On 1 Aug 2003 16:13:29 GMT, "All Ears" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:PQlWa.36487$uu5.4559@sccrnsc04...
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:14:43 GMT, "All Ears"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:Y7KVa.16733$o%2.10872@sccrnsc02...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:22:39 GMT, "All Ears"
wrote:

Again, would you say, from a personal non sceintific point of view,
that
OTLs sounds bad and unnatural?

I would say that it sounds inaccurate. Good or bad are matters of
preference.

Are you speaking from personal experiences, or theoretical judgement?

I've heard the Futterman, and I wasn't impressed. Also, they are
theoretically disastrous, which is a bad place to start, IME!

Modern OTLs has fortunately solved some issue present in the Futterman
design. I think you would change your mind if you listened to some Tenor,
Atma-Sphere or Joule Electra OTLs, with the right speakers.

I've also heard the Atma-Sphere, and there really were no 'issues'
with the Futterman design which are not still present in modern OTLs.
They suffer the same *fundamental* problems of high source impedance,
added to all the standard valve problems. The *only* thing they avoid
is the deep bass and high treble problems of O/P transformers, but the
source impedance problem is to my ears much more serious.

I simply can *not* understand why anyone thinks that there's anything
special about an OTL valve amplifier, aside from the sheer difficulty
of getting such a beast to work at all!

As with dancing bears, the amazing thing is not that it dances well,
but that it dances at all..................

I have had quite a few ears to listen to the OTLs lately and they are all
extremely impressed by how truely natural they sound......

Yes, we have established that you *like* that sound, but to my ears it
is not at all 'natural', just *inaccurate*. The reasons *why* that
extra bit of 'air' is common to valve designs are well-known, but it
wasn't on the master tape.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 2 Aug 2003 00:39:30 GMT, "All Ears" wrote:

-Snip-
Again, would you say, from a personal non sceintific point of view,
that
OTLs sounds bad and unnatural?

I would say that it sounds inaccurate. Good or bad are matters of
preference.

Are you speaking from personal experiences, or theoretical judgement?

I've heard the Futterman, and I wasn't impressed. Also, they are
theoretically disastrous, which is a bad place to start, IME!

Modern OTLs has fortunately solved some issue present in the Futterman
design. I think you would change your mind if you listened to some Tenor,
Atma-Sphere or Joule Electra OTLs, with the right speakers.

I've also heard the Atma-Sphere, and there really were no 'issues'
with the Futterman design which are not still present in modern OTLs.
They suffer the same *fundamental* problems of high source impedance,
added to all the standard valve problems. The *only* thing they avoid
is the deep bass and high treble problems of O/P transformers, but the
source impedance problem is to my ears much more serious.

Speaker matching is one of the critical issues with these amplifiers. Part
of my success with these OTLs is that I was fortunate enough to have some
rather efficient self damping speakers, that works, as if they were build
for these amps. It would be easy to find several speakers that would work
pretty lousy in combination with OTL. They really don't like speakers that
dips into low impedances.

Quite so, and almost all the truly high quality speakers on the market
have aggressively low dips in their impedance curves. Now, since all
well-designed amps are sonically indistinguishable below clipping, why
would one use an amp which cannot drive the best speakers?

I simply can *not* understand why anyone thinks that there's anything
special about an OTL valve amplifier, aside from the sheer difficulty
of getting such a beast to work at all!

As with dancing bears, the amazing thing is not that it dances well,
but that it dances at all..................

I have had quite a few ears to listen to the OTLs lately and they are all
extremely impressed by how truely natural they sound......

Yes, we have established that you *like* that sound, but to my ears it
is not at all 'natural', just *inaccurate*. The reasons *why* that
extra bit of 'air' is common to valve designs are well-known, but it
wasn't on the master tape.

Well, there are many approaches to musical pleasure and audio reproduktion.
Why do you think we have all these Tubes versus SS threads? Because we have
people burning for their ideals and passions! My ear/brain combo apparantly
works different from yours, or you have not experienced what I have, or the
other way around. That is it.

A more likely take is that we have different goals. Mine is to obtain
'the closest approach to the original sound', to borrow a phrase.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Randy, when you say:

. If you believe the objective argument, speakers and room treatment are
most
important, followed by the recording itself and if you get
"competently designed" cd players, amps you are in like flint. Wires,
interconnects and other tweaks are generally a waste of money as you
go higher up the food chain, and power conditioners are generally not
needed.

can you be more specific about what you mean "as you go higher up the food
chain"?

For example I have many interconnect cables left over from my stereo store.
I have everythng from the ones that come free with a $99 Sony CD player to
cables from Tara Labs and IXOS in the $400 to $500 dollar range. I have no
idea where you would place these cables "on the food chain". When I talk to
ordinary people a $50 cable is at the top. When I read The Absolute Sound a
$400 cable is entry level at best.

And I have no idea which of my components would be considered "competently
designed", so I don't know whether I have overspent or aimed too low.

Wylie Williams

-snip-

Speaker matching is one of the critical issues with these amplifiers.
Part
of my success with these OTLs is that I was fortunate enough to have some
rather efficient self damping speakers, that works, as if they were build
for these amps. It would be easy to find several speakers that would work
pretty lousy in combination with OTL. They really don't like speakers
that
dips into low impedances.

Quite so, and almost all the truly high quality speakers on the market
have aggressively low dips in their impedance curves. Now, since all
well-designed amps are sonically indistinguishable below clipping, why
would one use an amp which cannot drive the best speakers?

Well 100W P/C of OTL power will move some membrane, so we are not talking
horn speakers here. I like to hear the textures and layers of the music, and
to feel the presence and harmonic structure of a piano or an acoustic bass.
This is what these amplifiers do to me....


I simply can *not* understand why anyone thinks that there's anything
special about an OTL valve amplifier, aside from the sheer difficulty
of getting such a beast to work at all!

As with dancing bears, the amazing thing is not that it dances well,
but that it dances at all..................

I have had quite a few ears to listen to the OTLs lately and they are
all
extremely impressed by how truely natural they sound......

Yes, we have established that you *like* that sound, but to my ears it
is not at all 'natural', just *inaccurate*. The reasons *why* that
extra bit of 'air' is common to valve designs are well-known, but it
wasn't on the master tape.

Well, there are many approaches to musical pleasure and audio
reproduktion.
Why do you think we have all these Tubes versus SS threads? Because we
have
people burning for their ideals and passions! My ear/brain combo
apparantly
works different from yours, or you have not experienced what I have, or
the
other way around. That is it.

A more likely take is that we have different goals. Mine is to obtain
'the closest approach to the original sound', to borrow a phrase.

How would you prefer to look at a painting? With the maximum light
available, or would you like to try to recreate the actual light, in which
it was painted?

