| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
Harry Lavo wrote:
We hear small signals below the noise floor. That is well known. What isn't credible that the brain responds to something at the auditory nerve that isn't there. That's going to take some explaining, most likely in the realm of a basic logical fallacy on your part. Are you advocating an argument that doesn't make sense? What makes you think that a certain "pattern" in the audible spectrum may not cause the brain to look for (direct) the ear to find/fill in missing parts of the pattern that it might not respond to as a pure two-dimensional signal. What on earth makes you think that I don't? OF COURSE the brain does that! That's how melodic and chord progressions 'work' by creating expectations of increasing and/or decreasing tension that are related to the acoustic laws quantified by Pythagoras, et al with consonance, dissonance beats and so on. So until you can show affirmatively that when used to evaluate components in open ended listening, blind abx difference testing or blind a-b comparison testing leaves audio evaluation intact, there are those of us who will continue to suspect the test. It's that simple. This isn't mathematics, where there is absolute proof. It's about weight of evidence. |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 18:49:37 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: Bruce Abrams wrote in message news:rnicc.78740$w54.443873@attbi_s01... This is a circular argument, Stewart. What are 'nominally competent amps'? Ones that sound identical? If an amp sounds different, then is it no longer a 'nominally competent amp'? Mr. Nousaine defines nominally competent later in this thread as follows: +/- 0.1 dB 100 to 10,000 Hz with less than 1% clipping and no measurable odd stuff like a shut-down with protection into the speaker in question. Building an amplifier that meets such a standard is no longer a major engineering feat. The position is that any such amplifier driving a given load will sound no different than any other such amplifier driving the same load. Nonsense. Rise time? TIM? Measurements of sine waves tell luttle if anything about how an amp handles signals. Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about. Rise time is not an issue with any modern amp, Even Stereophile apparently agrees. See the article on DVD-A and SACD measurements in the most recent issue, where 'rise time' (which unless I'm mistaken, is a synonym for 'slew rate') is essentially dismissed as a factor in audible difference between amps. Even so, do old 'golden ear' hypotheses ever really die? -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
This was sort of a duplicate post of the previous one. I received an error
on my end when send the first one, so I posted another before I saw the initial one actually made it through. I don't save posts locally, so I had to go by recolection and ad-libbing. I was unable to contact the moderators soon enough to stop the second one. The intent of both is essentially the same. Combining them could perhaps give more clarity. Sorry for any confusion. ************************************************** *********************** wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: We hear small signals below the noise floor. That is well known. What isn't credible that the brain responds to something at the auditory nerve that isn't there. That's going to take some explaining, most likely in the realm of a basic logical fallacy on your part. Are you advocating an argument that doesn't make sense? etc................. |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
Steven Sullivan wrote:
where 'rise time' (which unless I'm mistaken, is a synonym for 'slew rate') That is mistaken. Rise time is typically used for measurement of small signals. (from 10-90% of the leading edge, although it can be expressed for any signal) Slew rate is the maximum rate at which a device can pass a signal, usually expressed in volts per microsecond, and is typically measured at higher levels. For example, an amplifier can have a faster rise time at low levels than at higher levels and the slower result at the higher levels is because of slew rate limiting. |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
In article QQJbc.175796$_w.1818218@attbi_s53,
