| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#161
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
|
#162
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
|
#163
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/17/04 10:56 PM, in article tFlKc.106153$%_6.75038@attbi_s01,
"S888Wheel" wrote: And I thought that the whole point of measurements was to show objectively how a product perform so as to help the potential customer evaluate... I think it ought to be. I think there is some use for smoe measurements for audiophiles such as me. Matching equipment can be made easier via measurements. I'm still going to make my final decisions based on listening though. I don't think anyone would argue that measurements have no value - *provided you are measuring the right things* - doggedly sticking to measurement A, B, C through technologies and the years might help in some ways, but may not be correct in assisting someone to make a good buying decision. Hence listening is important. |
|
#164
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/17/04 10:55 PM, in article dElKc.107317$IQ4.40745@attbi_s02, "Harry
Lavo" wrote: A false choice. Those of us concerned with what the measurements reveal are interested in them BECAUSE they relate to better listening, at least for us. The hobby is still called high-fi and that has a meaning. Anything that gets us closer to the intent of the artist by removing distortion, noise, compression, or whatever might be hiding the choices made by the artist and the engineer is a benefit. I don't really care about other preferences, they are yours and you're welcome to them, but if they include things like flawed playback devices, they are LOWER-fi. Unfortunately, the hobby hasn't been called "high-fi" in many years...high-end audio has replaced that terminology. I wouldn't say it is unfortunately - it is quite good to have a variety of equipment meeting various design goals. I have heard some SET amplifiers playing through high efficiency horns - and they were really nice sounding - though definitely distorted! Nothing I would be interested in spending money for, not "hifi" in the least, but I can see the appeal to those. The tragedy would be someone wanting accurate sound reproduction ending up buying something that won't do it. Same as someone wanting euphonic sound reproduction - and getting something that was accurate. But this is where a good high end dealer would help you! |
|
#165
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 17 Jul 2004 16:49:28 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ... The fact is still that in terms of objective performance CD stomps all over LP. It is higher fi. Unfortunately, our beings our designed so that we do not listen "objectively". All we can do is listen "subjectively". And on that basis, there are many who believe a top-flight LP system can outperform a top-flight CD system. Indeed there are - but many, many more who believe the reverse. And a 'top-flight' CD player need not of course be expensive, which allows more money for what really matters - the speakers and the room. Now, a good *room*, that takes *real* money! :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#166
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 03:29:30 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:feyJc.85435$%_6.61349@attbi_s01... OTOH, I *have* heard a Linn with a Syrinx arm, and in my opinion it wasn't even a good vinyl player, let alone any competition for a decent CD player. Correction. You didn't think *that* Linn with a Syrinx arm was a very good player. No correction required, since that's what I said. An expansion would be that I've never heard *any* Linn-based vinyl rig that would hold a candle to something like an SME or Michell Orbe, let alone an average CD player. I presume you know that the cartridge, the cartridge setup, the arm mass match, the headamp, the preamp, the isolation all make a substantial difference with a turntable. Certainly. I presume you know that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear? The Linn will always be a pig, due to fundamentally poor design. The turntable I am talking about has all of these things optimized, and has a frequency response / timbre that is an exact match for my CD/SACD players (a perfectly set up Accuphase AC-2 cartridge tracking at 1.75g in a Syrinx PU-2 using the Mass (Loading) Ring, on a Linn Valhalla isolated with sorborthane feet on a Target wall rack, feeding either a modified Marcof PPA-2 or Counterpoint SA-2 headamp, in turn feeding through Monster 1000ii cable into a modified ARC SP6B preamp (in it's own right a superb phono preamp). It has a frequency response which is +/- 0.2dB from 20Hz to 20kHz? Wow, that's really impressive. It's also impossible....... Even a *real* turntable can't achieve that kind of response, especially in the bass, which is one of the basic reasons why CD took over from LP. BTW, you can *not* achieve the 'perfect' setup that you claim for your cartridge, in a pivoted arm. So I can't comment on what you heard, other than to suggest it may not have been as well optimized as my own. And more importantly, you cannot draw *any* *valid* *conclusion* about what I can hear with my setup. I can draw the perfectly valid conclusions that you are incorrect about the frequency response, and about the cartridge setup. That leads one to doubt the veracity of your other claims. You want to continue on with your bias, that's your business. But don't speak as if you are privy to some secret universal truth. Nothing secret about it, just basic engineering knowledge which is widely available to all with eyes to see and ears to hear. You have your opinion, but one single exception (as I have demoed to my own satisfaction) robs it of being a universal truth. No such claim was made, although it's obviously a majority opinion. It's certainly closer to being true than the other poster's claim that no music lover or musician has ever preferred CD to LP! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#167
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Ban wrote:
S888Wheel wrote: Measurements "pejudicing" (sic) customers? That's a new one. No, It's nothing new.( except my unique spelling perhaps) Heck, just look at all the folks that jumped on the band wagon with the very early SS amps of the sixties. Some of them were really quite awful but the meter reasers thought they were the cat's meow based on the measurements. If the sound was awful, they will have also measured bad. Maybe in those times a distortion measurement was difficult to execute, but never the less it would have shown the low level distortion. The main reason people bought SS amps then was the affordable price and the overall satisfying performance. And that moment tubes disappeared from one year to the next. I think the measurements in those days were acceptable in terms of distortion, but the consumer might have put too much emphasis on a single number: THD at 1 KHz at max. power. Certainly some manufacturers did. Measurements cannot "prejudice" customers. It's the lack of understanding of what measurements mean that could potentially mislead customers. On the other hand, subjective reviews can definitely prejudice customers. The careful audiophiles will read the Stereophile subjective reviews for their entertainment values, and pay attention to the measurements and feature sets to find out how the products really behave. I think it ought to be. I think there is some use for smoe measurements for audiophiles such as me. Matching equipment can be made easier via measurements. I'm still going to make my final decisions based on listening though. This "matching" is another myth invented by the Quacks. Exept the loudspeaker impedance(4 or 8 ohms) there is little to observe, because already in that time there were existing specs about input level(-10dBm), RIAA EQ and impedance etc. In fact the HiFi criteria gives values for almost all important numbers. Any tuner, tape deck or amplifier can be connected and will perform as stated if it was fulfilling the criteria. This is one of the reasons the HiFi gear gained such a popularity, as it was the case with the computer. At this point I would like to quote what Siegfried Linkwitz (a respected speaker designer and electrical engineer) said: "Minimal alteration of the original should be the goal of sound reproduction since anything else is a falsification. For many pieces of recorded material it may not matter, because the performance is so highly processed and the listener shares no common sonic reference. Also, a listener may be so used to amplified music that the characteristic sound of certain types of loudspeakers becomes the reference. However, ultimately only a system with minimal distortion can hope to achieve the reproduction of an original and, in particular, of a familiar live sonic event such as a choral performance, a solo male voice, or a car driving by. My motto is: True to the Original ...". Linkwitz's summary of sound reproduction is well worth reading for anyone interested in audio reproduction: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/reproduction.htm A point often missed by those who believe in "matching" equipment: you cannot undo non-linear distortion. That is, you cannot expect the distortion created in one component to be undone by distortion created by another. You have to choose components that individually have low distortion. Of course, someone may prefer certain types of distortion. But to think that adding distortion in the reproduction path can somehow undo distortion in the transducers (microphones and speakers) so that the overall sound is "faithful to the live sound" is simply unrealistic. |