KE

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:15:04 GMT, "All Ears"
wrote:
"Richard D Pierce" wrote in message
news:xWGVa.15186$Ho3.2577@sccrnsc03...
In article RhwVa.6614$Oz4.1603@rwcrnsc54,
All Ears wrote:

Frankly, feedback operation, as it applies to audio amplifiers,
is MUCH simpler and, indeed, much more powerful than your
description implies. And, it should be noted, feedback is one of
the most poorly understood concepts by the high-end community
almost as an intrinsic property of the industry. More out-and-
out hooey and bunkum has been promulgated about feedback by
high-end manufacturers, magazine writers and other
self-appointed but clueless experts than almost any other topic.

The SS amplifiers I am talking about are equipped with the Anagram Power
Loop module, and does exactely what I described.....

Well, according to Anagram Technology's website, it's IMPOSSIBLE
to say what it does and how it does it. There is no coherent
description, there is no theory of operation, it simply makes
some cryptic and irrelevant claims, such as "tension gain" and
such that are pretty meaningless.

Until a real technical description of what the thing does
technically, I think any such statement is pure speculation.

The description is given to me from a source close to Anagram, so I have no
reason to doubt the function.

Well, whatever description you related here is technically
nonsensical, much of Anagrams website is technically vague,
nonsensical or out and out incorrect.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

In article 03mWa.36667$uu5.4640@sccrnsc04,
Wylie Williams wrote:
Where Mr. Pierce says
And, we can say, that the lowest the impedance could be is the
electrical resistance of the voice coil. Can't get any lower
than that.
it jogs a memory of something I read in Harmon Kardon literature in the
early 80's to the effect that the imprdance of a speaker would drop below
the DC resistance during bass transients. The something , may back EMF ( I
don't recall) would cause aa nominal 8 ohm speaker ( DCR probably 5 to 6
ohms) to drop as low as 1 ohm at times. This was supposed to be a finding
from Mr. Otala's' research, and was part of the justification for high
current amplification.

You recall quite incorrectly. Indeed. Mr. Otala findings
confirmed what I stated. I have the article in front of me:
Otala, M., "Peak Current Requirements of Commercial Loudspeaker
Systems," J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol 35, no 6, Oct 1986. It makes
no claims of the sort that you recall. His only claim is that
the peak current encountered under come conditions were several
times greater than that found in an 8-ohm resistor. What is
often forgotten is that the impedane of the loads he was testing
dipped well below 8 ohms across significant bands of frequency,
so it is NOT at all surprising to find current in excess of
those into 8 ohms. There is absolutely no big surprise here
whatsoever.

I believed this was true results from legitimate research. Do I
misremember HK's claims, or do I remember right and the literature was
presenting incorrect information?

Sorry, but your memory on this is quite incorrect.

There is SO much utter nonsense and outright hooey that is
attributed to what seems to be this magical, mysterious
"back-EMF." WHat is VERY clear is that those in the high-end
audio realm that invoke "back-EMF" for these sorts of behaviors
have utterly NO idea what they are talkign about or how it
works.

The back EMF due to the mechanical resonance of a loudspeaker
with a voice coil attached and moving in a magnetic field is NO
different AT all then the recirculating currents in an
electrical resonant circuit.

In order for speakers to behave as your recollection demands,
the speaker would have to have real negative impedances in it. I
would invite your to describe how a passive device, even a
combination of a passive electrical, mechanical and acoustical
device, could possibly have real negative impedance. (Hint: it
is not possible AND not a single shred of evidence exists to
suggest otherwise and, oh by the way, by "real" we mean,
specifically, impedances which are on the left-hand side of the
complex S plane).

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

In article PU%Va.23636$uu5.2909@sccrnsc04,
Wylie Williams wrote:
Well, if I read the preceding posts correctly I must suppose that
everything that ever is to be known about human auditory perception is
known.

Ah, yes, the desparate final defense when the paltry merits of
tone's position have been exhausted: snidely misrepresent the
opther side's position.

No, in fact, no one EVER said that we know everything there is
to know, and, indeed, you are undoubtedly well aware of thatm,
so why bring it up?

What was said is that the state of knowledge in high-end audio
is often DECADES behind what is known in real engineering and
perceptual physics fields, and that, quite often, what is claim
to be "known" in high-end audio is just plain wrong.

Or, the other possibility is, you did NOT read the preceding
posts correctly.

I have a question - Where can I find a list of those components that
have been shown to be good enough that the human ear cannot detect
improvement? Or if not a list, a chart of the specifications?

Better yet, why don't YOU show us real evidence that the basic
thresholds of human hearing can regularily be surpassed by
high-end audio listeners?

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

"randyb" wrote ( in connection of comparing interconnects)
Have someone switch them out and see if you can tell the
difference without knowing which cable is in the system. Not double
blind but might be interesting.

Randy, I haven't done that. I do the usual thing: substitute and listen,
knowing what is in the system. I'll try to get my one audiophile friend to
come over and play a substitution game.

I have, however, done a different test that I consider to be more valid than
my personal evaluations I make a change and ask my wife what she thinks of
the sound. She is a close to an unbiased listener as I can get. Usually I
tell her which component has been changed, and I suspect that she suspects
that new component under test is more expensive. If she has a bias it is
probably in fovor of that familiar product that we already own. I can assure
you that she could,care less about technological innovation or brand names
or the other factors that would influence me. Her jufgments are quick. And
so far as my tin ears can confirm, accurate.
Wylie Williams

"All Ears" wrote in message ...
How would you prefer to look at a painting? With the maximum light
available, or would you like to try to recreate the actual light, in which
it was painted?

Well, as my wife IS a painter of some note, and as I have worked
with a number of painters, I would most DEFINITELY say that the
light under which the painting was created is NOT the light under
which I would want to view it, and, indeed, soliciting the opinion
of a number of these painters reveals that unanimously, these
painters feel that the ideal light to view their work is NOT the
light they used while painting them.

Wylie Williams wrote:
"randyb" wrote ( in connection of comparing interconnects)
Have someone switch them out and see if you can tell the
difference without knowing which cable is in the system. Not double
blind but might be interesting.

Randy, I haven't done that. I do the usual thing: substitute and listen,
knowing what is in the system. I'll try to get my one audiophile friend to
come over and play a substitution game.

I have, however, done a different test that I consider to be more valid than
my personal evaluations I make a change and ask my wife what she thinks of
the sound. She is a close to an unbiased listener as I can get. Usually I
tell her which component has been changed, and I suspect that she suspects
that new component under test is more expensive. If she has a bias it is
probably in fovor of that familiar product that we already own. I can assure
you that she could,care less about technological innovation or brand names
or the other factors that would influence me. Her jufgments are quick. And
so far as my tin ears can confirm, accurate.
Wylie Williams

Wylie, I'm afraid that according to the best extant psychological research,
your wife is likely no less susceptible to perceptual bias than you are.
The 'bias' often mentioned here is simply one that tends to make people
perceive *difference* whether it exists or not. It's not necessarily a
bias to hear something as 'better' or 'worse'. Certainly if you *tell* her
something has been
changed, or ask her what she thinks of the sound, she is even more
likely to take those 'cues' as meaning that she 'should' hear a difference.