"Bob Marcus" wrote: Wylie Williams wrote: I aplologize for my inept internet skills. Somehow on the post below I seem to be replying to Bob Bernstein when I was replying to the Bob Marcus post below. I also apololgize for the frivolus tone of my reply to Bob Marcus, if not my dissatisfaction with the general idea that I got from his post, which is that "plug it in and play it; if you don't hear distortion it's as good as it gets". That sounds like a subjective answer, and was asking for an objective answer. Yeah, but it was a "subjective" answer based on my objective answer. Mind you, I have no objection to the subjective school of audiophilia, as I have followed that path for years. But as RAHE has many committed and persuasive adherents to the objective school I thought I would find out some objective criteria for amp selection. But not too successfully. Noussaine, for example, tells of his dozen or so amps that all sound the same to him. I don't doubt that he ( as well as all the other adherents of the "if it's a nominally competent amp it sounds like all the other nominally competent amps" school ) has a great system and great ears, but that's no help to me. I would like to find out the criteria for NC status. Mr. Marcus says "flat frequency response and enough power" and "without audible distortion". I am under the impression that flat frequency response is as common as dirt. Seems so. As far as "without audible distortion" goes I have considerable experience in the mid-fi business and I know that the vast majority of healthy young males with good hearing think anything that plays loud has "no audible distortion". Or is it "no audible distortion as judged by a golden eared listener"? Who certifies the goldenness of the ears? Certainly professional audiophile reviewers would be the clear choice for experienced golden ears, but they all say that even the best amps have very different sounds. Perplexing! Who cares who certifies anything? Your ears are the only ones that matter. If the amp doesn't seem to be distorting to you, then it's good enough for you, right? Besides, if distortion is audible variation from the original sound then then vast majority of reproduced sound I have heard in my life has been audibly distorted. Sometimes more distorted, sometimes less, sometimes a few moments of a convincing illusion, sometimes "euphonic coloration" (which I definea s likeable distortion), and only occasionally apparently free of distortion. Actually, you've never heard rerpoduced sound that wasn't distorted. The question is, what caused the distortion? Probably the speakers, not the amp. As for selecting the speaker first, that's an interesting thought. And it's worth it's own thread. I thought I would try to settle the quality issue first and deal with the quantity issue later. Besides, after selecting a speaker I would have to choose an amp, so knowing the elusive criteria for "nominally competent" would be the starting point, wouldn't it? Maybe I have a better speaker than I know, but my amp is lacking. Maybe (although probably not). But unless you've got a fair bit of measuring equipment and the know-how to use them, you can't determine whether an amp is competent to do what you're asking it to do. Now, if you know what kind of a load your speakers present, and how powerful your amp is into a load like that, and how big a room you're trying to fill, you can make a reasonable assessment. But there's no measurement that's going to tell you, "54 watts isn't enough, but 55 watts is." That's why even objectivists have to trust their ears. (We just don't trust them when they're telling us something we know can't be true!) bob Yeah, but measurement can tell you that 55 watts is not enough and 550 is; 250 is enough if the amp handles clipping well. |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
|
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
|
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
|
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 02:58:20 GMT, wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: where 'rise time' (which unless I'm mistaken, is a synonym for 'slew rate') That is mistaken. Rise time is typically used for measurement of small signals. (from 10-90% of the leading edge, although it can be expressed for any signal) Slew rate is the maximum rate at which a device can pass a signal, usually expressed in volts per microsecond, and is typically measured at higher levels. For example, an amplifier can have a faster rise time at low levels than at higher levels and the slower result at the higher levels is because of slew rate limiting. That is of course quite correct, but it should be noted that hardly any modern solid-state amplifier will suffer from slew rate limiting, even with SACD or DVD-A sources. Modern power devices are *much* faster than we had in the '60s (2N3055, anyone?), and SRL has simply not been an issue for twenty years. Agreed. And to say nothing about the slew rates required to accurately reproduce the sounds of acoustic musical instruments, even into tough speaker loads, such as electrostatics that have dropping impedance with increasing frequency. |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:tVGcc.84705$K91.184804@attbi_s02...
