| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#241
|
|||
|
|||
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:58:29 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote: "Rusty Boudreaux" said: Of course distortion is not in the definition. Amplification is pure gain. Any deviation from pure gain is more than just amplification. I suppose you're still using a QUAD 303? ;-) I agree all amps do deviate from ideal amplification. However, amps can be designed such that deviations are well below the threshold of hearing and even below the limits of available test gear. For the purpose of amplifying audio signals they can be considered ideal amplifiers ala "straight wire with gain". So the best amplifier is the one with the lowest distortion figure and the most watts in an IHF-based load of 8 ohms/2 uF? Always and in every case? Yes - so long as you include HF IM distortion. Wouldn't you consider the idea that there are other factors playing than just high power and low distortion, of whatever kind? No. See below. To me, an amplifier is just a piece in an entire system, and it might NEED to deviate from the "ideal" amplifier to thrive in that particular system. Perhaps that's why Pinkerton is using a Krell in his system? :-) No, that's because I have insensitive 3-ohm speakers. The Krell is about as close as I've seen to an 'ideal' amplifier, although of course its current reserve is overkill for most speakers and rooms. I also agree a designer can intentionally add distortion and like the result. Guitar amps would be a good example. In that case it would not be a poor design but it's also not just an amplifier. "Guitar amps [......] are not just amps". That's a very narrow definition of "amplifier" you're using here. He means that the guitar amp is not a reproducer, it's *part* of the instrument. I belive the job of an audio power amplifier (preamp input, speaker output) is to amplify the incoming signal without adding any audible effects other than pure gain. To do anything else changes the intent of the artist. If a power amplifier is designed and marketed as a pure amplifier but adds audible effects then it is poorly designed. I thinks this depends on the definition. The "intent of the artist" is just as severly changed by the recording engineer, the mastering engineer, But there's nothing we can do about this random deviation from neutrality, so unless you have *very* narrow musical tastes, a neutral replay system is indicated as a best approach to all recordings. and even you who might use a tone control and different speakers from the mastering studio in your home. According to your definition, an integrated amplifier with tone controls isn't an amplifier either........ Indeed not, although it may balance a poor loudspeaker or room to some extent. Dedicated room/speaker EQ is whole other can of worms! I maintain the thought that according to your narrow definition, even using the tone controls "deviates from the artist's intent". Depends why you use them, as noted above. I also think you (and Pinkerton, Krueger and others) are using a too narrow definition of the term amplifier, or even high fidelity, or perhaps even music reproduction. I don't see anyone coming up with a loogical alternative. It further depends on how you will define high fidelity : - Is it true reproduction of what we hear in the concert hall? If so, which concert hall, which seat, which row, which orchestra, which conductor? After or before having a good meal, sex, pot, or discussion, or none at all? All of the above. - Is it true reproduction of what's on the medium (be it CD, LP, HDD, tape, whatever)? If so, which medium? All of them. That's why LP replay systems based on Linn Sondeks have no chance of producing optimum results from other sources. How do we know the recording engineer did a right job? And the mastering engineer? And the quality of the pressing, the tape, the A/D and D/A converters? The format in which the data was stored? The kind of mixing console? Which compressors, eqs, microphones, cables etc.? We have to take all these on trust, otherwise we'd be attempting to undo a different set of defects in every recording. - Is it true reproduction of what *someone* thinks it should sound? If so, should it be how von Karajan thinks it should sound? On his conduction position or in the 15th row in the hall? How Jon BonJovi thinks it should sound? On stage, through his monitor or on his friend's system at 2.00 AM after some cocaine? How Rudy van Gelder thought it should sound? Or Miles Davis? Doctor Amar? Bill Johnson? The late Steve Zipser? How you or I or Joe Sixpack thinks it should sound? I try to make the system entirely transparent to the preferences of the recording and mastering engineers. You may do as you will. What's the function of a musical reproduction chain? TO ME, it's a device that should give me pleasure. There are other electrical devices which can achieve that aim. If you want a bad recording to give you pleasure, then you are in a downward spiral towards 'easy listening' tubes and vinyl............... As such, I design audio gear that suits MY NEEDS. If that means a THD of 3 %, so be it. If that means a certain spectrum of harmonics, so be it. If that means having to use equalizers, so be it. If that means putting my speakers in such positions that I can hardly live in the room, so be it. If that means having to use obsolete triodes or obsolete MOSFETS, so be it. If that means class A , transformers of 1000VA to obtain 20 watts per channel, so be it. If that means using biwiring, while I *know* it doesn't matter technically, but it makes me feel better, so be it. LP, CD, DVD, MP3, 1/2 inch master tape? Does it matter? Snake oil? So be it. My-Fi instead of Hi-Fi? So be it. No one is arguing against your personal preference. I know people who are moved to tears by a song from their youth playing on a 10 yr. old fluttering and noisy cassette walkman. THAT's the function of music. Entertainment and emotion. Sure, but that has nothing to do with *high fidelity* music reproduction. Music (and hence audio) cannot be that dogmatic. By its very nature it can't. Rubbish. Music is art - audio is engineering. The two *are* separate. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#242
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
... So the best amplifier is the one with the lowest distortion figure and the most watts in an IHF-based load of 8 ohms/2 uF? Always and every case? For pure amplification of audio the technical goal is to reduce all audible effects other than gain to below the level of audibility. Wouldn't you consider the idea that there are other factors playing than just high power and low distortion, of whatever kind? See Sure, but the factors are not germane to high fidelity (cost, looks, etc). To me, an amplifier is just a piece in an entire system, and it might NEED to deviate from the "ideal" amplifier to thrive in that particular system. For you that may be fine. However, I submit it's not the most user friendly arrangement. Searching for a deviant amplifier that is deviant in 'just the right way' to cancel out other system deviations seems counterproductive. Once done you have to get a new amp when you get new speakers or new wire or new this or that. For some of us that's no big deal but it doesn't have to be that way. The goal of an ideal amplifier (or an ideal CD player, etc) is to not add audible effects of it's own. Just because I choose a speaker that has high end rolloff doesn't mean I should go searching for a specific amplifier to compensate...that's why EQ are sold. "Guitar amps [......] are not just amps". That's a very narrow definition of "amplifier" you're using here. It's the technical definition used in published technical literature. Since we are discussing technical attributes it is appropriate. A guitar amp is a musical instrument not an end stage amplifier. I belive the job of an audio power amplifier (preamp input, speaker output) is to amplify the incoming signal without adding any audible effects other than pure gain. To do anything else changes the intent of the artist. If a power amplifier is designed and marketed as a pure amplifier but adds audible effects then it is poorly designed. I thinks this depends on the definition. The "intent of the artist" is just as severly changed by the recording engineer, the mastering engineer, Semantics. I submit that the final released form is the intent of the artist or artists. Unless the liner notes specifically suggest "reproduce with 6dB boost at 12kHz" or "add 3% second harmonic distortion below 5kHz" then I assume the intent was to reproduce the audio with the highest fidelity possible. and even you who might use a tone control and different speakers from the mastering studio in your home. According to your definition, an integrated amplifier with tone controls isn't an amplifier either........ It is an amplifier (hopefully ideal gain) with tone controls (adjustable frequency response). However, I suppose it could be designed to deviate from ideal amplification and marketed as "adding warmth to the treble" or some other claim. In that scenario it would be hard to call the product poorly designed since deviation was intentional and disclosed but it wouldn't be appropriate to call it just an amplifier. I agree some audiophiles might enjoy the colorations even though they deviate from the artists' intent. I maintain the thought that according to your narrow definition, The definition is the accepted definition for technical publications. even using the tone controls "deviates from the artist's intent". Unless tone controls correct for a deviation elsewhere in the system I believe they do alter the artist's intent. However, you are free to alter the artist's intent in any way you choose for whatever reason. I also think you (and Pinkerton, Krueger and others) are using a too narrow definition of the term amplifier, or even high fidelity, or These are technical terms with specific meanings within the professional community. I adhere to those definitions when posting to a supposed technical forum such as rec.audio.tech. It further depends on how you will define high fidelity : - Is it true reproduction of what we hear in the concert hall? If so, which concert hall, which seat, which row, which orchestra, which conductor? After or before having a good meal, sex, pot, or discussion, or none at all? The generally accepted definition of high fidelity audio system is "a playback system for reproducing, as close as possible to the original recording, without alterations other than gain". It's a sliding scale meant for improvements in technology hence "as close as possible". In the limit, it reduces to a system that perfectly reproduces without alterations other than gain. - Is it true reproduction of what's on the medium (be it CD, LP, HDD, tape, whatever)? If so, which medium? Whatever the limits of the medium