Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
Steven Sullivan wrote in message news:e5FTa.130211$ye4.91902@sccrnsc01...
Daniel wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote in message news:zjzTa.126977$N7.18539@sccrnsc03... Daniel wrote: The *only* thing I said about wire is that I don't believe one sounds any better than any other. I'm *beyond* skeptical. I tried different speaker wires, and found no difference, even while using a pair of very revealing B&Ws. I didn't say word one about amps. All I asked -- and which you have edited out -- was for the OP, Steven Sullivan, to tell us in which ads companies made "dubious claims." I wanted more facts, and instead of providing any beyond the link to taralabs.com, he assumed all sorts of things about me and what I do and don't believe. Sorry, it looked to me like you weren't really that interested in reading the ad copy. If I'm goign to do the work of skimming through the ad copy of back issues, I want to know that you really care. IN the meantime, you could just visit the websites of high-end cable manufacterers, one example of which I gave. Another would be www.cardas.com How many examples will you require? I thought it was interesting, and wanted to go through some of my magazines and see what was "dubious." I had hoped SS would provide some examples. He hasn't as of yet, or at least I haven't seen them. I would still like to know. Very well, then, I'll get you some. What will be my reward for my educational efforts, I wonder? I guess my hope was that you'd have other types of equipment -- amps, speakers, CD players -- to tell about. I'm already on your side when it comes to cable and wire. I'm somewhat down on high-end audio as a hobby and, even more, as a way to spend money, and wanted to know about dubious claims in these other areas. OK, I'll specifically look for amp and digital player ads. I haven't seen any crazy speaker ads lately, aside from which, it's possible for speakers to sound very different from each other. If you don't mind, I might also throw in some typically unsupported claims from reviews and editorials. Hey, that'd be great. I mean, don't go to a *huge* amount of trouble, but it would be interesting to see examples of what you were talking about. Thanks. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
Here is an interesting link
http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatur...rphysics2.html KE "Daniel" wrote in message news4XTa.121293$GL4.32412@rwcrnsc53... Steven Sullivan wrote in message news:e5FTa.130211$ye4.91902@sccrnsc01... Daniel wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote in message news:zjzTa.126977$N7.18539@sccrnsc03... Daniel wrote: The *only* thing I said about wire is that I don't believe one sounds any better than any other. I'm *beyond* skeptical. I tried different speaker wires, and found no difference, even while using a pair of very revealing B&Ws. I didn't say word one about amps. All I asked -- and which you have edited out -- was for the OP, Steven Sullivan, to tell us in which ads companies made "dubious claims." I wanted more facts, and instead of providing any beyond the link to taralabs.com, he assumed all sorts of things about me and what I do and don't believe. Sorry, it looked to me like you weren't really that interested in reading the ad copy. If I'm goign to do the work of skimming through the ad copy of back issues, I want to know that you really care. IN the meantime, you could just visit the websites of high-end cable manufacterers, one example of which I gave. Another would be www.cardas.com How many examples will you require? I thought it was interesting, and wanted to go through some of my magazines and see what was "dubious." I had hoped SS would provide some examples. He hasn't as of yet, or at least I haven't seen them. I would still like to know. Very well, then, I'll get you some. What will be my reward for my educational efforts, I wonder? I guess my hope was that you'd have other types of equipment -- amps, speakers, CD players -- to tell about. I'm already on your side when it comes to cable and wire. I'm somewhat down on high-end audio as a hobby and, even more, as a way to spend money, and wanted to know about dubious claims in these other areas. OK, I'll specifically look for amp and digital player ads. I haven't seen any crazy speaker ads lately, aside from which, it's possible for speakers to sound very different from each other. If you don't mind, I might also throw in some typically unsupported claims from reviews and editorials. Hey, that'd be great. I mean, don't go to a *huge* amount of trouble, but it would be interesting to see examples of what you were talking about. Thanks. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
Pinkerton said
The trick is to ignore the specs (and the price tag) and actually *listen* under controlled conditions, whereupon you discover that most halfway decent amps actually *do* sound the same. I said Most but not all? depending on your definition of a "halfway decent amp" that may be a different claim than what Nousaine claims. I am curious, do you think the differences you have heard in your controled listening tests were actual differences or do you think that Nousaine's position that such amps are all identicial in sound is not entirely accurate? Steven said That's not Nousaine's position, AFAICT. He specifies nominal competency (which means it would measure well), operation within the amp's limits, a normally reverberant listening environment (which perhaps rules out headphones), as conditions under which amps sound the same. Was it not obvious that when I said "depending on your definition of 'halfway decent amp'" that this was what I meant? Steven said He may also be referring to musical/complext material, rather than test tones; I don't recall. My recollection is that he is reffering to what he deems as competently designed and built amps playing speakers in a nominally reverberant room whatever such a room may be. The room bit was added to the list of conditions fairly recently so it seems. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
On 24 Jul 2003 14:45:43 GMT, "All Ears" wrote:
There seems to be a problem in the way that we measure or rate the measurements, today. What do you mean "we?" Whuch "we" are YOU talkign about. If you mean the way the popular press "measures", maybe. If you mean the way manufacturers "maesure, then you simply don't understand why the measure the way theu do: it's to sell equipment. Otherwise, why would equipment with similar specifications sound different? "Specifications" ARE NOT MEASUREMENTS! When will people in this business grasp that concept? I can find two units with IDENTICAL specification that measure VASTLY differently. That pretty much throws a monkey wrench in your basic premise, doesn't it? Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners will claim they sound identical. What does THAT do to your "theory?" The point being is you are erroneously equating "specifications" and "measurements," and you are further implicitly assuming that the data often presented in specifications is, indeed, a complete or even sufficient set of data for a unit. That notion is prepostreously wrong, and it is from that wrong premise that the rest of your arguments proceed. Beyond that, you make your statement: "equipment with similar specifications sound different" as if it is axiomatic. It assuredly is not. It is an assertion an, as such, is subject to challenge, testing and verification. Where is such that supports the assertion? With regard to cables, I am not speaking of poor connections, even if the connections are good, but the cables are oxidized, it will give a noticeable harsh sound. Agin, you make the assertion as if simply making it is proof of its correctness. Support that assertion, if you please, with some facts. Why would oxidization on the surface of a cable cause such an effect? [hint: if you're inclined to use arguuments like 'microdiodes' or "strand-jumping'" or such, don't" they're nonses] Anyway, a good quality speaker cable will sound a lot better than a lamp cord, even in a blind test. Those who cannot hear this, are probably not comparing the right speaker cable to the lamp cord. Again, nothing more than an opinion, and, as yet, one completely unsupported by any facts. -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily
find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners will claim they sound identical. What does THAT do to your "theory?" I know of a few retailers that say otherwise. One time I was told that if you hear a particular amp from one particular manufacturer that you like that you should buy that unit. the rest will sound different. One should be careful not to build arguments on shakey premises. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
I questioned Nousaine's dubious claim that he'd been contacted for
advice by an attorney regarding a possible class action suit against cable manufacturers. Steven Sullivan answers: LOL..you live in the UK, yes? Perhaps you aren't aware of just how litigious things can get over here in the colonies. I live in the U.S. Nousaine's claim lacked any names or proof. Neither can anyone name a victim, nor answer the question of why an attorney would call Nousaine for an opinion as to whether cable advertising is - to use Nousaine's word - "actionable". Absent some proof, it sounds like pure fiction. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
S888Wheel wrote:
Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners will claim they sound identical. What does THAT do to your "theory?" I know of a few retailers that say otherwise. One time I was told that if you hear a particular amp from one particular manufacturer that you like that you should buy that unit. the rest will sound different. How does that contradict what Dick was saying? Of course there are manufacturers who cannot produce amps with consistency (like SET's that employ no global feedback so that the performance is a strict function of the tubes and the bias adjustments, etc.). And BTW, would you trust the opinion of "a few retailers", or someone like Dick Pierce who has been an engineer and a designer for decades? One should be careful not to build arguments on shakey premises. This seems to describe your position. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
C. Leeds wrote:
I questioned Nousaine's dubious claim that he'd been contacted for advice by an attorney regarding a possible class action suit against cable manufacturers. Steven Sullivan answers: LOL..you live in the UK, yes? Perhaps you aren't aware of just how litigious things can get over here in the colonies. I live in the U.S. Ah, my mistake, sorry. So, you haven't heard of class action suits for trivial reasons? Nousaine's claim lacked any names or proof. Neither can anyone name a victim, nor answer the question of why an attorney would call Nousaine for an opinion as to whether cable advertising is - to use Nousaine's word - "actionable". Absent some proof, it sounds like pure fiction. Absent proof, Tom's story sounds *possible* to me. And more likely true than , say, the average claim of 'amazing difference' between the way cables sound. -- -S. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
Dick said
S888Wheel wrote: Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners will claim they sound identical. What does THAT do to your "theory?" I said I know of a few retailers that say otherwise. One time I was told that if you hear a particular amp from one particular manufacturer that you like that you should buy that unit. the rest will sound different. Mr. Chung said How does that contradict what Dick was saying? Isn't it obvious? He said "expert" listeners will claim that amps of the same model will claim they sound identical. That is not always the case. Mr. Chung said Of course there are manufacturers who cannot produce amps with consistency (like SET's that employ no global feedback so that the performance is a strict function of the tubes and the bias adjustments, etc.). Fine but not what I was talking about. The amps in question were solid state from a highly reputable manufacturer. Mr. Chung said And BTW, would you trust the opinion of "a few retailers", or someone like Dick Pierce who has been an engineer and a designer for decades? I trust their honesty but I do not rely on their opinions. That isn't the issue however. the issue for me was an argument was being built on a flawed premise. Whether or not I trust the opinions of those particular retailer does not in any way affect the fact that they have them and that contradicts Dick's premise. I have no doubt that many audiophiles think amps of the same model sound the same but clearly some believe there are sonic variations within the same models of certain amps as well. I think Dick has made a hasty generaization. that is all. I said One should be careful not to build arguments on shakey premises. Mr. Chung said This seems to describe your position. I think you are wrong for reasons stated above. Maybe you can cite the shakey premise I have used in my argument. |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