|
#168
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:MhzKc.110044$a24.103317@attbi_s03... From: "Ban" Date: 7/17/2004 11:01 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: rnoKc.119468$Oq2.36942@attbi_s52 S888Wheel wrote: Measurements "pejudicing" (sic) customers? That's a new one. No, It's nothing new.( except my unique spelling perhaps) Heck, just look at all the folks that jumped on the band wagon with the very early SS amps of the sixties. Some of them were really quite awful but the meter reasers thought they were the cat's meow based on the measurements. If the sound was awful, they will have also measured bad. I suggest you do your homework on that one. They measured amazingly well by the measurements made in that time. They sounded pretty awful though. Maybe in those times a distortion measurement was difficult to execute, but never the less it would have shown the low level distortion. They did by the measurements of the day. And they sounded quite bad. And a great deal of meter reader minded audio jounalists claimed they were quite sonically superior. Maybe measurement based biases can be a problem when seeking excellent sound. The main reason people bought SS amps then was the affordable price and the overall satisfying performance. And that moment tubes disappeared from one year to the next. Yes. Some people refer to that time as the dark ages of audio. The meter readers were seen as the voice of authority then. Many say this terrible time in audio was what lead to the birth of Stereophile. I can tell you point blank it is what started "The Abso!ute Sound". I was there. |
|
#169
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"B&D" wrote in message
news:8O2Kc.96238$MB3.65061@attbi_s04... On 7/16/04 6:41 PM, in article , "Michael McKelvy" wrote: "B&D" wrote in message news:QQkJc.92602$Oq2.45040@attbi_s52... On 7/14/04 6:33 PM, in article , "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Do you know how preposterous that sounds? I have been in and around this game since the late sixties, and I've yet to hear ANY well set-up table/arm/cart - like the Music Hall MMF-2.1 for instance - "blown away" by any similarly priced digital front end. Then it seems you have a preference for that type of sound. LP compared to CD is objectively inferior in terms of distortion, compression, signal to noise, and all other technical specs related to fidelity. All other specs? Really? *ALL* of them? The important ones AFAIK. The fact is still that in terms of objective performance CD stomps all over LP. It is higher fi. Where I would agree with you is the POTENTIAL of CD is better than that of LP's - but the state of the art in mastering tends to make the CD's much less close to hifi. Higher fi than LP by a long shot. Better bass extension and transient response, not to mention tracker error is not issue, nor is speed error. There's no RIAA compression/expansion. Yours is still a preference and still objectively lesser fi. Definitely less the technology than in practical reality, though. In your opinion. |
|
#171
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 18 Jul 2004 16:18:15 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:
From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 7/18/2004 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 05:28:36 GMT, B&D wrote: On 7/16/04 6:41 PM, in article , "Michael McKelvy" wrote: "B&D" wrote in message news:QQkJc.92602$Oq2.45040@attbi_s52... On 7/14/04 6:33 PM, in article , "Michael McKelvy" wrote: LP compared to CD is objectively inferior in terms of distortion, compression, signal to noise, and all other technical specs related to fidelity. All other specs? Really? *ALL* of them? The important ones AFAIK. The fact is still that in terms of objective performance CD stomps all over LP. It is higher fi. Where I would agree with you is the POTENTIAL of CD is better than that of LP's - but the state of the art in mastering tends to make the CD's much less close to hifi. Absolute nonsense! There are numerous superbly mastered CDs on the market, all of which *grossly* exceed the fidelity of even the very best vinyl. You might want to check your vinyl rig to make sure everything is working well. I do, regularly. It works just fine, but thanks for the predictable vinyl apologist response. I have a few of the very CDs you claim *grossly* exceed the fidelity of even the best vinyl. IME they don't exceed it at all. Some of the CDs you cited were at least competetive with the best vinyl and their vinyl counterparts while some didn't really even contend. In your humble opinion, of course......... I don't recall citing any CDs in this thread, but *all* of my thirty-odd XRCDs exceed the fidelity of their vinyl equivalents, and that is simply down to excellent mastering on a fundamentally superior medium. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#172
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 18 Jul 2004 15:59:26 GMT, B&D wrote:
On 7/18/04 10:33 AM, in article , "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: The important ones AFAIK. The fact is still that in terms of objective performance CD stomps all over LP. It is higher fi. Where I would agree with you is the POTENTIAL of CD is better than that of LP's - but the state of the art in mastering tends to make the CD's much less close to hifi. Absolute nonsense! There are numerous superbly mastered CDs on the market, all of which *grossly* exceed the fidelity of even the very best vinyl. Thanks for the insult. Try to understasnd that pointing out that what you said was nonsense is not an insult, merely an observation. Meant to say "SOTA as praciced" rater than SOTA. We're agreeing. We're not - check out for instance the JVC XRCD range, every one of which is superbly mastered. I'm sure that Sony's classical mastering enegineers would also be deeply offended to be thought of as working to less than the state of the art. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#173
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
chung wrote:
John Atkinson wrote: chung wrote in message news:PRzHc.50521$IQ4.19828@attbi_s02... S888Wheel wrote: From: chung S888Wheel wrote: From: "Dennis Moore" Stereophile would have had one notable review if I had been writing one on the most expensive amp. If it were an inexpensive product, I would simply say it broken. If it had been this one for $350K and it was apparent they meant it to be this way, the review would have redefined the term scathing. That is your POV. I find it interesting that you would take such a POV without actually listening to the product. I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess. Maybe not. But you are making presumptions without actually listening. How am I making presumptions? If the measurements show that the amp clips at a low output voltage, then the amp will distort at low output voltages. Are you saying that I may like the clipped sound? I have been following this thread and I don't think those who talk about the Wavac amplifier "clipping" at 2W can have read the review (it's now available in the www.stereophile.com archives). If you look at the graphs of output power vs THD+N percentage, you will see that it does indeed put out 2W at 1% THD+N, which is our usual definition of "clipping." However, it is important to note that the Wavac is _not_ clipping at this level of distortion. What happens is that as the output power increases, the waveform becomes increasingly asymmetrical, meaning that the signal increasingly suffers from second-harmoic distortion. While this is indeed audible once the Wavac is putting out a watt or so, it doesn't sound like clipping distortion, particularly as it is not accompanied by catastrophic amounts of intermodulation distortion. As I wrote in the review, true waveform clipping occurs at a few tens of watts, depending on the output tap and load. So for anyone to cast aspersions at Michael Fremer's hearing ability because he didn't hear "clipping" is inappropriate, given the particular nature of the Wavac's non-linear transfer function. When I listened to the Wavac, the bass boost was immediately apparent, but it didn't sound aggressively distorted. Partly this is because the amount of power typically demanded from an amplifier tends to be below 2W much of the time with music rather than test tones; partly this is because second harmonic distortion tends to fatten the sound in rather a pleasing manner, at least until the intermodulation products reach threshold. Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile I did not read the measurements until they were posted on the website. I agree that saying that this amp clips at 2W is not correct, since it is possible to extract 10W at 5% distortion (8-ohm tap, 8-ohm load). But it is clear that if one is interested in low-distortion power (and I am), this amp provides very little more than 2W (at about 2.2% distortion). Whether one can condemn its sound based on these and other measurements without listening to it depends on what one wants in an amplifier. If one is interested in high-fidelity, accurate, amps, then clearly one can condemn its sound. Unless those measurements are wrong. On the other hand, if one does not care about distortion or various frequency response errors, then perhaps one would not necessarily eliminate this amp as bad sounding. And clearly there is at least one person who loves its sound. I think it indicates that a bit of bass boost and some distortion may be pleasing to some people. I have a 1941 Zenith AM table radio that has lots of audible distortion that I love listening to .....probably because it has a lot of warm memories of my childhood.... but I don't, for an instant, pretend that its hi-fi and recommend it to others as 'good' sounding, 'cuz it isn't. To do otherwise would be un-thinkable for me. |