used. How do we know the recording engineer did a right job? And the mastering engineer? And the quality of the pressing, the tape, the A/D and D/A converters? The format in which the data was stored? The kind of mixing console? Which compressors, eqs, microphones, cables etc.? We don't know. The recording could be absolute perfection or could have any number of deficiencies. All we know is a given medium has standards. High fidelity means faithfully reproducing the standard accurately as possible. Let's take your example to the extreme. My favorite recording was horribly mastered. However, if I use an ACME model 7 amplifier with loopy frequency response then my favorite recording comes out perfect. Great...but what if I want to listen to other recordings that were mastered properly or even differently? They won't sound right. - Is it true reproduction of what *someone* thinks it should sound? If so, should it be how von Karajan thinks it should sound? On his conduction position or in the 15th row in the hall? How Jon BonJovi thinks it should sound? On stage, through his monitor or on his friend's system at 2.00 AM after some cocaine? How Rudy van Gelder thought it should sound? Or Miles Davis? Doctor Amar? Bill Johnson? The late Steve Zipser? How you or I or Joe Sixpack thinks it should sound? See the definition of high fidelity above. If Joe Sixamp wants to tweak his EQ that's certainly his choice...but it wouldn't technically qualify as a high fidelity audio system. What's the function of a musical reproduction chain? TO ME, it's a device that should give me pleasure. Sure, I hope it does. However, pleasure is not a measure of an amplifier's technical capability. As such, I design audio gear that suits MY NEEDS. If that means a THD of 3 %, so be it. If that means a certain spectrum of harmonics, so be it. If that means having to use equalizers, so be it. If that means putting my speakers in such positions that I can hardly live in the room, so be it. If that means having to use obsolete triodes or obsolete MOSFETS, so be it. If that means class A , transformers of 1000VA to obtain 20 watts per channel, so be it. If that means using biwiring, while I *know* it doesn't matter technically, but it makes me feel better, so be it. LP, CD, DVD, MP3, 1/2 inch master tape? Does it matter? Snake oil? So be it. My-Fi instead of Hi-Fi? So be it. I have no issue with this other than it doesn't meet the technical definition of high fidelity. It's your system to do what you want. I know people who are moved to tears by a song from their youth playing on a 10 yr. old fluttering and noisy cassette walkman. THAT's the function of music. Entertainment and emotion. Absolutely. But that walkman isn't being lofted as the pinnacle of high fidelity. Music (and hence audio) cannot be that dogmatic. By its very nature it can't. Obviously music can't because it's subjective. However, the reproduction or amplification of recorded audio signal is a technical exercise and there are standards, definitions, and goals in doing so. |
|
#243
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
... So the best amplifier is the one with the lowest distortion figure and the most watts in an IHF-based load of 8 ohms/2 uF? Always and every case? For pure amplification of audio the technical goal is to reduce all audible effects other than gain to below the level of audibility. Wouldn't you consider the idea that there are other factors playing than just high power and low distortion, of whatever kind? See Sure, but the factors are not germane to high fidelity (cost, looks, etc). To me, an amplifier is just a piece in an entire system, and it might NEED to deviate from the "ideal" amplifier to thrive in that particular system. For you that may be fine. However, I submit it's not the most user friendly arrangement. Searching for a deviant amplifier that is deviant in 'just the right way' to cancel out other system deviations seems counterproductive. Once done you have to get a new amp when you get new speakers or new wire or new this or that. For some of us that's no big deal but it doesn't have to be that way. The goal of an ideal amplifier (or an ideal CD player, etc) is to not add audible effects of it's own. Just because I choose a speaker that has high end rolloff doesn't mean I should go searching for a specific amplifier to compensate...that's why EQ are sold. "Guitar amps [......] are not just amps". That's a very narrow definition of "amplifier" you're using here. It's the technical definition used in published technical literature. Since we are discussing technical attributes it is appropriate. A guitar amp is a musical instrument not an end stage amplifier. I belive the job of an audio power amplifier (preamp input, speaker output) is to amplify the incoming signal without adding any audible effects other than pure gain. To do anything else changes the intent of the artist. If a power amplifier is designed and marketed as a pure amplifier but adds audible effects then it is poorly designed. I thinks this depends on the definition. The "intent of the artist" is just as severly changed by the recording engineer, the mastering engineer, Semantics. I submit that the final released form is the intent of the artist or artists. Unless the liner notes specifically suggest "reproduce with 6dB boost at 12kHz" or "add 3% second harmonic distortion below 5kHz" then I assume the intent was to reproduce the audio with the highest fidelity possible. and even you who might use a tone control and different speakers from the mastering studio in your home. According to your definition, an integrated amplifier with tone controls isn't an amplifier either........ It is an amplifier (hopefully ideal gain) with tone controls (adjustable frequency response). However, I suppose it could be designed to deviate from ideal amplification and marketed as "adding warmth to the treble" or some other claim. In that scenario it would be hard to call the product poorly designed since deviation was intentional and disclosed but it wouldn't be appropriate to call it just an amplifier. I agree some audiophiles might enjoy the colorations even though they deviate from the artists' intent. I maintain the thought that according to your narrow definition, The definition is the accepted definition for technical publications. even using the tone controls "deviates from the artist's intent". Unless tone controls correct for a deviation elsewhere in the system I believe they do alter the artist's intent. However, you are free to alter the artist's intent in any way you choose for whatever reason. I also think you (and Pinkerton, Krueger and others) are using a too narrow definition of the term amplifier, or even high fidelity, or These are technical terms with specific meanings within the professional community. I adhere to those definitions when posting to a supposed technical forum such as rec.audio.tech. It further depends on how you will define high fidelity : - Is it true reproduction of what we hear in the concert hall? If so, which concert hall, which seat, which row, which orchestra, which conductor? After or before having a good meal, sex, pot, or discussion, or none at all? The generally accepted definition of high fidelity audio system is "a playback system for reproducing, as close as possible to the original recording, without alterations other than gain". It's a sliding scale meant for improvements in technology hence "as close as possible". In the limit, it reduces to a system that perfectly reproduces without alterations other than gain. - Is it true reproduction of what's on the medium (be it CD, LP, HDD, tape, whatever)? If so, which medium? Whatever the limits of the medium used. How do we know the recording engineer did a right job? And the mastering engineer? And the quality of the pressing, the tape, the A/D and D/A converters? The format in which the data was stored? The kind of mixing console? Which compressors, eqs, microphones, cables etc.? We don't know. The recording could be absolute perfection or could have any number of deficiencies. All we know is a given medium has standards. High fidelity means faithfully reproducing the standard accurately as possible. Let's take your example to the extreme. My favorite recording was horribly mastered. However, if I use an ACME model 7 amplifier with loopy frequency response then my favorite recording comes out perfect. Great...but what if I want to listen to other recordings that were mastered properly or even differently? They won't sound right. - Is it true reproduction of what *someone* thinks it should sound? If so, should it be how von Karajan thinks it should sound? On his conduction position or in the 15th row in the hall? How Jon BonJovi thinks it should sound? On stage, through his monitor or on his friend's system at 2.00 AM after some cocaine? How Rudy van Gelder thought it should sound? Or Miles Davis? Doctor Amar? Bill Johnson? The late Steve Zipser? How you or I or Joe Sixpack thinks it should sound? See the definition of high fidelity above. If Joe Sixamp wants to tweak his EQ that's certainly his choice...but it wouldn't technically qualify as a high fidelity audio system. What's the function of a musical reproduction chain? TO ME, it's a device that should give me pleasure. Sure, I hope it does. However, pleasure is not a measure of an amplifier's technical capability. As such, I design audio gear that suits MY NEEDS. If that means a THD of 3 %, so be it. If that means a certain spectrum of harmonics, so be it. If that means having to use equalizers, so be it. If that means putting my speakers in such positions that I can hardly live in the room, so be it. If that means having to use obsolete triodes or obsolete MOSFETS, so be it. If that means class A , transformers of 1000VA to obtain 20 watts per channel, so be it. If that means using biwiring, while I *know* it doesn't matter technically, but it makes me feel better, so be it. LP, CD, DVD, MP3, 1/2 inch master tape? Does it matter? Snake oil? So be it. My-Fi instead of Hi-Fi? So be it. I have no issue with this other than it doesn't meet the technical definition of high fidelity. It's your system to do what you want. I know people who are moved to tears by a song from their youth playing on a 10 yr. old fluttering and noisy cassette walkman. THAT's the function of music. Entertainment and emotion. Absolutely. But that walkman isn't being lofted as the pinnacle of high fidelity. Music (and hence audio) cannot be that dogmatic. By its very nature it can't. Obviously music can't because it's subjective. However, the reproduction or amplification of recorded audio signal is a technical exercise and there are standards, definitions, and goals in doing so. |
|
#244
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