In article ,
All Ears wrote: I admit that it was meant partly as a provocation. However the subject is interesting to me. There seems to be a problem in the way that we measure or rate the measurements, today. No, the problem is the high-end realm, the hi-fi popular press, and, to be honesty, sales types who insist on a simple set of single-value "figures of merit" numbers that people ASSUME constitute complete "measurements." These are numbers like damping factor, THD, S/N, "frequency response" and all the common sets of numbers. I have no argument that this paltry set of numbers is absolutely useless as indicators of audibility, but they hardly constitute the full range of available technical measurements that are available. Face it, the high-end audio industry is DECADES behind behind the state of the art in many areas, and this is just one example. I'm not going to give a tutorial on the current range of available measurements, because it is a vast topic, but the information is their for anyone interested in getting off their duff and looking for it. Otherwise, why would equipment with similar specifications sound different? I answered this elsewhere, but, again, you make several bold but unsupported assumptions: 1. That the "specifications" canstitute a large enough subset of available measurements to be meaningful, 2. That "similar" means the same as "indentical" in the sense that you discount ANY differences that would make something similar as unimportant, 3. That they do, indeed, sound different. The first two are not only unsupported, they are unsupportable. The third remains unsupported until you or whoever is claiming that there is a difference can show that such a difference is due to the sound produced by the units under question. YOu haven't done that at all. I will also question the value of double blind tests, in connection to audio equipment. This is because that any kind of pressure or stress to the test persons, will affect the perception of the sound presented. That's your assertion, where's the support of it. Your argument, as above, suffers from several flaws: 1. You claim that such tests induce undue stress. Where's the support for this claim? 2. You claim that the stress influences the perception. Where's the support for your claim? And if someone makes a claim about the ability to hear a difference, THEY HAVE ALREADY INTRODUCED THE BASIS OF THE STRESS IN MAKING THE CLAIM, it could be argued. They have put their opinion on the line. If a "test" exacerbates the stress, it may well be because the subject now has doubts as to whether the original claim is uspportable. I also doubt that you understand what is meant by "double blind testing." Certainly the arguments you see in this forum where people cite problems with "listening to quick snipets" or "the test is not under the user's control" or "the subject can't listen to material he is familiar with" and more are all indication thatv those making the arguments really haven't got the faintest clue as to what they are talking about. The definition of "double blind" is very simple, neither the listener nor the administrator of the test has any indication OTHER THAN THE CSOUND OF THE UNIT what unit they are listening to. That's it. Very simple. It DOES NOT include any of the myths and untruths members of the high-end community commonly raise.. I would think that it would be much more interesting to collect statistical material, like letting a fairly large amount of people (one by one, or in small groups) listen to different equipment, in a relaxed atmosphere. And, how is such excluded by double blind testing? (hint: IT ISN'T) To get a good reference point, I would suggest using a live concert piano, in a separate room with a microphone, feeding the signal to the equipment in the other rooms. That's been done. And the results, I suspect, are not to your liking because they may well not fit your preconceived notion of what the results SHOULD be. That's the entire point behind careful protocol design: it removes the influence of everything BUT the sound form the experiment. It removes the influence of preconceived notions and the like. -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
S888Wheel wrote:
Dick said S888Wheel wrote: Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners will claim they sound identical. What does THAT do to your "theory?" I said I know of a few retailers that say otherwise. One time I was told that if you hear a particular amp from one particular manufacturer that you like that you should buy that unit. the rest will sound different. Mr. Chung said How does that contradict what Dick was saying? Isn't it obvious? He said "expert" listeners will claim that amps of the same model will claim they sound identical. That is not always the case. Please read carefully, that's not what Dick was saying. Dick was saying that there are some measureable differences that "expert listeners" cannot detect. He did not say anything about amps of the same model, or that expert listeners would always say two amps of the same model sound the same. Those are your erroneous extrapolations. What Dick was saying is that some differences in equipment are measureable, but not perceivable via listening for most people. What your "few retailers" are saying is that there are companies who make products that have the same specs, being the same model, but have perceivable differences in performance. That is not unusual since those products may actually measure very differently, if the quality control is poor. There is no contradiction between what Dick said and what your retailers said. What Dick was also stressing was the fact that specs of an audio product do not necessarily predict actual performance. It is easy to find products that have same specs with different measurement results, although those differences may not be audible. For instance, an amp may spec a -3dB frequency of 20KHz. I may find two amps of that model, one with a 36KHz -3dB point, and one with a 18KHz -3dB point. The mesasurements are clearly different, right? But an expert listener may still not be able to tell these two apart in a listening test. Mr. Chung said Of course there are manufacturers who cannot produce amps with consistency (like SET's that employ no global feedback so that the performance is a strict function of the tubes and the bias adjustments, etc.). Fine but not what I was talking about. The amps in question were solid state from a highly reputable manufacturer. First, you did not specify highly reputable manufacturers before. BTW, "highly reputable" by whose standards? Your retailers'? Second, how do you know that those "highly reputable" manufacturers have excellent quality control? In fact, if they are indeed highly reputable, why would different units of the same model sound different? By definition, if the manufacturer cannot make a product consistently, it should not be "highly reputable". Mr. Chung said And BTW, would you trust the opinion of "a few retailers", or someone like Dick Pierce who has been an engineer and a designer for decades? I trust their honesty but I do not rely on their opinions. That isn't the issue however. the issue for me was an argument was being built on a flawed premise. Whether or not I trust the opinions of those particular retailer does not in any way affect the fact that they have them and that contradicts Dick's premise. I have no doubt that many audiophiles think amps of the same model sound the same but clearly some believe there are sonic variations within the same models of certain amps as well. I think Dick has made a hasty generaization. that is all. You don't understand Dick's "generalization" now, do you? Dick was saying that differences can be measureable by instruments and yet be not perceivable by some, if not all, people. Why is this a hasty generalization? Don't we all know that instruments can be much more sensitive than human hearing? Seems to me you are the only who is drawing a hasty conclusion. I said One should be careful not to build arguments on shakey premises. Mr. Chung said This seems to describe your position. I think you are wrong for reasons stated above. Maybe you can cite the shakey premise I have used in my argument. The shaky premise you used is not understanding what Dick was saying. What exactly do you think was Dick's premise, BTW? |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard D Pierce" Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 9:53 AM Subject: Ears vs. Instruments In article , All Ears wrote: I admit that it was meant partly as a provocation. However the subject is interesting to me. There seems to be a problem in the way that we measure or rate the measurements, today. No, the problem is the high-end realm, the hi-fi popular press, and, to be honesty, sales types who insist on a simple set of single-value "figures of merit" numbers that people ASSUME constitute complete "measurements." These are numbers like damping factor, THD, S/N, "frequency response" and all the common sets of numbers. I have no argument that this paltry set of numbers is absolutely useless as indicators of audibility, but they hardly constitute the full range of available technical measurements that are available. That is what I meant by what is "commenly" rated as being important measurements. From these parameters it is impossible for me to explain why a modern OTL tube amplifier is able to perform the way it does, I haven't heard anything that even comes close in sonic performance, with the right speakers. We are not talking lush tube sound here, but fast like a bat out of hell, deep well articulated bass and a reproduction of voices and acoustic instruments like nothing I have heard before. Face it, the high-end audio industry is DECADES behind behind the state of the art in many areas, and this is just one example. I'm not going to give a tutorial on the current range of available measurements, because it is a vast topic, but the information is their for anyone interested in getting off their duff and looking for it. I would be very interested in your findings of really relevant measurements. Another thing I do feel is needed, is some sort of industry standard in audio reproduction, that goes all the way from the recording studio to the manufactures of audio equipment. I think this would make it a lot easier to set the appropriate design goals. Otherwise, why would equipment with similar specifications sound different? I answered this elsewhere, but, again, you make several bold but unsupported assumptions: 1. That the "specifications" canstitute a large enough subset of available measurements to be meaningful, 2. That "similar" means the same as "indentical" in the sense that you discount ANY differences that would make something similar as unimportant, 3. That they do, indeed, sound different. The first two are not only unsupported, they are unsupportable. The third remains unsupported until you or whoever is claiming that there is a difference can show that such a difference is due to the sound produced by the units under question. YOu haven't done that at all. Sorry for mixing up specifications and measurements, as you say yourself, there are more relevant measurements, than what are used as marketing arguments today (right?) I will also question the value of double blind tests, in connection to audio equipment. This is because that any kind of pressure or stress to the test persons, will affect the perception of the sound presented. That's your assertion, where's the support of it. Your argument, as above, suffers from several flaws: 1. You claim that such tests induce undue stress. Where's the support for this claim? 