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 18:49:37 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: Bruce Abrams wrote in message news:rnicc.78740$w54.443873@attbi_s01... This is a circular argument, Stewart. What are 'nominally competent amps'? Ones that sound identical? If an amp sounds different, then is it no longer a 'nominally competent amp'? Mr. Nousaine defines nominally competent later in this thread as follows: +/- 0.1 dB 100 to 10,000 Hz with less than 1% clipping and no measurable odd stuff like a shut-down with protection into the speaker in question. Building an amplifier that meets such a standard is no longer a major engineering feat. The position is that any such amplifier driving a given load will sound no different than any other such amplifier driving the same load. Nonsense. Rise time? TIM? Measurements of sine waves tell luttle if anything about how an amp handles signals. Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about. Rise time is not an issue with any modern amp, and TIM was always a myth. Most amps handle audio signals just fine. Some amps don't handle ultrasonic signals too well, which is why SACD gets variable reviews, but that's another matter. What you're arguing is that 'all nominally competent amps (amps that sound the same) same sound the same'. Nobody has circularly defined nominally competent as you claim. It is yet another strawman argument that you have erected. You have said 'all competent amps sound the same'. If one amp does not, would you not define it as 'non-competent'? Yes, and you'll easily be able to measure what's wrong with it. Then it is a tautology to say 'all competent amps sound the same'. You cannot do that. It's begging the question. You also offer no real definition of 'competence' other than 'that which makes the amps sound the same'. Petitio principii. http://52.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PE/..._PRINCIPII.htm http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/begging.php I brought up before the case of the Sony TA-N88B that my friend heard with me 17 years ago, and he was quite able to hear its distinct clarity. Only under sighted conditions, which are worthless in this context. Petitio principii. If you're going to argue, you must do it according to the rules of argumentation. Begging the question is not going to get you anywhere. |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:qv6dc.96545$K91.222341@attbi_s02... Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:tVGcc.84705$K91.184804@attbi_s02... On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 18:49:37 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: Bruce Abrams wrote in message news:rnicc.78740$w54.443873@attbi_s01... This is a circular argument, Stewart. What are 'nominally competent amps'? Ones that sound identical? If an amp sounds different, then is it no longer a 'nominally competent amp'? Mr. Nousaine defines nominally competent later in this thread as follows: +/- 0.1 dB 100 to 10,000 Hz with less than 1% clipping and no measurable odd stuff like a shut-down with protection into the speaker in question. Building an amplifier that meets such a standard is no longer a major engineering feat. The position is that any such amplifier driving a given load will sound no different than any other such amplifier driving the same load. Nonsense. Rise time? TIM? Measurements of sine waves tell luttle if anything about how an amp handles signals. Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about. Rise time is not an issue with any modern amp, and TIM was always a myth. Most amps handle audio signals just fine. Some amps don't handle ultrasonic signals too well, which is why SACD gets variable reviews, but that's another matter. What you're arguing is that 'all nominally competent amps (amps that sound the same) same sound the same'. Nobody has circularly defined nominally competent as you claim. It is yet another strawman argument that you have erected. You have said 'all competent amps sound the same'. If one amp does not, would you not define it as 'non-competent'? Yes, and you'll easily be able to measure what's wrong with it. Then it is a tautology to say 'all competent amps sound the same'. You cannot do that. It's begging the question. You also offer no real definition of 'competence' other than 'that which makes the amps sound the same'. Petitio principii. Once again, look above to see an actual definition of competent as proposed by Tom... "+/- 0.1 dB 100 to 10,000 Hz with less than 1% clipping and no measurable odd stuff like a shut-down with protection into the speaker in question" By continuing to raise this straw man (which continues to be burned down) it is you who continue to beg the question, "Based on the previously given definition of nominal competence, do you think that you can hear the difference between nominally competent amplifiers or audio cables when engaged in a bias controlled, blind listening test?" An answer to this question would be most enlightening. *snip* |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 06:42:30 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:tVGcc.84705$K91.184804@attbi_s02... On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 18:49:37 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: You have said 'all competent amps sound the same'. If one amp does not, would you not define it as 'non-competent'? Yes, and you'll easily be able to measure what's wrong with it. Then it is a tautology to say 'all competent amps sound the same'. You cannot do that. It's begging the question. Not at all, since you can easily set up a 'bypass' test to show that the output of any nominally competent amplifier sounds identical to its input signal. This should be a breeze with your beloved Stax 'phones. It is an obvious next step to say that any amp which does *not* sound the same as its input signal, is *by definition* incompetent. You also offer no real definition of 'competence' other than 'that which makes the amps sound the same'. Petitio principii. See above. Quod erat demonstrandum. http://52.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PE/..._PRINCIPII.htm http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/begging.php I brought up before the case of the Sony TA-N88B that my friend heard with me 17 years ago, and he was quite able to hear its distinct clarity. Only under sighted conditions, which are worthless in this context. Petitio principii. Vero? Visne scire quod credam? Credo disco volante existare. If you're going to argue, you must do it according to the rules of argumentation. Begging the question is not going to get you anywhere. That's why I didn't do it. You OTOH persist in ignoring the vast panoply of psychological and empirical evidence which clearly demonstrates that sighted listening is useless for the identification of subtle audible differences. Not so much begging the question, as simple denial. Obesa cantavit. Die dulce fruere. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ...