... So the best amplifier is the one with the lowest distortion figure and the most watts in an IHF-based load of 8 ohms/2 uF? Always and every case? For pure amplification of audio the technical goal is to reduce all audible effects other than gain to below the level of audibility. Wouldn't you consider the idea that there are other factors playing than just high power and low distortion, of whatever kind? See Sure, but the factors are not germane to high fidelity (cost, looks, etc). To me, an amplifier is just a piece in an entire system, and it might NEED to deviate from the "ideal" amplifier to thrive in that particular system. For you that may be fine. However, I submit it's not the most user friendly arrangement. Searching for a deviant amplifier that is deviant in 'just the right way' to cancel out other system deviations seems counterproductive. Once done you have to get a new amp when you get new speakers or new wire or new this or that. For some of us that's no big deal but it doesn't have to be that way. The goal of an ideal amplifier (or an ideal CD player, etc) is to not add audible effects of it's own. Just because I choose a speaker that has high end rolloff doesn't mean I should go searching for a specific amplifier to compensate...that's why EQ are sold. "Guitar amps [......] are not just amps". That's a very narrow definition of "amplifier" you're using here. It's the technical definition used in published technical literature. Since we are discussing technical attributes it is appropriate. A guitar amp is a musical instrument not an end stage amplifier. I belive the job of an audio power amplifier (preamp input, speaker output) is to amplify the incoming signal without adding any audible effects other than pure gain. To do anything else changes the intent of the artist. If a power amplifier is designed and marketed as a pure amplifier but adds audible effects then it is poorly designed. I thinks this depends on the definition. The "intent of the artist" is just as severly changed by the recording engineer, the mastering engineer, Semantics. I submit that the final released form is the intent of the artist or artists. Unless the liner notes specifically suggest "reproduce with 6dB boost at 12kHz" or "add 3% second harmonic distortion below 5kHz" then I assume the intent was to reproduce the audio with the highest fidelity possible. and even you who might use a tone control and different speakers from the mastering studio in your home. According to your definition, an integrated amplifier with tone controls isn't an amplifier either........ It is an amplifier (hopefully ideal gain) with tone controls (adjustable frequency response). However, I suppose it could be designed to deviate from ideal amplification and marketed as "adding warmth to the treble" or some other claim. In that scenario it would be hard to call the product poorly designed since deviation was intentional and disclosed but it wouldn't be appropriate to call it just an amplifier. I agree some audiophiles might enjoy the colorations even though they deviate from the artists' intent. I maintain the thought that according to your narrow definition, The definition is the accepted definition for technical publications. even using the tone controls "deviates from the artist's intent". Unless tone controls correct for a deviation elsewhere in the system I believe they do alter the artist's intent. However, you are free to alter the artist's intent in any way you choose for whatever reason. I also think you (and Pinkerton, Krueger and others) are using a too narrow definition of the term amplifier, or even high fidelity, or These are technical terms with specific meanings within the professional community. I adhere to those definitions when posting to a supposed technical forum such as rec.audio.tech. It further depends on how you will define high fidelity : - Is it true reproduction of what we hear in the concert hall? If so, which concert hall, which seat, which row, which orchestra, which conductor? After or before having a good meal, sex, pot, or discussion, or none at all? The generally accepted definition of high fidelity audio system is "a playback system for reproducing, as close as possible to the original recording, without alterations other than gain". It's a sliding scale meant for improvements in technology hence "as close as possible". In the limit, it reduces to a system that perfectly reproduces without alterations other than gain. - Is it true reproduction of what's on the medium (be it CD, LP, HDD, tape, whatever)? If so, which medium? Whatever the limits of the medium used. How do we know the recording engineer did a right job? And the mastering engineer? And the quality of the pressing, the tape, the A/D and D/A converters? The format in which the data was stored? The kind of mixing console? Which compressors, eqs, microphones, cables etc.? We don't know. The recording could be absolute perfection or could have any number of deficiencies. All we know is a given medium has standards. High fidelity means faithfully reproducing the standard accurately as possible. Let's take your example to the extreme. My favorite recording was horribly mastered. However, if I use an ACME model 7 amplifier with loopy frequency response then my favorite recording comes out perfect. Great...but what if I want to listen to other recordings that were mastered properly or even differently? They won't sound right. - Is it true reproduction of what *someone* thinks it should sound? If so, should it be how von Karajan thinks it should sound? On his conduction position or in the 15th row in the hall? How Jon BonJovi thinks it should sound? On stage, through his monitor or on his friend's system at 2.00 AM after some cocaine? How Rudy van Gelder thought it should sound? Or Miles Davis? Doctor Amar? Bill Johnson? The late Steve Zipser? How you or I or Joe Sixpack thinks it should sound? See the definition of high fidelity above. If Joe Sixamp wants to tweak his EQ that's certainly his choice...but it wouldn't technically qualify as a high fidelity audio system. What's the function of a musical reproduction chain? TO ME, it's a device that should give me pleasure. Sure, I hope it does. However, pleasure is not a measure of an amplifier's technical capability. As such, I design audio gear that suits MY NEEDS. If that means a THD of 3 %, so be it. If that means a certain spectrum of harmonics, so be it. If that means having to use equalizers, so be it. If that means putting my speakers in such positions that I can hardly live in the room, so be it. If that means having to use obsolete triodes or obsolete MOSFETS, so be it. If that means class A , transformers of 1000VA to obtain 20 watts per channel, so be it. If that means using biwiring, while I *know* it doesn't matter technically, but it makes me feel better, so be it. LP, CD, DVD, MP3, 1/2 inch master tape? Does it matter? Snake oil? So be it. My-Fi instead of Hi-Fi? So be it. I have no issue with this other than it doesn't meet the technical definition of high fidelity. It's your system to do what you want. I know people who are moved to tears by a song from their youth playing on a 10 yr. old fluttering and noisy cassette walkman. THAT's the function of music. Entertainment and emotion. Absolutely. But that walkman isn't being lofted as the pinnacle of high fidelity. Music (and hence audio) cannot be that dogmatic. By its very nature it can't. Obviously music can't because it's subjective. However, the reproduction or amplification of recorded audio signal is a technical exercise and there are standards, definitions, and goals in doing so. |
|
#246
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
|
|
#247
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
|
|
#248
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
Many of the points below I've adressed to my reply to Stewart
Pinkerton, so allow me to snip here and the "Rusty Boudreaux" said: So the best amplifier is the one with the lowest distortion figure and the most watts in an IHF-based load of 8 ohms/2 uF? Always and every case? For pure amplification of audio the technical goal is to reduce all audible effects other than gain to below the level of audibility. I tried to tell that to many recording and mastering engineers, and they laughed me out of the studio :-) To me, an amplifier is just a piece in an entire system, and it might NEED to deviate from the "ideal" amplifier to thrive in that particular system. For you that may be fine. However, I submit it's not the most user friendly arrangement. Searching for a deviant amplifier that is deviant in 'just the right way' to cancel out other system deviations seems counterproductive. Once done you have to get a new amp when you get new speakers or new wire or new this or that. For some of us that's no big deal but it doesn't have to be that way. You're right about this, since I build most of my stuff myself, it's easier for me to say and do. The goal of an ideal amplifier (or an ideal CD player, etc) is to not add audible effects of it's own. Just because I choose a speaker that has high end rolloff doesn't mean I should go searching for a specific amplifier to compensate...that's why EQ are sold. Hence my argument: "even using a tone control deviates from the artist's intent". See how those dogma's don't work? The "intent of the artist" is just as severly changed by the recording engineer, the mastering engineer, Semantics. I submit that the final released form is the intent of the artist or artists. Too bad Bach or Miles Davis are no longer around to ask :-) I've done some recording and mastering myself, and compared raw tracks to the final mix. Many times the performing artists didn't recognize their own particular sound which they heard on stage. Plenty were the reactions like: "Oooh, this sounds way better/worse than I remembered!" Not one time they've asked me to preserve a particular sound because they intended it that way. So much for "artist's intent". YMMV, of course. Unless the liner notes specifically suggest "reproduce with 6dB boost at 12kHz" or "add 3% second harmonic distortion below 5kHz" then I assume the intent was to reproduce the audio with the highest fidelity possible. Yup, and there we go: what is the highest fidelity? I take it you have a Crown Dc300 and JBLs in your listening room, which happens to be an exact reproduction of the mastering room? It is an amplifier (hopefully ideal gain) with tone controls (adjustable frequency response). Nope, it isn't: RB: For pure amplification of audio the technical goal is to reduce RB: all audible effects other than gain to below the level of RB: audibility. The definition is the accepted definition for technical publications. OK. Must it therefor be correct? See my answer to Pinkerton: it is all about personal preference. High Fidelity doesn't exist, there is only My Fidelity. Everyone using anything different from the mastering room is using his personal preference. Unless tone controls correct for a deviation elsewhere in the system