Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/14/04 11:33 PM, in article UVmJc.82833$%_6.10431@attbi_s01, "chung"
wrote: Right - not listening to it, and a large dollop of resentment because no one here could afford to expend money on luxuries (working, good or bad) like that. Perhaps you are speaking for yourself when you said "resentment because no one can afford it". I didn't notice anyone else having any resentment. I find the review extremely amusing. So did my friends when I showed it to them. Why would anyone want to own such an inferior amp, at any price? I am not resentful myself - because I think it would be silly to buy an amp that costs the same as a nice house (or a not so nice one if you live in SF) that is clearly not the best amp in the universe. I would further say that if it were the best amp in the universe, it is still unaffordable. |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/15/04 12:25 PM, in article feyJc.85435$%_6.61349@attbi_s01, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote: On 15 Jul 2004 03:03:34 GMT, B&D wrote: On 7/14/04 9:23 PM, in article _%kJc.82948$IQ4.70366@attbi_s02, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: Until recently I had a Linn Valhalla / Syrinx PU-2 / Accuphase AC-2 / Modified Marcof PPA-2 setup that bested my Sony/DTI Pro/Proceed PDP player and Sony C222ES SACD player on identically recorded music (Beethoven 5th Symphony; Ormandy "Verdi Requiem; Szell's Rossini Overatures, Joplin's Cheap Thrills, Dylan's Blonde on Blonde comparison disks). Well, it would sure as heck sound *different*! That it 'bested' your CD player is of course only your personal opinion. I dunno - if he listened to it - I figure it passed the only test required - and it is his opinion - as you would say that it didn't best it based upon no data or listening. OTOH, I *have* heard a Linn with a Syrinx arm, and in my opinion it wasn't even a good vinyl player, let alone any competition for a decent CD player. Horses for courses. As I no longer own my turntable and vinyl, I have voted with my feet so to speak. I am impressed how vinyl can sound really good. I am waiting to get a SACD and DVD-A player. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/15/04 12:26 PM, in article WeyJc.85442$%_6.43836@attbi_s01, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote: Does it clip? Meaning the saturated output power of the amp stops at less than 150W meaning there is no level of drive to move the power to 150W? If so, then the datasheet is wrong. The datasheet is wrong. Also, consider the excellent Bryston 4B-SST, which at less than one *hundredth* of the cost of the Wavac, totally destroys it as a high fidelity amplifier. Sure - and I would buy it over that POS. I would contend that a the Bryston would place a very difficult argument for getting other amplifier that would cost more money. For myself, I found a totally excellent amplifier in the NAD S200 which was less than a Bryston. While I couldn't afford it - even if I wanted to - it is an abstract notion of "goodness" vs. "badness" to me. About as useful as how many angles can dance on the head of a pin. That would be about 360......... :-) Heh! Got me there, could have sworn it would have been at least 400! :-) |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/15/04 12:30 PM, in article fiyJc.83777$MB3.69874@attbi_s04, "Norman
Schwartz" wrote: "Greg Weaver" writes I just don't know what to say that could be taken constructively and not appear to be some type of flaming, as that IS NOT how I want to come across. However, in the past 22 years, since the CD format was readily available in homes, not one time, NOT ONCE, has a musician (or any other music lover for that matter) EVER picked CD over vinyl in a head-to-head, same recording comparison. We are talking about hundreds of demonstrations over that time. Hundreds! I just can't believe that anyone, especially on this forum, could so adamantly argue that side of the coin. I have a cassette tape (RCDJ 61909-4) from which can be heard an interview with John Pfieffer, "Executive Producer, RCA Victor Living Stereo", who picks CD over LP, not only once, but every time. Especially when they would benefit from it personally in CD sales. CD is far superior to vinyl in a number of ways, surface noise being one of them. Vinyl, especially good vinyl, sounds excellent, and better than CD. I think, though, it is an apples to oranges a bit - because the mastering standards of CD has only recently reached the potential of the medium. Just as SACD comes on the horizon. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:feyJc.85435$%_6.61349@attbi_s01... On 15 Jul 2004 03:03:34 GMT, B&D wrote: On 7/14/04 9:23 PM, in article _%kJc.82948$IQ4.70366@attbi_s02, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: Until recently I had a Linn Valhalla / Syrinx PU-2 / Accuphase AC-2 / Modified Marcof PPA-2 setup that bested my Sony/DTI Pro/Proceed PDP player and Sony C222ES SACD player on identically recorded music (Beethoven 5th Symphony; Ormandy "Verdi Requiem; Szell's Rossini Overatures, Joplin's Cheap Thrills, Dylan's Blonde on Blonde comparison disks). Well, it would sure as heck sound *different*! That it 'bested' your CD player is of course only your personal opinion. I dunno - if he listened to it - I figure it passed the only test required - and it is his opinion - as you would say that it didn't best it based upon no data or listening. OTOH, I *have* heard a Linn with a Syrinx arm, and in my opinion it wasn't even a good vinyl player, let alone any competition for a decent CD player. Correction. You didn't think *that* Linn with a Syrinx arm was a very good player. I presume you know that the cartridge, the cartridge setup, the arm mass match, the headamp, the preamp, the isolation all make a substantial difference with a turntable. The turntable I am talking about has all of these things optimized, and has a frequency response / timbre that is an exact match for my CD/SACD players (a perfectly set up Accuphase AC-2 cartridge tracking at 1.75g in a Syrinx PU-2 using the Mass (Loading) Ring, on a Linn Valhalla isolated with sorborthane feet on a Target wall rack, feeding either a modified Marcof PPA-2 or Counterpoint SA-2 headamp, in turn feeding through Monster 1000ii cable into a modified ARC SP6B preamp (in it's own right a superb phono preamp). So I can't comment on what you heard, other than to suggest it may not have been as well optimized as my own. And more importantly, you cannot draw *any* *valid* *conclusion* about what I can hear with my setup. You want to continue on with your bias, that's your business. But don't speak as if you are privy to some secret universal truth. You have your opinion, but one single exception (as I have demoed to my own satisfaction) robs it of being a universal truth. |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