--
-S.

-Snip-
And the Futterman is one example of an OTL tube amplifier I have
evaluated and, indeed, the output impedance is quite high.

The Futtermam designs suffered from some obvious design compromises, the
far
best speaker match was the Quad electrostates.

I cannot think of a worse match. Given the wide impedance
variation of the Quad "electrostatics," the resulting frequency
response would be greatly altered over what Peter Walker
intended when he designed them.

Again, you may well LIKE the results, but you need to understand
WHY you do.

I admit that I never personally heard this combination, but I know that a
lot of people liked it.

KE


--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
...
"All Ears" wrote in message
...
How would you prefer to look at a painting? With the maximum light
available, or would you like to try to recreate the actual light, in
which
it was painted?

Well, as my wife IS a painter of some note, and as I have worked
with a number of painters, I would most DEFINITELY say that the
light under which the painting was created is NOT the light under
which I would want to view it, and, indeed, soliciting the opinion
of a number of these painters reveals that unanimously, these
painters feel that the ideal light to view their work is NOT the
light they used while painting them.

Actually, I used to paint a lot as well, back when I had the time. It is
quite obvious that using different light, changes the color balance in the
painting......

"Richard D Pierce" wrote in message
et...
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:15:04 GMT, "All Ears"
wrote:
"Richard D Pierce" wrote in message
news:xWGVa.15186$Ho3.2577@sccrnsc03...
In article RhwVa.6614$Oz4.1603@rwcrnsc54,
All Ears wrote:

Frankly, feedback operation, as it applies to audio amplifiers,
is MUCH simpler and, indeed, much more powerful than your
description implies. And, it should be noted, feedback is one of
the most poorly understood concepts by the high-end community
almost as an intrinsic property of the industry. More out-and-
out hooey and bunkum has been promulgated about feedback by
high-end manufacturers, magazine writers and other
self-appointed but clueless experts than almost any other topic.

The SS amplifiers I am talking about are equipped with the Anagram
Power
Loop module, and does exactely what I described.....

Well, according to Anagram Technology's website, it's IMPOSSIBLE
to say what it does and how it does it. There is no coherent
description, there is no theory of operation, it simply makes
some cryptic and irrelevant claims, such as "tension gain" and
such that are pretty meaningless.

Until a real technical description of what the thing does
technically, I think any such statement is pure speculation.

The description is given to me from a source close to Anagram, so I have
no
reason to doubt the function.

Well, whatever description you related here is technically
nonsensical, much of Anagrams website is technically vague,
nonsensical or out and out incorrect.

From my latest thoughts about this issue, I have a theory that what they
really could be doing is some sort of "current feed forward" making it
easier for the amplifier to deliver the current peaks. I'll look into the
matter...


--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

"Wylie Williams" wrote in message
news:03mWa.36667$uu5.4640@sccrnsc04
Where Mr. Pierce says
And, we can say, that the lowest the impedance could be is the
electrical resistance of the voice coil. Can't get any lower
than that.

it jogs a memory of something I read in Harmon Kardon literature in
the early 80's to the effect that the impedance of a speaker would
drop below the DC resistance during bass transients. The something ,
may back EMF ( I don't recall) would cause aa nominal 8 ohm speaker (
DCR probably 5 to 6 ohms) to drop as low as 1 ohm at times.

The only speakers I am aware of that present load impedances as low as one
ohm do so at high frequencies, not low frequencies. Relevant brand names
include Acoustat, Infinity, and Martin-Logan.

Infinity produced a small number of models whose impedance went down into
the 2 ohm range at bass frequencies. These speakers used woofers with
multiple voice coils and AFAIK oddly-connected (presumably reasonable in the
context of the actual design) reactive networks in a way that was both
patented and also quite rare.

Other than a short list of exceptions, nominal 4-8 ohm speakers rarely dip
below 2.66 ohms in the bass range, with 3 ohms being a more common low water
mark.

Transient drive is irrelevant to this discussion as these speakers are easy
to test to find these characteristics. Traditional tests will uncover these
low impedances, using continuous sine-wave drive.

There's a practical problem with speakers like these . If people take
speakers home and they sound like crap with their existing amplifier,
they're more probably likely to return the speakers than buy a new
amplifier. Even if a majority did buy a new amplifier, there is a tremendous
number of lost sales. A lot of new equipment makes the ugly transition to
used equipment with no revenues being generated.

Therefore, it behooves the speaker manufacturer to deliver speakers that are
relatively easy to drive.

This was
supposed to be a finding from Mr. Ocala's research, and was part of
the justification for high current amplification.

It is merely good traditional electrical engineering practice to have a
power source that can deliver reliable power to its load. Nobody needs or
needed Otala to point this out to them.

I believed this was true results from legitimate research. Do I
misremember HK's claims, or do I remember right and the
literature was presenting incorrect information? Or does that concept
not apply in the context of this discussion?

I've studied the impedance properties of 100's of high end speakers and
assembled the characteristics of what I find to be a reasonable worst case
load. I've portrayed its technical properties and a passive circuit that
implements it (a "dummy load" for testing amplifiers) at my PCABX and
PCAVTech web sites.

"Richard D Pierce" said
What was said is that the state of knowledge in high-end audio
is often DECADES behind what is known in real engineering and
perceptual physics fields,

That is a troubling statement in two ways:
1. It implies that the top level of audio industry knowledge of several
decades ago was inadequate for the purpose of high end audio today. Are
there no componenst form decades ago that are still comparable to today's
best?
2. It implies that today's practicioners who are up to the state of the art
are ignoring audio design. Many of the pioners of audio were not trained in
audio but brought their knowledge to audio from other fields. Has this
stopped happening?

By the way, Mr. Pierce, your business name is Professional Audio
Development. Are you associated with design of high end audio?

I have a question - Where can I find a list of those components that
have been shown to be good enough that the human ear cannot detect
improvement? Or if not a list, a chart of the specifications?

Better yet, why don't YOU show us real evidence that the basic
thresholds of human hearing can regularily be surpassed by
high-end audio listeners?

Well, it's clever to turn the tables and ask me to be the expert. Eevn if I
were capable (not so), having sampled the DBT on RAHE posts I would not
consider wading into that bar fight.
I have more practical goals, one of which is to discover if there are
objective specifics that can be used to choose components. In my stereo
store customers were always looking for what I called "the magic number" -
some specification that would assure them that a component with that number
would be as good as they needed to get. I told them manufacturers specs and
magazines reviews did not tell the whole story. That they had to listen. I
never believed that was possible to use a magic number till I started
reading RAHE, where there seems to be a strong contingent of highly
knowledgeable members who believe that science has discovered, if not a
single magic number, maybe a set of numbers that are capable of measurement
so we won't have to listen to choose electronic components. I have asked in
a different post and some members have given me some helpful information
about amps. Interestingly the nmos specific responses are not posted to the
group but to me as an individual. What could account for this reluctance to
post specifics about high end audio on RAHE?

