Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121   Report Post  
B&D
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

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.




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

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


That wasn't the point. The point was your comment was insulting to MF.


Only the way you want to interpret it. But we are wasting bandwidth here.

(snip)

Maybe
you really didn't realize it but it was quite insulting. At least I would

have
been insulted by it. No big deal, it happens often on RAHE but an insult is
what it is.






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


"Simply"?

Yes, I said simply.

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

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

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

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

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


So much for those who are more technical helping with technical

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


But you still want to listen to it first in any case, right?


Before I pass *subjective judgement* yes. That isn't the issue here though. The
issue is the power output capacity of the amp. Whether I like the sound or not
is irrelevent.

And why
would you assume that just because you asked the question someone has to
help you answer it?


You don't. Like I said, so much for being helpful.

You have to do some research yourself at some time.

Actually I don't. I could just blow you questions off regarding the WAVAC. I am
trying to answer them.

You know, like actually reading the measurements.


I did. I still don't know the answers to my questions. Oh well.









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

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

If as goFab says, the rated power is 150W/ch and it clips at 2W, it's


broken. It certainly is not working as it's supposed to.

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

You mean as in lying?

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

to
make
that acusation.

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

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

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


I'm trying to figure out just what it is. It would help if my questions

were
answered. They are not rhetorical questions.


Don't you have access to the measurements? Or do you simply not trust them?


I don't see the answer to my questions in them. Do you? If so why not just
answer them? If you don't, then how do you expect me to see them?



For kicks lets
say I was purchasing this amp. Even with my inefficient speakers I would

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

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


Still not answering the questions, oh well. You could have ignored the

issue of
what I consider 'sounding anything like musi' and gone with the first part.

I'd
be expecting SPLs of over 100 db, could this amp produce any sound within a

few
db of that if it clips at 2 watts?


Again, read the measurements!


I did!

(snip)



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

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

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


Here's a problem I am having with this though. When I auditioned a WAVAC
amp
that WAVAC rated at 50 watts it was able to play louder than my Creek
integrated amp that is rated at 20 watts. Now if WAVAC is in the habbit

of
such
gross misrepresentations of power output one has to wonder what the true
output
of 50 watt WAVAC is. Even if it is only doing as well as it's big. very

big
brother it should not be able to play louder than the 20 watt Creek.

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

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

current
speakers that are about 84 db in efficiency?


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







I don't have much of any answer. I'll make the question really simple. Can

a 2
watt amp possibly produce higher maximum SPL than a "competen" SS 20 watt

amp
on the same speakers?


Just read the measurements!


I did. So much for people helping out those who are not as technically
inclined. Your questions will go unanswered until I have mine answered...by
anybody. My answers to all your questions hinge on the answers to my questions.
Oh well.

  #123   Report Post  
B&D
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
B&D
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
B&D
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.



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

From: chung
Date: 7/15/2004 9:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: yiyJc.85463$%_6.53350@attbi_s01

S888Wheel wrote:

From: chung

Date: 7/14/2004 6:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: zTkJc.92323$XM6.7336@attbi_s53

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Dennis Moore"

Date: 7/13/2004 6:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

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

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

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Yes, Mr. Atkinson, you are correct, it doesn't clip at 2w. I was guilty

of
a little hyperbole. Not out of place in this discussion of the $350K

Wavac
I think.

I quite disagree. you had at least one other person convinced that the
manufaturers were lying outright about their product. Mr. Chung ask me

what
else could the claim of 150 watts be other than a lie if it clips at 2
watts.


Let me modify the question to you then: If the rated power is 150 W and
the unit shows 2% distortion at 2 W, 5% distortion at 10 W, is the spec
a lie? If it is not a lie, what is it?


Why modify the question?


Why not,


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?

since the measurements show that the amp does not clip at 2W,
but just shows high level of distortion at that level?

You have now seen the measurements have you not?


I have. Have you?


Yes.


At
what point does the amp actually *clip*? Clearly it is *not* 2 watts as

claimed
by another poster and taken as fact by you and others. It claims in the

review
the manufacturer specifies it's "effective power" is 150 watts. That claim

is
not qualified in any way that I can see.