Then it is a tautology to say 'all competent amps sound the same'. You cannot do that. It's begging the question. Not at all, since you can easily set up a 'bypass' test to show that the output of any nominally competent amplifier sounds identical to its input signal. What is a 'nominally competent amplifier'? It begs the question! This should be a breeze with your beloved Stax 'phones. It is an obvious next step to say that any amp which does *not* sound the same as its input signal, is *by definition* incompetent. That's circularity! Are you reading my posts? You do not seem to understand what circularity is in an argument, and why tautology does not help your cause. If you say 'all competent amps sound the same' that's a tautology, because no two amplifiers are indentical in design or manufacturing tolerances. In principle, there could be no 'competent' amplifiers at all, because ALL amplifiers could in fact sound different. |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ...
Then it is a tautology to say 'all competent amps sound the same'. You cannot do that. It's begging the question. Not at all, since you can easily set up a 'bypass' test to show that the output of any nominally competent amplifier sounds identical to its input signal. What is a 'nominally competent amplifier'? It begs the question! This should be a breeze with your beloved Stax 'phones. It is an obvious next step to say that any amp which does *not* sound the same as its input signal, is *by definition* incompetent. Are you reading my posts? You do not seem to understand what circularity is in an argument, and why tautology does not help your cause. If you say 'all competent amps sound the same' that's a tautology, because no two amplifiers are indentical in design or manufacturing tolerances. In principle, there could be no 'competent' amplifiers at all, because ALL amplifiers could in fact sound different. |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ...
you can easily set up a 'bypass' test to show that the output of any nominally competent amplifier sounds identical to its input signal. Could you please elaborate on this, explain how this Bypass Test would be accomplished? Thanks. |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
|
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
"Wylie Williams" wrote in message ...
"Nousaine" wrote Nominally competent is easy. +/- 0.1 dB 100 to 10,000 Hz with less than 1% clipping and no measurable odd stuff like a shut-down with protection into the speaker in question. That's never been a secret. Is it really that easy? It's hard to believe that if I find a $149 Kenwood receiver that meets those criteria, use a high level input so it functions as a power amplifier, it should sound the same as a power amplifier from an established and respected maker, like Parasound or B&K. And if it doesn't the same? Wylie Williams I think the magic word is '... into the speaker in question' in the sense that amplifiers behave differently depending on the (complex) load. A properly designed amplifier for a purely resistive load may fail with electrostatics ... A given load may be more friendly for a certain amplifier than another one, so comparison makes not too much sense. The *ideal* amplifier should 'load unaware', then - i.e. having massive current capability on heavily reactive loads. IMO, this is the reason why some people hear cable sound: using a capacitive wire with a SET / low-Z output driving low-Z can really lead to funny frequency responses ... changing depending on different cables :-) |
Linear Mode