I believe they do alter the artist's intent. However, you are free to alter the artist's intent in any way you choose for whatever reason. There goes the idea of hiFi out of the window again. Do you still maintain the position that doing so, is "poorly designing" ? The generally accepted definition of high fidelity audio system is "a playback system for reproducing, as close as possible to the original recording, without alterations other than gain". It's a sliding scale meant for improvements in technology hence "as close as possible". In the limit, it reduces to a system that perfectly reproduces without alterations other than gain. Reproduces WHAT? The original recording? What if I tell you there are zillions of ideas out there about what consists an "original recording"? It just isn't possible to make everything sound like the original, never, ever. Does that mean we should not try? Of course not! But everyone tries it in his own way. One uses tubes, the other BJTs, X uses LPs, Y uses 38 cm/s tape. Or all of the above. My point: it *doesn't matter* what one uses. It's all about *personal preference*. All we know is a given medium has standards. High fidelity means faithfully reproducing the standard accurately as possible. Which means a different set of adjustments for every recording and every medium. Just one single "ideal"amplifier isn't gonna do that. High Fidelity? What's that? Let's take your example to the extreme. My favorite recording was horribly mastered. However, if I use an ACME model 7 amplifier with loopy frequency response then my favorite recording comes out perfect. Great...but what if I want to listen to other recordings that were mastered properly or even differently? They won't sound right. To you? To me? To the artist who is supposed to have an "intention" (other than making money:-) ? If I have an amp that colors just a bit so that most recordings are listenable, is that a good or a bad thing? In the past, I've had an amplifier that was flat from DC to 1 MHz, had THD and IMD I couldn't even measure, and S/N of about -100 dB. I got tired of the sound I got with it (on QUAD ESL57s and several other quality speakers). Rolling my own (tube and solid state) amps, and being able to tweak them to my tastes, made me a happier person. Isn't that what a system is supposed to do? If Joe Sixamp wants to tweak his EQ that's certainly his choice...but it wouldn't technically qualify as a high fidelity audio system. Technically perhaps not. Maybe this is an indication that we're on a road to nowhere with our neverending quest to get things better. Sure, I hope it does. However, pleasure is not a measure of an amplifier's technical capability. Maybe not of the amp by itzelf, but most certainly of the entire system. If a system doesn't give me pleasure, it doesn't meet my needs and as such, has little to no value to me. However, the reproduction or amplification of recorded audio signal is a technical exercise and there are standards, definitions, and goals in doing so. And I'm still not convinced that it's the only right way to do it. I'm not out here to make fun out of engineers, musicians or end-users (heck, I'm all 3 of them!), but I'm trying to make clear that maybe we should look at things from a broader perspective than just strictly technical. It might prove to be fruitful! -- Sander deWaal Vacuum Audio Consultancy |
|
#249
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
Many of the points below I've adressed to my reply to Stewart
Pinkerton, so allow me to snip here and the "Rusty Boudreaux" said: So the best amplifier is the one with the lowest distortion figure and the most watts in an IHF-based load of 8 ohms/2 uF? Always and every case? For pure amplification of audio the technical goal is to reduce all audible effects other than gain to below the level of audibility. I tried to tell that to many recording and mastering engineers, and they laughed me out of the studio :-) To me, an amplifier is just a piece in an entire system, and it might NEED to deviate from the "ideal" amplifier to thrive in that particular system. For you that may be fine. However, I submit it's not the most user friendly arrangement. Searching for a deviant amplifier that is deviant in 'just the right way' to cancel out other system deviations seems counterproductive. Once done you have to get a new amp when you get new speakers or new wire or new this or that. For some of us that's no big deal but it doesn't have to be that way. You're right about this, since I build most of my stuff myself, it's easier for me to say and do. The goal of an ideal amplifier (or an ideal CD player, etc) is to not add audible effects of it's own. Just because I choose a speaker that has high end rolloff doesn't mean I should go searching for a specific amplifier to compensate...that's why EQ are sold. Hence my argument: "even using a tone control deviates from the artist's intent". See how those dogma's don't work? The "intent of the artist" is just as severly changed by the recording engineer, the mastering engineer, Semantics. I submit that the final released form is the intent of the artist or artists. Too bad Bach or Miles Davis are no longer around to ask :-) I've done some recording and mastering myself, and compared raw tracks to the final mix. Many times the performing artists didn't recognize their own particular sound which they heard on stage. Plenty were the reactions like: "Oooh, this sounds way better/worse than I remembered!" Not one time they've asked me to preserve a particular sound because they intended it that way. So much for "artist's intent". YMMV, of course. Unless the liner notes specifically suggest "reproduce with 6dB boost at 12kHz" or "add 3% second harmonic distortion below 5kHz" then I assume the intent was to reproduce the audio with the highest fidelity possible. Yup, and there we go: what is the highest fidelity? I take it you have a Crown Dc300 and JBLs in your listening room, which happens to be an exact reproduction of the mastering room? It is an amplifier (hopefully ideal gain) with tone controls (adjustable frequency response). Nope, it isn't: RB: For pure amplification of audio the technical goal is to reduce RB: all audible effects other than gain to below the level of RB: audibility. The definition is the accepted definition for technical publications. OK. Must it therefor be correct? See my answer to Pinkerton: it is all about personal preference. High Fidelity doesn't exist, there is only My Fidelity. Everyone using anything different from the mastering room is using his personal preference. Unless tone controls correct for a deviation elsewhere in the system I believe they do alter the artist's intent. However, you are free to alter the artist's intent in any way you choose for whatever reason. There goes the idea of hiFi out of the window again. Do you still maintain the position that doing so, is "poorly designing" ? The generally accepted definition of high fidelity audio system is "a playback system for reproducing, as close as possible to the original recording, without alterations other than gain". It's a sliding scale meant for improvements in technology hence "as close as possible". In the limit, it reduces to a system that perfectly reproduces without alterations other than gain. Reproduces WHAT? The original recording? What if I tell you there are zillions of ideas out there about what consists an "original recording"? It just isn't possible to make everything sound like the original, never, ever. Does that mean we should not try? Of course not! But everyone tries it in his own way. One uses tubes, the other BJTs, X uses LPs, Y uses 38 cm/s tape. Or all of the above. My point: it *doesn't matter* what one uses. It's all about *personal preference*. All we know is a given medium has standards. High fidelity means faithfully reproducing the standard accurately as possible. Which means a different set of adjustments for every recording and every medium. Just one single "ideal"amplifier isn't gonna do that. High Fidelity? What's that? Let's take your example to the extreme. My favorite recording was horribly mastered. However, if I use an ACME model 7 amplifier with loopy frequency response then my favorite recording comes out perfect. Great...but what if I want to listen to other recordings that were mastered properly or even differently? They won't sound right. To you? To me? To the artist who is supposed to have an "intention" (other than making money:-) ? If I have an amp that colors just a bit so that most recordings are listenable, is that a good or a bad thing? In the past, I've had an amplifier that was flat from DC to 1 MHz, had THD and IMD I couldn't even measure, and S/N of about -100 dB. I got tired of the sound I got with it (on QUAD ESL57s and several other quality speakers). Rolling my own (tube and solid state) amps, and being able to tweak them to my tastes, made me a happier person. Isn't that what a system is supposed to do? If Joe Sixamp wants to tweak his EQ that's certainly his choice...but it wouldn't technically qualify as a high fidelity audio system. Technically perhaps not. Maybe this is an indication that we're on a road to nowhere with our neverending quest to get things better. Sure, I hope it does. However, pleasure is not a measure of an amplifier's technical capability. Maybe not of the amp by itzelf, but most certainly of the entire system. If a system doesn't give me pleasure, it doesn't meet my needs and as such, has little to no value to me. However, the reproduction or amplification of recorded audio signal is a technical exercise and there are standards, definitions, and goals in doing so. And I'm still not convinced that it's the only right way to do it. I'm not out here to make fun out of engineers, musicians or end-users (heck, I'm all 3 of them!), but I'm trying to make clear that maybe we should look at things from a broader perspective than just strictly technical. It might prove to be fruitful! -- Sander deWaal Vacuum Audio Consultancy |
|
#250
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
Many of the points below I've adressed to my reply to Stewart