2. You claim that the stress influences the perception. Where's the support for your claim? Personally, I find it difficult to enjoy listening to music, unless there is the necessery atmosphere to relax. And if someone makes a claim about the ability to hear a difference, THEY HAVE ALREADY INTRODUCED THE BASIS OF THE STRESS IN MAKING THE CLAIM, it could be argued. They have put their opinion on the line. If a "test" exacerbates the stress, it may well be because the subject now has doubts as to whether the original claim is uspportable. I try to keep an open mind, and are not stoubernly defending any specific ideals, brands etc. I listen to a lot of different equipment and music, and makes my personal experiences from this. This is not a universal truth, and other ears or measuring instruments may have another opinion. We must also bare in mind that there are different "generic" listening types, who all focus on their specific areas of the sound image. I also doubt that you understand what is meant by "double blind testing." Certainly the arguments you see in this forum where people cite problems with "listening to quick snipets" or "the test is not under the user's control" or "the subject can't listen to material he is familiar with" and more are all indication thatv those making the arguments really haven't got the faintest clue as to what they are talking about. The definition of "double blind" is very simple, neither the listener nor the administrator of the test has any indication OTHER THAN THE CSOUND OF THE UNIT what unit they are listening to. That's it. Very simple. It DOES NOT include any of the myths and untruths members of the high-end community commonly raise.. I would think that it would be much more interesting to collect statistical material, like letting a fairly large amount of people (one by one, or in small groups) listen to different equipment, in a relaxed atmosphere. And, how is such excluded by double blind testing? (hint: IT ISN'T) To get a good reference point, I would suggest using a live concert piano, in a separate room with a microphone, feeding the signal to the equipment in the other rooms. That's been done. And the results, I suspect, are not to your liking because they may well not fit your preconceived notion of what the results SHOULD be. That's the entire point behind careful protocol design: it removes the influence of everything BUT the sound form the experiment. It removes the influence of preconceived notions and the like. As stated before, I try not to have any preconceived opinions, but to keep an open mind to what I hear, and I do not go with my first opinion, I often swap equipment back and forth, to verify my findings. The goal for me, is to find pleasure in listening to music, if I find that a mass loading puck, ERS material or a specific cable to increase my listening pleasure, I'll use it. Not saying that I am not interested in finding out why this particular component apears to be working for me, but I don't see why I should retain myself from using it, if I find it useful. KE -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
In article ,
All Ears wrote: No, the problem is the high-end realm, the hi-fi popular press, and, to be honesty, sales types who insist on a simple set of single-value "figures of merit" numbers that people ASSUME constitute complete "measurements." These are numbers like damping factor, THD, S/N, "frequency response" and all the common sets of numbers. I have no argument that this paltry set of numbers is absolutely useless as indicators of audibility, but they hardly constitute the full range of available technical measurements that are available. That is what I meant by what is "commenly" rated as being important measurements. From these parameters it is impossible for me to explain why a modern OTL tube amplifier is able to perform the way it does, I haven't heard anything that even comes close in sonic performance, with the right speakers. We are not talking lush tube sound here, but fast like a bat out of hell, deep well articulated bass and a reproduction of voices and acoustic instruments like nothing I have heard before. If, by "OTL tube amplifier" your mean a transformerless output, then, my goodness, the measurable differences between this type of amplifier and, say, any given solid state amplifier when driving the same loudspeaker are ENORMOUS, simply because of the substantially higher output impedance of the OTL amplifier. That difference, again when measured with specific speaker loads, leads to a HUGE difference in the frequency response of the system. I'm not talking a quarter dB here or there, I'm talking about MANY dB of difference. Just that difference alone is hugely audible and I would not be the least suprised to find that, in fact, the "specs" of such an amplifier, when measured in situ, are unlike any other amplifier around. So, one point of your basic premise is immediately falsified: an tube OTL amplifier CANNOT have the same simple measurements like frequency response: they simply cannot. Thus, claiming that two amplifiers, one OTL, one solid state have similar specs but sound different falls apart simply because they don't behave even remotely similarily. Let's look at the details: it is not uncommon for these sorts of amplifiers to have output impedances measuring several ohms. That's a substantial part of the impedance of the load and, worse, that load varies over a wide range in a frequency dependent fashion. It is not in the least uncommon to see a speaker impedance vary from a low of 6 ohms (in the upper midbass) to a high of 15 ohms (around the crossover point) to a high of 40 ohms (at the low frequency system resonance. With an output impedance of, say, 5 ohms, the raw frequency response of the amplifier/speaker SYSTEM is now going to be altered due to this variable attenuation ratio. At the high point of 40 ohms, the attenuation will be 40/(40+5) or about 1 dB, at the midrange impedance peak of 15 ohms, it will be 15/(15+5) or 2.5 dB, while at it's low point of 6 ohms, the attenuation will be 6/(6+5) or 5.3 dB. Now, what we end up with is an amplifier which, when used with a given speaker, will introduce frequency response variations over a 4.3 dB range, just like adding a graphic equalizer and kicking the bass up a bit, pulling the 200 Hz region down about 4 dB, and giving a midrange a boost, and so on, comapred to hooking the same speaker up to a sommon solid state or even transformer coupled tube amplifier. The specs ARE NOT the same, and not un any subtle way, but rather in a very GROSS, trivially measurable way. And this may well not be the only difference: such an output impedance is MORE than enough to substantially reduce the damping of the entire amplifier/speaker system, possibly DOUBLING its Qt at resonance, which could intriduce ANOTHER 3 dB of frequency respose error all by itself. You have a system which has frequency response differences approaching +-4 dB compared to a driving it with a solid state or even transroemr coupled tube a,mplifier with appropriate feedback. With this information in hand, that the OTL amplifier introduces frequency response variations ranging over +-4 dB compared to a sommon solid state amplifier, how can you say they meaure the same? They clearly cannot and DO not. I would be very interested in your findings of really relevant measurements. Well, here's a perfect example: the performance of an amplifier in situ: when driving a speaker, this amplifier performs WILDLY different in non-subtle ways then the manufacturer specs it, or at least as you understand the manufacturer specs it. And such an amplifier is going to perform RADICALLY different with each different speaker that's attached to it. Now, the high-end pundits, the magazine wonks and all the rest will claim this is some magical property of "treansparency." "Look," they intone, "this amplifier reveals the differences between speakers more than any other: it must, therefore, be MOST transparent." In fact, such a notion is at best naively wrong: by designing an amplifier with such a radically high output impedance, the designer has violated the basic operating assumptions of how speaker are supposed to work: driven from voltage sources, NOT current sources. In other words, plain and simple, such amplifiers are introducing FREQUENCY RESPONSE AND DAMPING ERRORS. You may prefer the results of those errors, but they are response errors thatw er NOT intended by the speaker manufacturer, any more than the speaker manufacturer intended you to start re-equalizing them on your own. An OTL amplifier used under these conditions is behaving just like a high-power equalizer, except it doesn't come with a "cancel" switch. You may not like to entertain the notion that you prefer having an equalizer in your system, but that is, in it's technical essence, EXACTLY what you have. Another thing I do feel is needed, is some sort of industry standard in audio reproduction, that goes all the way from the recording studio to the manufactures of audio equipment. I think this would make it a lot easier to set the appropriate design goals. There are such standards, though there is not an all- encompassing standard for the entire chain (the AES has 40 some standards, the ISO has the entire realm of 60268, for example), but, to be frank with you, THE most egregious violators of these standard is, in fact, the high-end audion industry, ESPECIALLY when it comes to realistic comparable performance specifications. Sorry for mixing up specifications and measurements, as you say yourself, there are more relevant measurements, than what are used as marketing arguments today (right?) Indeed, especially in the high-end audio industry. Your OTL amplifier is one such glaring example. 1. You claim that such tests induce undue stress. Where's the support for this claim? 2. You claim that the stress influences the perception. Where's the support for your claim? Personally, I find it difficult to enjoy listening to music, unless there is the necessery atmosphere to relax. And why is simply eliminating the direct knowledge of what equipment is playing a hindernace to relaxation? If you HAVE to know that you are listening to your OTL amplifier in order to relax, guess, what: YOUR ENJOYMENT ISN'T ABOUT SOUND, IT'S ABOUT BRAND NAMES! And if someone makes a claim about the ability to hear a difference, THEY HAVE ALREADY INTRODUCED THE BASIS OF THE STRESS IN MAKING THE CLAIM, it could be argued. They have put their opinion on the line. If a "test" exacerbates the stress, it may well be because the subject now has doubts as to whether the original claim is uspportable. I try to keep an open mind, and are not stoubernly defending any specific ideals, brands etc. But if you HAVE to know what the brand is to relax, which is one implication of your staement above, then you are NOT keeping an open mind. an open mind to what I hear, and I do not go with my first opinion, I often swap equipment back and forth, to verify my findings. The goal for me, is to find pleasure in listening to music, if I find that a mass loading puck, ERS material or a specific cable to increase my listening pleasure, I'll use it. All that double blind is asking is that you detect the difference BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE. That's all. Thus, if you think that a mass loading puck is going to make a difference and YOU are interested in seeing if this is the case, all that blind testing is asking is that you see if you can HEAR the difference BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE. Why is that stressful? -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
Dick said
Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners will claim they sound identical. What does THAT do to your "theory?" I said I know of a few retailers that say otherwise. One time I was told that if you hear a particular amp from one particular manufacturer that you like that you should buy that unit. the rest will sound different. Mr. Chung said How does that contradict what Dick was saying? I said Isn't it obvious? He said "expert" listeners will claim that amps of the same model will claim they sound identical. That is not always the case. Mr. Chung said Please read carefully, that's not what Dick was saying. Dick was saying Here is the quote..."Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners will claim they sound identical " I think it is pretty clear that it is exactly what he is saying. Mr. Chung said Dick was saying that there are some measureable differences that "expert listeners" cannot detect. I suggest you take your own advice and read the quote above carefully. Mr. Chung said cannot detect. He did not say anything about amps of the same model, or that expert listeners would always say two amps of the same model sound the same. I suggest you read the quote and take your own advice . "Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners will claim they sound identical " I think it is pretty clear that it is exactly what he is saying. Mr. Chung said Those are your erroneous extrapolations. They are quotes. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