That seems to have been at least part of the reason they use the
term *effective power*. If we are going to ask if the manufacturer is "lying" we have to start with what the manufacturer actually *said*. So I guess the answer to the question lies in whether or not this amp can push 150 watts of energy into any speaker load. Can you answer that question by looking at the measurements in Stereophile? Is 5% THD too low a number for you for rated power? If not, the level is about 10-15W. Is there any power amp in the market that has a rated power spec'd at higher than 5% distortion? Are there any others that talk about "effective power?" And then there's the McIntosh MC501, just reviewed in Stereophile. It is rated at 500W "minimum sinewave continuous average power output". Yet, if asked to output 166W, it will overheat and shut down in 5 minutes. Is this an unfair test? Certainly, 1/3 power is the point at which a class B amplifier reaches its maximum dissipation, but is the customer supposed to know that--or care? If you bought a car that will do 100mph, would you expect it to have serious problems at 35mph? In the case of the MC501, even 30W is too much, overheating in 20 minutes. (These numbers come straight from John Atkinson, incidentally. I'm not guessing.) I was under the impression that the FTC has regulations as to how amplifiers must perform to meet their published specifications. The MC501 will not meet those specifications if it overheats at 166W, much less 30W. I think something bad is happening in the amplifier world, and I'd like to know just what it is. Norm Strong |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
McIntosh MC501 (Was: Steely Dan The Absolute Sound)
normanstrong wrote:
And then there's the McIntosh MC501, http://www.mcintoshlabs.com/mcprod/s...&product=MC501 MC501 Monoblock Power Amplifier * The MC501 delivers 500 watts * Over 1200 watts of peak power * Signal to Noise Ratio: 124dB below rated power. * Quad-differential amplifier design. Total Harmonic Distortion: 0.005% maximum from 250 milliwatts to rated power output for 2 channels. Specifications are very conservative. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Manual at: http://www.mcintoshlabs.com/data/manuals/MC501om.pdf just reviewed in Stereophile. August issue ? It is rated at 500W "minimum sinewave continuous average power output". Yet, if asked to output 166W, it will overheat and shut down in 5 minutes. -- 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 |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/15/04 12:30 PM, in article PiyJc.83781$MB3.51730@attbi_s04, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote: You missed the point. The data sheet actually says 150W. The "condemnation" is based on measurements. Right - not listening to it, and a large dollop of resentment because no one here could afford to expend money on luxuries (working, good or bad) like that. You are making a large assumption there. There are at least three multi-millionaires who post regularly to this forum, one of them is certainly able to afford such a toy........................ I hope they post if they buy one. Yes, I do presume a bit much. |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
B&D wrote:
On 7/15/04 12:26 PM, in article WeyJc.85442$%_6.43836@attbi_s01, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: Does it clip? Meaning the saturated output power of the amp stops at less than 150W meaning there is no level of drive to move the power to 150W? If so, then the datasheet is wrong. The datasheet is wrong. Also, consider the excellent Bryston 4B-SST, which at less than one *hundredth* of the cost of the Wavac, totally destroys it as a high fidelity amplifier. Sure - and I would buy it over that POS. So now you are agreeing that it is a POS? What happen to your statement of not condemning it before you hear it? . Seems like just about everyone agrees that that amp is either broken, or a POS, or ridiculous, or a joke, without listening to it first. And that's why measurements serve important purposes. |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"B&D" wrote in message
news:QQkJc.92602$Oq2.45040@attbi_s52... On 7/14/04 6:33 PM, in article , "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Do you know how preposterous that sounds? I have been in and around this game since the late sixties, and I've yet to hear ANY well set-up table/arm/cart - like the Music Hall MMF-2.1 for instance - "blown away" by any similarly priced digital front end. Then it seems you have a preference for that type of sound. LP compared to CD is objectively inferior in terms of distortion, compression, signal to noise, and all other technical specs related to fidelity. All other specs? Really? *ALL* of them? The important ones AFAIK. The fact is still that in terms of objective performance CD stomps all over LP. It is higher fi. |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
normanstrong wrote:
And then there's the McIntosh MC501, just reviewed in Stereophile.* It is rated at 500W "minimum sinewave continuous average power output". Yet, if asked to output 166W, it will overheat and shut down in 5 minutes.* Is this an unfair test?** Certainly, 1/3 power is the point at which a class B amplifier reaches its maximum dissipation, but is the customer supposed to know that--or care?** If you bought a car that will do 100mph, would you expect it to have serious problems at 35mph?* In the case of the MC501, even 30W is too much, overheating in 20 minutes.* (These numbers come straight from John Atkinson, incidentally.* I'm not guessing.) I was under the impression that the FTC has regulations as to how amplifiers must perform to meet their published specifications.* The MC501 will not meet those specifications if it overheats at 166W, much less 30W. I think something bad is happening in the amplifier world, and I'd like to know just what it is. I have no evidence here, so I'm only speculating, but it's possible that the high end market is essentially a lottery, with the winning ticket being a rave review in a glossy magazine. Your dealer network may sell a respectable quantity of any product, but a review is what makes a product take off--and probbably produces a disproportionate share of your profits. If that's true, and to repeat I can't prove it is, then manufacturers face a huge incentive to produce products that will attract reviews. (Note that "rave review" and "review" are nearly synonymous in practice.) That in turn puts a premium on "innovation," meaning doing something out of the ordinary, which isn't the same as doing something better. At the same time, there is no bonus for technical superiority, since that's not what gets you a review, or a rave. So companies can afford to slight the technical side of things. There's one guy who could change this, and that's John Atkinson. A few people have praised him here recently for actually doing measurements that expose these flaws, but at the same time he's running rave reviews that are, in effect, rewarding the manufacturers of technical inferior products. Why? Wouldn't it be a great service if Stereophile were to announce that it would not run a review of any product that failed to meet its published specifications (or, to close a potential loophole, failed to publish a reasonably complete set of specs)? Imagine the effect on the industry. Meet spec, and you get a 6-page review that will almost certainly increase sales manyfold. Fail to meet spec, and all you get is a one-page technical review (and not a pretty one). I cannot see a downside to this. How about it, JA? bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Discover the best of the best at MSN Luxury Living. http://lexus.msn.com/ |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:YUmJc.83701$IQ4.13106@attbi_s02... From: chung Date: 7/14/2004 6:14 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: zTkJc.92323$XM6.7336@attbi_s53 S888Wheel wrote: From: "Dennis Moore" Date: 7/13/2004 6:18 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "John Atkinson" wrote in message ... I have been following this thread and I don't think those who talk about the Wavac amplifier "clipping" at 2W can have read the review (it's now available in the www.stereophile.com archives). If you look at the graphs of output power vs THD+N percentage, you will see that it does indeed put out 2W at 1% THD+N, which is our usual definition of "clipping." However, it is important to note that the Wavac is _not_ clipping at this level of distortion. What happens is that as the output power increases, the waveform becomes increasingly asymmetrical, meaning that the signal increasingly suffers from second-harmoic distortion. While this is indeed audible once the Wavac is putting out a watt or so, it doesn't sound like clipping distortion, particularly as it is not accompanied by catastrophic amounts of intermodulation distortion. As I wrote in the review, true waveform clipping occurs at a few tens of watts, depending on the output tap and load. So for anyone to cast aspersions at Michael Fremer's hearing ability because he didn't hear "clipping" is inappropriate, given the particular nature of the Wavac's non-linear transfer function. When I listened to the Wavac, the bass boost was immediately apparent, but it didn't sound aggressively distorted. Partly this is because the amount of power typically demanded from an amplifier tends to be below 2W much of the time with music rather than test tones; partly this is because second harmonic distortion tends to fatten the sound in rather a pleasing manner, at least until the intermodulation products reach threshold. Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Yes, Mr. Atkinson, you are correct, it doesn't clip at 2w. I was guilty of a little hyperbole. Not out of place in this discussion of the $350K Wavac I think. I quite disagree. you had at least one other person convinced that the manufaturers were lying outright about their product. Mr. Chung ask me what else could the claim of 150 watts be other than a lie if it clips at 2 watts. Let me modify the question to you then: If the rated power is 150 W and the unit shows 2% distortion at 2 W, 5% distortion at 10 W, is the spec a lie? If it is not a lie, what is it? Why modify the question? You have now seen the measurements have you not? At what point does the amp actually *clip*? Clearly it is *not* 2 watts as claimed by another poster and taken as fact by you and others. It claims in the review the manufacturer specifies it's "effective power" is 150 watts. That claim is not qualified in any way that I can see. The use of the term "effective power" is a qualifier, since the majority of amps are rated at xxx wpc rms. What the hell is effective power? I suppose it means it can generate 150 watts but with distortion levels it's pretty meaningless. So I guess the answer to the question lies in whether or not this amp can push 150 watts of energy into any speaker load. Can you answer that question by looking at the measurements in Stereophile? As to whether or not it is a lie I suppose depends on what the person who claimed the power rating knew and what he or she believes about what constitutes "effective power." I'd rather know more before I call anyone a liar. after finding out the amp doesn't really clip at 2 watts wouldn't you rather have all the material facts infront of you before you called anyone a liar? I'd rather have a manufacturer who uses standard terms when charging 350K for an amp. |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"normanstrong" wrote in message