Wylie Williams

"Wylie Williams" wrote in message

"randyb" wrote ( in connection of comparing interconnects)
Have someone switch them out and see if you can tell the
difference without knowing which cable is in the system. Not double
blind but might be interesting.

Randy, I haven't done that. I do the usual thing: substitute and
listen, knowing what is in the system. I'll try to get my one
audiophile friend to come over and play a substitution game.

It's true that this is "the usual thing" but its equally true that it scores
zero on the bias control scale.

I have, however, done a different test that I consider to be more
valid than my personal evaluations I make a change and ask my wife
what she thinks of the sound. She is a close to an unbiased listener
as I can get.

If you can figure out how to do a self-administered blind test, you can be
your own unbiased listener. My PCABX web site makes that dream a reality for
people who have computers with sound cards in them. which is just about
everybody these days.

Usually I tell her which component has been changed,
and I suspect that she suspects that new component under test is more
expensive. If she has a bias it is probably in favor of that familiar
product that we already own. I can assure you that she could,care
less about technological innovation or brand names or the other
factors that would influence me. Her judgments are quick. And so far
as my tin ears can confirm, accurate.

The failings of non-blind and single blind subjective tests have been
well-known for at least 100 years. Double blind tests have been the gold
standard in subjective testing for at least 50 years.

In article ,
All Ears wrote:
Well, whatever description you related here is technically
nonsensical, much of Anagrams website is technically vague,
nonsensical or out and out incorrect.

From my latest thoughts about this issue, I have a theory that what they
really could be doing is some sort of "current feed forward" making it
easier for the amplifier to deliver the current peaks. I'll look into the
matter...

If you understood amplifier and feedback principles, you'd
understand why this "current feed forward" description is
nonsensical and quite impossible.
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

"All Ears" wrote in message
...
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
...
"All Ears" wrote in message
...
How would you prefer to look at a painting? With the maximum light
available, or would you like to try to recreate the actual light, in
which
it was painted?

Well, as my wife IS a painter of some note, and as I have worked
with a number of painters, I would most DEFINITELY say that the
light under which the painting was created is NOT the light under
which I would want to view it, and, indeed, soliciting the opinion
of a number of these painters reveals that unanimously, these
painters feel that the ideal light to view their work is NOT the
light they used while painting them.

Actually, I used to paint a lot as well, back when I had the time. It is
quite obvious that using different light, changes the color balance in the
painting......

Mmm, well I'm a painter, and of course different lighting changes color
balances, but any experienced painter knows that and to some degree
compensates for it. My preferred lighting for painting is the brighter the
better, but that is so I can see the details. I certainly wouldn't advise
anyone to replicate that same lighting for normal viewing, as it is harsh
and makes some things stand out too much. I do, as I'm working, regularly
view the work under more typical lighting conditions to make sure I'm on the
right track. This is very analogous to what should happen in a recording
studio, where they should be sweating the details, even if those details are
largely inaudible under normal listening conditions for most listeners.

Mark Alan Miller

Regarding Mr. Pierce's statement
And, we can say, that the lowest the impedance could be is the
electrical resistance of the voice coil. Can't get any lower
than that.
..
Arny Kreuger stated
Other than a short list of exceptions, nominal 4-8 ohm speakers rarely dip
below 2.66 ohms in the bass range, with 3 ohms being a more common low

My question is - did those speakers with nominal 4-8 ohm impedance have a
DC resistance of 2.66 to 3 ohms?
Just trying to clarify.

Wylie Williams

In article ,
Wylie Williams wrote:
"Richard D Pierce" said
What was said is that the state of knowledge in high-end audio
is often DECADES behind what is known in real engineering and
perceptual physics fields,

That is a troubling statement in two ways:
1. It implies that the top level of audio industry knowledge of several
decades ago was inadequate for the purpose of high end audio today.

It implies abosultely no such thing and to say so is a
desparate attempt to make a silk purse out of a pile of pig
droppings. It states quite explicitly the opposite: that the
high end industry is, in fact, IGNORANT of quite a large number
of things that were worked on decades ago. A case in point: look
at the huge amount of handwringing that goes on over the subject
of jitter: a topic thoroughly studied and understood in the
1960's, and the high-end industry hasn't even begun to
understand the picture.

Are
there no componenst form decades ago that are still comparable to today's
best?

If you mean are there not components "out there" that compare
with today's best high-end components, well, no: "out there"
long since has moved on to far better. And that's precisely
high-end's problems.

2. It implies that today's practicioners who are up to the state of the art
are ignoring audio design.

Yup, basically. The level of ignorance and witchcraft and snake
oil in the high-end is almost embarrasing. Other engineering
field pay FAR better and are FAR less frustrating and FAR more
rewarding to be in. A competent engineering with solid
background can make an order of magnitude MORE money elsewhere.
Beyond that, working with some of the utter hooey like magic
stones, wooden pucks, water filled wire, green CD pens (which,
by the way, started as an April Fool's joke), impedance matching
CD fluids (another April Fool's joke), blue LED dithering CD
players, funny looking wooden thingies in the room, electron-
aligning clock radios, magic wire, funky feedback bricks, and
all the rest is at first discouraging, then amusing to a
competent engineer.

Many of the pioners of audio were not trained in
audio but brought their knowledge to audio from other fields. Has this
stopped happening?

What has happend is that the field is now becoming more and more
populated by people who have less and less training in ANYTHING.

By the way, Mr. Pierce, your business name is Professional Audio
Development. Are you associated with design of high end audio?

I am actively involved in the development of products, systems
and software used in professional audio applications, such as
multi-track workstations, audio and video editing applications,
loudspeaker measurement, design and evaluation and so on.

I have a question - Where can I find a list of those components that
have been shown to be good enough that the human ear cannot detect
improvement? Or if not a list, a chart of the specifications?

Better yet, why don't YOU show us real evidence that the basic
thresholds of human hearing can regularily be surpassed by
high-end audio listeners?

Well, it's clever to turn the tables and ask me to be the expert. Eevn if I
were capable (not so), having sampled the DBT on RAHE posts I would not
consider wading into that bar fight.

It was no attempt to turn the table on you, rather to turn the
tables back to where they belong. The human auditory system has
been the subject of intense study for well over 150 years now,
and many self appointed high-end luminaries have either not
availed themselves of this work, or are deliberately ignoring
it. The claims made about the ear being such a fantastically
sensitive instrument are simply contrary to the vast amount of
known data and constitute extraordinary claims.

It's not that "we" claim to know everything, it's that there are
people in the high-end realm who, in fact, know VERY little.