Pinkerton, so allow me to snip here and the "Rusty Boudreaux" said: So the best amplifier is the one with the lowest distortion figure and the most watts in an IHF-based load of 8 ohms/2 uF? Always and every case? For pure amplification of audio the technical goal is to reduce all audible effects other than gain to below the level of audibility. I tried to tell that to many recording and mastering engineers, and they laughed me out of the studio :-) To me, an amplifier is just a piece in an entire system, and it might NEED to deviate from the "ideal" amplifier to thrive in that particular system. For you that may be fine. However, I submit it's not the most user friendly arrangement. Searching for a deviant amplifier that is deviant in 'just the right way' to cancel out other system deviations seems counterproductive. Once done you have to get a new amp when you get new speakers or new wire or new this or that. For some of us that's no big deal but it doesn't have to be that way. You're right about this, since I build most of my stuff myself, it's easier for me to say and do. The goal of an ideal amplifier (or an ideal CD player, etc) is to not add audible effects of it's own. Just because I choose a speaker that has high end rolloff doesn't mean I should go searching for a specific amplifier to compensate...that's why EQ are sold. Hence my argument: "even using a tone control deviates from the artist's intent". See how those dogma's don't work? The "intent of the artist" is just as severly changed by the recording engineer, the mastering engineer, Semantics. I submit that the final released form is the intent of the artist or artists. Too bad Bach or Miles Davis are no longer around to ask :-) I've done some recording and mastering myself, and compared raw tracks to the final mix. Many times the performing artists didn't recognize their own particular sound which they heard on stage. Plenty were the reactions like: "Oooh, this sounds way better/worse than I remembered!" Not one time they've asked me to preserve a particular sound because they intended it that way. So much for "artist's intent". YMMV, of course. Unless the liner notes specifically suggest "reproduce with 6dB boost at 12kHz" or "add 3% second harmonic distortion below 5kHz" then I assume the intent was to reproduce the audio with the highest fidelity possible. Yup, and there we go: what is the highest fidelity? I take it you have a Crown Dc300 and JBLs in your listening room, which happens to be an exact reproduction of the mastering room? It is an amplifier (hopefully ideal gain) with tone controls (adjustable frequency response). Nope, it isn't: RB: For pure amplification of audio the technical goal is to reduce RB: all audible effects other than gain to below the level of RB: audibility. The definition is the accepted definition for technical publications. OK. Must it therefor be correct? See my answer to Pinkerton: it is all about personal preference. High Fidelity doesn't exist, there is only My Fidelity. Everyone using anything different from the mastering room is using his personal preference. Unless tone controls correct for a deviation elsewhere in the system I believe they do alter the artist's intent. However, you are free to alter the artist's intent in any way you choose for whatever reason. There goes the idea of hiFi out of the window again. Do you still maintain the position that doing so, is "poorly designing" ? The generally accepted definition of high fidelity audio system is "a playback system for reproducing, as close as possible to the original recording, without alterations other than gain". It's a sliding scale meant for improvements in technology hence "as close as possible". In the limit, it reduces to a system that perfectly reproduces without alterations other than gain. Reproduces WHAT? The original recording? What if I tell you there are zillions of ideas out there about what consists an "original recording"? It just isn't possible to make everything sound like the original, never, ever. Does that mean we should not try? Of course not! But everyone tries it in his own way. One uses tubes, the other BJTs, X uses LPs, Y uses 38 cm/s tape. Or all of the above. My point: it *doesn't matter* what one uses. It's all about *personal preference*. All we know is a given medium has standards. High fidelity means faithfully reproducing the standard accurately as possible. Which means a different set of adjustments for every recording and every medium. Just one single "ideal"amplifier isn't gonna do that. High Fidelity? What's that? Let's take your example to the extreme. My favorite recording was horribly mastered. However, if I use an ACME model 7 amplifier with loopy frequency response then my favorite recording comes out perfect. Great...but what if I want to listen to other recordings that were mastered properly or even differently? They won't sound right. To you? To me? To the artist who is supposed to have an "intention" (other than making money:-) ? If I have an amp that colors just a bit so that most recordings are listenable, is that a good or a bad thing? In the past, I've had an amplifier that was flat from DC to 1 MHz, had THD and IMD I couldn't even measure, and S/N of about -100 dB. I got tired of the sound I got with it (on QUAD ESL57s and several other quality speakers). Rolling my own (tube and solid state) amps, and being able to tweak them to my tastes, made me a happier person. Isn't that what a system is supposed to do? If Joe Sixamp wants to tweak his EQ that's certainly his choice...but it wouldn't technically qualify as a high fidelity audio system. Technically perhaps not. Maybe this is an indication that we're on a road to nowhere with our neverending quest to get things better. Sure, I hope it does. However, pleasure is not a measure of an amplifier's technical capability. Maybe not of the amp by itzelf, but most certainly of the entire system. If a system doesn't give me pleasure, it doesn't meet my needs and as such, has little to no value to me. However, the reproduction or amplification of recorded audio signal is a technical exercise and there are standards, definitions, and goals in doing so. And I'm still not convinced that it's the only right way to do it. I'm not out here to make fun out of engineers, musicians or end-users (heck, I'm all 3 of them!), but I'm trying to make clear that maybe we should look at things from a broader perspective than just strictly technical. It might prove to be fruitful! -- Sander deWaal Vacuum Audio Consultancy |
|
#251
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 22:18:48 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote: Unless the liner notes specifically suggest "reproduce with 6dB boost at 12kHz" or "add 3% second harmonic distortion below 5kHz" then I assume the intent was to reproduce the audio with the highest fidelity possible. Yup, and there we go: what is the highest fidelity? I take it you have a Crown Dc300 and JBLs in your listening room, which happens to be an exact reproduction of the mastering room? This is a really interesting comment. To me, this is exactly Hi-Fi: to listen to the recording as the producer and the engieneer heard it! If that is a Crown and JBL:s, so be it. However, most of my recordings are probably monitored using QUADs or B&W 800s or something similar, and I am rather confident in that my ESL 63s in fact plays back the CD:s roughly as the the producer heard it, with the caveat that the rooms acoustics probably are rather different. I like to hear the music as intended. Period. And to do that, a well made amplifier will do the job nicely. Per. |
|
#252
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 22:18:48 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote: Unless the liner notes specifically suggest "reproduce with 6dB boost at 12kHz" or "add 3% second harmonic distortion below 5kHz" then I assume the intent was to reproduce the audio with the highest fidelity possible. Yup, and there we go: what is the highest fidelity? I take it you have a Crown Dc300 and JBLs in your listening room, which happens to be an exact reproduction of the mastering room? This is a really interesting comment. To me, this is exactly Hi-Fi: to listen to the recording as the producer and the engieneer heard it! If that is a Crown and JBL:s, so be it. However, most of my recordings are probably monitored using QUADs or B&W 800s or something similar, and I am rather confident in that my ESL 63s in fact plays back the CD:s roughly as the the producer heard it, with the caveat that the rooms acoustics probably are rather different. I like to hear the music as intended. Period. And to do that, a well made amplifier will do the job nicely. Per. |
|
#253
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 22:18:48 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote: Unless the liner notes specifically suggest "reproduce with 6dB boost at 12kHz" or "add 3% second harmonic distortion below 5kHz" then I assume the intent was to reproduce the audio with the highest fidelity possible. Yup, and there we go: what is the highest fidelity? I take it you have a Crown Dc300 and JBLs in your listening room, which happens to be an exact reproduction of the mastering room? This is a really interesting comment. To me, this is exactly Hi-Fi: to listen to the recording as the producer and the engieneer heard it! If that is a Crown and JBL:s, so be it. However, most of my recordings are probably monitored using QUADs or B&W 800s or something similar, and I am rather confident in that my ESL 63s in fact plays back the CD:s roughly as the the producer heard it, with the caveat that the rooms acoustics probably are rather different. I like to hear the music as intended. Period. And to do that, a well made amplifier will do the job nicely. Per. |
|
#254
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
... I think we are almost saying the same thing. However, we should probably stop wasting our time debating and just agree to disagree. To summarize my position: The AES and IEEE define high fidelity as "a playback system for reproducing, as close as possible to the original recording, without alterations other than gain". In the case of an audio amplifier with preamp type inputs and speaker level outputs this means amplifying the audio signal without adding any audible effects other than gain. A designer can choose to implement an amplifier that modifies the incoming signal and a consumer can prefer that arrangement. However, in the strict technical sense that device does not meet the requirements for a high fidelity amplifier. To make an obscence example, a designer could design an amplifier with a frequency response of only 500Hz to 5kHz with a big sharp null at 2kHz. He doesn't like bass because it bothers his neighbors. High frequencies are eliminated because he thinks they sound harsh and maybe he has an extreme sensitivity to 2kHz sounds due to hearing damage. Even with the weird frequency response this might be a very popular product. However, it does not meet the technical requirements of a high fidelity audio amplifier. -Rusty B. |
|
#255
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