|
#174
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
|
#176
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
S888Wheel wrote:
From: Steven Sullivan Date: 7/17/2004 9:50 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: Are you suggesting that those people who like what they hear from this amp and believe that what they hear through this amp sounds more like live music should revise their subjective impressions to fit the measurements? I'd suggest they do some better comparisons between live music and the amp, rather than rely on their memories. Your suggestion makes a couple pretty big unfounded assumptions unless you are quite familiar with MFs personal experiences with live music and you heard the system that MF heard and reviewed. It's plain fact that audible memory is imperfect, sometimes grossly so. To imply that Mr. Fremer is an exception to that rule, is a pretty big unfounded implication. Let him prove his ability first, in a scientifically acceptable manner. Otherwise he's just another 'golden ear' with perhaps too much faith in his own abilities. While we wait, please see Dick Pierce's post from some months back, reporting result s of a test of level-matching ability from memory (IIRC the only one who did well was an orchestral conductor). -- -S. "We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's. Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." -- David Lee Roth |
|
#177
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:10:37 GMT, B&D wrote: On 7/14/04 10:59 AM, in article uTbJc.54239$WX.46715@attbi_s51, "chung" wrote: B&D wrote: On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out. You missed the point. The data sheet actually says 150W. The "condemnation" is based on measurements. Right - not listening to it, and a large dollop of resentment because no one here could afford to expend money on luxuries (working, good or bad) like that. You are making a large assumption there. There are at least three multi-millionaires who post regularly to this forum, one of them is certainly able to afford such a toy........................ -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering Barring inheritance; you don't get rich by buying poor performing expensive goods. Even then; doing so is a good way to become un-rich. |
|
#178
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
B&D wrote:
On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out. As I understand it this was not a data sheet but a measurement of actual performance. But does one really need to personally drive a $250,000 Ferrari to "know" whether its faster than a Corvette? And even if they did.... what would that prove about performance? Lab/Use testing at professional facilities are the mechanisms that deliver performance data to end-users. Car & Driver and Road & Track conduct performance testing for subscribers. Sound & Vision and Stereophile do this for audio end-users. There are times when I disagree with the car mags about their shoot-outs because they sometimes seem to allow undefined criteria such as "fun factor" to influence rankings that stand in the way of true performance. But because they publish all the data I can make up my own mind. At Sound & Vision there are seldom shoot-out rankings; for example in my subwoofer comparisons (watch out for the September issue) most of the article is devoted to performance issues and readers can make up their own minds about relative performance criteria. But there are never statements that relevant performance measurements fall behind personal assessments gathered under non-controlled conditions. Of what use would that be to readers? |
|
#179
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:lqSKc.116938$a24.81398@attbi_s03... Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 14 Jul 2004 01:26:08 GMT, "Greg Weaver" wrote: Stewart, I just don't know what to say that could be taken constructively and not appear to be some type of flaming, as that IS NOT how I want to come across. However, in the past 22 years, since the CD format was readily available in homes, not one time, NOT ONCE, has a musician (or any other music lover for that matter) EVER picked CD over vinyl in a head-to-head, same recording comparison. We are talking about hundreds of demonstrations over that time. Hundreds! I just can't believe that anyone, especially on this forum, could so adamantly argue that side of the coin. That's absolute rubbish! I personally know at least five regular concert-goers, and three semi-professional musicians, who prefer CD to vinyl. Hence, your statement is both untrue *and* an obviously biased flame. Even Bob Harley, arguably one of (if not the) strongest proponents for digital playback, has gone on record with this statement from his book "The Complete Guide to High-End Audio," Second Edition, p-325. "This quandary -- LP vs. CD -- emerges from the fact that even today's state-of-the-art digital audio doesn't approach the sound quality offered by a good LP playback system. The very highest level of music reproduction, there's not even a debate: LP is musically superior to CD." Remember the late, great Gabe Weiner, the legendary sound engineer behind PGM Records? He *always* preferred CD, and would have dismissed Harley's rant as sheer 'audiophile' drivel. Indeed, one of Gabe's favourite tests was to play someone an LP, and then a digital recording of that LP. No visitor to his studio could *ever* tell the difference, thereby proving the sonic transparency of CD pretty effectively. With that thought, I close my thread. I shall neither comment further nor expect any response. Again, this is not a "flame!" It is rather the honest incredulity of someone who has spent virtually every day of his adult life in and around this industry, the last 15 years of which have been as a consultant and reviewer. Thanks. Shame then, that you only appear to have listened to those who agree with your own prejudice. If you wanted to, you could find plenty of quotes from top musicians and industry professionals, to the effect that vinyl is a parody of the original performance, and CD is *vastly* superior. Indeed, the first real breakthrough of CD in the mass market was in the classical field, where the clarity and sheer musicality was appreciated by that band of generally critical listeners. I also remember comments from the CD release of Sgt Pepper, where reviewers raved about all the background subtleties that they had never heard on the LP version! Of course, that was before it became *fashionable* to prefer the well-known artifacts of vinyl................ -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering I have dozens of hard-core audio enthisiasts friends, including hard-core jazz fans who transcribe wax, acetate, Lp, cassette, open reel and some other formats I've forgotten to cd and Not One says that the Lp sounds "better" than cd. The fact that they are "collectors" does not necessarily make them connoisseurs of quality reproduced sound. Indeed one of the more hard-core jazz fans (now in his 80s) who followed every format for 40 years in live recordings was over-joyed to get his hands on a cd-recorder to transfer his large collection of lp and live open reel and later DAT recordings to cd-r. He's even now acquiring lp material that he has worn out or wanted; through the internet to copy to cd-r. Ditto the above, especially if he switched from open-reel to DAT and didn't notice a difference (other than, arguably, convenience). I record using both, and the DAT's (Panasonic 3700's) definitely "lean out" and "sharpen" the sound compared to tape and live feed (albeit this is subtle). DAT and CD-R are wonderful archiving tools. They are not the last word in sound reproduction media. |
|
#180