S888Wheel wrote:
Here is the quote..."Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners will claim they sound identical " I think it is pretty clear that it is exactly what he is saying. What exactly do you think Dick was saying? Dick was *not* saying that all expert listeners will find that all models of a given amplifier will sound the same. Dick was saying that there are some measureable differences between audio equipment of the same model that cannot be detected by "expert" listeners. (I even provided you an example of such differences in the last post.) Dick was saying that he can find two units of the same model that have measureable differences that cannot be differentiated by expert listeners. He was *not* saying that *all* units that measure differently will sound the same to expert listeners. It should be obvious that some measureable differences are hard to detect, and of course, some are very easy to detect via listening. Dick was *not* saying that *all* measureable differences are hard to detect. Dick also made the point that specs are not measurements, and that similar specs do not necessarily lead to similar measurements, since specs are a small subset of possible measurements. Different units of the same model of equipment may have identical specs and yet measure differently, and *some* (NOT necessarily ALL) of those differences are not detectible by expert listeners. What your retailers were saying was that there are amps of the same model that sound different. Ignoring the veracity of that statement for the purpose of this discussion, why do you think it contradicts what Dick was saying? Dick never said that all amps of the same model will sound the same. He only said that there are some differences in some models that are measureable and yet not detectible via listening. Got it? |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
On 26 Jul 2003 15:06:32 GMT, "All Ears" wrote:
That is what I meant by what is "commenly" rated as being important measurements. From these parameters it is impossible for me to explain why a modern OTL tube amplifier is able to perform the way it does, I haven't heard anything that even comes close in sonic performance, with the right speakers. We are not talking lush tube sound here, but fast like a bat out of hell, deep well articulated bass and a reproduction of voices and acoustic instruments like nothing I have heard before. Actually, that's exactly the same result that you'll get from any halfway decent solid-state amp, at around a fifth of the price, and no need to replace the active devices every couple of years........... Of course, if you choose the tubed OTL amp, you also need to ensure that the speakers have a flat impedance curve, because otherwise the sonic differences will be far from subtle. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
"Richard D Pierce" wrote in message
... In article , All Ears wrote: No, the problem is the high-end realm, the hi-fi popular press, and, to be honesty, sales types who insist on a simple set of single-value "figures of merit" numbers that people ASSUME constitute complete "measurements." These are numbers like damping factor, THD, S/N, "frequency response" and all the common sets of numbers. I have no argument that this paltry set of numbers is absolutely useless as indicators of audibility, but they hardly constitute the full range of available technical measurements that are available. That is what I meant by what is "commenly" rated as being important measurements. From these parameters it is impossible for me to explain why a modern OTL tube amplifier is able to perform the way it does, I haven't heard anything that even comes close in sonic performance, with the right speakers. We are not talking lush tube sound here, but fast like a bat out of hell, deep well articulated bass and a reproduction of voices and acoustic instruments like nothing I have heard before. If, by "OTL tube amplifier" your mean a transformerless output, then, my goodness, the measurable differences between this type of amplifier and, say, any given solid state amplifier when driving the same loudspeaker are ENORMOUS, simply because of the substantially higher output impedance of the OTL amplifier. That difference, again when measured with specific speaker loads, leads to a HUGE difference in the frequency response of the system. I'm not talking a quarter dB here or there, I'm talking about MANY dB of difference. Just that difference alone is hugely audible and I would not be the least suprised to find that, in fact, the "specs" of such an amplifier, when measured in situ, are unlike any other amplifier around. So, one point of your basic premise is immediately falsified: an tube OTL amplifier CANNOT have the same simple measurements like frequency response: they simply cannot. Thus, claiming that two amplifiers, one OTL, one solid state have similar specs but sound different falls apart simply because they don't behave even remotely similarily. Let's look at the details: it is not uncommon for these sorts of amplifiers to have output impedances measuring several ohms. That's a substantial part of the impedance of the load and, worse, that load varies over a wide range in a frequency dependent fashion. It is not in the least uncommon to see a speaker impedance vary from a low of 6 ohms (in the upper midbass) to a high of 15 ohms (around the crossover point) to a high of 40 ohms (at the low frequency system resonance. With an output impedance of, say, 5 ohms, the raw frequency response of the amplifier/speaker SYSTEM is now going to be altered due to this variable attenuation ratio. At the high point of 40 ohms, the attenuation will be 40/(40+5) or about 1 dB, at the midrange impedance peak of 15 ohms, it will be 15/(15+5) or 2.5 dB, while at it's low point of 6 ohms, the attenuation will be 6/(6+5) or 5.3 dB. Now, what we end up with is an amplifier which, when used with a given speaker, will introduce frequency response variations over a 4.3 dB range, just like adding a graphic equalizer and kicking the bass up a bit, pulling the 200 Hz region down about 4 dB, and giving a midrange a boost, and so on, comapred to hooking the same speaker up to a sommon solid state or even transformer coupled tube amplifier. The specs ARE NOT the same, and not un any subtle way, but rather in a very GROSS, trivially measurable way. And this may well not be the only difference: such an output impedance is MORE than enough to substantially reduce the damping of the entire amplifier/speaker system, possibly DOUBLING its Qt at resonance, which could intriduce ANOTHER 3 dB of frequency respose error all by itself. You have a system which has frequency response differences approaching +-4 dB compared to a driving it with a solid state or even transroemr coupled tube a,mplifier with appropriate feedback. With this information in hand, that the OTL amplifier introduces frequency response variations ranging over +-4 dB compared to a sommon solid state amplifier, how can you say they meaure the same? They clearly cannot and DO not. I do not disagree with what you are saying, but if this was the real audible truth, these amplifiers should sound really bad and unnatural, the point is, they are not, even compared to very good solid state amplifiers. As I said, acoustic instruments (also bass) and voices are the most realistic reproduced I have heard so far! I would be very interested in your findings of really relevant measurements. Well, here's a perfect example: the performance of an amplifier in situ: when driving a speaker, this amplifier performs WILDLY different in non-subtle ways then the manufacturer specs it, or at least as you understand the manufacturer specs it. And such an amplifier is going to perform RADICALLY different with each different speaker that's attached to it. Now, the high-end pundits, the magazine wonks and all the rest will claim this is some magical property of "treansparency." "Look," they intone, "this amplifier reveals the differences between speakers more than any other: it must, therefore, be MOST transparent." In fact, such a notion is at best naively wrong: by designing an amplifier with such a radically high output impedance, the designer has violated the basic operating assumptions of how speaker are supposed to work: driven from voltage sources, NOT current sources. In other words, plain and simple, such amplifiers are introducing FREQUENCY RESPONSE AND DAMPING ERRORS. You may prefer the results of those errors, but they are response errors thatw er NOT intended by the speaker manufacturer, any more than the speaker manufacturer intended you to start re-equalizing them on your own. An OTL amplifier used under these conditions is behaving just like a high-power equalizer, except it doesn't come with a "cancel" switch. You may not like to entertain the notion that you prefer having an equalizer in your system, but that is, in it's technical essence, EXACTLY what you have. Actually, the speakers I use are all designed by tube lovers, furthermore, the only speaker design that will act in a close to linear way to a voltage source, are one way speakers or headphones. All the rest are compromises. A speaker reacts in a quite linear way to the current you put into it, not the voltage. There are ways of compensating, I know, but again, it is a compromise. I'll get some solid state current amplifiers next week, this will be interesting...... Another thing I do feel is needed, is some sort of industry standard in audio reproduction, that goes all the way from the recording studio to the manufactures of audio equipment. I think this would make it a lot easier to set the appropriate design goals. There are such standards, though there is not an all- encompassing standard for the entire chain (the AES has 40 some standards, the ISO has the entire realm of 60268, for example), but, to be frank with you, THE most egregious violators of these standard is, in fact, the high-end audion industry, ESPECIALLY when it comes to realistic comparable performance specifications. It would be an interesting goal to persue, to get one useful standard for the entire chain. Sorry for mixing up specifications and measurements, as you say yourself, there are more relevant measurements, than what are used as marketing arguments today (right?) Indeed, especially in the high-end audio industry. Your OTL amplifier is one such glaring example. There are almost no specifications available for the OTL's, since they would not give an objective idea of the end result. 1. You claim that such tests induce undue stress. Where's the support for this claim? 2. You claim that the stress influences the perception. Where's the support for your claim? Personally, I find it difficult to enjoy listening to music, unless there is the necessery atmosphere to relax. And why is simply eliminating the direct knowledge of what equipment is playing a hindernace to relaxation? If you HAVE to know that you are listening to your OTL amplifier in order to relax, guess, what: YOUR ENJOYMENT ISN'T ABOUT SOUND, IT'S ABOUT BRAND NAMES! Absolutely nonsence, I have plenty of other good equipment worthy of serious listening. I had no idea that the OTL's were this good, before I actually listened to them. Actually, I would REALLY wish that I could get the same listening pleasure from a solid state amplifier. This would save me the trouble to bios and also save quite a lot of energy. And if someone makes a claim about the ability to hear a difference, THEY HAVE ALREADY INTRODUCED THE BASIS OF THE STRESS IN MAKING THE CLAIM, it could be argued. They have put their opinion on the line. If a "test" exacerbates the stress, it may well be because the subject now has doubts as to whether the original claim is uspportable. I try to keep an open mind, and are not stoubernly defending any specific ideals, brands etc. But if you HAVE to know what the brand is to relax, which is one implication of your staement above, then you are NOT keeping an open mind. Again, I could not care less about the brand, I only care about enjoying music the best I can. an open mind to what I hear, and I do not go with my first opinion, I often swap equipment back and forth, to verify my findings. The goal for me, is to find pleasure in listening to music, if I find that a mass loading puck, ERS material or a specific cable to increase my listening pleasure, I'll use it. All that double blind is asking is that you detect the difference BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE. That's all. Thus, if you think that a mass loading puck is going to make a difference and YOU are interested in seeing if this is the case, all that blind testing is asking is that you see if you can HEAR the difference BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE. If you "know" there is no difference in the sound, would it be likely that you would actually hear it? Even, if my imagination only, can change a sound image from being harsh, to being pleasing, why not use this tweak? Why is that stressful? A test situation is stressful to many people, not all, but many. The real challenge is to find a way to do this, to a large number of people, in way that would not be "test like" but more in an amusing or relaxing way. KE -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
