modification can be as simple as putting a paperweight on an amplifier or scratching your initials on the back plate. I have several friends who have brought over their favorite CDs along with there own CD players only to be blown away by how much better my turntable sounded with my LP copies of the same titles. Every one of them had an obvious bias in favor of CDs. Not one has ever prefered the CDs *after listening*. I always give them full control of the volume settings. What does your story or my story have to do with this thread? They are equally represented; don't you think? Hard to say. That's the basic problem with high-end; we get into the arguing over anecdotes even when the competence of the Wavac amplifier has been shown to be ridiculous in print. You introduced the anecdote. I simply responded with another to point out the futility of anecdotes. Unfortunately your impression of the WAVAC doesn't even rise to the level of anecdote. That's OK with me. I'll let rational people make up their own minds. This rational person did make up his own mind on one WAVAC amp based on an audition. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
S888Wheel wrote:
From: (Nousaine) Date: 7/11/2004 7:25 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: (Nousaine) Date: 7/10/2004 2:25 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: VBOHc.26874$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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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$%_6.26489@attbi_s01, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: What I have found that dollar for dollar you can get acceptable sound performance from a CD at a much lower price point than vinyl. Vinyl, though, if you are willing to put up with it and spend a lot more money gives a much more satisfying result than even a comparably well executed CD player - but it is rather fussy and not nearly as convenient as CD's. That's simply your personal opinion - mine is quite the reverse. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 7/12/2004 6:32 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: XYGIc.77308$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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 $ensible Sound (although this has been rare...and has been limited to products that I have already acquired). The latter is noted in copy. So? How do you think you know how it happened with the WAVAC? Hint, it was reported in Stereophile in the actual reivew. Sure; but it was not "reported" but anecotalized (if you will) in 2 separate pieces. If this qualifies as 'reporting' I think that Mr Atkinson should retract his criticism that any other magazine hasn't openly "reported" its editorial policy since Larry Klein did so at a Conference in 1990. In every other case the editors have selected products (on rare occasion...and I mean rare, they have included products I suggeted were of interest) which were then delivered to me on assignment for testing. I am sometimes asked by people if I would do a review on a given product and I always tactfully suggest they contact the editorial staff. It looks, from reading the aforementioned magazine, that reviewers speak with manufacturers and either are solicited or solicit products for review on their own. (p5,73 July Issue.) There's not necessarily anything wrong with this. But, I cannot recall ever seeing this policy disclosed in print and I cannot help but see the potential conflict of interest. I don't see the conflict in interest. OTOH reviewing and consulting..... And do you have a valid complaint that you'd like to report? Nothing new. As I suggested; you have no legitimate complaints to report? No? |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
From: chung
Date: 7/12/2004 5:27 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: V%FIc.42453$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
|
|||
|
|||
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 $100K Benz. On the other hand, it is not likely that when the Ferrari people advertise a top speed of 200 mph they deliver only 4 mph, to use a tenuous but not entirely inappropriate analogy. FYI, I'm not in the business (audio or audio press) and I don't have any particular axe to grind. You may not be in the audio press( I never said or implied you were) But I am skeptical about the axe. That's fine for you to say, but I would just point out that you have no discernible factual basis for your skepticism on this score. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
chung wrote in message
news:PRzHc.50521$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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 $100K Benz. On the other hand, it is not likely that when the Ferrari people advertise a top speed of 200 mph they deliver only 4 mph, to use a tenuous but not entirely inappropriate analogy. The analogy is fair. I think the claim that the amp actually clips at 2 watts is suspect. FYI, I'm not in the business (audio or audio press) and I don't have any particular axe to grind. You may not be in the audio press( I never said or implied you were) But I am skeptical about the axe. That's fine for you to say, but I would just point out that you have no discernible factual basis for your skepticism on this score. Just your post. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
John Atkinson wrote:
chung wrote in message news:PRzHc.50521$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
|
|||
|
|||
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$%_6.26489@attbi_s01, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: What I have found that dollar for dollar you can get acceptable sound performance from a CD at a much lower price point than vinyl. Vinyl, though, if you are willing to put up with it and spend a lot more money gives a much more satisfying result than even a comparably well executed CD player - but it is rather fussy and not nearly as convenient as CD's. That's simply your personal opinion - mine is quite the reverse. SO you think that vinyl is less expensive than CD's, less fussy than CD and ultimately unsatisfying? |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/13/04 12:25 PM, in article Q1UIc.80011$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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
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 |