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 7/19/2004 9:25 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: jCSKc.132590$Oq2.122114@attbi_s52 Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:10:37 GMT, B&D wrote: On 7/14/04 10:59 AM, in article uTbJc.54239$WX.46715@attbi_s51, "chung" wrote: B&D wrote: On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out. You missed the point. The data sheet actually says 150W. The "condemnation" is based on measurements. Right - not listening to it, and a large dollop of resentment because no one here could afford to expend money on luxuries (working, good or bad) like that. You are making a large assumption there. There are at least three multi-millionaires who post regularly to this forum, one of them is certainly able to afford such a toy........................ -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering Barring inheritance; you don't get rich by buying poor performing expensive goods. Even then; doing so is a good way to become un-rich. I have no doubt that any number of self made millionaires have bought equipment that you would consider expensive and poor in performance without losing their fortunes. |
|
#181
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
|
#182
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 7/16/2004 3:45 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message news:J%cJc.78334$%_6.34016@attbi_s01... From: "Bob Marcus" Date: 7/14/2004 8:30 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 1kcJc.76426$MB3.32199@attbi_s04 B&D wrote: On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out. Some of us have heard highly distorting systems with massive bass humps before. We don't need to listen to another one to know we won't like it. bob Let me get this straight, you can look at the the measurements of the WAVAC and from those measurements you can determine with a reasonable level of certainty that you have heard a *system* that sounded so similar to the *system* MF reported on in his review that you wouldn't require an audition to form an opinion on it's sonic merits? Based on the measurements the only merit this amp would have is as a really expensive door stop. It would not have been considered a hi-fi amp since the 1940's. Look at the graph of any decent SS amp and you will see the distortion as a nearly flat line until full rated power is reached. With the WAVAC it continues to get worse as you increase the volume. At around 2 watts it's at 1% which is where THD becomes audible. If this amp were $12.00 it would still be overpriced to anyone looking for a 150 watt amp. Are you suggesting that those people who like what they hear from this amp and believe that what they hear through this amp sounds more like live music should revise their subjective impressions to fit the measurements? No, I'm suggesting that buying an amp with this kind of distortion, cannot by definition sound more like live music and that basing one's buying decisions on their faulty memory of such events can only lead to inferior sound. It's not personal, nobody has reliable memory when it comes to audio. |
|
#183
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Ditto the above, especially if he switched from open-reel to DAT and didn't notice a difference (other than, arguably, convenience). I record using both, and the DAT's (Panasonic 3700's) definitely "lean out" and "sharpen" the sound compared to tape and live feed (albeit this is subtle). DAT and CD-R are wonderful archiving tools. They are not the last word in sound reproduction media. But Harry, they _are_ the last word, for when all the vinyl is too worn to play back, then our archived CD's or digital what have you's _will_ be the de facto standard. I realize that to this day, we are finding better and better ways to play back the 78 rpm format, and that is heartening. BUT, there is a fidelity limit with 78's and when you hit that wall, brother, you have hit that wall. Same way with LP's. There is a limit to their fidelity, especially if that rare vinyl has some play on it, and the previous playback was done with equipment not kind to vinyl. Once the damage to the grooves is done, it's done. All the hand wringing, all the super duper arms, carts, stable tables, magic moon rocks etc etc are NOT going to bring back the limited fidelity that was there in the first place. Sorry, but that's the plain truth, and no hoping and wishing will make it any different. So get cracking and transfer that vinyl before it's too late! This ain't the fifties anymore, can't just run down to Tower Records and pick up a pristine copy of that old LP. Regards, Tom |
|
#184
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 7/19/2004 9:05 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: jjSKc.121019$IQ4.107545@attbi_s02 On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 18:26:52 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: From: "Ban" Date: 7/17/2004 11:01 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: rnoKc.119468$Oq2.36942@attbi_s52 S888Wheel wrote: Measurements "pejudicing" (sic) customers? That's a new one. No, It's nothing new.( except my unique spelling perhaps) Heck, just look at all the folks that jumped on the band wagon with the very early SS amps of the sixties. Some of them were really quite awful but the meter reasers thought they were the cat's meow based on the measurements. If the sound was awful, they will have also measured bad. I suggest you do your homework on that one. They measured amazingly well by the measurements made in that time. They sounded pretty awful though. I suggest you do your homework on that one. I did. These amps recieved glowing reviews for their measured performance and their sonic performance. i can only wonder if listening tests were actually done. They had very high crossover distortion, and very low slew rate, both of which were easily measurable. I suggest you take this up with the folks who claimed they measured well back in the day. It's not my fault the reviewers were hung up on THD. It's not my fault they praised amps that a lot of people figured out sounded awful just by listening. That the marketing guys concentrated solely on full-power distortion does not alter these facts. Unfortunately some reviewers bought that load of goods. Maybe in those times a distortion measurement was difficult to execute, but never the less it would have shown the low level distortion. They did by the measurements of the day. See above. I saw it. Doesn't change history. And they sounded quite bad. And a great deal of meter reader minded audio jounalists claimed they were quite sonically superior. Reviewers are not engineers. I suspect many are not. I wouldn't be so quick to make such a universal claim. I fail to see the relevance of this claim though. Maybe measurement based biases can be a problem when seeking excellent sound. Depends what you measure. Or don't meausre in some cases. They did in fact both measure badly *and* sounded bad. Maybe the reviewers of the time should have used their ears instead of the THD measurements for their reviews. |
|
#185
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:RCBKc.114776$IQ4.74175@attbi_s02... On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 03:29:30 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:feyJc.85435$%_6.61349@attbi_s01... OTOH, I *have* heard a Linn with a Syrinx arm, and in my opinion it wasn't even a good vinyl player, let alone any competition for a decent CD player. Correction. You didn't think *that* Linn with a Syrinx arm was a very good player. No correction required, since that's what I said. An expansion would be that I've never heard *any* Linn-based vinyl rig that would hold a candle to something like an SME or Michell Orbe, let alone an average CD player. Your implications in context, the following statement, and your past statements all indicate you believe it is a universal truth. Don't try to wiggle out. I presume you know that the cartridge, the cartridge setup, the arm mass match, the headamp, the preamp, the isolation all make a substantial difference with a turntable. Certainly. I presume you know that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear? The Linn will always be a pig, due to fundamentally poor design. Sorry, Charley. Set up as described, it is not. The turntable I am talking about has all of these things optimized, and has a frequency response / timbre that is an exact match for my CD/SACD players (a perfectly set up Accuphase AC-2 cartridge tracking at 1.75g in a Syrinx PU-2 using the Mass (Loading) Ring, on a Linn Valhalla isolated with sorborthane feet on a Target wall rack, feeding either a modified Marcof PPA-2 or Counterpoint SA-2 headamp, in turn feeding through Monster 1000ii cable into a modified ARC SP6B preamp (in it's own right a superb phono preamp). It has a frequency response which is +/- 0.2dB from 20Hz to 20kHz? Wow, that's really impressive. It's also impossible....... It has a frequency response that from top to bottom of my test disks/lp's cannot be heard to deviate from that of: a Phillips 880, a Marantz 63SE feeding a PDP through a DTI Pro, or a Sony C222 ES. I have not measured it. But freinds and fellow audiophiles have heard it. For what it is worth, the Accuphase AC-2 