I said
Here is the quote..."Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners will claim they sound identical " I think it is pretty clear that it is exactly what he is saying. Mr. Chung said What exactly do you think Dick was saying? I think he was saying.."Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners wil claim they sound identical " Mr. Chung said Dick was *not* saying that all expert listeners will find that all models of a given amplifier will sound the same. I didn't say he said that. Mr. Chung said Dick was saying that there are some measureable differences between audio equipment of the same model that cannot be detected by "expert" No, he definitely did not say that in this quote. He talked about claims not about what can or cannot be heard. I am confident that Dick does not believe that claims of what can and cannot be heard are not always the same as what can and cannot actually be heard. Mr. Chung said Dick was saying that he can find two units of the same model that have measureable differences that cannot be differentiated by expert listeners. Again that is not what he was saying. Mr. Chung said He was *not* saying that *all* units that measure differently will sound the same to expert listeners. Nor did I say he was saying that. Mr. Chung said It should be obvious that some measureable differences are hard to detect, and of course, some are very easy to detect via listening. While I suspect this is quite true it is also quite irrelevent to the issue. Mr. Chung said Dick was *not* saying that *all* measureable differences are hard to detect. There were a lot of things he didn't say. I don't think you got the point of what he did say. He was attacking the "claims" of the "experts" based on a false premise that these "experts" claim to hear differences between amps of different models but "claim" to not hear differences of different units of the same model even though they measure differently. I simply pointed out that the group of listeners he was trying to discredit did not always follow the premise he laid down for his argument. He was building his attack on a manufactured stereotype. It seems you didn't get that. Mr. Chung said Dick also made the point that specs are not measurements, and that similar specs do not necessarily lead to similar measurements, since specs are a small subset of possible measurements. Different units of the same model of equipment may have identical specs and yet measure differently, and *some* (NOT necessarily ALL) of those differences are not detectible by expert listeners. All of whch is irrelevent to my original post. Mr. Chung said What your retailers were saying was that there are amps of the same model that sound different. Yes, which is in conflict with Dick's statement.."Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners will claim they sound identical " Maybe some will maybe some won't. He is making a prediction based on an ill opinion of a large group of diverse audiophiles that has not always been the case in the real world. It is a flawed premise. Mr. Chung said Ignoring the veracity of that statement for the purpose of this discussion, why do you think it contradicts what Dick was saying? See above. Mr. Chung said Dick never said that all amps of the same model will sound the same. Did I say he did? Mr Chung said He only said that there are some differences in some models that are measureable and yet not detectible via listening. That is not what he was saying in the quote I cited and it was not the point he was making. Mr. Chung said Got it? I got it a long time ago. Let me know when you get it. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 26 Jul 2003 15:06:32 GMT, "All Ears" wrote: That is what I meant by what is "commenly" rated as being important measurements. From these parameters it is impossible for me to explain why a modern OTL tube amplifier is able to perform the way it does, I haven't heard anything that even comes close in sonic performance, with the right speakers. We are not talking lush tube sound here, but fast like a bat out of hell, deep well articulated bass and a reproduction of voices and acoustic instruments like nothing I have heard before. Actually, that's exactly the same result that you'll get from any halfway decent solid-state amp, at around a fifth of the price, and no need to replace the active devices every couple of years........... Not according my experiences.....This is very special. Anyway, in theory, almost any solid state amplifier should be superior in sonic performance, compared to someting of this construction, and by a big margin.....This is defenitely not the case. Of course, if you choose the tubed OTL amp, you also need to ensure that the speakers have a flat impedance curve, because otherwise the sonic differences will be far from subtle. They do indeed have a flat impedance curve..... KE -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
Daniel wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message news:e5FTa.130211$ye4.91902@sccrnsc01... it comes to cable and wire. I'm somewhat down on high-end audio as a hobby and, even more, as a way to spend money, and wanted to know about dubious claims in these other areas. OK, I'll specifically look for amp and digital player ads. I haven't seen any crazy speaker ads lately, aside from which, it's possible for speakers to sound very different from each other. If you don't mind, I might also throw in some typically unsupported claims from reviews and editorials. Hey, that'd be great. I mean, don't go to a *huge* amount of trouble, but it would be interesting to see examples of what you were talking about. Thanks. I'm about to embark on this lit review, but I thought I'd throw in first an exchange that I found on the http://www.stevehoffman.tv forum today. In the interests of full disclosure , I should mention that I got banned again from posting to that forum yesterday, after I'd advised a fellow who started a thread called "Buying premium speaker cables when you don't believe in them. Need help!!! " He wondered why he couldn't hear differences between some cables, and I suggested that maybe there were no audible differences between the cables. That seems to have violated the forum's rule against 'objective versus subjective debate'. The quotes below comes from a different thread, called "New Interconects that I love!!!!!", itself apparently an answer/offshoot of another called "Steve has finally found some interconnects he loves! ". I'd avoided these threads heretofore because I pretty much knew they'd be clusterf*cks of 'believers' whose minds are inimical to scientific standards of proof (whereas at least the 'Need help!" thread offered the possibility of reason.) The beloved interconnects in question are from Cardas (www.cardas.com) and Grover (available through the Hoffman site), respectively. What's interesting here, as it relates to mfr and advertising hype, is that we have a relatively rare example of the maker of a cable actually engaging fans of another cable. As is typical of advertising/mfr/reviewer hype, IME, the cable maker offers a mix of essentially unarguable assertions (e.g., that cables should be neutral) , with utterly dubious ones (e.g. "copper haze', and the 'severe problem' of nonlinearity in 'most' cables), along with a promise of tremendous audible improvement. The combination of the reasonable assertions and the use of scientific jargon like 'linearity' gives the rest of the claims a glaze of pseudo-authority. (It's also amusing that Grover and his supporters are touting his $75 interconnects as low-cost, 'better sounding' alternatives to Cardas' $800 ones, wihtout having demonstrated that the $75 ones are any better *sounding* than $5-$15 ones you can buy at Radio Shack.) from http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...threadid=18892) "Cardas Cables are to die for!!! Cardas Neatral Reference Excellent!!! Cardas Quadlink 5C Excellent!!! Entry Level 300B Microtwin an incredible value!!! I tried many cables (not all)..... Cardas Rules!!!!! Nebin" "Recently, I've purchased a pair of Kimber Hero interconnects with WBT connectors based on a recommendation from Absolute Sound magazine. After burning in the cables for about a week and a half I set about some active listening. I was definitely impressed with the degree of detail and wide sound-staging that these cables provided. The Cardas cables are a bit softer at the frequency extremes but the Kimber seems to offer a bit more detail as compared to the Microtwins. ultron9" "Its interesting to see your bold assertions and pride regarding cardas $800+ interconnects. I assure you that your system will dramatically improve replacing the cardas with my $75 interconnect. Give them a try. Grover" "You Cardas guys are hilarious. The Highs a bit Soft!! Next to the Kimbers? Good Grief the Kimbers have been history for a while. Why afraid to try the Grovers and see how you have wasted you money. Ha Ha!! Oh by the way just saw the Cardas $60 Din connector looks like its made in China like their cables! Grover" "Gentlemen, You have it wrong. You do not pick cables to aid deficiencies in your system, you find the clearest neutral cables so you can hear where you must upgrade your system. Most cables are hazy especially copper ones and nonlinearity is always a severe problem. Cables should never be looked upon as a method to blend components. They must be clear as glass. Only as a last resort should they be used to modify a weakness. Grover" -- -S. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
I find some of these opinions/testimonials amazingly similar in tone to
those endless spam ads promoting pills that enlarge a certain part of one's anatomy... Steven Sullivan wrote: from http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...threadid=18892) "Cardas Cables are to die for!!! Cardas Neatral Reference Excellent!!! Cardas Quadlink 5C Excellent!!! Entry Level 300B Microtwin an incredible value!!! I tried many cables (not all)..... Cardas Rules!!!!! Nebin" "Recently, I've purchased a pair of Kimber Hero interconnects with WBT connectors based on a recommendation from Absolute Sound magazine. After burning in the cables for about a week and a half I set about some active listening. I was definitely impressed with the degree of detail and wide sound-staging that these cables provided. The Cardas cables are a bit softer at the frequency extremes but the Kimber seems to offer a bit more detail as compared to the Microtwins. ultron9" "Its interesting to see your bold assertions and pride regarding cardas $800+ interconnects. I assure you that your system will dramatically improve replacing the cardas with my $75 interconnect. Give them a try. Grover" "You Cardas guys are hilarious. The Highs a bit Soft!! Next to the Kimbers? Good Grief the Kimbers have been history for a while. Why afraid to try the Grovers and see how you have wasted you money. Ha Ha!! Oh by the way just saw the Cardas $60 Din connector looks like its made in China like their cables! Grover" "Gentlemen, You have it wrong. You do not pick cables to aid deficiencies in your system, you find the clearest neutral cables so you can hear where you must upgrade your system. Most cables are hazy especially copper ones and nonlinearity is always a severe problem. Cables should never be looked upon as a method to blend components. They must be clear as glass. Only as a last resort should they be used to modify a weakness. Grover" -- -S. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