... I think we are almost saying the same thing. However, we should probably stop wasting our time debating and just agree to disagree. To summarize my position: The AES and IEEE define high fidelity as "a playback system for reproducing, as close as possible to the original recording, without alterations other than gain". In the case of an audio amplifier with preamp type inputs and speaker level outputs this means amplifying the audio signal without adding any audible effects other than gain. A designer can choose to implement an amplifier that modifies the incoming signal and a consumer can prefer that arrangement. However, in the strict technical sense that device does not meet the requirements for a high fidelity amplifier. To make an obscence example, a designer could design an amplifier with a frequency response of only 500Hz to 5kHz with a big sharp null at 2kHz. He doesn't like bass because it bothers his neighbors. High frequencies are eliminated because he thinks they sound harsh and maybe he has an extreme sensitivity to 2kHz sounds due to hearing damage. Even with the weird frequency response this might be a very popular product. However, it does not meet the technical requirements of a high fidelity audio amplifier. -Rusty B. |
|
#256
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
... I think we are almost saying the same thing. However, we should probably stop wasting our time debating and just agree to disagree. To summarize my position: The AES and IEEE define high fidelity as "a playback system for reproducing, as close as possible to the original recording, without alterations other than gain". In the case of an audio amplifier with preamp type inputs and speaker level outputs this means amplifying the audio signal without adding any audible effects other than gain. A designer can choose to implement an amplifier that modifies the incoming signal and a consumer can prefer that arrangement. However, in the strict technical sense that device does not meet the requirements for a high fidelity amplifier. To make an obscence example, a designer could design an amplifier with a frequency response of only 500Hz to 5kHz with a big sharp null at 2kHz. He doesn't like bass because it bothers his neighbors. High frequencies are eliminated because he thinks they sound harsh and maybe he has an extreme sensitivity to 2kHz sounds due to hearing damage. Even with the weird frequency response this might be a very popular product. However, it does not meet the technical requirements of a high fidelity audio amplifier. -Rusty B. |
|
#257
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
To summarize my position: The AES and IEEE define high fidelity as "a playback system for reproducing, as close as possible to the original recording, without alterations other than gain". In the case of an audio amplifier with preamp type inputs and speaker level outputs this means amplifying the audio signal without adding any audible effects other than gain. Ditto for every dictionary I've looked the phrase "high fidelity" up in, that had an entry for it. A designer can choose to implement an amplifier that modifies the incoming signal and a consumer can prefer that arrangement. Think of a classic guitar amplifier in the style of Fender. However, in the strict technical sense that device does not meet the requirements for a high fidelity amplifier. That's why guitar amps aren't usually sold as hifi amps. However, it's possible that some Carys might make good, albeit low-powered guitar amps. Think of an original Pignose made for trust fund babies. To make an obscene example, a designer could design an amplifier with a frequency response of only 500Hz to 5kHz with a big sharp null at 2kHz. He doesn't like bass because it bothers his neighbors. High frequencies are eliminated because he thinks they sound harsh and maybe he has an extreme sensitivity to 2kHz sounds due to hearing damage. Even with the weird frequency response this might be a very popular product. However, it does not meet the technical requirements of a high fidelity audio amplifier. Today's skill-testing question - which speaker(s) would cause a typical SET deliver that kind of frequency response to it's terminals? ;-) |
|
#258
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
To summarize my position: The AES and IEEE define high fidelity as "a playback system for reproducing, as close as possible to the original recording, without alterations other than gain". In the case of an audio amplifier with preamp type inputs and speaker level outputs this means amplifying the audio signal without adding any audible effects other than gain. Ditto for every dictionary I've looked the phrase "high fidelity" up in, that had an entry for it. A designer can choose to implement an amplifier that modifies the incoming signal and a consumer can prefer that arrangement. Think of a classic guitar amplifier in the style of Fender. However, in the strict technical sense that device does not meet the requirements for a high fidelity amplifier. That's why guitar amps aren't usually sold as hifi amps. However, it's possible that some Carys might make good, albeit low-powered guitar amps. Think of an original Pignose made for trust fund babies. To make an obscene example, a designer could design an amplifier with a frequency response of only 500Hz to 5kHz with a big sharp null at 2kHz. He doesn't like bass because it bothers his neighbors. High frequencies are eliminated because he thinks they sound harsh and maybe he has an extreme sensitivity to 2kHz sounds due to hearing damage. Even with the weird frequency response this might be a very popular product. However, it does not meet the technical requirements of a high fidelity audio amplifier. Today's skill-testing question - which speaker(s) would cause a typical SET deliver that kind of frequency response to it's terminals? ;-) |
|
#259
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
To summarize my position: The AES and IEEE define high fidelity as "a playback system for reproducing, as close as possible to the original recording, without alterations other than gain". In the case of an audio amplifier with preamp type inputs and speaker level outputs this means amplifying the audio signal without adding any audible effects other than gain. Ditto for every dictionary I've looked the phrase "high fidelity" up in, that had an entry for it. A designer can choose to implement an amplifier that modifies the incoming signal and a consumer can prefer that arrangement. Think of a classic guitar amplifier in the style of Fender. However, in the strict technical sense that device does not meet the requirements for a high fidelity amplifier. That's why guitar amps aren't usually sold as hifi amps. However, it's possible that some Carys might make good, albeit low-powered guitar amps. Think of an original Pignose made for trust fund babies. To make an obscene example, a designer could design an amplifier with a frequency response of only 500Hz to 5kHz with a big sharp null at 2kHz. He doesn't like bass because it bothers his neighbors. High frequencies are eliminated because he thinks they sound harsh and maybe he has an extreme sensitivity to 2kHz sounds due to hearing damage. Even with the weird frequency response this might be a very popular product. However, it does not meet the technical requirements of a high fidelity audio amplifier. Today's skill-testing question - which speaker(s) would cause a typical SET deliver that kind of frequency response to it's terminals? ;-) |
|
#261
|
|||
|
|||
|
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
In article ,
says... On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 03:17:43 -0500, Alex Rodriguez wrote: In article , says... Your typical Crown, QSC, or Hafler would probably bury a Carver when it comes to difficult loads. My TFM 35 never had any problems driving my apogee's to very loud levels. Which Apogees? Some are quite easy loads, contrary to popular mythology. Calipers, not signature. ---------------- Alex |
|
#262
|
|||
|
|||
|
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
In article ,
says... On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 03:17:43 -0500, Alex Rodriguez wrote: In article , says... Your typical Crown, QSC, or Hafler would probably bury a Carver when it comes to difficult loads. My TFM 35 never had any problems driving my apogee's to very loud levels. Which Apogees? Some are quite easy loads, contrary to popular mythology. Calipers, not signature. ---------------- Alex |
|
#263
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
"Rusty Boudreaux" said:
I think we are almost saying the same thing. However, we should probably stop wasting our time debating and just agree to disagree. That's a pity, I just enjoy discussions like this :-) To summarize my position: The AES and IEEE define high fidelity as "a playback system for reproducing, as close as possible to the original recording, without alterations other than gain". In the case of an audio amplifier with preamp type inputs and speaker level outputs this means amplifying the audio signal without adding any audible effects other than gain. Your position is clear, and I don't question its validity. However, my outlook is a bit different. Also, the comment made my mrs. Stromgren and Pinkerton are very clear on this subject, and they seem to coincide with the common terminology of "High Fidelity". A designer can choose to implement an amplifier that modifies the incoming signal and a consumer can prefer that arrangement. However, in the strict technical sense that device does not meet the requirements for a high fidelity amplifier. My conclusion thus far: HiFi means something else to everyone. To me, absolute accuracy isn't the highest goal. To make an obscence example, a designer could design an amplifier with a frequency response of only 500Hz to 5kHz with a big sharp null at 2kHz. He doesn't like bass because it bothers his neighbors. High frequencies are eliminated because he thinks they sound harsh and maybe he has an extreme sensitivity to 2kHz sounds due to hearing damage. Even with the weird frequency response this might be a very popular product. However, it does not meet the technical requirements of a high fidelity audio amplifier. I agree it doesn't in a strict technical sense, but as you say, it might please him, so to him, it's a true fidelity sound ;-) I'm not *that* extreme, note. My amps perform very well to standard tests, however they deviate from straight wire with gain. And I'm not alone in that regard (did I hear the name Harvey Rosenberg whispering in that corner? :-) For now you'll have to excuse me, I have to align my warp core. -- Sander deWaal Vacuum Audio Consultancy |
|
#264
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
"Rusty Boudreaux" said:
I think we are almost saying the same thing. However, we should probably stop wasting our time debating and just agree to disagree. That's a pity, I just enjoy discussions like this :-) To summarize my position: The AES and IEEE define high fidelity as "a playback system for reproducing, as close as possible to the original recording, without alterations other than gain". In the case of an audio amplifier with preamp type inputs and speaker level outputs this means amplifying the audio signal without adding any audible effects other than gain. Your position is clear, and I don't question its validity. However, my outlook is a bit different. Also, the comment made my mrs. Stromgren and Pinkerton are very clear on this subject, and they seem to coincide with the common terminology of "High Fidelity". A designer can choose to implement an amplifier that modifies the incoming signal and a consumer can prefer that arrangement. However, in the strict technical sense that device does not meet the requirements for a high fidelity amplifier. My conclusion thus far: HiFi means something else to everyone. To me, absolute accuracy isn't the highest goal. To make an obscence example, a designer could design an amplifier with a frequency response of only 500Hz to 5kHz with a big sharp null at 2kHz. He doesn't like bass because it bothers his neighbors. High frequencies are eliminated because he thinks they sound harsh and maybe he has an extreme sensitivity to 2kHz sounds due to hearing damage. Even with the weird frequency response this might be a very popular product. However, it does not meet the technical requirements of a high fidelity audio amplifier. I agree it doesn't in a strict technical sense, but as you say, it might please him, so to him, it's a true fidelity sound ;-) I'm not *that* extreme, note. My amps perform very well to standard tests, however they deviate from straight wire with gain. And I'm not alone in that regard (did I hear the name Harvey Rosenberg whispering in that corner? :-) For now you'll have to excuse me, I have to align my warp core. -- Sander deWaal Vacuum Audio Consultancy |
|
#265
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
"Rusty Boudreaux" said:
I think we are almost saying the same thing. However, we should probably stop wasting our time debating and just agree to disagree. That's a pity, I just enjoy discussions like this :-) To summarize my position: The AES and IEEE define high fidelity as "a playback system for reproducing, as close as possible to the original recording, without alterations other than gain". In the case of an audio amplifier with preamp type inputs and speaker level outputs this means amplifying the audio signal without adding any audible effects other than gain. Your position is clear, and I don't question its validity. However, my outlook is a bit different. Also, the comment made my mrs. Stromgren and Pinkerton are very clear on this subject, and they seem to coincide with the common terminology of "High Fidelity". A designer can choose to implement an amplifier that modifies the incoming signal and a consumer can prefer that arrangement. However, in the strict technical sense that device does not meet the requirements for a high fidelity amplifier. My conclusion thus far: HiFi means something else to everyone. To me, absolute accuracy isn't the highest goal. To make an obscence example, a designer could design an amplifier with a frequency response of only 500Hz to 5kHz with a big sharp null at 2kHz. He doesn't like bass because it bothers his neighbors. High frequencies are eliminated because he thinks they sound harsh and maybe he has an extreme sensitivity to 2kHz sounds due to hearing damage. Even with the weird frequency response this might be a very popular product. However, it does not meet the technical requirements of a high fidelity audio amplifier. I agree it doesn't in a strict technical sense, but as you say, it might please him, so to him, it's a true fidelity sound ;-) I'm not *that* extreme, note. My amps perform very well to standard tests, however they deviate from straight wire with gain. And I'm not alone in that regard (did I hear the name Harvey Rosenberg whispering in that corner? :-) For now you'll have to excuse me, I have to align my warp core. -- Sander deWaal Vacuum Audio Consultancy |
|
#266
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message However, in the strict technical sense that device does not meet the requirements for a high fidelity amplifier. That's why guitar amps aren't usually sold as hifi amps. That's why solid state guitar amps are not usually sold as solid state hi fi amps. It's also why tube guitar amps are not usually sold as tube hi fi amps However, it's possible that some Carys might make good, albeit low-powered guitar amps. Think of an original Pignose made for trust fund babies. I assume you are talking about Cary single ended power amps. The distortion in a tube guitar amp comes from the preamp section, not from the power amp. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
#267
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message However, in the strict technical sense that device does not meet the requirements for a high fidelity amplifier. That's why guitar amps aren't usually sold as hifi amps. That's why solid state guitar amps are not usually sold as solid state hi fi amps. It's also why tube guitar amps are not usually sold as tube hi fi amps However, it's possible that some Carys might make good, albeit low-powered guitar amps. Think of an original Pignose made for trust fund babies. I assume you are talking about Cary single ended power amps. The distortion in a tube guitar amp comes from the preamp section, not from the power amp. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
#268
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message However, in the strict technical sense that device does not meet the requirements for a high fidelity amplifier. That's why guitar amps aren't usually sold as hifi amps. That's why solid state guitar amps are not usually sold as solid state hi fi amps. It's also why tube guitar amps are not usually sold as tube hi fi amps However, it's possible that some Carys might make good, albeit low-powered guitar amps. Think of an original Pignose made for trust fund babies. I assume you are talking about Cary single ended power amps. The distortion in a tube guitar amp comes from the preamp section, not from the power amp. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
#269
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message However, in the strict technical sense that device does not meet the requirements for a high fidelity amplifier. That's why guitar amps aren't usually sold as hifi amps. That's why solid state guitar amps are not usually sold as solid state hi fi amps. It's also why tube guitar amps are not usually sold as tube hi fi amps However, it's possible that some Carys might make good, albeit low-powered guitar amps. Think of an original Pignose made for trust fund babies. I assume you are talking about Cary single ended power amps. The distortion in a tube guitar amp comes from the preamp section, not from the power amp. Shows how little you know, sockpuppet. It comes from both places. |
|
#270
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message However, in the strict technical sense that device does not meet the requirements for a high fidelity amplifier. That's why guitar amps aren't usually sold as hifi amps. That's why solid state guitar amps are not usually sold as solid state hi fi amps. It's also why tube guitar amps are not usually sold as tube hi fi amps However, it's possible that some Carys might make good, albeit low-powered guitar amps. Think of an original Pignose made for trust fund babies. I assume you are talking about Cary single ended power amps. The distortion in a tube guitar amp comes from the preamp section, not from the power amp. Shows how little you know, sockpuppet. It comes from both places. |
|
#271
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amplifiers (was: Hafler)
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message However, in the strict technical sense that device does not meet the requirements for a high fidelity amplifier. That's why guitar amps aren't usually sold as hifi amps. That's why solid state guitar amps are not usually sold as solid state hi fi amps. It's also why tube guitar amps are not usually sold as tube hi fi amps However, it's possible that some Carys might make good, albeit low-powered guitar amps. Think of an original Pignose made for trust fund babies. I assume you are talking about Cary single ended power amps. The distortion in a tube guitar amp comes from the preamp section, not from the power amp. Shows how little you know, sockpuppet. It comes from both places. |
|
#272
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler (the first MOSFET? I don't think so)
Hitachi marketed a line of MOSFET amps prior to Hafler, I think. My
mind is really rusty (the 60's you know), but I think they were the 7500 and 8500 or so. On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein" wrote: "bsguidry" wrote in message . com... [snip] , or not finding the right ratings lists. Good brands to look at include QSC, Hafler, and Crown. If you surf the vendor web sites, you'll find very detailed RMS power specs. Take QSC off the list. It's a testament to Arny's hearing difficulties. Othewise, I concur. I've definitely consider QSC and Crown, however, I've not encountered Hafler very often in my searching. David Hafler invented the Ultralinear tube circuit, which firmly enshrines him in the audio pantheon of greats. He became chief engineer of Dynaco, and went on to start Hafler. His second product was the DH-200, the world's first MOSFET audio amplifier. At the time, this amp was regarded as a price/performance breakthrough. Unassuming in appearance, it has massive heatsinks with very plain metalwork. It was followed by some extremely good preamps, and more MOSFET amps, some of which had a new circuit, the Excelinear. MOSFET amps are the most durable of all solid state amplifiers. They can drive any load without output damage, and if you're reasonably lucky, they will survive a dead short. The MOSFET transistor is now ubiquitous in power switching applications because of it's ruggedness. The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they complement metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with fabric types. Another MOSFET circuit developed by Jim Strickland, founder of Acoustat, provides a different kind of sound that compliments fabric tweeters. I use both types of amplifiers in my systems, depending upon the speakers they match. At the time of it's introduction, the Acoustat TNT-200 was featured on the cover of Audio Magazine, and it was regarded by many, at that time, as raising the bar for clarity and detail in reproduction. When Rockford bought Hafler and Acoustat, they chose -- unfortunately, in my opinion, to preserve only one amplifier technology. Strickland's original design was hardened -- the original design had vulnerabilities that had nothing to do with output load -- and launched the 9000 series, and the P series professional amps. These are astonishingly small, extremely high quality amplifiers that are far tougher than the typical professional unit. Because they use MOSFETs, they have no relays or fuses, and in my opinion, have MUCH higher fidelity than the QSC units. Both types of Haflers are common in studios, the XL-600 being one of t he most prized units. I have a P3000. Every once in a while, I find something really remarkable, or at least remarkable for the price. I also use the Parasound HCA-2200ii bipolar amp. I have found the Yamaha bipolar M series to have merit, though the build quality is not in the class of an American amplifier. Nelson Pass's Threshold amplifiers can be found in some Nakamichi receivers, and are quite a pleasant surprise. B&K amplifiers use the traditional MOSFET circuit, with exceptional build quality. I do not particularly enjoy ADCOM MOSFET amps, though the build quality is very high. I found the sound of Rotel, touted by various audio magazines, to be disappointingly shrill. The QSC is muddy. It's performance is a throwback to the bipolar amplifiers of the late 70's and early 80's. |