when properly loaded (54 ohms according to the factory in the SA-2, 30 ohms in the PPA-2) is one of the "flattest" MC's ever produced. Even a *real* turntable can't achieve that kind of response, especially in the bass, which is one of the basic reasons why CD took over from LP. BTW, you can *not* achieve the 'perfect' setup that you claim for your cartridge, in a pivoted arm. Well, I do not listen much to pipe organs, so I can't vouch for the 20-35hz range, but I can tell you that from there on up there is no bass hump or trough except as rooms influence the sound. Moreover, with the Syrinx I used the Mass (Loading) Ring which was designed and does do remarkable things for the bass of this (and presumably other) medium-low-compliance MC cartridges. So I can't comment on what you heard, other than to suggest it may not have been as well optimized as my own. And more importantly, you cannot draw *any* *valid* *conclusion* about what I can hear with my setup. I can draw the perfectly valid conclusions that you are incorrect about the frequency response, and about the cartridge setup. That leads one to doubt the veracity of your other claims. Sorry again, Charley, you cannot. To insist so is pure hubris. You want to continue on with your bias, that's your business. But don't speak as if you are privy to some secret universal truth. Nothing secret about it, just basic engineering knowledge which is widely available to all with eyes to see and ears to hear. Again, just hubris speaking. You have your opinion, but one single exception (as I have demoed to my own satisfaction) robs it of being a universal truth. No such claim was made, although it's obviously a majority opinion. It's certainly closer to being true than the other poster's claim that no music lover or musician has ever preferred CD to LP! As stated, at least implied and now claimed. |
|
#186
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/18/04 5:04 PM, in article dBBKc.113201$%_6.50861@attbi_s01, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote: Unfortunately, our beings our designed so that we do not listen "objectively". All we can do is listen "subjectively". And on that basis, there are many who believe a top-flight LP system can outperform a top-flight CD system. Indeed there are - but many, many more who believe the reverse. And a 'top-flight' CD player need not of course be expensive, which allows more money for what really matters - the speakers and the room. Actually, for me it would be MUSIC. And, yes, for comparable levels of reproduction CD is cheaper than turntable stuff - and is more convenient and lasts longer without fuss. |
|
#187
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:dBBKc.113201$%_6.50861@attbi_s01... On 17 Jul 2004 16:49:28 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: snip..snip.. Indeed there are - but many, many more who believe the reverse. And a 'top-flight' CD player need not of course be expensive, which allows more money for what really matters - the speakers and the room. Speaking of speakers, do you think we need $100,000 speakers to get an accurate sound? or a $1000 mass market speakers will do? |
|
#188
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 7/17/2004 7:47 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message news:MtmIc.58267$MB3.50681@attbi_s04... From: (Nousaine) Date: 7/10/2004 10:37 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: mm4Ic.66433$XM6.20336@attbi_s53 (S888Wheel) wrote: From: chung ...snip to content.... That is your POV. I find it interesting that you would take such a POV without actually listening to the product. I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess. Maybe not. But you are making presumptions without actually listening. How am I making presumptions? You said you don't think the amp in question is worth listening to without listening to it. I find that a bit presumptuous. This attitude is typical of another high-end platitude "You are unqualified to comment on a product that you've never listened to." Well, I suppose some people are comfortable forming opinions about sound they haven't heard. I'm not one of those people. This is simply another merchandising technique to forestall critical comment. No. I am not involved in merchandising. I simply don't like to make presumptions that you seem to be comfortable making. I am surprised that some one who has spent so much time decrying audiophiles who let their biases affect there purchasing decisions would so easily fall victim to his own biases. It assumes that there are special evaluative qualities which only high-end promoters (including buyers) possess. And only insiders can have access. No it doesn't. It presumes that the listening experience is the final arbitrator of quality. For many of us that is the purpose of the hobby. To listen. There is nothing wrong with being more interested in measurements than listening pleasure if that is what intersts you. To each his own. A false choice. Those of us concerned with what the measurements reveal are interested in them BECAUSE they relate to better listening, at least for us. Is that because of what you actually hear or your biases based on measurements? You will never really know without bias controled comparisons will you? It's because of expierience. The very first CD's I heard were all of things I'd heard many times before on vinyl and I instantlu knew that CD was better for me. Every time I've been able to listen to music in a properly set up room that had been equalized for flat response I was able to hear more detail. I've had many occaisonsto hear before and after examples non-flat FR and always preferred flat response. The hobby is still called high-fi and that has a meaning. Yes hifi short for high fidelity. Fidelity meaning truth. Truth to what? To what was put on the master. For me it is truth to the sound of live music. That works if it's a recording of live music, studio albums are not always that. That does not neccessarily always mean truth to the componet directly adjacent in the chain. The recording and playback system has to be considered in total when evaluating fidelity and the final result is determined by ear not by measurements. The only meaning I know of for hifi is fidelity to the source material. To change it from that standard is to introduce distortion. Anything that gets us closer to the intent of the artist by removing distortion, noise, compression, or whatever might be hiding the choices made by the artist and the engineer is a benefit. And that means CD's and solid state. True for studio albums I suppose. But it is hard to know the intent of the artists. They are the ones involved in how the final mix goes. One asssumes that they agree with the end result. Once that result is finalized it should be honored by playing it back in such a way as to not re-master it. That means CD and solid state. If possible it also means room treatments and EQ. For live recordings the artists' intent is more a matter of performance and we are really speaking of the recording engineer's intent. See above. I don't really care about other preferences, they are yours and you're welcome to them, but if they include things like flawed playback devices, they are LOWER-fi. All recording/playback systems are flawed. I'm just looking for the best overall playback system I can afford and the best issues of my favorite recordings. For me that is the path which brings me to what I percieve to be higher fidelity to live music and that which makes live music intrinsicly more beautiful generally speaking. And no one wants to deny you that, but the facts still lead to the inevitable conclusion that solid state and CD get you closer than tubes and vinyl. |
|
#189
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"B&D" wrote in message
news:jHlKc.82639$WX.22022@attbi_s51... On 7/17/04 1:32 AM, in article lR2Kc.96257$MB3.12064@attbi_s04, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: "B&D" wrote in message news:Y85Jc.86876$XM6.19824@attbi_s53... On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out. Before trying something out, especially a $350,000 amp, one likes to have a fair and honest idea of what the equipment is capable of so one is not stuck with the bill for damage. Sure - so one would have to look at the data sheet and demo the equipment. Both. Not just one or the other. Demo being the most important. If one has even a passing knowledge of what the data are showing there would be no reason to hear it at all, other than to get an idea of what really awful distortion sounds like. |
|
#190
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"B&D" wrote in message