I have more practical goals, one of which is to discover if there are
objective specifics that can be used to choose components. In my stereo
store customers were always looking for what I called "the magic number" -
some specification that would assure them that a component with that number
would be as good as they needed to get. I told them manufacturers specs and
magazines reviews did not tell the whole story. That they had to listen. I
never believed that was possible to use a magic number till I started
reading RAHE, where there seems to be a strong contingent of highly
knowledgeable members who believe that science has discovered, if not a
single magic number, maybe a set of numbers that are capable of measurement
so we won't have to listen to choose electronic components.

I will tell you this in no uncertain terms: the search for
simple single-value "figures of merit" is an exercise in
futility. This is PRECISELY my complaint with "specs:" they are
manufacturers and reviewers attempts to come up with a single
number that they can badge equipment with that will convince us
that one thing is better, and something else is better still.

What you don't seem to understand, it seems, is that the
business of high-end audio shares one thing in common with other
businesses: it's a BUSINESS. It won't survive unless YOU buy
stuff (and, one reason it's not surviving is that people AREN'T
buying stuff). And the easier it is to get YOU to buy STUFF, the
better.

Any attempts, even well-intentioned ones, to some up with
simples figure-of-merit measurements is foolish. The suite of
measurements to determine things is FAR more complex than a
0.01% here or a .25 dB there. If that's what you're looking for,
you ain't ever going to find it.

The more we DO learn about these things, the farther we get from
what you want: a single number that says "10" is better that
"9".

For example, how would YOU go about interpreting an error
spectrum? If I can't put it into a single number, what good is
it going to do you.

Unfortunately, the high-end "luminaries" take this and turn it
into something entirely different: "measurements are uselss"
they say. No, it's the "luminaries" that are useless, and they
simply are scrambling to avoid their inevitable irrelevancy.

I have asked in
a different post and some members have given me some helpful information
about amps. Interestingly the nmos specific responses are not posted to the
group but to me as an individual. What could account for this reluctance to
post specifics about high end audio on RAHE?

It would be like trying to hold a rational discussion of quantum
physics during a revival meeting.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

....snip.....

Soundstage and imaging are the results of the interrelationships between the
sounds in the various channels that are reproduced. We can argue that by the
argument of composition, as long as the channels themselves have high
fidelity, the relationships between them are preserved.

In general this is true.


Ironically, IME it takes a relatively gross lack of fidelity to adversely
affect soundstaging and imaging. I can remember a few cases where I detected
a audible flaw because it changed imaging, but it was a rare occasion. I
almost always detect audible difference by listening for changes in timbre
or purity.

I think timbral accuracy is a key ingredient in spatial presentation too. I
seldom find bad sounding speakers that image well. Basic horizontal placement
may be OK but image size, ambience reproduction, depth and other spatial
characteristics always seem to be compromised too.

However, because spatial rendition is also a function of speaker deployment it
is quite possible to use good sounding speakers in a way that compromises
staging, imaging, envelopment and ambient field reproduction.

"Wylie Williams" wrote in message
news:mg0Ya.76363$YN5.58159@sccrnsc01
Regarding Mr. Pierce's statement
And, we can say, that the lowest the impedance could be is the
electrical resistance of the voice coil. Can't get any lower
than that.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
chung wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

(I have little idea a *what* they;re talking about when they discuss big
differences in the 'imaging' and 'soundstage'-throwing capabilities of *amplifiers*).


Only thing I can think of is that the L and R channels of the amp (or
the monoblocks) are mismatched in gain or in frequency response. This is
much less likely in solid-state amps.

From their reviews I'd ahve to resume that the majority of the amps they
listen to are grossly defective, then, since there is such a notable
variation in 'soundstage' and 'imaging'..


What is even more strange to me is how different interconnects or
speaker cables can produce huge differences in imaging or soundstage,
according to some observers.

Of course, this is where DBT's can be really illuminating....

"Wylie Williams" wrote in message news:pX_Xa.74794$uu5.8061@sccrnsc04...
The posts below end with the quote "Science can't measure things like
soundstage and imaging"

Before I started reading RAHE this would have made me doubt science. Now I
see that the truth is that if it hasn't been proved by science, as defined
on RAHE, it doesn't exist except as a figment, hallucination, or delusion.
And anyone who says different is looking for a fight on RAHE.


Many people, in this group, think that there are still some mysterious
and as yet undiscovered, electrical characteristics of amplifiers, CD
players, and speaker cables.

As one very good engineer said, years ago, if you find them he would
nominate you for the Nobel Prize. So far, no one in this group has
been nominated for the Nobel Prize. :-) Don't hold your breath
waiting for it to happen.

Bob Stanton

"Richard D Pierce" wrote in message
news:7a9Ya.80704$o%2.36381@sccrnsc02

In article pN8Ya.53931$Oz4.14680@rwcrnsc54,
Arny Krueger wrote:

It's pretty much a rule that a typical speaker's impedance curve will
bottom
out really close to its DC resistance an octave or so above its
fundamental
resonance.

About the only general way I know of to beat this rule is to have a
speaker with really high efficiency - 25 to 50%. A lower efficiency
speaker tends to act more like a resistor. Most speakers are like 1%
efficient, more or less.

Well, no. If you think about it, this is contradictory on its face.

Not in the context of comparing the impedance curves of speakers to their DC
resistance.

A high-efficiency speaker MUST behave, electrically, more
like a resistor, simply because a high-efficiency speaker is
converting more of its electrical input power to sound, which
effectively means a high real part to its radiation impedance
(read "resistive"), and a high radiation resistance will appear
directly as an equivalent high electrical resistance.

Right, but a high-efficiency speaker tends to generate stronger back-emf. In
the real world speaker drivers have a hard time avoiding seeing a mismatched
acoustic load at some frequency, extreme though it might be. Their acoustic
efficiency typically relatively low at these points, which agrees with your
thesis.

No power
can be dissipated in reactances, be they electrical, mechanical
or acoustical, and when no power is dissipated, no work is done.

One can take ANY speaker and apply a conjugate for the
impedance, and end up with a speaker whose net impedance is
purely resistive, regardless of the efficiency.

I see no problems with this, but it seems to be somewhat afield of
comparisons of speaker driver impedance to speaker driver DC resistance.

Richard Pierce wrote

I will tell you this in no uncertain terms: the search for
simple single-value "figures of merit" is an exercise in
futility. This is PRECISELY my complaint with "specs:" they are
manufacturers and reviewers attempts to come up with a single
number that they can badge equipment with that will convince us
that one thing is better, and something else is better still.

Any attempts, even well-intentioned ones, to some up with
simples figure-of-merit measurements is foolish. The suite of
measurements to determine things is FAR more complex than a
0.01% here or a .25 dB there. If that's what you're looking for,
you ain't ever going to find it.