... "chung" wrote in message news:8m2Hc.40996$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 $350K. I would expect a reviewer to be able to say that it's an improvement or not. You rarely see that happen, however. Once the reviewer knows that he's listening to the world's most expensive amplifier, that fact dominates all subsequent remarks. Indeed, he can probably write the entire review without ever turning the amplifier on. In this particular case of the Wavac did the reviewer note that the amplifier could only output modest power before distorting the signal beyond recognition? Not that I noticed. Norm Strong That's part of the problem with uncontrolled listening. The subjectivists claim that long term listening will reveal everything they need to know. In a test done many years ago, listeners were given as long as they wanted, to evaluate a particular device without the ability to switch quickly between it and another source. Gradually the proctors injected distortion up to about 5% IIRC into one of the DUT's and none of the people using the above methodology, could detect it. Another group using a switchbox that allowed for rapid comparisons was able to detect it quickly. The whole idea of not having an objective reference and a way to compare devices blind makes all the lavish prose in the world meaningless. Particularly when the differences are as gross as those in the WAVAC a decently competent reviewer should have been able to detect them. |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:J%cJc.78334$%_6.34016@attbi_s01... From: "Bob Marcus" Date: 7/14/2004 8:30 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 1kcJc.76426$MB3.32199@attbi_s04 B&D wrote: On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out. Some of us have heard highly distorting systems with massive bass humps before. We don't need to listen to another one to know we won't like it. bob Let me get this straight, you can look at the the measurements of the WAVAC and from those measurements you can determine with a reasonable level of certainty that you have heard a *system* that sounded so similar to the *system* MF reported on in his review that you wouldn't require an audition to form an opinion on it's sonic merits? Based on the measurements the only merit this amp would have is as a really expensive door stop. It would not have been considered a hi-fi amp since the 1940's. Look at the graph of any decent SS amp and you will see the distortion as a nearly flat line until full rated power is reached. With the WAVAC it continues to get worse as you increase the volume. At around 2 watts it's at 1% which is where THD becomes audible. If this amp were $12.00 it would still be overpriced to anyone looking for a 150 watt amp. |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung Date: 7/14/2004 4:05 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: There's no accounting for taste. I thought taste was considered subjective by objectivists. And your point being? Read the next line I wrote. Which was totally irrelevant to my statement that there is no accounting for taste. Meaning you can't argue about someone else's taste. Meaning there are many people with taste that you would consider poor. Oh, c'mon. You took a shot at MF's taste. Oh yeah? Yeah! No sense wasting bandwidth arguing about what I said vs. what you think I said. In any event that was totally irrelevant to why I said the amp was not listening to. (snip) You were asking about eaxamples of people getting banged around on RAHE? here is a fine one. Actually MF does not post here, so that fails to apply as an example. Did I qualify my claim that people get knocked around on RAHE by limmiting it to people who post here? No I did not. But I was asking for examples of when posters posted their opinions here and got banged around. You did not provide any such examples, as of yet. OK I'll point them out as I see them. If you want to make a general claim that people got banged around on this newsgroup, that example still does not qualify. Unless you believe that criticizing someone's review is banging people around. I believe attacking someone's taste is being banged around. It applies as an example. What's the point in citing examples if you cannot recognize an example when one is cited? Irrelevant question since you are not citing examples that I was asking for. But if you think that being challenged for raving about a 2W amp that is spec'd at 150W, and by the way, costs $350K, qualifies as being banged around, well, he would not get any sympathy from me . No I think comments like "there is no acounting for taste" which is a common insult is being banged around. I will remember that you have the ability to take a general truism as an insult to a specific yet-unnamed person. Maybe you should just be aware of general truisms that can be seen as an insult. If I were to look at a picture of your children all dressed up for a portrait (presuming you have them) and said "you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" I would be using an old saying, an accpeted general truism so to speak. I would also be insulting you and your children (if you have any). Certain truisms spoken in certain contexts are common insults. It might be good for you to remember that. Some people are sensitive. If you don't see the difference between what I said in response to your question about why I might like that amp, and your example, it is absolutely pointless to continue this discussion. Remember that it was you who said "It is rather pointless to argue with *me* about what *I* meant" in an earlier post. Perhaps you should heed your own advice. snip the rest... [ Moderator's note: I agree, this subthread has gotten rather pointless and is ended. -- deb ] |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/16/04 6:41 PM, in article , "Michael
McKelvy" wrote: "B&D" wrote in message news:QQkJc.92602$Oq2.45040@attbi_s52... On 7/14/04 6:33 PM, in article , "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Do you know how preposterous that sounds? I have been in and around this game since the late sixties, and I've yet to hear ANY well set-up table/arm/cart - like the Music Hall MMF-2.1 for instance - "blown away" by any similarly priced digital front end. Then it seems you have a preference for that type of sound. LP compared to CD is objectively inferior in terms of distortion, compression, signal to noise, and all other technical specs related to fidelity. All other specs? Really? *ALL* of them? The important ones AFAIK. The fact is still that in terms of objective performance CD stomps all over LP. It is higher fi. Where I would agree with you is the POTENTIAL of CD is better than that of LP's - but the state of the art in mastering tends to make the CD's much less close to hifi. Definitely less the technology than in practical reality, though. |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"B&D" wrote in message