... On 7/17/04 10:36 AM, in article , "S888Wheel" wrote: Are you suggesting that those people who like what they hear from this amp and believe that what they hear through this amp sounds more like live music should revise their subjective impressions to fit the measurements? IN this case, who knows. But the general consensus amongst so-called "objectivists" is that the data sheet tells you just about everything you need to know. Then it should be no trouble to provide a quote of that. If an amplifier sounds nice, but the data sheet does not back it up - then somehow your ears are fooling themselves. More likely you prefer a type of sound that is not faithful to the original, or the spec sheet is wrong. Fooling yourself is however very common in audio. There is some truth to that approach - and in a lot of ways should be the way one gets past the first cut in selecting gear. In most audio equipment, at least the competently made stuff there is no signature sound of it's own. This excludes loudspeakers and phono cartridges. |
|
#191
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
B&D wrote:
On 7/13/04 6:31 PM, in article , "Nousaine" wrote: No; I'm suggestimng the review was a waste of print space. Fine. But not every review is going to be of interest to every reader. Sure; but I'm wondering why this would be of interest to any interest to audio enthusiast readers ..... and not just to people like the reviewer, the staff and the manufacturer? Save, perhaps you....but then you automatically advance your interest above mine who paid exactly the same money for my subscription as you did. Are your dollars greener than mine? If you are horrified at every review you read in Stereophile - why on earth do you subscribe? Was the word horrified mentioned? And who mentioned ANY OTHER piece beside the Wavac? |
|
#192
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
(S888Wheel) wrote:
From: chung Date: 7/14/2004 6:14 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: zTkJc.92323$XM6.7336@attbi_s53 S888Wheel wrote: From: "Dennis Moore" Date: 7/13/2004 6:18 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "John Atkinson" wrote in message ... I have been following this thread and I don't think those who talk about the Wavac amplifier "clipping" at 2W can have read the review (it's now available in the www.stereophile.com archives). If you look at the graphs of output power vs THD+N percentage, you will see that it does indeed put out 2W at 1% THD+N, which is our usual definition of "clipping." However, it is important to note that the Wavac is _not_ clipping at this level of distortion. What happens is that as the output power increases, the waveform becomes increasingly asymmetrical, meaning that the signal increasingly suffers from second-harmoic distortion. While this is indeed audible once the Wavac is putting out a watt or so, it doesn't sound like clipping distortion, particularly as it is not accompanied by catastrophic amounts of intermodulation distortion. As I wrote in the review, true waveform clipping occurs at a few tens of watts, depending on the output tap and load. So for anyone to cast aspersions at Michael Fremer's hearing ability because he didn't hear "clipping" is inappropriate, given the particular nature of the Wavac's non-linear transfer function. When I listened to the Wavac, the bass boost was immediately apparent, but it didn't sound aggressively distorted. Partly this is because the amount of power typically demanded from an amplifier tends to be below 2W much of the time with music rather than test tones; partly this is because second harmonic distortion tends to fatten the sound in rather a pleasing manner, at least until the intermodulation products reach threshold. Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Yes, Mr. Atkinson, you are correct, it doesn't clip at 2w. I was guilty of a little hyperbole. Not out of place in this discussion of the $350K Wavac I think. I quite disagree. you had at least one other person convinced that the manufaturers were lying outright about their product. Mr. Chung ask me what else could the claim of 150 watts be other than a lie if it clips at 2 watts. Let me modify the question to you then: If the rated power is 150 W and the unit shows 2% distortion at 2 W, 5% distortion at 10 W, is the spec a lie? If it is not a lie, what is it? Why modify the question? You have now seen the measurements have you not? At what point does the amp actually *clip*? Clearly it is *not* 2 watts as claimed by another poster and taken as fact by you and others. It claims in the review the manufacturer specifies it's "effective power" is 150 watts. That claim is not qualified in any way that I can see. So I guess the answer to the question lies in whether or not this amp can push 150 watts of energy into any speaker load. Can you answer that question by looking at the measurements in Stereophile? As to whether or not it is a lie I suppose depends on what the person who claimed the power rating knew and what he or she believes about what constitutes "effective power." I'd rather know more before I call anyone a liar. after finding out the amp doesn't really clip at 2 watts wouldn't you rather have all the material facts infront of you before you called anyone a liar? I'm hoping that the general populace hasn't forgotten the Power wars of the time before the FTC requirements for amplifier power ratings. There was a time when console "stereos" were claiming 500 watts plus from a modest power amplifier. "Power" only became legitimate when the perhaps overly stringent FTC requirements were commonplace. The pre-heating requirement was perhaps a critical ingredient to the wonderfully long lives of modern power amplifiers. Using FTC guidelines I'm wondering what the power output of this amplifier might be? The term "effective" power is undefined and has no specific meaning as I see it. |
|
#193
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Ban" Date: 7/17/2004 11:01 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: rnoKc.119468$Oq2.36942@attbi_s52 S888Wheel wrote: Measurements "pejudicing" (sic) customers? That's a new one. No, It's nothing new.( except my unique spelling perhaps) Heck, just look at all the folks that jumped on the band wagon with the very early SS amps of the sixties. Some of them were really quite awful but the meter reasers thought they were the cat's meow based on the measurements. If the sound was awful, they will have also measured bad. I suggest you do your homework on that one. They measured amazingly well by the measurements made in that time. They sounded pretty awful though. Maybe in those times a distortion measurement was difficult to execute, but never the less it would have shown the low level distortion. They did by the measurements of the day. And they sounded quite bad. And a great deal of meter reader minded audio jounalists claimed they were quite sonically superior. Maybe measurement based biases can be a problem when seeking excellent sound. The main reason people bought SS amps then was the affordable price and the overall satisfying performance. And that moment tubes disappeared from one year to the next. Yes. Some people refer to that time as the dark ages of audio. The meter readers were seen as the voice of authority then. Many say this terrible time in audio was what lead to the birth of Stereophile. I never heard about this "terrible" time or dark age. And I have been around. I remember the introduction of stereophonic reproduction very well, it must have been around that time. And that I perceived as a step forward, in fact it was revolutionizing our hobby. You must have lived in Russia or where? I think it ought to be. I think there is some use for smoe measurements for audiophiles such as me. Matching equipment can be made easier via measurements. I'm still going to make my final decisions based on listening though. This "matching" is another myth invented by the Quacks. Hmm so you would put any cartridge on any arm, and any arm /cartridge combo on any table? You would match any cartridge to any preamp? You would mate any speaker with any amp? I think the "quacks" are right and you are wrong here. I was not talking about antiquated technology here. For me the principle of a needle scratching in some groove on disks or cylinders is over a hundred years old and outdated. It was always a PITA to operate, continuously the needle was bent and the expensive disks were so delicate, a bit drunk or a party and you would produce scratches that stayed forever. :-(( There are always certain conservative persons sticking to any outdated technology, the legacy lovers. They still use the C64 and say it is better than my notebook. I admit, some might prefer that round look, well most of those have migrated to the Tupperware apples tho. Exept the loudspeaker impedance(4 or 8 ohms) there is little to observe, because already in that time there were existing specs about input level(-10dBm), RIAA EQ and impedance etc. In fact the HiFi criteria gives values for almost all important numbers. Any tuner, tape deck or amplifier can be connected and will perform as stated if it was fulfilling the criteria. This is one of the reasons the HiFi gear gained such a popularity, as it was the case with the computer. OK......If you say so. If you say so to your friends will you replace their damaged equipment? This is the most extreme statement I have seen so far. Damaged equipment? Do you connect the mains to the speaker terminals or RCA-plugs? Or do you hot-plug your turntable into the preamp with volume full on? Sorry please give some examples, I cannot conceive of any. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