On 27 Jul 2003 02:29:18 GMT, "All Ears" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 26 Jul 2003 15:06:32 GMT, "All Ears" wrote: That is what I meant by what is "commenly" rated as being important measurements. From these parameters it is impossible for me to explain why a modern OTL tube amplifier is able to perform the way it does, I haven't heard anything that even comes close in sonic performance, with the right speakers. We are not talking lush tube sound here, but fast like a bat out of hell, deep well articulated bass and a reproduction of voices and acoustic instruments like nothing I have heard before. Actually, that's exactly the same result that you'll get from any halfway decent solid-state amp, at around a fifth of the price, and no need to replace the active devices every couple of years........... Not according my experiences.....This is very special. Certainly, the price of a tubed OTL amp is special........... Anyway, in theory, almost any solid state amplifier should be superior in sonic performance, compared to someting of this construction, and by a big margin.....This is defenitely not the case. If in fact there really *is* a sonic difference (and that's a big 'if'), then it's a fundamental fact of life that the tubed amp must be *adding* something that wasn't in the input signal. You may very well *like* that sound, but it ain't high fidelity! I'd hazard a guess that *if* there is any real difference, you're hearing a little extra 'ambience' generated by reverberation within the tubes. Of course, if you choose the tubed OTL amp, you also need to ensure that the speakers have a flat impedance curve, because otherwise the sonic differences will be far from subtle. They do indeed have a flat impedance curve..... That should make a blind level-matched comparison with a good SS amp much easier. Try it, you may be surprised.... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 27 Jul 2003 02:29:18 GMT, "All Ears" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 26 Jul 2003 15:06:32 GMT, "All Ears" wrote: That is what I meant by what is "commenly" rated as being important measurements. From these parameters it is impossible for me to explain why a modern OTL tube amplifier is able to perform the way it does, I haven't heard anything that even comes close in sonic performance, with the right speakers. We are not talking lush tube sound here, but fast like a bat out of hell, deep well articulated bass and a reproduction of voices and acoustic instruments like nothing I have heard before. Actually, that's exactly the same result that you'll get from any halfway decent solid-state amp, at around a fifth of the price, and no need to replace the active devices every couple of years........... Not according my experiences.....This is very special. Certainly, the price of a tubed OTL amp is special........... Right, but this is not the point here..... Anyway, in theory, almost any solid state amplifier should be superior in sonic performance, compared to someting of this construction, and by a big margin.....This is defenitely not the case. If in fact there really *is* a sonic difference (and that's a big 'if'), then it's a fundamental fact of life that the tubed amp must be *adding* something that wasn't in the input signal. You may very well *like* that sound, but it ain't high fidelity! I'd hazard a guess that *if* there is any real difference, you're hearing a little extra 'ambience' generated by reverberation within the tubes. Of course, if you choose the tubed OTL amp, you also need to ensure that the speakers have a flat impedance curve, because otherwise the sonic differences will be far from subtle. They do indeed have a flat impedance curve..... That should make a blind level-matched comparison with a good SS amp much easier. Try it, you may be surprised.... A good SS amp does indeed sound great with these speakers, especially with the right pre amp. The end result is however a bit more sterile and not quite as realistic a reproduction. I was a bit surprised to experience this as well, but that is how it is. KE -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
I keep seeing the following quote:
Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners will claim they sound identical. I don't know what differences are being referred to. There are all sorts of possible differences, like small but measurable variations in color, weight, etc., that I think almost everyone would agree are irrelevant to hearing. Could it be that some of the other small differences that are being measured are irrelevant to hearing as well? |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
"Richard D Pierce" wrote:
Face it, the high-end audio industry is DECADES behind behind the state of the art in many areas, and this is just one example. I'm not going to give a tutorial on the current range of available measurements Measurements haven't led to the construction of great sounding concert halls, pianos or violins and it appears useful to refer to that which was done CENTURIES ago. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
Dick said
If, by "OTL tube amplifier" your mean a transformerless output, then, my goodness, the measurable differences between this type of amplifier and, say, any given solid state amplifier when driving the same loudspeaker are ENORMOUS, simply because of the substantially higher output impedance of the OTL amplifier. That difference, again when measured with specific speaker loads, leads to a HUGE difference in the frequency response of the system. I'm not talking a quarter dB here or there, I'm talking about MANY dB of difference. Just that difference alone is hugely audible and I would not be the least suprised to find that, in fact, the "specs" of such an amplifier, when measured in situ, are unlike any other amplifier around. So, one point of your basic premise is immediately falsified: an tube OTL amplifier CANNOT have the same simple measurements like frequency response: they simply cannot. Thus, claiming that two amplifiers, one OTL, one solid state have similar specs but sound different falls apart simply because they don't behave even remotely similarily. Would you say this is true of all OTLs or some OTLs? |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
Dick said
Further, I can find two samples of the same model and easily find measurable differences between them, yet "expert" listeners will claim they sound identical. What does THAT do to your "theory?" I said I know of a few retailers that say otherwise. One time I was told that if you hear a particular amp from one particular manufacturer that you like that you should buy that unit. the rest will sound different. Mr. Chung said How does that contradict what Dick was saying? I said Isn't it obvious? He said "expert" listeners will claim that amps of the same model will claim they sound identical. That is not always the case. Steven said Isn't it obvious that he didn't say it was always the case? No. His claim was not explicitly qualified nor do I see any implied qualifications. He was building an argument on a flawed premise. He was painting a large group of diverse listeners with a stereotype to ridicule them. Further, when he replied to my comment he did not choose to make any such qualifications of his statement as you are doing for him. Instead he chose to attack my comment by lumping me into the same stereotype that he built on a false premise. I find it particularly bad judgement on dick's part given his tendency to object so intensely when others argue with him on what he believes to be false premises about him. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
On 27 Jul 2003 17:39:35 GMT, "All Ears" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... Speakers are designed to respond linearly to a constant voltage input, and most modern speakers assume drive by a constant voltage source, i.e. an amp with very low output impedance and high reserves of current. This is a fair description of a good SS amp, but not at all of a tubed OTL amp, which can have several *ohms* output impedance. So Ohms law does not apply to speakers, interesting.... Ohm's Law certainly does apply. I suggest that you read up on it. In reality, those specifications would give you a *very* good idea of how the sound will be affected. Putting a 3-ohm resistor in series with the output of a SS amp will give a result which is probably sonically indistinguishable from a well-designed tubed OTL amp (if that's not an oxymoron). The OTLs has adjustable feed back, and thereby also output impedance, lowest setting is not the one that sounds best. Guess you could say that the sound becomes more like a solid state amp at max. feed back. A 3 ohm resistor in series with the output from a SS amp, would give a sloppy poor controlled bass. This is not the case with the OTL Yeah, riiiiight.............. Time for a reality check? Why not actually try comparing the two under level-matched blind conditions? I predict that your prejudices will not be confirmed. A test situation is stressful to many people, not all, but many. The real challenge is to find a way to do this, to a large number of people, in way that would not be "test like" but more in an amusing or relaxing way. Actually no, the real challenge is to have the courage and honesty to do it yourself, and let the results fall where they may. Well, that is what I think I am doing, I'm not trying to bull**** anybody, not even myself. So try a blind test, and discover what *really* sounds better/different. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 27 Jul 2003 17:39:35 GMT, "All Ears" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... Speakers are designed to respond linearly to a constant voltage input, and most modern speakers assume drive by a constant voltage source, i.e. an amp with very low output impedance and high reserves of current. This is a fair description of a good SS amp, but not at all of a tubed OTL amp, which can have several *ohms* output impedance. So Ohms law does not apply to speakers, interesting.... Ohm's Law certainly does apply. I suggest that you read up on it. The actual force, that the motor of the driver produces, depends on the current induced into the coil, right? Does normal speakers have a totally flat impedance curve? Assuming that the voltage is kept constant, and the inpedance changes, will this not give an unlinear current, which results in amplitude variations over the band? (Rehercing Ohms law In reality, those specifications would give you a *very* good idea of how the sound will be affected. Putting a 3-ohm resistor in series with the output of a SS amp will give a result which is probably sonically indistinguishable from a well-designed tubed OTL amp (if that's not an oxymoron). The OTLs has adjustable feed back, and thereby also output impedance, lowest setting is not the one that sounds best. Guess you could say that the sound becomes more like a solid state amp at max. feed back. A 3 ohm resistor in series with the output from a SS amp, would give a sloppy poor controlled bass. This is not the case with the OTL Yeah, riiiiight.............. They are realistically reproducing drum kicks, bass etc. That is what I expect from a high end system. They do not "slam" to the same extend as an SS amp, but I can live with that. Time for a reality check? Why not actually try comparing the two under level-matched blind conditions? I predict that your prejudices will not be confirmed. A test situation is stressful to many people, not all, but many. The real challenge is to find a way to do this, to a large number of people, in way that would not be "test like" but more in an amusing or relaxing way. Actually no, the real challenge is to have the courage and honesty to do it yourself, and let the results fall where they may. Well, that is what I think I am doing, I'm not trying to bull**** anybody, not even myself. So try a blind test, and discover what *really* sounds better/different. I will compare the OTLs to a set of SS current amplifiers next week, this will be interesting. KE -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