news:Y85Jc.86876$XM6.19824@attbi_s53... On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out. Before trying something out, especially a $350,000 amp, one likes to have a fair and honest idea of what the equipment is capable of so one is not stuck with the bill for damage. |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 7/16/2004 3:45 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message news:J%cJc.78334$%_6.34016@attbi_s01... From: "Bob Marcus" Date: 7/14/2004 8:30 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 1kcJc.76426$MB3.32199@attbi_s04 B&D wrote: On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out. Some of us have heard highly distorting systems with massive bass humps before. We don't need to listen to another one to know we won't like it. bob Let me get this straight, you can look at the the measurements of the WAVAC and from those measurements you can determine with a reasonable level of certainty that you have heard a *system* that sounded so similar to the *system* MF reported on in his review that you wouldn't require an audition to form an opinion on it's sonic merits? Based on the measurements the only merit this amp would have is as a really expensive door stop. It would not have been considered a hi-fi amp since the 1940's. Look at the graph of any decent SS amp and you will see the distortion as a nearly flat line until full rated power is reached. With the WAVAC it continues to get worse as you increase the volume. At around 2 watts it's at 1% which is where THD becomes audible. If this amp were $12.00 it would still be overpriced to anyone looking for a 150 watt amp. Are you suggesting that those people who like what they hear from this amp and believe that what they hear through this amp sounds more like live music should revise their subjective impressions to fit the measurements? |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 7/16/2004 3:43 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message news:YUmJc.83701$IQ4.13106@attbi_s02... From: chung Date: 7/14/2004 6:14 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: zTkJc.92323$XM6.7336@attbi_s53 S888Wheel wrote: From: "Dennis Moore" Date: 7/13/2004 6:18 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "John Atkinson" wrote in message ... I have been following this thread and I don't think those who talk about the Wavac amplifier "clipping" at 2W can have read the review (it's now available in the www.stereophile.com archives). If you look at the graphs of output power vs THD+N percentage, you will see that it does indeed put out 2W at 1% THD+N, which is our usual definition of "clipping." However, it is important to note that the Wavac is _not_ clipping at this level of distortion. What happens is that as the output power increases, the waveform becomes increasingly asymmetrical, meaning that the signal increasingly suffers from second-harmoic distortion. While this is indeed audible once the Wavac is putting out a watt or so, it doesn't sound like clipping distortion, particularly as it is not accompanied by catastrophic amounts of intermodulation distortion. As I wrote in the review, true waveform clipping occurs at a few tens of watts, depending on the output tap and load. So for anyone to cast aspersions at Michael Fremer's hearing ability because he didn't hear "clipping" is inappropriate, given the particular nature of the Wavac's non-linear transfer function. When I listened to the Wavac, the bass boost was immediately apparent, but it didn't sound aggressively distorted. Partly this is because the amount of power typically demanded from an amplifier tends to be below 2W much of the time with music rather than test tones; partly this is because second harmonic distortion tends to fatten the sound in rather a pleasing manner, at least until the intermodulation products reach threshold. Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Yes, Mr. Atkinson, you are correct, it doesn't clip at 2w. I was guilty of a little hyperbole. Not out of place in this discussion of the $350K Wavac I think. I quite disagree. you had at least one other person convinced that the manufaturers were lying outright about their product. Mr. Chung ask me what else could the claim of 150 watts be other than a lie if it clips at 2 watts. Let me modify the question to you then: If the rated power is 150 W and the unit shows 2% distortion at 2 W, 5% distortion at 10 W, is the spec a lie? If it is not a lie, what is it? Why modify the question? You have now seen the measurements have you not? At what point does the amp actually *clip*? Clearly it is *not* 2 watts as claimed by another poster and taken as fact by you and others. It claims in the review the manufacturer specifies it's "effective power" is 150 watts. That claim is not qualified in any way that I can see. The use of the term "effective power" is a qualifier, since the majority of amps are rated at xxx wpc rms. What the hell is effective power? I suppose it means it can generate 150 watts but with distortion levels it's pretty meaningless. It is hardly meaningless if this is what they meant and the amp can do it. I still haven't found anyone willing to step forward and say the amp can or cannot do it. So I guess the answer to the question lies in whether or not this amp can push 150 watts of energy into any speaker load. Can you answer that question by looking at the measurements in Stereophile? As to whether or not it is a lie I suppose depends on what the person who claimed the power rating knew and what he or she believes about what constitutes "effective power." I'd rather know more before I call anyone a liar. after finding out the amp doesn't really clip at 2 watts wouldn't you rather have all the material facts infront of you before you called anyone a liar? I'd rather have a manufacturer who uses standard terms when charging 350K for an amp. Obviously this is an amp that needs to be heard in the system in which a potential buyer plans to use it before buying it. One can decide then if it is powerful enough for their liking as well. |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:MtmIc.58267$MB3.50681@attbi_s04... 