|
#194
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
(S888Wheel) wrote:
From: "Bob Marcus" Date: 7/14/2004 8:30 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 1kcJc.76426$MB3.32199@attbi_s04 B&D wrote: On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out. Some of us have heard highly distorting systems with massive bass humps before. We don't need to listen to another one to know we won't like it. bob Let me get this straight, you can look at the the measurements of the WAVAC and from those measurements you can determine with a reasonable level of certainty that you have heard a *system* that sounded so similar to the *system* MF reported on in his review that you wouldn't require an audition to form an opinion on it's sonic merits? Absolutely. What do we "hear?" The primary receptor is the ear drum. It's called the tympanic membrane for a good reason. As humans we "hear" loudness, pitch (aka partial loudness) and arrival time. That's it. If the "amplifier" can transmit the signal to the loudspeaker terminals with no degradations in level and no changes in partial level differences and no additions (distortion) or arrival timing error it will be subjectively perfect. |
|
#195
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"t.hoehler" wrote in message
news:9mXKc.120706$%_6.77017@attbi_s01... Ditto the above, especially if he switched from open-reel to DAT and didn't notice a difference (other than, arguably, convenience). I record using both, and the DAT's (Panasonic 3700's) definitely "lean out" and "sharpen" the sound compared to tape and live feed (albeit this is subtle). DAT and CD-R are wonderful archiving tools. They are not the last word in sound reproduction media. But Harry, they _are_ the last word, for when all the vinyl is too worn to play back, then our archived CD's or digital what have you's _will_ be the de facto standard. I realize that to this day, we are finding better and better ways to play back the 78 rpm format, and that is heartening. BUT, there is a fidelity limit with 78's and when you hit that wall, brother, you have hit that wall. Same way with LP's. There is a limit to their fidelity, especially if that rare vinyl has some play on it, and the previous playback was done with equipment not kind to vinyl. Once the damage to the grooves is done, it's done. All the hand wringing, all the super duper arms, carts, stable tables, magic moon rocks etc etc are NOT going to bring back the limited fidelity that was there in the first place. Sorry, but that's the plain truth, and no hoping and wishing will make it any different. So get cracking and transfer that vinyl before it's too late! This ain't the fifties anymore, can't just run down to Tower Records and pick up a pristine copy of that old LP. Regards, Tom Can't argue with you in theory, but the records and original tapes I have recorded to DAT lose enough that I have stopped and am exploring other options...going directly to HD at 96k or perhaps to a Masterlink and then to 96k 24 bit disks. My beef isn't digital per se although it is only at the very highest level that it can compete with analog; it is the 44.1 / 16bit CD standard per se as exemplified by the 3700 which I object to as "perfect sound forever". |
|
#196
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:
"B&D" wrote in message news:Y85Jc.86876$XM6.19824@attbi_s53... On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out. Before trying something out, especially a $350,000 amp, one likes to have a fair and honest idea of what the equipment is capable of so one is not stuck with the bill for damage. Absolutely; but how can you accept the word of the testing lab that the proven virus-carrier "sounds good"? |
|
#197
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
From: chung
Date: 7/18/2004 2:06 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 1DBKc.114777$IQ4.80972@attbi_s02 Ban wrote: S888Wheel wrote: Measurements "pejudicing" (sic) customers? That's a new one. No, It's nothing new.( except my unique spelling perhaps) Heck, just look at all the folks that jumped on the band wagon with the very early SS amps of the sixties. Some of them were really quite awful but the meter reasers thought they were the cat's meow based on the measurements. If the sound was awful, they will have also measured bad. Maybe in those times a distortion measurement was difficult to execute, but never the less it would have shown the low level distortion. The main reason people bought SS amps then was the affordable price and the overall satisfying performance. And that moment tubes disappeared from one year to the next. I think the measurements in those days were acceptable in terms of distortion, but the consumer might have put too much emphasis on a single number: THD at 1 KHz at max. power Certainly some manufacturers did. And it seems certain magazines did as well. unfortunately for some consumers who took them at their word. Measurements cannot "prejudice" customers. Sure they can if they are lead to believe that they tell a story that they don't really tell. funny how history repetes itself. It's the lack of understanding of what measurements mean that could potentially mislead customers. THD did really seem to mean much with early SS amps did it? Yet it was the king of all measurements. On the other hand, subjective reviews can definitely prejudice customers. Oh I see, only that with which the objectivists disagree is capable of creating prejudice. Anything that a person associates with quality can prejudice a customer. That can be a review or measurements depnding on the person's mind set. The careful audiophiles will read the Stereophile subjective reviews for their entertainment values, and pay attention to the measurements and feature sets to find out how the products really behave. One can be careful and find more than just mere entertainment value from many Stereophile subjective reviews. I think it ought to be. I think there is some use for smoe measurements for audiophiles such as me. Matching equipment can be made easier via measurements. I'm still going to make my final decisions based on listening though. This "matching" is another myth invented by the Quacks. Exept the loudspeaker impedance(4 or 8 ohms) there is little to observe, because already in that time there were existing specs about input level(-10dBm), RIAA EQ and impedance etc. In fact the HiFi criteria gives values for almost all important numbers. Any tuner, tape deck or amplifier can be connected and will perform as stated if it was fulfilling the criteria. This is one of the reasons the HiFi gear gained such a popularity, as it was the case with the computer. At this point I would like to quote what Siegfried Linkwitz (a respected speaker designer and electrical engineer) said: "Minimal alteration of the original should be the goal of sound reproduction since anything else is a falsification. For many pieces of recorded material it may not matter, because the performance is so highly processed and the listener shares no common sonic reference. Also, a listener may be so used to amplified music that the characteristic sound of certain types of loudspeakers becomes the reference. However, ultimately only a system with minimal distortion can hope to achieve the reproduction of an original and, in particular, of a familiar live sonic event such as a choral performance, a solo male voice, or a car driving by. My motto is: True to the Original ...". Linkwitz's summary of sound reproduction is well worth reading for anyone interested in audio reproduction: It's fine to have a philosophy for achieving goals. But then there is this thing known as practical application. That is when the better designers stick with their philosophies until such a time as it does not wrought the best result. Then one comprimises and finds the best practical solution. Wht will be the best solution foe one person will not ofr another because it involves subjective choices. http://www.linkwitzlab.com/reproduction.htm A point often missed by those who believe in "matching" equipment: you cannot undo non-linear distortion. You cannot avoid it either. That is, you cannot expect the distortion created in one component to be undone by distortion created by another. I'm not sure that is true. The proof is in the final product though and not in the path chosen. You have to choose components that individually have low distortion. Some people like to look at the trees some people like to look at the forrest. I am a forrest kind of person. Of course, someone may prefer certain types of distortion. But to think that adding distortion in the reproduction path can somehow undo distortion in the transducers (microphones and speakers) so that the overall sound is "faithful to the live sound" is simply unrealistic. I quite disagree. I think the pure path is a good starting point but that's it. there comes a point where the recording engineers and the makers of audio equipment have to choose between serving their philosophies and serving their ears. |
|
#198
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...