On 27 Jul 2003 22:40:31 GMT, "All Ears" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 27 Jul 2003 17:39:35 GMT, "All Ears" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... Speakers are designed to respond linearly to a constant voltage input, and most modern speakers assume drive by a constant voltage source, i.e. an amp with very low output impedance and high reserves of current. This is a fair description of a good SS amp, but not at all of a tubed OTL amp, which can have several *ohms* output impedance. So Ohms law does not apply to speakers, interesting.... Ohm's Law certainly does apply. I suggest that you read up on it. The actual force, that the motor of the driver produces, depends on the current induced into the coil, right? Does normal speakers have a totally flat impedance curve? Assuming that the voltage is kept constant, and the inpedance changes, will this not give an unlinear current, which results in amplitude variations over the band? (Rehercing Ohms law Your first statement is correct. Almost all commercially available 'hi-fi' speakers have a very non-flat impedance curve. Such speakers are however designed to have a flat amplitude response with constant *voltage* input. This does indeed lead to some pretty wild variations in current, but these are indications of varying efficiency, not varying amplitude. I will compare the OTLs to a set of SS current amplifiers next week, this will be interesting. Good. Be sure to match levels at the speaker terminals, and to do the test under double-blind protocols, for best results. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
In article 5EUUa.141533$OZ2.27789@rwcrnsc54,
S888Wheel wrote: Dick said Mr. Wheel, Dick said one thing, Your paraphrasing of what Dick said is something else entirely. I should know. I am Dick. Please do NOT use YOUR paraphrasing of what I have said as a substitute for what I actually said. You have demonstrated in this thread you are not very good at it. Thank you. -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
In article ,
All Ears wrote: And this may well not be the only difference: such an output impedance is MORE than enough to substantially reduce the damping of the entire amplifier/speaker system, possibly DOUBLING its Qt at resonance, which could intriduce ANOTHER 3 dB of frequency respose error all by itself. You have a system which has frequency response differences approaching +-4 dB compared to a driving it with a solid state or even transroemr coupled tube a,mplifier with appropriate feedback. With this information in hand, that the OTL amplifier introduces frequency response variations ranging over +-4 dB compared to a sommon solid state amplifier, how can you say they meaure the same? They clearly cannot and DO not. I do not disagree with what you are saying, but if this was the real audible truth, these amplifiers should sound really bad and unnatural, the point is, they are not, even compared to very good solid state amplifiers. As I said, acoustic instruments (also bass) and voices are the most realistic reproduced I have heard so far! "Truth" is what you believe, and may be at odds with the facts. Beyond that, I am not saying that the result is "bad and unnatural," That's a judgement I will not make because it is a preferential thing. I am refuting your claim that such an amplifier could ever possibly measure even remotely the same. My argument is not whether the result saound good or bad, that's your decision to make. My argument is to directly challenge your claim that this amplifier could measure like any other IN SITU: they can't, it's as simple as that. Thus, your premise, or your question, as the case may be, "how can two amplifier that have similar specs sound so different" is is meaningless in the face of the fact that two such amps SIMPLY CAN'T HAVE SIMILAR SPECS. Do you understand the point? Actually, the speakers I use are all designed by tube lovers, furthermore, the only speaker design that will act in a close to linear way to a voltage source, are one way speakers or headphones. All the rest are compromises. A speaker reacts in a quite linear way to the current you put into it, not the voltage. There are ways of compensating, I know, but again, it is a compromise. I'll get some solid state current amplifiers next week, this will be interesting...... Sir, I believe yo do NOT understand the difference between the terms "current source" and "voltage source" and, further, you have a misunderstanding of the operation of loudspeakers, as I pointed out and hopefully set you on a more correct path in a different post. There are such standards, though there is not an all- encompassing standard for the entire chain (the AES has 40 some standards, the ISO has the entire realm of 60268, for example), but, to be frank with you, THE most egregious violators of these standard is, in fact, the high-end audion industry, ESPECIALLY when it comes to realistic comparable performance specifications. It would be an interesting goal to persue, to get one useful standard for the entire chain. But, with the appalling lack of technical expertise in the high-end industry, they are the least able to follow such a path. Sorry for mixing up specifications and measurements, as you say yourself, there are more relevant measurements, than what are used as marketing arguments today (right?) Indeed, especially in the high-end audio industry. Your OTL amplifier is one such glaring example. There are almost no specifications available for the OTL's, since they would not give an objective idea of the end result. Oh, precisely the opposite, a complete set of performance data would give a VERY GOOD iobjective dea of the end result. The manufacturer might not like the picture painted, but it would be pretty precise. And why is simply eliminating the direct knowledge of what equipment is playing a hindernace to relaxation? If you HAVE to know that you are listening to your OTL amplifier in order to relax, guess, what: YOUR ENJOYMENT ISN'T ABOUT SOUND, IT'S ABOUT BRAND NAMES! Absolutely nonsence, Hardly, if you read your statement. But your failed to answer the question: Why is eliminatiung the direct knowledge of what equipment is playing a hinderance to relaxation? Please answer that question, as it is at the very root of your complaints about DB testing. And if someone makes a claim about the ability to hear a difference, THEY HAVE ALREADY INTRODUCED THE BASIS OF THE STRESS IN MAKING THE CLAIM, it could be argued. They have put their opinion on the line. If a "test" exacerbates the stress, it may well be because the subject now has doubts as to whether the original claim is uspportable. I try to keep an open mind, and are not stoubernly defending any specific ideals, brands etc. But if you HAVE to know what the brand is to relax, which is one implication of your staement above, then you are NOT keeping an open mind. Again, I could not care less about the brand, I only care about enjoying music the best I can. Fine, then you why would you have any objections to listening without having prior knowledge of what you were listening to equipment-wise? All that double blind is asking is that you detect the difference BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE. That's all. Thus, if you think that a mass loading puck is going to make a difference and YOU are interested in seeing if this is the case, all that blind testing is asking is that you see if you can HEAR the difference BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE. If you "know" there is no difference in the sound, would it be likely that you would actually hear it? But you DON'T know there is no difference. Why claim otherwise. The idea is to see IF you CAN detect a difference by sound alone. If you can, guess what, there are audibly detectable differences! Even, if my imagination only, can change a sound image from being harsh, to being pleasing, why not use this tweak? Then, very simply, it's not about sound. It might be about perception, but it is about perception in the absebce of the sonic stimuli to produce the perception. You are perfectly welcome to use any tweaks for any reason you want, I certainly don't care. But the issue comes when someone makes the claim, "it makes a difference in the SOUND." You just admitted that a tweak may work on imagination only, so you just stated that, in such a case IT ISN'T ABOUT THE SOUND. Why is that stressful? A test situation is stressful to many people, not all, but many. You keep asserting this without any data or hypothesis to back it up. -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
In article ,
S888Wheel wrote: Dick said So, one point of your basic premise is immediately falsified: an tube OTL amplifier CANNOT have the same simple measurements like frequency response: they simply cannot. Thus, claiming that two amplifiers, one OTL, one solid state have similar specs but sound different falls apart simply because they don't behave even remotely similarily. Would you say this is true of all OTLs or some OTLs? Can you point out a specific OTL tube amplifier that has a broadband output impedance of less than 0.05 times the nominal impecance of the loudspeaker connected to it? It's as simple as that. Show us the data, and your question is answered. -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
In article ,
All Ears wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 27 Jul 2003 17:39:35 GMT, "All Ears" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... Speakers are designed to respond linearly to a constant voltage input, and most modern speakers assume drive by a constant voltage source, i.e. an amp with very low output impedance and high reserves of current. This is a fair description of a good SS amp, but not at all of a tubed OTL amp, which can have several *ohms* output impedance. So Ohms law does not apply to speakers, interesting.... Ohm's Law certainly does apply. I suggest that you read up on it. The actual force, that the motor of the driver produces, depends on the current induced into the coil, right? Does normal speakers have a totally flat impedance curve? Assuming that the voltage is kept constant, and the inpedance changes, will this not give an unlinear current, which results in amplitude variations over the band? (Rehercing Ohms law First, what you desribed is NOT Ohm's law. Second your analysis falls WOEFULLY short of anything even barely adequate to describe how speakers work. You analysis, for example, predicts that under a constant current, the speaker MUST, below resonance, have a response which is independent of frequency, i.e., the speaker does not roll off. Since it does, your analysis in that region is incorrect. Secondly, your analysis predicts that even considering the naive and simple model of current only, the efficiency at resonance MUST go down, since the impedance rises at resonance, yet it can be trivially arranged by non-electrical means that even as the current goes down, the efficiency and the output of the driver go UP. Basically, your basic premise is completely flwed because it simply ignores the fact that speakers are mechncially resonant devices, that the simple static model you are relying on fails immediately once you get out of the region of DC exitation (which, if you sit down and think it through, is the hidden assumption in your premise). Be that as it may, speakers which have flat impedance curve get there by having complex conjugate circuits tto concel the impedance variations in the drivers. That means that while they may have a constant current vs frequency profile AS A SYSTEM, the drivers themselves do not: they STILL have a current that is frequency dependent on their individual impedance vs frequency properties. I would suggest that you get your head out of the "Ohm's Law" hole and start studying Thevenin, Kirchoff and, once that's under your belt, start studying Thiele and Small. Besically, your assertion is wrong, is what it comes down to. -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
"Richard D Pierce" wrote in message