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. A false choice. Those of us concerned with what the measurements reveal are interested in them BECAUSE they relate to better listening, at least for us. The hobby is still called high-fi and that has a meaning. Anything that gets us closer to the intent of the artist by removing distortion, noise, compression, or whatever might be hiding the choices made by the artist and the engineer is a benefit. I don't really care about other preferences, they are yours and you're welcome to them, but if they include things like flawed playback devices, they are LOWER-fi. |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 7/17/2004 7:47 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message news:MtmIc.58267$MB3.50681@attbi_s04... 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. A false choice. Those of us concerned with what the measurements reveal are interested in them BECAUSE they relate to better listening, at least for us. Is that because of what you actually hear or your biases based on measurements? You will never really know without bias controled comparisons will you? The hobby is still called high-fi and that has a meaning. Yes hifi short for high fidelity. Fidelity meaning truth. Truth to what? For me it is truth to the sound of live music. That does not neccessarily always mean truth to the componet directly adjacent in the chain. The recording and playback system has to be considered in total when evaluating fidelity and the final result is determined by ear not by measurements. Anything that gets us closer to the intent of the artist by removing distortion, noise, compression, or whatever might be hiding the choices made by the artist and the engineer is a benefit. True for studio albums I suppose. But it is hard to know the intent of the artists. For live recordings the artists' intent is more a matter of performance and we are really speaking of the recording engineer's intent. I don't really care about other preferences, they are yours and you're welcome to them, but if they include things like flawed playback devices, they are LOWER-fi. All recording/playback systems are flawed. I'm just looking for the best overall playback system I can afford and the best issues of my favorite recordings. For me that is the path which brings me to what I percieve to be higher fidelity to live music and that which makes live music intrinsicly more beautiful generally speaking. |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung Date: 7/16/2004 3:34 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: B&D wrote: On 7/15/04 12:26 PM, in article WeyJc.85442$%_6.43836@attbi_s01, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: Does it clip? Meaning the saturated output power of the amp stops at less than 150W meaning there is no level of drive to move the power to 150W? If so, then the datasheet is wrong. The datasheet is wrong. Also, consider the excellent Bryston 4B-SST, which at less than one *hundredth* of the cost of the Wavac, totally destroys it as a high fidelity amplifier. Sure - and I would buy it over that POS. So now you are agreeing that it is a POS? What happen to your statement of not condemning it before you hear it? . Seems like just about everyone agrees that that amp is either broken, or a POS, or ridiculous, or a joke, without listening to it first. And yet those who have listened to it seem to think it is not a POS. Uhh, I believe that even though Mr. Atkinson might not call it a POS exactly, he did use one of the adjectives I provided. Of course, calling something a POS is a rather extreme position for any reviewer to take... And that's why measurements serve important purposes. Pejudicing potential customers? I hope they serve a better purpose than that. Measurements "pejudicing" (sic) customers? That's a new one. I guess some might not want facts or real data to get in the way . And I thought that the whole point of measurements was to show objectively how a product perform so as to help the potential customer evaluate... |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
... "B&D" wrote in message news:QQkJc.92602$Oq2.45040@attbi_s52... On 7/14/04 6:33 PM, in article , "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Do you know how preposterous that sounds? I have been in and around this game since the late sixties, and I've yet to hear ANY well set-up table/arm/cart - like the Music Hall MMF-2.1 for instance - "blown away" by any similarly priced digital front end. Then it seems you have a preference for that type of sound. LP compared to CD is objectively inferior in terms of distortion, compression, signal to noise, and all other technical specs related to fidelity. All other specs? Really? *ALL* of them? The important ones AFAIK. The fact is still that in terms of objective performance CD stomps all over LP. It is higher fi. Unfortunately, our beings our designed so that we do not listen "objectively". All we can do is listen "subjectively". And on that basis, there are many who believe a top-flight LP system can outperform a top-flight CD system. |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
S888Wheel wrote:
Are you suggesting that those people who like what they hear from this amp and believe that what they hear through this amp sounds more like live music should revise their subjective impressions to fit the measurements? I'd suggest they do some better comparisons between live music and the amp, rather than rely on their memories. -- -S. "We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's. Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." -- David Lee Roth |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