|
#273
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler (the first MOSFET? I don't think so)
Hitachi marketed a line of MOSFET amps prior to Hafler, I think. My
mind is really rusty (the 60's you know), but I think they were the 7500 and 8500 or so. On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein" wrote: "bsguidry" wrote in message . com... [snip] , or not finding the right ratings lists. Good brands to look at include QSC, Hafler, and Crown. If you surf the vendor web sites, you'll find very detailed RMS power specs. Take QSC off the list. It's a testament to Arny's hearing difficulties. Othewise, I concur. I've definitely consider QSC and Crown, however, I've not encountered Hafler very often in my searching. David Hafler invented the Ultralinear tube circuit, which firmly enshrines him in the audio pantheon of greats. He became chief engineer of Dynaco, and went on to start Hafler. His second product was the DH-200, the world's first MOSFET audio amplifier. At the time, this amp was regarded as a price/performance breakthrough. Unassuming in appearance, it has massive heatsinks with very plain metalwork. It was followed by some extremely good preamps, and more MOSFET amps, some of which had a new circuit, the Excelinear. MOSFET amps are the most durable of all solid state amplifiers. They can drive any load without output damage, and if you're reasonably lucky, they will survive a dead short. The MOSFET transistor is now ubiquitous in power switching applications because of it's ruggedness. The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they complement metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with fabric types. Another MOSFET circuit developed by Jim Strickland, founder of Acoustat, provides a different kind of sound that compliments fabric tweeters. I use both types of amplifiers in my systems, depending upon the speakers they match. At the time of it's introduction, the Acoustat TNT-200 was featured on the cover of Audio Magazine, and it was regarded by many, at that time, as raising the bar for clarity and detail in reproduction. When Rockford bought Hafler and Acoustat, they chose -- unfortunately, in my opinion, to preserve only one amplifier technology. Strickland's original design was hardened -- the original design had vulnerabilities that had nothing to do with output load -- and launched the 9000 series, and the P series professional amps. These are astonishingly small, extremely high quality amplifiers that are far tougher than the typical professional unit. Because they use MOSFETs, they have no relays or fuses, and in my opinion, have MUCH higher fidelity than the QSC units. Both types of Haflers are common in studios, the XL-600 being one of t he most prized units. I have a P3000. Every once in a while, I find something really remarkable, or at least remarkable for the price. I also use the Parasound HCA-2200ii bipolar amp. I have found the Yamaha bipolar M series to have merit, though the build quality is not in the class of an American amplifier. Nelson Pass's Threshold amplifiers can be found in some Nakamichi receivers, and are quite a pleasant surprise. B&K amplifiers use the traditional MOSFET circuit, with exceptional build quality. I do not particularly enjoy ADCOM MOSFET amps, though the build quality is very high. I found the sound of Rotel, touted by various audio magazines, to be disappointingly shrill. The QSC is muddy. It's performance is a throwback to the bipolar amplifiers of the late 70's and early 80's. |
|
#274
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler (the first MOSFET? I don't think so)
Hitachi marketed a line of MOSFET amps prior to Hafler, I think. My
mind is really rusty (the 60's you know), but I think they were the 7500 and 8500 or so. On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein" wrote: "bsguidry" wrote in message . com... [snip] , or not finding the right ratings lists. Good brands to look at include QSC, Hafler, and Crown. If you surf the vendor web sites, you'll find very detailed RMS power specs. Take QSC off the list. It's a testament to Arny's hearing difficulties. Othewise, I concur. I've definitely consider QSC and Crown, however, I've not encountered Hafler very often in my searching. David Hafler invented the Ultralinear tube circuit, which firmly enshrines him in the audio pantheon of greats. He became chief engineer of Dynaco, and went on to start Hafler. His second product was the DH-200, the world's first MOSFET audio amplifier. At the time, this amp was regarded as a price/performance breakthrough. Unassuming in appearance, it has massive heatsinks with very plain metalwork. It was followed by some extremely good preamps, and more MOSFET amps, some of which had a new circuit, the Excelinear. MOSFET amps are the most durable of all solid state amplifiers. They can drive any load without output damage, and if you're reasonably lucky, they will survive a dead short. The MOSFET transistor is now ubiquitous in power switching applications because of it's ruggedness. The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they complement metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with fabric types. Another MOSFET circuit developed by Jim Strickland, founder of Acoustat, provides a different kind of sound that compliments fabric tweeters. I use both types of amplifiers in my systems, depending upon the speakers they match. At the time of it's introduction, the Acoustat TNT-200 was featured on the cover of Audio Magazine, and it was regarded by many, at that time, as raising the bar for clarity and detail in reproduction. When Rockford bought Hafler and Acoustat, they chose -- unfortunately, in my opinion, to preserve only one amplifier technology. Strickland's original design was hardened -- the original design had vulnerabilities that had nothing to do with output load -- and launched the 9000 series, and the P series professional amps. These are astonishingly small, extremely high quality amplifiers that are far tougher than the typical professional unit. Because they use MOSFETs, they have no relays or fuses, and in my opinion, have MUCH higher fidelity than the QSC units. Both types of Haflers are common in studios, the XL-600 being one of t he most prized units. I have a P3000. Every once in a while, I find something really remarkable, or at least remarkable for the price. I also use the Parasound HCA-2200ii bipolar amp. I have found the Yamaha bipolar M series to have merit, though the build quality is not in the class of an American amplifier. Nelson Pass's Threshold amplifiers can be found in some Nakamichi receivers, and are quite a pleasant surprise. B&K amplifiers use the traditional MOSFET circuit, with exceptional build quality. I do not particularly enjoy ADCOM MOSFET amps, though the build quality is very high. I found the sound of Rotel, touted by various audio magazines, to be disappointingly shrill. The QSC is muddy. It's performance is a throwback to the bipolar amplifiers of the late 70's and early 80's. |
|
#275
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler (the first MOSFET? I don't think so)
wrote in message
Hitachi marketed a line of MOSFET amps prior to Hafler, I think. My mind is really rusty (the 60's you know), but I think they were the 7500 and 8500 or so. Since Hitachi were among the first semiconductor companies to promote the use of MOSFETs in audio, it stands to reason that they would be early on the market with MOSFET amplifiers. |
|
#276
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler (the first MOSFET? I don't think so)
wrote in message
Hitachi marketed a line of MOSFET amps prior to Hafler, I think. My mind is really rusty (the 60's you know), but I think they were the 7500 and 8500 or so. Since Hitachi were among the first semiconductor companies to promote the use of MOSFETs in audio, it stands to reason that they would be early on the market with MOSFET amplifiers. |
|
#277
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler (the first MOSFET? I don't think so)
wrote in message
Hitachi marketed a line of MOSFET amps prior to Hafler, I think. My mind is really rusty (the 60's you know), but I think they were the 7500 and 8500 or so. Since Hitachi were among the first semiconductor companies to promote the use of MOSFETs in audio, it stands to reason that they would be early on the market with MOSFET amplifiers. |
|
#278
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler (the first MOSFET? I don't think so)
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 13:17:05 GMT, wrote:
Hitachi marketed a line of MOSFET amps prior to Hafler, I think. My mind is really rusty (the 60's you know), but I think they were the 7500 and 8500 or so. That's correct, they were demonstration pieces for Hitachi FETs. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#279
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler (the first MOSFET? I don't think so)
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 13:17:05 GMT, wrote:
Hitachi marketed a line of MOSFET amps prior to Hafler, I think. My mind is really rusty (the 60's you know), but I think they were the 7500 and 8500 or so. That's correct, they were demonstration pieces for Hitachi FETs. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#280
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hafler (the first MOSFET? I don't think so)
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 13:17:05 GMT, wrote:
Hitachi marketed a line of MOSFET amps prior to Hafler, I think. My mind is really rusty (the 60's you know), but I think they were the 7500 and 8500 or so. That's correct, they were demonstration pieces for Hitachi FETs. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Book Review: Home Theater For Everyone: A Practical Guide ; Harley, Holman | General | |||
| Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater | Audio Opinions | |||
| Home Theater "Junkyard Wars" | Audio Opinions | |||
| Home theater recommandation please | General | |||
| Home Theater Upgrade Path | High End Audio | |||
Linear Mode