You mean it has no relation to how power amp outputs are usually stated,
i.e., at a certain level of distortion?


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?"


Effective power should mean useful power.


Whoa. I think "effective power" is enough ambiguity as it is. Why substitute an
undefined term with one of your own meaning? This is simply not fair if we are
asking about the truthfulness of the claim. The manufacturer made the claim so
the manufacturer gets to determine what is meant by the claim. So I think I
asked the most fair question. Can the amp produce this level of wattage in any
form into any speaker. Any wattage will in effect cover any interpretation of
"effective wattage," So my question is fair. If the answer is no then the claim
under any condition is not true.

Is the power amp still useful
if the THD is higher than 5%?


I suppose that would be up to the person using it would it not?

Does anyone consider a power amp useful if
it is outputting basically square waves?

As to whether or not it is a lie I suppose depends on what the
person who claimed the power rating knew and what he or she believes about

what
constitutes "effective power."


So what does effective power mean to you, the audiophile consumer?


It doesn't mean anything to me. So, without clarification I am asking the
question can the amp produce wattage of any kind that measures up to 150 watts
into any kind of real world speaker? I think that is likely to cover any
reasonable interpretation of "effective power."

5%
distortion, or 30% distortion?


A "comptent" nominally rated 2 watt SS amp cannot produe an output of 150 watts
into any speaker can it? Can the WAVAC? Yes or no?


I'd rather know more before I call anyone a
liar.


So an amp has an effective power of 150W, but can only output 15W at 5%
THD. If you don't think that stating effective power this way is not a
lie, then what is it? Don't you think a buyer may expect to actually use
the amp at 150W?


Yes I do. Can a buyer actually get 150 watts out of this amp? Simple question.


after finding out the amp doesn't really clip at 2 watts wouldn't you
rather have all the material facts infront of you before you called anyone

a
liar?


I am actually interested in whether you think it is a lie? And if not,
what is it.


I will not form such a harsh opinion missing information or bad information. I
think it is a serious accusation and I think it is wreckless to make it based
on what I know at the moment.

I clearly believe that it is a gross misrepresentation, or gross
incompetence, or a lie. Probably not a typo, nor an honest mistake.


You also believed it clipped at two watts based on hyperbole at one time. I
prefer to be more measured with my beliefs.








  #127   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
normanstrong
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
B&D
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #133   Report Post  
Bob Marcus
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Michael McKelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Michael McKelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Michael McKelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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 ]
  #141   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Michael McKelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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...



  #147   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.








  #151   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Ban
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #154   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?
  #158   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

From: "Ban"
Date: 7/17/2004 11:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: rnoKc.119468$Oq2.36942@attbi_s52

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.


I suggest you do your homework on that one. They measured amazingly well by the
measurements made in that time. They sounded pretty awful though.

Maybe in those
times a distortion measurement was difficult to execute, but never the less
it would have shown the low level distortion.


They did by the measurements of the day. And they sounded quite bad. And a
great deal of meter reader minded audio jounalists claimed they were quite
sonically superior. Maybe measurement based biases can be a problem when
seeking excellent sound.

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.


Yes. Some people refer to that time as the dark ages of audio. The meter
readers were seen as the voice of authority then. Many say this terrible time
in audio was what lead to the birth of Stereophile.



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.


Hmm so you would put any cartridge on any arm, and any arm /cartridge combo on
any table? You would match any cartridge to any preamp? You would mate any
speaker with any amp? I think the "quacks" are right and you are wrong here.

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.


OK......If you say so. If you say so to your friends will you replace their
damaged equipment?

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Imaging, soundstage, 3D Ban High End Audio 4 February 17th 04 07:18 AM
the emperor's clothes Ben Hoadley High End Audio 33 January 16th 04 06:48 PM
Sound, Music, Balance Robert Trosper High End Audio 1 November 21st 03 05:09 AM
DVI - The Destroyer Of Sound Uptown Audio High End Audio 0 September 10th 03 04:36 PM
Surround Sound for Stereo Lovers Robert Lang High End Audio 5 July 4th 03 08:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:56 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"