... "S888Wheel" wrote in message news:MtmIc.58267$MB3.50681@attbi_s04... 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. A false choice. Those of us concerned with what the measurements reveal are interested in them BECAUSE they relate to better listening, at least for us. The hobby is still called high-fi and that has a meaning. Anything that gets us closer to the intent of the artist by removing distortion, noise, compression, or whatever might be hiding the choices made by the artist and the engineer is a benefit. I don't really care about other preferences, they are yours and you're welcome to them, but if they include things like flawed playback devices, they are LOWER-fi. Unfortunately, the hobby hasn't been called "high-fi" in many years...high-end audio has replaced that terminology. |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
From: chung
Date: 7/17/2004 9:34 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: IycKc.100368$MB3.64062@attbi_s04 S888Wheel wrote: From: chung Date: 7/16/2004 3:34 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: B&D wrote: On 7/15/04 12:26 PM, in article WeyJc.85442$%_6.43836@attbi_s01, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: Does it clip? Meaning the saturated output power of the amp stops at less than 150W meaning there is no level of drive to move the power to 150W? If so, then the datasheet is wrong. The datasheet is wrong. Also, consider the excellent Bryston 4B-SST, which at less than one *hundredth* of the cost of the Wavac, totally destroys it as a high fidelity amplifier. Sure - and I would buy it over that POS. So now you are agreeing that it is a POS? What happen to your statement of not condemning it before you hear it? . Seems like just about everyone agrees that that amp is either broken, or a POS, or ridiculous, or a joke, without listening to it first. And yet those who have listened to it seem to think it is not a POS. Uhh, I believe that even though Mr. Atkinson might not call it a POS exactly, he did use one of the adjectives I provided. Of course, calling something a POS is a rather extreme position for any reviewer to take... And that's why measurements serve important purposes. Pejudicing potential customers? I hope they serve a better purpose than that. Measurements "pejudicing" (sic) customers? That's a new one. No, It's nothing new.( except my unique spelling perhaps) Heck, just look at all the folks that jumped on the band wagon with the very early SS amps of the sixties. Some of them were really quite awful but the meter reasers thought they were the cat's meow based on the measurements. I guess some might not want facts or real data to get in the way . I certainly wouldn't want it to get in the way or cloud my judgement. And I thought that the whole point of measurements was to show objectively how a product perform so as to help the potential customer evaluate... I think it ought to be. I think there is some use for smoe measurements for audiophiles such as me. Matching equipment can be made easier via measurements. I'm still going to make my final decisions based on listening though. |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/17/04 1:32 AM, in article lR2Kc.96257$MB3.12064@attbi_s04, "Michael
McKelvy" wrote: "B&D" wrote in message news:Y85Jc.86876$XM6.19824@attbi_s53... On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out. Before trying something out, especially a $350,000 amp, one likes to have a fair and honest idea of what the equipment is capable of so one is not stuck with the bill for damage. Sure - so one would have to look at the data sheet and demo the equipment. Both. Not just one or the other. Demo being the most important. |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
S888Wheel wrote:
Let me modify the question to you then: If the rated power is 150 W and the unit shows 2% distortion at 2 W, 5% distortion at 10 W, is the spec a lie? If it is not a lie, what is it? Why modify the question? Why not, For starters the question make presumptions about the manufacturer's claim. Haven't you learned that it is a good idea not to use false premises to determine whether or not we want to call the manufacturer a liar? I don't think you read the question correctly. Here's the question again: "If the rated power is 150 W and the unit shows 2% distortion at 2 W, 5% distortion at 10 W, is the spec a lie? If it is not a lie, what is it?" Do you see the first word in that question? The numbers used in the question are based on measurements, so where's the presumption? Where's the false premise? Perhaps this sub-thread should stop here, too, since there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding, and not much value in going forward. |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
S888Wheel wrote:
Measurements "pejudicing" (sic) customers? That's a new one. No, It's nothing new.( except my unique spelling perhaps) Heck, just look at all the folks that jumped on the band wagon with the very early SS amps of the sixties. Some of them were really quite awful but the meter reasers thought they were the cat's meow based on the measurements. If the sound was awful, they will have also measured bad. Maybe in those times a distortion measurement was difficult to execute, but never the less it would have shown the low level distortion. The main reason people bought SS amps then was the affordable price and the overall satisfying performance. And that moment tubes disappeared from one year to the next. I think it ought to be. I think there is some use for smoe measurements for audiophiles such as me. Matching equipment can be made easier via measurements. I'm still going to make my final decisions based on listening though. This "matching" is another myth invented by the Quacks. Exept the loudspeaker impedance(4 or 8 ohms) there is little to observe, because already in that time there were existing specs about input level(-10dBm), RIAA EQ and impedance etc. In fact the HiFi criteria gives values for almost all important numbers. Any tuner, tape deck or amplifier can be connected and will perform as stated if it was fulfilling the criteria. This is one of the reasons the HiFi gear gained such a popularity, as it was the case with the computer. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
#154