The more we DO learn about these things, the farther we get from
what you want: a single number that says "10" is better that
"9".

No not a single number. My post said something a little differeent. I
wrote
"... RAHE, where there seems to be a strong contingent of highly
knowledgeable members who believe that science has discovered, if not a
single magic number, maybe a set of numbers that are capable of measurement
so we won't have to listen to choose electronic components. ..."

I asked for a set of numbers and did not specify a limit.

It is interesting to seek opinions on component selection on RAHE. If
you ask for listening impressions you will be informed that they are useless
unless DBT was used, which will be followed by a deluge of arguments
between RAHE members about DBT in which all are declared to be wrong by the
others. Accompanied by a few "if you like it, that's all that matters".
If you ask for specs some will supply them but then others will call
that an exercise in futility. What can you do with a component besides
listen or measure?

Mr. Pierce, how would you choose an amplifier?

Wylie Williams

In article m2uYa.89091$YN5.64386@sccrnsc01,
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Richard D Pierce" wrote in message
news:7a9Ya.80704$o%2.36381@sccrnsc02

In article pN8Ya.53931$Oz4.14680@rwcrnsc54,
Arny Krueger wrote:

It's pretty much a rule that a typical speaker's impedance curve will
bottom
out really close to its DC resistance an octave or so above its
fundamental
resonance.

About the only general way I know of to beat this rule is to have a
speaker with really high efficiency - 25 to 50%. A lower efficiency
speaker tends to act more like a resistor. Most speakers are like 1%
efficient, more or less.

Well, no. If you think about it, this is contradictory on its face.

Not in the context of comparing the impedance curves of speakers to their DC
resistance.

A high-efficiency speaker MUST behave, electrically, more
like a resistor, simply because a high-efficiency speaker is
converting more of its electrical input power to sound, which
effectively means a high real part to its radiation impedance
(read "resistive"), and a high radiation resistance will appear
directly as an equivalent high electrical resistance.

Right, but a high-efficiency speaker tends to generate stronger back-emf.

Arny, sorry, but this is basically contrary to simple physics.
First, "back-emf" is generally ONLY "generated" at resonance.
Beyond that, simply by conservation of energy, your claim CAN
NOT hold.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Wylie Williams asked
Mr. Pierce, how would you choose an amplifier?


Mr. Pierce replied
For what purpose?

If it's for someone's personal use, I'd say that any method and
criteria the person making the choice uses that satisfies that
person's criteria is exactly what is needed.

A masterful answer.

How would I choose and amplifier? I'd first have to determine
what the amplifier is being used for.

Let me try two purposes:
1. If you were establishing a high end home stereo system
2. If you were specifying components for a professional high accuracy full
range stereo music monitoring system in a room similar in size to a home
environment.

If you dance away from this one I will stop asking.

Wylie Williams

"Richard D Pierce" wrote in message

In article m2uYa.89091$YN5.64386@sccrnsc01,
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Richard D Pierce" wrote in message
news:7a9Ya.80704$o%2.36381@sccrnsc02

In article pN8Ya.53931$Oz4.14680@rwcrnsc54,
Arny Krueger wrote:

It's pretty much a rule that a typical speaker's impedance curve
will bottom out really close to its DC resistance an octave or so
above its fundamental resonance.

About the only general way I know of to beat this rule is to have a
speaker with really high efficiency - 25 to 50%. A lower efficiency
speaker tends to act more like a resistor. Most speakers are like
1% efficient, more or less.

Well, no. If you think about it, this is contradictory on its face.

Not in the context of comparing the impedance curves of speakers to
their DC resistance.

A high-efficiency speaker MUST behave, electrically, more
like a resistor, simply because a high-efficiency speaker is
converting more of its electrical input power to sound, which
effectively means a high real part to its radiation impedance
(read "resistive"), and a high radiation resistance will appear
directly as an equivalent high electrical resistance.

Right, but a high-efficiency speaker tends to generate stronger
back-emf.

Arny, sorry, but this is basically contrary to simple physics.
First, "back-emf" is generally ONLY "generated" at resonance.

Beyond that, simply by conservation of energy, your claim CAN
NOT hold.

Ironically, conservation of energy is why my claim MUST hold.

A speaker driver follows similar rules to a motor.

A high efficiency motor has a relatively low DC resistance, and when
spinning unloaded most of the applied voltage is resisted not by the motor's
DC resistance, but by back-emf. The motor spins very fast in order to
generate the required back-emf. As you load the motor, the back-emf
decreases and more current flows into the motor. When the motor stalls due
to high torque mechanical load, the entire applied voltage is dropped across
its internal resistance.

Hig efficiency drivers, such as the JBL 2446 spec sheet at
http://www.pispeakers.com/JBL_2446.pdf have relatively low DC resistance
given their nominal impedance. Furthermore while a low efficiency driver
will have a minimum impedance that is essentially the same as its DC
resistance, a high efficiency driver will have a minimum impedance that is
significantly greater than its DC resistance (in this case 50% greater!), as
this spec sheet and many others show.

But we are far afield of the origional topic, which is popular press musings
about "back-emf". In a system that conserves energy, back emf is just a way
to explain why the impedance of a loudspeaker driver can be greater than its
DC resistance. It's not the unmanagable physical effect that destroys or
dramatically decreases the performance of power amplifiers, like some
popular writers and advertising copywriters would have us believe.

"Richard D Pierce" wrote in message
news:MdFYa.92573$Ho3.12519@sccrnsc03...
In article ,
Wylie Williams wrote:

Richard Pierce wrote
Mr. Pierce, how would you choose an amplifier?

For what purpose?

If it's for someone's personal use, I'd say that any method and
criteria the person making the choice uses that satisfies that
person's criteria is exactly what is needed.

How would I choose and amplifier? I'd first have to determine
what the amplifier is being used for.

Recorded music.
Is there a difference in selection criteria between amplifiers for live
music and those for recorded music? Perhaps amplifier selection criteria
for live music would be emphasize power and less on clarity or
distortion to save money.

For recorded music (critical listening) the amp would have to be matched
with the speakers and vice-verse just as the pre-amp would be with the
amp. Other than that....?

I had an amp that would not play with the speakers I had. Sounded like a
bad am radio not properly tuned in to the station. (Until then I never
would have believed an amp had to be matched to speakers. Since then,
with all the changes, I had one other experience with this. The
replacement amp for the above situation changed from musical to sterile
with the next change in speakers. For the above amp, I changed preamps
in between speaker changes and the difference was amazing. The sound
opened up and the amp took on a rejuvenated life. It sounded faster and
livelier. That pre-amp with the 3rd change in amps is slightly muddy
sounding as though it is holding the new amp back from really singing.
I would love a new pre-amp but money is tight at the moment.

I know posts here are tightly controlled and censored. Is it
permissible to post my equipment and ask for experienced guidance and
direction with pre-amp selection? Perhaps someone on the group has or
is running the same amp and can guide me through their selection process
and how they came up with their pre.