... In article , All Ears wrote: And this may well not be the only difference: such an output impedance is MORE than enough to substantially reduce the damping of the entire amplifier/speaker system, possibly DOUBLING its Qt at resonance, which could intriduce ANOTHER 3 dB of frequency respose error all by itself. You have a system which has frequency response differences approaching +-4 dB compared to a driving it with a solid state or even transroemr coupled tube a,mplifier with appropriate feedback. With this information in hand, that the OTL amplifier introduces frequency response variations ranging over +-4 dB compared to a sommon solid state amplifier, how can you say they meaure the same? They clearly cannot and DO not. I do not disagree with what you are saying, but if this was the real audible truth, these amplifiers should sound really bad and unnatural, the point is, they are not, even compared to very good solid state amplifiers. As I said, acoustic instruments (also bass) and voices are the most realistic reproduced I have heard so far! "Truth" is what you believe, and may be at odds with the facts. Beyond that, I am not saying that the result is "bad and unnatural," That's a judgement I will not make because it is a preferential thing. I am refuting your claim that such an amplifier could ever possibly measure even remotely the same. My argument is not whether the result saound good or bad, that's your decision to make. My argument is to directly challenge your claim that this amplifier could measure like any other IN SITU: they can't, it's as simple as that. Thus, your premise, or your question, as the case may be, "how can two amplifier that have similar specs sound so different" is is meaningless in the face of the fact that two such amps SIMPLY CAN'T HAVE SIMILAR SPECS. Do you understand the point? Yes I think we agree about this point, but I am still wondering how an OTL can obtain such a good tonal balance and speaker control with such a high output impedance, I am even using 4 ohm speakers, which presents no problem at all. I would guess that you have listend to a few OTLs yourself, and could have had the same thoughts. Actually, the speakers I use are all designed by tube lovers, furthermore, the only speaker design that will act in a close to linear way to a voltage source, are one way speakers or headphones. All the rest are compromises. A speaker reacts in a quite linear way to the current you put into it, not the voltage. There are ways of compensating, I know, but again, it is a compromise. I'll get some solid state current amplifiers next week, this will be interesting...... Sir, I believe yo do NOT understand the difference between the terms "current source" and "voltage source" and, further, you have a misunderstanding of the operation of loudspeakers, as I pointed out and hopefully set you on a more correct path in a different post. These amplifiers monitors the impedance at the speaker terminals, and adjusts the feed back loop accordingly, so the term current source applies very well. There are such standards, though there is not an all- encompassing standard for the entire chain (the AES has 40 some standards, the ISO has the entire realm of 60268, for example), but, to be frank with you, THE most egregious violators of these standard is, in fact, the high-end audion industry, ESPECIALLY when it comes to realistic comparable performance specifications. It would be an interesting goal to persue, to get one useful standard for the entire chain. But, with the appalling lack of technical expertise in the high-end industry, they are the least able to follow such a path. It should be possible to find a few serious manufactures in the industry, anyway, a standard would give a goal to persue for the serious ones. It could be implemented like the ISO or similar standard. Sorry for mixing up specifications and measurements, as you say yourself, there are more relevant measurements, than what are used as marketing arguments today (right?) Indeed, especially in the high-end audio industry. Your OTL amplifier is one such glaring example. There are almost no specifications available for the OTL's, since they would not give an objective idea of the end result. Oh, precisely the opposite, a complete set of performance data would give a VERY GOOD iobjective dea of the end result. The manufacturer might not like the picture painted, but it would be pretty precise. I haven't really seen anybody disliking the sound of the few serious OTSs on the market, but you may be an exception And why is simply eliminating the direct knowledge of what equipment is playing a hindernace to relaxation? If you HAVE to know that you are listening to your OTL amplifier in order to relax, guess, what: YOUR ENJOYMENT ISN'T ABOUT SOUND, IT'S ABOUT BRAND NAMES! Absolutely nonsence, Hardly, if you read your statement. But your failed to answer the question: Even if I close my eyes, the OTLs sound great Why is eliminatiung the direct knowledge of what equipment is playing a hinderance to relaxation? Please answer that question, as it is at the very root of your complaints about DB testing. And if someone makes a claim about the ability to hear a difference, THEY HAVE ALREADY INTRODUCED THE BASIS OF THE STRESS IN MAKING THE CLAIM, it could be argued. They have put their opinion on the line. If a "test" exacerbates the stress, it may well be because the subject now has doubts as to whether the original claim is uspportable. I try to keep an open mind, and are not stoubernly defending any specific ideals, brands etc. But if you HAVE to know what the brand is to relax, which is one implication of your staement above, then you are NOT keeping an open mind. Again, I could not care less about the brand, I only care about enjoying music the best I can. Fine, then you why would you have any objections to listening without having prior knowledge of what you were listening to equipment-wise? All that double blind is asking is that you detect the difference BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE. That's all. Thus, if you think that a mass loading puck is going to make a difference and YOU are interested in seeing if this is the case, all that blind testing is asking is that you see if you can HEAR the difference BASED ON THE SOUND ALONE. If you "know" there is no difference in the sound, would it be likely that you would actually hear it? But you DON'T know there is no difference. Why claim otherwise. The idea is to see IF you CAN detect a difference by sound alone. If you can, guess what, there are audibly detectable differences! Even, if my imagination only, can change a sound image from being harsh, to being pleasing, why not use this tweak? Then, very simply, it's not about sound. It might be about perception, but it is about perception in the absebce of the sonic stimuli to produce the perception. You are perfectly welcome to use any tweaks for any reason you want, I certainly don't care. But the issue comes when someone makes the claim, "it makes a difference in the SOUND." You just admitted that a tweak may work on imagination only, so you just stated that, in such a case IT ISN'T ABOUT THE SOUND. As a music lover, I am merely reporting observations, not writing sceintific reports. I can only encurage people to use their own ears, and judge for themselves. Why is that stressful? A test situation is stressful to many people, not all, but many. You keep asserting this without any data or hypothesis to back it up. -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
"Richard D Pierce" wrote in message
. net... In article , All Ears wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 27 Jul 2003 17:39:35 GMT, "All Ears" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... Speakers are designed to respond linearly to a constant voltage input, and most modern speakers assume drive by a constant voltage source, i.e. an amp with very low output impedance and high reserves of current. This is a fair description of a good SS amp, but not at all of a tubed OTL amp, which can have several *ohms* output impedance. So Ohms law does not apply to speakers, interesting.... Ohm's Law certainly does apply. I suggest that you read up on it. The actual force, that the motor of the driver produces, depends on the current induced into the coil, right? Does normal speakers have a totally flat impedance curve? Assuming that the voltage is kept constant, and the inpedance changes, will this not give an unlinear current, which results in amplitude variations over the band? (Rehercing Ohms law First, what you desribed is NOT Ohm's law. I replaced resistance with inductance, but the end result will be almost the same. Second your analysis falls WOEFULLY short of anything even barely adequate to describe how speakers work. Compromises are made to correct for this issue, but they are compromises. You analysis, for example, predicts that under a constant current, the speaker MUST, below resonance, have a response which is independent of frequency, i.e., the speaker does not roll off. Since it does, your analysis in that region is incorrect. Of course it rolls off at some point, I used a simplified model. Secondly, your analysis predicts that even considering the naive and simple model of current only, the efficiency at resonance MUST go down, since the impedance rises at resonance, yet it can be trivially arranged by non-electrical means that even as the current goes down, the efficiency and the output of the driver go UP. To my knowledge, a typical ported speaker goes down in impedance around the port resonance point, and raises in impedance around the cross over points. Guess it is a typing error from your side, since the rest of the statement seems correct. Basically, your basic premise is completely flwed because it simply ignores the fact that speakers are mechncially resonant devices, that the simple static model you are relying on fails immediately once you get out of the region of DC exitation (which, if you sit down and think it through, is the hidden assumption in your premise). Be that as it may, speakers which have flat impedance curve get there by having complex conjugate circuits tto concel the impedance variations in the drivers. That means that while they may have a constant current vs frequency profile AS A SYSTEM, the drivers themselves do not: they STILL have a current that is frequency dependent on their individual impedance vs frequency properties. I would suggest that you get your head out of the "Ohm's Law" hole and start studying Thevenin, Kirchoff and, once that's under your belt, start studying Thiele and Small. Variations of transmission line speakers, can obtain a quit flat impedance curve, with out complex circuits. Besically, your assertion is wrong, is what it comes down to. -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
In article 5EUUa.141533$OZ2.27789@rwcrnsc54,
S888Wheel wrote: No. His claim was not explicitly qualified nor do I see any implied qualifications. He was building an argument on a flawed premise. He was painting a large group of diverse listeners with a stereotype to ridicule them. Mr. Wheel, this preposterous misinterpretation borders on out and out dishonesty if you ask me. My claim is very simple: there have been specific examples where people making the claim of being expert listeners have presented me with two pieces of equipment that sounded different, and they claim that no measurable differences exist: I have quickly and easily found large measurable differences. They have alson presented me with equipment that they claim sounded identical, and I have also found measurable differences, though not as large. The rest of your sorry monologue is simply more agenda-laden nonsense that has nothing to do with what I said. -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
All Ears wrote:
Even if I close my eyes, the OTLs sound great My youngest son always thinks that music sounds better when the bass and treble controls are boosted. To him, the music is much more alive and dynamic that way. The point is that having a not-flat frequency response can be euphonic. A small boost in the mid-range can make human voices more pleasant, and certain harmonic distortions can make some instruments sound fuller. The other thing to keep in mind is that if one amp sounds different than all others, while all the others sound very similar among themselves, there is high probability that the one that sounds different is not accurate. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
I have ears on my arse! | Audio Opinions | |||
hearing loss info | Car Audio |