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung Date: 7/17/2004 9:34 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: IycKc.100368$MB3.64062@attbi_s04 S888Wheel wrote: From: chung Date: 7/16/2004 3:34 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: B&D wrote: On 7/15/04 12:26 PM, in article WeyJc.85442$%_6.43836@attbi_s01, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: Does it clip? Meaning the saturated output power of the amp stops at less than 150W meaning there is no level of drive to move the power to 150W? If so, then the datasheet is wrong. The datasheet is wrong. Also, consider the excellent Bryston 4B-SST, which at less than one *hundredth* of the cost of the Wavac, totally destroys it as a high fidelity amplifier. Sure - and I would buy it over that POS. So now you are agreeing that it is a POS? What happen to your statement of not condemning it before you hear it? . Seems like just about everyone agrees that that amp is either broken, or a POS, or ridiculous, or a joke, without listening to it first. And yet those who have listened to it seem to think it is not a POS. Uhh, I believe that even though Mr. Atkinson might not call it a POS exactly, he did use one of the adjectives I provided. Of course, calling something a POS is a rather extreme position for any reviewer to take... And that's why measurements serve important purposes. Pejudicing potential customers? I hope they serve a better purpose than that. Measurements "pejudicing" (sic) customers? That's a new one. No, It's nothing new.( except my unique spelling perhaps) Heck, just look at all the folks that jumped on the band wagon with the very early SS amps of the sixties. Some of them were really quite awful but the meter reasers thought they were the cat's meow based on the measurements. Oh, you meant to say that *inadequate* measurements are not good because they do not reflect the performance of the amp. Now I would trust that Mr. Atkinson has been making good measurements as far as amps are concerned. I guess some might not want facts or real data to get in the way . I certainly wouldn't want it to get in the way or cloud my judgement. I had suspected that some might feel that way... And I thought that the whole point of measurements was to show objectively how a product perform so as to help the potential customer evaluate... I think it ought to be. I think there is some use for smoe measurements for audiophiles such as me. Matching equipment can be made easier via measurements. I'm still going to make my final decisions based on listening though. Even when the measurements clearly tell you how bad it is? |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 05:28:36 GMT, B&D wrote:
On 7/16/04 6:41 PM, in article , "Michael McKelvy" wrote: "B&D" wrote in message news:QQkJc.92602$Oq2.45040@attbi_s52... On 7/14/04 6:33 PM, in article , "Michael McKelvy" wrote: LP compared to CD is objectively inferior in terms of distortion, compression, signal to noise, and all other technical specs related to fidelity. All other specs? Really? *ALL* of them? The important ones AFAIK. The fact is still that in terms of objective performance CD stomps all over LP. It is higher fi. Where I would agree with you is the POTENTIAL of CD is better than that of LP's - but the state of the art in mastering tends to make the CD's much less close to hifi. Absolute nonsense! There are numerous superbly mastered CDs on the market, all of which *grossly* exceed the fidelity of even the very best vinyl. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
#157
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 7/18/2004 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 05:28:36 GMT, B&D wrote: On 7/16/04 6:41 PM, in article , "Michael McKelvy" wrote: "B&D" wrote in message news:QQkJc.92602$Oq2.45040@attbi_s52... On 7/14/04 6:33 PM, in article , "Michael McKelvy" wrote: LP compared to CD is objectively inferior in terms of distortion, compression, signal to noise, and all other technical specs related to fidelity. All other specs? Really? *ALL* of them? The important ones AFAIK. The fact is still that in terms of objective performance CD stomps all over LP. It is higher fi. Where I would agree with you is the POTENTIAL of CD is better than that of LP's - but the state of the art in mastering tends to make the CD's much less close to hifi. Absolute nonsense! There are numerous superbly mastered CDs on the market, all of which *grossly* exceed the fidelity of even the very best vinyl. You might want to check your vinyl rig to make sure everything is working well. I have a few of the very CDs you claim *grossly* exceed the fidelity of even the best vinyl. IME they don't exceed it at all. Some of the CDs you cited were at least competetive with the best vinyl and their vinyl counterparts while some didn't really even contend. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
#159
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
#160
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
B&D wrote:
On 7/18/04 10:33 AM, in article , "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: The important ones AFAIK. The fact is still that in terms of objective performance CD stomps all over LP. It is higher fi. Where I would agree with you is the POTENTIAL of CD is better than that of LP's - but the state of the art in mastering tends to make the CD's much less close to hifi. Absolute nonsense! There are numerous superbly mastered CDs on the market, all of which *grossly* exceed the fidelity of even the very best vinyl. Thanks for the insult. Meant to say "SOTA as praciced" rater than SOTA. We're agreeing. If you say that you prefer some of the mastering done on vinyl, then you are not going to get much disagreement. But you were stating as a fact that SOTA or "SOTA as practiced" is better on vinyl than on CD's. That's absolutely not true. Most new classical recordings are not even available on vinyl. Are you saying that there is no SOTA mastering on classical recordings at all? BTW, classical recordings are where compressions are less likely to be found. If you like jazz, I highly recommend that you check out some of the XRCD titles. Every one I have listened to is superbly mastered. |
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 |