John

Wylie Williams ) wrote:
: "randyb" wrote ( in connection of comparing interconnects)
: Have someone switch them out and see if you can tell the
: difference without knowing which cable is in the system. Not double
: blind but might be interesting.
:
: Randy, I haven't done that. I do the usual thing: substitute and listen,
: knowing what is in the system. I'll try to get my one audiophile friend to
: come over and play a substitution game.

: I have, however, done a different test that I consider to be more valid than
: my personal evaluations I make a change and ask my wife what she thinks of
: the sound. She is a close to an unbiased listener as I can get. Usually I
: tell her which component has been changed, and I suspect that she suspects
: that new component under test is more expensive. If she has a bias it is
: probably in fovor of that familiar product that we already own. I can assure
: you that she could,care less about technological innovation or brand names
: or the other factors that would influence me. Her jufgments are quick. And
: so far as my tin ears can confirm, accurate.
: Wylie Williams

Amen and amen. My wife is a musician (acoustic instruments only please)
and a CPA and she could care less about technology. She typically doesn't
know when I've switched something and yet can tell you that I have if it
makes a difference (some things don't). This has
been true for over 20 years. She will also usually verbalize what I
believe to be the change.

Amazingly to the amps is amps/cables is cables crowd, she has spotted
both amp and cable changes in sound without any prompting. With cables
the variability is low, but some make amazing changes. I've not yet,
however, found any interconnect changes that are observable - but
speaker cables do seem to spark big sound changes. With amps the
variability seems to be higher (some DO sound the same, many don't).

--
Lou Anschuetz,
Network Manager, ECE, Carnegie Mellon University

"Wylie Williams" wrote in message

The more we DO learn about these things, the farther we get from
what you want: a single number that says "10" is better that
"9".

No not a single number. My post said something a little differeent. I
wrote
"... RAHE, where there seems to be a strong contingent of highly
knowledgeable members who believe that science has discovered, if not a
single magic number, maybe a set of numbers that are capable of measurement
so we won't have to listen to choose electronic components. ..."

I asked for a set of numbers and did not specify a limit.


It is true that a single number will not give enough information to
allow one to evaluate the performance of an amplifier or CD player.
Yet, the measurements given must be both comprehensive and easly
understandable. One picture is worth a thousand words. A simple
*graph* of each the measurements (20 Hz to 20 KHz) would have enough
information to show an amplifier's or a CD player's performance.

Instead of have a single signal/noise number, have a graph showing the
S/N at all audio frequenies.

For frequency response, have a graph. Also on the graph include a plot
of group delay, (to show the accuracy of the phase response). I know
that most people won't know what group delay is, :-) but they will
learn that an amplifier with a *flat* group delay is somehow better
than an amplifier with *peaked* group delay.

For time domain response, show the output of a 200 Hz squarewave. If
the amplifier or CD player has any transient response problems, the
squrewave will show it up, (with overshoot and ringing).

Distortion is a little more complicated. "THD" plots will not show up
all distortion problems. What is needed is a newer method of measuring
distortion. We could plot the distortion products created by two
tones, that are close together in frequency. The tones would be
*swept* from 100 Hz to 20 KHz, and the level of the 2nd order and 3rd
order beats ploted.

CD players have some problems that amplifiers don't, so we need an
additional test for them. There should be spectrum plot of test
tones.

I have used Cooledit to burn pure tones onto a CD. I played them back
through CD players and sound cards. Some of the CD players and sound
cards really mangled the tones, creating a forest of undersirable
distortion products near the noise floor. A standardized test showing
a spectrum plot would enable consumers to easily pickout the "bad
apple" CD players.

Bob Stanton

I know posts here are tightly controlled and censored. Is it
permissible to post my equipment and ask for experienced guidance and
direction with pre-amp selection? Perhaps someone on the group has or
is running the same amp and can guide me through their selection process
and how they came up with their pre.

John

Of course you can post your configuration here, no problem. Everyone are
welcome to seek advise, as long as this is not turned into a commercial
circus.

KE

In article 92PYa.97666$o%2.43610@sccrnsc02,
Midlant wrote:
"Richard D Pierce" wrote in message
news:MdFYa.92573$Ho3.12519@sccrnsc03...
In article ,
Wylie Williams wrote:

Richard Pierce wrote
Mr. Pierce, how would you choose an amplifier?

For what purpose?

If it's for someone's personal use, I'd say that any method and
criteria the person making the choice uses that satisfies that
person's criteria is exactly what is needed.

How would I choose and amplifier? I'd first have to determine
what the amplifier is being used for.

Recorded music.

What KIND of recorded music? Middle 19th century string
quartets? Ear-splitting heavy metal rock? Each puts vastly
different requirements on the system performance.

Is there a difference in selection criteria between amplifiers for live
music and those for recorded music? Perhaps amplifier selection criteria
for live music would be emphasize power and less on clarity or
distortion to save money.

The requirements are VASTLY different. And the notion that
amplifiers used for professional sound reinforcement have less
clarity or distortion is simply NOT supported by the p[hysical
facts. Indeed, many professional amplfier have performance
markedly superior in MANY aspects to boutique high-end
amplifiers.

For recorded music (critical listening) the amp would have to be matched
with the speakers and vice-verse just as the pre-amp would be with the
amp. Other than that....?

Well, "other than that," and the requirements of room size and
music type and such, gee, there ain't much left, is there?

I had an amp that would not play with the speakers I had. Sounded like a
bad am radio not properly tuned in to the station. (Until then I never
would have believed an amp had to be matched to speakers. Since then,
with all the changes, I had one other experience with this. The
replacement amp for the above situation changed from musical to sterile
with the next change in speakers.

Unforttunately, the differences in performance between many
different high-end boutique amplfiers is staggering on a simple
objective basis, simply because, in many case there performance
is simply large difference between bad. As amplifiers get better
and better, the differences between them must get smaller and
smaller.

Whether you're willing to accept this fact or not, many high-end
boutique amplifiers are VERY poorly designed and VERY sensitive,
almost to the point of being unstable, on different otherwise
mundane speaker loads presented.

The absurdity is that the "luminary" priests of the high end
point to these wildly variant difference in marginal misbehavior
as "evidence" of the transparency of these products. Clearly, it
is, uhm, "reasoned," if these products show such vast
differences, they MUST be very "revealing and transparent,"
when, in fact, they are anything but.

I know posts here are tightly controlled and censored.

No, they are not. There are a set of guidelines that the
moderators do, in fact, a reasonable job of enforcing. Your
claim, I fear, is made from possibly innocent ignorance.

Is it
permissible to post my equipment and ask for experienced guidance and
direction with pre-amp selection?

I see absolutely no reason why not. Have you been prevented from
doing so? WHy not try it?