Really? Did you do a product perception evaluation before the listening sessions? Was the brand masked? HAd anyone mentioned the fact that they were Macintoshes? DId any of the listeners have any particular positive feelings about tube amps? 1) Yes. I'm serious. 2) Yes, of course. Doesn't everyone? 3) Yes, of course. Wouldn't be a fair evaluation if they weren't, would it? 4) No, that info would've unfairly biased the listeners, no doubt. 5) No. In fact, *all* feelings, either positive or negative, about anything and everything in general, were forcibly removed from the participants via a combination of mind-altering drugs and precise nuerosurgical procedures. Any evaluation which does not take this critical step is IMHO invalid, as the listener's feelings inevitably will bias their perceptions. |
|
#199
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:NuSKc.121078$IQ4.110882@attbi_s02... "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:feyJc.85435$%_6.61349@attbi_s01... On 15 Jul 2004 03:03:34 GMT, B&D wrote: On 7/14/04 9:23 PM, in article _%kJc.82948$IQ4.70366@attbi_s02, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: Until recently I had a Linn Valhalla / Syrinx PU-2 / Accuphase AC-2 / Modified Marcof PPA-2 setup that bested my Sony/DTI Pro/Proceed PDP player and Sony C222ES SACD player on identically recorded music (Beethoven 5th Symphony; Ormandy "Verdi Requiem; Szell's Rossini Overatures, Joplin's Cheap Thrills, Dylan's Blonde on Blonde comparison disks). Well, it would sure as heck sound *different*! That it 'bested' your CD player is of course only your personal opinion. I dunno - if he listened to it - I figure it passed the only test required - and it is his opinion - as you would say that it didn't best it based upon no data or listening. OTOH, I *have* heard a Linn with a Syrinx arm, and in my opinion it wasn't even a good vinyl player, let alone any competition for a decent CD player. Correction. You didn't think *that* Linn with a Syrinx arm was a very good player. I presume you know that the cartridge, the cartridge setup, the arm mass match, the headamp, the preamp, the isolation all make a substantial difference with a turntable. The turntable I am talking about has all of these things optimized, and has a frequency response / timbre that is an exact match for my CD/SACD players (a perfectly set up Accuphase AC-2 cartridge tracking at 1.75g in a Syrinx PU-2 using the Mass (Loading) Ring, on a Linn Valhalla isolated with sorborthane feet on a Target wall rack, feeding either a modified Marcof PPA-2 or Counterpoint SA-2 headamp, in turn feeding through Monster 1000ii cable into a modified ARC SP6B preamp (in it's own right a superb phono preamp). So I can't comment on what you heard, other than to suggest it may not have been as well optimized as my own. And more importantly, you cannot draw *any* *valid* *conclusion* about what I can hear with my setup. You want to continue on with your bias, that's your business. But don't speak as if you are privy to some secret universal truth. You have your opinion, but one single exception (as I have demoed to my own satisfaction) robs it of being a universal truth. I've been here and done that. I cannot tell you how often I've had an audiophile tell me that "he" can easily hear certain things. When asked why he was unable to show he could "hear" these things (even using his own equipment) during a controlled listening test at an audio club meeting the response was often that something in the system used interfered with the "optimization" process. In the march to "fix" this so-called problem I've used the reference system of the claimant (wires;Singh,Zipser) and otherwise gone to lengths to qualify the reference system prior to listening. The most common response to the "bad system" complaint was that there would never be a 'condition' where the claimant would agree to repeat the experiment using his own system. One particularly loud protester (who has failed to identify his own modified-amplifier in a bias controlled test using my system) was unable to repeat the test using his own system because (and I quote) "his ampliifer terminals were too hard to reach". Really. All this comment aside I wonder why no amp/wire/bit proponent has ever been able to produce a single replicable bias-controlled experiment that supports their case. All we get is argument. Never a single piece of evidence. I wonder why? I assume you just cut and paste your response to messages like this, as you have quoted this verbatim example at least five times in the last two years. I've hardly made a "bad system" complaint to Stewart. What I have pointed out is indisputable: that setting up and optimizing an LP system is subtle, difficult, and time consuming and *ever single parameter* has to be done properly (sometimes by trial and error) to get an LP system sounding it's best. And one thing we *know* CD's get right is frequency response, so there is an objective side-by-side standard to measure against. Stewart likes to quote Linn's supposed "bloat". Well, an isolated, wall-mounted stand further isolated with sorbothane feet solves this problem just fine with the Linn, and allows it's otherwise good qualities to come through. When you have the LP and CD systems sounding identical in timbre and frequency, you can be assured that this aspect of LP reproduction is set correctly. And in my system, it is. And when it is, and identical recordings are played on LP and CD, the LP's usually win on "depth of image" and microdynamics. Also, a perfectly set up line-contact stylus and good sounding headamp/preamp also minimize LP scratches and surface noise (assuming the LP's are in good shape) to an inconsequential level so that sometimes you really have to listen hard to hear any "noise" difference. I have been adjusting and optimizing turntables, arms, and cartridges since the late '60's. It is hard work and requires knowledge. If you feel that CD's are superior to LP's because you don't have to do this work, or your comparison is to a conventional LP player with no particular attention to optimization, or the best cartridge your machine ever had was a Shure V15, or you've never had a low-output MC in your system, you are welcome to the opinion that CD's are better at reproduction of music. But before you conclude that this is "intrinsic" you must be willing to optimize LP; otherwise you are simply fooling yourself (and also robbing yourself of much fine music). |
|
#200
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:4CFKc.116413$IQ4.57056@attbi_s02... "S888Wheel" wrote in message news:MhzKc.110044$a24.103317@attbi_s03... From: "Ban" Date: 7/17/2004 11:01 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: rnoKc.119468$Oq2.36942@attbi_s52 S888Wheel wrote: Measurements "pejudicing" (sic) customers? That's a new one. No, It's nothing new.( except my unique spelling perhaps) Heck, just look at all the folks that jumped on the band wagon with the very early SS amps of the sixties. Some of them were really quite awful but the meter reasers thought they were the cat's meow based on the measurements. If the sound was awful, they will have also measured bad. I suggest you do your homework on that one. They measured amazingly well by the measurements made in that time. They sounded pretty awful though. Maybe in those times a distortion measurement was difficult to execute, but never the less it would have shown the low level distortion. They did by the measurements of the day. And they sounded quite bad. And a great deal of meter reader minded audio jounalists claimed they were quite sonically superior. Maybe measurement based biases can be a problem when seeking excellent sound. The main reason people bought SS amps then was the affordable price and the overall satisfying performance. And that moment tubes disappeared from one year to the next. Yes. Some people refer to that time as the dark ages of audio. The meter readers were seen as the voice of authority then. Many say this terrible time in audio was what lead to the birth of Stereophile. I can tell you point blank it is what started "The Abso!ute Sound". I was there. The obvious answer would seem to be, lack of understanding. Given that TAS has been the subject and butt of more jokes than I can remember. TAS should have been laughed out of print and it's staff should be held up as examples of how not to find out the truth about audio. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Imaging, soundstage, 3D | High End Audio | |||
| the emperor's clothes | High End Audio | |||
| Sound, Music, Balance | High End Audio | |||
| DVI - The Destroyer Of Sound | High End Audio | |||
| Surround Sound for Stereo Lovers | High End Audio | |||
Linear Mode