Perhaps someone on the group has or
is running the same amp and can guide me through their selection process
and how they came up with their pre.

Perhaps, indeed.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

"Richard D Pierce" wrote
.. Indeed, many professional amplfier have performance
markedly superior in MANY aspects to boutique high-end
amplifiers.

You obviously know exactly which professional amps and which boutique
amps you are talking about. I think that this sort of information would be
of great interest to RAHE members.
Of course, since you are in the trade, if there is some sort of
professional confidentiality or courtesy that prevents you from actually
being specific I, for one, will understand your need to keep this
information to yourself. It is, however, frustrating to keep hearing about
the many unidentified inferior overpriced products that you know about, and
all the unidentified vastly better not-overpriced products that you know
about, and yet never get beyond the general statement that both types exist.

Wylie Williams

"Lou Anschuetz" wrote in message
news:u2PYa.97353$uu5.14034@sccrnsc04

Amen and amen. My wife is a musician (acoustic instruments only
please) and a CPA and she could care less about technology. She
typically doesn't know when I've switched something and yet can tell
you that I have if it makes a difference (some things don't). This has
been true for over 20 years. She will also usually verbalize what I
believe to be the change.

"She will also usually verbalize what I believe to be the change."

There are a number of possible interpretations/explanations of that
statement. I'm hoping that just mentioning that fact will prompt some deeper
thought.

Amazingly to the amps is amps/cables is cables crowd, she has spotted
both amp and cable changes in sound without any prompting.

This statement indicates a state of mind for which there appears to be
nothing but counter-evidence.

To clarify, amps is amps/cables is cables crowd finds nothing surprising
about a household member spotting, as it was said, changes in (perceived)
sound quality without (verbal) prompting.

With cables
the variability is low, but some make amazing changes. I've not yet,
however, found any interconnect changes that are observable - but
speaker cables do seem to spark big sound changes. With amps the
variability seems to be higher (some DO sound the same, many don't).

--
Lou Anschuetz,
Network Manager, ECE, Carnegie Mellon University

The following course appears on the Carnegie Mellon University Fall 2003
class schedule:

"36309 Experimental Design for Behavioral and Social Sciences".

Perhaps some auditing might be possible?

In article ,
Wylie Williams wrote:
"Richard D Pierce" wrote
. Indeed, many professional amplfier have performance
markedly superior in MANY aspects to boutique high-end
amplifiers.

You obviously know exactly which professional amps and which boutique
amps you are talking about.

I am talking about the general class of components used for
professional applications vs those found in so-called "boutique"
high-end audio.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

-snip-

Here goes:
Present set up:
Rega Planet 2000 cd
Acurus RL-11 pre-amp
McCormack DNA-125 amp
Klipsch LaScalas and Revel M-20's (M-20's no in system at present)

Also sitting here in a back room:
Adcom GPT-450 pre/tuner
Adcom GFA-555 II amp
Klipsch KG 5.2 speakers

I had Monitor Audios but after 6 months I couldn't stand the sound of
them. They became very fatguing to lsiten to. The 450 pre/tuner lent a
boxy/airy sound that wasn't so noticable on the speakers I had prior to
the MA's. Bought the Acurus RL-11 which was a fantastic match and the
sound was faster (for lack of a better word). Sold the MA's and bought
Revel M-20's. The Adcom amp with the Revels was too sterile sounding. No
musicality to it. Sounded like expensive lab equipment. On a trip home
came across a guy selling the Klipsch KG5.2's. Wanting to see how horns
sounded even though these are the cheaper version compared to the other
legacy series, the price was right to stick my toe in the water. Sound
was great but the speakers would benefit from more bracing. Short while
later came across a gent selling LaScalas and decided to hear what the
deal is with the big horns. I like them! Lots! So does the wife who is
an Audiologist. She listens to the sound of voices for accuracy and
clarity. We like the LS's better than the Revels. The system as it sits
is very musical and involving. I have switched back to the Revels and
when I did we both liked the Revels better. What dire straights we are
in. Both are great sounding speakers and work with the present set-up.
If there is a weak link, it would be the pre-amp. I think it slows or
muddies the McCormack a tiny bit.

I have read so much on tubes and horns that I would love to hear tube
gear with the LS's. As you can tell, I have had very little gear as I
prefer to buy what I can afford that sounds the best and live with it
for a long time. I'm not into swapping gear out every two weeks, no
money for that. I wish I could play with everything so I cold hear for
myself.

John


John,

I do not have personal experiences with the equipment you have, however it
seems to me that you are running in the usual upgrade maze, which is
frustrating and makes a lot of music lovers loose faith in equipment.

I would recommend you to find a good high-end dealer in your area, where you
can evaluate the components as a system. Bring your own equipment or make an
arrangement to borrow components with you home for evaluation.

I am surprised to see how many people buying and selling components with
great loss, never really finding what they want. To me it is better to see
purchase of audio equipment as one of the big investments in life, once the
right equipment is there, it will give so much pleasure for so many years.
You will at least need an upgrade path that has some sort of plan to it, if
you cannot afford everything at once.

If you did not do it already, make a dedicated mains line all the way from
the breaker box. It is a relatively small investment, and it can change a
lot. If the mains line you are using now is choked or polluded with noise,
you may never get what you want.

If you like, I can mail you some recommendations for equipment to evaluate.

KE

PS I have heard from a guy who's ears I trust, that the McCormack amplifier
is detailed, but not musical, could be part of your problem.

"Wylie Williams" wrote in message


"Richard D Pierce" wrote

. Indeed, many professional amplifier have performance
markedly superior in MANY aspects to boutique high-end
amplifiers.

You obviously know exactly which professional amps and which
boutique amps you are talking about. I think that this sort of
information would be of great interest to RAHE members.

In the realm of professional-grade amplifiers, some leading reliable brands
are Crown, QSC, and Hafler. I know of fine-sounding home systems that use
amps from one or more of these companies.

Subject: Ears vs. Instruments
From: (Richard D Pierce)
Date: Sat, Aug 9, 2003 6:54 AM
Message-id:

In article ,
Wylie Williams wrote:
"Richard D Pierce" wrote
. Indeed, many professional amplfier have performance
markedly superior in MANY aspects to boutique high-end
amplifiers.

You obviously know exactly which professional amps and which boutique
amps you are talking about.

I am talking about the general class of components used for
professional applications vs those found in so-called "boutique"
high-end audio.


This kind of reminds me of a guy who says "American movies stink" on another
message board. Your brush is simply too broad. You bunch "botique" "high-end"
amplifiers into one class of inferior products. You make no qualifications to
your claim other than the products you paint with this broad brush are " found
in so called 'botique' high-end audio." That would include amps and preamps
from the likes of Halcro, Krell and Spectral. Are pro amps really "markedly
superior in MANY aspects" to the products from Halcro, Krell and Spectral? I
think the request for specific brands and models is a fair request.